|
Chernobyl calling - UN promotes tourism
My first reaction was WTF are the UN doing promoting tourism and to Chernobyl of all places. As I read the article it became clear it was the UN is trying to justify the money it continues to spend on something that is no longer a problem. BTW calling it ecotourism is a stretch, more like ghoultourism.IT'S not the first place I would think of to visit on holiday — more like the last. But one sunny Saturday in August, I find myself driving in a battered Lada from the Ukrainian capital of Kiev towards Chernobyl, site of the 1986 nuclear disaster. Chernobyl lies two hours north of Kiev by car, through idyllic, low, rolling hills. Fields of maize and golden seas of wheat spread across the landscape, while islands of pine, cottonwood and birch trees break up the near-flat panorama. The sky is big; the prevailing winds blow huge clouds across its vast expanse. Until the late 1990s it would have been impossible to go there. The whole area was sealed off. Though still tight, security is now more perfunctory than intimidating. After passing through two checkpoints, one at the 30km mark and one at 20km, my driver Nikolay and I are on our way to Reactor No4. But first we have to pick up our guide, Yuiry Tatarchuck. As we approach the reactor, with its concrete sarcophagus, Jim Morrison's lament, "This is the end, my only friend, the end," blasts from the Lada's crackling speakers. My two companions in the front seat don't seem to give it a second thought. But dread is probably the best way to describe what I feel at this moment. The impetus behind tours to Chernobyl has come from an unlikely source. The UN Development Program and UNICEF released a report in January 2002 outlining the continuing problems facing Ukraine and its neighbours, Russia and Belarus. The aim was to highlight the human consequences of the Chernobyl accident 16 years earlier. Experts in ecology, health and economics compiled detailed information, part of which was a recommendation that ecotourism was viable in certain sectors of the disaster area. The article then goes on to say radiation levels are only slightly above normal and families moved back into the area 3 days after the accident and still live there without apparent ill effects.
Posted by: phil_b 2005-03-20 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=59353 |