this that you were not talking about Rocky Flats. Seriously, who thought this was a good idea and shouldn't someone warn the public? Those who do not know what went on there and what it was like for those living there should take a deep breath and read about it before going. Those poor creatures that are there. What a horrible part of the history around there.

Non-radioactive fluorescent dyes and glow-in-the dark chemicals are sometimes used in genetic and other scientific research. That's where your photos came from.

Most animals should be so lucky to have a reserve slightly polluted with plutonium, compared to the usual development. It's a billion times better than the fate suffered by wildlife bulldozed over by roads, McMansions, mini-ranches, and cookie-cutter suburbs, or even worse, mono-culture agriculture.

That doesn't mean I love nuclear bombs.

Many of us protested every week for years until the nuclear weapons plant was finally closed. For many more years and many lawsuits it was "cleaned up" and the government paid out huge sums to so many workers who died or suffered lifetime illnesses. After years of soil testing finally the government decided it was fit to be a "wildlife refuge". Hundreds of scientists and concerned citizens have spent years opposing opening this huge uranium contaminated area not only to wildlife but to recreational hiking and biking. If you are interested there are hundreds of pages of records and news articles. Most nearby residents, parents and schools will not allow their children to go to the refuge. Just because it is in beautiful Colorado does not mean it is safe.

Maybe you could put up signs, "No Wildlife!" but wildlife can't read.

If the contamination makes people reluctant to eat game animals who visit the area then I'm the sort of misanthrope who sees that as a positive thing. If parents do not allow their children to go to the refuge, that's a good thing too. (I remember the boys with BB guns from my own childhood. No small lizard, mammal, or bird was safe...)

Personally, if I was a game animal I'd rather be considered inedible because I was hanging out at Rocky Flats than end up on someone's dinner table.

At this point I suspect any program to exclude wildlife from the area would have a much greater negative impact on the natural environment than treating the area as a wildlife refuge. That's the question I'd ask.

I'm more familiar with the cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in California. It oftened seemed the cleanup was more about property values and making the surrounding area safe for real estate developers than any concerns about the natural environment.

Managing perceptions frequently overshadows science, and that's true for all sides of these debates.

from: https://www.conncoll.edu/ccacad/zimmer/GFP-ww/cooluses1.html



Same mouse in ordinary light: