Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 5

message: "There are two conflicting official theories about the cause of the accident. The first was published in August 1986 and effectively placed the blame solely on the power plant operators." Can not see much about the criminal negligence of those operators, the article seems to justify their actions. This can't be right. This is not a neutral point of view. Lantios 21:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I accidentally named the most recent archive Chernobyl accident/Archive 4. Should the archive be renamed? What about the other archives? I suppose a notice could be made that the name was different on the previous archives, if necessary. -- Kjkolb 04:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... the archiving must have begun before the page was renamed a few months ago. Since nothing else links to them, may as well rename them to match the article. I've not been bold done so right away just in case anybody comes along soon with a good reason not to. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 10:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The archives have been moved. -- Kjkolb 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: The sequence of events first described (in the paragraph labelled "Fatal Experiment") is 'directly negated' by the circumstantial evidence in the next section - that is to say, the article first proposes, objectively, that there were seven seconds between SCRAM and explosion, and yet one paragraph later it makes mention of a seismic event being recorded immediately before the SCRAM. I'm not a nuclear physicist, so perhaps there's some complicated, yet rational, reason why the seismic data has no conclusive bearing on the chain of events - but it seems to me that the article has been "sanitized" to compensate for the perceived feelings of the station operators. While this is a glowing success on humanitarian grounds, it's nonetheless a resounding failure in the field of unbiased academic reporting. --70.108.56.178 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states that the sequence of events are not known exactly, and that there are several theories. As teh article states, teh siesmic event appears to support a theory different than the main one, but could possibly be unrelated. In my opinion the article does clearly state that the theory about what caused the accident is debated and somewhat controversial, and thsu I don't really think its much of a problem. 83.108.144.39 00:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that the clean up template may be being applied too widely, which of the sub sections needs to be altered. I think for example that the subsection on the liberation of radioactivity by grass fires is OK. It is easy to understand and tells the unbiased truth. But other areas need some work.Cadmium 07:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Contradictions" part summarises statements from this article: http://www.n-t.ru/tp/ie/ca.htm . The important claims there are: (1) There were two explosions, with 10-30 seconds interval. (2) The second one was more powerful. (3) Only one seismic event was detected. (4) Natuaral earthquakes in that area are not possible. => The event corresponds to the second explosion. => The AZ-5 had no impact at all, because by the time it was pressed, the reactor did not exist anymore. => The blame is on the operators, or on the designers of the experiment. --Whichone 17:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The children are attributed with getting thyroid cancer as a result of the accident.  The radioactive isotope Iodine-131, when ingested (for example, from the milk of cows which have eaten contaminated grass), concentrates in the thyroid.  Although all milk was supposed to be thrown out, some families had nothing else to give their children. Simesa 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: According to the
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F
(which is the article on the Chernobyl disaster in Russian, article http://www.n-t.ru/tp/ie/ca.htm is not reliable.
I deleted the whole "contradictions" part as a POV.--Whichone 22:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Pinnecco 22:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: However not even mentioning about exotic version (for example local vertical energy blast, since Unit 4 was standing on between tectonical plates - the worst place possible, and Unit 4 personnel was told to suffer from quakes, asking Science Academy to test basement of the plant - it was planned for May, but reactor blasted in April). Be it heresy or not, but on should mention it IMHO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.249.152.137 (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted the "contradictions" part

message: There is a graph accompanying this part of the article. The x axis is entitled Distance from fire (m). Can anyone tell me if the unit of measurement (m) is metres or miles? (comment by 195.92.168.163)
:I made the title of this section lowercase. Also, please sign your comments by placing ~~~~ after them. My guess is that it is in meters, since I would expect larger drops if it were miles. The Pu-239/240 only falls from about 3 to 1 X 105 over 80 units. It's hard to tell at a glance for the cesium and strontium since their scale is logarithmic and no intermediate numbers are given on the scale. -- Kjkolb 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am the editor who added the data about the grass fire experiment. The distance unit is meters.Cadmium
I don't understand the relevance of this section. I suggest it should be removed or rewritten. Joffan 00:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grass fires

message: Somebody put a sentence in the article claiming that "recent studies" had showed that there had been 500,000 deaths as a result of Chernobyl.  They notably failed to cite these recent studies, hence it was removed. --Robert Merkel 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  500,000 deaths 

message: The section on the TORCH report is getting very long almost justifying a separate article. In comparison, it is almost as long as the entire section on long term health effects. It is also unproprotionally detailed as compared to the reports from the chernobyl forum and greenpeace. I suppose you could consider it more credible ( tho I suspect this is highly disputed ) but hardly enough to warrant the overly detailed ellabouration on isotope concentration. I'd suggest that much of this material be moved to a separate page for the TORCH report, leaving the sumary of it's finidngs with regards to fatality estimates in the main article, as this would also bring it more in line with the sections dealing with the reports from the chernobyl forum and greenpeace. J.Ring 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Please do so.  --Robert Merkel 07:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As nobody seems to have had any severe issues with it I moved the main part on the TORCH report to a separate page, sumarising it's finding in the Chernobyl disaster article. The new page should be here TORCH report. The references still need to be coppied but it's late and I'm tiered. J.Ring 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  With these things I can make a better accessment of the transfer of radioactivity (Cs-137) via a cow to humans. This will not be original research as the methods which I will employ are well established in text books. I have already made an accessment of the external gamma dose rate due to 4 KBq m-2 and this is jolly low, I took a worst case where the activity was on the top surface of the soil. In real lfe it will slowly sink into the soil.Cadmium 08:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful, you're starting to verge into original research here.  If you can't find a critique done elsewhere of the TORCH report, just trim that part down to a paragraph, about as long as the comments on the Chernobyl Forum report.  --Robert Merkel 09:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that it is not original research to take the data published by others and then use that to calculate a dose assessment. If you look at the writings done on transmission lines by some of the electronics/physics community here you will see how at least one of them has made measurements (using standard methods in physics) on a length of coaxial cable to generate data which he is legally allowed to use in writing a wilikedpia article. I would suggest that the use of a standard method (already published by others) to generate contect is not original research. What do you think ? If you want I would dig out the details of the measurements which I think user:lightcurrent did on some RG213.Cadmium 09:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this, Cadmium.  While I think that this example is perhaps a little on the high side to act as an example of "not original research" for most of Wikipedia, I definitely agree with the general principle that arithmetic and plugging numbers into established equations (as for dosimetry) should not count as original research.  Requiring simple maths about a topic to be published in a peer-reviewed journal is overkill. Wikisteff 03:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TORCH Report cleanup? 

message: I have repositioned a lot of the images on the page and rearranged some of the sections. The reason for this is mainly that the left-aligned images quite break the position of the headings in a rather ugly manner. This is especially true when the height of an image exceeds the vertical length of a paragraph. I suggest we keep the images left aligned and small, except for where the image height exceeds the height of the section in which it occurs, where the image should be placed on a new line and centred, as to not break the heading beneath it. J.Ring 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images, Positioning

message: Two latitude/longitude locations are given for the plant, and they don't agree. Simesa 23:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says , but from following the links it seems like  is a better set of coordinates.  There isn't really anything at the first set of coordinates.  Does anyone have a justification that the first set is more correct? Wesino 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or maybe this set was intended to be the reactor complex?  I've added the second one to the article as the coords of reactor 4, doublechecking appreciated. Wesino 22:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant location 

message: These sections appear to be general rather than related to Chernobyl. I suggest they should be deleted, unless the author wishes to rewrite them in a fashion which ties them more directly to the article. Joffan 06:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farming and Grass-fire sections 

message: I removed the comparison graphs to a separate article, linked from its previous location, because I felt that it diluted the article too much and because it overshadowed the ostensible content of that section, comparison to other disasters. I also admit I had concerns about whether it was truly encyclpedia material or whether it had strayed into being a kind of textbook exposition of radiation calculations. Not uninteresting or necessarily wrong, but as I say distracting from the focus of the main article. Joffan 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons 

message: The fauna section's wording is suspect. Animals' thyroid glands disintegrated 6km away? VxP 01:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fauna 

message: Apologies for not discussing this properly (I'm a newbie), but I'm not sure I like the following quote, and especially not the emphasis given to it by inclusion within the opening section:
"Dr. Peter Boyle, director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, put the discussion of the figures into perspective: "Tobacco smoking will cause several thousand times more cancers in the same [European] population."[2]"
It seems to trivialise the accident.  The fact that it may be true is irrelevant.  Afterall, tobacco kills so many people that the above quote could be used to trivialise 'any' event.  For example, in the opening paragraph of (say) the 9/11 attacks, I could "put the figures into perspective" by saying "tobacco smoking will cause several thousand times more deaths in the same [US] population".
Plus - the quote is very deceptive by referring to "European" population.  Seems a bit arbitrary. If the speaker had compared the impact of Chernobyl vs Tobacco upon the "Northern Hemisphere" population, then Chernobyl would appear more trivialised, whereas if he had compared the impact upon the "Belarus" population, then Chernobyl would appear less trivialised.
In summary, I'm going to leave any editing to other people (I'm a newbie, and it's not really my thing), but I just thought it might be an idea to point out my concerns about the above type of quote.
Cheers,
Steve
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.169.250 (talk • contribs).
:Hi Steve. Your point has indeed caused some unease before, in an older, archived section of the talk page, here. What we have now probably reflects consensus from that discussion. The statement as it stands probably reflects the figures available from the quoted source, rather than worldwide figures. Your suggestion that "The fact that it may be true is irrelevant" might seem as a bit unencyclopedic to some editors!
:Thanks for the contribution, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't be discouraged by grumpy editors, and stay around! --Old Moonraker 09:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too think the "tobacco" comment trivialises the whole disaster too, and is completely misplaced.  The 9/11 comparison by Steve is very apt.  Worse still, the tobacco sentence also receives undue prominence in the opening section, when it could better be included in the relevant section below.  There is also bias in taking that sentence from the source listed but not including the IARC conclusion that "concluded that about 16,000 people across Europe could die as a result of the accident." from the same BBC Horizon source, claiming instead that it is difficult to make an estimate. 212.64.98.189 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence about smoking originally was with the paragraph "Other studies and claims" in Chernobyl disaster#Controversy over human health effects, with the other claims made in the "Horizon" article on the BBC website. It would perhaps be reasonable to put it back there and away from the lead, as suggested by 212.64.98.189. We are going over already well-trodden ground here. Old Moonraker 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Afterthought: The IARC report does have its own para in the same section. It bases its conclusion on the "linear no threshold model", which "Horizon" does not accept. By reverting the sentence under consideration back to its original position the two opposing points would be adjacent. (Here I find myself defending something I'm not too happy with; I thought it out of place when it was moved to the lead article paragraph, but that seemed to be the consensus of the time.) Old Moonraker 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree to move it back with all the other arguments.  I don't think it's right to pick and choose certain quotes and put them in the leader. 212.64.98.189 00:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to stir this up again, but in my opinion the quote is talking of the amount of cancer the disaster will add, not the amount of deaths. So sure you cuold use it when talking about 9/11 but it does not have the validity that it holds because there is no massive increase in cancer as a result of 9/11. Shotmenot 07:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone back to the citation and you are right: The IARC director is referring to the incidence of cancers, not deaths: He is putting the supposed onset of cancers from Chernobyl into the context of the cancers supposedly caused by smoking, not comparing fatal or non-fatal outcomes. However, is this not implicit in his statement? It's interesting that, a few lines above, the European Committee on Radiation Risk is accusing IARC (among others) of deliberately misleading the public to protect the vested interests of the nuclear industry. I think having the two statements in the same section enhances WP:NPOV  --Old Moonraker 08:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Tobacco Quote

