ареал населенного пункта

07:20 Jul 25, 2012 

Thanks for this discussion.

10:08 Jul 16, 2012 

This does not invalidate the term, which is used quite internationally.

09:54 Jul 16, 2012 

@mariusz. I meant "russia populated centres" for wich I couldnt find more than 2 links.

09:43 Jul 16, 2012 

147 000 links, to be precise. See http://tinyurl.com/cdmkz2a

09:37 Jul 16, 2012 

you, Ellen.

09:33 Jul 16, 2012 

sorry, forgot to quote the link my last sentence results from. and by the way, it´s one of the very, very few ones which use the term "populated centres"

09:27 Jul 16, 2012 

strictly speaking, one ought to speak of "population centre", not populated centre; but in my opinion neither the one nor the other is adequate in the present context. I tried to spot them as applicate here but found nothing suitable, but only links referring to Barents population centre or "Russian population centres have not telephone line yet ...."

09:05 Jul 16, 2012 

In my view this variant covers both aspects of the source definition, i.e. the territory of the populated center per se + the surrounding area but only that which the dwellers of that populated center exploit in their life (in economic activities or for leizure / recreation).

08:49 Jul 16, 2012 

why one might equally speak of "populated localities", see "ussia populated localities and:www.websters-online-dictionary.org/.../POPUL... - Russian (transliteration), naselennyy punkt (built-up area, human settlement, inhabited locality, populated locality, settlement). Additional references: Russian

00:22 Jul 16, 2012 

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Types_of_settlements_in_Russia and you'll find your various inhabited localities; area is a vague and obvious term in R and E; unless your talking about "range" in other subject matter.

12:23 Jul 15, 2012 

that it is a bit disingenuous of the learned institute to pretend that they are interested in pollution while in fact they are interested in a radiation dose that the population is exposed to both in the towns and when picnicking, picking wild mushrooms which would make some very interesting Geiger counter readings, and angling. I just don't see the connection between the two.

12:15 Jul 15, 2012 

Yeah! Those were the days...

Just have visited the asker's reference url and can explain why they limit the survey to 'human habitat areas of populated centers'. Unlike, say, Liechtenstein, Wales or the entire U.K., Russia is a vast country, so the only thing which is affordable when surveying a populated centre is to do the survey in and 'around', where 'around' is limited to those areas which the dwellers are used to visit for whatever purpose. A kind of ALARA but in this case - 'as little as reasonably affordable'.

11:09 Jul 15, 2012 

And to your other experience as well.

11:06 Jul 15, 2012 

Oleg, the document referred to by Михаил refers to the measurement of a population's post-Chernobyl exposure to ionising radiation. I fully agree with you about conventional pollution which, as I observed, tends to be "granular". Bearing in mind the character of the core document, I think nuclear experience is pertinent as you will fully understand that while there is a relation between a proximity to a populated centre, or a habitat, and conventinal pollution, there's hardly any with regard to the ionising radiation, the Welsh hills being a good case in point. I bow my head to your 8 years at the Kurchatov Institute. It is a revered place indeed.

10:39 Jul 15, 2012 

Thank you Mariusz! But you've been rather inattentive when reading my comment below. In my view what I've proposed an hour ago covers both ареал (as per definition given by the asker) AND населенные пункты. So, imho, my version could be the best way to skin this particular cat.

And why do you stick to 'radiation' pollution? Where do you find any reference to radiation in the source language??? They just speak about plenty of conventional waste which people are used to throw around when, say, drinking beer and eating snacks on a river shore near their village on a sunny weekend day.

(In response I could invite you to visit my profile to see that I have also had over eight years of nuclear-related experience, incuding the reverend Kurchatov Institute, but this does not pertain to the matter under discussion.)

09:59 Jul 15, 2012 

You are perfectly right, Oleg but there's more than one way to skin a cat, so "populated centres" have a life of their own (over 400 kilogoogles) while "population centres" thrive even better (over 800 kilogoogles). What I find strange is the fact that the learned institute finds a relationship between radiation pollution and the density of population. Well, what can I say, I was only a member of Poland's National Nuclear Energy Board... and I can claim to have sort of shaken hands with certain interesting installations at the Kurchatov Institute, some of them very historical.. :-))

09:41 Jul 15, 2012 

I've tried to find something that would cover both (i) that the area is close to a 'populated center' and (ii) that people living in this populated center are actively exploiting (be it for work or leisure) this surrounding area (which results in its pollution). I believe that HUMAN HABITAT AREAS of population centers covers both. Besides is a UNEP definition: The place where something lives is called its habitat. The places where people live are therefore called the human habitat, and this includes the environment where they sleep and eat, and often where they work. People do not usually live wild in nature, they make their own environment adapted to their needs, and they therefore can control whether that is a good or bad environment. Most people live together with other people, whether as an isolated family in a rural area, in a village or tribe, or a larger town or city. A human habitat can range in size from a farm with a family of four to a city of ten million or more, but whatever its size, the fact that people are living together creates special environmental problems. Often these problems get worse as the community gets larger. (http://islands.unep.ch/siemf1.htm)

09:15 Jul 15, 2012 

:-(

08:14 Jul 15, 2012 

I'm highly surprised both by this definition (please compare definition of "ареал" in БСЭ) and by it's application to general pollution, which tends to be "granular" while direct radiation exposure is strictly distance-related and airborne radiation exposure is not related to the density of population at all, as witnessed, e.g. by the (unpopulated) Welsh hills which still have a considerable amount of the post-Chernobyl radioactive caesium, but well, it looks like a very official, indeed.

07:32 Jul 15, 2012 

This definition of "aреал населенного пункта" comes from the recommended practice document found at http://dokipedia.ru/?q=doc-full&nid=1723281

The sentence comes from a report on a study conducted in accordance with the said recommended practice.

07:08 Jul 15, 2012 

Where this definition of "ареал" comes from, please? Is it specific to the text in question?