Jan 11, 2012

Wildlife Sanctuaries in Eco-Disaster Areas

Posted by in categories: ethics, habitats, nuclear energy, sustainability

It was with great satisfaction that I watched a recent (Horizon?) documentary on the wildlife, wolf population and introduced endangerd species flourishing in the Chernobyl district in the abandonment of the area by mankind 25 years ago — with most not willing to hunt in the area for fear of contracting radiation poisoning. One wonders if this will be the template for the future, that eco-disaster areas will be abandoned to become our new wildlife sanctuaries. Or is it morally wrong to designate such areas as wildlife sanctuaries and wilfully expose the animal kindom to such levels of radiation?

After Fukushima the world was reawakened to the real danger of fault tollerance at nuclear power plants — but as a relatively clean technology is surely here to stay. Is there a need for a more inclusive debate on the location of such reactors to areas that are a) less likey to suffer natural disasters but b) also provide a suitable follow-on purpose in the event of area abandonment due to radiation. Opinions welcome.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. GaryChurch says:

    Hello Tom,
    I might hold a fairly unique opinion in that I am not a supporter of nuclear energy on earth- but believe it is the only way to colonize the solar system and want it developed on a massive scale for the space industry. The moon would be a good place for the nuclear industry. If you are curious about this view please see my essays on “Water and Bombs” and “Plowshare in Space.” I am also of the opinion that nuclear weapons have saved countless lives by preventing yet another world war- but at the risk of nearly destroying civilization. It is a strange universe.
    I have read some interesting stuff on Thorium reactors possibly being used to reduce high level nuclear waste.
    I think solar energy farms might be a good place to start in discussing wildlife sanctuaries. The Mojave desert could theoritically provide all the electrical needs of the U.S. But amazingly, there are conservationists who want nothing to do with the idea.

  2. Tom Kerwick says:

    Gary thanks for your response — not sure a lunar nuclear facility could ever take off, at least not in the foreseeable future, both the economic and engineering hurdles would be far too great. The level of nuclear weapons on Earth today which can provide mutually assured destruction many times over is a testimony to how insane humanity is. I can’t agree that they have saved lives, as this is only a short term metric, and it is probably only a matter of time before one is used in anger.

    As for your response to the topic I addressed, I don’t see why you pitch solar energy farms as eco-disaster areas, or why the Mojave desert is a great location for a biodiverse sanctuary either, or why you think a solar energy farm would in any way make a suitable wildlife sanctuary but then again a lot of your posts here don’t follow rational thought patterns… but yes, it is an alternate energy source that should be exploited a lot more.

  3. GaryChurch says:

    “-a lot of your posts here don’t follow rational thought patterns”

    Well, since you are posting about sanctuaries and nuclear energy I thought you had some knowledge of the subject.
    Mojave solar plants are opposed by conservationists- who would consider a solar farm in the mojave an eco-disaster.

    You can sling monkey crap politely but it is still monkey crap Tom.

  4. Tom Kerwick says:

    That’s not quite the case now Gary. Conservation of natural beauty… yes. We try for that. To introduce an ecosystem into any area dominated by industry like that.. and yes a (beautiful) desert terrain… you just don’t understand the difference between eco-sanctuary and landscape preservation, nor what habitat provides good sanctuary.

  5. GaryChurch says:

    “Jesus Gary are you that dimwitted.”

  6. GaryChurch says:

    You edited my comment Tom. You cannot alter people comments- not without being exposed. You can delete all you want- but not alter someone else’s post. You understand?
    Not unless you want me to contribute an article detailing this absolute no-no.

  7. Tom Kerwick says:

    Gary — I did not alter a comment of yours. I merely deleted one line which included a profanity, rather than delete the entire post. I am being quite patient with you. You have deleted over a dozen comments from me on other threads you started merely because you disagreed with the subject matter. Treat others with a bit more respect.

    Anything else you want to add on the subject matter of this thread please feel free to continue. I will only delete offensive remarks & profanities. I would certainly not delete your opinions on the subject matter of eco-disaster areas and wildlife sanctauries, regardless of whether I agree with them, as that’s what a discussion forum is all about.