Author Topic: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation  (Read 3019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pearl_Of_Great_Price

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« on: August 18, 2010, 12:57:48 AM »
Apparently 'Wormwood' in Ukranian equates to the word 'Chernobyl'.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJHQqWrMYjA


A fulfillment of this prophecy?: Revelation. 8:11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.


Offline Entscheidungsproblem

  • Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,495
    • Amsterdam Declaration 2002
As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Offline GiC

  • Resident Atheist
  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,490
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2010, 11:14:09 AM »
Maybe it's just an indicator that it's a bad idea to put a nuclear reactor in the middle of a warehouse instead of in a proper containment facility like we had at Three Mile Island, a reactor that is completely repaired and functioning again today. ::)
"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Offline Cymbyz

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 496
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2010, 01:20:01 PM »
Actually, OCS Chernobyl "Wormwood" is not, strictly speaking, the correct rendering for Gk. Apsinthos.  That is because the plant artemisia absinthium is unknown that far north of the Mediterranean.  However, another plant of the genus artemisia does grow in northern Ukraine:  it's known in English as mugwort; so Chernobyl = "mugwort."
The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen

Offline observer

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 546
  • Vivre die Raznitsa!
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2010, 03:31:36 PM »
Have I been using mugwort all these years, believing it to be wormwood.  ? ???
Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)

Offline Cymbyz

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 496
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2010, 03:36:40 PM »
All plants of the genus Artemisia have the principal of absinthe.  A. absinthium has the most of this substance, but lesser amounts can be extracted from other species, such as mugwort.
The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,801
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2010, 09:03:40 AM »
Maybe it's just an indicator that it's a bad idea to put a nuclear reactor in the middle of a warehouse instead of in a proper containment facility like we had at Three Mile Island, a reactor that is completely repaired and functioning again today. ::)

Actually, this is not correct.  TMI released large amounts of radiation.  Also, the reactor that was destroyed was decommissioned and has never been restarted.  There were two reactors at TMI.  The one not involved in the accident is the only one running today.

BTW - we have several reactors in the US that have containment structures not much better than Chernobyl.  Chernobyl had a containment structure, just not one designed to take the forces that occurred.  What the Chernobyl disaster is an indicator of is that it is not a good idea to run unauthorized experiments after shutting off all of your safety systems.  It is also an indicator that you should not intentionally build a reactor with control rods that are too short just to keep from embarrassing someone important.

I have heard the "wormwood / Chernobyl" connection for a long time.  Very popular with the charismatic Protestant crowd.  I'm still waiting for 1/3 of the World's population to die from the accident, but I am not holding my breath.  In any case, the accident was bad enough, and I have seen the photos of children born after the accident.  I often wonder if God will forgive us for what we did.   
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2010, 09:26:19 AM »
The name is CHORnobyl'. "ChErnobyl" is a Russian aberration of the Ukrainian toponym, like "Kiev" of Kyiv.
Love never fails.

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,801
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2010, 10:04:34 AM »
The name is CHORnobyl'. "ChErnobyl" is a Russian aberration of the Ukrainian toponym, like "Kiev" of Kyiv.


Given that it was a Russian RBMK reactor run by a predominantly Russian staff working in a Russian led Communist environment, where Russian was (and still was as late as the early 1990's) the official language used in the industry, I can understand why EVERY written work that I have seen on the subject, even from the first days of the disaster, have been called the plant Chernobyl, since most (if not all) of these works were translated from Russian.  However, if any of them would have been written in Ukrainian, Chornobyl would have been correct.  BTW - it is not uncommon for a country to call another country by a name other than what the target country calls itself.  Hence the English words Germany, Ireland, and the like. 
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline admiralnick

  • Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,880
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2010, 10:07:24 AM »
Maybe it's just an indicator that it's a bad idea to put a nuclear reactor in the middle of a warehouse instead of in a proper containment facility like we had at Three Mile Island, a reactor that is completely repaired and functioning again today. ::)

Actually, this is not correct.  TMI released large amounts of radiation.  Also, the reactor that was destroyed was decommissioned and has never been restarted.  There were two reactors at TMI.  The one not involved in the accident is the only one running today.

