|
|
|
|
|
|
by piva00
1182 days ago
|
|
|
Wildlife has thrived due to a lack of humans, not because radiation isn't dangerous. There are mutations abound in animals from the CEZ. A question I'd have for you would be: are you willing to live with your family an extended period of your lives in a place with a radioactive event like the CEZ? |
|
|
...and due to it not being a poisonous wasteland where life cannot thrive. As evidenced by it thriving.
> not because radiation isn't dangerous.
Somehow you slipped in the assumption that the radiation is definitely dangerous. Why? What is the evidence? The fact that wildlife is thriving?
And of course I never claimed the wildlife thrived because of the radiation.
Though of course there is evidence for the therapeutic effects of low-level radiation, for example:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14673618/
> A question I'd have for you would be: are you willing to live with your family an extended period of your lives in a place with a radioactive event like the CEZ?
Straw-man.
"This is not my preferred place to live" ≠ "This is place is uninhabitable".
For example, there are tons of places in my city where I wouldn't want to live. And yet tons of people do live there.
And I am sure there are tons of people who wouldn't want to live where I live. Even though I think it's pretty nice.
If the place is cheap, green, slightly hilly but not too much, with water nearby and excellent transportation options but no noise: sign me up! Certainly if the radiation is at levels of some of the stuff they're removing from Fukushima Prefecture (less than the background radiation in Denver and many other places).