# How Dangerous Is It To Visit Chernobyl Today? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 15, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779 "2010-11-15T20:57:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/1 "2010-11-15T20:57:06Z")
I am confused-you read reports of people driving through Chernobyl, and wildlife is returning to the abaondoned areas. If you were to drive up to the reactor building, how long would it take to get a lethal radiation dose? How much of the radioactive fallout (that contaminated the area) has decayed away by now? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/2 "2010-11-15T21:24:37Z")
Here are some data from last year: [chernobylee.com](http://www.chernobylee.com/blog/2009/06/chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant.php) > [@](#): > > Administration building - 0.41 mSv/hr > Visitor Center near the Sarcophagus (object “Shelter”) - 6.93 mSv/hr > Local areas at the Sarcophagus (object “Shelter”) - 40.0 mSv/hr So even right next to the Sarcophagus you wouldn’t get acute radiation poisoning. You would however get up to 150 000 the average background dose/time. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/3 "2010-11-15T21:59:40Z")
Right in the core, though, things are still plenty “hot”. In fact, there’s a species of fungus that’s evolved to actually feed on the radiation. OK, not entirely relevant, but that’s a cool enough fact that I can never resist dropping it. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/4 "2010-11-15T22:04:29Z")
If you see the Elephant’s Foot without a suit on I suspect you’ll be very unhappy. As **Chronos** says, the area around and under the core is still quite hot. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/5 "2010-11-15T22:23:07Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I am confused-you read reports of people driving through Chernobyl, and wildlife is returning to the abaondoned areas Not just the awesome fungus that Chronos mentioned is thriving, but plant life seems to find it ok, having no other choice but to sprout and then stick it out ([BBC linky 1](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11345935)); > [@](#): > > Scientists have uncovered mechanisms that allow plants to thrive in highly radioactive environments like Chernobyl. > > They analysed seeds from soybean and flax grown near the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor which exploded in 1986. > > The team says that plants may have an innate ability to cope with radioactivity One thing, the scientists in that article were shown wearing gloves, masks and goggles. Would those be goggles to cover the eyes entirely, to prevent anything radioactive sticking to the moist surface of the eye? And mammals find it a little bit harder to cope ([BBC linky 2](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027)) > [@](#): > > The largest wildlife census of its kind conducted in Chernobyl has revealed that mammals are declining in the exclusion zone surrounding the nuclear power plant. > > The study aimed to establish the most reliable way to measure the impact on wildlife of contamination in the zone. > > It was based on almost four years of counting and studying animals there. Those articles are from September and July of this year respectively. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/6 "2010-11-16T00:00:10Z")
Wasn’t there some woman who took her motorcycle to Chernobyl a few years ago and photographed the whole thing; with meter readings and everything? She was interested in how the city was being taken over by the natural world again…Let me see if I can dig it up - there was a thread on it too. Ahh, [here](http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html)it is. ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/7 "2010-11-16T00:52:28Z")
> [@naita](#): > > So even right next to the Sarcophagus you wouldn’t get acute radiation poisoning. You would however get up to 150 000 the average background dose/time. For comparison, a chest x-ray exposes a patient to 0.2 milliSieverts, and a CT scan gives somewhere between 1 and 10 milliSieverts. So standing around the administration building, according to your numbers, is like getting an x-ray every three minutes. Like other posters mention, that won’t cause any acute radiation poisoning, but if you stick around for long you’re facing a markedly increased cancer risk. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/8 "2010-11-16T01:34:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Right in the core, though, things are still plenty “hot”. In fact, there’s a species of fungus that’s evolved to actually feed on the radiation. . Is that good or bad? I mean if the fungi doesn’t metabolize or change the radiation then it’s still there right? If so it could be even worse, as something higher up on the food chain wouldn’t eat the radiation but may eat the fungi which is now radioactive? ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/9 "2010-11-16T01:41:02Z")
I’m sure it just _is_, not particularly good or bad. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/10 "2010-11-16T01:43:01Z")
> [@](#): > > One may certainly visit the Chernobyl area, including even the exclusion zone, which is a 30 kilometre radius surrounding the plant, all of whose reactors are now closed. Although some of the radioactive isotopes released into the atmosphere still linger (such as Strontium-90 and Caesium-137), they are at tolerable exposure levels for limited periods of time. Some residents of the exclusion zone have returned to their homes at their own free will, and they live in areas with higher than normal environmental radiation levels. However, these levels are not fatal. Exposure to low but unusual levels of radiation over a period of time is less dangerous than exposure to a huge amount at once, and studies have been unable to link any direct increase in cancer risks to chronic low-level exposure. [http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml](http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![TurboNuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f19dbf/32.png) [@TurboNuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TurboNuke)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/11 "2010-11-16T01:46:50Z")