BTW - we have several reactors in the US that have containment structures not much better than Chernobyl.  Chernobyl had a containment structure, just not one designed to take the forces that occurred.  What the Chernobyl disaster is an indicator of is that it is not a good idea to run unauthorized experiments after shutting off all of your safety systems.  It is also an indicator that you should not intentionally build a reactor with control rods that are too short just to keep from embarrassing someone important.

I have heard the "wormwood / Chernobyl" connection for a long time.  Very popular with the charismatic Protestant crowd.  I'm still waiting for 1/3 of the World's population to die from the accident, but I am not holding my breath.  In any case, the accident was bad enough, and I have seen the photos of children born after the accident.  I often wonder if God will forgive us for what we did.   

It also shows the danger of running an unstable reactor with a high positive void coefficient  :police:

-Nick
The ORIGINAL: "NULL"

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,801
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2010, 03:56:07 PM »
Maybe it's just an indicator that it's a bad idea to put a nuclear reactor in the middle of a warehouse instead of in a proper containment facility like we had at Three Mile Island, a reactor that is completely repaired and functioning again today. ::)

Actually, this is not correct.  TMI released large amounts of radiation.  Also, the reactor that was destroyed was decommissioned and has never been restarted.  There were two reactors at TMI.  The one not involved in the accident is the only one running today.

BTW - we have several reactors in the US that have containment structures not much better than Chernobyl.  Chernobyl had a containment structure, just not one designed to take the forces that occurred.  What the Chernobyl disaster is an indicator of is that it is not a good idea to run unauthorized experiments after shutting off all of your safety systems.  It is also an indicator that you should not intentionally build a reactor with control rods that are too short just to keep from embarrassing someone important.

I have heard the "wormwood / Chernobyl" connection for a long time.  Very popular with the charismatic Protestant crowd.  I'm still waiting for 1/3 of the World's population to die from the accident, but I am not holding my breath.  In any case, the accident was bad enough, and I have seen the photos of children born after the accident.  I often wonder if God will forgive us for what we did.   

It also shows the danger of running an unstable reactor with a high positive void coefficient  :police:

-Nick

Unfortunately, even ours run positive moderator coefficients early in core life when using optimized fuel assemblies.  Thankfully, we have enough rod worth and boric acid to shut them down if something nasty happens.
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2010, 06:42:20 PM »
The name is CHORnobyl'. "ChErnobyl" is a Russian aberration of the Ukrainian toponym, like "Kiev" of Kyiv.


Given that it was a Russian RBMK reactor run by a predominantly Russian staff working in a Russian led Communist environment, where Russian was (and still was as late as the early 1990's) the official language used in the industry, I can understand why EVERY written work that I have seen on the subject, even from the first days of the disaster, have been called the plant Chernobyl, since most (if not all) of these works were translated from Russian.  However, if any of them would have been written in Ukrainian, Chornobyl would have been correct.  BTW - it is not uncommon for a country to call another country by a name other than what the target country calls itself.  Hence the English words Germany, Ireland, and the like. 

Chornobyl' is a Ukrainian city. You call the Polish city of Sczecyn just that, Sczecyn, and not Stettin, as it was called when it belonged to Germany. You call another Polish, formerly German, city Gdansk, and not Danzig. Much the same way, it makes full sense to call Ukrainian cities the way Ukrainians prefer them to be called - Kyiv and not "Kiev," Chernivtsi and not Czarnowitz, L'viv and not Lvov or Lemberg, etc. Otherwise, it is a plain disrespect to Ukraine. You can certainly choose to be disrespectful, but I will always remind you that you are being disrespectful.
Love never fails.

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,801
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2010, 08:01:54 PM »
The name is CHORnobyl'. "ChErnobyl" is a Russian aberration of the Ukrainian toponym, like "Kiev" of Kyiv.


Given that it was a Russian RBMK reactor run by a predominantly Russian staff working in a Russian led Communist environment, where Russian was (and still was as late as the early 1990's) the official language used in the industry, I can understand why EVERY written work that I have seen on the subject, even from the first days of the disaster, have been called the plant Chernobyl, since most (if not all) of these works were translated from Russian.  However, if any of them would have been written in Ukrainian, Chornobyl would have been correct.  BTW - it is not uncommon for a country to call another country by a name other than what the target country calls itself.  Hence the English words Germany, Ireland, and the like. 

Chornobyl' is a Ukrainian city. You call the Polish city of Sczecyn just that, Sczecyn, and not Stettin, as it was called when it belonged to Germany. You call another Polish, formerly German, city Gdansk, and not Danzig. Much the same way, it makes full sense to call Ukrainian cities the way Ukrainians prefer them to be called - Kyiv and not "Kiev," Chernivtsi and not Czarnowitz, L'viv and not Lvov or Lemberg, etc. Otherwise, it is a plain disrespect to Ukraine. You can certainly choose to be disrespectful, but I will always remind you that you are being disrespectful.

No, I am not being disrespectful.  We are not talking about your town, but of a Russian built Nuclear Power Plant.  We are also not talking about Kyiv or L'viv.  By the way, since when did Ukraine start using Latin letters.  It would also seem to me when writing in ENGLISH, the respectful spelling would be the way the English speaking world would spell it.  If we insisted on using the Russian Cyrillic spelling, THEN we would be going out of our way to insult you.  When we are using our language, we can spell something however we wish to spell it.  When discussing the plant, it is Chernobyl regardless of how butt hurt you Ukrainians get about it.  I would think that the people who built it could name it whatever they wanted.  Similarly here in the United States, if I were to build a power plant outside of San Fransisco and call it the Saint Francis Steam Generating Plant, that is what it would be called.  If someone insisted in calling it the San Fransisco plant, they would be thought an idiot and nobody would pay attention to them.

Unfortunately, I got to see you people's squabbling over language a couple of times when delegations would come to visit us from the Khmelnitsky Nuclear Power Plant (or however you guys want to pronounce it).  It seemed the biggest problem was with the Ukrainian that moved to the US as a child.  The plant workers had no problem speaking Russian, and when our Ukrainian engineer kept insisting on speaking to them in Ukrainian, they finally asked our other translator why he insisted on speaking to them in Polish.  It seems that the "official" language used in the power plants was Russian.  That is what all the manuals were written in.  That is the language of the main text book on Nuclear Power used at the time.  That is the language that the gauges and controls are marked.  I wonder how much of this stupid squabbling caused the situation at Chernobyl, since it seems that the only RBMK 1000's that damaged their cores were at Cher/Chornobyl (Unit 1 and eight years later Unit 4).

On a final note, perhaps you should browse the official web site of the Chernobyl Power Plant.  The address is:

 http://new.chnpp.gov.ua/

Maybe you should drop them an line and let them know how much they are insulting you.  Let me know how it works out for you.
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2010, 08:59:03 AM »
I am not convinced, Punch. Please say, and write, "Chornobyl'" (soft "l," like in French), "Kyiv," "L'viv," "Khmnel'nyts'kyy," etc. And "Ukraine," rather than "the Ukraine" (that you already do). Yes, it takes some time and practice.:) Thank you. Best wishes.
Love never fails.

Offline admiralnick

  • Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,880
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2010, 09:36:17 AM »
I agree with Punch on this one. As a person who has done a good amount of research on CHERNOBYL and the accident that followed, I can confirm that the source materials for any research refer to the site as CHERNOBYL. Just as a matter of personal preference I prefer Kiev because it makes me think of Chicken Kiev which is a really good dish.

-Nick
The ORIGINAL: "NULL"

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2010, 09:42:18 AM »
I agree with Punch on this one. As a person who has done a good amount of research on CHERNOBYL and the accident that followed, I can confirm that the source materials for any research refer to the site as CHERNOBYL. Just as a matter of personal preference I prefer Kiev because it makes me think of Chicken Kiev which is a really good dish.

-Nick

It's certainly your choice and your prerogative to be disrespectful to Ukraine.
Love never fails.

