It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian wildfires and another Chernobyl event

page: 4
70
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
To those providing their info about Chernobyl, specially the contamination level and effects:

Search other ATS threads about it

There's a lot of em, researchers from all areas still learn a lot from the site, even after so many years. Much of your data is obsolete, out dated or nothing less of a hoax. The issue is complex and no one yet knows HOW dangerous the place is, just like we only now know (more like scratch the surface) just how dangerous US nuclear tests were. Not only we knew little about it but were misinformed as well. There is a lot of misinformation going around anything with "nuclear" in it. Animals flourishing there, people walking, even riding bikes, "safe" zones, etc. are all very questionable. This is simply because the smallest effects of radiation itself are long-term and not so obvious to our short, temporary and ill-funded studies. Also count the fact that Ukraine has a very (and I mean very) corrupt government which does not stress itself with Chernobyl whatsoever except allowing foreigners to do their studies.

The only good thing about it IMO is that the MAN will not set his corrupt foots on that land for a very, very very long time, making a safe heaven for wolves, foxes and bobcats who learned to use it
.

And I agree completely with the OP, if fire reaches this region, damage would be terrible. As I already said, it is literally the most important wild life refuge in Europe and it doesn't seem like its freedom, peace and harmony will be long lasting.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by SassyCat]




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
How sad this whole event took place. The fires most likely will stir up radioactive dust, and it will probably get spread around even more. Who really knows how far it could travel. This is Probably a global event, at least at some level.

250,000 year HALF LiFE! Holy @#!!

I feel badly for the people and wildlife that have to live so near this place, but I can offer no solutions.

For what its worth, we have had a recent photovoltaic break thru, that could help us generate the power we need.

news.stanford.edu...



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Google Video Link


I've said all along that nuclear energy is a bad idea.

This proves my point.

We need clean energy - nuclear, like oil and coal is dirty and dangerous.


Google Video Link


[edit on 7-8-2010 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
There is still high values of the radioactive residues from Chernobyl in accumulating organisms such as mushrooms as far north as Scandinavia. The radioactivity doesn't go away, it is only thinned/spead more out as time goes by.

A few years ago it was reported that old kelp around the Norwegian coast was so contaminated by radioactive isotopes from the British Sellafield plant that it exeeded European standard limits for safe food several times. And what did the Norwegian government do?? The Norwegian minister of environment just wrote a letter to the British government and nothing happened. The current government has as their successors done less (=nothing). And what does the British government do?? NOTHING... It doesn't contaminate them so they apparently doesn't care if someone else get their radioactive isotopes....

Unlike the possibilities of further spreading of radioactivity to the world from the wildfires reaching Chernobyl, the British Sellafield leaking to the North Sea basin is preventable.

Every radioactive contamination is accumulative and comes on top of each other. All around the world there is radioactive residue from nuclear radioactive testing. On top of that the Chernobyl accident delivered an additional layer of radioactivity around the entire world. Various nuclear facilities worldwide, both civilian and military, adds even more radioactivity to the air and water systems. Depleted uranium (DU) ammunition contaminates entire regions. Everything ends up in our own food chain, and it doesn't matter where you live. We are everyone more or less equally affected.

Add to that all the plutonium that is inside all the military ships and submarines patroling the seas. Not just the missiles on board, but all are in regards floating Chernobyls with their reactors. If there ever should be a war and only one of these ships should be hit and sunk, we all loose.
And if this isn't enough think of all these nuclear powered sattelites that surround us. They have enough plutonium onboard to kill off all life on earth several times. Sattelites do as all machinery malfunction in the end of their lifespan. It's not nice to have a plutonium (dirty bomb) burning up when entering the atmosfere.

A war doesn't solve anything, we all loose. As of present we hasn't done anything with the sins of WWII and it's aftermath. We can't handle any kind of hazardous waste from the past, and we are incapable of handling our current waste. How can we cope with yet another nuclrear catastrophe?

