h a l f b a k e r y
Loading tagline ....
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Chernobyl has been a roaring success for biodiversity,
conservation & wildlife.
We should have more.
So lets replicate it.
[No! Not like that! Put that uranium back where you
Just declare suitably large zones where people aren't
Accept perhaps the odd documentary
maker (only those with
medical certification of oddness need apply) or the
occasional ecologist (not to be confused with the greater
spotted permanent ecologist) issued with
If it helps keep them out we can just 'tell' people there's
a nuclear accident.
It doesn't have to be true.
where people arent
[xandram, Aug 24 2021]
He loved Radithor right up until his jaw fell off [a1, Aug 25 2021]
[bs0u0155, Aug 25 2021]
[Skewed, Aug 26 2021]
||I like the idea, but people always want to go
where they arent supposed to go. I think its just
human nature, but an attempt can be made. Dont
feed the animals this bun. +
||linked a map showing good places to start because
there are already less people.
||I have long advocated the poisoning with
radioactive material large areas of land to deter
people from ever going there. Some wildlife will
suffer but only a tiny percentage compared to that
which would be harmed should some scum
companies like Kraft or Monsanto or Nestle get
loose with their decimating palm oil forests or
toxic GM Frankenstein crops.
||Bah, you think that would stop anyone? Fudging the
paperwork on sources is easy.
||Hard to get rid of radioactivity in your products
though and who would buy them once the message
spread, even if it wasn't totally true? Denying it
will only keep the story alive. Refusing to discuss it
means you have something to hide. No matter
what, one pass of a large crop spraying aircraft
loaded with low level nuclear waste contaminated
water and it's curtains for a large area re any
current or future development.
||//one pass of a large crop spraying aircraft loaded with low level nuclear waste contaminated water and it's curtains for a large area re any current or future development.//
||We need to stop living in fear.
||// who would buy (radioactive or irradiated*
products) ? //
||Stupid people. Anti-mask, anti-vax arent the only
ones. There are an endless supply of others waiting
to become the next Eben Byers (link).
||(*late edit just for [Voice], see subsequent anno)
||How about people who know the difference between irradiated and radioactive?
||Radioactive vs irradiated? Yeah, I went back and
changed the wording just for you. Could go either
way though. [xenzag]s original scenario was just
spraying water containing low-level radioactive waste over
a large area. The area would be irradiated for sure and
would present a problem for anyone working the
land. But whether
or not produce would become radioactive would
depend on uptake (how much of the waste was
incorporated into the plants) and maybe neutron
activation (may or may not happen, based on what
was in the waste products).
||No [bs0], not rewilding, particular not in the more extreme
manner imagined by the econazis who are most vociferous
its favour, no corridors or reintroductions of apex predators
beavers are proposed, merely areas with a permanent
zones for wildlife.
||We should give nature safe spaces sure, somewhere it can
replenish itself & develop new species in peace & they
ideally be large enough to
allow non-migratory large mammal species sufficient range
avoid in-breeding issues of course, but anything that wants
across hundreds of miles of valuable arable land can go
stuff itself ;p
||If anything I see this is an alternative to the most common
of rewilding, a way to preserve nature without going to
||How is this different than the existing and rather
fashionable idea of rewilding <link>?
||Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the concept. I always thought
a fair few ex-industrial towns in northern England could be
encouraged to remove themselves and the Lake District,
Peak District and N. York. Moors could all be linked up into
one large national park.
||//How is this different than the existing and rather
fashionable idea of rewilding// I saw your link & I just
told you above, read :)
a matter of perception & degree but some people I'm sure
consider it to be 'exactly' the same, but I still say it's not.
||Yeah UK was where I was thinking of (seeing as that's me
too) .. was imagining something like local councils being
required to set aside a small % of their land area,
perhaps with a public access area around that where
the wildlife spilling from it & possibly a surrounding
organic farming zone to help avoid
pollution & such
leaching into it.
||All one contiguous
lump of course or it doesn't work, if their lump is adjacent
& joined to a neighbouring councils so much the better.
no corridors, if anything I'd consider
reproductive isolation to be a bonus, as it gives a better
of species variety developing.
||//species variety developing// Aha! there we go, the
difference is probably best defined by the difference in
philosophy & intent.
||Rewilders (in general) want to return nature to a
snapshot of what it was at an arbitrary point in the past, &
then freeze it there.
want to provide nature with safe places to develop & grow,
to (hopefully) produce new species (or breeds) some of
we've made with us more successfully than their forebears,
so a bunch of little
species-creches if you will.
||//But no corridors, if anything I'd consider reproductive
isolation to be a bonus,// Maybe that would work if
you're thinking of field mice, but the linking of areas with
corridors/bridges etc. id to get the size above thresholds
required for some of the more interesting species. And it
seems you're against the interesting ones!
||//anything that wants to migrate across hundreds of
miles of valuable arable land can go stuff itself//
||Valuable arable land stops at around Birmingham. Above
there, you've got some great dairy country on the flat bits
and some damp sheep clinging to the hillsides above.
Throw in extra trees, some deer, moose, wolves and some
of the less dangerous bears and things would be a lot
more interesting. Also, if you want species variety, you
have to provide selective pressure. The lack of wolves in
the Eastern US means we have vast numbers of deer
controlled largely by them jumping in front of cars.
||//nature to a snapshot of what it was at an arbitrary
||There's the question of what's really wild. Left to nature,
England would likely be coast-to-coast deciduous forest
with a few stony peaks jutting out and considerable
mosquito-infested wetlands around the edges. We can do
better than that.
||Walking in the Peak/Lake district is a much better
experience than, for example, walking around in the
mountains of Vermont. There, you spend all day on trails
deep in a dark tree-corridor with the very occasional peak
that affords a view - of the tops of more trees. Managed
nature looks better, at least IMHO, and continuous forest
represents something of a fire risk nowadays. Although
that's unlikely in NW English conditions.
||//Maybe that would work if you're thinking of field mice//
||You may be overestimating the needs, around 40 square
(less than 6.4 miles a side) of woodland is more than
25,000 acres which is enough to
support 1,000 deer.
||That's just a little further than across the built on bits of
Colchester at it's
widest point / easily done if 2 counties combine their
patches on their joint border & in some places it would be
feasible for 3 to combine their patches .. or were you
underestimating how big I thought they should be?
should be plenty big enough, Google the 50/500 rule.
||I say we just train the migratory deer to run along the roads, avoid traffic, and use rest stops.
||I can see that leading to a new seasonal variant of mailbox
baseball <link> the point is to keep them safe, away from
||I still favor reintroducing wolves to Rock Creek Park in DC to
keep the deer (and jogger) population in check, so lets
forget the human free, just limit the weapons the humans
||//keep the deer (and jogger) population in check,//
||It might cause enough selective pressure to create human
joggers faster than wolves, which would be a boon for the
US olympic team.
||//I still favor reintroducing wolves to Rock Creek Park in DC to
keep the deer (and jogger) population in check//
||The problem with wolves is their reputation for successful
jogger population control far exceeds their real success
||I recommend something larger, bears perhaps, one of
the bigger varieties.