| Revision as of 03:11, 20 April 2010 editFellGleaming (talk | contribs)3,690 edits →Requested move← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:01, 20 April 2010 edit undoJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users214,795 edits →Requested move: no it doesn'tNext edit → | ||
| Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
| : It goes on to state the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were. | : It goes on to state the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were. | ||
| ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::No it doesn't. ''The report acknowledged that there was a core of people, probably numbering 100,000 to 200,000, who continued to be severely affected by the disaster: poor rural dwellers who live in the few severely contaminated areas, the people with thyroid cancer and citizens who were resettled after the disaster but never found a home or employment in their new communities.'' Anyway, it's irrelevant what you or I or Joe Bloggs says about this. What do the reliable sources say? --] (]) 05:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:01, 20 April 2010
 | 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. |
 | Chernobyl 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article candidate | |||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
 | Software: Computing | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:Cleanup taskforce notice
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 26, 2004, April 26, 2005, April 26, 2006, April 26, 2007, and April 26, 2009. |
 Archives |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Cancer rates low after 19 years, high after 24?
As part of an unrelated search, I just noticed a really striking difference between whichever UN source is cited in the first paragraph of this column and this recent news and this peer reviewed article from last year, which seems to confirm the recent news.
Doesn't the IAEA have any idea what the expected cancer occurrence profile is for various sorts of contamination? I'd like to see one for depleted uranium exposure, because of Gulf War illness#Epidemiology -- Apparently all those people spending money we pay them to pay attention haven't been paying attention. 99.38.148.255 (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is a vast difference between DU as refined for inertial weapon use vs uranium within an active nuclear reactor for any period of time (not to speak of the graphite and all the other materials around the reactor and later poured into it). The accumulated fission products and atoms of all types irradiated with neutrons into radioactive isotopes makes any comparison complete fantasy, as would any statistics about estimated cancer deaths arising from them. No ammo for a DU war here. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Correction about Vehicle Field
"Many of the vehicles used by the "liquidators" remain parked in a field in the Chernobyl area to this day, most giving off doses of 10-30 R/hr (0.1-0.3 Gy/hr) over 20 years after the disaster."
I visited Chernobyl in December 2009. The field of vehicles used in the clean-up no longer exists. According to the official guide, they have now been buried. I also read on someone's account of visiting Chernobyl in 2008 that the vehicles had been acquisitioned for their metal. Which seems highly unlikely considering the amount of radiation they must have. Either way, the vehicles aren't there any more. Around 5-6 vehicles used in the clean-up have been parked in a village near Chernobyl town, which the tours take you to (I can provide pictures of this). I don't know where you could find verifiable sources to confirm this - here is the site of the guy who was told the vehicles were taken for the metal: http://www.reactor4.be/our_story.php Jigsawn (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? Why would the cars be radioactive? Cs-137 and I-131 decay via beta and gamma. There isn't going to be a high neutron flux in the area. FellGleaming (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Physical Health Effects -- missing figure
In the section on NTD in Turkey, there is a figure missing in the sentence ending "the prevalence of NTDs increased to per 1,000 (12 cases)." As the paragraph lacks a citation, I cannot say what the missing figure is, but deduction from the following sentence suggest it to be about 20.
78.86.168.228 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)richard@the-place.net
Article prose...
...is not what it once was. I'm not sure exactly what has changed since the last time I had a look, but it's no longer as easily read or as readily understood as it used to be. Is this related to the work discussed above?
J.M. Archer (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Another note, actually:
- Some of the modifications made to the text follow logically as responses to the text that was present before the changes were made but make less sense standing here alone. Readers can't be expected to have seen both versions of the text and that's just not the way an encyclopedia is supposed to work: whatever the technical reality is, there is only one Misplaced Pages article on the Chernobyl disaster. It needs to be complete as presented. I've copypasta'd an example below.
- All of them returned to the surface and according to Ananenko, their colleagues jumped from happiness when they heard they managed to open the valves. Despite their good condition after the task completion, all of them suffered from radiation sickness, and at least two of them - Ananenko and Bezpalov - died in the process.
- This seems almost a non sequitur as presented in the article. It feels out of place in context: there is no reason for the reader to assume they did not make it out, as the article says nothing of the kind. I personally happen to know--and a reader might discover from the article's history page--that this section once claimed that the three divers did not return to the surface and that all died immediately. This snippet seems to make sense as a rebuttal of the older version of the article, but that serves no purpose: there is no reason to rebut a version that is not present, and that the reader has not read.
- I can't imagine this being a common practice and would like to see some of these bits and pieces made to fit better within the context of the article but don't necessarily know enough about the event itself to ensure that I can make changes without screwing up details.
Russian acronyms
Created a reference subpage for translation from Russian-language webpages. --Shaddack (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Extremely long article (unwieldy)
I know it's an important topic, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a book. Can this article be heavily chopped down for readability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
What time?
In the article, I noticed that the infobox said the explosion was at 1:21am, but the third paragraph said the time was 1:23am. I tagged them both as dubious. Could someone please fix those times so they are correct and consistent? Thanks, Oxguy the 3rd (talk). Tagged: 23:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the time zone is incorrect. It is listed only as +3. It is true that Ukraine was in the Moscow Time Zone when the accident occurred. However DST was observed in the Soviet Union at this time beginning in late March. Moscow Summer Time +4 would have been in effect. Ukraine currently observes Eastern European Time, +2 in the winter and +3 in the summer. Skywayman (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Misuse of "invisible Note" system
I have remove this text from the article:
"First: No fact of "turning off the turbogenerators" were registered, this "turning off" was pre-overridden by operators (they lowered the threshold of triggering). Second: EPS-5 (AZ-5?) is the system, which scrams a reactor. Indeed, the system, whose signals were overridden, is the AZ-2 (or, in English, EPS-2). This system, as a part, cuts-off the steam to turbogenerators in cause of abnormal steam-water levels in separator drums. Third: One of two turbogenerators, by the 23:00 was already turned-off, thus, no need to speak in plural. Fourth: The source you specified below contains no assertions about "turning off turbogenerators", nor about triggering EPS-5 at this time-points."
