Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 4

message: Does Chernobyl really mean "wormwood" as some state as evidence for the Christian End Times? -- Kent Wang 17:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: According to an Arte report diffused a few days ago, it does. Lapaz 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My friends in Ukraine have told me that it does, but I count this as evidence, rather than proof, since their English language translation is not perfect. Kierant 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wormwood

message: OK, but there have been conspiracy theories.  No system, including Wikipedia's is perfect.  I will put this article as due for Cleanup and look for an admin to have a look at it because i think that we should leave in the argument about conspiracy.  It is not violating NPOV, because we are not saying there were conspiracies, but just there might have been.  I will use a citation, common sense.  Common sense here would not go amiss, just use common sense, i don't think there was a conspiracy, but why not include it?  We are not here to just reproduce one point of view.  Wikipedia can go further into articles and stories, it may be sensible at this rate to have another article.  "Chernobyl Conspiracy Theories."  Innocent until proven guilty aside, I know, just from my instincts and common sense that we should leave the conspiracy theory in.
86.140.242.55 18:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claimed Policy Violations and grey areas

message: As this sentence is only very misleading, I have not totally deleted it, but am moving it to the separate Chernobyl_accident_effects article where it is better placed and will add a proviso to it. - Axel Berger 21:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to Hiroshima 

message: I removed the following:
from the intro since the reference does not support the assertion.
:It does, in that Greenpeace claims a much higher death toll than the IAEA report.  However, that specific reference is no longer necessary, as there are other examples of how the figure is disputed now present in the article that weren't when the original reference to Greenpeace was added. --Robert Merkel 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed report? 

message: I added the 9/11 hijackings to the list of other man-made disasters due to that event's historical and national significance.  I pulled the death toll from the corresponding Wikipedia article.  In making this addition, I deliberately did not distinguish between deliberate and accidental man-made disasters, but at the same time, I did not consider 9/11 to be an act of war perpetrated by one state against another.  Had I chosen to include acts of war - most notably the siege and battle of Stalingrad, with over a million casualties - doing so would have rendered the inclusion of the list in this article meaningless.
: I think this addition does not belong to this section. It´s obviously out of "synch" with the other disasters. This section was meant to be accidental disasters, on par with Chernobyl. Terrorism does not apply here. Historical and national significance does not alone make this addition pertainable to the list of man made disasters. You do not consider 9/11 to be an act of war, but that´s your opinion, POV. We should avoid it. If it enter the list then the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, much more properly, should made into the list too (they are, after all, nuclear man made disasters). Regards Loudenvier 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to Other Disasters List 

message: The article says:
"Two of these were sent in wet suits to release the valve to vent the radioactive water, and thus prevent a thermal explosion. These men, just like the other liquidators and firefighters that helped with the cleanup, were not told of the danger they faced. The two men saved millions by releasing the water, yet it is likely they did not even reach the surface again before they died."
I never heard this before, is there a source? 84.191.221.158 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off the top of my head, i can easily imagine that water might have radioactive material either dissolved or suspended within it, which would mean it was bringing the radioactivity to you, rather than doing any shielding. Sandpiper 23:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wet suit story in "Immediate Crisis Management" 

message: I have removed ", and large areas in the UK are still banned from selling sheep because of contamination arising from the accidentChernobyl still haunts hill farms, BBC News, May 22, 2003", since it is not supported by the cited article.
: And I have reinserted it, as it is. Please sign your contributions. Thanks. Guinnog 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The BBC article does not claim that selling the sheep is banned, although they are not allowed to enter the human food chain. This government pdf shows the current status. I suggest the sentence should be "... and sheep farming in some areas of the UK still operates under government restrictions on movement and sales because of contamination arising from the accident" Joffan 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I've done that Guinnog 21:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed some part 

message: A big claim like "Most of the money donated by foreign countries and contributed by Ukraine has been squandered by inefficient distribution of construction contracts and overall management, or simply stolen." needs some supporting evidence so I've removed it until some is provided. --Xilog 15:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stolen funds 