Offline Orest

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,218
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2010, 11:07:55 AM »
I agree with Punch on this one. As a person who has done a good amount of research on CHERNOBYL and the accident that followed, I can confirm that the source materials for any research refer to the site as CHERNOBYL. Just as a matter of personal preference I prefer Kiev because it makes me think of Chicken Kiev which is a really good dish.

-Nick

Perhaps it is merely a matter of time: do you still say Peiking  as in Peiking Duck or do you call the capital of China Beijing.  Helsinki used to be known as Helsingsfor from the Swedish.  There are other examples of name changes throughout history.


Ukraine officially uses Chornobyl in English: here is their web site.

"Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology"
http://www.chornobyl.net/

Shcherbak, Yuri M. Ten Years of the Chornobyl Era: The environmental and health effects of nuclear power's greatest calamity will last for generations. Scientific American, April 1996, p. 44-49, illus. An excellent article by the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S.A.




1. The National Cancer Institute (USA) uses Chornobyl
* This site uses the Ukrainian spelling 'Chornobyl' rather than the Russian spelling 'Chernobyl' unless quoting the name of a study or conference”
http://chornobyl.cancer.gov/

You had mentioned your research: is it medical & have you seen the American government site mentioned above?

2.  National Geographic uses Chornobyl:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/lessons/14/g68/fallout.html

   "Chornobyl—One Year After," National Geographic Magazine, May 1987
"Living with the Monster—Chornobyl," National Geographic Magazine, August 1994

3.  Time Magazine uses Chornobyl:
   "More Fallout From Chornobyl," Time, May 19, 1986

4.  Scientific American uses Chornobyl”
    "Ten Years of the Chornobyl Era," Scientific American, April, 1996

5.  The Toronto Star uses Chornobyl:
Toronto Star Focus, Thursday, April 21, 1994. p. H1-H16, illus. map. Features "Children of Chornobyl Eight Years Later," "Puzzling questions in Chornobyl's wake" and other articles on Chornobyl

In England:
Zelenko, Constantine. The Chornobyl Nuclear Disaster (An East European View). London, Eng.: European Liaison Group, 1986. 20 p. Includes a section "The Ukrainian Aspect of Chornobyl."



Offline Orest

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,218
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2010, 11:14:38 AM »
Quote
On a final note, perhaps you should browse the official web site of the Chernobyl Power Plant.  The address is:

 http://new.chnpp.gov.ua/

Maybe you should drop them an line and let them know how much they are insulting you.  Let me know how it works out for you.

Are you fluent in Russian and Ukrainian?

Here is the official site of the Chornobyl Power Plant in Ukrainian:
http://new.chnpp.gov.ua/?lng=ua


Ukraine officially uses Chornobyl in English: here is their web site.
http://www.chornobyl.net/
Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology


Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2010, 11:24:38 AM »
^^^Thank you, Orest.
Love never fails.

Offline Gorazd

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,961
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2010, 04:51:39 PM »
What is wrong with "the Ukraine"? Is "the United States" now wrong, too?

In the French language for example, almost all countries have articles (the only exceptions I can think of are Matla and Cyprus). In German, many countries also have articles, including Ukraine. There is nothing disrespectful about that.

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2010, 04:54:45 PM »
What is wrong with "the Ukraine"? Is "the United States" now wrong, too?

In the French language for example, almost all countries have articles (the only exceptions I can think of are Matla and Cyprus). In German, many countries also have articles, including Ukraine. There is nothing disrespectful about that.

In English, still, independent countries are usually called their names without the definite article. "The United States" or "The United Kingdom" have the definite article "the" because they are are federations (same thing the former USSR - it is OK to say and write "The Soviet Union"). "France" is used without article in English, even though in French, it is "La Flance."
Love never fails.

Offline Gorazd

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,961
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2010, 05:21:10 PM »
I do not see how an article would be an indicator of independence. There are quite some non-independent countries in English without article. England, Sctoland, and Wales are the best examples for that.

On the other hand, there are independent, non-federal countries such as "the Bahamas" and "the Dominican Republic".

