Pripyat

[Jared9903]

Anyone heard of this place?
Huge abandoned city a few miles from Chernobyl
No radiation anymore, but nobody came back.
Looks great for photography!!

[ccbatson]

Is it near Detroit? Sounds like a familiar scenario.

[ccbatson]

I know, it is Flint renamed.

[dfunkycity]

I believe it was in a documentary I saw on Chernobyl a few years back but I can't be certain.

I wouldn't go in there.

[ccbatson]

Only because it is socialist communist territory...however, Flint under Comrade Granholm and now Obama is little different.

[Detroitej72]

I believe it was in a documentary I saw on Chernobyl a few years back but I can't be certain.

I wouldn't go in there.

Nor I.

My question is how can it no longer be contaminated, since it takes years for radiation to break down?

[Jimaz]

There's a chart showing the contamination decay rate at the Wikipedia article for Prypiat [[right side of page). It goes out to 10,000 days which is about 27 years.

There's other interesting info in that article too.

[Jimaz]

Google images of Pripyat.

[dfunkycity]

Nor I.

My question is how can it no longer be contaminated, since it takes years for radiation to break down?

From what I understand, it takes decades and can last thousands of years before radiation clears.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki still register radiation.

The Russian government is probably lying to get the area populated again.

I understand the NYC DEP and EPA also fudged their 9/11 reports on the air hazards at ground zero which is probably why thousands are becoming sick as a result.

Numerous people that were at ground zero have reported cancer and lung conditions.
Hundreds have already died.
A lot of these people just happened to be there and not even involved with the clean up.

I would not trust any government with regards to my health.
The bottom line is money I would venture to guess.
Get people back there to keep the taxes rolling in and when they start dying off make up lies to cover ourselves.

I wonder how many more will die as a result of exposure at ground zero?

[Jimaz]

I think another abandoned city, Hashima Island, has been mentioned here before.

[Lowell]

This tour, while there are now some claims that it is exaggerated, is very interesting nonetheless.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

[dfunkycity]

Very interesting. The documentary I saw on Chernobyl featured a guy that used to ride his bike there all the time.
He was leading the camera crew and host around the town.
I wonder if this is the same person?

[oladub]

Some nice Chernobyl travelogues here contributed by woman cyclist Filatova Elena Vladimirovna.

Sample-

What motivates you to do such a dangerous trips with your bike? If I had to express what I do in Chernobyl in a few words, I'd say, from year to year I only observe how world of materials objects dissolve into nothingness. I documenting my trips because I want to show to the world so obsessed with the frenetic acquisition of material objects where this obsession eventually lead us.
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

[ccbatson]

Why do I get the feeling that this is a subtle anti nuclear power ploy?

[Jared9903]

From what I understand, it takes decades and can last thousands of years before radiation clears.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki still register radiation.

The Russian government is probably lying to get the area populated again.

I understand the NYC DEP and EPA also fudged their 9/11 reports on the air hazards at ground zero which is probably why thousands are becoming sick as a result.

Numerous people that were at ground zero have reported cancer and lung conditions.
Hundreds have already died.
A lot of these people just happened to be there and not even involved with the clean up.

I would not trust any government with regards to my health.
The bottom line is money I would venture to guess.
Get people back there to keep the taxes rolling in and when they start dying off make up lies to cover ourselves.

I wonder how many more will die as a result of exposure at ground zero?

it was actually an American group went there with a Geiger counter.The radiation is there, mostly underground, i assume. What I meant is there is not enough to kill you, or even affect you without drinking the water, which people in Carrizozo, New Mexico have been dealing with due to the Trinity A-Bomb tests, sorry for the confusion!

[ccbatson]

Certainly communist Russia blundered big time. Is that an argument against nuclear power in general? US and French facilities have exemplary safety records.

It is like saying that all professional football teams are incompetent based on the Lions no win season.

[East Detroit]

Exemplary.

Celilo Village
Fermi I
Hanford site
Rancho Seco
Three Mile Island
USS Thresher

[elganned]

There is no such thing as a safe nuclear facility. The law of averages says that, the longer you go without a serious failure, the more certain it becomes and the sooner you should expect it.

This is true for all power generating facilites. However, if a conventional generating plant suffers a worst-case accident, the death toll could reach into the hundreds, perhaps thousands. If a nuclear generating plant suffers a worst-case accident, the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions.

It's not "scare tactics", Cc, it's just simple math. Probability and risk vs. benefit. For nuclear, the probabilities are the same but the risk is too high.

[Detroitej72]

Is that an argument against nuclear power in general? US and French facilities have exemplary safety records.

Arguing with yourself?

[Gannon]

The act of pulling radioactive material from the ground and collecting it for ANY purpose is offensive to the population of the surface of the planet. It should be stopped...already the negative effects have been too great.

[ccbatson]

What rational arguments do you have to justify that conclusion Gannon?

[Gannon]

Anything that poisons humans upon contact is a warning that it shouldn't be bothered in its natural state. We've gone too far. Simple as that. You won't call it rational. I disagree.

I've puzzled over this ever since I first read the stories from the Old Testament about how individuals died when they came into unauthorized contact with the Ark of the Covenant...their hair and skin fell off, a direct reference to nuclear poisoning.

Some creationist scientist once did calculations from the exact building instructions from that Book, and came to some interesting conclusions. I don't remember it all, but there was some speculation about the quantity of gold necessary to contain some nuclear material or something. I took all that and realized there was more to the story than mere mythology.


Again, won't pass your elusive rational thresholds, but I think by now you know what I think of them all.

[ccbatson]

Pure absurdity. Electricity, fire, heavy metals, natural poisons, and on and on...all examples of natural substances that if put in direct contact with a human body will cause serious harm or death. Yet, the advancements to health and quality of life are incalculable.

[Gannon]

We can avoid the troubles with fire, at least those who don't need warning labels on their damn lighters.


As for the rest of 'em? Argument can be made both ways on their supposed benefits.

I even believe that the continent-wide transmission of AC power vibrating at the 8th harmonic of the Earth's EM heartbeat has had significant negative effect on the body's natural sensory perception beyond the big five senses.

Do heavy metals immediately kill? Most natural poisons, too, or do they need to be ingested? Which kill with osmosis through the skin?! Which kill with invisible radiation?!

I dunno, there is more to this discussion...I've not the time to get into it, I've been trying to work, but keep getting distracted!

[ccbatson]

Mercury. Found in CFL bulbs BTW.

At least I see a glimmer of rational realization from you Gannon, based on my rebuttal, I consider that a significant accomplishment.