Talk:Effects of the Chernobyl disaster

message: The article itself meets the various requirements of a good article. I'd like to seem some more in-article references, but otherwise, its ok.  I cna agree in some respects with the comments listed below. However, my assessment is derived from the article as presented, not where it might be merged or what it is duplicative of. SkipperClipper 02:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the radiation numbers look backwards.  Checking is needed.Longinus876 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's just Cyrillic ;)—An Sealgair (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment Summary

message: I think there should be a section or Whole page to the Red Forest. Right now 'Red Forest' redirects Chernobyl disaster effects. I would like to help on the new section or pageMax 16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Forest

message: There aren't barely any citations, and death counts are so low you might expect them to
come from old sources of soviet propaganda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.39.207.98  (talk • contribs).
:There are 33 citations.  You are welcome to provide data on death counts that are less "old," as well as cite these.  Be bold!.--Riurik(discuss) 05:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a good article

message: :Image:Radioactive fallout caesium137 after Chernobyl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Radioactive fallout caesium137 after Chernobyl.jpg

message: This article does not present the controversy in a neutral light.  The various reports on health effects must be contrasted against the internationally accepted UNSCEAR and IAEA reports.  I'm not trying to downplay the controversy, but to only show reports saying that there are tens of thousands of deaths and to not include the official UN reports saying that there are essentially none, is dishonest.  See the UNSCEAR report at: http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html#Health I feel that presenting the various reports in order based on severity will help greatly.  Lwnf360 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a good, easy-to-follow scheme. The citations will need to be strong of course and I fear there may be some opposition, as demonstrated by this "soviet propaganda" comment above. --Old Moonraker 22:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UNSCEAR and IAEA reports used to be part of this entry.  I am not surprised that they gradually disappeared.  They should be included.  While having a pov discussion is helpful, why not include the missing material with references and make a comment about it on the Talk Page?  As it is, there has been no progress on this article since 16 October.--Riurik(discuss) 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all reports should be included. But UNSCEAR and IAEA reports are not better than others. These organizations are prone to various political manipulations. They are less reliable than normal publications in scientific journals or studies by independent national or international organizations.Biophys (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'other' reports are from any better sources? No, they are from groups such as Greenpeace, they are far more inaccurate than IAEA and UNSCEAR ever would be.--Nemmie (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: :Image:Cartcriirad.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cartcriirad.gif

message: If anyone has or knows of a map we can use for this article, it would be much appreciated.  Without a map displaying Cesium-137 (or other radioactive isotope) deposition over the entire European continent the article seems to emphasize the local effects.  For example, Scandinavia and Switzerland received substantial radiation.  A good (but possibly unsuitable for Wikipedia due to copyright) map is here. -kslays (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: There is nothing neutral about this article. For example, "There are reports of mutations in some plants in the area, leading to unsubstantiated tales of a "forest of wonders" containing many strangely mutated plants. Specifically, some trees have weirdly twisted branches that do not reach for the sky." The citation following it does not have "unsubstantiated tales", it is a BBC article quoting a radioecologist. Nor does it say anything about a "forest of wonders".
Throughout the article, an anti-nuclear person or group "claims", "accuses", etc. and a pro-nuclear group or study "states" and "describes".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.239 (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

message: I have just removed a perfectly valid citation from a WP:RS because it contradicts the text. This, of course, is the wrong way around, so expect an adjustment to the text shortly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry: it didn't contradict the text. The paragraph concerned discusses civilian exposure, but  the removed citation discusses the children of the "liquidators", obviously not civilians. No changes are required. This is the WP:RS; I might attach it to the right paragraph in due course. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now added to the "Workers and liquidators" paragraph. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, the last sentence "However, this effect has diminished sharply over time" is clear but could be misleading to many readers. The mutated children (and their future offspring) are permanently affected. I have to check if this is in your original paragraph or if someone has added it.Createangelos (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congenital defects 

message: Er, yes, the pressure vessel is empty; the fuel melted and slumped to the bottom of the building.  That's why it needs a lot of cooling water.  This does not mean that it has left the building entirely.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of completely uncited assertions in this article, of varying degrees of plausibility.  If someone would like to take it on...
71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Four years later. --Robertiki (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely needs some significant work... 

message: I was unable to find the publication that has the conflicting statements on the site of the French institute for Radioprotection itself. The link in the text only leads to the site of the radiostation RFI, not to the report. Does someone know which report it is, exactly?
GilHamiltonTheArm (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  French legal action 

message: The article references a documentary of very questionable scientific validity. Either the reference to the documentary should be removed, or alternatively, the reliability of the documentary should be stated to be low. I made an alteration to the article, but this was reverted by a user called John - I would invite John (and indeed others) to give an adequate reason as to why the reference to the documentary should be included in the article without pointing to the inaccuracies, and lack of reliability of the documentary which to anyone with any scientific background are glaringly apparent, failing which I will revert to the previous page Leor klier (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a website listed some of the inaccuracies - http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/the-battle-for-chernobyl/. It should be noted that all of these errors are ones which would certainly be spotted by someone who had taken A-Level Physics, and likely several of them would have been spotted by someone who had taken GCSE Physics.Leor klier (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the offending material per WP:NPOV and WP:V. --John (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Chernobyl Documentary 

message: I was an official UK delegate at this first meeting on the skin lesions seen at Chernobyl (www.armadale.org.uk/chernobyl.htm).
Has anyone ever seen an official report of this meeting?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr John Wells (talk • contribs) 07:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAEA Advisory Group Meeting, Paris 1987:  The medical handling of skin lesions following high level accidental irradiation. 

