Chernobyl still smouldering

[Mr Pointy]

Some worrying rises in neutron counts have been observed:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/nuclear-re...

[Andeh1]

Very interesting read! Thanks

[dukeboy749r]

There's a small part of me which would like to go and visit the area.

Yet a bigger part of the brain saying - don't be so bloody foolish.

[flight147z]

dukeboy749r said:

There's a small part of me which would like to go and visit the area.

Yet a bigger part of the brain saying - don't be so bloody foolish.

I went in 2019, I'd say it's worth a visit if you are in Kiev (it's a full day out). Some of my pictures below

[motco]

A relative by marriage of mine is a professor at Manchester University and his speciality is ecology and he has been going there frequently for some years to gather data on the environment, flora and fauna after the event. Rather him than me...

[Clive Milk]

I think this is contained

Fukushima certainly isn't so far.

Both are interesting to watch with a different epoch on progression.


As an old timer I think we need to forget nuclear, at least fission, compared to wind, water, biosphere. Ignore Co2 targets.

When it pops, from history, it really does pop.

[Clive Milk]

If one of those French reactors goes AWOL on the English channel that could be an interesting turn of events.

Normally we have westerly winds though so that only affects that small town of Paris rather than Bognor Regis

[Venturist]

dukeboy749r said:

There's a small part of me which would like to go and visit the area.

Yet a bigger part of the brain saying - don't be so bloody foolish.

Do - it’s a fascinating, beautiful and humbling part of the world.
Do it sooner rather than later, the best bits are places you’re not supposed to go - it’s getting gradually busier, and as such it’ll get policed more and more seriously. Plus having other groups of tourists around at the same time as yours, somewhat spoils the desolate vibe and makes it feel a bit more like a theme park imitation.

You’ll get a higher dose of radiation on the flight there than you will from the zone itself.

[Crafty_]

Venturist said:

Do it sooner rather than later, the best bits are places you’re not supposed to go - it’s getting gradually busier, and as such it’ll get policed more and more seriously. Plus having other groups of tourists around at the same time as yours, somewhat spoils the desolate vibe and makes it feel a bit more like a theme park imitation.

I get the impression that its already a long way from the very early days - I seem to remember the first "trips" into the zone I read about were a lady on a motorbike?
There are youtube videos of the hospital basement, where workers clothes got dumped - they're still there.
I read somewhere access has been blocked now because there were too many people going down there and the clothes still have a high level of radiation.

Note that the reactions taking place aren't a new thing - as the article mentions they've been going on for decades, what I find interesting is that even the experts are still learning, it doesn't always go the way they thought.

I have watched a fair few videos - including some of people in the reactor hall and the basement rooms where the elephants foot is and the other reactors, don't really feel any need to go there though.

[dukeboy749r]

Venturist said:

dukeboy749r said:

There's a small part of me which would like to go and visit the area.

Yet a bigger part of the brain saying - don't be so bloody foolish.

Do - it’s a fascinating, beautiful and humbling part of the world.
Do it sooner rather than later, the best bits are places you’re not supposed to go - it’s getting gradually busier, and as such it’ll get policed more and more seriously. Plus having other groups of tourists around at the same time as yours, somewhat spoils the desolate vibe and makes it feel a bit more like a theme park imitation.

You’ll get a higher dose of radiation on the flight there than you will from the zone itself.

- amazing isn't it, with regards to the flight versus destination

[dukeboy749r]

flight147z said:

dukeboy749r said:

There's a small part of me which would like to go and visit the area.

Yet a bigger part of the brain saying - don't be so bloody foolish.

I went in 2019, I'd say it's worth a visit if you are in Kiev (it's a full day out). Some of my pictures below

Amazing pictures, thank you

[anonymous-user]

Venturist said:

You’ll get a higher dose of radiation on the flight there than you will from the zone itself.

I'm no physicist, but radioactivity is fascinating. I would have thought you'd probably be safer stood right next to the sarcophagus than near those dodgems.

[paul.deitch]

We went in 2019. Spent a night in the "hotel" in the zone. Very safe as long as you go where you are supposed to. They wack the sensitivity of the monitors you have to wear right up so you are a bit spooked and follow the rules. Definitely go before they clamp down on access to the unsafe buildings where you are "not allowed to go", just keep an eye out for rangers or police.
Absolutely fascinating. After that get a day ticket to the range where you can shoot an AK47 and an anti-tank thingie if they still have any in stock after firing them at the Russians. I drank enough vodka one night that they asked me if I was Ukranian...

[flight147z]

dukeboy749r said:

flight147z said:

dukeboy749r said:

There's a small part of me which would like to go and visit the area.

Yet a bigger part of the brain saying - don't be so bloody foolish.

