Maybe this is a rather well visited subject, but I first became really interested in the abandoned areas of Chernobyl and Pripyat when I saw the now infamous Kidd of Speed website done by Elena Filatova.  I imagine most of you know o this, but basically she claimed that she took her motorbike round the exclusion zone and took a variety of photos of the area.  Apparently it was a fraud to a certain extent, yet in my mind Elena's site became popular that it maybe sparked some interest in the subject.  Since first reading it I've become fascinated by the subject of Chernobyl and the abandoned workers city of Pripyat.

Today I got in a book called Zones of Exclusionripyat and Chernobyl, a large 'coffee table' sized book of photos taken by the professional photographer Robert Polidori, and just flicking through it, it's amazing.  The area has a rather eerie quality to it and while it was a scene of a tragic event, It feels almost like watching a car crash.

Has anyone else got some interest in this, seen Elenas site, got thoughts on the ruined city, what?

There's already a thread in here for it, having been one of those who was out in the rain in New Lanark just after the event.

I've seen the site mentioned and, yes, read the story regarding the less than truthful background. However, I just ignore the narrative and absorb the pictures, since they are nonetheless real, even if the account is something of a fantasy.

Presumably you've followed up all the aerial views available on Google and the rest of the mapping sites, as the area has attracted some of the best of high resolution pics around.

The controversy is equally fascinating, with the scientific community presenting repeatable evidence that the fatalities and after effects of the disaster resulted in fairly small numbers, while the anti-nuclear brigade and similar merchants of doom run around like headless chickens claiming hundreds of thousands of victims. Oddly enough, the affected area, which should be harmful, is reported to have become a haven for wildlife. Even though animals are rather similar to humans, and have stuff like DNA which should be adversely affected by increased levels of radiation, it seems someone forgot to tell them, and they are not running around with umpteen heads and limbs, deformities, or dying out as a result of eating and drinking contaminated food and water. Most odd, as photographers and protesters seem to be able to turn up armies of deformed children in the surrounding area.

There's something not quite right there. I always read articles to determine if they are from a neutral source, or are produced by an individual or group with its own agenda.

Part of my background is quantum physics (yes, seriously, I kid ye not) and the subsequent investigations that have followed this event have introduced new information and findings not previously available, and which challenge a number of established facts, or rather theories, regarding the effects of exposure to radiation, and these will not be resolved overnight. Unfortunately, by contradicting "established" theories, the new work has an uphill struggle against the brethren of the old school.

One thing that is for sure is that they need to get on with that replacement sarcophagus - regardless of who's right, the last thing we need is the current one collapsing while they dither.

The imagery is fantastic, and although the area is supposed to be restricted, there are still people who are prepared to go there and brave the security and the remaining radiation. I saw a new account a few weeks back, and it was fascinating to read the details of the visit under the guidance of an experienced local. Radiation is of course invisible, and even though the photographer had taken his own monitor, he was still amazed at how care had to be taken as it was quite possible to go from a zone where there was little activity, and then discover that moving on just a little further took him into a zone where he could only safely remain for a few minutes - and was able to avoid these with the help of his guide.

One of the memorable aspects is the lack of visitors, which means no interference or souvenir hunters stripping the place. While I don't support the purist that say nothing should ever be removed from a site (removing items from a site to save them from destruction can't be wrong, can it?), I despise those who touch sites when the visit, and waste them for the rest of us that follow. I know sites I have been to have been re-arranged to provide staged pics by later visitors. Pripyat, by contrast, can be seen to be changing as it decays through neglect, and is slowly disintegrating and weathering, both externally and internally. There are a few staged items, but these are usually clearly identifiable.

I think this natural decay is what give the area the eerie quality you refer to.

Well Polidori seems to like to photograph places that have suffered a disaster or are neglected or near abandoned.  He's apparently done books on the aftermath of Katrina among others, so this style of photography seems to be his thing.  One of the photographs is of the control room of the Chernobyl plant.

Regarding the wildlife, while I'm not of the nuclear stare storiy brigade, I wonder if there are long term repurcussions on those species that have returned there.  I don't get why the anti nuclear lot use Chernobyl as their main banner, since the RBMK reactor design apparently wasn't the best, and basically the procedure on site that day were sloppy to say the least.

On the other hand there's been a Hunterston station in Ayrshire since..what the 50's if you trace right back to Hunterston A, and there's been no major incidents.