message: Here is the link for an article (IN PORTUGUESE) about the accident, which was published one week after the disaster. It explains Sweden's first reactions, the USSR answer, how people in Europe reacted to the news, etc.
http://veja.abril.com.br/idade/em_dia_2001/reportagens/reportagem_chernobyl.html
--Pinnecco 10:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excelent article on Chernobyl - published one week after the disaster 

message: Hello
I failed this article on a quality basis, as it needs a serious cleanup. The prose is disjointed and the lead is too long. Feel free to renominate this article here once you've fixed up the criteria that failed your article. Social Studiously My Editor Review! -  10:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Release version|Release version]] nomination

message: I made some changes to the article.  Here is a quick summary:
#double sections were deleted (e.g. material covered under Chernobyl disaster effects)
#reorganized for logical flow (e.g. chronology then causes, not vice versa)
#cut See Also list; it is counterproductive to keep it so large.  If you feel that something else should be included and is not feel free to add those, but let's try to keep it short and tidy.  Note that some entries will lead to others so it is not necessary to include both.--Riurik (discuss) 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamping Chernobyl disaster entry 

message: I am pretty sure that the article fails to mention that parts of southern Poland were also evacuated after the disaster and citizens went through a decontamination process. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tetty2 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I and others (I'm sure) would be interested to hear more about this-find a citation from a provable reliable source that is written somewhere and we could include a section on what types of decontamination processes was/were used.--Read-write-services 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland 

message: I think the "effects" section is too long and the main article can benefit from spinning it off, as I hastily tried to do here.  I think Chernobyl disaster should discuss effects, but it is extra to include such a detailed and extensive summary of the controversy over findings in an entry about the disaster itself; the controversy discussion seems to better belong in a separate article Chernobyl disaster effects (already there).  A pithy summary of the recent studies is in order of course and I have nothing against that.  If agreed then, the task is to provide a general summary and include the link to the main article.  Your thoughts?--Riurik(discuss) 04:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the editor who reverted your first attempt (I hope that I wasn't acting too hastily as well) I support the principle of your action, with a "pithy summary" and link, as you suggest. I look forward to the result!--Old Moonraker 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No haste perceived.  I spliced up a summary for the health effects studies section.  Feel free to revise if something was not included, etc.  Regards, --Riurik(discuss) 22:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spin-off proposal:  section on controversy over effects 

message: Hi Riurik, I have made some edits to the chernobyl accident page recently. I think that the subject is a bit of a political football, I think that a need exists for a honest discussion of the topic. That is why I added the report of the dose estimates which have been made. I know that lots has been written about the events in april/may 1986 but some of what has been written has been found to patent nonsense (like the motorbike ride of Elena Filatova). I do not think that the section on the dose suffered by the general public is too technical, if you want I can add a rough guess at the likelyhood of getting cancer as a result of those doses.
I have added some data which has come without any discussion to the article, I think that the grass fires are very important. They are as important as the possibility of a further collapse, while if the building fell down next week it would result in a dramatic release of radioactive dust it is an event which can only occur once, but grass fires could occur each summer. I have read that fires have already occured within the exclusion zone, so I think that a discussion of the fires is important and should be included in one of the articles on the accident.Cadmium
:Agree, the entry is definitely very political and attracts excessive number of vandalism (often very random stuff as you probably noticed), which does not help with overall quality level.  As for the level of technicality, it is undoubtedly a subjective call.  I will be honest that I am not familiar with mSv, such as its nature and how it works (e.g. what is a lot mSv what is not, etc).  Now, this information is still probably very useful to those who are familiar.  With this in mind, I added it at the top of the "Chernobyl disaster effects" entry.  If you think it can be very useful, perhaps you would be willing to incorporate a quick reference sentence under Chernobyl disaster entry and leave the crust under the C. D. effects entry.  The same goes for the grass fires data.  You provide good reasons for their inclusion under Chernobyl disaster entry (i.e. that they have occurred already and are very dangerous); this info needs to be included, however the bulk should still go under the "Effects" article rather than under the "Disaster" which is already so huge and needs to be stabilized.  See you around the editing space.--Riurik(discuss) 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info; i incorporated it verbatim as a ref under the "effects" article.--Riurik(discuss) 01:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chernobyl 

message: Is it possible to use the image of the control room second from the left on the top row of the images on this page? I think it would be quite informative. SGGH speak! 19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: should rontgens in this article be replaced by grays? grays are the SI accepted unit. however, rontgens were the unit historically used during the accident. is there convention in this situation?--Snideology 21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I'm not sure what the actual policy states however,I believe that the general population is more familiar with the term roentgen and roentgen-equivalent-man etc. In saying this though, I would imagine that the SI unit should be used. Good question though.--Read-write-services 23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rontgens 

message: The line 'An RBMK-1000 reactor requires water to be continuously circulated through the core, as long as the nuclear fuel is present.' should be replaced with 'An RBMK-1000 reactor requires water to be continuously circulated through the core, as long as the nuclear reaction is taking place.' One would assume that even with this design, the control rods would be inserted in the cae of a loss of CW flow' [Russell 15th August 2007]
:AGREED. Perhaps you could just add this.Cheers--Read-write-services 01:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text under Test Plan 

message: The History Channel has said that the Soviet Government used [cloud seeding] (a technique that causes rainfall) to cause radioactivity to discend over rural Ukrane and Russia rather than reach Moscow.  I don't know if the History Channel is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, or how to cite the History Channel, but if this is true and verifiable, I think it should be mentioned in this article.  It certianly plays into the narrative of an insane Soviet Government.  64.108.200.238 04:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloud Seeding 

message: The opening sentance says that the disaster " is considered to be the worst accident in the history of nuclear power".  Is the considered part neccessary?  It was the worst accident, was it not? Ostap 04:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: "The reactor also had been running for over one year, and was storing fission byproducts; these byproducts pushed the reactor towards disaster."
This point is not clear. Why were the byproducts pushing the reactor towards desaster? Explanation needed!
160.228.120.4 12:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flawed Design Theory 

message: This section seems highly contentious. Particularly statements such as:
Exaggerated reports by anti-nuclear power protest groups and irresponsible journalists [42], based on speculation rather than evidence, have contributed to the anxiety and depression of people in the fallout zones. These include the TORCH report, the Greenpeace report, and the April 2006 International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW) report.
"Exaggerated"? "Irresponsible journalists"? The supporting documentation includes the actual articles which the author of this section has determined to be exaggerated and irresponsible. The claim may be true, but it looks like PoV of the worst kind right now. CMacMillan 14:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "There is a tendency to attribute increases in the rates of all cancers over time to the Chernobyl accident, but it should be noted that increases were also observed before the accident in the affected areas. Moreover, a general increase in mortality has been reported in recent years in most areas of the former Soviet Union, and this must be taken into account when interpreting the results of Chernobyl-related studies." 
This is certainly notable.  Lwnf360 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effect section (PoV) 

message: Why does this article, let alone any of Wikipedia, not mention the Mi-8 helicopter crash during the cleanup effort?
::Hello, unsigned. Be bold, cite a reliable source, and make the edit yourself. We are all editors, here! :-) - Ageekgal 07:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helicopter crash 

message: Why not link to a controversy page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.224.201 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Ignorant right wingers are trying to down play death toll . DO not remove my accurte well documented changes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.197.96.93 (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake for not doing his talk page first!  IP has been blocked for 1 week as of 19, November 2007.  Lwnf360 (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong death tolls 

message: Ignorant right wingers need to stop messing wiht my accurate facts
* * * *
Excellent article that all sides of this argument should read at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0%2C1518%2C519043%2C00.html
71.219.65.237 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   B.S death toll deleted 

message: The article currently reads 18 million Curies (670 PBq)   What is the prefix P in this case?  (The p that comes to mind for me is lower case for pico and that doesn't seem right). RJFJR (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PBq? 

message: The pro-nuke cabal is clearly trying to downplay the danger of nuclear power  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Layla27 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer Data no where to be found