Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Can't think of a well-known industrial exclusion zone, but the "Industrial" subsection here lists some pretty nasty incidents, involving contaminating entire surrounding communities, next to significant ecological damage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disaster...

> Is the fact that plants are built near populated areas a factor?

The thing with big plants in general is that even if they're built in remote areas (like Chernobyl), you want the thousands of plant employees housed nearby, which also means housing their families, who now all need food and healthcare and education and other services, and suddenly you end up with a pretty large town right next to that plant (like Pripyat). And such towns will draw further investments, making once remote area quite populated.

On top of that, power generation unfortunately is pretty special wrt. range of potential contamination because of energies involved - so when things go bad, they go with a bang. That's why I usually mention industrial chemistry when discussing nuclear waste, as this is more of an apples to apples comparison. But then, my mind is often drawn to the oil sands in Canada - particularly to the artificial lakes storing highly carcinogenic toxic waste.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Athabasc...

Now imagine what would happen if that kind of thing ever spilled for some reason.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: