|
|
|
|
|
by piva00
1171 days ago
|
|
> For example, the vast majority of the soil "cleanup" in Fukushima is completely unnecessary, as was most of the evacuation. Can you provide sources for this claim? > Even the Chernobyl "red zone" has been shown to be net beneficial to the wildlife there. Hardly a sign of "poisoning". There's still no scientific consensus about the effects of radiation on fauna in the CEZ [0]. You have an opinion but we still haven't figured out how damaging the radiation there is for animals or not. I'd rather not have humans living around a potentially dangerous poisoned area until the effects are understood. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X1... |
|
And in fact, the LNT model greatly overestimated the casualties from Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There's tons of references for this on the web, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk...
Also from there:
"It is believed that the health effects of the radioactivity release are primarily psychological rather than physical effects. [..] However, people who have been evacuated have suffered from depression and other mental health effects."
The same was true in Chernobyl, check the WHO reports that came out every decade. Each subsequent report reduced the estimated number of casualties linked to radiation by an order of magnitude, while the psychological impact increased.
> There's still no scientific consensus about the effects of radiation on fauna in the CEZ
While there is no scientific consensus on the details, there is consensus that the red zone is not the poisonous wasteland you claimed. The wildlife has absolutely thrived.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/chernobyl-animals
https://www.wired.com/story/chernobyl-exclusion-zone-rewildi...