this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
42 points (97.7% liked)
Ukraine
9897 readers
573 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
Community Rules
πΊπ¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
π»π€’No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
π₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
π·Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
β Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
π³ Defense Aid π₯
π³ Humanitarian Aid βοΈβοΈ
πͺ Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
See also:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would personally just leave the area as a giant nature reserve (including the Zone of Obligatory Resettlement). We have more than enough high quality arable land.
I visited the zone back in 2007. It was pretty clear that on some level, nature was doing very well in the zone. We saw deer in Pripyat and large groups of wild horses on the meadows.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife
Not to mention there will always be a level of stigma with produce from the zone (including the Zone of Obligatory Resettlement).
Agreed, let nature have this one back. They could use the W
Also where else would we get the opportunity to observe how nature recovers from a nuclear catastrophe of this scale, the βstudyβ is alsready nearly 40years in