Offline mike

  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,594
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2010, 05:41:20 PM »
As I was taught 'the' is used with states that a) are plural (the Netherlands), when the name of the state in made with an object and a modifier (the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom) and countries that can be written with or without 'the' (Vatican, Ukraine, Sudan Yemen).
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

not everything I typed before [insert current date] may reflect my current views on the subject

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,801
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2010, 06:29:02 PM »
Here is the official English translation from the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant:

 http://new.chnpp.gov.ua/eng/

They make it easy for those of us who do not read Ukrainian.

Also, Chernobyl is the spelling in English used by the United States Nuclear Reglatory Commission (NRC) in all correspondence about the plant and the accident.  Chernobyl is the spelling used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of which Ukraine is a member.  Chernobyl is also the spelling used by the United Nations, UNDP, the agency for UN wide coodination of Chernobyl issues.  Last I knew, Ukraine was a member of the UN.  Chernobyl is the spelling used by the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), of which Ukraine is a member.  And, as the link above shows, the plant itself uses the translation Chernobyl on its (acknowledged by Orest) official web site.  Sorry, I don't care what National Geographic calls the place.  Maybe I will when they start running nuclear power plants.

By the way, this is my area of expertise as I have worked in the industry (including closely with and part of two of the agencies above) for 29 years now.  I have personally spoken with people that have worked at that facility.  A delegation from my plant has visited that facility.  And, I have extensively studied first hand accounts of the accident, as well as nearly everything on the accident written in English, some of which is not available to the public.  I have never, in ANY of the official accounts of the accident by ANY government seen the name of the plant spelled Chornobyl, nor will I spell it as such until it becomes the common convention among those of us in the industry.  And to answer Orest's question, I know enough about the language to know that the "official site" that you acknowledge uses the Russian spelling of the name on the header for both the Russian and Ukrainian pages, but does use the spelling Chornobyl on the rest of the Ukrainian page..
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 06:33:58 PM by Punch »
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,790
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2010, 09:28:49 AM »
Orest and Heorhij are correct. The current English spelling of the city in question is Chornobyl. Please don't get all nationalistic about this; geographic names in countries that do not use the Latin alphabet are always phonetic approximations. The capital of China is neither Beijing nor Peiking; it's pronounced somewhere between these, but closer to Beijing. Same with Mumbai (Bombay): The new spelling is phonetically closer to the way the Indians pronounce the city's name. We should always strive to be as respectful as possible when speaking of geographic places. After all, we are talking about someone's home.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,082
  • don't even go there!
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2010, 10:42:11 AM »
I agree - however, also don't automatically assume the person using "Chernobyl" intends it to be insulting - I too am one of those who remembers the whole news cycle from the beginning, and it was indeed spelled that way in all the papers & TV reports of the day, here in the U.S. anyway.  So please be patient with us old fogeys as we have a lot to un/relearn!  :D
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Orest

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,218
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2010, 11:19:42 AM »

Thank you ytterbiumanalyst and theistgal for your responses.  As I said before, I think it is only a matter of time before new spellings and new geographical names become the norm.  There is always a time period of adjustments to any change.  My parents for example, often remind of the changes in Canada from Fahrenheit to Celsius for temperatures and from inches to centimeters for measurement.  I grew up with only Celsius and centimeters. 


What is wrong with "the Ukraine"? Is "the United States" now wrong, too?

In the French language for example, almost all countries have articles (the only exceptions I can think of are Matla and Cyprus). In German, many countries also have articles, including Ukraine. There is nothing disrespectful about that.

I can also understand how this change can be confusing.  It also is an example of a grammatical change in current usuage within our adult lifetime.  All the major newspapers of the world now use "Ukraine" without the article.  Here is an explanation by Andrew Gregorovich, who recently retired as a major head librarian of the University of Toronto Library System.  During his carreer he was also on various boards of academic library associations.  he explains the grammatical change better than I ever could.

"Ukraine or "the Ukraine"?

by
Andrew Gregorovich
THE NAME UKRAINE, which first appeared in the historical chronicles in 1187, has been common in the English language for almost 350 years. In the earliest years it appeared without the definite article "the" but in this century the definite article increasingly preceded the name Ukraine.
First of all we might note that the Ukrainian language has no articles so this is not a factor except indirectly. The reason for this is that many Ukrainian immigrant scholars, due to their imperfect knowledge of English, used the form "the Ukraine" in their books thus helping to perpetuate this usage.
Does English grammar require the definite article the before Ukraine? Ukraine is the name of an independent country. There are only two groups of countries which require the article in English: Those with plural names such as the United States or the Netherlands. The others have names with adjectival or compound forms which require the article, such as the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, or the Ukrainian SSR.
English grammar does not require a definite article before the names of singular countries such as England, Canada or Ukraine.
Geographical regions such as the Arctic, the Atlantic, the North, the West, and the prairies all require the definite article, but these are not countries. Since 1917 Ukraine has had very definite borders so it cannot be regarded as merely a region. Some people have mistakenly thought that Ukraine is a general word meaning "the borderland;' "the steppes" or "the prairies;' which would require the article…
Is there any other reason to use the definite article in English with Ukraine? Usage has been suggested as a reason but this cannot be accepted today since the majority of books and newspapers do not use it.
But what about the regular daily press in the USA, Canada and England? Even The New York Times (which once required it in its Style Guide) does not use it now. Neither do The Times (London), The Economist (London), Washington Post, TIME, Newsweek or Maclean's. News services such as Canadian Press, Reuters, CNN and Associated Press do not use the article. When the December 1991 referendum confirmed the independence of Ukraine the White House in Washington, D.C. officially announced that it would discontinue use of the definite article before the name Ukraine.
Even the computer age has ruled that "the" Ukraine is wrong in English. Gram-mat-ik, the very popular grammar and style checker for computers by Reference Software International of San Francisco, uses Ukraine without the article and labels "the Ukraine" as a mistake of grammar.
There appears to be virtually no grammatical or logical reason to use the definite article before the name Ukraine. But it is still encountered occasionally because of habit or because the writer is careless or ignorant about Ukraine. Sir Bernard Pares the eminent English historian of Russia suggested that "the Ukraine" came from French usage. We say Ia France, le Canada and l'Ukraine in French but not 'the France; 'the Canada' or 'the Ukraine' in the English language. The definite article the does not add anything to the meaning or clarity when used before the proper noun Ukraine.
Now, the exception to the rule. Yes, it is possible for "the Ukraine" to be correct in English but it is a very rare usage in apposition to contrast the past with the present. For example, one could correctly say, "The America of George Washington is not the America of Bill Clinton" as well as "The Ukraine of Shevchenko is not the Ukraine of Kravchuk."
We may conclude then, that the use of the definite article in English before the name Ukraine is awkward, incorrect and superfluous. Writers who care about good style in their English grammar and the correctness of their language will always avoid the use of "the Ukraine" and use only the simpler and correct "Ukraine."

Offline Gorazd

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,961
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2010, 01:31:40 PM »
It seems to me that the argument against using an article with "Ukraine" seems to come from the nationalist side. But actually, it is also possible to make a nationalist argument for using the article:

Using an article is great, because "Russia" is used without article, and it is always nice to increase the difference between both countries: "the Ukraine" is not "Russia".

Offline Orest

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,218
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2010, 02:42:48 PM »
It seems to me that the argument against using an article with "Ukraine" seems to come from the nationalist side. But actually, it is also possible to make a nationalist argument for using the article:

Using an article is great, because "Russia" is used without article, and it is always nice to increase the difference between both countries: "the Ukraine" is not "Russia".

I don't think so.  The previous practice was just a mistake and it has been corrected.  To give you another example from the parent's youth, in the 1950's it was proper to talk about "the Sudan" and "The Chad" as 2 countries in Europe again to follow Gregorovich's reasoning probably from the French usuage because Chad was under France.
 

Offline Gorazd

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,961
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2010, 03:20:46 PM »
Why was it a mistake? And The Sudan was under Britain, wasn't it?

