Talk:Teton Dam

message: No, but the remains are still there but I can not find it on Google Earth; where exactly is it?
: 43.9096°N, 111.5391°W (WGS84/NAD83):
: That translates to  That puts it where the Teton Dam Road (no longer) crosses the Teton River.
:* TerraSever
:* Google Local
:* TopoZone
:Found it by searching on TopoZone for all dams in Madison County, Idaho. --Kbh3rdtalk 05:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did they rebuild it? 

message: The first paragraph states "about $100 million", yet it is also as "$3,825,849". The latter figure is incorrect as that is the construction cost for the power and pumping plant. An estimated cost of $48,490,000 is stated in the following link: http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/teton.html Other than another online article without sources, I can not find any reliable source that states the construction cost of the dam was about $100 million.
JustAKnowItAll (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the Construction Cost? 

message: Keep seeing here, and other sites mention strain on American Falls dam and the "significant" discharge or "near draining" of the reservoir. I added a source with data from the Bureau of Reclamation showing they barely increased discharge and they went less than a foot over normal capacity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.186.30 (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Falls Dam 

message: In the "Collapse and flood" section some parts are copied from 03:52 of this Youtube video. 68.4.177.125 (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is entirely possible that the text originated here and was used by the author of the video. It's often difficult to determine who's copying from whom when Googling portions of texts to check for copyright. --Kbh3rdtalk 03:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the text originate? 

message: The intro paragraph says $100 million, but the info box says $48.8 million. That's more than a rounding error. --Kbh3rdtalk 03:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *This problem continues today. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  19:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction cost? 

message: Bureau might mean something to Americans but it's not apparent to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.95.95 (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see there's a link on the info panel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.95.95 (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who or what is Bureau? 

message: Regarding: {"Teton Dam Flood, June 5, 1976", by Elaine Johnson, http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~idfremon/flood.htm}. The link, for whatever reason, does not access through Wikipedia. However, if you place the address in Google, the article pops up. Does Wikipedia exclude use of ancestry.com pages? This is a first person account of Johnson's experience and observations during and after the flood, contains pictures and a list of casualties and information about them. Would be regarded as both a primary and secondary source in academic circles, I believe. Any ideas about making the link 'live'? WBardwin (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Dead' link 

message: The article says "grouting – injecting concrete into the substrates under high pressure." Grout is NOT concrete. It's grout - a mixture of cement and fine aggregates. Concrete contains a mixture of fine and coarse aggregates. According to my dictionary "substrate" is
substrate |ˈsəbˌstrāt|
noun
a substance or layer that underlies something, or on which some process occurs, in particular:
• the surface or material on or from which an organism lives, grows, or obtains its nourishment.
• the substance on which an enzyme acts.
• a material that provides the surface on which something is deposited or inscribed, for example the silicon wafer used to manufacture integrated circuits.
So the word is a vocabulary error. It should be replaced with something like bedrock or dam abutments. I propose to change the text to "injecting grout into the abutments under high pressure." I am aware that the text is probably plagiarized from some report but even if it is reclamation ebonics it's still wrong. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's why "grout" was in quotes, which you removed -- it was description by analogy. In everyday situations we would use grout to fill a small hole, but here we're going to "grout" these fissures in the canyon walls (which later expanded to be much larger than originally found to be) using concrete as the equivalent to "grout". The word is in the original source -- not a report, but a book with a section about the dam failure - quoted, in the same manner. This is not "reclamation ebonics" whatever that is supposed to mean, it's the creative use of words to explain unusual procedures in terms of ordinary life. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocabulary Errors 

message: According to the Snake river plain article the eastern Snake River plain is "is underlain almost entirely by basalt erupted from large shield volcanoes." The article should be edited to correct this and the Snake river plain text should be linked to the Snake river plain article. If you look at the canyon you can see that it is cut into basalt which is vesicular. This makes it highly pourous and is one of the reasons it wouldn't hold water and needed to be heavily grouted. I'll look up a citation for this. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've linked Snake River Plain as you suggested, but my geology is not up to snuff sufficiently to make the rest of the change you suggest. Once you've got a cite for what's in the SRP article, you should go ahead and make the change - but bear in mind that if the info in the other article is unsourced there, it could be wrong (as could the info here, also unsourced). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a ref, so I integrated the info as you suggested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error - geology 

message: Beyond My Ken You keep changing the word "grout" to "concrete" citing Perrow. I just read the relevant chapter in Perrow and he's not a reliable source. He calls it the "Grand Teton Dam" which it's not. He's not a very good writer. His chapter that mentions the "Grand Teton Dam" is rambling, disorganized and only discusses the Teton Dam very briefly along with a large number of similar disasters. I can't even find where he mentions the grout curtain at all so your claim that a "reliable" source says that concrete was injected into the dam abutments looks totally wrong to me. All official sources call it a grout curtain created by injecting grout. Grout is a real word and does not need to be in quotes - there's even a Wikipedia article about grout and it can be wikilinked. Since you erroneously cite an unreliable source for your claim about concrete I think I'm entitled to revert your edit back to the grouting procedure that's described in all reliable sources. Can you actually cite a reliable source that refers to it as concrete? Also I suggest that you read the wikipedia articles about grout and concrete. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A note from someone who doesn't have the source at hand: grout is the appropriate term, whether or not the author of this particular source understands it. Grout curtains are what are used with dams and dikes, pumped under pressure into the ground, as well as grout injection in unstable geology. The largest aggregate usually found in grout is about the size of a pea (so-called pea-gravel grout), mostly in the building trades. In civil engineering it's almost always a sand aggregate. Our grout article deals only with the sort of grout found in bathrooms and concrete block walls, which is a problem. In any case, concrete, with coarse aggregate, is not used in this kind of situation, regardless of the source's assertion. However, the technical differences between grout, concrete and cement are usually lost on laymen. Acroterion (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected, then, the source I cited (a non-specialist) must have gotten it wrong. If someone hasn't changed it already, I'll change it back now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @Senor Cuete - I don't believe that you think anyone (aside from yourself, of course), is a very good writer. In any case, regardless of the quality of the writing, Perrow's book is classic in its field - but it's true his speciality is the sociology of organizations, not geology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: GROUT not concrete

message: The article states "The force of the Teton Dam failure destroyed the lower part of the Teton River, washing away riparian zones and reducing the canyon walls." Can anyone explain what is meant by "reducing the canyon walls"?
:I assume whoever wrote it meant def. 5, but it's ambiguous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths, damage and property claims - question 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Teton Dam. 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://archive.is/20130210015927/http://www.zebpalmer.com/oldblogarchive/teton-dam-failure-actual-data-for-american-falls/ to http://www.zebpalmer.com/oldblogarchive/teton-dam-failure-actual-data-for-american-falls/
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) 05:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The second paragraph ends with : 
"The reason why was due to the 2 lunatics Thomas Edison and Joe Biden". 
Phrasing and sources are defective : this appears to be an unsanctioned modification. SeumasMacPadraig (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism, since reverted. Thanks for spotting that. Acroterion (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edison and Biden (?)