After the war, enormous amounts of different kinds of german nerve gas was dumped in different locations in the Baltic and the North Sea, and even in various places in the Norwegian fjords. We have the most advanced technology to reach the moon and even working at enormous depths, but we do nothing with the highly toxic dumping we made in the aftermath of the last war. Fishermen do regularily receive damages from german mustard gas when working in and around the North Sea. And we do nothing. The german submarine U-864 containing 65 tons of Mercury was sunk outside the Norwegian coast in a place named Fedje. It was a part of the german operation Caesar at the end of the war to supply Japan with military equipment and information. The sinking of U-864 might have been central, and in the same operation the better known U-234 with 560 kilogram uranium oxide left Europe for Japan in March 1945. It surrendered to the USA. Upon reaching Portsmouth Navy Yard May 19, the crew was imprisoned and the U-234 emptied of its cargo. During the following interrogations of the crew members, it was stated that the U-234 was sent as a replacement of the U-864. The cargo of U-234 was a highly protected secret and there is a strong possibility that also the U-864 had uranium.


I sinceerly hope the wildfires doesn't cause more damage to the Chernobyl sarcophagus, and that the wildfire threat will wake up people and governments around the world to work for a cleaner world.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I find it interesting that the most forward thinking and cost effective method of containment put forward so far is a replacement shell around the decaying metal sarcophagus.
In my view the evident continuing radioactive decay inside the sarcophagus would be better tapped than feared. There are new methods in terms of nuclear batteries which might provide a more cost effective and proactive approach to this admittedly thorny issue.

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread508602/pg1

Now obviously the battery mentioned in the thread I have linked to, is very small, but the capture technique could be upscaled I believe to encompass the area covered by the sarcophagus, and perhaps to cover even the sarcophagus itself, admittedly at a higher cost. The basic principle of the batteries as outlined is a silicone layer with a great many tiny holes in it, capable of capturing the energy emitted by the radiation, and turning it into electricity. If the comparision to the battery proves scientificaly valid, or the technology could be adapted to fit the circumstance, they could use this disaster zone to produce power... assuming plutonium is as useful as the radioactive source in the batteries I linked too... Its worth a thought at any rate.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by rufusdrak
 

what a bullsh#t.
maybe, you would tell that crap to wildfires, dostn't thou?
moreover, modern Russia is, historically, a part of ancient Kiev Russia; Ukraine & Russian langs have common Ancestor.



Secondly, contrary to popular belief and myth, Chernobyl never actually "blew up" in the nuclear sense. There was never a nuclear reaction, i.e. it didn't act like an atom bomb and "explode". If it exploded in that way, the Chernobyl factory and the city near which it was based would not exist to this day.

Brilliant expression




The only thing that happened is huge amounts of steam/pressure blew the lid off of the reactor and thus made all the controlled radioactive fuel go all over the place and contaminate the crap out of everything.

ans me, please, how pressure could had been raised there, what is prime reason for?


[edit on 7-8-2010 by SarK0Y]

[edit on 7-8-2010 by SarK0Y]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Thank you for replying - I will try also to find a map, info on the fires today.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
There are pretty much no trees for hundreds of meters all around the plant. I would be more concerned about trees releasing absorbed radioactive elements into the atmosphere if burned. You can view the plant on Google Earth, or Google Maps. Click this for google maps view of it.

As far as the how bad it was....


The immediate health impact of the Chernobyl accident was acute radiation sickness in 237 emergency workers, of whom 28 died in 1986 and a further 19 died between 1987 and 2004. The long-term consequences of the accident remain uncertain.

The IAEA, in its 5 September 2005 press release “Chernobyl: The True Scale of the
Accident” stated that up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from
Chernobyl. This figure has been quoted extensively by the world media. However the
statement is misleading, as the figure calculated in the IAEA/WHO report is actually 9,000 fatalities.



