PC Gamer editor visits Chernobyl

Ratty Sr.

Ratty Sr.

Ratty, except old
Moderator
Orderite
In preparation for his S.T.A.L.K.E.R. preview in the upcoming January 2007 issue of PC Gamer, Chuck Osborn journeyed the radioactive region around Chernobyl. Among the cool things he encountered there are crazed mutant cats and giant mutant catfish of doom:
<blockquote>Geiger the Radioactive Cat (my nickname) was the first animal we’d seen inside the exclusion zone, and its deep, guttural yowl was creepy enough to convince us that it just might be a mutant…if we squinted.</blockquote><blockquote>...my mutant expectations were finally fulfilled when the guide told us that the stream underneath is home to some unusually large catfish, some ranging in size up to a whopping 10 meters. And yes, I saw one of these monsters myself—it wasn’t 10 meters, but it was about the size of a dolphin. It was easily the largest catfish I’d ever seen.</blockquote>You can read the rest of his chronicles (as well as view some photos) here.

Thanks, Ztirom.
 
Nice pics.

Despite all the radiation the cat looked pretty healthy for sovj... russian standards. :D
 
Ah, I always love seeing Chernobyl and Pripyat pictures.

Somehow, it's a gsmall limpse into what the world might look like after the end of human civilisation.
 
so do they eat the fish or is it the opposite?
 
monsharen said:
so do they eat the fish or is it the opposite?
Click to expand...
I read an article about the people living in Chernobyl (related to the 20 years later thing), and they eat everything from the zone, even potatoes and such grown in their own backyard. The only thing they didn't do was to drink the water. Which probably mean they don't eat the fish. But I recall there were some pictures of locals fishing.
 
Well in my OPINION Chernobyl doesn't look like anything that would be, if the civilization ended.

There they actually tried to save people and do something about it. When this bluie (earth) goes to bonkers there will be no shielding concrete walls (added later) or any firefighters helping others. When we are that far ...everybody for themshelf. If you want a example of things gone to hell you can check out the damage and havoc Katrina did. Of course people are helping NOW, but it was quite lame when it was actually going on.

if Chernobyl would have been the end of civilization (or the beginning of it) there would be no shield on the reactor, there would be no memorilia for the brave souls. There would be an open reactor and shitload of radiation, and the cat would have been fried (or mutated into a creepy deathclaw...or not...).

I don't think there is an example of "the end of humankind" simply because there hasn't been such a thing yet. Perhaps the closest thing to a "shit-hit-the-fan" would be the Aztec Empire. We really don't know what will happen, because such a thing hasn't happened yet.
________
COLORADO DISPENSARIES
 
frissy, do you actually think this earth will simply sease to exist & *plop* out of existence? because if not, your explanation makes no sense. there will always be people trying to help, there would always be people trying to evacuate to areas they think are safer. sure, there might not be a concrete sarcofagus over an exposed core of a molten reactor.

but what Sander is actually trying to say (i think) is that it paints a nice picture of nature reclaiming the (poluted) land that the humans have left behind. what a stretch of land might look like when it was abandoned to some humanmade threat making that land unliveable for human beings.

as for the cat being fried thing, that's actually wrong. there is apt evidence that the sarcofagus was really just a shit measure that didn't solve anything. the core had already partially evaporated and the rest had molten through the floor of the room, slowly contaminating the ground (and water).
had the core remained exposed, much of the radiation had been airborne & hence dissipated over a greater area & would therefore NOT cook the cat by default. (although obviously, dangerous buildups of radiation would remain in certain hotspots, much as it still is now)
 
Well you do have a point there, but I think when the shit goes over a certain limit the "help each others" will crash and burn. I don't mean on a personal level, but as in govermental/national (and those are the only ones that actually matter..if you don't count moral issues).

Katrina is a good example of both. They asked for help, got it too late (if the world goes boom...there will be no later). Also immediatley there was people who started raiding and pillaging. It just showed how much trust was given on words "we need help!". I'm not really blaiming them, but when you see a disaster/storm and they are asking for help and you don't give it....what do you think would happen when they yell "World is ending, world is ending! HELP!"

With all this I point to the fact that people tried to do something at Chernobyl. They did take some fires out etc. Perhaps it's not completely a wrong picture of end, but I think the real one would much more Green, or nothing green.

Of course all this debate is pretty useless if we don't have a timeline :)
________
NEW JERSEY MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
 
Yup, that's my vision of the "oh shit" (the one I would believe most). Almost in every "doomsday" scenario you can read/see that plantlife will either thrive afterwards or there won't be anything living for a few hundred decades.

Another version (the non-green) would be oldie-with-goldies:

hiroshima-2f.jpg

________
Alaska medical marijuana
 
SuAside said:
but what Sander is actually trying to say (i think) is that it paints a nice picture of nature reclaiming the (poluted) land that the humans have left behind. what a stretch of land might look like when it was abandoned to some humanmade threat making that land unliveable for human beings.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's exactly what I was trying to say. I'm not talking about what the world would look like when everything is bombed to shit or otherwise destroyed, but about what would happen if humans were to completely leave an area. Ancient examples of this exist all around the globe, really.
 
There was a timeline on http://www.digg.com about what would happen if humans suddenly went *poof*. How long it would take to nature to balance everything and such. It was quite interesting. Shame i can't seem to locate it anymore. It would have been perfect for this thread.

It had everything from buildings to pollution and general human-made things.
________
Vermont medical marijuana dispensary
 
Re: Timeline of events if humans disappeared.

frissy said:
There was a timeline on http://www.digg.com about what would happen if humans suddenly went *poof*. How long it would take to nature to balance everything and such. It was quite interesting. Shame i can't seem to locate it anymore. It would have been perfect for this thread.

It had everything from buildings to pollution and general human-made things.
Click to expand...

It was submitted by a reader some time ago

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,351113,00.jpg

Pretty cool.
Click to expand...
 
Reading the PC Gamer chronicle, I found part of it interesting. He mentioned "planted" items along the path such as the book and a stuffed animal. Do you guys think items are really being placed around to make the area more powerful? What do you think? If they're doing that, is that acceptable or is it like tarnishing a historical monument?
 
In Soviet Russia Stuffed animals Stuff you!

I wouldn't be suprised if they were planted for more of a dramatic affect..

Is it tarnishing a historical monument? Not really Tarnishing.. thats a little much. More like.... 'Improvement'? Seems odd though that they Would accualy plant objects for more affect.. I think the desolate nature of the place is enough.. dont go Adding false crap to something that already explains itself pretty well by Just looking at the surroundings.
 
well, teddy bear ... maybe. but book ? the author is right. there's no chance it would survive that long :S

and i dont think someone would loose it by accident there :P



about morality ... hmmm. i suppose majority of visitors are there for "oh wow, a major disaster. uh oh, what a tragedy ... i wonder when will they make a thriller about it ! " kind of reasons. so then, planted items just make them more happy. plus at some time after the evacuation im sure there were such items on the ground actualy. so it would be more of "refreshing" the area to resemble how it used to look not long after evacuation.
i realy cant say if its okay. for me ... id prefere untouched and unrefreshed sights tho :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top