Talk:Nuclear tourism

Temporal removal of pictures

Before we have more text in this article, I will remove some pictures which don't fit in the article right now. --Danapit (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Stronger than death" memorial to victims of nuclear testing, Semey

Project Gasbuggy nuclear detonation site, New Mexico, USA

National Atomic Testing Museum, Las Vegas

Stendal NPP building site in 2012

Accidents of nuclear weapon carrying aircraft

The "Accidents of nuclear weapon carrying aircraft" section is confusing as it just lists towns and cities without saying *what* happened in these places. The target articles also contain no info about the specific incidents. It's safe to presume the reader knows Pripyat or Hiroshima or a few other places where entire towns are destroyed, but loss of one aircraft? Best to explain somewhere what occurred and why these places are notable. Is there anything for the traveller to see? K7L (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

K7L, thank you for your constructive points. Once a nuclear tourist unticks the Pripyats and Hiroshimas from the list, you are left with rather bizarre places in the middle of nowhere. And I surely plan to add more information bit by bit ;) Danapit (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Algeria?

I noticed Algeria was listed as a nuclear test site. Isn't that somewhat unspecific, and is the test site in Algeria really a tourist destination?

Actually a wider question should be, should we only list sites that are genuine tourist locations rather than being an encyclopedia of nuclear explosions? Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove Algeria, because it was so unspecific and you are right, the Saharan area is not a very safe place and while I know people to visit Semipalatinsk nuclear site, I've never heard of anybody doing the same in Reganne, Algeria, except for research.

To answer your more general question, it is always a matter of personal preferences, what is a "tourist location". From a nuclear tourist point of view, the only limit might be: is it safe? and is it legal? --Danapit (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, well I don't pretend to know what a nuclear tourist actually wants therefore I'll stick with your judgement :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The other limit is is there anything still there to see? If there's a ghost town, a memorial, a marker, anything that's identifiable and tangible to someone visiting these places then they're valid, even if they're as hard to reach as the Moon or as dead as Pompeii. If whatever was there is gone without a trace, though, there's nothing to visit... awkward, as we are a travel guide. K7L (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

K7L, point taken! Sometimes even if there is nothing much to see anymore, your Geiger still says you've reached your destination ;) For me simply the fact I am standing at a site which is a part of science and engineering history is sufficient. I agree this approach is not strictly main stream tourism and I will try to explain for each location, why any traveller should care, what is the story behind, which a legitimate requirement for a tourist guide and it is also my goal. At each site it should be mentioned what is there to see, sure. Work in progress. Danapit (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I also query the crash site in Greenland? Is there any practical way to visit this? The nearest town is stated to be 100km away. Again, just asking in the interests of not being an encyclopedia. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrewssi2, I am not sure really, but I suspect one can get to the Thule air base as a civilian, as well, because some commercial airlines use the airstrip. I will try to do some more research in this direction. I think when one travels to Qaanaaq, Thule airbase is the transport hub to use. Unless you arrive on an icebreaker ;) Danapit (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Algeria Sahara is the known testing ground for the French bombs. Several detonated there between 1960 and 1966. 193 more in French Polynesia. If nobody objects I would add Algeria back. --Axisstroke (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Axisstroke, sure enough there are abandoned testing sites in Algeria. The only doubt is if anybody can actually visit those places. I mean, as a tourist, not as a member of a research team, for example ;) Btw, you are doing great job here and also in Science tourism. Danapit (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a nuclear weapon research facility in Yongbyon in North Korea (and associated test sites) that are not listed because you simply can't visit them. (And if you can visit them, then you probably are not using Wikivoyage (hopefully) as part of your work in monitoring nuclear weapons for the UN)

If you can provide details of something to see in Algeria then great, but otherwise we try and avoid to be an encyclopedia. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This WP link may help you start. Since the last tests were in 1967 (Pushing 50 years now) it may be challenging to find anything to visit, although since they are in the Sahara then you can check the satellite imagery if you can find the exact locations. Also bear in mind that these places are not particularly safe for foreigners to visit these days. In summary, only add these locations if you can find a valid reason to visit these places. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe one line saying "X, Y and Z are next-to-impossible destinations due to exclusion zones". K7L (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Map

I took the liberty of adding a map so that the nuclear site geolocations can be easily seen on a global scale. For some reason I couldn't set the zoom level to '1'. Feel free to edit this as you wish. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing three "#1" POI markers on the map: Hiroshima, Faro and the Nevada test site. What's up with that? K7L (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder, too- might it be because we use both template:listing and template:marker? Danapit (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Joachim, Torty, any idea? Could you please check what is going on? --Danapit (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I also believe it is the mixing of template types. See a similar map I did for Hong Kong Outlying Islands that only uses 'see' listings: Hong_Kong/Outlying_Islands Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Templates 'marker' and 'listing' can be mixed. Unfortunately I still have a bug in the map presentation. I try an adjustment in the next few days. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Joachim, thanks for the update! --Danapit (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joachim, can you also fix the bug where setting the zoom level to '1' causes the zoom level to be '14'? I'd like this fixed in order that we can see a truly global view of sites for this article. Thanks, Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrewssi2, only the zoom levels 2-17 are allowed as parameters for compatibility reasons. Otherwise, the default level 14 is displayed. Please use zoom=auto for these rare special cases. -- Grüße Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the map script [1]. The Tools.wmflabs-server is synced in the next few days. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Some things from the extreme southwest on the map

I have two suggestions to add to the article: 1. The French test sites in French Polynesia. I'm not sure if a normal traveler can or is allowed to come close to the actual sites, though. 2. Atucha I and II. The first reactor was the first one in Latin America and according to es.WP currently the only one in the world to use heavy water as moderator for highly enriched uranium (Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on reactor design and there might be flaws I'm in my Spanish reading). The second one has been under construction for over 30 years, and when it was "pre started" "it had the largest reactor pressure vessel of any nuclear power plant worldwide", according to WP. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually the map does need heightening. I need to add the coordinates of the Australian test sites Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Simply add. Zoom and focus to all the markers will automatically change. The frame size I'll optimize later. - Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ypsilon, please go ahead and add whatever you feel is interesting. I am not a specialist either, but Atucha sounds quite interesting. It is a heavy water reactor, which is not anything exceptional, because for example CANDU reactors are heavy water. These reactors use uranium in natural isotopic ratio (not enriched), which has advantages and also disadvantages. In Atucha 1 they decided to apply fuel, which is not highly enriched, but slightly enriched (0.85% of the fissionable 235U isotope, as opposed to 0.7% in natural uranium). This leads to higher burn-up, which means better use of the fuel, and at the same time longer fueling intervals and less rad waste. And the reactor vessel must be quite a beast, taken that the modern EPR reactors have pressurized vessel of some 420 t, it's more than double the weight.

Mururoa might also be an interesting place, but I think it is completely out of reach of a normal person. It is a military area, as far as I know. Again, if you find out something more, add it, by all means. Danapit (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Good work

I have to say that this article has far exceeded my expectations of it! Although I still don't intend to become a nuclear tourist myself, it is nevertheless fascinating to see the subject develop into a travel article this way. Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

+1. Who knows, this might even become a Ftt sometime in the future. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear bunkers

I believe that the metro stations of Pyongyang and some in Moscow are designed to be civilian nuclear bunkers, which maybe good to add to the list.