message: The article as it stands contains many statements that are not organised into relevant sections and occur somewhat as non-sequiturs. Also, discussions of human health effects are spread through many sections, and mostly relegated to late in the article, in two sections that seem to have roughly the same purpose: "Chernobyl Forum report and criticisms" (which actually has a lot of material relating to health effects more broadly, rather than just in the context of the Chernobyl Forum's report) and "Controversy over human health effects".
If I have time, I shall try to restructure things a bit more sensibly. Thanks for your patience, and feel free to help! Fuzzypeg★ 01:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly structured 

message: I came to this article looking for the answer to one important question: When will Chernobyl be safe again; that is, when will all the radiation have subsided to safe levels (hundreds of years?, thousands?) and life can get back to normal. I scanned through the article and couldn't find the answer. I think it deserves its own subsection if anyone knows. 5Q5 (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To support 5Q5's point, in the article there is a map showing caesium-137 contamination in the Chernobyl area as of 1996. The timeframe of when this land, soil, flora and fauna, associated groundwater, etc. will become safe for human use is a critical public safety issue. I have seen figures elsewhere ranging from 900 years to 100,000. I think this deserves due weight through the citation of an authoritative risk assessment that includes timeframes. I haven't found one yet either.—An Sealgair (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't really a single number, since "Chernobyl" could be anything from the reactor hall, to the power station surroundings, to the edges of the exclusion zone. And there's no single level of "safe", depending on risk appetite, the way you interact with the environment, and so on. At the moment, I'd happily spend a few months living in certain parts of Pripyat, but I wouldn't want to eat any food gathered locally. Decontamination work could also make a big difference in many cases - not hosing down the entire region, but rather removing specific contaminated objects so that people wouldn't accidentally interact with them - and it's hard to predict the full extent of decontamination work in the long term. bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  As implied by users Sealgair and Bobrayner, time or duration of exposure is also a factor. In other words, do you mean for visiting or for permanent settlement. So your question should be "when will it be safe for X purpose/time?" There are currently tours in some of the areas in Pripyat that are said to be safe for a certain number of minutes. Of course, nothing is completely safe, and these declarations of safety should be researched and carefully considered before "vvisiting" Chernobyl. Ileanadu (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  When will it be safe again? 

message: I've flagged the article for undue weight because it gives quite extensive coverage to fringe views on the effects of the Chernobyl incident.  The WHO report is analogous to the IPCC's analysis of climate change.  It represents the most rigorous research by the top scientists in the relevant fields, and thus represents the scientific consensus on the matter.  There will always be dissenting views with radically different conclusions, and we should report the most notable of these, but (just as with climate change) they should be given equal weight to the mainstream scientific consensus analysis. -Helvetica (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Effects of the Chernobyl disaster. 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/20060927211751/http://www.botany.org/ajb/00029122_di001597.php to http://www.botany.org/ajb/00029122_di001597.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070415185324/http://www.iarc.fr:80/ENG/Press_Releases/pr168a.html to http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr168a.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070118212919/http://www.iarc.fr:80/chernobyl/briefing.php to http://www.iarc.fr/chernobyl/briefing.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080406055701/http://www.magnumphotos.com:80/Archive/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3R18ZXL8 to http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3R18ZXL8
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 23:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Effects of the Chernobyl disaster. 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/20110223010003/http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml to http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031005140805/http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/wildlifepreserve.htm to http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/wildlifepreserve.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406055701/http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3R18ZXL8 to http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3R18ZXL8
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) 04:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just sort of wanted to note that the date mentioned in the first paragraph of the Short term effects section is listed incorrectly, I believe. I was going to change it myself, but it's in french in the source so I didn't want to mess with it. Who knows, maybe that is technically a correct way to state the date. I just figured it was worth mentioning. ToxicReap (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical matter - Short term effects  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Effects of the Chernobyl disaster. 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/20130830073635/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull383/boxp6.html to http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull383/boxp6.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621080838/http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/118/118559.torch_executive_summary%40en.pdf to http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/118/118559.torch_executive_summary%40en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910104209/http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf to http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/IPPNWStudy.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910104209/http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf to http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120629110109/http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/research.html to http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/research.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517023536/http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/nuclearsafety/colloquium%20website.htm to http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/nuclearsafety/colloquium%20website.htm
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) 06:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Effects of the Chernobyl disaster. 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  tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/q56105043h53220x/?p=67066521613847b38cc9fc7df2745404&pi=0
*Added  tag to http://www.arte-tv.com/fr/1177568.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305035323/http://juwel.fz-juelich.de:8080/dspace/bitstream/2128/3551/1/Energie%26Umwelt_31.pdf to http://juwel.fz-juelich.de:8080/dspace/bitstream/2128/3551/1/Energie%26Umwelt_31.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309161847/http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/nuclearsafety/ARTICLE.pdf to http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/nuclearsafety/ARTICLE.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201110049/http://thyro2004.free.fr/ to http://thyro2004.free.fr/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201110049/http://thyro2004.free.fr/ to http://thyro2004.free.fr/
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) 20:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Effects of the Chernobyl disaster. 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  tag to http://www.570news.com/news/world/article/206112--radioactive-boars-and-mushrooms-in-europe-remain-a-grim-reminder-25-years-after-chernobyl
*Added  tag to https://www.wsj.com/public/article/SB114606007204936484-nrGm7xG7FvR02vrWIWY1Sf1qvbg_20060526.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413131701/http://koda.gov.ua/en/chornobyl_tragedy/ to http://koda.gov.ua/en/chornobyl_tragedy
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) 17:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)