Talk:British nuclear tests at Maralinga

message: A good start, but there are some irregularities to be ironed out and some skinny parts need reinforcing.
* The years of usage isn’t mentioned in the lead which is rather strange. The Royal Commission is also not mentioned which is unusual and victims’ rights campaigning isn’t mentioned which is unusual
* Date format is not consistent, “October 3” and then “15 October”
* I don’t think the alleged impact of the tests on aborigines should be in the historical context. It should be in the aftermath type sections
* Having a big blockquote as the first thing in the paragraph seems rather POV, in that it headlines the section with emotive POV
* Royal Commision is mentioned in the major test section but the name of the RC is not mentioned. Some paras are short and should be integrated
* What is Dr Roff’s full name and what is his field of research? It could be physics, military history or something else
* Need the events peceding the royal commission. Were their protests and lobbying before it? There should be a bit m,ore about Aboriginal issues in the aftermath section. There also needs to be more about the protest and compensation campaign I think.
* More info about the compensation campaign and the actual duties of the guinea pigs shouldbe included imho.
Apart from that the POV/RS/COPYVIO stuff is all fine. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reviewing and for the helpful suggestions.  Think I've dealt with them all now... Johnfos 07:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok. sorry I didn't notice that you edited it on the same day that I posted the comments. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: I have a concern with this terminology
* Sounds subjective
* Does "major" refer to the size of the explosion, or the effort that went into preparing the test?  If the size of the explosion, then 1KT is actually small by nuclear stds, making this description inaccurate.
Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They (the British reports to the Australians) differentiate major tests (actual device explosion) to minor tests (Rats, Tims, Vixen: safety tests, dispersion tests, initiator development) which involve only conventional explosives. It's historical. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Major" tests 

message: The table on this page and the contents of any nuclear tests infobox are generated from a database of nuclear testing which I have maintained and researched for a number of years. The table is automatically generated from that database by a Visual Basic script, and then has, periodically, been inserted into the page manually. I began doing this in October of 2013.
Recently a user complained (politely) to me about the practice.  It seems to him that it removes control from all editors besides myself over the content.  He believes it is tantamount to WP:OWNED of the pages affected.  He also points out that there is no public mention of the fact anywhere on wikipedia, and that is true, through my own oversight, until now.
There was no intent that the pages affected should be owned by myself; in fact, one of my reasons for building these pages was to solicit (in the wikipedia way) criticism and corrections to the data, perhaps additional references that I had been unable to locate. I have regenerated the tables twice in the days since they were originally placed.  Each time I did so, I performed a diff between the current version and the version that I put up in the previous cycle; all corrections were then either entered into the database or corrected in the programming, as appropriate.  As may be guessed, the programming corrections were frequent to start out as suggestions about the table formatting were raised, and most incorporated. I have not made judgements on the "usefulness" of corrections; all have been incorporated, or I have communicated directly with the editor to settle the matter.  In fact it was in pursuing such a correction that this matter came up.
I am posting this comment on the Talk page of every page containing content which is so generated. If you would like to comment on this matter, please go to the copy on Talk:List of nuclear tests so the discussion can be kept together.  I will also be placing a maintained template on each Talk page (if anyone would like also to be named as a maintainer on one or all pages, you are welcome). I solicit all comments and suggestions.
SkoreKeep (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The table on this page is generated by database

