Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth News

Ukraine To Open Chernobyl Area To Tourists 207

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ukraine To Open Chernobyl Area To Tourists

Comments Filter:
  • wait, what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Swampash ( 1131503 ) on Tuesday December 14, 2010 @06:12AM (#34544336)
    But Greenpeace told me that half the frickin' Ukraine was going to be instant radioactive death for ten thousand years...
  • Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nicholas22 ( 1945330 ) on Tuesday December 14, 2010 @06:26AM (#34544396)
    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.
  • by nounderscores ( 246517 ) on Tuesday December 14, 2010 @06:27AM (#34544400)

    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.

  • Re:wait, what? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 14, 2010 @06:57AM (#34544544)

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

  • by will_die ( 586523 ) on Tuesday December 14, 2010 @07:31AM (#34544678) Homepage
    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.
  • by khallow ( 566160 ) on Tuesday December 14, 2010 @11:12AM (#34546276)
    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?
  • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Tuesday December 14, 2010 @11:43AM (#34546652) Journal

    (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.

  • Re:wait, what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) on Tuesday December 14, 2010 @12:29PM (#34547256) Journal
    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.

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Working...