Talk:Nuclear technology

message: ----
Yep, I wondered the same thing.  I have worked on it because it was on the community page so I guess someone likes it.
In the same category as this we have Computing_technology which is like the list you suggest.
I would imagine we can make this more like Biotechnology - an introduction and general guide with lots of links.
How about this for a rough layout (taken from other tech pages):
Introduction and definition, major subfields, related fields, nuclear tech development timeline, related topics. Mat-C 19:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. A related project would be to tidy :Category:Nuclear technology (although it's not very clear how that page should differ from this one...) --Andrew 23:10, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
----
"In both cases this process cannot continue beyond the production of iron."
This leaves one wondering where the higher elements came from.  Also, later on the page, I changed "Hydrogen nuclei" to "Helium nuclei".  Is there a physicist out there who can proof this page?
I hope you find my recent small edit helpful with regards to this bit. AWeishaupt (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree, suggested outline 

message: Right wingers should leave this information alone immieadately. I will not tolerate any further harassment.--Layla27 (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please WP:CITE your information -- see WP:V and WP:RS. Otherwise, as per those policies, the information can and will be removed from the article. Thanks! Gscshoyru 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ignoring the fact that you misspelled the policy, it really doesn't apply here. Facts, especially statistics with numbers, must be cited. No matter how "well known" they are. Gscshoyru 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My accurate information was removed from this article. 

message: I removed the following paragraph from the "Food Processing and Agriculture" section.  Whatever your views on the subject, something this declarative has got to have some pretty serious sourcing to be part of a Wikipedia article:
A Parliamentary committee recommended against the use of food irradiation without further study. Irradiation creates new chemical substances (radiolytic products) in the food, some of which are carcinogenic. Children fed irradiated wheat have shown chromosome damage. As well, irradiating food reduces the vitamin content.
I would have thought that the need for citation would go without saying... then I read the discussion above.  So let me enumerate the problems:
* What "Parliamentary committee"?  Date, place, country (well, the whole section is Canada-specific, which is another issue entirely)?
* Precisely what "chemical substances" are generated?  What studies show that those substances are "carcinogenic"?
* Children with chromosome damage?  There must be a vast right-wing conspiracy to suppress something like that.
* "Reduces the vitamin content" sounds like something that can be easily verified.
My personal views aren't the issue -- I'm with my fellow Green Party members against irradiation.  We and others have strong opinions, and express them in the appropriate fora.  Wikipedia isn't the appropriate forum for uncited opinion, even if "everyone knows" it's true.  In fact, those who would post something inflammatory and defend it by saying "You have no chance of stopping me" do nothing to advance the cause, and could even be accused of false flag astroturfing.  --Robertb-dc (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced paragraph removed 

message: "The first commercial reactors were heavily based on either research reactors, or military reactors"
In the US this is not true; the first commercial reactors were based on naval propulsion reactors (nuclear submarine reactors). Don't know about other countries. Most military reactors are not very useful for power generation—they don't generate enough heat. --Fastfission (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't naval propulsion reactors be classed as military reactors? Joeking16 (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactor history

message: The image :Image:RADURAcx.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:RADURAcx.JPG

message: "has to completely and annihilativly show prospector <<PETE>> everything" 80.98.146.68 (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vansalism 

message: This page is linked, for example, from the anti-nuclear movement article (which until just now, opened with a sentence saying these social movements oppose nuclear technology, linking this article, even when most groups are unlikely to oppose things other than weapons or power plants), and seems to contain a very large portion on weapons and accidents.  The nuclear medicine article was not even linked until also just now.  What the article has about weapons and accidents is fine, but the article should be very much expanded.  It's incorrect to give a reader the impression that nuclear technologies are mainly harmful, and those harmful problems should be balanced by more information about more positive uses.  Radiometric dating is not mentioned (mass spectrometers should be considered nuclear technologies).  Pages like the thermohaline circulation are relevant (although missing some important discussions about other isotopic studies).  No link to the article on tritium illumination (although one applications, gun sights, which is also violent, is mentioned here).  Please help expand this article to give is a balanced viewpoint. DAID (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty biased 

message: I am 67.176.240.220 and I have recently made several edits on nulear technology.
Some of my edits were reverted and  marked as 'good faith' edits. Could someone explain why they were reverted, please?
I have read the articles on etiquitte, and have tried to conform myself to these rules.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.240.220 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  67.176.240.220 

message: Is it possible to create a nuclear powered vehicle? It may not be. Research is the way forward though, even if not with cars. We have to respect the amount of compact energy in nuclear fuels.--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Two comments.  First, Wikipedia is for verified content, not editorial opinion or speculation.  Second, on the merits, I don't believe there was ever a serious proposal for a nuclear powered ground vehicle.  There were efforts to develop nuclear powered aircraft, but the need to minimize weight and and shield humans from radiation proved incompatible.  There have also been efforts to develop nuclear power for space propulsion, and naval nuclear propulsion is a reality, but I'm not aware of any serious effort to develop nuclear power for ground vehicles. NPguy (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Technology blocking radiation now needs too much space for small cars. Maybe large city buses and semi trucks would work.I've offered opinion and speculation a lot and no one else has complained. Wikipedia is a source for collective learning and this site should be flexible enough to support.--Wyn.junior (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been lucky.  See [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball|here}} and here.  If you have reliable sources that discuss the possibility nuclear powered ground vehicles, have at it.  But it still doesn't belong in the lead. NPguy (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear powered motor vehicle 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nuclear technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120415205939/http://www.doubleia.org/index.php?sectionid=43&parentid=13&contentid=494 to http://www.doubleia.org/index.php?sectionid=43&parentid=13&contentid=494
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nuclear technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218194159/http://www.oklo.curtin.edu.au/index.cfm to http://www.oklo.curtin.edu.au/index.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526025627/http://nucleus.iaea.org/NUCLEUS/nucleus/Content/Applications/FICdb/FoodIrradiationClearances.jsp?module=cif to http://nucleus.iaea.org/NUCLEUS/nucleus/Content/Applications/FICdb/FoodIrradiationClearances.jsp?module=cif
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here’s a partial explanation of my reversion:
*In general, these edits insert too many trivial links (e.g. phenomenon), and they should not be repeated (e.g. radioactivity) (see WP:OVERLINK.)
*The edit to first paragraph is not accurate.
*Edits to first paragraph under “discovery” don’t actually explain.  In fact, that paragraph might be dropped altogether.
*The final sentence of next paragraph (particularly “most of them”) would need to be documented with a reliable source.
*“Quantities too small to burn” is inaccurate and largely meaningless.
And that’s not all.  If you want to try some of these edits, I suggest you make them one at a time and we can deal with them one at a time. NPguy (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits