Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Chernobyl: the next hot tourist destination?
So, would you like to take the trip? What do you think about disaster tourism? Is this similar or different from visiting concentration camps? Do you think that this plan to raise awareness about the continuing problem of the site will work? Also, it seems that the popularity of nuclear power is on the rise because of global warming and other factors. Is Chernobyl an exception because of faulty construction or safety procedures? Or are nuclear power plants more problematic than people seem to think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Firstly I have to stress that the article was very capturing. In some moments I really felt the silence of Chernobyl streets. I Consider this as a feature of well written article and I like that the author is speaking from his own experience now just blindly describing something which he finds interesting without having firsthand knowledge.
ReplyDeleteSecondly there was mentioned comparison with the concentration camp. I think that these two places have common denominator. Common dominator which links these two places is human tragedy. I think the main intention of people who are showing off this tragedy place is to stress the horrendous thing that were done in past to serve as a warning sing. Of course this point is only second before fortune making but let us not be cynical. In my opinion society needs such places to gain experience form past and decrease possibility of such event happening again. The tragedies are not entertaining unless you are some kind of maniac, but they are at least very notoriously popular among people. Chernobyl can be compared to big bad news which has impact on whole manhood. With ability of tourism in this location more people get chance to witness this bad news with their own eyes. Same with Auschwitz, globally known atrocity which attracts people since it is notoriously known.
My only concern is safety of tourists and effect of radiation. Auschwitz does not have many dangers which can directly physically affect people. Only one thing that can affect you there are horrible sings of human nature and the unbelievable inhumanity which can occur when too mooch hate concentrates. On the other hand the Chernobyl has a danger called radiation which is still present from explosion. I was very concerned about tourist safety when I was reading title of this article. But Dmitruk mentioned in article that the effects of radiation are now insignificant. Despite this fact I think that this journey still contains some danger and people should rather rethink their decision when they have some physical problems that can be influenced by radiation. I do not think that Chernobyl should be tourist object such as Bratislava castle, but rather some kind of underground example for the little minority which can experience the atmosphere of modern Pompeii. I am very interested in this idea and I would like to experience the silence of nuclear land and I am looking forward going there in far future.
Mojmir
Generally speaking, disaster tourism is the act of travelling to a disaster area as a matter of curiosity and disaster learning. According to this article, disaster tourism is becoming a phenomenon also in Eastern Europe. Ukraine, an Eastern European country, has over 26 million tourists visiting it a year. These tourists create a great demand for diverse tourist offers. Ukrainian tourist agencies have just recently started offering one day trips to the well known Chernobyl. To be more precise, Chernobyl is the place of the most severe nuclear accident of catastrophic proportions. 24 years after the accident, Chernobyl is becoming a hot tourist destination. This has raised a number of questions. Who is responsible for the explosion?, could the amount of casualties be decreased?, is it safe to live in Chernobyl?. These are the questions that remain unanswered even 24 years after the disaster.
ReplyDeleteTotal casualties of this accident are estimated around 15 000, in comparison, official Soviet figures estimate 40. Not only the short term impact on the region and its inhabitants was devastating. Two decades later ,the accident continues to have a crippling effect on the lives of people throughout the area. Children born in this region have even today high rates of childhood cancer and genetic disorders. These high rates could have been avoided if the approach of the Soviets would have been different. At the explosion day, officials suppressed facts about the explosion, didn’t immediately evacuate towns and villages in the area. In paradox, the whole world new about the threats of a nuclear explosion in Chernobyl, except the ones living in Chernobyl and Pyeptin. People in the area weren’t aware of what has happened, even 2 days after the explosion.
The evacuation of civilians came late. As a result, it left behind several abandoned towns within the exclusion zone. The only inhabitants are scientists who investigate and observe the devastated site, Chernobyl power plant. Except for some individuals, there are no civilians living within the area. Amount of radioactivity in the area is minimal, but it still may be harmful to people. Soil and dust seems to be polluted outmost, making the area a dangerous place to live in. The trips to the area claim to be safe, some visitors are given protective clothing, others a radioactivity detector- Geiger counter. I would argue that it is safe to take the trip. I suspect the tourist agencies of aiming for a great profit out of these trips, while putting the health of tourists in danger. Effects of radioactivity appear just years later, usually in form of cancer. Therefore we will know the answer to this question just years later, when it will be too late .
Evidently, we can see the consequences of a nuclear explosion in this article. High casualties, destroyed power plant, abandoned towns and polluted soil. Fortunately, everything has its positive side. Disaster tourism is one of them, not only it is economically beneficial for Ukraine, it shows and promotes the consequences, that must be avoided towards future. It’s a matter of debate, whether the nuclear power plants are problematic in general, since Chernobyl is the one and only explosion case in our history.