It was placed in the article as an "invisible note" but I think that although invisible notes have their uses this argument should have been brought here to the talk page. I also think that the English is below the standard required for articles. Britmax (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agree: my recent edit restoring an invisible note was of parenthetical material and not a commentary on the facts. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Fallout Comparison
"400 times the fallout". This claim has been tagged as dubious for a while without anyone supporting it. This claim has several problems. First, it is demagogic and overly dramatic in tone. Secondly, the work of SCOPE (see ) suggests such comparisons are impossible; they are inherently "apples to oranges" comparisons. Third, it leaves a false impression in the reader's mind. Hiroshima may have killed as many as 100,000 people from fallout. Yet a release some four hundred times larger has killed possibly as few as 20, and certainly no more than 4,000? Even the source in this case points out that "Early estimates that tens or hundreds of thousands of people would die from Chernobyl have been discredited."
Properly caveated, it might possibly have some relevance elsewhere in the article, but it has no place in the lede. Fell Gleaming 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Chernobyl Nuclear Accident
| previous move request -- now closed | ||
|---|---|---|
Requested move
Chernobyl disaster → Chernobyl nuclear accident — Formal request per discussion below. Beagel (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC) NOTE: Based on the multitude of names being proposed, I'm going to wait another day or two, then reopen the move request with whichever name has the most traction at that point, to avoid any potential procedural issues FellGleaming (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, shouldn't this article be called the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident as opposed to the Chernobyl Disaster? Disaster can apply to anything, Nuclear Accident is more specific. WritersCramp (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
update: based on still-developing consensus, I've changed the move discussion to "Chernobyl nuclear accident". If this affects your vote, please note as much here. FellGleaming (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Requested move
 | It has been proposed in this section that Chernobyl disaster be renamed and moved to Chernobyl accident. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move |
Due to the name change, I am closing the old incident and reopening this as a discussion on the move to "Chernobyl accident". If you expressed a view for either this name, or to leave simply as "Chernobyl disaster", you do not need to reexpress your position. If you expressed a view for one of the alternate names discussed above, please restate your vote here for clarity. Thanks. Fell Gleaming 17:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Support: I strongly support, as per WP:COMMONNAME. This google search shows many more hits for the "accident" form than disaster, and these hits appear to be from more reliable sources in general. Further, the name is more neutral and encyclopedic in tone, and makes no unbiased assumptions about how serious the accident really was (and the article makes clear there is dispute in this regard). Fell Gleaming 18:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Presuming you mean "Chernobyl accident" as we don't capitalize non-proper nouns in article titles. Strongly oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME. I suggest this will soon become disruptive. --John (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral I really don't see a good reason to move it, though "accident" seems a bit more common, but much less than "Chernobyl". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- MOVE. It wasn't the disaster some tried to say it was. 216.24.167.196 (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose move. The name "Chernobyl disaster" has served us well for a long time, and this really was no ordinary accident. Johnfos (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose This would be far too mild a name. The existing WP:COMMONNAME is more specific and accurate. All the relevant points were made in the previous discussion, now closed. A few editors tried to close the last RfM far too soon, and now we have another almost immediately. Any more of this will certainly look disruptive.--Nigelj (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nigel, as agreed to in talk, the last one was closed as multiple names were being discussed simultaneously. The process was thus restarted. Fell Gleaming 16:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this is the talk page, and I've looked twice now for that discussion, but I still don't see it. --Nigelj (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's collapsed, right above this one. Click the expand link.
- Well, this is the talk page, and I've looked twice now for that discussion, but I still don't see it. --Nigelj (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose If I fall and cut my knee, it's an accident. This was an event on a much larger scale and with far greater effects: disaster is a far more appropriate term. As for the comment that It wasn't the disaster some tried to say it was, I'd say that an incident that leaves a whole town off-limits, causes numerous birth deformities and health problems across at least three countries, and sparks widespread panic across much of a continent is as close to a disaster as you're likely to get. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Quoting from the NY Times,
Nor has there been any detectable decrease in fertility or increase in birth defects, said the report, which was written for the Chernobyl Forum, a group that includes the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, six other UN agencies and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
- It goes on to state the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were.
Fell Gleaming 03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. The report acknowledged that there was a core of people, probably numbering 100,000 to 200,000, who continued to be severely affected by the disaster: poor rural dwellers who live in the few severely contaminated areas, the people with thyroid cancer and citizens who were resettled after the disaster but never found a home or employment in their new communities. Anyway, it's irrelevant what you or I or Joe Bloggs says about this. What do the reliable sources say? --John (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Ukraine articles
- Top-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- Low-importance Russia articles
- Low-importance B-Class Russia articles
- WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
- WikiProject Russia articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Soviet Union articles
- High-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- Unassessed Belarus articles
- Unknown-importance Belarus articles
- Unassessed Europe articles
- Unknown-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- Unassessed Disaster management articles
- Unknown-importance Disaster management articles
- Unassessed energy articles
- Unknown-importance energy articles
- Unassessed software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles
- Selected anniversaries (April 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2009)
- Requested moves