On the other hand, such facilities may be stretching the scope of nuclear tourism. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but interesting enough to at least be worth a passing mention. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear fallout shelters are definitely within the scope of nuclear tourism as an important part of nuclear history. Nuclear fallout shelters that are still in use should be listed throughout Wikivoyage under safety information (i.e. alongside nearby hospitals) since in the event of any kind of radiological incident, travelers will need access to the shelter, perhaps even more so than locals who may be able to shelter at home. Whereas abandoned fallout shelters such as Greenbrier in West Virginia have become popular tourist destinations. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You're probably aware that every freakin building in New York City (and, doubtless, many other cities) had a fallout shelter that consisted of its lobby and basement. Many "Fallout Shelter" signs can still be seen, but there's nothing to visit and there never was anything but the building. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I only know of one nuclear fallout shelter in the City of Cumberland (Maryland) which is not likely able to host all 19,000 residents in the single shelter. In the event of a radiological incident I can get to the fallout shelter in about ten minutes on foot but it will likely be easier/safer to shelter at home instead. Obviously, only shelters that are maintained and accessible to the public during a state of emergency should be listed under safety information. Mass panic in an emergency is likely to be more immediately dangerous than any radioactive fallout. I don't know if the shelter in Cumberland is still maintained since I only have seen the signs for it and never actually visited. Nearby caves might also be able to provide shelter during emergencies but are likely difficult to seal from radiological contamination. People who are traveling with Geiger counters for nuclear tourism will be the safest since they will be able to quickly and easily identify any radiologically contaminated materials or areas. In the event of an actual nuclear war though, an EMP will render most electronics useless including the majority of modern Geiger counters. One trick for EMP shielding is to keep electronics inside an unplugged microwave oven. This can be done at a hotel but then you may begin to accumulate "paranoia points". There are also a number of guides online on how to build your own emergency fallout shelter. Nicole Sharp (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Over here, I think the shelters are required to be made ready in three days. Not much use for most "radiological incidents". The private ones are mostly in use for locked storage, one larger public one I know works as sports hall. You are better off sheltering according to your hotel's instructions than trying to get to these. For metro stations and similar, until air conditioning has been turned into radiologic emergency mode, they are hardly worth going for. In places with an ongoing war, or a threat of an invasion, such safety information may be worthwhile, but it should be checked before it is added, not just according to a list of shelters in some plan. –LPfi (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The Black Hole

The information around the Black Hole store is very interesting, although we have a fundamental problem in that it closed down three years ago and it is unlikely to be a location that people can visit anymore.

Since WV doesn't list closed businesses, should we consider removing this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If a store doesn't exist anymore, there's no point in listing it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And to be more specific, I'd propose eliminating the text box relating to this closed business as well as its listing. Sure it's interesting, but it's no longer relevant, is it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear no longer relevant to WV. Hi User:Danapit, would you agree? Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, sure you have a point here. I would have liked to keep the infobox for sentimental reasons, as a classical nuclear tourist destination worth remembering, but in case it should mean disobeying WV rules, I won't argue (snivel)... Danapit (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps remove the listing but keep the infobox? It gives the article a little flair after all.. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It's part of the history of the topic, so it is relevant. For that matter, the U.S.S.R. no longer exists but not mentioning it here would leave a gaping hole. K7L (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a section 'History of Nuclear Tourism' is required for this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(Also, there is no USSR listing, fyi) Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no point mentioning a private business that has since closed. If it is of historical interest, then it needs a Wikipedia article but doesn't need to be mentioned on Wikivoyage unless it has been designated as a historical site for tourists.

Nuclear powered aircraft carriers / submarines

Nuclear powered aircraft carriers / submarines do travel the world and make port visits. I personally think it would be great to accommodate them (even though they obviously have no fixed location, and their itineraries are subject to change at short notice).

Do you think they are worth covering here, or would this be more of a 'Military Tourism' article? Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, the Military tourism might be another interesting topic. But if you know about some possibilities how to view/tour a nuclear submarine, this would fit in this article quite well. I have seen one on display in Cherbourg museum, pretty cool! I might add the listing later. Danapit (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I googled "nuclear submarine museum" and found out that the world's first nuclear submarine, USS Nautilus, can be visited in Groton (Connecticut). There are probably a couple of other such vessels on display elsewhere in the world.

