Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chernobyl disaster: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:48, 12 August 2024 editPianoDan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,322 edits Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:09, 7 December 2024 edit undoPasky (talk | contribs)241 edits re-add good article section, still active initiative for me (though slow moving) 
(13 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 53: Line 53:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 13 |counter = 14
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive %(counter)d
Line 95: Line 95:
] ]


== Grammar ==
== Coolant Flow paradox needs further discussion. ==


The first sentence of the sub-section "Fuel-containing materials" has a grammatical error. The first sentence reads "About 95% of the fuel in reactor No. 4 at the time of the accident." This is obviously not a complete sentence. It is unclear to me what the original literary intent of this clause was. This half-sentence could be removed without impeding the reader's understanding of the following text. ] (]) 19:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of "Background", just before we enter the "Accident", the following statement is made: "'''excessively high coolant flow rates through the core meant that the coolant was entering the reactor very close to the boiling point.'''" Boiling coolant leads to steam bubbles which creates a non-liquid neutron absorbing void in the reactor core. This is clear in the discussion. However, the statement referenced appears to say that high coolant flow leads to high coolant temperatures - which is counterintuitive. In theory, if you want to cool something down, you increase the coolant flow. Perhaps there is a link to high coolant flow necessitating high coolant flow through the heat exchange system, and hence quickly moving coolant does not get a chance to cool before it reenters the reactor. (Note "perhaps", it's been a long time since I took a reactor design course.) "Bottom line", as Michael Weston would say, is this critical state of high coolant flow leading to boiling point coolant needs to be explained for it in some ways is the cause of the entire accident. ] (]) 09:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
:I added a phrase or too.] (]) 13:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


== Grammar edit recommendation == == Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2024 ==


{{edit semi-protected|Chernobyl disaster|answered=yes}}
In the first paragraph of (Top), The following fact is told:
Under the "In popular culture" section, it says THQ produced STALKER, this is not true GSC Gameworld, a Ukrainian video games developer, produced it. ] (]) 16:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
"The initial emergency response and subsequent mitigation efforts involved more than 500,000 personnel and cost an estimated 18 billion roubles"
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> The article doesn't say THQ produced the game, it says it released it, which according to the game's article would appear to be true. With that said, I'm of the opinion that a video game's developer is usually far more responsible for it than its publisher, so I added a few words that include GSC's role. ] (]) 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


== Getting this to a Good Article state ==
The problem is, I am 70% sure that "and cost an estimated 10 billion roubles" is not correct. Noting the article is written in past tense, I'm pretty sure "cost" should be "costed". ] (]) 15:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


After few years, I have come back to the article and made a variety of significant edits, mainly simplifying the overall layout. My goal would be to get this article to a state where it can be nominated to a Good Article and a Featured Article - seems worthwhile given the importance of the event as well as this article being in the Top 100 visited articles.
:No, "cost" is correct. I don't know why, but it's correct. ] (]) 15:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


I'm not sure how much time I can invest into this of course, but seeing a variety of activity from others recently inspired me and I thought I'd start a collaborative checklist below. Feel free to edit it further, or cross out things that are done!
== NPOV issues with "Disputed investigation" section. ==


* Update the Background with key information about RBMK and the ChNPP.
This section comes across as if written by a pro-nuclear defender (or apologist, depending on your POV). It mentions "Moller has been reprimanded for publishing papers that crossed the scientific "misconduct"/"fraud" line." but reading the citation/source doesn't support the wording in the article. Moller was indeed accused of scientific misconduct"/"fraud but a French panel of scientists found no credible evidence to support the claim, so it seems that claim is disputed (according to the Nature article used a source). There is talk about "continuing to publish experimentally unrepeatable and discredited papers." but no source shows that there is a a consensus that Mousseau appears related to the Chernobyl disaster general considered discredited or that his reputation overall is such that all his work should be discounted outright. Once citation/source links to a guest column at AtomicInsights.com that is the opinion by only one individual who disputes a talk Mousseau gave on Fukushima (not The Chernobyl disaster). This seems sort like an add-hominem attach on the guy because of disagreement over his Fukushima talk. If his is generally discredited in the scientific community then multiple better sources should be able to be produced and cited. Finally, the section claims the book "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" been generally discredited but neither the link presented support that claim not does the Misplaced Pages article on the book. It's fair to say the book is "disputed" but we need better sources if you want to claim has been "discredited". This article is not the place to debate or address the anti-nuclear movement in general as there are other Misplaced Pages article for that. Stick to addressing specific claims about the effects of medical & environmental of the Chernobyl Disaster specifically and whether it supports any anti-nuclear arguments or not. Leave the general arguments pro and con about nuclear energy in general to the article on Nuclear Energy, Anti-Nuclear movement, Nuclear Energy Safety, etc. - ] (]) 22:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
* Update the Impact section with information about impact on Soviet Union (some of it may be moved from the Socio-economic impact section?)
:I can't speak to the paper in question, but the linked article concerning the Yabloko report has adequate support for calling this non-peer-reviewed work 'discredited.'] (]) 16:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
* Reconcile the Long-term effects section with the ] article. There is significant overlap but also differences, and I believe the section would benefit from trimming down details.