Depending on the risk factor used (ie the risk of fatal cancer per person sievert), the
TORCH Report estimates that the worldwide collective dose of 600,000 person sieverts
will result in 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths, 7 to 15 times the figure release in
the IAEA’s press statement.

The Other Report On Chernobyl.


Some other reports say that an order of magnitude less people will be affected, but knowing this is ATS I'll just post the TORCH report which is probably the most pessimistic scientific estimate out there.


Originally posted by sodakota
Chernobyl may not be as contaminated as you think.

Here's my favorite website on Chernobyl.

Kiddofspeed - GHOST TOWN - Chernobyl Pictures -
Elena's Motorcyle Ride through Chernobyl


She rode her motorcycle into Chernobyl and took pictures. It is really amazing, and reading her story as she narrates the pictures is fascinating.


It's fake. She went on a tour with a guide through 'the zone' wearing a leather jacket, then took photos of herself on a bike outside of the zone. Basically she preyed on peoples ignorance of Chernobyl, to get fame. The pictures are real, though. Anyway, the Zone actually has significant amounts of looters, and you can book tours. I'm probably going to go in a few years.


The author of a blog that I regularly visit posted pictures of the sarcophagus, as well as inside the power plant itself.


*PICTURE* Control room of Chernobyl NPP Unit 1 *PICTURE*

*PICTURE* These gauges indicate position of control rods in the active zone. Black boxes are neutron flux indicators. *PICTURE*

*PICTURE* These are the controls for some of the many control rods in the RBMK. You hold down the appropriate button and use the joystick on the left to move them in or out of the active zone. *PICTURE*



Was Chernobyl an unprecedented ecological disaster zone? Definitely not. The radiation levels in the vast majority of the exclusion zone are now quite low--so much so, that our guide, Maxim, told us that he expects that the 30km zone will be opened up within another few years and that only the 10km zone will remain. There are, however, some significant hot spots in the 10km zone. The hottest place we ever got to in Pripiat was .25 rem/hr; but that was highly unusual. I think the usual level is a millirem/hr or less. Even in places near the sarcophagus it's many orders of magnitude lower than that. For instance, at the place I'm standing in this picture the ambient exposure is 2 millirem/hr:

*NOTE: The average person will be exposed to 300 millirem of radiation per year. A chest X-ray is 6 millirem. 15,000 ionizing radation particles are hitting you each second, from natural source.




*PICTURE* near sarcaophagus *PICTURE*

However, according to a map we saw in the plant, the roof and part of the grounds on one side of the sarcophagus have exposure levels of up to 1.5 rem/hr. While that would take quite awhile to kill you outright, it's a serious workplace hazard and must make the life of the Novarka employees who are building the new sarcophagus very interesting...



Here's a link.
sovietologist.blogspot.com...


Also, I assume this thread is not about the merits of Nuclear Energy, so I won't bother comparing the reactor type to western types. If anyone wants me to, then fine, but don't expect the response to the popular.


The whole series is a good depiction of how close the world actually came to destruction according to a couple of friends of mine that were part of the IAEA investigation of the event at the time.

I'm not exactly sure how Chernobyl could of possibly been worse? It was pretty much the worst accident that could of possibly happened, handled by the authorities in the worst possible way.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 

de facto, we have tech deadline because of:
1. current tech cannot solve problems of our days as well;
2. moreover, current tech is potential/actual danger for human being;
3. we cannot give up our tech possibilities, & go to live in forest due to different causes.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

I'm not exactly sure how Chernobyl could of possibly been worse? It was pretty much the worst accident that could of possibly happened, handled by the authorities in the worst possible way.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by C0bzz]


No it was handled very well actually.

If they had not drained the reservoir under the reactor fuel in time, and even a small amount of the 'magma' had seeped through, it would have caused a massive steam explosion.

This would have thrown the radioactive materials for extremely far distances and turned the situation into a serious mega-disaster. (If it wasn't already bad enough to be classified as that).