I went in 2019, I'd say it's worth a visit if you are in Kiev (it's a full day out). Some of my pictures below

Amazing pictures, thank you

Thanks - here are some more

When I was there it certainly didn't feel touristy. I didn't see any other groups there at all once inside Pripyat. I expect it has gotten busier since the HBO documentary got popular but either way it's definitely a unique experience that I'd recommend to anyone

For the most part the radiation isn't too unusual, there are some pockets you can find though just out in the open where the radiation is extremely high (I had a Geiger counter). Inside some of the buildings that have been sealed up it is no doubt much worse

[llewop]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Venturist said:

You’ll get a higher dose of radiation on the flight there than you will from the zone itself.

I'm no physicist, but radioactivity is fascinating. I would have thought you'd probably be safer stood right next to the sarcophagus than near those dodgems.

Looking at the sarcophagus and NSC from that monument in one of the pictures above is probably within UK range, same mostly true around Pripyat, although some bits not to touch. If you went close enough to be right by the sarcophagus gets a bit more toasty.

[anonymous-user]

Does the gamma get through, or is it the level of particles?

[llewop]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Does the gamma get through, or is it the level of particles?

It is gamma at distance, particulates are not really much of an issue unless you go out of your way to drag them up, so dust, fires that sort of thing.

When we were reducing the control/restrictions on the NSC platform there was much speculation and paranoia about particulates etc but we did something like a thousand air samples which made it clear.

[FourWheelDrift]

When you have a place called the "Institute for Safety Problems of Nuclear Power Plants" you know you have serious problems.

[rxe]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Does the gamma get through, or is it the level of particles?

Gamma gets through pretty much anything other than lead or concrete. Aside from shielding, your only protection from gamma is distance - your exposure declines with the cube of the distance from the emitter. So yes, standing next to a big gamma source is really bad.

Strangely, some of the biggest problems are caused by alpha and beta. They’re non-penetrating, you can sit next to a whacking great alpha source, and it might mildly burn the outer layers of your skin, nothing more. You can protect yourself from beta with a thin sheet of aluminium, or in theory, a heavy overcoat. These sound benign, and as long as they stay outside your body, they are. Once they get inside your body, they wreak havoc. Which is why the poster above mentioned dust - if you kick up a load of dust containing alpha emitters, you’ve increased your chances of lung cancer quite materially.

The reason it is safe to travel in there, but not live there, is biological uptake. Iodine 131 is the classic example. There is loads of it in a running reactor, short half life, pretty active. It comes out as a gas and deposits on _everything_. You eat stuff covered in it (or drink milk from cows that have eaten grass covered in it), and you absorb Iodine-131. This is then taken up by your thyroid. It’s only a beta emitter, but emitting from the centre of your thyroid is rather unhelpful.

All of the iodine has gone now, but there is still loads of Caesium-137, which is taken up in preference to calcium by your bones. That will be pretty much all gone in 150 years or so. I would suspect people would be able to move back pretty safely by then.

[llewop]

I'm really sorry, when I read this last night I was determined to not twitch, but it gnawed at me overnight and we are in science corner, so accuracy matters...

rxe said:

Gamma gets through pretty much anything other than lead or concrete. Aside from shielding, your only protection from gamma is distance - your exposure declines with the cubesquare of the distance from the emitter. So yes, standing next to a big gamma source is really bad.

Strangely, some of the biggest problems are caused by alpha and beta. They’re non-penetrating, you can sit next to a whacking great alpha source, and it might mildly burn the outer layers of your skin, nothing more. You can protect yourself from beta with a thin sheet of aluminium, or in theory, a heavy overcoat. These sound benign, and as long as they stay outside your body, they are. Once they get inside your body, they wreak havoc. Which is why the poster above mentioned dust - if you kick up a load of dust containing alpha emitters, you’ve increased your chances of lung cancer quite materially.

The reason it is safe to travel in there, but not live there, is biological uptake. Iodine 131 is the classic example. There is loads of it in a running reactor, short half life, pretty active. It comes out as a gas and deposits on _everything_. You eat stuff covered in it (or drink milk from cows that have eaten grass covered in it), and you absorb Iodine-131. This is then taken up by your thyroid. It’s only a beta emitter, but emitting from the centre of your thyroid is rather unhelpful.

All of the iodine has gone now, but there is still loads of Caesium-137, which is taken up in preference to calcium by your bones evenly distributed throughout the body, were you thinking of radium-226 perhaps?. That will be pretty much all gone in 150300 years or so assuming you are thinking 10 half lives would do it. I would suspect people would be able to move back pretty safely by then.

When I was there we got into checking caesium uptake so can confirm our intakes were lower exposure than the flight there; in fact the guys who had highest intakes were due to what they ate and the scaling factor was where you got your food, not the work or places on site you went. All gone now, fortunately caesium is something we also excrete, it doesn't get locked in like radium.

People have moved back pretty safely already to be honest, some returning locals but also workers stay in the zone for a fortnight a month, but are limited by regulations rather than exposures.