Military tourism could be a good travel topic. It wouldn't be hard to come up with content: battlefields, museums of equipment, history etc... --ϒpsilon (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I liked the Musee Militaire in Paris a lot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, maybe I plunge forward on that then :) My main concern would be that there would be too much material. (i.e. all the military museums in the US alone would make for a very long article) Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We can always divide this later into several articles, either by subtopic or region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Just a start so far. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Visiting restricted cold war sites

Interesting story of people who carry out technically illegal visits to Cold War sites in the United States:

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-cold-war-relics-three-photographers-are-documenting-before-they-disappear/

Also related: http://www.wired.com/2013/01/justin-barton-icbm-missiles

Would it be wrong to list sites just because they are illegal to visit? You could of course travel there and just observe from outside... Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't think it would be wrong to list these sites precisely because it would be up to the reader whether to decide to just look at them from the outside, try to get special permission to visit, or trespass. This is a similar case to Urbex, I believe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If someone has ever travelled there, it's fair game. Moon is a real article (although manned exploration ended with Apollo and likely won't return until some other country goes there in 2020 or later), Mars is a joke (as only robots have made the trip). Just because security clearance is very difficult to obtain, don't presume no one has ever visited. K7L (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Olenya Bay Navel Base

Interesting article about a nuclear submarine dumping area near the border of Finland on the Kola peninsular. It appears not to be restricted to have a look from a distance, if you are brave enough to get close to vessels that are still highly radioactive.

http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2011/08/forgotten-soviet-submarine-graveyard-kola-peninsula/

--Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of nuclear submarines in that part of Russia. One is burning right now as I'm writing this. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Puh! --Danapit (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that you could visit that submarine graveyard if you wanted, but actually getting on an active Russian naval base would be somewhat less accessible. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand. However, I wouldn't be surprised if you in practice could not visit the graveyard either. The coasts of the White Sea and Barents Sea are likely among the best places in the world to see nuclear submarines, but precisely because of that much of that part of Russia is off limits as far as I understand. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I don't think these actually have to be nuclear submarines. It's not explicitly written there and they don't look huge either. The nuclear submarine (one) I have seen was rather big. Danapit (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

FTT in 2016?

In one year and a couple of weeks, 26 April 2016 there will be 30 years since the world's hitherto most (in)famous nuclear disaster. Maybe it would be a good idea to have Nuclear tourism for FTT during that time just like D-Day beaches in May last year? I'm thinking either March so that people maybe could to go to Ukraine (of course this totally depends on the security situation in the country) or April so that it's up on the Main Page simultaneously when the event is highlighted in the news (after all, the article is about much more than Chernobyl).

Right now the article is at Usable status, and I've no idea about how much is still missing before it's so comprehensive that it can be upgraded to Guide. Dana especially, but others too, what do you think? --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

ϒpsi, that's an excellent plan - April for the 30th anniversary would be good. I can have a look more carefully sometime this week and see what could be done. Certainly some more prose would improve the article. It's always a bit difficult to judge a status of travel topics. Andrewssi2, K7L, Axisstroke, your thoughts? Danapit (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents would be:

A) Prose does need a touch up, but an overhaul not really required

B) List cleanup! Many of the listings are not obviously possible to visit. For example, someone put 'CROCUS, EPFL' as a listing with absolutely no context. The "Swiss Spallation Neutron Source" is not something that you can easily visit unless you are an academic. Decommissioned reactors? Again, can we visit?

I think the list issue would actually cause some objections if we were to nominate this as a FTT. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree we should remove listings which do not indicate or hint how it is possible to visit the place. For example, a visitor's center or a possibility of booking a guided tour should be quite sufficient. But 'CROCUS, EPFL' isn't very helpful. If there is something semi-interesting to be seen from outside, it can be a matter of discussion, but it should be stated what exactly. Danapit (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Andre perhaps also would like to know about this plan and perhaps he'd also have some ideas about what needs to improved in the article before it can be considered for FTT. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I regard myself as relatively less able to judge the merits of travel topic articles by comparison with destination articles. However, I personally think the only thing keeping this article from Guide status at this stage is the presence of a few bullet-point listings without text descriptions of sufficient length. Furthermore, I think, once it's ready, this article would make a fine FTT for 2016.