Here is some information on Wikipedia about how this extremely dangerous possibility was avoided by the heroic Russian team whom sacrificed their lives to save the rest of us.


en.wikipedia.org...


The pools and the basement were flooded because of ruptured cooling water pipes and accumulated fire water. They now constituted a serious steam explosion risk. The smoldering graphite, fuel and other material above, at more than 1200 °C,[45] started to burn through the reactor floor and mixed with molten concrete that had lined the reactor, creating corium, a radioactive semi-liquid material comparable to lava.[44][46] If this mixture had melted through the floor into the pool of water, it would have created a massive steam explosion that would have ejected more radioactive material from the reactor. It became an immediate priority to drain the pool.


And then the danger of the magma seeping through to the water table became a real possibility.


With the bubbler pool gone, a meltdown was less likely to produce a powerful steam explosion. To do so, the molten core would now have to reach the water table below the reactor. To reduce the likelihood of this, it was decided to freeze the earth beneath the reactor, which would also stabilize the foundations. Using oil drilling equipment, injection of liquid nitrogen began on 4 May. It was estimated that 25 metric tons of liquid nitrogen per day would be required to keep the soil frozen at −100 °C.[53] This idea was soon scrapped and the bottom room where the cooling system would have been installed was filled with concrete.


But really just go read the whole section at the Wiki article.

So YES, it could have got WAY WORSE real FAST. Thankfully they did prevent it from escalating to that.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Thanks.

Usually western reactors have 2 or more Emergency Core Cooling Systems, newer French types have 4 (iirc, not one has ever failed when called upon, ever). Anyway, if all 2, 3 or 4 of these cooling systems fail, then the reactor operators are instructed to flood the reactor compartment. If the fuel melts through the 5 inch steel pressure vessel (may or may not happen, depending on situation) then the debris hit the water, instantly cooling and solidifying. The containment vessel (the big dome around all our reactors) has to be able withstand the resulting steam, and contain the almost all of the radioactive materials.

Surprising how much different they did it with them Soviet reactors... I guess they didn't have the containment vessel, so the steam explosion would make the situation much worse by scattering all the debris.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
to clarify a few misconceptions.


Hi ufusdrak, thanks for replying. I need to comment on your analysis of these misconceptions.


firstly

Chernobyl is in Ukraine, NOT Russia. Ukraine is a completely different country with their own language, government, and history. For people to think Chernobyl is in Russia is the equivalent of someone saying Dallas is in Mexico.


If you’ll remember, Chernobyl, at the time, was in the USSR, governed by Russia and didn’t become independent until 1991. That is why Chernobyl was/is a Russian problem and not at all like saying Dallas is in Mexico.


Secondly, contrary to popular belief and myth, Chernobyl never actually "blew up" in the nuclear sense. There was never a nuclear reaction, i.e. it didn't act like an atom bomb and "explode". If it exploded in that way, the Chernobyl factory and the city near which it was based would not exist to this day.

The only thing that happened is huge amounts of steam/pressure blew the lid off of the reactor and thus made all the controlled radioactive fuel go all over the place and contaminate the crap out of everything. Yes the steam explosion itself was violent enough to blow off the lid and kill a bunch of people. But Chernobyl in no way shape or form suffered a nuclear explosion otherwise there would be no talk of a "sarcophagus" to cover the building because no building nor no town of Pripyat would exist, and many many more people would have lost their lives from it.


There were a series of explosions. The reactor vessel was breached in the first explosion (your massive steam pressure explosion) and exposed to air, which ignited the reactor moderator which sent the radioactivity (contamination at this point) straight up into the atmosphere. This plume reached the U.K. and France. Yes, not a nuclear bomb but definitely a nuclear explosion. Think of it as an upside down nuclear bomb where the contamination is widespread but the explosive damage is in the atmosphere not on the ground and the delivery methods are different.

The big difference though, in my mind, is the fact that, unlike a nuclear bomb situation like Hiroshima, there remains today as much nuclear material inside the sarcophagus as there was on day one.