message: With regard to Maralinga being part of the Woomera Prohibited Area.  The book Fire Across the Desert was commissioned by the Government to document the history of the Anglo Australian Joint Project 1946 to 1980.  Although it doesn't discuss Maralinga in great detail it does state at page 224; "much closer to the transcontinental railway line at Watson and in a seperate prohibited area, was Maralinga" and "The atomic tests were not conducted under the joint project but under a seperate agreement.  The distinction, particularly before  the foundation of Maralinga permanent test range, was in practice a hazy one."
The boundary of the Woomera Prohibited Area has been changed a number of times during its history and in each instance the amendment was published in the Commonwealth Gazette and a "Plan" of the area deposited with the South Australian State Lands Department. Some of these "Plans" dependant on their date show the Maralinga Prohibited Area and the Woomera Prohibited Area to be seperate but adjoining Prohibited Areas.
The file 62/5430 Extension of Aboriginal Reserves in the Maralinga Proibited Area was raised in August 1962 and it contains two drawings detailing that there are two distinct Prohibited Areas.  This file is available to the public on the National Archives of Australia website.
The last of the Maralinga Prohibited Area known as Section 400 has recently been handed back to the traditional owners of the area.  The boundary of the Woomera Prohibited Area in this region was unclear as in a number of publications it appears to divide Section 400 into two areas (approximately two thirds north and one third south)of the east west boundary.  I would suggest that the "Plan" deposited with the South Australian State Lands Department would need to be viewed to determine the location of the boundary and when it was changed. Charliebarsby (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maralinga Prohibited Area 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on British nuclear tests at Maralinga. 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/20080728180259/http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/wayward/ch16.html to http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/wayward/ch16.html
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110612114615/http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5561441.ece to http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5561441.ece
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 01:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British nuclear tests at Maralinga. 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/20080307102555/http://www.greenleft.org.au:80/2007/730/37829 to http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/730/37829
* Added  tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http:/
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080727134653/http://www.ccsa.asn.au/nic/NucHazards/SAweapons.htm to http://www.ccsa.asn.au/nic/NucHazards/SAweapons.htm
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008223855/http://www.greenleft.org.au:80/1995/196/11520 to http://www.greenleft.org.au/1995/196/11520
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225154407/http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/2006/nuclear_test/dosimetry/pdf/dosimetry_chapter_1_introduction.pdf to http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/2006/nuclear_test/dosimetry/pdf/dosimetry_chapter_1_introduction.pdf
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019172546/http://discontents.com.au:80/words/review_fallout.php to http://www.discontents.com.au/words/review_fallout.php
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080802150714/http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/2006/nuclear_test/dosimetry/pdf/dosimetry_chapter_7_results.pdf to http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/2006/nuclear_test/dosimetry/pdf/dosimetry_chapter_7_results.pdf
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091115110704/http://www.australianatomicconfessions.com:80/ to http://australianatomicconfessions.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe that the 6th para under "Legacy" misrepresents these studies.  It states that "Only 2%[sic: this should be 4%] of participants received more than the current Australian annual dose limit for occupationally exposed persons (20 mSv)" but then undermines this by making two irrelevant comments.  Firstly that some Australians flew through the mushroom clouds and some marched through contaminated areas.  But the DVA report discusses this, and such groups are among the 4% who received more than 20mSv. Secondly that "radioactive rain" fell in Queensland and particularly Brisbane.  It is well known that there was fallout over large areas of Australia (it is mentioned in para 2 under operation Buffalo above), but it was very low level, and crucially, has nothing to do with the exposure of those who were at Maralinga (or the other test sites).
The second area of concern is that the second of the two DVA studies "Mortality and Cancer Incidence" is not mentioned although it is clearly very relevant to the "Legacy" of the tests.  This found that the overall mortality rate of the participants was in fact no different from that of the Australian population.  There was an increase in cancer rates, but there was no relationship with radiation exposure: that is the cancer rate amongst those most exposed was no more than that of those with little or no exposure.  Instead there is confusing statement that 30% of British participants had died in their 50's from cancer.  This has no proper reference: the reference given is to a newspaper article reporting the claim by one of the lawyers in a trial.
So I propose to replace this para with something like :
"Two reports on the Australian test participants have been published by the Department of Veterans Affairs.  The first, "Dosimetry" concluded "Overall, the doses received by Australian participants were small. ... Only 4% of participants received more than the current Australian annual dose limit for occupationally exposed persons (20 mSv)".  The highest doses were to aircrew flying through mushroom clouds, and to those entering contaminated areas soon after the detonations.  The second report "Mortality and Cancer Incidence" found that the overall death rate of test participants was not increased above that of the general Australian population. Cancer rates were however increased, but there was no indication that this was due to radiation: that is, those exposed to higher levels of radiation did not have higher cancer rates than those with low or no exposure."
If anyone can come up with a proper reference to a creditable British study, then we can include that.
Baska436 (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Department of Veterans Affairs  (DVA) Studies 

message: "The Australian Government accepted the findings of the royal commission, but rejected its recommendation that the British Government should pay all the costs of a clean up."
If so, this is the first time I've ever heard of a government saying "no, we won't let you pay for it! We want to pay for it ourselves!" Later the text mentions "the long debate over the cleanup costs"....you're saying that this debate is both sides insisting that they be allowed to pay for it? Or did someone just get something backwards here?
64.223.166.179 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this right? 

message: I am relatively certain, given that the link points to the article for the United States' Nevada Test Site, that this is somehow just an odd transcription error or something, but before I change it I want to make sure I'm not missing something. The article claims that the European Government's preferred testing site was the "Nevada Test Site in France." Surely that's not right? Lekoman (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There was considerable vandalism to the article, which I have reverted. I suspect I may have addressed your concern. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nevada in France? 

message: Under the section on Operation Buffalo there are a number of photos purporting to be of each shot in the series, from Buffalo R1/One tree through Buffalo R2/Marcoo to Buffalo R3/Kite.
I am no expert in photographic analysis but the photos for R1/One Tree and R2/Marcoo appear to be two different still frames from the same movie.  The giveaways include the small cloud formation on the left hand side at the base of the mushroom cloud, the shape of the main cloud frontal protuberance and the alignment of the yield shot estimation trails behind the main cloud.
I could be wrong but someone with better research skills than I may want to confirm the source(s) of the two photos.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.176.129 (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mislabeled photo ? 

message: Four introductory paragraphs, none of them short - a bit extreme for Wikipedia? Or maybe I haven't kept up with changing standards. Robin Patterson (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD mandates three or four paragraphs for an article of this size. The paragraphs are short. Compared with other featured articles like (say) Apollo 15, Oxygen or Tourette syndrome (selected at random) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of introduction