| Submit your comments on this article | |
| International-UN-NGOs | |
| Chernobyl calling - UN promotes tourism | |
| 2005-03-20 | |
| 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 |
| #19 TGA - For you. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-20 8:39:52 PM |
| #18 I am not buying one guy who is wrting a books "word" for it being a fake. Her father apperently was a high mucky muck in the department that controls the power plant and the area. This site has been up for a long time. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-03-20 8:35:35 PM |
| #17 Yes the story was fake but the photos are real. Her "story" just made the photos more intriguing. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-20 8:31:47 PM |
| #16 And the car was probably later encased in cement and buried, heh. As are all of their "tour cars" eventually, I'm sure. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-20 8:30:51 PM |
| #15 The "Motorcycling through Chernobyl" website was widely debunked as a fake. 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. |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-03-20 8:29:00 PM |
| #14 I saw a report that lots and lots of animals and plants are flourishing there after the people moved away, and that they seem to be reproducing without any obvious deformities. The Greens might object to human resettlement... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-03-20 8:20:12 PM |
| #13 It's probably an interesting area for ecotourism. Nature has been left alone for 20 years and radiation might not really hurt you if you just go for a few days. On the other hand I guess I'd still prefer Yellowstone... |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-20 8:14:54 PM |
| #12 LOL. You need to wear a Dosimeter when you are in the area. A Geiger counter is recommended. You still want to live there? |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-03-20 7:52:41 PM |
| #11 Would YOU live there? Everywhere has background radiation, some places more than others. If the radiation wasn't too high, the answer is yes I would. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-03-20 3:52:12 PM |
| #10 Lol! One is a matter of chance - over which you exercise some control. The other is a certainty. I'm with B-a-R, heh. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-20 3:18:23 PM |
| #9 The evidence is that long term low level radiation exposure reduces your life expectancy by between a couple of months and a couple of years, probably less detrimental to your health than driving a car. Would YOU live there? I wouldn't. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-20 3:10:51 PM |
| #8 ..I have to confess, I'd like to see the place close up, but only as close as a helo flyby could get me. And the idea of Morrison's "The End" popping up at that moment is priceless. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2005-03-20 11:57:49 AM |
| #7 Have you all seen the magnificant "Ghost Town - Motorcycling Through Chernobyl" website? (For those who have, she has really improved the site with new sections for gulags and the Orange Revolution.) http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ (main site) http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html (ghost town - Chernobyl). |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-03-20 10:11:44 AM |
| #6 phil_b - if the "couple of months and couple of years" are between the ages of 95 and 97, OK. But what if they're between the ages of 40 and 42? I'd already be dead. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-03-20 8:16:38 AM |
| #5 It depends on where you live and what you live in. A log cabin might make a very bad choice. I wouldn't live in the area. I wouldn't get off a hard paved road either. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-03-20 4:37:41 AM |
| #4 Those people are likely living on borrowed time. We all live on borrowed time. The evidence is that long term low level radiation exposure reduces your life expectancy by between a couple of months and a couple of years, probably less detrimental to your health than driving a car. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-03-20 4:30:19 AM |
#3 ..and families moved back into the area 3 days after the accident.. Those people are likely living on borrowed time. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-20 4:14:49 AM |
| #2 I already have had the photographic tour fronm kiddofspeed thanks. :D I'll be staying home :D |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-03-20 2:25:49 AM |
| #1 There's an excellent tour of Chernobyl online here. She also has some other excellent pages online. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-20 2:07:44 AM |