** Pet peeve: The table in Release and spread of radioactive materials; moreover it omits many countries, the primary source of the secondary source cited has more lines, but I think a map would be better. The popular one seems copyrighted and I'm not sure if it'd fall under a non-free use exception, I tried to ask the EC for permission... but actually we'd have to get permission also from Ukrainian and Russian governments, seems possible but a tall order.
== Factual correction request ==
* Revisit each remaining section with further-information or main-article link and make sure that each such section only provides key summary in the main article and details are moved to the specialized article.

] (]) 21:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
In the section '''Immediate site and area remediation''', specifically in the sub-section '''Area cleanup''', the following is stated:

''Although a number of radioactive emergency vehicles were buried in trenches, many of the vehicles used by the liquidators, including the helicopters, <u>still remained, as of 2018</u>, parked in a field in the Chernobyl area.''

This statement is not correct, as comparison photos show the field being completely emptied some time between April 2012 and July 2013.

I suggest the following re-wording of the above text:

''Although a number of radioactive emergency vehicles were buried in trenches, many of the vehicles used by the liquidators, including the helicopters, remained parked in a field in the Chernobyl area, some for over 20 years. Satellite imagery shows that the vehicles were progressively removed in the early 2000's with the field being completely emptied by July 2013.'' ] (]) 08:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:There is still at least one open air storage area for vehicles left, so the passage isn't inaccurate. But it could certainly be expanded to distinguish between Buryakivka, Rassokha, etc.] (]) 15:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Chernobyl disaster|answered=no}}
Replace "cost an estimated 18 billion roubles—roughly US$68 billion in 2019" In the first paragraph with "with cost an estimated 18 billion roubles—roughly US$200 million in 2024"
(yeah money value has gone down) ] (]) 23:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:The article is comparing 1986 Soviet rubles to USD, not 2024 Russian rubles to USD.] (]) 23:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::I feel like we shouldn't be putting in numbers we keep having to update every year due to inflation. It would be better to just list the cost in both roubles and dollars at some fixed point and just specify that point.
::That said - I can't find the source of the numbers we DO have. Where are these numbers coming from? ] (]) 19:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:09, 7 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chernobyl disaster article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured article candidateChernobyl disaster is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 3, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 14, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 26, 2004, April 26, 2005, April 26, 2006, April 26, 2007, April 26, 2009, April 26, 2012, April 26, 2013, and April 26, 2016.
Current status: Former featured article candidate
Bridge of Death (Prypiat) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 March 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Chernobyl disaster. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBelarus Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisaster management Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEnergy High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEurope Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOccupational Safety and Health High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconScience Policy High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRussia: History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconSoviet Union High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUkraine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Chernobyl after the disaster was copied or moved into Chernobyl disaster with this edit on 03 May 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 81 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 7 times. The weeks in which this happened:
WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Section sizes
Section size for Chernobyl disaster (65 sections)
Section name Byte
count
Section
total
(Top) 9,504 9,504
Accident sequence 25 50,281
Background 20 19,122
Reactor cooling after shutdown 5,676 5,676
Safety test 2,517 2,517
Test delay and shift change 3,852 3,852
Unexpected drop of the reactor power 4,184 4,184
Reactor conditions priming the accident 2,873 2,873
Accident 18 15,325
Test execution 1,801 1,801
Reactor shutdown and power excursion 6,042 6,042
Explosions 7,464 7,464
Possible causes for the second explosion 949 5,626
Fizzled nuclear explosion hypothesis 4,677 4,677
Immediate response 27 9,015
Fire containment 6,823 6,823
Radiation levels 2,165 2,165
Accident investigation 1,168 1,168
Crisis management 25 35,909
Evacuation 7,438 7,438
Official announcement 6,553 6,553
Core meltdown risk mitigation 434 11,924
Bubbler pools 8,396 8,396
Foundation protection measures 3,094 3,094
Site cleanup 21 6,877
Debris removal 2,919 2,919
Construction of the sarcophagus 2,187 2,187
Investigations of the reactor condition 1,750 1,750
Area cleanup 3,092 3,092
Site remediation 1,980 31,756
No. 4 reactor confinement 5,089 5,089
Waste management 2,854 7,709
Fuel-containing materials 4,855 4,855
Exclusion zone 5,367 8,845
Forest fire concerns 3,478 3,478
Recovery projects 3,912 3,912
Tourism 4,221 4,221
Long-term effects 22 85,054
Release and spread of radioactive materials 10,834 17,328
Relative isotopic abundances 6,494 6,494
Environmental impact 124 22,675
Water bodies 4,536 4,536
Flora, fauna, and funga 5,656 5,656
Human food chain 7,158 7,158
Precipitation on distant high ground 5,201 5,201
Human impact 514 39,222
Acute radiation effects and immediate aftermath 2,495 2,495
Long-term impact 1,988 1,988
Effects of main harmful radionuclides 3,620 3,620
Disputed investigation 2,246 2,246
Withdrawn investigation 2,624 2,624
Abortions 6,935 6,935
Cancer assessments 12,752 12,752
Other disorders 2,488 2,488
Long-term radiation deaths 3,560 3,560
Socio-economic impact 5,807 5,807
Significance 20 12,595
Nuclear debate 8,087 8,087
In popular culture 4,488 4,488
See also 526 526
Notes 31 31
References 30 239
Works cited 209 209
Further reading 79 79
External links 3,237 3,237
Total 229,211 229,211


Grammar

The fist sentence should read: "At the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the city of Pripyat, located in the then Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union (USSR)" instead of: "at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the city of Pripyat, then located in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union (USSR)". It did not physically move.

The section titled "Social Economic Effects" should be renamed to "socioeconomic effects" to reflect proper terminology.

minor but this is the English language page "Numerous structural and construction quality issues, as well as deviations from the original plant design, had been known to KGB since at least 1973 and passed on to the Central Committee, which take no action and classified the information." should be "been known to the KGB... which took no action"

Containing fire

The timeline says all fires were contained at 6:35 - this should probably mention "fires around the power plant": The core continued to burn days after, but there is no description what measures really lead to containing the fire inside the reactor. It just says "It is now known that virtually none of the neutron absorbers reached the core." It is not clear what really stopped the fire.

decay heat was the "fire" and it "stopped" being "red hot" like decay heat always does. With time.

Grammar edit request

There's a rather extended high-comma-count "sentence" with what looks to be a misspelling.

The expected highest body activity was in the first few years, were the unabated ingestion of local food, primarily milk consumption, resulted in the transfer of activity from soil to body, after the dissolution of the USSR, the now reduced scale initiative to monitor the human body activity in these regions of Ukraine, recorded a small and gradual half-decadal-long rise, in internal committed dose, before returning to the previous trend of observing ever lower body counts each year.

minimal-change improvement:

The expected highest body activity was in the first few years, where the unabated ingestion of local food (primarily milk) resulted in the transfer of activity from soil to body. After the dissolution of the USSR, the now reduced scale initiative to monitor the human body activity in these regions of Ukraine recorded a small and gradual half-decadal-long rise in internal committed dose before returning to the previous trend of observing ever lower body counts each year.

length of lead

This has come up before, see..

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chernobyl_disaster/Archive_13#Lead_too_long

Dougsim

Grammar

The first sentence of the sub-section "Fuel-containing materials" has a grammatical error. The first sentence reads "About 95% of the fuel in reactor No. 4 at the time of the accident." This is obviously not a complete sentence. It is unclear to me what the original literary intent of this clause was. This half-sentence could be removed without impeding the reader's understanding of the following text. CALPHone (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the "In popular culture" section, it says THQ produced STALKER, this is not true GSC Gameworld, a Ukrainian video games developer, produced it. Wikipedianikolas (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done The article doesn't say THQ produced the game, it says it released it, which according to the game's article would appear to be true. With that said, I'm of the opinion that a video game's developer is usually far more responsible for it than its publisher, so I added a few words that include GSC's role. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Getting this to a Good Article state

After few years, I have come back to the article and made a variety of significant edits, mainly simplifying the overall layout. My goal would be to get this article to a state where it can be nominated to a Good Article and a Featured Article - seems worthwhile given the importance of the event as well as this article being in the Top 100 visited articles.

I'm not sure how much time I can invest into this of course, but seeing a variety of activity from others recently inspired me and I thought I'd start a collaborative checklist below. Feel free to edit it further, or cross out things that are done!

  • Update the Background with key information about RBMK and the ChNPP.
  • Update the Impact section with information about impact on Soviet Union (some of it may be moved from the Socio-economic impact section?)
  • Reconcile the Long-term effects section with the Effects of the Chernobyl disaster article. There is significant overlap but also differences, and I believe the section would benefit from trimming down details.
    • Pet peeve: The table in Release and spread of radioactive materials; moreover it omits many countries, the primary source of the secondary source cited has more lines, but I think a map would be better. The popular one seems copyrighted and I'm not sure if it'd fall under a non-free use exception, I tried to ask the EC for permission... but actually we'd have to get permission also from Ukrainian and Russian governments, seems possible but a tall order.
  • Revisit each remaining section with further-information or main-article link and make sure that each such section only provides key summary in the main article and details are moved to the specialized article.

Pasky (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: