Wouldn't Friesland have done something or be doing something to save the Nordostpolder? That's practically on their border, so I don't see why they wouldn't try to save it, and, for that matter, save/restore much of it as they move forward as well, with everything mostly settled down... Louisiannan 16:29, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they may give it a try, but I'm not sure whether they'll make it. I won't go into details here, but paradoxically 'classical' polders that are closer to the sea tend be above sea-level, with polders being below sea-level situated further inland (this only applies to the Wadden Sea coast). This makes that flooding by the sea is not really an issue and ground water is the only problem. Being close to a large body of water, the Noordoostpolder (Nordostpolder is German by the way) does face the latter problem. Furthermore the N.O.P. was drained in an era where mechanical pumps could already be used, and to my knowledge he canals required to use the old-skool method are largely missing. All-in-all I doubt whether the Noordoostpolder can be saved. --Karsten vK (talk) 12:45, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
So basically anything that's part of the Delta Works (here or there) isn't going to survive - had they finished the Ijsselmeer by Doomsday? (And as for the typo - I'm surprised I didn't spell it Swedish at you - that's my stronger of the two.) Have I mentioned I have a good friend from Hoorn? Louisiannan 21:07, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the German, the fact that you know of the existence of the place is already more than one could normally expect. To get back to the Delta Works: I don't think any of those land gains would survive. The Afsluitdijk creating the IJsselmeer* was finished somewhere in the 1930s, so there'll be no true open connection to the sea, and even if there were one, the connection would only exist during high tide, the Wadden Sea becomes a sandy plain during low tide. Since I estimate there'd still be some influx of salt water, most of the water would probably be brackish.

I don't recall you having told anything about a friend in Hoorn before, care to do it now? ;) --Karsten vK (talk) 16:34, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

* Tricky one, but the 'IJ' is almost always capitalised as a whole (I believe 'Ij' would have been acceptable in Flemish Dutch, but even there it'd be uncommon). Whether it is a ligature, digraph or a letter of its own is a matter of dispute (I personally got taught that it is a letter, and that the alphabet ends in X-IJ-Z).


If radiations levels reach safe levels for travel and decontamination after 3-5 weeks, why would they remain high more than 25 years later? All the irradiated water in the rivers would have been long washed out to sea.--Oerwinde 21:17, December 17, 2009 (UTC) Feel free to correct - I just know that the explosion of Chernobyl to this day is a no-man's land. Louisiannan 21:09, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not up to snuff on the status of nuclear power plants. I just know from some research that nuclear fallout from a nuclear weapon dissipates within 3-5 weeks to the point of being safe for travel or decontamination efforts. Nuclear meltdown is probably completely different.--Oerwinde 08:21, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, quick look, Chernobyl created 400 times the nuclear fallout that the Hiroshima bomb did, but most of the radioactivity that went into rivers and such was at safe levels within 3 months. The main reason Chernobyl is still a no-man's land is because the reactor's fuel materials are still there and have been contained. I believe this containment is also slowing the radioactive decay. With no containment I think the radioactivity would dissipate, but contaminate a larger area. I would think areas immediately around destroyed nuclear plants would still be a no go, but everything else would be ok within a few years. Areas around nuclear plants would also suffer much stronger immediate fallout effects than just the bombs.
I think the orange areas in this map would be dangerously radioactive. And probably a larger area around the southern zone due to it being on the coast and infecting the seawater, but that zone would also be underwater and likely result in quicker dissipation.--Oerwinde 08:47, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Oerwinde; it just seems unlikely that 30 years later radiation levels would be within habitable levelsCPoLofVancouver (talk) 03:45, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

...CP, that's the opposite of what he was arguing. Irrelevant overall, as that map is really off, with several strikes missing. Lordganon (talk) 18:51, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm completely missing the point, I don't think so. I understand that any areas around hit/compromised nuclear plants would be uninhabitable, but most other areas (especially the new island chain) would be habitable. Wind & water currents would carry much of the fallout into the North Sea. Plus, if the nuclear detonations were airbursts, there would be much less residual radiation than a ground pounder (but more initial destruction).

CPoLofVancouver (talk) 14:48, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

...Re-read what your post before that said. That is the opposite of what you said before.

Not just the plants, but the blast zones still as well.

Most strikes, imo, were not airbursts.

Lordganon (talk) 00:57, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Point Lookout Vibes and similar flooded areas

this is a very similar sitiuation to that of the Point Lookout DlC for Fallout 3. Not that i'm complaining. It's a very good article. I wonder if situations like this would arise in areas like coastal Lousiana and southern Florida? --HAD 14:17, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana *there* probably has a better shoreline because I'll bet that the channelization of the Mississippi would've likely failed and so the Mississippi would be dumping silt all over like it was meant to - so the delta in Louisiana's probably bigger than here *now*. Louisiannan 21:10, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

hmmm. i wonder whats left of New Orleans? --HAD 12:52, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Holland Wastelands

Holland is actually an incorrect term for the Netherlands. North and South Holland are only two regions inside the Netherlands, and in this situation both of those regions are underwater! So that didn't make sense to me. ProfessorMcG 16:16, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think its sometimes called the Holland Wastelands because many in North America refer to the Netherlands incorrectly as Holland .Oerwinde 16:27, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Good to see that someone finally notices that Holland as a country doesn't exist :). Having said that, with the exception of Flevoland, the actual flooded territory pretty closely coincides with the region of Holland, so even if probably for the wrong reasons, I guess usage of the term can be excused here. --Karsten vK (talk) 19:59, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
Haha, I realized that after I posted =). I just wanted to tell everyone that Holland is not a country!!!! ProfessorMcG 00:37, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
Spread the word! ;) --Karsten vK (talk) 07:59, June 18, 2010 (UTC)


It looks like this article hasn't been added to or changed in at least 4 years. I was thinking maybe it should be started back up. Plus, as seen in the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Antilles) article, a military base was built in 2010. This could be expanded on, with land reclamation projects as well as new settlement.

CPoLofVancouver (talk) 03:48, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

You would first need permission for that.

The only areas, imo, where they could settle anyone would be the island chain.

The interior is where the worst of it would have been, along with most of the fallout/radiation. The area between the two, the "Dutch Sea," would still have a few radiated areas under it. Overall not radioactive, but would definitely not go into the water anywhere near those three strikes (Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam)

Rest of them, near the Belgian border, and inland towards the northeast around Arnhem. Basically wipes out that region for a while.

So, as noted, the islands. Except the ones near the ruins of the Hague, anyway. The location of any base, and settlements, would be on them. As far from both the radioactive areas, and Friesland as possible, anyway. Around Den Halder, probably.

Lordganon (talk) 18:42, February 3, 2015 (UTC)


I might as well come straight out with this: is this article available for adoption? It seems to have been inactive for a number of years, & thus I would like to abopt it & make changes.

CPoLofVancouver (talk) 06:33, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

In order to adopt articles you must follow the adoption rules. First step, ask the author.

As an fyi, even if you were to adopt it, you would not make changes. That is against the rules. You can only add to it.

Lordganon (talk) 17:16, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.