Slashdot Mirror


Ukraine To Open Chernobyl Area To Tourists

Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that Ukraine plans to open up the sealed zone around the Chernobyl reactor to visitors who wish to learn more about the tragedy that occurred nearly a quarter of a century ago. Emergency Situations Ministry spokeswoman Yulia Yershova says experts are developing travel routes that will be both medically safe and informative. 'There are things to see there if one follows the official route and doesn't stray away from the group,' says Yershova. Though it is a very sad story.' The ministry also says it hopes to finish building a new safer shell for the exploded reactor by 2015 that will cover the original iron-and-concrete structure hastily built over the reactor that has been leaking radiation, cracking and threatening to collapse. About 2,500 employees maintain the remains of the now-closed nuclear plant, working in shifts to minimize their exposure to radiation and several hundred evacuees have returned to their villages in the area despite a government ban."

207 comments

  1. wait, what? by Swampash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But Greenpeace told me that half the frickin' Ukraine was going to be instant radioactive death for ten thousand years...

    1. Re:wait, what? by Third+Position · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, most amusement parks are overhyped. Advertising, you know...

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    2. Re:wait, what? by troon · · Score: 2

      the ... Ukraine

      See frame 4...

      --
      Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
    3. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who marked this Troll? Green organisations have been hyping up the severity of Chernobyl for years.

    4. Re:wait, what? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some people seem to think that if you don't instantly die, then everything's fine. Never mind if incidence of cancer or birth deformities sky-rocketed for people in areas of radioactive fall-out, if people's heads aren't exploding, it's "Green Hysteria."

      I'd love to visit the place, mind you. I hear that their restaurants serve a lovely leg of fish.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    5. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A good point, except that incidence of cancer or birth deformities did not sky-rocket. On any time scale. Your information has come from environmentalists who exaggerate the figures by a factor of ten.

      The reality is more people die each year on the road outside my window (the A14, in the UK) than due to all the after-effects of Chernobyl put together.

      Ironically, the reason the A14 is so dangerous is that car-hating enviroists keep diverting the funds to improve it onto stupid "alternative" transportation schemes.

    6. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Greenpeace told me that half the frickin' Ukraine was going to be instant radioactive death for ten thousand years...

      Take your Rad-X and you'll be fine.

    7. Re:wait, what? by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The reality is more people die each year on the road outside my window (the A14, in the UK) than due to all the after-effects of Chernobyl put together.

      The effects of Chernobyl are not limited to higher cancer rates for people. They also encompassed destruction of agricultural land, even Saami reindeer herds, by winds blowing north on that fateful April day. Some car accidents on your local motorway doesn't destroy thousands of people's livelihoods over a fairly broad swath of northern Europe.

      FWIW, I support nuclear power and always point out to Greens that this particular accident was due to human error and faulty design, a level of risk that modern reactors don't run. But let's not pretend Chernobyl was inconsequential.

    8. Re:wait, what? by kanto · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're bound to get glowing reviews though once the tours get started.

    9. Re:wait, what? by e70838 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Chernobyl was not inconsequential, but the facts are:
      1) the (too huge) number of dead people is comparable to the number of people dead in car accidents
      2) the nasty effects on the ecosystem are inferior to the positive effect of the departure of humans.

      If we care mostly on ecosystem, Chernobyl is far from the top list of ecological catastrophes.
      The consequences are mostly on humans that had to leave or that have been killed or injured.

    10. Re:wait, what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      the nasty effects on the ecosystem are inferior to the positive effect of the departure of humans.

      Are you saying what I think you're saying?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:wait, what? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A good point, except that incidence of cancer or birth deformities did not sky-rocket.

      You are aware that the most contaminated areas were all evacuated? Might as well make the argument that poisoning a river isn't harmful because people have to go and drink from a different river. Even so, there are estimates of around 4,000 people dying from cancers caused by the fallout.

      And I love the traditional "more people die on the roads" variant. Really? Thousands die on the stretch of road outside your window each year? What - do you room mate with Godzilla or something?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    12. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this particular accident was due to human error and faulty design, a level of risk that modern reactors don't run.

      That's a pretty broad statement. All modern reactors are safe from human error and faulty design? Unlikely.

    13. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some fish do have legs.

    14. Re:wait, what? by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      I didn't say they are utterly and completely safe, I said they didn't run the same level of risk as Chernobyl.

    15. Re:wait, what? by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, they are safe from that brand of faulty design. No reactor used anywhere else in the world has a large positive void coefficient and nothing else uses that insane design of control rods. Then add in other stuff like a containment building.

      Even the 11 remaining reactors of that same design had those flaws fixed.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    16. Re:wait, what? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      the nasty effects on the ecosystem are inferior to the positive effect of the departure of humans.

      Are you saying what I think you're saying?

      Yes he is. Some people take the view that all lives, animal and human, are equally valuable. From that perverse perspective it is a logical conclusion that the Chernobyl disaster was a good thing. The problem is that you also have to conclude that you are being very selfish if you fail to provide a habitat for fleas, lice, and parasitic worms. I just hope he practices what he preaches.

    17. Re:wait, what? by MoeDrippins · · Score: 2

      Cite?

      --
      Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
    18. Re:wait, what? by skywatcher2501 · · Score: 1

      a new boom in the amusement park industry.

    19. Re:wait, what? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      What rubbish! Considering that there is the precedent of people living at the sites of two atomic bombs, nobody is going to make such a stupidly long prediction. I am willing to be proven wrong by a citation, but I can't see this will happen.

      It is a shame that in order to complain about how environmental groups exaggerate, people have to make exaggerated claims themselves. It is hypocritical.

    20. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some people take the view that all lives, animal and human, are equally valuable.

      And I think those people might greatly enjoy living with the Kodiak Grizzlies in Alaska. After all, if the bear kills and eats you your life was equally valuable to the bear's so it was only right that you become his meal.

      Also, if their lives are equally valuable as an animal's why is it legal to hunt deer and not these idiots?

    21. Re:wait, what? by billius · · Score: 3, Informative

      A good point, except that incidence of cancer or birth deformities did not sky-rocket. On any time scale. Your information has come from environmentalists who exaggerate the figures by a factor of ten.

      The reality is more people die each year on the road outside my window (the A14, in the UK) than due to all the after-effects of Chernobyl put together.

      Ironically, the reason the A14 is so dangerous is that car-hating enviroists keep diverting the funds to improve it onto stupid "alternative" transportation schemes.

      The WHO appears to disagree:

      A large increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer has occurred among people who were young children and adolescents at the time of the accident and lived in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This was due to the high levels of radioactive iodine released from the Chernobyl reactor in the early days after the accident....In Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine nearly 5 000 cases of thyroid cancer have now been diagnosed to date among children who were aged up to 18 years at the time of the accident.

      source

      I'm sick of people on both sides of this debate exaggerating. No, it didn't mean "instant radioactive death for ten thousand years", but pretending like it was a minor mix up and no one got hurt is simply silly and irresponsible.

    22. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The fact the their government decided to open Chernobyl for tourism is not surprising to me. I moved to from Ukraine in late 80s when I was still a teenager. We lived approximately 300 miles away from Chernobyl. Without any history of cancer in my family... a few years later... I was diagnosed with cancer, having gone through number of surgeries and treatments I'm now cancer free. I have to see my doctor every 6 months to make sure cancer is not back. My friend`s girlfriend was a dancer from one of those dance groups/bands in Ukraine, she came to visit in US. One day she wasn't feeling good and went to the doctor... needless to say, she was diagnosed with the latest stage of cancer- untreatable and died a couple of weeks later. She was 25 and guess what, nobody in her family had a history of cancer until after Chernobyl disaster.
      What do I think about Chernobyl ? I think former Soviet government F***ed-UP big time prior to the disaster as it was preventable. People that worked for the government at the time that were honest and spoke up, well, the government sent those people to Chernobyl for cleanup, most if not All of those people are dead now. Hundreds of thousands of people that live in Ukraine and Russia are diagnosed with cancer and hundreds of thousands of people have already died.
      This wasn't anything that would have an afteraffects of a nuke, this was much greater. So, what do i think about people that decide to visit Chernobyl ? I think that they are nothing short of Idiots. Hopefully people that are considering to visit Chernobyl will wake up one day and decide to stop taking the Stupid Pills.

    23. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was only last year that some sheep were contaminated in Norway because they had been eating some plant or something that was more that year than others because of weather and it contains more radiation than other plants.

    24. Re:wait, what? by m50d · · Score: 1
      Troll(n): A post designed to attract predictable responses or frames.

      Note that the definition says nothing about whether it's true.

      --
      I am trolling
    25. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in Turkey, Northern Anatolia region, after Chernobyl accident cancer rates are extremely high. Children and even babies are diagnosed with cancer. After the accident, tons of hazelnut, fish and tea is disposed. More than those are exported to Europe and some 3rd world countries. Who knows how many people consumed those products are affected...

    26. Re:wait, what? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      FWIW, I support nuclear power and always point out to Greens that this particular accident was due to human error and faulty design, a level of risk that modern reactors don't run.

      Have we done away with human error and faulty design, then?

      I agree that, in theory, nuclear can be good, and has at least got lower emissions. But, when it goes wrong, it's pretty spectacular.

      That, and we simply have no idea what to do with the spent fuel. Burying it and sweeping it under the rug don't work so well ... so it's not like we've solved all of the problems with it. And, really, is the lowest bidder to a government contract the ones you want building the storage and containment for something so dangerous?

      I think if we can solve some of these problems, nuclear might be a possible solution .. but, let's not pretend we've solved these issues.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    27. Re:wait, what? by zanderx · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree with your more. What was the other terms used in the old days ? "the invisible killer" ? Also, did you guys know that after the disaster, people were leaving their posessions behind and moving ? Well, property stayed behind, so there were other morons that decided to go go to Chernobyl, collect anything of value and then sell it at fleamarkets? Everything in Chernobyl is contaminated. Equivalent of disaster in Chernobyl is 400 times the Heroshima nuke ! The fact that this crap spread all over the world is one thing. Taking tours to Chernobyl, well it is for two types of people: Type 1 - people that are already dying and don't care Type 2 - people that want to contract cancer or other disease - AKA idiots or people known for taking stupid pills....

    28. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly a quarter of a century ago. Or less than 25 years.

    29. Re:wait, what? by arisvega · · Score: 1

      But Greenpeace told me that half the frickin' Ukraine was going to be instant radioactive death for ten thousand years...

      Yea, well, when money talks ..

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    30. Re:wait, what? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Safe as an absolute? No. Safe as in vastly safer and less dangerous than the reactor at Chernobyl? Yes - easily. And don't forget that even Chernobyl, rickety pile of bolts that it was, only failed because people deliberately overrode the safety mechanisms.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    31. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, human error and faulty design. so if we build a massive solar array, and its poorly designed and the work crew are all raging alcoholics. whats the worst that can happen. when it comes to potentially highly dangerous social choices, conservatism MUST rule. Some studies show that many animal groups can make decisions on minor matters on a simple majority basis, but need a supermajority for bigger decisions. If 30% of us are scared enough, after having studied it fairly well, to oppose nuclear power, then you dont get to build it. sorry, thats how human society works. And if nukes really were the ONLY way to have a technical civilization (which is patently wrong), then i WOULD support going back to a less technologically advanced cultural level.

    32. Re:wait, what? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Or type 3 - people who have a clue about the actual radiation levels there today. You'll take a higher dose of radiation on your flight over there and back than you will take during a day tour in the zone. The levels are high enough that living there on a full time basis isn't a good idea, but a day or two is fine.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    33. Re:wait, what? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      While any death is too many, there haven' really been very many deaths as a result of the accident. Cancer rates aren't above normal.

      The only reasonable way to ascertain deaths is by looking at cancer rates over all. Every cancer in the area gets checked up to Chernobyl by the local populations, even things that in no way could be caused by Chernobyl.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    34. Re:wait, what? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      he didn't say that'; However modern 4th generation reactor design makes it as close to impossible as one can say for a wide scale disaster like Chernobyl.

      The event at Chernobyl can NOT happen.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    35. Re:wait, what? by h4x0t · · Score: 2

      Oh no. I can hear it now. The cat calls. "Get out of here, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.!"

    36. Re:wait, what? by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      It's going to be totally rad.

      --
      ~X~
    37. Re:wait, what? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I think you're taking his statement too far.

      There's a large difference between saying that Chernobyl caused/causes less damage to the 'ecosystem' than humans and saying that animal life is equal to human life.

      Basically, Chernobyl ended up creating an unintended nature preserve. Much like some nuke test sites in the USA, the NASA exclusion zone around their launch sites, the DMZ between North and South Korea, etc...

      Due to mild dangers that the animals don't really notice - with their higher breeding rates and shorter lifespans, additional casualties are lost in the noise. Especially once you realize that they're not being hunted by people, pushed out of habitat, or dealing with the chemical runoff and pollution from human habitation.

      I hunt, and have no problems saying that the lack of humans around Chernobyl has done more to encourage an area richly populated by animal life than the radiation from the reactor has done to prevent it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    38. Re:wait, what? by ChatHuant · · Score: 2

      A good point, except that incidence of cancer or birth deformities did not sky-rocket. On any time scale. Your information has come from environmentalists who exaggerate the figures by a factor of ten

      You're full of it. Here are some quotes from the World Health Organization (not an environmentalist organization in any way). You can read the original document here.


      A large increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer has occurred among people who were young children and adolescents at the time of the accident and lived in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This was due to the high levels of radioactive iodine released from the Chernobyl reactor in the early days after the accident.

      In Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine nearly 5 000 cases of thyroid cancer have now been diagnosed to date among children who were aged up to 18 years at the time of the accident.

      It is expected that the increased incidence of thyroid cancer from Chernobyl will continue for many years, although the long-term magnitude of the risk is difficult to quantify.

      The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs).

      Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population [ Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine] from radiation exposure

      The numbers in this report are contested by a Greenpeace study (available here). Greenpeace estimates the number of cancers attributable to the Chernobyl accident to 270000, out of which 93000 fatal.

      Even discarding the Greenpeace numbers, your assertion that more than 9000 people die every year on the road outside your window proves you're too ignorant or too deranged to qualify for any normal discussion.

    39. Re:wait, what? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Probably not, but I read somewhere that one reactor design actually slows down the reaction if it starts to overheat (and that is in the design, not some computer system that controls the reactor). The reactor in Chernobyl actually increased the reaction speed when it started overheating, so it was positive feedback (more heat -> faster reaction -> even more heat). Still, it took a lot of human errors for te reactor to melt down (having not very experienced night staff running a dangerous test, the operators decreased the reaction too fast, then pulled out the rods too far (instead of waiting for the reaction to go back to normal), automatic protection systems were disabled for the test and so on).

      OTOH, no reactor is safe from a right amount of explosives, but this should not prevent us from using nuclear power instead of coal or natural gas. Solar, wind and hydro are great, but not for everyone - you have to be in the right place for them to be useful.

    40. Re:wait, what? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Due to mild dangers that the animals don't really notice - with their higher breeding rates and shorter lifespans, additional casualties are lost in the noise.

      Except there is very little evidence of additional casualties among the wild life. Initially it was expected there would be massive die-offs. There were some early animal deaths to be sure, mostly contained to the first year.

      But over all, the wildlife shows no indication of excess birth defects, or higher death rates, even among the herbivores that were eating heavily contaminated grasses.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    41. Re:wait, what? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Saying it was human error is like saying I didn't mean to die when I jumped into the shark's mouth. They literally were tempting fate to see how badly they could screw things up by knowingly bypassing safeties and standard operational procedures. And by most of the world's standards, the safeties they had in place were pitiful.

      Using Chernobyl as an example of nuclear safety is to declare to the world one knows nothing of nuclear power; and therefore should be completely ignored.

    42. Re:wait, what? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Except there is very little evidence of additional casualties among the wild life.

      True. The only case I remember is certain birds who are actually nesting on/in the actual sarcophagus. They had approximately twice the mutation rate, but given that most of the bird species laid eggs of four and that the nestlings normally ended up pushing out weaker siblings anyways - it vanished into the 'noise'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    43. Re:Wait, what? by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      I visited the place in 2006. With a DRSB-01 Geiger counter, modified to output the data to a GPS-equipped datalogger. The radiation level in the Chernobyl village itself was roughly the same as in Kiev. It got a bit worse in The Zone, a bit more worse in the inner zone, and the Geiger sang a merry song in the very vicinity of the Sarcophagus. But even then the radiation level was fairly low. (Sorry, I don't have other numbers than count-per-minute records from the Geiger; it was not calibrated.)

      The short-halflife isotopes are decayed by now, the long-halflife ones aren't active enough to pose much risk. The principial radioisotopes in the area are Sr-90 and Cs-137, the latter comprising the majority. While Sr-90 accumulates in bones and presents some long-term hazard, caesium behaves like potassium, accumulates in muscles, and its biological half-time counts in weeks; you will literally piss it out in few months. And you won't get much into you anyway, as it is by now virtually all bound to soil particles or to solids in the biosphere; assuming you won't lick your boots, eat the dirt, or ingest the local mushrooms.

      We even got to see the Red Forest. The roads themselves are pretty much decontaminated; but even off-road the radiation levels aren't catastrophical. A day won't hurt you.

      I wore a thermoluminescence dosimeter, just for sure. After a day in The Zone, the total dose I got was still below the limit of the device's resolution.

      It's a nice place to visit. And it's peaceful, as all the cowards, anonymous or not, go somewhere else instead.

  2. holiday tan?! by MindKata · · Score: 0

    Getting a tan on holiday is often expected, but I don't want to come home from holiday, glowing in the dark!

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:holiday tan?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how awesome would that be? C'mon!

    2. Re:holiday tan?! by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Ah, but you can ride that freaky-as-hell abandoned clown train in Pripyat!

    3. Re:holiday tan?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically the risk of cancer from the average beach holiday is likely higher than that of visiting the Chernobyl site (where background radiation levels have fallen to pretty much their original levels and are lowest than most parts of the developed west).

  3. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STALKER. cosplay for real

  4. What method of transport? by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Will motorcycle tours be offered?

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    1. Re:What method of transport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wasn't that completely discredited as being entirely fake? From what I remember, the girl never went there in a motorcycle, couldn't have gotten one of those passes to enter the area, her father isn't a scientist, and it's quite likely she never took any of those pictures.

    2. Re:What method of transport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like this Post.
      sena smh10

    3. Re:What method of transport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, was it? That's the first I hear of it. What's your source. Where did the pictures come from?

    4. Re:What method of transport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      She went on the tour bus with everyone else. She just took a motorcycle helmet.
       
      The admission is on her site. She said it was more about telling the story than her going on an adventure. That's her justification, anyway.

    5. Re:What method of transport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before modding up the parent, please bear in mind that I can find no reliable sources for this "debunking" and parent has not offered any citations.

      It's entirely possible kidofspeed is exaggerated or otherwise benefits from "poetic license" but the story is consistent with the established facts about the area around Chernobyl.

      Perhaps the poster of the parent comment, when giving his citations, could also tell us his personal views on nuclear power, so we can check to see whether he has some kind of agenda?

    6. Re:What method of transport? by siddesu · · Score: 2, Informative
    7. Re:What method of transport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The admission is on her site.

      I just looked. There's no such admission.

    8. Re:What method of transport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two seconds at that page and I left.

      Great, now it's singing.

    9. Re:What method of transport? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Could you please never link to that site again or at least give a warning that it's as annoying as chewing a handful of iron filings?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:What method of transport? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Debunked as a fake in 2004. Note: irritating 1998-style website at link. You have been warned. Turn off javascript before proceeding.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:What method of transport? by AltairDusk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's the relevant post for those who don't wish to brave the horrors of that site's design:

      Avatar-X

      chernobyl motorcycling fake! ( on 4/30/2004 11:22 PM )

      Chornobyl "Ghost Town" story is a fabrication
      e-POSHTA subscriber Mary Mycio writes:

      I am based in Kyiv and writing a book about Chornobyl for the Joseph Henry Press. Several sources have sent me links to the "Ghost Town" photo essay included in the last e-POSHTA mailing. Though it was full of factual errors, I did find the notion of lone young woman riding her motorcycle through the evacuated Zone of Alienation to be intriguing and asked about it when I visited there two days ago.

      I am sorry to report that much of Elena's story is not true. She did not travel around the zone by herself on a motorcycle. Motorcycles are banned in the zone, as is wandering around alone, without an escort from the zone administration. She made one trip there with her husband and a friend. They traveled in a Chornobyl car that picked them up in Kyiv.

      She did, however, bring a motorcycle helmet. They organized their trip through a Kyiv travel agency and the administration of the Chornobyl zone (and not her father). They were given the same standard excursion that most Chernobyl tourists receive. When the Web site appeared, Zone Administration personnel were in an uproar over who approved a motorcycle trip in the zone. When it turned out that the motorcycle story was an invention, they were even less pleased about this fantasy Web site.

      Because of those problems, Elena and her husband have changed the Web site and the story considerably in the last few days. Earlier versions of the narrative lied more blatantly about Elena taking lone motorcycle trips in the zone. That has been changed to merely suggest that she does so, which is still misleading.

      I would not normally bother to correct someone's silly Chornobyl fantasy. Indeed, correcting all the factual errors and falsehoods in "Ghost Town" would consume as much space as the Web site itself. But the motorcycle story was such an outrageous fiction that I thought the readers of e-Poshta should know.

      Mary Mycio, J.D.

      Legal Program Director
      IREX U-Media
      Shota Rustaveli St. 38b, No. 16
      Kyiv 01023, Ukraine
      Tel: (380-44) 220-6374, 228-6147
      Fax: 227-7543

      New Information, added Sep 19 / 04
      from xxx@aol.com
      Hey this is too much trouble to get logged in to your website to make a posting. I have known Elena for years, so I know how much is fake and how much is true. I know that her birthday is Feb 24, 1974, so she is 30 and not 26. I know that she cannot even ride a bike. the bike is her ex husbands. She has been divorced for 5 years. she can only ride a bicycle or little scooter.

      [last edit 9/20/2004 12:41 AM by Avatar-X - edited 3 times]

    12. Re:What method of transport? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      One nutter claiming something is false doesn't really amount to a debunking.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:What method of transport? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The santa cursor and embedded R2D2 sounds really lend credibility to the site.

    14. Re:What method of transport? by caseih · · Score: 2

      She certainly didn't drive her motorcycle through there, her father isn't a scientist, and she certainly isn't the only person to go there. She did, however, take the pictures. If I recall it turned out she just went on one of the many exclusion zone tours that have been going through there for years.

    15. Re:What method of transport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect... even if she did take some of the pictures, she definitely didn't take all of them. A large number were exposed as stock photographs or photographs belonging to other people, and were posted without their prior knowledge. Even the girl herself admitted this much.

    16. Re:What method of transport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the whole lot might as well be considered a work of fiction. It's so full of made up stories and misinformation, it's more accurate to regard it as a completely fabricated hoax, even if there is some tiny grain of truth buried somewhere in there.

    17. Re:What method of transport? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that completely discredited as being entirely fake?

      Yeah, by those people who choose to take her literally rather than attempting to understand the meaning of 'artistic license'. On the 'net, nitpicking is easier than understanding.

    18. Re:What method of transport? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It's still a beautiful piece of journalism, even if the backstory isn't quite as claimed.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    19. Re:What method of transport? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Debunked as a fake in 2004. Note: irritating 1998-style website at link. You have been warned. Turn off javascript before proceeding.

      I know. Wasn't sure how to work it into a joke, so I figured a sincere post would draw comments. Hey, I was right!

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  5. Conversation pieces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The nice thing about a trip to Chernoybl is that you will always have your extra limbs to use as a conversation starter. "So, wanna know where I got all those extra testicles?"

  6. Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backdrop by nicholas22 · · Score: 1

    If they make it look remotely like the Fallout series (esp. the second or New Vegas), then they will probably get plenty of visitors...

  7. Wait... by ZDRuX · · Score: 3, Funny

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

    --
    The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Wait... by nicholas22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing. There is little background radiation in most places and I'm pretty certain they'll want to avoid taking you to places with higher radiation if they want this tourism thing to last. Don't forget, there are people who *live* in that area and have lived for almost their entire life. So, a visit of a few days, so long as it does not involve taking you to any highly dangerous places, e.g. the core itself, should really be fine.

    2. Re:Wait... by nounderscores · · Score: 2

      Well, if you're in a sealed bus probably not that much. For years after the disaster, they used to make guards stand in the rain inside the exclusion zone, keeping regular people out and letting the workers who ran the remaining operational reactors in. Now that is a sucky job.

    3. Re:Wait... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Don't eat any mushroom omelet though.

      http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?navID=578

    4. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The food at markets nearby, from what I saw, is checked for radiation using specialist equipment so if you're going to buy stuff like that best to buy it there.

    5. Re:Wait... by will_die · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is alot of background radiation, above normal levels, there. At reator #4, the one that blew, as soon as the doors to the vans opened the gieger counters went off. At that place it was around 5x normal levels. Most places were only 2x-3x unless you got near metal structure or some buildings.
      When we got to the ferris wheel the guides stired up places where dust had collected due to rain water and that gave alarms of around 18x normal levels.
      If you go by what we were told the amount of extra radiation we got from the day there was less then the amount of extra radiation a flight from NYC to Paris would of given.

    6. Re:Wait... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Cue:
      - rabies vaccinations
      - fixed path through buildings that underwent renovation
      - fences to keep visitors from leaving the fixed route
      - strong fences to keep bigger wild animals at bay
      - security to move stragglers who stay behind...

      Radiation is the least of the problems and there's really nothing that could go wrong with it. OTOH, the zone has grown very wild and desolate, and is not really a safe place to be in. Rabies is common in wild animals (and there is a major population of them), the buildings, roads and bridges are not maintained since '86 and many of them are on brink of collapse, and the place is BIG, it's quite easy to get lost if you get separated from the group.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    7. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A LOT
      reactor
      Geiger
      stirred
      would HAVE given

      Are you sure the radiation hasn't had an effect?

    8. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe there are some places in India where villagers have been living for countless generations where the background radiation level is about 1000x greater than in most other areas of the world.

    9. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, because of the unshielded backscatter xray machines being operated by untrained blokes with no knowledge of radiation safety!

    10. Re:Wait... by zanderx · · Score: 2

      I wonder if "nicholas22" is in fact the guy selling the tour tickets ? People like that are either remarkably stupid or phenomenally ignorant! The area is contaminated for hundreds of miles away from Chernobyl, going directly near the place of a readioactive fallout, well, that`s nothing short of idiocy! Scientists state that they have discovered a link between Chernobyl and cancer in younger patients in Italy. Hell, if people are affected in Italy, you`d think going directly to Chernobyl may not be healthy ??? Oh well, even stupid people are entitled to their opinion.....

    11. Re:Wait... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "as soon as the doors to the vans opened the gieger counters went off."

      Sound awful...wait, it's meaningless. That will happen anywhere int he world, in fact, you could even be going off in the van.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2x, 5x, 18x are all meaning less terms without stating what the "normal levels" are. I work at a particle accelerator where I can go into one of the target halls with a survey meter and have a general background away from the target of about 20-30urem/hr. Even if I walked towards the target the levels went up by 18x, they would only be 1/10th of the 5mrem/hr required to post the area as a Radiation Area NRC 10 CFR 20

      Unless they were lined with lead, I doubt the van doors provided much shielding. What does "gieger counters went off" mean? Did they have an alarm and they exceeded the alarm set point or did they just suddenly begin making noise as they began detecting events occurring in the detector? I can take a survey meter into one of the target halls, turn the audio on and walk towards the target area and as I get closer the meter will be screaming and you'll be thinking "Holy roasted nuts Batman, we're getting fried" when the measured levels are actually quite low. Going back to your van doors, if the levels outside were of any significance the gieger counters would have been screaming well before the doors were opened. The gieger counters were most likely chosen/set up to be very sensitive so that anything slightly radioactive will make a lot of noise and give you what you expected to hear.

      Our radcon techs have a glazed plate made in Mexico with natural uranium in the glazing. They always bring it out at training as it makes the radiacs scream. You can do the same thing with a mantle from a gas lantern and an alpha survey meter.

  8. Re:Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backd by Magada · · Score: 1

    Well it looks exactly like the sets in STALKER, so there's that at least.

    --
    Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  9. I hope the tourists don't wreck it. by nounderscores · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know that the most interesting places will be the apartment buildings and other structures where the cold war era artifacts are left untouched. I hope that they stay that way, and don't get sanitised or removed by tourists. The first tour of the area will probably be the best.

    1. Re:I hope the tourists don't wreck it. by syousef · · Score: 1

      I know that the most interesting places will be the apartment buildings and other structures where the cold war era artifacts are left untouched. I hope that they stay that way, and don't get sanitised or removed by tourists. The first tour of the area will probably be the best.

      Is that because you'll get use to the green glow in a short time, or because it will be your last tour of anything?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    2. Re:I hope the tourists don't wreck it. by will_die · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was there in July, part of the "illegal"(yea sure since the government gets a portion of the fee) tours.
      Most places are in ruins and falling apart, anything of value has been stripped from inside the building. You do have large soviet items that are to big to haul away, that are left. What you get in the building are books, bottles, desks ,etc.
      You have to worry about nails, broken glass, etc. So I am afraid the government will clean up the area put down carpeting and ropes and make it museum instead of place you have wander around. However as it is I would guess the government is going to close down the private tours and control the whole thing, they will advertise it more and take bus loads of people instead of the smaller vans currently used.
      that said it was one of the best tours I have ever been on, and will probably go again, would like to do one of the overnight tours so I can get farther into the city.
      One other thing about them doing this is that Kyiv is the location of some upcoming European football tournament so they are having lots of people coming and doing lots of upgrades and contructions, new airport, new hotels etc. As it is Kyiv is not that tourist friendly but is a great place to go to now.

    3. Re:I hope the tourists don't wreck it. by MrZilla · · Score: 2

      There have been tourist trips to Chernobyl for over a decade already. I was there this summer.

      Pripyat is already wrecked, since there have been a lot of looters going through the area. Our guide told us that the apartment buildings are completely stripped by now, even the toilet seats are gone.

      We visited an abandoned school as well. The old swimming pool area had obviously been used by kids who went there to drink Vodka and smash the place.

      --
      mov ax, 4c00h
      int 21h
    4. Re:I hope the tourists don't wreck it. by Dtyst · · Score: 1

      This Chernobyl & Pripyat episode from Madventures season 3 was pretty interesting. Scroll to 7:00 to see some funny old soviet stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYMZFSDmvDI

    5. Re:I hope the tourists don't wreck it. by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      >So I am afraid the government will clean up the area put down carpeting and ropes and make it museum instead of place you have wander around

      Come on, this is the Ukrainian government we're talking about here. Even if they do put down some carpeting, all the rusty nails they'll use to hold it down will be more dangerous than what's already there.

  10. strange brew that's also good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be home made Kombucha.

  11. No mutants allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get out of here Stalker

    1. Re:No mutants allowed by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Aw man i rushed here just to post this :-(

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  12. SNPP by donotlizard · · Score: 1

    No thanks. I've watched The Simpsons. I know what a nuclear power plant looks like.

    1. Re:SNPP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pronounced 'nucular'. Nucular.

  13. Re:Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backd by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    Well I got spurs, that jingle jangle jingle...

  14. WTB Artifact from exclusion zone by Jayemji · · Score: 1

    Looking for Urchin artifact, offering 5k RU.

    1. Re:WTB Artifact from exclusion zone by Pharago · · Score: 1

      meet me at sidorovich's place at 18:00 and we'll talk about prices...

    2. Re:WTB Artifact from exclusion zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont go there. Its now a monolith chopshop. Would not buy again.

    3. Re:WTB Artifact from exclusion zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to order a Military Exoskeleton suit. What is the going rate?

    4. Re:WTB Artifact from exclusion zone by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      5k for an Urchin? No way, bro. I might part with my Mama's Beads for that much, but only because I'm tripping all over those.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    5. Re:WTB Artifact from exclusion zone by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      For you 250k....Unless you have a "Soul", or "Moonlight"...Then we can negotiate.

      -Oz

  15. Obligatory KiddOfSpeed reference by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

    Regardless of any controversy over how the pictures were taken, they and the commentary are interesting nonetheless.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Obligatory KiddOfSpeed reference by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Based on that website, I had played with the idea of getting in there myself for years. Lack of funds and lack of a motorcycle made the idea remain... an idea.
      However, I would be more inclined to explore thar fairly vast territory by myself, not in a big safe can with 30 strangers and following a predefined path. It would be just like looking at 3D documentaries, sans the comfort.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    2. Re:Obligatory KiddOfSpeed reference by DarkDust · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that link, that's an interesting site.

    3. Re:Obligatory KiddOfSpeed reference by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Your welcome. There's more stuff (about Ukrainian battlegrounds and the Soviet Gulag) at her old Angelfire site:

      http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    4. Re:Obligatory KiddOfSpeed reference by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That girl sure has talent as a photojournalist. Thanks for reminding me about her other work.

      I'm thinking the entire collection would make a real nice coffee-table book -- some smart publisher ought to approach her about that.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Obligatory KiddOfSpeed reference by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's basically the good old web, the way Sir Tim intended. Straight text down the line, no fancy shmancy sidebars or CSS, images in-line instead of floating, images whatever size you want instead of nicely cropped or resized, no ads, just a normal person sharing their experiences.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    6. Re:Obligatory KiddOfSpeed reference by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Which lets me enjoy the content rather than fight with the presentation :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  16. Obligatory quotation by DarkDust · · Score: 1

    Tourist, Rincewind decided, meant "idiot".

    — Terry Pratchett, The Colour of Magic

  17. What they should do by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

    That thing is a mess, and they're struggling to contain it even after decades. They should nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be--- oh, wait.

  18. RE: Already Open by Archon-X · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the area is already open to a plethora of tourists and buses. You pay your $50USD, and you get taken through the exclusion zone(s), stopping at the monuments, reactor, and Pripryat.

    Some snaps from my trip, for the interested:

    http://ninjito.com/2008-08-16

    The reactor:
    http://ninjito.com/2008-08-16/qx-ch-6.jpg
    'The' hotel in Pripryat
    http://ninjito.com/2008-09-12-PANO/qx-pano-pripyat-1.jpg
    Roof of the hotel, with the reactor in the background [Note, this was seen by 'straying from the group ;)]
    http://ninjito.com/2008-09-12-PANO/qx-pano-pripyat-2.jpg
    Neat shot of some of the hidden murels
    http://ninjito.com/2008-08-16/qx-pripyat-1.jpg

  19. Cool! by rcasha2 · · Score: 1

    Free tans that glow in the dark!

  20. It's already been open to tourists for years by timbo234 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some friends of mine did a tour through there - to within ~200 metres of the reactor 'sarcophagus' a few months ago. These tours have been running for years now form several different operators. Look up any travel website or just google 'chernobyl tours' and you'll find plenty about this.

    I read the article but still can't understand WTF it's about when you consider these tours have been going on for years.

    --
    Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    1. Re:It's already been open to tourists for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I've been thinking of going myself. Tour Kiev offers a tour, for example: http://tourkiev.com/chernobyltour/
      Picked up that link a few years ago, so the tours really are nothing new.

    2. Re:It's already been open to tourists for years by will_die · · Score: 3, Informative

      I went with Tour Kiev and it was great.
      The way it works is that all those companies funnel you to the same location and same tour. You are picked up in Kyiv and watch movies for the drive. Once there you pick up some local government people who are your tour guides.
      After your 5 hours there they leave and you are driven back to Kyiv.
      Do it quickly, with this action the tours are going to probably going to become more disneyfied. Also some european football tournament is taking place there next year or 2012 and that will bring lots of people.
      I stayed at Hotel Ukraine(in independece square) get a junior suite and facing the square. One of the most interesting trips I have ever done. The place is not tourist friendly, lack of signs pointing to major sites, lack of "tourist" events, etc.

    3. Re:It's already been open to tourists for years by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      Also some european football tournament is taking place there next year or 2012 and that will bring lots of people.

      So, it's going to be Mutant League Football, then?

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
  21. Nitpicking by codeButcher · · Score: 1

    nearly a quarter of a century ago

    I suppose the more succinct and arguably more precise "24 years ago" or "in 1986" sounds so ordinary (to a journalist's ears, at least.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    1. Re:Nitpicking by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      I prefer to date such things as "in the previous millennium".

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:Nitpicking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the presidential sounding "One score and four years ago..."

  22. I suppose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, Chernobyl tours you!

  23. Interesting preservation question by fantomas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You hope that tourists don't wreck "it".

    The problem I think is deciding what "it" is. The state of the area on 13 December 2010? What happens if a tourist breaks off a piece of something / steals something? do you put a replica in its place? What happens if there is heavy snowfall this year or rainstorms and these threaten to damage the soviet murals in the buildings or even collapse a roof of a building. Do you let them collapse, rebuild them, actively preserve them in some state?

    This is the dilemma - what is the state you want to keep things in? Clearly the place has been touched by people, weather, and wildlife since (1986 was it?) - there's decay, graffitti, some stuff has been moved or stolen. What are your feelings? is it a tourist park, or a memorial, or other? Historians and cultural experts all have opinions about this.

    Close to home, in the town I live in, Bletchley Park also has this issue to a small degree. They are always struggling for money but one question they have to think about is what state to preserve the place. A lot of the the famous codebreaking huts are in really poor condition - but then they were only designed as temporary wooden buildings to last a few years in the war. Now 70 years on their cheap constructions are falling apart. Do we freeze them somehow? tear them down and build replicas (but maybe to higher quality so they last longer and can survive tourists)? Do we save what is left and incorporate some of that original material alongside new material (replacing rotten wood, etc?

    A big challenge for cultural preservation everywhere. What is the purpose of the Chernobyl area? What do you do when the buildings become unsafe because the weather has got in and they are in danger of falling down?

    1. Re:Interesting preservation question by vlm · · Score: 1

      Obviously do both. Its an accumulation of little artifacts not one individual artifact. You could have fun and maintain every other building and let every other building decay, plus or minus the collapse footprint.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Interesting preservation question by frenchbedroom · · Score: 1

      Neither by the public, nor by those who have the care of public monuments, is the true meaning of the word restoration understood. It means the most total destruction which a building can suffer: a destruction out of which no remnants can be gathered: a destruction accompanied with false description of the thing destroyed. Do not let us deceive ourselves in this important matter; it is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture.

      John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture

    3. Re:Interesting preservation question by will_die · · Score: 1

      In it's current state is part memorial part tourist site and part educational site.
      By wrecking it I would probably mean cleaning it up, proping items up and making it safe for a 3 year olds to run around.
      the place is interesting because of the way nature has been destroying it. Places are collapsing and in the Pripyay hotel you even have a tree growing in the floor the top level old bar.
      As for what will happen as the building fall and become unsafe they will no longer be visited, and marked as unsafe. It is already happening. Previously they use to bulldoze them and then cover them in dirt but that has been stopped since it just allows the radiation to collect, they are now just allowing them to fall and do as they want.

    4. Re:Interesting preservation question by maestroX · · Score: 1

      What happens if a tourist breaks off a piece of something / steals something?

      Criminals, disobedient tourists and obnoxious kids will be locked in the sarcophagus for the duration of the tour.

    5. Re:Interesting preservation question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what to do when the place is no longer radioactive? Spread some more stuff around, so tourist Geiger counters will do their thing?

  24. Interesting... by SharpFang · · Score: 5, Informative

    AFAIK, the zone is already open for tourists. In guided tours, with authorized guides, the tour takes at most a day, visitors are screened for radiation levels upon entering and exitting and the guide has an active geiger counter at all times (which is one of major attractions too). At least a few travel agencies in Poland and Ukraine offer these tours (e.g. link)

    The route, time and organization of these tours really minimizes all radiation-related danger to bare minimum and as long as you follow the guide, there is no risk of overexposure whatsoever. (still, the free-roaming of Pripyat part of the tour, on the other hand, has a considerable risk of getting hurt by parts of ruined buildings.)

    The zone is in major part uncontaminated and totally harmless (save for rabid wolves, collapsing roofs of houses, getting lost and freezing to death, wild boars and the likes) but there are still many smaller or bigger patches of more radioactive areas - not radioactive enough to harm you if you cross in a car or even walking at a fast pace, but enough to mean somewhat heightened cancer risk if you camp there for a night. Generally, if you have a geiger counter and an inch of brain to follow what it says, radiation is not a danger - the count rises, you turn around. If you are an experienced hiker and have some rudimentary means of defense from wild animals, you can spend weeks in the zone just fine.

    Generally, obtaining permission to enter the zone is not very hard. Many Airsoft groups organize their games there for example. Which areas you are allowed to enter and for how long, is a different matter. You get day permissions at most for Pripyat, but for example, the far west of the zone is pretty open and accessible - the standard 30km perimeter around the power plant has been extended about 30km more to the east-north-east where one of two major clouds of contamination struck. That cloud was long, wide, but more stretched, so the levels near that border of the zone have already dropped to entirely safe levels by now and getting a prolonged permit for that area is not a problem at all.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  25. Read _Wolves Eat Dogs_ by M. C. Smith by chrislott · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I highly recommend reading the book _Wolves Eat Dogs_ by Martin Cruz Smith for a fictionalized account of chasing criminals thru the Zone of Exclusion. Lots of details about radiation, residents who stayed, and the disaster itself. Don't know how close it is to truth of course. Disclaimer: he's my favorite mystery writer.

  26. But... it's already open to tourists! by MastaBaba · · Score: 0
  27. itinerary? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    do we get to see thunderdome in bartertown?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  28. Re:Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backd by Canazza · · Score: 1

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh,

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  29. Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I already managed to leave Pripyat alive in Call of Duty 4, so I'm not going to risk it once more.

  30. I saw a great series of pictures from there... by jnelson4765 · · Score: 2

    I got to see a presentation given by a nuclear scientist who went there last year on a vacation - it can be done, but it takes at least one person in the tour that speaks decent Russian. Wild pictures - growing up at the end of the Cold War, seeing an abandoned, looted Soviet-era city is a little creepy.

    Scratch that, a whole bunch of creepy.

    The guy doing the presentation had his own geiger counter, and was showing just how hot some areas of Chernobyl still were. It was wild stuff, and sobering...

    --
    Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
    1. Re:I saw a great series of pictures from there... by will_die · · Score: 1

      No it does not. There are tours that go there most days out of Kyiv. A little over $100 US and off you go. For around $400 USD,IIRC, you can have a private tour. It is all in english, other languages are available.
      Check out www.tourkiev.com

    2. Re:I saw a great series of pictures from there... by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      I assumed GP was referring to getting a tour from a nuclear scientist when he mentioned wanting a tour member that speaks Russian.

  31. Re: Already Open by Canazza · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, I was planning to take my mate there for his Stag Weekend, mainly so that he can't have kids.

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  32. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... environment kills YOU!

  33. I am glowing with anticipation by maweki · · Score: 1

    I am glowing with anticipation

  34. Funding, donations, not only for the new shell... by MetalFingers · · Score: 2

    It would also be a good idea for the tour to include all of the hospitals that take in the young children affected - twenty years later - by the Chernobyl disaster.

  35. Re: Already Open by slimshady945 · · Score: 1

    It's wild how much it looks like Feodosia, Allushta, and Sudak... all of which have been continuously inhabited. Of course, the Soviets weren't really known for pushing the architectural envelope.

  36. Caution: car analogy follows: by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Touring Chernobyl is like walking across a freeway blindfolded, because it's okay, you can't hear any cars.

    You see:

    (1) The "Quiet Prius" prob: You basic inexpensive Geiger counter, for durability, has a thickish diaphragm over its sensor, which blocks alpha and beta radiation. The element of most concern is Plutonium, which is an Alpha emitter. So, as listening for traffic is not very efficacious at discerning quiet cars, a geiger counter is of no help, indeed, it's less than helpful.

    (2) The "Quiet on the average" prob: It does not help that traffic sounds quiet. All it takes is one car to send you flying. Similarly, it does not matter that the radiation level is, on the average, low. All it takes is one particle of Plutonium, nestled against a lung cell, to start a cancer. The cell does not care that averaged over a day, over your whole body, you just picked up a millirad. All it knows is that an alpha particle just smashed into its DNA and caused a mutation. Yes, DNA has some self-repair mechanisms but they're not foolproof.

    (3) The "Ivana made it okay" prob-- it does not matter that some dame allegedly snapped some pics years ago. She may be dead or dying now. Plus we will never know how many folks took a similar trip but are now too sick or too dead to post their pics.

    (4) The "But Ivan made it across" prob-- It does not matter that your tour guide has been there a dozen times-- You don't know how many other guides are now in the Kiev Home for Comrades With Bad Coughs Who Eventually Keel Over.

    Maybe the analogy isn't so bad. Think about whether you'd walk across a quiet freeway before you sign up for this trip.

    1. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe the analogy isn't so bad. Think about whether you'd walk across a quiet freeway before you sign up for this trip.

      Am I blind in this analogy?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      (Because I'm blind on slashdot. But I mean, I peer out from beneath blindfolds. Maybe I'm just putting too much anal in the analysis, and not enough coffee)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your analogy is stupid. Just because you don't understand the risks of a short visit to Chernobyl doesn't mean that everyone else is as clueless. For example, for point 1, just buy a geiger detector that picks up alpha particles. Problem solved.

      Second, a highway has clearly defined borders. There's no similar border between the land near the cask at Chernobyl and your lungs wherever in the world you happen to be. Third, any plutonium from Chernobyl has had decades to chemically bind in Earth's highly reactive environment. Fourth, you're probably taking risks right now, such as driving or taking a shower, which are probably far more dangerous to your long term health than a little time at Chernobyl.

      Finally, no matter where you are on Earth's surface, you are in a high radiation environment. Right this minute you are exposed to scary, dangerous stuff like cosmic rays, radon and other uranium and thorium decay products, and even some long term decay products from the nuclear bomb tests and large scale nuclear accidents like Chernobyl. What makes a trip to Chernobyl even slightly increase your risk of dying from scary, dangerous radiation?

    4. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (1) The "Quiet Prius" prob: You basic inexpensive Geiger counter, for durability, has a thickish diaphragm over its sensor, which blocks alpha and beta radiation. The element of most concern is Plutonium, which is an Alpha emitter.

      My bench top pancake style geiger counter detects alpha particles from 35S and beta particles from 32P just fine. I'm sure it would handle plutonium no problem.

      (2) The "Quiet on the average" prob: It does not help that traffic sounds quiet. All it takes is one car to send you flying. Similarly, it does not matter that the radiation level is, on the average, low. All it takes is one particle of Plutonium

      All it takes is one cosmic ray, or one decay from an atom of phosphorous in a banana, etc. etc. Risk is proportional to dose. It's managable.

      (3) The "Ivana made it okay" prob-- it does not matter that some dame allegedly snapped some pics years ago. She may be dead or dying now. Plus we will never know how many folks took a similar trip but are now too sick or too dead to post their pics.

      If we can estimate the exposure, we can calculate exactly how many people we'd expect to get cancer from such an expedition. Again risk is proportional to dose.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by geekoid · · Score: 1

      1) All the Gieger counter I ave used have different settings for sensitivity

      1a.) the 'prius problem' is a made up problem.

      2) No ti doesn't. In fact it's complex. This is why it's talked about in the terms of increase probability.

      3) true. Any effects she would have would start appear in 10 years.

      4) It's a horrific analogy born from a unholy mating between ignorance and fear.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Let's see, someone calling for caution, or someone putting someone else down as being a greenie. Which one to give more weight, hmmm...

    7. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problem is not "one particle" of plutonium as something that will stay there as a single atom, but one particle of plutonium dust as:

      (1 nanogram of mass/94 grams per mol)*6.02214179(30)×10 to 23atoms = 6.4 x10 to 12 particles

      The half life is 24,100 years, single exponential func, that means 5.8 atoms decaying per second, 20880 per hour. We are not considering secondary radioactive reactions here. Those materials tend to be incorporated to bone, once there very difficult to survive, plutonium is one the biggest poisons if not the bigger one that exist to man.

      Anyone that has seen a metal irradiated with neutrons of high energy at electric microscope could understand what this could do for your body(a single high energize particle is going to impact with many many atom structures until it loses enough energy in a snooker way).

      As you said, cells have self repair for DNA but it is designed for not so high energy, or not so much radiation. A cosmic ray has energy, but is only one, normal radiation is designed to be absorbed by your skin(when you have sunburn millions of your skin cells have to suicide) with more abundant but less energy.

      If you inhale or ingest plutonium or any of the radioactive materials Chernovil has, you are dead. I have a friend that went there, the problem is touching things you should not. That is, you never open a door that had been closed for years, you don't raise the dust that has decanted there, or under some trees, stones.

      If you do you could get blast of radiation(your geiger getting mad in an instant) and get ill and dead soon months later.

    8. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait, i can die from eating a banana?

    9. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by Konshu · · Score: 1

      I say we kill it with fire.

    10. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by khallow · · Score: 1

      Let's see, someone calling for caution, or someone putting someone else down as being a greenie. Which one to give more weight, hmmm...

      Neither. I would prefer weighing the arguments. In this case, the one calling for caution, argues from ignorance. And the other one (me, that is) is rationally pointing out the gaping flaws in arguing from ignorance. When you add in that I don't claim he is a "greenie" nor put him down for being such, then I think my words should be given more weight.

    11. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is stupid.

      Yes, but it did have a car in it. That's always a plus, here in /.land

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    12. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, looks like you have it all worked out. Go for it, the world could use a few less stupid people.

    13. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      wait, i can die from eating a banana?

      Yes, most likely by chocking on it.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    14. Re:Caution: car analogy follows: by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      >My bench top pancake style geiger counter detects alpha particles from 35S and beta particles from 32P just fine. I'm sure it would handle plutonium no problem.

      Swell. But most folks are not going to lug a lab bench geiger counter on an international trip. Or a 9,000 mile extension cord. Or know how to interpret the readings. In addition the alpha particles from Plutonium have a mean free path in air of about 2 centimeters, so waving around a pancake style sensor tells you nothing.

      >All it takes is one cosmic ray, or one decay from an atom of phosphorous in a banana, etc. etc. Risk is proportional to dose. It's managable.

      You seem to be ignorant of the effects of Plutonium ingestion. One nanogram of it emits 3 x 10^5 alphas per second, for the length of your life. The Phosphorus in a banana is way spread out. Cosmic rays come at you in random paths. Big diff.

      >If we can estimate the exposure, we can calculate exactly how many people we'd expect to get cancer from such an expedition. Again risk is proportional to dose.

      You miss the point-- we can't get an exposure reading from a geiger counter. the AVERAGE rad level, as indicated by a geiger counter, is useless information. The counter is not going to register the Plutonium a;lphas, as they don't travel far in air. There are thousands of acres of dusty countryside there, with skazillions of particles of Plutonium. The dust blows around and gets on your skin and into your lungs. There they become point sources of radiation. The namby-pamby average reading of a Geiger counter does not reflect this.

  37. Fun for all the family! by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    Come kids, take a picture of the two-headed radioactive squirrel to show back to mummy when we go back.

  38. The information... by MetalFingers · · Score: 1
  39. Exposure... by crow_t_robot · · Score: 2

    You would probably get more radiation exposure from the TSA to fly over there and back....

  40. Should be just about as popular... by bhartman34 · · Score: 1

    ...as if they created a Root Canal Island. :)

  41. The head count by magpie · · Score: 1

    ...after the trip must be interesting.

  42. A Lead Hotel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if someone couldn't construct a radiation hardened building in the middle of it all? Then they could turn on some air raid sirens in the middle of the night and kick you out for authenticity.

  43. ..and "traveller" means.... by fantomas · · Score: 1

    well "traveller", as in "hey man, I am a traveller, not a tourist!" - means a tourist with pretensions.

    I had great fun backpacking round the world and telling the international hippy set that I was most definitely a tourist, not a "traveller'. Either you live somewhere, or you're just touring through it, or you're popping in for a quick look.

    And yup, most of the time you're a fish out of water and a total idiot. But hey, we all got to get along. I put up with dumb Americans in my neighbourhood and gently try to educate them when its possible so when I visit America they'll tolerate me being dumb and hopefully educate me a little too....

  44. Re:Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backd by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    If they make it look remotely like the Fallout series (esp. the second or New Vegas), then they will probably get plenty of visitors.

    Only if they let me carry my trusty 10mm Pistol+ that I use for radscorps.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  45. Re:Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backd by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh,

    Yeah. Mine was "Johnny Guitar". Every time I heard that come up on a radio, I wanted to put the laser pistol+ to my own head.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  46. Pictures of the tourguides by wiredog · · Score: 2

    Here.

  47. There is enough... by NuKe_MoNgOoSe · · Score: 0

    Things that can kill you dead without going out of your way to visit it the site of a major nuclear catastrophe. I mean if im going overseas Im going to like Japan to play with the women and see vending machine that offer adult film star panties, and facial recognition software to determine for me what I want to drink lol. Or im going to Amsterdam to smoke a copious amount of weed in a myriad of different ways. Or to see the Autobahn just because I want to see the Autobahn.. Lots of things rather than risk radiation poisoning for a couple of tourist snap shots.