Lastly, I have read numerous reports that animals are not only spotted all over Chernobyl but are thriving there. Don't know if that means that reports of the deadliness of the area are exaggerated, or just proof of the resilience of nature and animals. But to my knowledge all sorts of forest creatures live there and are doing fine.


I don’t think that anyone is saying that the area is deadly, at least in the immediate. Yes, wildlife has returned after being exterminated by the Russians in the months following the Chernobyl disaster. But, the wildlife is not the same, it can’t be. These animals are eating contaminated food and one cannot expect that they would be the same. However, I am not an expert on flora and fauna but I did find this wikipedia article:


Barn swallows sampled between 1991 and 2006 both in the Chernobyl exclusion zone had more physical abnormalities than control sparrows sampled elsewhere in Europe. Abnormal barn swallows mated with lower frequency, causing the percentage of abnormal swallows to decrease over time. This demonstrated the selective pressure against the abnormalities was faster than the effects of radiation that created the abnormalities. "This was a big surprise to us," Dr. Mousseau said. "We had no idea of the impact."[20]

It is unknown whether fallout contamination will have any long-term adverse effect on the flora and fauna of the region, as plants and animals have significantly different and varying radiologic tolerance compared with humans. Some birds are reported with stunted tail feathers (which interferes with breeding). There are reports of mutations in some plants in the area, leading to unsubstantiated tales of a "forest of wonders" containing many strangely mutated plants. Specifically, some trees have weirdly twisted branches that do not reach for the sky.[22] The Chernobyl area has not received very much biological study, although studies that have been done suggest that apparently healthy populations may be sink instead of source populations; in other words, that the apparently healthy populations are not contributing to the survival of species.[23]

Using robots, researchers have actually retrieved samples of highly melanized black fungus from the walls of the reactor core itself. It has been shown that certain species of fungus, such as Cryptococcus neoformans and Cladosporium, can actually thrive in a radioactive environment, growing better than non-melanized variants, implying that they use melanin to harness the energy of ionizing radiation from the reactor.[24][25][26]p/ex]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
I've said all along that nuclear energy is a bad idea.

This proves my point.

We need clean energy - nuclear, like oil and coal is dirty and dangerous.


I hope the fact that I posted this thread doesn't give the perception that I am against nuclear energy. I am not. There was a lot done wrong at Chernobyl, in both the design and operation of the facility. I believe that nuclear energy is clean and safe.

I also don't want to take this thread off-topic by this comment, I just wanted to make my position on this clear.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Usually western reactors have 2 or more Emergency Core Cooling Systems, newer French types have 4 (iirc, not one has ever failed when called upon, ever). Anyway, if all 2, 3 or 4 of these cooling systems fail, then the reactor operators are instructed to flood the reactor compartment. If the fuel melts through the 5 inch steel pressure vessel (may or may not happen, depending on situation) then the debris hit the water, instantly cooling and solidifying. The containment vessel (the big dome around all our reactors) has to be able withstand the resulting steam, and contain the almost all of the radioactive materials.

Surprising how much different they did it with them Soviet reactors... I guess they didn't have the containment vessel, so the steam explosion would make the situation much worse by scattering all the debris.


That's exactly right and exactly the reason why Three Mile Island didn't have a result like Chernobyl.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
This is a good sign, although it also leads one to believe that they believe the fires could go that way. This article is from yesterday.

Russia struggles against spreading wildfires


Shoigu said the emergency services were working flat out to prevent the fires spreading to a region in western Russia where the soils are still contaminated by the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe of 1986 in neighbouring Ukraine.

"We are painstakingly controlling the situation in the Bryansk region. If a fire appears there, the radioactive particles could fly away with the smoke and a new polluted area could appear."



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
this article seems to reference a new stadium sized shelter to be completed in 2008:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

was this never built?

or was it?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


I agree. I've known, how badly this ENTIRE REGION, was poisoned, FOREVER. I thought, that the "sarcophagus", was concrete, though? If they put steel, over the dumped concrete, why not dump LOTS more, concrete over the decaying steel? I'm just a mechanical engineer- but, that would seem to be the safest, cheapest, way to go. Drop thick concrete, from heavy-lift helicopters. This time, remember to have the crews wear GOOD air filters, though!!
When I think of ALL the men that died, trying to protect others, and WHAT COULD STILL HAPPEN- it scares the crap, out of me.
Chernobyl- a good example, of how NOT to build a nuclear reactor. (I am a nuclear power fan. I just think, they need VERY close monitoring!)



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Ahhhh... honest debate, about nuclear power. How refreshing!!
Yes- the SOVUNION, cut costs, and safety, to the bone. The result- no-one knows, how many will die. Thousands, already. Perhaps, millions?? I do not know.
I DO KNOW, that there ARE safe ways of doing it- the USA, ANS ESPECIALLY France, have good track records. France, gets 80% -YES, EIGHTY PERCENT, of it's electricity, from nukes!!!!
If politicians in the USA had NOT buckled-under to nut-case, non-educated "greenies", WE would not have our present shortage, of power.
"Stupidity, has no limits".



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigil23
this article seems to reference a new stadium sized shelter to be completed in 2008:


Yes, that is when the new shelter was supposed to be completed. I've heard it's somewhere around 10 years behind schedule. However, of course, when looking around web, in general, and the IAEA website, I can find no schedule status documents... can't actually have accountability, you know.
Governments and international agencies are very good at planning things...



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 




First of all, despite being in the Soviet UNION, Ukraine was still its own country with an independent culture and language. Do you know what USSR stands for? UNION of Soviet Socialist REPUBLICS. Do you know what a republic is?

Republic definition 1: An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.

Yes Ukraine is and was its own country, in a UNION dominated by an umbrella country which was Russia.

I'm not saying Russia did not have involvement in Chernobyl as I'm sure Russia administered a lot of the goings on there, but the simple fact is that the power plant is in UKRAINE not Russia, period.



On the 2nd point, you are wrong. No nuclear explosion ever took place at Chernobyl PERIOD. A steam explosion (over heated steam/water) blew the 2000 ton lid off of the reactor right through the roof. Yes this was a powerful explosion enough to blow 2000 tons apart. But it was not nuclear.
Yes there was a second explosion that no one is really sure about today but the closest that scientists come to describing it is a "nuclear excursion" which is no where close to an explosion, it is simply the fission reaction that was already under way in the reactor began reacting much hotter since the control rods were no longer in place or working due to the initial explosion blowing them up, damaging them etc. However it was not a nuclear "explosion" because if that occurred, all the nuclear fuel would have undergone a fission reaction and thus "exploded" into a hiroshima-like event, however most of the nuclear fuel is still right there in the reactor to my knowledge and never exploded. Like I said, even the world's tiniest nuclear bomb would absolutely level the entire reactor complex. The main reactor building was never even destroyed (entirely), this is the most obvious proof that no nuclear explosion occurred.


And lastly, if you ask me the effects of Chernobyl are greatly exaggerated anyway. Someone said that woman who went to Pripyat is fake. Are you kidding me? There are guided tours that you can pay for and go to Pripyat yourself probably a mile or two away from the reactor and you are fine there with only slightly elevated but still safe levels of radiation. The only truly DEADLY zone is going within a few feet of the reactor itself or INSIDE of it.

Ofcourse even staying in Pripyat for many days/weeks etc I'm not arguing that is not dangerous as the levels are still elevated, but many people exaggerate the effects. You can be very close relatively speaking to Chernobyl and still be fine for the most part. There have even been films shot in Pripyat for pete's sake where all the actors were within a couple miles from the reactor and they were fine. Let's not exaggerate things, there are dozens of sites on the internet where people have gone to Pripyat and taken pictures and they are all fine.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join