While I usually praise Russian engineering, their space and nuclear projects don't fall into the same class as their military works. You've probably seen a documentary, filmed some years ago, which visited the remains of their moon landing project, and during which the commentator suggested it was probably a good job the American managed to win the race to the moon, as he filmed details of the Soviet lander, and the presence of what he claimed were nothing more than plumbing fitting used in some parts of the construction.

I'm afraid that rather than being a banner for anti-nuclear campaigners, Chernobyl is probably a better example of everything that was wrong with with the Soviet state, and how writing and reporting accounts that detail what the boss wants to hear might make you "Comrade of the month" for a while, it still ignores the fact that everything reported as being "absolutely wonderful sir" is still falling apart, and will go BANG one day. Oh! it did, didn't it

And most of the folk that had been filing those "good" reports paid the price, and have since died, and been discredited - carrying the can for their glorious leaders.

Going back to the wildlife, while I agree we are really only at the start of this phase, it's worth bearing in mind that the risk arises with each generation, and for the smaller animals, their life-cycle is relatively short, so compared to the larger species (and humans) in relative terms, they're well down the development path if something was going to show up.

There haven't been any major incidents at conventional nuclear plants such as Hunterston - although most folk nowadays are unaware of the fire at Windscale, now that was major, but not in a plant anything like Hunterston. It was a breeder being used to produce weapons grade material, simple, primitive, and mis-handled at the time. The anti-brigade calls "foul" on any reportable event, which actually does them a dis-service, because it means people like me who want to listen and learn now ignore them, considering them to cry wolf at every available opportunity.

You'll know better than me, but Hunterston is subject to endless stories about things such as leukaemia clusters, but these seem to bear little basis in fact when studied. But, then again, I'm forgetting that there's a conspiracy to suppress such information, isn't there, so there wouldn't be any support for such finding in the establishment?

All too much for ma wee heid

Well I lived in Irvine down the coast for about 25 years, and I'm now in Ayr, and if you ask me, while there might be the possibility of some leukemia, whether it's connected to Hunterston is unknown.  You know how the extreme anti-nuclear lobby like to spin things.

Scottish Greens trying to whip up some gloom and despondency:

"The nuclear industry cannot rule out an accident like Chernobyl happening in Scotland."

If a Chernobyl happened at Hunterston (application/pdf 0.1mb )

Map showing what would happen if a Chernobyl-scale disaster was to happen in Ayrshire.

I'm not even bothering to try and fathom out why I was provided with this clip when I searched for Glasgow Zoo footage tonight, but since I was handed the link and it's from 2006, I thought we might as well have at as it's interesting:



There are a few interesting observations worth having a mull over...

The clip includes readings of the radiation levels at various locations. Unfortunately, as there are so many ways to quote radiation levels now, it's difficult to make sense of various numbers quoted. Rather, I'd made a note that they they "simplified" the figure they gave by adding things like "4 times normal" and 44 times normal". Unfortunately, a definition of "normal" can vary depending on who/where you ask. Taking Scotland as an example, our granite ground in some areas means the ground can be more radioactive than a nuclear facility would be allowed to operate with, and would be classified as contaminated if found to contain such a level.

If you follow the news, you'll know that there is much beating of chests and wailing every time a single radioactive particle is found on the beach near Dounreay, and stories follow about how a single particle can get lodged internally, and the radiation can cause an internal cancer at that point within the subject's body. However, if we look at the two chaps shooting the video in Pripyat, they have no gloves or masks on, one smokes (meaning finger to cigarette to mouth contact), and are touching the items in the buildings with their bare hands, and stirring up the dust in areas that have never even received token decontamination.

Ditto their handling of their radiation monitors, which they place on the ground, where they will pick up dust, and maybe...

Oops...

Another spooky Apollo coincidence - no sooner to I post a reference to safety procedures, and somebody at the St Fergus gas terminal provides a handy explosion:

An explosion at a gas terminal has sparked a major emergency services operation.

Fire, police and ambulance crews were called to the St Fergus gas terminal near Peterhead in Aberdeenshire at about 14:00 BST.

A spokesman for terminal operator Total later said it had been a "minor" explosion in a laboratory which had been contained.

Three people working nearby did not require hospital treatment.

While I've been to St Fergus, and passed the place many time - an impressive sight on a pitch black night - it's not somewhere I ever had to go.

Mind you, although I'm well aware that gas has no desire to explode or burn without air or oxygen, the knowledge that the gas coming onshore is being compressed by the power of Rolls Royce jet engine powered compressors is enough to make you pay attention as you pass.

If they'd powered the old foghorns with those instead of steam engines, the North Sea probably wouldn't have stopped until it landed in Murmansk if they'd been sounded!