    --
    When you dislike the human race as much as I do, Karma:Bad is inevitable lol.
    1. Re:There is enough... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      It's not that radioactive in most of the zone anymore. Even if you spent a full day in the most radioactive accessible area (~200m from the actual remains of the reactor), you'd take about 120 microsieverts of radiation (about 5% of your normal annual background exposure) or a little less than the exposure from 2 transatlantic flights.

      In other words, you will take on more radiation flying there than you will touring the zone.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  48. Re:Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backd by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

    STALKER 2 will be a game box with a Makarov pistol, 2 clips of ammo and a plane ticket to Chernobyl.

    --
    Sent from my CR-48
  49. Re: Already Open by strongpassword · · Score: 1

    Please upload your video. You can call it 3guys1radioactivepowerplant.

  50. Queue Obligatory... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Queue Obligatory "In Soviet Russia..." in 3...2...1...

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
    1. Re:Queue Obligatory... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      in 3...2...1...

      *BOOM*

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  51. Re:Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backd by Magada · · Score: 1

    What, no PDA this time? I was hoping for a Droid.

    --
    Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  52. T-Shirt by fishthegeek · · Score: 1
    I can just see the T-Shirts now...

    I toured Chernobyl and all I got was this lousy third testicle!

    --
    load "$",8,1
  53. Re:Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backd by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

    Well, it's expected that you supply one. Although the deluxe edition comes with a Droid X and an AK-74.

    --
    Sent from my CR-48
  54. Re:Funding, donations, not only for the new shell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, all zero of them?

  55. MOD PARENT UP INFORMATIVE by anwaya · · Score: 1

    This AC surely deserves an audience.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP INFORMATIVE by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Liars don't deserve an audience.

      "Hundreds of thousands of people that live in Ukraine and Russia are diagnosed with cancer and hundreds of thousands of people have already died."

      This blantaly false. Nothing in his statement can be taken as true. Even OF the cancer story is real, it shows nothing.

      Of the 134 emergency responders. The people with the highest level of exposure, about 50 of died from cancer. But that was due to direct and extremely high exposure rates. Look up ARS.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  56. Re:Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That song rules. Has great guitar break in it

  57. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's where you really want to live although you're too dumb to realize it.

  58. great link n/t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  59. Stalker by kubernet3s · · Score: 1

    Pretty pleased with the Stalker tag

  60. Sign me up! by brain1 · · Score: 1

    Ah. A vacation that leaves you with a nice healthy glow! What could be better!
    But seriously, sign me up. The research possibilities are endless. All the sci-fi mutant stuff of "S.t.a.l.k.e.r" aside, seeing how life responds and adapts to that type of environment is fascinating.

  61. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we should collect all of the idiots and send them to Chernobyl on tour as long as we don't have to pay for their medical care later!

  62. This sucks by AndyAndyAndyAndy · · Score: 1

    There goes my plan to strike it rick, buy the Chernobyl area from Ukraine, and set up my own little soviet nation...

    --
    It's always confirmation bias!
  63. In Soviet Russia .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. environment kills YOU!

  64. Wow. by MetalFingers · · Score: 2

    So this must be some imaginary organization, huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Children's_Project_International This documentary must be a Hollywood, or better yet, a Greenpeace creation with special effects & actors, huh? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=414073095760658789# This page, taken out of a book about the increase in Thyroid cancer in children in/around Chernobyl must be a fucking imaginary publication, with imaginary facts, huh? http://bit.ly/feqkh6

  65. I am going... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I always wanted a third nipple growing middle of my chest.

  66. Sweet! I can finally run... by NUBlackshirts · · Score: 1

    a Gamma World LARP in a suitable environment!

  67. Re: Already Open by Archon-X · · Score: 1

    There was even a girl there!

  68. Chernobyl Documentary by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    A few years back there was a great HD documentary on the wildlife returning to the area. They followed the lives of several animals (I think a cat and a wolf for one). Wildlife is doing very well, but apex predators are accumulating large doses of radiation from being at the top of the food chain. Who knows what effects that will have, but I was amazed at how well the ecosystem rebounded. I guess I was expecting a Mad Max landscape.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Chernobyl Documentary by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Cancer takes a decade to appear, most animals don't live that long.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  69. Go easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (I'm originally from Kiev, not too far) See these tours have been going on for a long time, and people are allowed there mostly if you have connections, or a relatively small bribe (by US standards). Its just that now, apparently, it is no longer illegal - and you may enter "officially"; Before, there would be guards at the outpost near the entrance who would have typically not let you enter without a monetary contribution.

    My mother went there a while back, the officials on duty gifted her some radioactive flowers, which were GIGANTIC, and then proceeded to wander around the reactor. In neighboring cities (like Kiev) about 10 years ago they would sell gigantic strawberries and other berries/fruits, which obviously were irradiated and harvested from around that area. It's creepy, and even as a kid I had enough common sense not to try them :) Some do, though. Some still live on the outskirts of Pripyat'.

    It is not dangerous at all if you only visit the place for a short amount of time. So in a day or two you may get a months-worth of radiation, but seeing an abandoned soviet city, with abandoned daycare centers and whatnot - its a touching sight worth all the radiation you can get ;)

    Also, many of the apartment buildings are partially overwhelmed with wild animals who took it that the abandoned city is now their territory - therefore, I recommend going there in winter so you could see if the snow near the entrances to buildings has animal footprints! If so, I really discourage you from entering those buildings.

  70. Re:Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backd by Magada · · Score: 1

    That's more like it! See you in Borispol.

    --
    Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  71. Where's Bender? by serutan · · Score: 1

    Chernobyl as a tourist attraction sounds like an episode of Futurama.

  72. STALKER by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

    If they plopped an old icebreaker in the exclusion zone near Pripyat and called it Skadovsk, I'd book my trip tonight.

    --
    Sent from my CR-48
  73. Nuclear waste not actually that big of a problem. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    That, and we simply have no idea what to do with the spent fuel.

    Blatently false, and yet it shows up in every thread about nuclear matters.

    Our inability to dispose of spent fuel is a political problem, not a technical one.

    Options:
    1. Reprocess - it's still 90% or so usable fuel, if repurified. - The remaining isotopes tend to stay radioactive for a lot less time; more like 300 years, not thousands.
    2. Use in breeder/alternate reactors
    3. Bury in salt mines
    4. Dump at sea into subduction zone

    There's more, including a technology under development to do neutron bombardment to force fission quicker and artificially accellerate decay.

    Still, I oppose just doing #3/4 until #1 or 2 is done because, well, it's still usable, why would we WANT to throw it away? Why spend the effort to design a vault good for thousands of years when I figure we'd just end up digging it back up in a couple centuries to use it as fuel again anyways?

    Don't forget that you can keep store a multi-decade amount of waste from a multi-gigawatt plant in what's essentially an extra deep pool.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  74. Cue Zombie Apocalypse! by Microsift · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our zombie overlords!

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
  75. Re:Closest thing to nuclear post-apocalyptic backd by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    It is a great song, and an even greater movie by the great Nicholas Ray. But after hearing it for the hundredth time when you're trying to dispatch a legion of deadly deathclaws does tend to ruin it.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  76. Radiation burns by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

    Many of the first responders and direct participants died from beta burns, shallow large-area skin burns comparable to thermal burns.

  77. old thing by egorF · · Score: 1

    Excursion into Chernobyl are officially there for at least seven years now. With safe routes, procedures, etc. They are being done weekly. I wonder why did they woke up a few days ago and decided to publish this press-release about something that is old. I was in the zone for quite some time (not on excursions, just happened to work there). Aside from glowing in the dark, no other health issues so far. It's been a few years already.