message: It is proposed that the name of this article be moved to Chernobyl disaster to bring it inline with similar industrial disasters like the Bhopal disaster. This was no mere accident. An accident would have been someone crashing their car into a group of pedestrians. This was a long term, far reaching, and environmentally catastrophic occurance.
*Support Septentrionalis 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment, not so sure about that. "Incident" makes it sound like Soviet propoganda trying to cover-up how disasterous this actually was. Nuclear fallout reached the eastern U.S. from this event. Hardly an "incident".JohnnyBGood t c 18:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: **I've never read Pravda. :)  Agreed: I acknowledge that a spade is a spade, but the intent of the alternate/suggestion is to mitigate potential hyperbole when rendering article titles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment - @E Pluribus Anthony, Incident ranks below Accident in my vocabulary. An acccident is an incident in which someone is injured. I don't think Disaster is hyperbole for the consequences of Chernobyl. If we were restricted to (say) 50 "disasters" in the whole of Wikipedia, Chernobyl should make the list. Joffan 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is done.--Shanel § 00:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move to Chernobyl disaster

message: It appears that the total long-term casualties predicted by this report is 9000, not 4000 as widely reported. (4000 among the most exposed, 5000 among the much larger groups with less exposure).  The entries will be updated accordingly.--DocS 13:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May you please state where the 9000 figure sits? Thank you! Natmaka 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the report estimated the number to be between 4 000 and 9 000, as this BBC news article shows. Lapaz 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The BBC article is incorrect; this is not a range.  The 4000 figure is only for the 200,000 liquidators and 400,000 civilians living closest to the plant at the time.  The additional 5,000 (for a total of 9,000) includes fatalities from the ~7M people in the wider area exposed to lower levels of radiation.--DocS 15:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Official report, page 106, 2 first paragraphs. Total: 9000. As a sidenote the second group is 6e6+ tall Natmaka 15:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.. good catch.  I'll correct the 6.8 million figure to 6 million --DocS 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 IAEA/WHO Report

message: I have some questions regarding the section:
 
The problem presented by this was the fact that the smouldering fuel and other material on the reactor floor was starting to burn its way through this floor, and was being made worse by materials being dropped from helicopters, which simply acted as a furnace to increase the temperatures further. If this material came into contact with the water, it would have generated a thermal explosion which would have arguably been worse than the initial reactor explosion itself, and would have, by many estimates, rendered land in a radius of hundreds of miles from the plant uninhabitable for at least one hundred years.
In order to prevent this, "liquidators"—members of the army and other workers—were sent in as cleanup staff by the Soviet government. Two of these were sent in wet suits to release the valve to vent the radioactive water, and thus prevent a thermal explosion. ....
1) Which material do you mean? 
2) Are there any references describing this event? 
3) Especially, typical pipe diameter around the reactor is 400 mm, can its valves be operated by humans? (See  how it looks now under the reactor)
4) Is really concact of "lava" with water really so explosive (hundreds of miles)? Usual lava is not...
Otherwise, thanks for a nice article....  Tomáš
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.240.168.50 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 22 April 2006  (UTC) -213.219.162.40 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valve heroes? 

message: I changed the "medal" to a "sign" because it is not actually a medal. Soviet awards were divided into signs, medals, orders and Hero stars. They have differences in fixing mechanism, signs have not usually any information its back side. Medals usually have round shape and special 5-angle form for strip holder. Also differs the awarding mechanism. Such sign was awarded to any liquidator, not for special heroism and it did not need special decision from any council. This sign is just like "Победитель соцсоревнования" sign.--Nixer 16:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sign" may be a literal translation but it doesn't read well in English... perhaps just "award" would be a better choice? Joffan 02:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an award I guess. For example on medals may be written "To participant of..." or "For participation in...", here we see "Participant of liquidation...". May be it shoul be translated as "decoration"--Nixer 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Mark" is perhaps a better word which can mean the same as "sign". As in eg. "This is a mark of your participation in..." Joffan 20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe badge? At least its the literal translation, I think, because in Russian the word for badge is the deminutive from the word for sign... Some of such badges (and this one I suppose) had the shape like a medal or order and even had a certificate of the same type.--Nixer 09:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Badge" sounds good - changed. Joffan 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet sign/medal 

message: This section is POV and selfcontradictory. It states that the sarcophagus roof leaks water, and at the same time that dust will be raised when it collapses. Has anybody ever seen wet dust raised? Perhaps radioactive mud will be splashed about the immediate surroundings. 
The section makes the planned SIP look like an international effort with unanimous assent that serves to "protect" the environment from the radioactive material contained in the destroyed reactor. Actually at a recent conference on radiation protection in Heidelberg, Germany (http://heidelberg06.dpg-tagungen.de/), the SIP was seen more as an effort to burn money as effectively as possible, or at least pump it into the companies involved. I got the impression that it is only attractive for politicians and seen as completely useless by actual radiation protection researchers. gbrandt 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the rest (especially since I don't speak German), but it does not seem unreasonable that the sarcophagus could leak water and raise dust when it collapses. It is unlikely that the leak in the sarcophagus completely eliminates the dust problem, since not all of the contents may be wet and it could dry out after it has not rained for a while. Also, the dust could come from the material the sarcophagus is made out of or from the ground or structures adjacent to it. However, having content about the opinion of experts about the sarcophagus would be good to have. -- Kjkolb 08:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcophagus POV 

message: Certain editors persist in injecting POV language and structure into the article.  All I can do is recommend that they read the NPOV policy and articles, but it appears inevitable that dispute resolution will be required.--DocS 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are refering to the "See also" descriptive remarks concerning the linked articles, I fail to see why you would consider them POV. If you feel that it is "inevitable that dispute resolution will be required", please state with precision disputed points. Cheers! Lapaz 15:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   The "See also" issue was minor (but taking a position on alleged political repression is POV).  I am more concerned with the overall balance of the Controversy section and the use there of prejudicial language and structure (the "however"s and "only"s, for instance).  These will give a reader the impression that the article endorses the more severe impact assessments (and related assertions, including attacks on the credibility and honesty of other investigators) of the anti-nuclear groups.  --DocS 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume you refer for example to the "The IAEA/WHO and UNSCEAR considered areas with exposure greater than 40,000 Bq/m2; the TORCH report also included areas contaminated with more than 4,000 Bq/m2 of Cs-137." sentence. Although NPOV of course requires a neutral language, I think however that, for the basis of comprehension (and syntax), link words are to be used. I will not revert that sentence anymore, but I do think, for example, that writing: "The IAEA/WHO and UNSCEAR considered only areas with exposure greater than 40,000 Bq/m2, while the TORCH report also included areas contaminated with more than 4,000 Bq/m2 of Cs-137." is not a breach of NPOV, but a simple grammatical opposition which actually reflect a real debate. I may however misunderstand the use of certain link-words, but I believe that NPOV does not entail weasel words and a bland language. In any cases, if language and wording is the real issue, I do not think this warrant a POV debate, since we agree on the existence of the studies and the necessity to quote them all. The article is only reflecting, IMO, the scale of the debate concerning numbers, which is very much the least we can wait for a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, you are aware of course that your "impression that the article endorses the more severe impact assessments" is, as you say, your subjective impression. Others would doubtlessly agree with me that earlier edits which only stated the Forum's study (although, twenty years later, this is only one of the many studies) was an endorsing of the nuclear lobby's evaluation. We both know that nuclear is a controversial subject, as this talk page shows. Lapaz 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assure you that the use of words like "only" and "however" can be tendentious in English; in this case it implies that the WHO was less diligent than the TORCH authors, when in fact there exists a difference of opinion on the estimable effect of very low doses on large populations (a topic where there is no general professional consensus) .  The particulars of the competing methodologies are well beyond the scope of this article; the descriptions should therefore be kept brief, factual and without language that implies a preference for any given method or outcome.--DocS 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued POV Problems 

message: "About 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus [1]. According to the 2006 TORCH report, half of the radioactive fallout landed outside the three soviet countries [2]."
Both of these can't be true at the same time. Or am I missing something? Joncnunn 14:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weren't those two scientists Doctors of Philosophy?
Have a look at this Flash animation (2min30) for an animated map of radioactive fallout caesium-137, produced by the French Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire. Lapaz 15:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good catch, Joncnunn. This contradiction is a very bad way to start the article. We should remove both sentences from the introduction, and deal with the alternative views elsewhere in the article. Joffan 16:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the best way to go around is not to address the controversy. And the controversy is important enough to be stated in the intro. Beside, it is of interest to put in the intro where did the radioactive fallout go. So, since there's a debate about that, it is only normal that we put two contradictory sources. That's called democratic debate. Lapaz 17:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: These two back to back sentences (each with a source) contradict each other.

