Chernobyl

[robobond]

I recently read this in an article about Chernobyl:  ""The accident had a disastrous impact on life, health and the environment in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and prompted fear and concerns in other nations of the world about the effects of radiation," said IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei looking back at 1986."  

Obviously, all of the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia cannot be entirley avoided by the outside world!  As it relates to finding a RW, are there any specific areas/cities that an AM should stay away from?  Has anyone found a general map of the affected areas?  Does anyone have any info on Sumy, Ukraine and the various agencies operating from there?  Etc.  Any background info and/or experiences would be greatly appreciated.

Thx

[time4achange]

... in response to Chernobyl, posted by robobond on Sep 27, 2002

My ex-girlfreind told me that she was evacuated from the area shortly after the accident as were most of the young children, at least that is what she told me.   There is some information if you search around describing some 'hot' spots or remaining contamination, water and such, don’t know how reliable.  

My feeling is that car exhaust and fumes from poorly running vehicles is what is causing alot of risk these days really ..

[Rags]

... in response to Chernobyl, posted by robobond on Sep 27, 2002

When I was in Kyiv (9/5 to 9/18) the local news was reporting that people should keep their children indoors because the smoke from peat fires burning in northern Ukraine and southern Belarus had increased the background radiation by 2.5 times. Not knowing what the background radiation level is leaves the actual danger in doubt. Knowing the sensationalism that goes on in the reporting of the "news" over there, it was just a slow news week OR they are actually getting bum info from the government and it is probably 200 times more than reported.

At any rate, the dangers of radiation continue to exist and the areas affected change continuously. In the case of smoke born particulates you never know which way the wind will blow. Peat fires burn for years even under several feet of snow.

That said, would anybody think twice (of course most on this Board would but that is not the point that I am trying to make) about whether they should date a woman from Silicone Valley (carcinogens in the ground water), St. Louis (dioxin), central Colorado/New Mexico/Arizona (nucular waste), or New York/Detroit/Chicago/Pittsburg (toxic waste dumps). There are enviromental concerns in almost everyone background but this should not nesecarily preclude starting a relationship with someone.

[Del]

... in response to Chernobyl, posted by robobond on Sep 27, 2002

[This message has been edited by Del]

This message was deleted

[Del]

... in response to Chernobyl, posted by robobond on Sep 27, 2002

the more experienced hands simply ensure that they go for a walk late in the evening with their lady.

If you take care to walk away from the City Centre and maybe through a park (there are many nice parks throughout Ukraine) you will most likely pass through an area with little light.

Be somewhat observant in these areas.

If your lady emits a greenish glow, then you can be assured that she has suffered some effects of Chernobyl.

[Cold Warrior]

... in response to As it relates to finding a RW........., posted by Del on Sep 28, 2002

One lady I met in Kiev glowed RED in the dark. ( but that was after an intimate moment).

[Quasimoto]

... in response to Chernobyl, posted by robobond on Sep 27, 2002

I think it would be easy to exaggerate it's effects on areas as far away as Minsk, or Kyiv for example. Sumy is northwest of Kharkov, or north of Poltava, I believe. The radiation was never blown in that direction from what I have read. My wife's mother sent Tanya and her brother to Kharkov the day she learned of the accident (which I think was the 2nd day), just so they would be safe.

I saw a program, in Russian while I was there, of old people moving back into their homes in Belarus, inspite of government closure and restrictions. I think they started doing this this year. They showed scientists with geiger-counters reading the RADs in these areas. They still weren't safe, and had fairly high readings. The old people said they didn't care, "it was their only home, and they had no where else to go". It was pretty pathetic, as many of the old women had rickets, and were bow-legged. I guess that was a nutrition during the WWII and Stalinist eras.

I just looked at the maps Don1 referred to. If you look at the map in the middle of the second row, on the extreme right and middle, you will see Sumy. It is spelled like Cymbl. You will see no impact shown. Great maps Don1.

Everything unusual in life is blamed on Chernobyl. Jokingly of course! Tanya wears about a 9.5 W shoe, but is only 5'5.5" tall. She blames her slightly large feet on - "you understand that I am a daughter of Chernobyl!"

Steve

[don1]

... in response to Chernobyl, posted by robobond on Sep 27, 2002

Here's a map link showing areas affected by the Chernobyl accident fallout : http://greenfield.fortunecity.com/flytrap/250/atlaseng.html

Areas in the Ukraine north of Kiev and areas in the southeast ( Gomel ) region of Belarus would seem to warrant consideration . Try a word search using 'Chernobyl' or 'Chernobyl maps ' and you'll likely get some of the older declassified CIA maps . I haven't seen any more recent or up to date maps with radiological survey data , most of the maps I've seen on the internet are pretty much focused on the accident and immediately thereafter . So how does that apply to AM/RW considerations ? Opinions vary , here's mine : The map areas showing the higher concentrations of fallout materials at the time of the accident and immediately following the accident should be avoided IMHO . While a great deal of the ( radiologically )shorter-lived stuff has died off ; and while a great deal of these areas have been decontaminated to some extent , they should still be avoided . Outlying areas , adjacent areas , areas not heavily affected initially would probably be OK . While this might tell you what you need to know as far as AM/RW considerations go , if you stumble across anything that shows current rad levels or contamination levels in these areas I'd be interested in seeing it . Gomel and some parts of the Briansk region still have some travel restrictions ; any areas that showed higher concentrations initially should still be considered 'off limits' as far as AM/RW considerations go IMHO .

I spent a fair amount of time looking into this a while back when trying to decide which women to correspond with . Once I found out that my interests were outside of the affected areas , my research into the chernobyl accident tapered off...........
Hope the map link helps , good luck in your search
Don

[Oscar]

... in response to Re: Chernobyl, posted by don1 on Sep 27, 2002

Seems to me from a cursory look at the maps, that the the nuclear station was at or at least near the Dnipro river.  That river runs the entire length of Ukraine all the way to the Black Sea.  Wouldn't a lot of that radiation affect the water, fish etc??  It runs through many large cities in Ukraine- Kiev, Cherkassy, Kremenchug, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia and lastly Kherson I believe..

[don1]

... in response to But what about the water!  The Dnipro ri..., posted by Oscar on Sep 28, 2002

Here's another link with some good information on the Chernobyl fallout :
http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/welcome.html
This address takes you to the NEA report table of contents; click on 'Chapter VI. Agricultuaral and Environmental Impacts' . Scroll down till you hit 'Water Bodies' ; that will give you detailed and specific info on what you're asking about - the amount of contamination that ended up in neighboring bodies of water and its' effects on the local populations .
There was significant initial fallout to the bodies of water described ( Pripyat, Uzh, Dniepr, etc ) .However , the largest part of the initial release consisted of Xenon, Krypton , other noble gases , and radioiodines . These isotopes have a relatively short half-life ; typically hours or days . The isotopes that remain , those with longer half-lives such as Cesium and Strontium , are the isotopes that are of concern now , years after the initial accident and release .
And if you look at the quantities of these isotopes of concern , as measured in the report's 1989 surveys , the levels are roughly 0.05 - 0.4 Bql/L ; while this is still much higher than normal and easily measurable , it is not a significant health risk to the drinking water for the people using the Kanev , Kiev , and Kremenchung resevoirs .
There's some good information and good reading in some of the other chapters in the report link ; hope this helps .
Don

[Quasimoto]

... in response to But what about the water!  The Dnipro ri..., posted by Oscar on Sep 28, 2002

Again,

I think you are exaggerating the impact! I am not a nuclear scientist, so if anyone here can help, I would suggest they pipe in and I stand corrected. But from what I remember, 95% of the radiations impact is gone within 3 days. However, that 95% is very toxic and deadly. Then, the remaining 5% can be a long term health hazzard. Now, the Dneipro. Cesium-137 I believe is the main radioactive ingredent. If you think about it, the runoff water is funneled from a large land mass, which is dilluted by a really huge river. Most of the drainage of the Dneipro was little affected. Isolated spots were highly affected. But the greater part of this was over a few days period. I doubt if you sampled the Dneipro's waters, you would find any significant measurable radiation now, or even a week after Chernobyl. Though I still believe there are probably traces, but immesurable.

Belarus in certain areas, and around Chernobly in Ukraine, west and sw of Chernobyl, sw tip of Russia near Belarus and Ukraine, you might worry about. Water that flows through Sumy has nothing to do with the 3 "main" branches feeding the Dneipro, which I believe join north of Kyiv. For example, the Desna, a tributary joining near Kyiv, had almost no real radiation effects. In terms of water flow, the Dneipro or Dneiper is the 3rd largest river in Europe. South of Kyiv, there are even more tributaries.

But overall, I think polution is a bigger issue than radiation.  The Dneipro is fairly polluted, but there are a lot of fish in it. So that is an inicator of contamination of all types. Although, I have heard they are catching minnows weighing up to 80 kg, or about 175 lbs, if that means anything?

While I was last there, I believe 2 tons of mercury were spilled "accdiently" into the river, in Kyiv. The government denied it, until a US lady scientist proved it through water samples. At that time, the government said, yes there was a spill, but 2 tons is insignificant. Liars!

Steve

[don1]

... in response to Re: But what about the water!  The Dnipr..., posted by Quasimoto on Sep 28, 2002

You're correct about the Chernobyl fallout's effects on the Dneipr and other bodies of water . While the initial fallout was significant , a lot of it consisted of short-lived isotopes . Also , the river ecosystems helped to dilute the fallout materials and reduce the level of their health hazard significantly . A lot of the material initially released that fell into water bodies ended up being deposited in the river bed sediments.
The concerns now are with the longer-lived isotopes that remain , and how long it will take these contaminants to work their way into the water table .
I would also say that I agree with you , that the biggest hazard for these bodies of water is from industrial contaminants, not from the Chernobyl accident . Pollution is a much bigger issue than radiation .

Don

[NW Jim]

... in response to Chernobyl, posted by robobond on Sep 27, 2002


http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/chornobyl_radiation96.jpg