I have to agree with what Mojmir wrote above me about how this is a very well written article. It really sucks you in to the atmosphere and mood of the place. The fact that the author is actually writing about his experience helps it greatly.
ReplyDeleteNow on to the actual topic of the article. In my opinion, the so called disaster tourism isn't really a bad thing. As with concentration camps the site at Chernobyl is a monument of human failure. It is important for people to know and see with their own eyes the places where important events in our history took place. It's the same thing with historical architecture like the Coliseum in Rome. Many people visit these places every year.
However, I’m not entirely sure if a trip to Chernobyl is the safest thing to do. There is a nice quote in the article from a Ukrainian tourist board executive. She says that "It (Chernobyl) is a sleeping lion. And when the lion is sleeping, you don't open the cage." I can quite understand her concern; after all, only 18 years ago it was the site of the world’s biggest nuclear disaster. Even though the reactor was buried in cement there may still be a lot of excess radiation coming from the whole surroundings. Also, the article says that the cement grave of the reactor is falling apart. If this was to happen, the Pandora's Box of radioactive material inside would be once again open to the world. The danger of this is not to be joked about with.
Disaster tourism? I’ve never heard such an expression, but it sure looks interesting. I know quite a lot about Chernobyl disaster, but I didn’t know it is allowed to enter the zone. The whole article is very well written, however they could have mentioned some more information about the actual accident.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a great that people can see a place of one of the biggest nuclear disasters in the world. It shows people the true power of nuclear energy and how extremely dangerous it is. Tourists can see how it changes a whole city and life in the radiated area. It may even push them to start doing something about nuclear power-plants in the world, which are said to be source of “clean” energy, but produce radioactive trash and are of great danger for millions of people in the cities surrounding the area. People should be more aware of the necessary safety rules and regulations which are put on nuclear power-plants so that they can understand how problematic it is to safely produce nuclear energy.
I think that allowing tourists to enter the zone is a great idea and it definitely will raise awareness about the still continuing problem with the radiation escaping. As written in the text there has to be done something so that the crust, which hinders the radiation to escape, doesn’t fall apart and survives for many more years until the radiation is finally lowered to acceptable level.
However I am not quite sure about the safety of the tourists. Being exposed to such level of radiation for the whole trip cannot be healthy. All tourists should wear protective clothing, not only some as mentioned in the text. Radiation might not influence directly your life but it will influence generations after you. The genetic code is changed when your body is exposed to radiation, causing possible healthy difficulties of your kids or their kids. And no person wants their kids to be handicapped.
At first, I think that disaster tourism is really interesting. I would love to go to Chernobyl for a visit or for a school trip. Why not? If we can go to Osviencim for a school trip, we can go to Chernobyl as well. I would like to see the nature sanctuary, as it was written in the article. The land where man has no power over nature. You can see free wild animals and wild plants there. I am really anxious to know what it would look like.
ReplyDeleteThe price for one day visit is not so high at all. One return ticket for one person from Bratislava to Kyjev costs just 55€. One day in Chernobyl costs just £139, it means just 167€. It is approximately half of the Slovak minimum wage. I always thought that such ridiculous tourist attractions are only for the high society, but now almost everyone can afford it.
In the end, I think that place is not dangerous enough to stop tourists from paying for a day in the world’s biggest nuclear power station disaster. Maybe it is why people go there. Because of the danger and the adrenaline it creates. I personally think that nothing so bad can happen to a tourist there nowadays. 24 years old radiation could not have so horrendous effects on health after all.
Tomas
This is a quite old topic. I firstly read about this five or six years ago. In that time my father even considered to go there on a trip, but my mother didn’t allow it. I also find it a good tourist destination.
ReplyDeleteFor me it is easy to explain why Chernobyl is so popular. Tourists go or at least want to go there where something supreme in any kind of parameter is. For example many tourists go to see the tallest building, to dive near the largest coral reef or to visit the largest or oldest church. And Chernobyl is the scene of the world's biggest nuclear power station disaster. It would be a popular tourist destination only becauise of this, but there are many other factors.
Firstly, one day trip to Chernobyl is cheap, safe and easy to obtain. Nowadays you don’t need to bribe the guards or anything else, many tourist agencies sell all-inclusive packages. This removes a great barrier for potential customers. Other important reason why people want to visit Chernobyl is to see the results on their own. People got many different information about the diaster when it happened because Soviet side tried to cover it all up. And nowadays we don’t know even the number of casualties. There is a lot of unknowns and that is why the people driven by their curiosity visit this place.
As I said I consider Chernobyl as an atractive and exciting tourist destination. I would like to visit the place in the future.