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,801
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2010, 04:55:06 PM »
Orest and Heorhij are correct. The current English spelling of the city in question is Chornobyl. Please don't get all nationalistic about this; geographic names in countries that do not use the Latin alphabet are always phonetic approximations. The capital of China is neither Beijing nor Peiking; it's pronounced somewhere between these, but closer to Beijing. Same with Mumbai (Bombay): The new spelling is phonetically closer to the way the Indians pronounce the city's name. We should always strive to be as respectful as possible when speaking of geographic places. After all, we are talking about someone's home.

Yeh, sure.  So why don't we call Germany Deutchland, or call Ireland Eire?  Or why not Sweden Sverige? Or do we just cater to those that whine the loudest?  In any case, I am done with this nonsense.  If someone wants to discuss nuclear power, nuclear accidents, or other related matters, I'm in.  I am not going to keep arguing over the finer points of an "e" or an "o" with a bunch of emo nationalists who, when it gets right down to it, don't care enough about their country to live in it.
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline admiralnick

  • Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,880
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2010, 08:17:31 PM »
Orest and Heorhij are correct. The current English spelling of the city in question is Chornobyl. Please don't get all nationalistic about this; geographic names in countries that do not use the Latin alphabet are always phonetic approximations. The capital of China is neither Beijing nor Peiking; it's pronounced somewhere between these, but closer to Beijing. Same with Mumbai (Bombay): The new spelling is phonetically closer to the way the Indians pronounce the city's name. We should always strive to be as respectful as possible when speaking of geographic places. After all, we are talking about someone's home.

The current english spelling is actually Chernobyl, we get words from Russian, not from Ukrainian.

-Nick
The ORIGINAL: "NULL"

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,790
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2010, 07:57:39 AM »
Or do we just cater to those that whine the loudest?
No, we don't. Good thing, too, 'cause your whining is drowning out everything else.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,790
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2010, 08:01:44 AM »
The current english spelling is actually Chernobyl, we get words from Russian, not from Ukrainian.
Sorry to break it to you, but Ukraine hasn't been part of Russia since 1991. Orest has already pointed out a number of reputable organizations, among them National Geographic, that use the Ukrainian spelling for Ukrainian place-names. It's appropriate. In Mexico, my state is referred to as Misuri, but that doesn't mean I prefer it to be called that. We ought to get our place-names from the place itself, not the neighbouring country.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline Cymbyz

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 496
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2010, 09:55:22 AM »
What always got my hackles up were those (and their number was legion) who called the place Cher-NO-ble rather than the more accurate Cher-no-BILL.
The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen

Offline vamrat

  • Vamratoraptor
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,825
  • Faith: Serbian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of New Gracanica
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2010, 10:17:18 AM »
The current english spelling is actually Chernobyl, we get words from Russian, not from Ukrainian.
Sorry to break it to you, but Ukraine hasn't been part of Russia since 1991. Orest has already pointed out a number of reputable organizations, among them National Geographic, that use the Ukrainian spelling for Ukrainian place-names. It's appropriate. In Mexico, my state is referred to as Misuri, but that doesn't mean I prefer it to be called that. We ought to get our place-names from the place itself, not the neighbouring country.

Punch also brought up a number of respected international organizations that refer to the nuclear plant as Chernobyl, two of which Ukraine is a member of.  If you read carefully the debate is about the Nuclear plant, not the town.  The CIA has the town specifically names Chornobyl.  Perhaps that is how we are spelling it now.  The nuclear plant's own website has "Chernobyl (in Cyrillic)" in the header for the English, Russian, and Ukrainian translations of the site, though in the body of the text it is Chernobyl in English, ЧЕРНОБЫЛЬСКАЯ АЭС in Russian, and Чорнобильська АЕС in the Ukrainian.  Perhaps we all could agree that different languages and cultures call places by different names?  If we can't, then next person that calls it Cambodia in my presence rather than Preăh Réachéa Nachâk Kâmpŭchéa, is going to get called a racist bigot.  Cool?
Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.

