Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:50, 12 June 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

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.

Article milestones Date Process Result March 8, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 7, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted January 3, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 14, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed 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.

Belarus Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Death Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupational Safety and Health High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Soviet Union High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ukraine Top‑importance This 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 Top This 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: September 7 to 13, 2014 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 19 to 25, 2019 May 26 to June 1, 2019 June 2 to 8, 2019 June 9 to 15, 2019 June 16 to 22, 2019

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

There is currently no source for the assertion that the room was calm when AZ-5 was pressed or that the use of AZ-5 was pre-planned, other than Dyatlov's book.

I to clarify that the current source - Dyatlov's book - is only an assertion from him about the use of AZ-5. My edit was reverted (actually, it wasn't merely reverted, but the language strengthened despite no new sources added).

If we are only going to use Dyatlov's book, that's fine, but the article needs to reflect that. If there are other sources for these claims, then they need to be added.RadicalHarmony (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, little update: I've found this, which seems like a viable secondary source, cites many germane primary sources, and seems to more-or-less support the current language in the article: https://chernobylcritical.blogspot.com/p/part-5-after-explosion.html

So perhaps the change I attempted to make it not needed afterall. RadicalHarmony (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to know that the author of chernobylcritical.blogspot.com is Sredmash who will probably be able to address your concerns in this specific matter. Reconrabbit 14:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't entirely clear in the original wording what was meant by the shutdown being planned in advance. The fact that shutdown was planned for that shift in particular is stated in so many sources that I don't even remember which one to cite; you would need to pick a few at random and see if you get lucky.

More unclear is whether the shift intended to shut down right at 1:23:04 when rundown began. For this we primarily have Dyatlov's assertion. In an 'original research' kind of way, it has often been pointed out that the test program contains no step for blocking the two-turbine disconnection trip, so following the instructions to the letter would indeed have automatically scrammed the reactor at 1:23:04. But in fact we can add a separate reputable source for Akimov stating that they planned to shut down as rundown began: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/20285-national-security-archive-doc-01-cc-cpsu (Control-F for "inform" and you should jump right to the relevant passage.)

Eyewitnesses reporting a calm atmosphere preceding the scram include Metlenko, Gazin and others. I agree that we need some citations here. The quotes mostly come from Nikolai Karpan's book, Revenge of the Peaceful Atom. Citing them would be far preferable to using my blog as a source, but I would need to take some time to track down page references, etc.Sredmash (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Crisis management - Evacuation: time discrepancy

The 4th paragraph of section "Crisis management", subsection "Evacuation" contains this sentence:

In the early daylight hours of 27 April, approximately 36 hours after the initial blast (...)

The initial blast occurred at 01:23 AM, therefore 36 hours after the blast would be 01:23 PM, which is certainly not an early daylight hour. 178.143.44.172 (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. That sentence is conflating the order to evacuate with the evacuation itself.02:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sredmash (talk • contribs)

Coolant Flow paradox needs further discussion.

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. QuixoteReborn (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I added a phrase or too.Sredmash (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Grammar edit recommendation

In the first paragraph of (Top), The following fact is told: "The initial emergency response and subsequent mitigation efforts involved more than 500,000 personnel and cost an estimated 18 billion roubles"

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". 167.142.115.248 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No, "cost" is correct. I don't know why, but it's correct. CommandoEchino (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

NPOV issues with "Disputed investigation" section.

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. - Notcharliechaplin (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use Oxford spelling
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Former good article nominees
• B-Class level-4 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in History
• B-Class vital articles in History
• B-Class Belarus articles
• Low-importance Belarus articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Top-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class energy articles
• High-importance energy articles
• B-Class Europe articles
• Mid-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles
• B-Class European history articles
• Mid-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• B-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles
• High-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles
• WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles
• B-Class Science Policy articles
• High-importance Science Policy articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• High-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• Top-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests