Visiting of place where events of Stalker and Stalker 2 take place.

My father played the game when I was a little girl. And I was really impressed by its world. I've read books and played the game too but never thought the plot had real elements. I was really impressed to know that the place from Stalker exists. Now my father and I are going to visit it. I'm searching for a piece of advice because I'm too far now from that place and have never been abroad. Where should we go and how I can get there?

@guelder_rose: So where exactly are you going?

Getting into the exclusion zone is possible, the area is still off-limits but I hear there are guides authorized by the Ukrainian government who organize occasional and strictly-scheduled tours to Pripyat. There isn't much to see though: once you've seen the ferris wheel and the bumper car ride, all that's left are lots of rundown soviet-era concrete buildings you probably can't even go in. Obviously you can go anywhere near Chernobyl and the power plant either: there are things there that will still kill you in seconds and the area is more dangerous now than it was in the 80s, since the various containment shells are in disrepair.

I can totally understand why you would want to visit the world worst environmental nuclear disaster.

No wait. I don't understand that.

Wasn't Stalker based on the Russian movie 'Stalker' which is about the Chernobyl disaster. Its a psychedelic and disturbing thriller about time and space being all mucked up and this guy trying to go around in the trippy zone for some reason.

Here is a strange fact. Nuclear fallout radiation is only harmful to humans. Animals and plants are unaffected. Hence the exclusion zone is now a natural oasis for alot of wildlife.

So people were talking about mutant frogs outside Sellafield power plant but apparently it's a fly that does this, causing the frog to grow an extra leg, then be too mutated to escape being getting eaten by a bird so the fly goes into the bird to hitch a lift in the bird's stomach or something like that...

Still very harmful to humans I hear though. The old radiation.

I'm pretty sure that's not true at all. Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I'm not a scientist. But the thing about humans as opposed to animals and plants is that animals and plants don't have state issued ID cards or friends and family who will go screaming to the government if they go missing or die from cancer. And that's just in normal circumstances. Add to that that it's an exclusion zone, and there probably aren't a whole hell of a lot of people willing to risk getting cancer just to study the long term effects on every animal that lives in the area.

Point being: I'm sure that the radiation is probably quite harmful to a lot of animals and plants. But do you know what else is harmful to animals and plants? The presence of humans. Seeing as how humans decided to stay the f*** away from the place, it's not entirely surprising to me that animals would thrive even with the presence of radiation.

@jackamomo: Here is a strange fact. Nuclear fallout radiation is only harmful to humans. Animals and plants are unaffected. Hence the exclusion zone is now a natural oasis for alot of wildlife.

Are you sure? I took part in debates dedicated to radiation and nuclear power a month ago. Participants mentioned that animals suffer from radiation as well as humans do. They have problems with eyes and lose ability to have children.

Though small doses of radiation are not so harmful, aren't they?

@phbz: I am going to visit Pripyat and as I can see now, that is the territory of Ukraine. Correct me if I've made a mistake.

@Black_Knight_00: Do you know some more information about tours? Are you from those places?

@MrGeezer: @guelder_rose: You might be able to tell. I am not a nuclear expert. What is weird is I really do remember reading that but I must have remembered it wrong.

It says here it does 'serious harm' to most animals, plants and insects.

But wolves elk and some bird species seem unaffected.

Still the stupidest idea for an energy source ever conceived.

It a pure science-fiction-jrpg-end-of-the-world doomsday device on your doorstep folks!

Hey guess what us lucky brits are getting more when everyone else is dropping them like a spent fuel rods.

I'm curious guelder. Were you defending or attacking nuclear power?

@guelder_rose: No I am not from the Ukaraine but you can find info about it with a simple google search. My advice remains to avoid going through.

That's not true at all^

Still, nuclear is indeed the stupidest idea for an energy source ever conceived. My father worked in nuclear reactors and plants for years and he agrees with that sentiment.

@Black_Knight_00: @guelder_rose

I really don't understand how anyone could defend nuclear power but yet in a poll I made on this forum, the most popular choice for a 'clean', none-co2 'dirty' power station was nuclear power.

We were practically taught in schools that this was an obsolete and highly dangerous method of energy production.

It takes two seconds to see its madness. But I think it has quite a powerful lobby and propaganda machine as an industry and is highly secretive so difficult to prosecute and properly regulate.

@jackamomo: I'm curious guelder. Were you defending or attacking nuclear power?

Sure attacking. We can use other sources of energy including wind and sun. Even Stalker shows the results of catastrophe. BTW are there any games showing the same severe consequences of nuclear power usage? They must be.

@guelder_rose: in Sonic Spinball you have to clean up toxic waste from Dr Robotnik's fortress or something. Everything was about that in the 90's. It was really annoying. Awesome Possum, Ninja Turtles etc. Either it gave you cancer and a lingering death or super powers. I'm not sure which is true to this day, the information was so confusing.

I'm saving up for some black market spent plutonium to try and get x-ray vision.

It's because people don't understand how nuclear power works. We've been sold this idea that nuclear is "clean" because it doesn't produce toxic fumes, when in reality it's anything but, due to the disastrous amount of toxic waste that can't be destroyed or recycled, remains dangerous for 100.000+ years and can only be stocked in barrels inside undergroudn vaults, dumping the hot potato on the following generations for when the barrels start to corrode and need replacing before the contents spill out and contaminate the underground water reserves.

People should watch the documentary "Into Eternity" to get an idea of how up shit creek without a paddle we are when that situation arises.

@Black_Knight_00: We are in agreement. The thing is. The industry is so cagey about information there is no way of knowing what the real extent of the damage that has been done is at this time.

The Irish sea is famous for having barrels with skulls and the distinctive radioactive symbol pop up going back to the 60's. It is very deep but there was likely something living there.

Yeah well, water shields agaisnt radiation (which is why reactors are submerged) but dumping waste in the ocean is still stupid. Then again, I have zero confidence in any government doing the right thing when it somes for radioactive waste. The only sane thing to do would be firing them into space, but they would never fork out the money to do that, on a continuative scale no less. Much better to stock them in unsafe silos that'll bite our grandkids in the ass, and that's barring any incident with tsunamis, earthquakes or terrorism destabilizing reactors, in which case our own asses would get bitten.

Bottom line, say no to nuclear, people: we've known since the 50s that if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

I can't even understand who wouldn't know about toxic waste but here's a quick rundown for the uninitiated.

There's only 238 years of uranium left to mine anyway.

The UK. If it was smart. Could invest in wind power and it could become it's largest industry with the most abundant resources of suitable wind power in the world available around it's coast.

This is a 'renewable' energy and will last forever and cause practically no pollution.

Hello there. I am from Ukraine and cannot be quiet when you are talking about Chernobyl.

You are able to join the excursion to the city. The only requirement - you should be 18 or more years old. Usually, excursion starts from Kyiv- our capital.

There are lots of articles on the Internet assuring that excursion is not dangerous. No one will let you come close to radioactive objects. Specialists even say that the dose of radiation you get during the trip is less then you can get after one fluorography.

On the other hand, they suggest visiting zone after you are 30-35 to avoid unplanned incident risks which affect young people more.

We would enjoy hearing about your story if you visit the place! Good luck

@princess_frog: Thanks for your reply! Unfortunately, I'm only 17 now. Well, one year - and I'll do that!