Offline mike

  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,594
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2010, 03:24:14 PM »
As in Russian 'e' stands both for 'ye' and 'yo' (they don't use 'ё') in Russian it can either be read as 'Chernobyl' and 'Chornobyl'.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

not everything I typed before [insert current date] may reflect my current views on the subject

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,801
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2010, 05:35:13 PM »
The current english spelling is actually Chernobyl, we get words from Russian, not from Ukrainian.
Sorry to break it to you, but Ukraine hasn't been part of Russia since 1991. Orest has already pointed out a number of reputable organizations, among them National Geographic, that use the Ukrainian spelling for Ukrainian place-names. It's appropriate. In Mexico, my state is referred to as Misuri, but that doesn't mean I prefer it to be called that. We ought to get our place-names from the place itself, not the neighbouring country.

Sorry to break it to you again, but the official language of the Russian built power plants is Russian and not Ukrainian.  This includes those located in Ukraine (at least the last drawings that I have of the Khmelnitsky plant are in Russian).  As I said before, when National Geographic starts operating nuclear power plants, let me know. 
« Last Edit: August 22, 2010, 05:45:18 PM by Punch »
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,801
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2010, 05:45:56 PM »
Or do we just cater to those that whine the loudest?
No, we don't. Good thing, too, 'cause your whining is drowning out everything else.

Sorry, I can't hear you.  All I hear coming from you is Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline vamrat

  • Vamratoraptor
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,825
  • Faith: Serbian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of New Gracanica
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2010, 07:50:49 PM »
As in Russian 'e' stands both for 'ye' and 'yo' (they don't use 'ё') in Russian it can either be read as 'Chernobyl' and 'Chornobyl'.

When I took Russian we were taught that there was an "e" and a "ё", but the second one frequently didn't get written that way, but technically it should still be there.
Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,801
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2010, 09:10:06 PM »
Just saw a program called Engineering Disasters on TV.  They were discussing the Santa Susana reactor accident that happened in the late 1950's and was covered up.  The program mentioned only one of the four reactor accidents that happened on the site, and none of the radioactive fires.  The accident mentioned is considered by some to be the third most contaminating accident in history, after Chernobyl and the Windscale accident in the UK in 1957.  However, unlike Chernobyl, Windscale and Three Mile Island, the public was not informed of the Santa Susana accident and housing subdivisions later were built close to the site.  In addition, the actual release of radioactive contamination can only be guessed since the instrumentation in use at the facility could only measure low levels of radiation.  Early estimates were based in the information put out by the Atomic Energy Commission (later replaced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) that stated that only one fuel assembly had been damaged.  In reality, there was extensive damage to more than a dozen of the reactor's fuel assemblies, and later the radioactive sodium coolant was burned in open air.  There was no containment structure around this reactor, nor was there any around the nine other reactors at the site (three more of which had fuel damaging accidents).

Another piece of information for those who may want to look up some of the accidents mentioned, the damaged reactors at Santa Susana were the AE6, the SRE (subject of the program), SNAP8ER, and SNAP8DR.  Also, the Windscale site was renamed Sellafield, and the Windscale Pile damaged in the fire in 1957 was too contaminated for decommissioning to start until rather recently.

I am waiting for the discussion to begin as to whether Susana is spelled with one "n" or two, and who is insulted by this.
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,790
Re: Chernobyl, Fires & Radiation
« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2010, 08:16:50 AM »
The current english spelling is actually Chernobyl, we get words from Russian, not from Ukrainian.
Sorry to break it to you, but Ukraine hasn't been part of Russia since 1991. Orest has already pointed out a number of reputable organizations, among them National Geographic, that use the Ukrainian spelling for Ukrainian place-names. It's appropriate. In Mexico, my state is referred to as Misuri, but that doesn't mean I prefer it to be called that. We ought to get our place-names from the place itself, not the neighbouring country.

Sorry to break it to you again, but the official language of the Russian built power plants is Russian and not Ukrainian.  This includes those located in Ukraine (at least the last drawings that I have of the Khmelnitsky plant are in Russian).  As I said before, when National Geographic starts operating nuclear power plants, let me know. 
I think you're being intentionally obtuse.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens