Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 3

message: The balance published by the "Chernobyl Forum" (4000 deaths) is only useful as a sample of disinformation, as shown by reading it:
* The official conclusion emitted by the Forum is written in a opaque way: premature deaths of around 4000 people from the 600 000 affected by the higher radiation doses. These 4000 deaths are from a badly defined subset because the higher radiations doses is not defined. Moreover it somewhat conveys that other exposed people were and are not endangered, but it appears that 5 million exposed Soviet citizens were (and some are) exposed, along with much more people in other countries, and at least some of them were (or are) somewhat endangered.
* No scientist explicitly emitted or endorsed this conclusion. The press release states that "100 scientists validated the report" but we can not find their names, associated to the fact that they validate the presented conclusion. These names may be those of authors of works quoted in the Forum's reports.
* The manager of one of the studies (health) stated that the scientists did not want to include numbers for predicted deaths, but public relations officials had wanted them in the summary.
* The official conclusion refers to reports which only exist in draft state. They are not scientifically published so were not reviewed, therefore those reports are not asserted by the scientific community, albeit they are presented as such.
* The authors and the proofreaders of every thesis in the available (draft) reports are not clearly named, so nobody endorses it.
* None of the diffused conclusions is, under the same shape, in reports.
* The conclusion, presented as published by UNO, is that of some agencies and not of the Organization which is only quoting it.
* The most involved agency (IAEA) will only exist as long as atomic energy will stay in use, therefore its pledge of the exactness of its own conclusions seems insufficient because it is clearly judge and party, therefore biased towards a pro-atomic view.
* The IAEA and the WHO, main implied organizations, restrain themselves to not publish any information considered as annoying by the other one. The pledge of WHO in the study concerning health-related aspects is therefore itself... subject to pledge, because the WHO can only publish material approved by IAEA.
* Other UNO agencies implied are close to the IAEA and at least a top manager was since hired by a nuclear equipment manufacturer.
* The 'health' report explicitly states major and explicit doubts as for the quality of its forecasts
* Some methods used in the 'health' report raised controversy
Very interesting: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025464.400-how-many-more-lives-will-chernobyl-claim.html --217.185.98.87 08:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the effects article: "The workers involved in the recovery and cleanup after the accident received high doses of radiation. In most cases, these workers were not equipped with individual dosimeters to measure the amount of radiation received, so experts can only estimate their doses. ".  Ergo, the radiation doses are estimated for many if not most of the higher dose population.  Midgley 10:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A perspective on 'Chernobyl Forum' (IAEA) material 

message: This article has a relatively high test post/vandalism rate (though many revert their own edits), so you may want to check the history before beginning major work. -- Kjkolb 23:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: "Soviet scientists have reported that the Chernobyl Unit 4 reactor contained about 190 metric tons of uranium dioxide fuel and fission products. Estimates of the amount of this material that escaped range from 13 to 30 percent."
"About 95% of the fuel (about 180 tonnes) in the reactor at the time of the accident remains inside the shelter, with a total radioactivity of nearly 18 million curies (670 PBq). "
:Different sources have reported different numbers, the historical account reports that 95% of the fuel remains in the reactor, newer estimates have strongly questioned this long-held assumption, which is most likely the source of the 13-20% fuel escape numbers. This topic would strongly benefit from careful sourcing and a through explanation of the different estimates. --Matthew 06:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal errors, which is it?

message: I have started a new section on the radioactive release (source term). About the iodine release, I think that it is vital to give as many details as possible about the form in which the radioisotopes were released becuase for those for which internal exposure is most important the physical and chemical form of the release will control the dose to the population.
I reverted the organic iodine becuase the iodine chemical form question is important. I will add some more to the page in the near future.Cadmium 08:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source term 

message: This article is getting really long, so sections, such as those about radiation and its effects, might do well as there own articles, with summaries and "Main article" links here. The present article is 52KB, this is very long, see Article Size.--Matthew 02:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size