> [@Pushkin](#): > > One thing, the scientists in that article were shown wearing gloves, masks and goggles. Would those be goggles to cover the eyes entirely, to prevent anything radioactive sticking to the moist surface of the eye? Most likely the goggles are to prevent beta exposure. Beta radiation is actually an electron. Since its a charged particle it doesn’t travel very far, maybe a few inches in air. Beta radiation is pretty common but is mostly ignored because your clothing will stop it. But your eyes are susceptible to beta exposure and since you don’t wear clothes on your eyes, goggles or safety glasses are recommended. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/12 "2010-11-16T02:14:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Is that good or bad? I mean if the fungi doesn’t metabolize or change the radiation then it’s still there right? If so it could be even worse, as something higher up on the food chain wouldn’t eat the radiation but may eat the fungi which is now radioactive? The fungus wouldn’t attenuate the radiation to any significant degree; the vast majority of it would just pass right through. It’s just that the tiny proportion which does get absorbed is enough to fuel the fungus’ metabolic processes. And while the fungus is likely rendered radioactive, that would be from neutron radiation and from absorption of radioactive material in the environment, not from the gamma rays that it “eats”. Anything that might eat the fungus, if it were eating something else instead, would get a comparable dose of radioactivity. ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/13 "2010-11-16T02:19:44Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > Is that good or bad? I mean if the fungi doesn’t metabolize or change the radiation then it’s still there right? If so it could be even worse, as something higher up on the food chain wouldn’t eat the radiation but may eat the fungi which is now radioactive? That fungus (several species actually) is actually absorbing the gamma radiation and harnessing the energy for its metabolism. The process is analogous to photosynthesis. It’s probably also full of all sorts of radioactive isotopes though. It grows inside the sarcophogous, though, where it’s the only living thing\*, so there’s nothing eating it. - That we know of at least-- the fungus was completely unexpected until someone brought out samples a few years ago… ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/14 "2010-11-16T02:55:57Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Right in the core, though, things are still plenty “hot”. In fact, there’s a species of fungus that’s evolved to actually feed on the radiation. OK, not entirely relevant, but that’s a cool enough fact that I can never resist dropping it. Cite? That is just too cool… Never mind, I found some cites. Wow. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/15 "2010-11-16T04:45:28Z")
By the way, that girl’s website IIRC was found to be a hoax - she was just taking the regular tour, not heading off on her own. ---
**Author:** ![oliversarmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/eb8c5e/32.png) [@oliversarmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oliversarmy)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/16 "2010-11-16T04:48:37Z")
Martin Cruz Smith wrote an interesting 2004 crime novel with Chernobyl as its setting: “Wolves Eat Dogs.” I have no idea if it is accurate regarding the science regarding the effects on humans or other life, but it was interesting from the POV that nature seems to be reclaiming the area fairly quickly. What that means in the long-term probably outlives our lives. Interesting book, though. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/17 "2010-11-16T05:25:15Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Right in the core, though, things are still plenty “hot”. In fact, there’s a species of fungus that’s evolved to actually feed on the radiation. OK, not entirely relevant, but that’s a cool enough fact that I can never resist dropping it. Interesting. I recall in a thread about the possibility of life in other worlds the stated requirement that a planet have shielding from external radiation, among other things. Apparently that isn’t important after all. ---
**Author:** ![Kamrusepas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8c91f0/32.png) [@Kamrusepas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamrusepas)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/18 "2010-11-16T09:56:13Z")
> [@Phlosphr](#): > > Wasn’t there some woman who took her motorcycle to Chernobyl a few years ago and photographed the whole thing; with meter readings and everything? She was interested in how the city was being taken over by the natural world again…Let me see if I can dig it up - there was a thread on it too. > > Ahh, [here](http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html)it is. Wasn’t she proven a hoax? Or at least some things about her. I guess it’s fairly safe in the area nowadays, as they arrange trips there. As soon as I get some money together, I’m so there :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Wile\_E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c37758/32.png) [@Wile\_E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wile_E)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/19 "2010-11-16T15:39:53Z")
> [@TurboNuke](#): > > Most likely the goggles are to prevent beta exposure. Beta radiation is actually an electron. Since its a charged particle it doesn’t travel very far, maybe a few inches in air. Beta radiation is pretty common but is mostly ignored because your clothing will stop it. But your eyes are susceptible to beta exposure and since you don’t wear clothes on your eyes, goggles or safety glasses are recommended. But … The goggles! They do nothing! Sorry, could not resist. ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779/20 "2010-11-16T16:34:40Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The fungus wouldn’t attenuate the radiation to any significant degree; the vast majority of it would just pass right through. It’s just that the tiny proportion which does get absorbed is enough to fuel the fungus’ metabolic processes. And while the fungus is likely rendered radioactive, that would be from neutron radiation and from absorption of radioactive material in the environment, not from the gamma rays that it “eats”. Anything that might eat the fungus, if it were eating something else instead, would get a comparable dose of radioactivity. I’d be interested in understanding this better. The radiation “fuels” the metabolic process? Meaning what, exactly? Fungi get their nutrients from material around them and then metabolize them chemically in their cells, right? Much like animals. The energy the organism needs and uses comes from the transformation of chemical energy inside the cells, doesn’t it? So how does radiation fit into this scheme? Can you clarify this? Are you saying that the fungus has adapted to survive in high levels of radiation? It sounds as if you are suggesting that the radiation is part of the metabolic process. “It feeds on radiation.” (from your earlier post.) Can you explain? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dangerous-is-it-to-visit-chernobyl-today/560779.md?page=2)