I think the Chornobyl article is best called Chernobyl. While Chornobyl may be the Ukranian spelling, the usually recognised English spelling of Chernobyl is about 20 times more frequently used, according to a Google search.
So I moved the page. -- Huttite 08:24, 15 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I copied the "Chornobyl" spelling from the Ukraine page. That was against my better judgement; Chernobyl is better. 220.127.116.11 22:12, 15 Jun 2005 (EDT)
On another note, saying that reactor number four exploded is rather emotive and indicates a certain point of view of the writer. It would be more neutral POV to say that reactor number four experienced a steam explosion, containment disruption, graphite moderator fire and reactor core meltdown.
Bad research on my part, if what happened wasn't an explosion. 18.104.22.168 22:12, 15 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Memorial or attraction?
Finally, is this a destination or merely an attraction? Given the historical significance and uniqueness, an article may prove interesting, but should a city template be used? -- Huttite 07:35, 15 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I am not clear on the distinction between the two. I started this after reading a travel article on the subject and was fascinated by it. 22.214.171.124 22:12, 15 Jun 2005 (EDT)
and we are glad you did! Thank you.
For what it's worth the major distinction between an attraction and a destination is answered by the question "do you sleep there". That said I think that [[Chernobyl] should have it's own article anyway, since surely most Wikitravellers would know it by that name rather than the name of the nearest place with a hotel. -- Mark 00:57, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Wow, I'm really digging up old discussions today, aren't I? Anyway, I think this is not an article per Wikitravel:What is an article?. There is no where to sleep, eat, or drink. It should be a "get out" from the nearest town or the usual starting point of the tours. We can have a redirect on Chernobyl and the search engine will get folks to the right page as well... comments? Majnoona 14:02, 1 March 2006 (EST)
Chernobyl turns into a tourist destination because of this unique tragedy. In the last years there has been a high increase in tourists visiting Pripyat. Today you are able to stay overnight in Pripyat. Due to the serious health risks (and the whole area being more or less a military zone) you can't travel individually but guided tours are running. I guess most people would search at wikitravel for Chernobyl but not look in the Kiev section. It's a national tragedy and therefore the place should have an own page here.Jan 07:40, 26 April 2006 (EST)
Ok, I'm willing to be swayed on this one... It seems like it's big & remote enough to be an exception to the 'can you sleep there' rule of thumb. Lots of great info in here btw... nice job everyone! Majnoona 11:29, 26 April 2006 (EDT)
Radiation levels reported wrong
Umm .. there's a bit under "See - Chernobyl reactor 4" that states (quoted):
"Typical dose at the site seems to be about 0.5 - 0.9 micro-Roentgens/hour (winter), slightly higher in the summer."
.5-.9 uR/h is hardly a realistic value, since background radiation in most european cities is between 15 and 30 uR/h. Also, as far as I recall, my dosimeter never showed anything below 1100 uR/h (registered on the roof of the visitors center).
Please, plunge forward and change the article! Especially if you first-hand experience. --Evan 08:51, 7 December 2006 (EST)
I think whoever wrote the article meant milliroentgens/h, not microroentgens/h. I changed it to .5 to .9 milliroentgens/h, which corresponds to 500 to 900 microroengens/h
It should be noted that on most tours, one has to discard ones clothes after visiting chernobyl because there might be radioactive dust on it.
- Not true, at least on my tour in Summer 2012.
The article mention there is a danger of touching hot surfaces. That seems highly unlikely, anyone who can confirm that's true?