message: The quote from the nature article in the 'other studies' section is practically verbatim the same words used in the TORCH report (pages 10-11). Should this be listed under 'other studies' when it is in fact a report on the TORCH study. It appears to be an attempt to cite the same study twice. 
(remark by 195.92.168.170 17:03, 28 April 2006)
:TORCH has been overused in this article, both directly and indirectly, and needs some pruning back. I'm standing back a bit from this article at present however. Joffan 02:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed. Leaving the reference to other NAture article in note though. Lapaz 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple doses of TORCH 

message: Someone has deleted the source about the IARC report claiming it does not support the assertion. So, the source is this one, and does state that:
"By 2065, these models predict that about 16,000f cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths from these cancers may occur. About two-thirds of the thyroid cancer cases and at least one half of the other cancers are expected to occur in Belarus, Ukraine and the most contaminated territories of the Russian Federation. The number of cancer cases in Europe possibly resulting from radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident up to now, and in the lifetime of the exposed populations, is therefore expected to be large in absolute terms. While these figures reflect human suffering and death, they nevertheless represent only a very small fraction of the total number of cancers seen since the accident and expected in the future in Europe. It is unlikely therefore that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be ever be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics."
In other words, this is vandalism (the vandal is 195.92.168.176, the guy doing the unsigned comments above). Lapaz 20:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal deleting source 

message: What do others think of the way studies and reports are presented
As I write there are four 'major studies' in their own sections and five 'studies' highlighted under 'other studies'. If I may give my thoughts on the latter.
*The first is not a study as such but a quote taken from the last paragraph of a french newspaper article primarily concerning the TORCH report. 
:It is not a study but the official number given by the Ukrainian Health Minister, as quoted by radio RFI (which, likes the BBC, doesn't archive its articles - they are always on-line). Lapaz 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it is not a study but the number given by the Union Chernobyl, main organization of liquidators as you can read. It was quoted in the Le Monde article, that did deals mainly with the IPPNW study; but if that part was separated from the IPPNW study, you may see that is because the source for the number is not the IPPNW, but the Union Chernobyl. Lapaz 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You are encouraged to resume other important studies. Please do not make a section for "articles of interest", this is not necessary. Again, if these two French articles are given, it is because they give numbers from the Ukrainian HEalth Minister & the Union Chernobyl. If you can find good English sources for them, so much the better. I recall for personal usage that Le Monde is the French newspaper of record and that RFI is the French BBC, at least for international stuff. Lapaz 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the stuff on long-term effect studies could do with a rewrite.  Expect all manner of arguments if you less prominently cite studies that estimate higher casualty figures.  Such a report should also discuss non-cancer illnesses in a bit more detail.  --Robert Merkel 04:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies 

message: This page provides a second-by-second report of the last few minutes before the explosion (in Russian).
http://chernobil.land.ru/
I will translate parts of it when I have time.
--Whichone 23:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More detailed report 

message: I've just removed "their bravery" from here. I don't want to seem like a bitch, but apparently they were not told of the specific dangers. It was brave to go into a burning building, and to risk themselves. But they were as brave as everybody else involved in the cleanup, so why the special mention? Szandor 19:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small removal 

message: I removed the phrase Because there was no containment building, as it implies that a containment might have prevented the fallout. This is not the case. The initial powerful explosions that followed the power excursions would have ruptured the containment easily. The containment of a nuclear plant is designed to hold back radioactive material that was released by the reactor. It is a steel vessel with walls a few centimeters thick. Thus it is by no means capable to stand a violent explosion from the inside.-----<(kaimartin)>--- 09:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the phrase.  Containment buildings are built to withstand the worst-case plausible accident, and it would simply have been a matter of engineering to build an adequate one.  An extremely expensive one, to be sure, given the criminality of the RBMK design, but outside of the Soviet Union a precaution that would have been absolutely required.  The cite is Cohen, p. 158 in . Simesa 10:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It the cite is legitimate, put it in the article, the talk page is just for deciding controversies. Such as the unilateral move down there to "delist" the article...  Lapaz 13:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you don't like my choice to delist the article Lapaz please feel free to seek a review, or address the concerns raised and renominate it. Thats the way it works. BRT01 19:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The Cohen cite did not have any information on whether a containment building would have been able to prevent the fallout (I'm not contending it would or wouldn't). It just says that the containment buildings on Chernobyl and Western plants are different. -- Kjkolb 09:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll re-read that. However, I agree that a link to one of the actual studies would be better, and I'll try to get one or more. Simesa 15:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Containment would not have prevented the fallout 