To Danapit and Andrewssi2's comments above, I don't think it's necessary to include information on how to get to each individual place listed here. In my view, an article like this, at its core, should boil down to a set of internal wikilinks to a curated group of destination articles, where the issue of what those destination articles have in common (the travel topic itself, in other words) is addressed by a framework of background information and more specialized descriptions of the listed destinations. I think this article functions well in that respect. So long as all the listings are accompanied by links to a destination article, and those destination articles have useful "Get in" sections, I see no problem. And if the salient point of interest in a given destination (a decommissioned reactor, a research facility, etc.) cannot itself be visited, it's fine for the article to leave it to the reader to choose either to focus their visit on other attractions within the destination (a local museum that addresses the topic, a guided tour of contaminated land as they now have in Pripyat, etc.) which should be briefly mentioned in the travel topic article and included as a listing in the corresponding destination article, or else to skip over that bullet point entirely.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've listingfied the remaining sites and added a couple of new ones and upgraded the status to guide. I would imagine most sites (at least the non-military ones) are possible to visit even if they don't have an official visitors program, if you can show you're more than a plain tourist. Also, many sites can probably be looked at from a distance even if you aren't allowed in. Therefore, I'm not too eager to cut down the list.

I'll give it a try and nominate it at the FTT page now. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Bringing something over from Chernobyl's article?

Chernobyl#Stay safe is quite extensive with "radiation hygiene" and all. Is anything of that section worth bringing over or is it a bit of overkill? After all, I believe, practically all of the rest of the sites in this article are (compared with Chernobyl, but I'm not sure about Fukushima?) quite harmless to visit. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head: A compromise would be to summarize here, with a link. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's an overkill, but maybe taking over a couple of points might make sense. Regarding Fukushima, we should not encourage anyone wandering around the forests of the exclusion zone and when staying outside of it, no measures described in the Chernobyl article are necessary. As far as I understand, the guided tours if they enter the exclusion zone at all, are limited to areas which underwent or are undergoing decontamination, and should be re-settled in the future. There is no checkpoint with a radiation monitor as described in the Chernobyl guide. I also think that if any special protective measures are needed (face masks, overalls, gloves), the tour organizor would provide them. Danapit (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sites You cannot visit (Fukushima Dainichi)

I understand the modern relevance of the Fukushima Power Plant however, there is still a no entry perimeter that does not allow entry anywhere near the power plant. The plant has not been fully dealt with even today, and there are certainly no plans to try and make it a cashcow tourist spot anytime soon, so I wonder what it's value is as a numbered and listed destination when you cannot even get within its radius? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

While you cannot visit Fukushima Daiichi NPP as a "tourist", it is possible for anyone to drive around the crippled plant in a distance of 1 km along the route 6. Also there are special tours, during which locals take visitors to the area close to the plant to introduce them with the recovery, which is progressing in an impressive way. This should be somehow made clear in the article with a sentence or two. Now the information is only in Fukushima (prefecture) guide. Danapit (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A thing that might be of interest (but not fit for mainspace)

I don't know if you know xkcd, but he made a handy chart putting different risks of radiation into perspective. Immensely helpful when discussing the dicey subject, especially if one part of the discussion has little or no knowledge of the science involved... IIRC he releases his material under a creative commons license... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Need to add WSU research reactor

Tours can be taken of the active WSU research reactor. DancerEE (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Site of First Self-Sustaining Nuclear Reaction (10585075464).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It is used in the listing of the Chicago Pile-1 site. I suppose such use is available only for images on Commons. I don't think we need it in the article, and there are probably other images for the listing (all photos of the statue will go, though, if this goes). That said, it is possible the statue did not have any copyright notice and thus never got copyright protection (it was a requirement at the time). –LPfi (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Nuclear.JPG, used in Illinois, is a much better photo of this sculpture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Can locally hosted images (like that one) by used via listings and mapframe? –LPfi (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Per fair use, I think it can. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Technically, I meant: do they show? –LPfi (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I think so. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

dosimetry

Can we get a guide on how to choose a radiation dosimeter for nuclear tourism? I see dosimeters online with different energy detection ranges but I am not sure if a larger energy range will be more helpful or less helpful? Most of these have an uncertainty of 30% in the energy detection so I figure even for ordinary household use (potassium-40 in a banana) it needs to be able to go up to at least 2 MeV yes? Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The best dosimeters should be those that are compliant with USA Nuclear Regulatory Commission specifications. The cheapest NRC-compliant dosimeter I can find detects from 30 keV to 3000 keV so I would recommend against dosimeters that only detect up to 1500 keV. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Project Gnome

Is there any good reason as to why Project Gnome has been omitted from this list?

The coordinates on Wikipedia may be wrong for this. On Google Maps, I see three different spots. Not sure which one is correct.

Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

page reorganization

• This page is a bit of a mess. I suggest reorganizing the entire page geographically, listing each site of interest to nuclear tourists by what country/state they are in. That way the traveling nuclear tourist can plan out their trip based on what sites of interest are nearby. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Page reorganization is about halfway done. The page could use some more photos too. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• I am not sure geographic organisation is better than thematic. In the latter, destinations can be put in a context, and the geographic view can be had from the map: check what sites are near your itinerary. In the geographically organised list, we tend to only get a list. –LPfi (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that the article already had too much context and read more like an encyclopedia entry instead of a travel guide. For contextual information, we can link directly to Wikipedia articles covering nuclear topics. A comprehensive list of sites by site type is better suited for Wikipedia than Wikivoyage. Sorting sites by site type is interesting for an encyclopedist but not very useful for planning a trip. This mostly applies to obscure sites though. Obviously very important sites in nuclear history such as Trinity or Hiroshima may warrant a special trip just to see that specific site, but many of these other more obscure and less-visited sites are not likely to be a justifiable expense to plan an entire trip just to see that one site, and are more useful as something to add to a travel itinerary as something to see in the area when traveling for some reason other than nuclear tourism. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • What might be useful is to have a separate section with a shortlist of the most significant and popular sites for nuclear tourism (for example, "top ten sites to visit for nuclear tourism"), and then separate sections that provide longer lists of more obscure or less-visited sites sorted by geographic area. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I kind of do agree with you though. The main problem is that an interactive map is not a practical tool to use to find sites. It is not accessible to blind users or anyone using a screen reader and is difficult to print out for offline use. What might be best for accessibility is to split this page into three separate articles:

    nuclear tourism (introduction to topic, tools needed, safety advice, and most important sites such as "top ten sites to visit for nuclear tourism")

    nuclear tourism by site type (comprehensive list of tourist-accessible sites sorted by site type; this page can also be split into subpages by site type)

    nuclear tourism by location (comprehensive list of tourist-accessible sites sorted by geographic region; this page can also be split into subpages by subregion)

  • I went ahead and undid my edit since you are correct in that the geographically sorted list is redundant with the interactive map. However, what we need to do is to create a new page listing the sites geographically since the interactive map is not accessible to all users and should not be relied on for site navigation. It may be possible for someone to write a script that will automatically create a geographically sorted list based on the map data which will save a lot of editing time. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    While few will travel across the globe for a single sight, one might want to read an article like this and pick up a few sites in regions one is planning to visit in the future. We should perhaps make sure that every listing has its location told in some obvious way. "Hiroshima, Japan" is probably enough, but I cannot finding the country of the Trinity Site by skimming through its listing, neither do I know where Semey is (Semipalatinsk screams USSR, but couldn't we give the country?). –LPfi (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    • Fully listing each location with at minimum both the first-level and second-level jurisdiction (e.g. "New Mexico, USA") should allow blind or screen-reading users to search the page for the subjurisdiction keyword (for example a Microsoft Bing voice prompt to find locations in New Mexico listed on the page) but that is still not as useful as a separate geographically sorted list, especially if trying to print out the page for travel use and geocoordinates for nearby sites are all mixed up throughout the page when sorted by site type instead of by location. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

accessibility

Only locations that are accessible to tourists should be listed on this page. (This is Wikivoyage and not Wikipedia.) I removed the location in Spain which said it was fenced off and not open to the public and the location in Greenland which appears to be just a remote spot on the ice near an air force base so is not likely to be accessible to tourists. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. If you can't visit it or even see it from a distance, it shouldn't be mentioned here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

They should not have listings, but important sites can (and often should) be mentioned in passing. –LPfi (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

radiation dosimeters

Swept in from the pub

Not many people are watching this page so cross-posting here. Any assistance in picking out a radiation dosimeter for nuclear tourism in New Mexico is appreciated:

talk:nuclear tourism#dosimetry

The main question is whether I should get a dosimeter that detects gamma rays up to 1.5 MeV or one that detects gamma rays up to 3.0 MeV? The higher energy seems better especially if looking for potassium-40 decays from bananas, but the lower end for x-rays is also lower: 28 keV instead of 48 keV. My main concern is if going down to 28 keV instead of a lower limit of 48 keV might detect too much background radiation or does that not matter? For reference, a typical medical x-ray is at about 100 keV [2]. Nicole Sharp (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

What is your actual goal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am assuming that any nuclear testing sites that are open to the public have been evaluated as safe enough to visit without needing a radiation dosimeter. If that is the case, then having a dosimeter is simply a matter of scientific curiosity and not imperative for personal safety. However, even if there is no medical need for a dosimeter, there can still be a psychological comfort from having a dosimeter to put one's mind at ease that the radiation levels at the nuclear testing site are indeed safe. Outside of nuclear tourism, having a dosimeter is still useful since it will measure accumulated dose from the increased background radiation when visiting high altitudes, air travel, etc. A roundtrip air flight from New York City to Los Angeles is about 40 microsieverts whereas spending one hour at Trinity Test Site is about 5000 microsieverts, compared to the average background radiation in the USA being 3000 microsieverts per year. Nicole Sharp (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think a dosimeter is a piece of safety equipment. I am not convinced that all nuclear sites are monitoring radiation levels close enough – especially places like Chernobyl, where there can be surprising local hot spots – or warn visitors immediately when higher radiation is discovered. Even in Finland, when Chernobyl fallout reached the country, the nuclear plants first thought their equipment was faulty; only when Sweden reported risen levels, they realised something real had happened. And yes, the meter can be useful also elsewhere; here in Finland uranium in the bedrock is quite common, resulting in radium in some houses isolated from the outside air but not from the bedrock. –LPfi (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking along similar lines. A popular nuclear site with scheduled tours such as Trinity may be scanned and rescanned before each public event but less-visited sites such as Gasbuggy adandoned out in the middle of the Carson USA National Forest might not be getting as much government monitoring. I'm not a geologist but I can imagine that there could be processes whereby radioisotopes could make their way to the surface after an underground nuclear test. I doubt it could be dangerous amounts unless there was a major geological event but it could be worth scanning for even if for no other reason than peace of mind or scientific curiosity. Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I found an answer. Dosimeters compliant with USA Nuclear Regulatory Commission specifications go from 30 keV to 3000 keV. So if using a noncompliant cheaper dosimeter it might be best to avoid those that only go up to 1500 keV. How energies are detected is discussed at "w:Geiger–Müller tube#Photon energy compensation" Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I read that wrapping the detector in cadmium (not aluminum) foil can also allow neutron detection but not sure how well this works and most areas safe for nuclear tourism should not have any significant neutron radiation. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You know that Cadmium is poisonous, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I was just reading about that. You can't buy it either likely for the same reason. Trying to detect neutrons using cadmium is not something that should be recommended. Locations that have significant quantities of fast neutrons should not be safe to visit or open to the public so Wikivoyagers should not have any need for neutron detection. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Commercial nuclear power plants

The lead says that nuclear tourism is (among other things) about sites relating to nuclear technology. Aren't working commercial nuclear power plants very much nuclear technology? Still they aren't mentioned explicitly anywhere in the article (that I can see). Why? If they aren't in scope, then that should be told up front.

If commercial nuclear power plants open to visits are too common to be listed, then we should at least tell that. I assume they are not, and not every country has nuclear power. Regardless of whether we want listings, we could tell what one could expect from such a visit.

(Ignalina is listed under Research reactors, as decommissioned. Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant was a normal commercial power plant, which matches the description in the listing. It should be moved to the new section about commercial power plants.)

–LPfi (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure does seem like a working nuclear power plant that offers tours should be listed. Perhaps not plants that have no public tours... Mrkstvns (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No, there are too many reactors that can be seen at a distance, but those with tours or information centres, or a selection of them, max 7±2 – more than a few per country is hardly useful. –LPfi (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)