message: I have delisted this article from the Good articles list due to problems as mentioned on the review page pending the redundancy of the The effects of the Chernobyl disaster link and the POV issues regarding the various reports being addressed. BRT01 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The The effects of the Chernobyl disaster was intended as a spin-off to reduce the size of this article, as it was becoming very large, however, the section within this article is being perpetually re-expanded. Some section of this article needs to be kept seperate, as it's getting really huge, and it seems like that section can most easily stand on its own.--Matthew 02:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubtlessly. Although we may wonder if it is not, in the end, a POV-fork to separate the "effects of Chernobyl disaster" (I initially created the article out of complaints of size). "Popular consciousness" has already been spinned out, maybe we could also keep resume of others sections here and spin them out, as we certainly can not take out all of the effects of Chernobyl part (we may be able to reduce it, but it isn't, on its own, so big). Lapaz 17:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've created two new "main articles" that are waiting to be filled-out in order to prepare them to spin-out. This would allow to keep the three main sections here on the main article, with resumes (like this, all sections are resumed, and none privilegied over the other). Lapaz 17:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually BRT01 delisted the article, although I didn't see him participate in any attempt at "pov-conciliation". It was & still is a unilateral move. Luckily for him, nobody really bothers about reversing that move, and I ain't either... Lapaz 17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted 

message: THis may be a useful reference.  I've not attempted to integrate it, just prvide it here:- 
http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/news/articles/press_releases/2006/060425_chernobyl.htm
Midgley 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This ref speaks again about Elizabeth Cardis, that I had quoted in this article concerning her opinion about the IAEA study (she originally provided the numbers for that study). This quote was deleted (considered "POV"). Now we see that the UK considers her important enough to state her in this April 25, 2006 press release. Any thought about reintegrating Cardis' statement concerning the IAEA study? Lapaz 17:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK official view on health consequences 

message: I would have been nice to have the reactor 4 coordinates. So people can use the goggle to sea an aerial photo. I could find any print or web source BUT I measure it to (51.389623,30.099733) which give to the link:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=&t=k&om=1&ll=51.389623,30.099733&spn=0.001667,0.004989
(chimney coordinates. The chimney is a very distinctive feature of reactor 4. Note, also, the cranes.)
ALSO should the time of the events be expressed in UTC time, not local time. I believe the explosion took place at 1986-04-25T23:23 UTC . Although probably you will find a few minutes difference between sources.
Jose Simoes
:I would think the times should be kept as local time with the UTC noted afterwards in parenthesis, as the events are more relevant in local time (with the explosion happening at night at the end of the shift). --Matthew 04:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  explosion coordinates 

message: Shouldn't this article contain a reference to mayak considering the enormous effects which  that nuclear complex had on the environment and the people during the 1957 accident and the 1968 Lake Karachay accident? --Hardscarf 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it should, be bold and do it. --Matthew 04:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's covered under Nuclear and radiation accidents, but if you can find cites drawing special links between what happened at Chernobyl and at Mayak then I'd say those links would be worthy of mentioning. (There's an article Nuclear power in Russia but it is trivial.)  Simesa 08:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayak 

message: Near the middle of that section, on line five, is the text "[xenon production rate]:[xenon loss rate]". Are those botched links or are the brackets there for a reason? 24.50.211.226 14:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior to Accident section 

message: The article refers to water's neutron absorbing ability several times, but water also moderates neutrons, which is not mentioned anywhere in the article. A note was left an the bottom of the article that water is a neutron moderator, not an absorber, so it appears that people might be confused about this. 
There is also this sentence, "The coolant (water), a neutron absorber, is therefore replaced by graphite, a neutron moderator – that is, a material that enables the nuclear reaction, rather than slows the reaction down." This is terribly confusing to someone who knows that water moderates neutrons, but does not know this, (from the RBMK article) "With moderation largely due to the fixed graphite, excess boiling simply reduces the cooling and neutron absorption without inhibiting the fission reaction, so the reactor can have a large positive void coefficient, and a positive feedback problem can arise, such as at Chernobyl, which was a RBMK reactor." I suggest that the article be modified to clear this up. -- Kjkolb 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water's neutron absorption and moderation 

message: an anon added a paragraph citing a vast death toll according tio a discovery channel program. any suggestions what he was talking about? Sandpiper 07:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery channel program 

message: It's getting a bit long. Is it time to Archive? BRT01 17:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd agree that it's long enough. However the guidelines suggest 50 topics, so since we're at 46 we may as well wait a few more days, since there's sometimes friction caused when archiving is done too soon. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a good idea to retain sections which are often discussed (estimates, the reports, etc.) Archive only discussions which won't probably be used again. Lapaz 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion page