Talk:Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant

Official Name of the Plant
Although commonly called the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, The Official Name is the Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Nuclear Power Plant; Often Shortened to V.I. Lenin NPP during the Soviet Era. The Current Name was termed after Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union when they broke up in 1991 and thus dropped the reference to Vladimir Lenin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.8.197.150 (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No Soviet person in the history of the universe ever said something so silly as "V.I. Lenin NPP." This seems to be a myth among non-Russian-speaking fans of the HBO miniseries.Sredmash (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in reactor No. 2 turbine fire incident
These two statements are obviously inconsistent with each other: If all four reactors had one common turbine hall [which I think was/is not the case], where exactly would "the turbine hall of reactor No. 2" be?
 * "The plant utilized one large, open turbine hall for all four reactors without any separating walls."
 * "...a fire broke out in the turbine hall of reactor No. 2."

These two statements are obviously inconsistent with each other: This^^^ is either pure magic or turbine reproduction of some sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrejPodzimek (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Each reactor had two turbines."
 * "The fire began in reactor No. 2's fourth turbine..."

Reactor Fleet
This page needs a breakdown of the reactors #1-4, their operation output etc... There is a history of the other three reactors Ottawakismet (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Many countries?
"Today, many countries that were in the Soviet Union have been paid money from the European Union to shut down such first-generation units, as they pose a threat to the environment" - only Russia, Lithuania and Ukraine had RBMK-reactors. So this sentence is misleading, at best 83.108.109.43 (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also Ignalina was a second-generation design. --BjKa (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sarcophagus Links
I've noticed that all links labeled "Sarcophagus" in this article lead to an article on Sarcophagi for use in human burial. I edited this to a more relevant link yesterday but it appears to have reverted back to the irrelevant one. Could someone either change these to articles pertaining to the subject or give an explanation why we shouldn't do so? 71.218.16.26 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For reference Section 1 (Construction) Paragraph 2 at the end of sentence 4,Section 2.2 (Accidents, 1986) sentence 2 both contain this particular misleading link. 71.218.16.26 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thriving Wildlife
Some mention of the thriving wildlife near the plant should be made.- MSTCrow 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. That information belongs in the article on the accident and/or the page on the effects of the disaster. I would say that this article is already too specific about the consequences of the disaster. Duplicating material in multiple articles of overlapping scope makes it unnecessarily difficult to update the encyclopaedia as more information comes in. Agemegos (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the focus on the power plant, and leave the wildlife in the exclusion zone article Ottawakismet (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukritiye International
References this group were added on 17 July by without any sources. A google search for this group turns up nothing except references back to this Wikipedia article and others updated by the same anonymous user. I suggest undoing the changes if no supporting sources can be found. Similar edits were also made to Chernobyl disaster and New Safe Confinement. -- Tcncv (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Second photo STALKER screenshot?
Why is there a "photo" on this page that is actually a screenshot from the game STALKER shadow of Chernobyl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.204.108 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which photo are you referencing and why do you believe it to be a screen shot? -- Tcncv (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Decommissioning (operation of remaining reactors after 1986)
“After the explosion at reactor four, the remaining three reactors at the power plant continued to operate.” - I think this needs more explanation and resources. It surely isn't obvious who would still work for years in the presumably highly contaminated area and how. charon (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is true, and there needs to be history of the other 3 three reactors Ottawakismet (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi
If there is going to be a link to other articles, including Three Mile Island, can we consider a link to the Fukushima Daiichi, the leaking and crippled nuclear power plant in Eastern Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.106.188 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. 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/20090504090902/http://library.thinkquest.org:80/3426/data/introduction/location.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/data/introduction/location.html
 * Added tag to http://www.holtecinternational.com/sites/default/files/pr/HH22_18.pdf

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) 09:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Photos
I've changed some of the photos. Hope people don't mind. Updated the main photo as it was about ten years old and didn't have the NSC on it. Updated the NSC photo from April 2015 to August 2016. Replaced a photo of Reactor 4 with one of 5 & 6 as there was two of 4. Cls14 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

1986: Reactor No. 4 disaster
I don't have the time right now, but can we explain HOW reactor NO 4 exploded under the "Accidents" section? ...or at the least, provide a summary of how? Right now, all that it says is that "was destroyed." I feel like it would be nice to provide at least a brief explanation about it. - Yurtpoh (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Better photo requested
This article could be improved if there was a better photograph of the overall plant than the one currently in the infobox - "shot from a nearby road." Any thoughts or images? Netherzone (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with an aerial photo found on commons at File:Chernobyl 04710018 (8134364258).jpg. --Gapfall (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. 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://snpp.rosenergoatom.ru/eng/about/production/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310010627/http://chernobyltwentyfive.org/node/867 to http://chernobyltwentyfive.org/node/867
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224053455/http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/natashaserg/album/20820/ to http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/natashaserg/album/20820/

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) 07:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. 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/20141215051000/http://blogs.korrespondent.net/blog/kyiv/3354453/ to http://blogs.korrespondent.net/blog/kyiv/3354453/

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) 16:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. 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/20141018124724/http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/ru/publish/article?art_id=43297&cat_id=39895 to http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/ru/publish/article?art_id=43297&cat_id=39895
 * Added tag to http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10865344
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302231841/http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/ to http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/

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) 06:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Change N. to No.
How about changing all the "N." to "No."? Is it correct to use "N."? I've never seen it used anywhere before. UnsignificantEditor (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Why does the photo in the infobox highlight a sculpture rather than the Power Plant?
At some time the photograph in the Infobox was changed to a photograph of a sculpture in front of the powerplant, rather than a photograph of the power plant itself (as was previously in the Infobox). I think it should be changed back, as it makes no sense to have an image of artwork in front of the building, rather than the Nuclear Powerplant. I recommend this file: Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I may switch it with the file you suggested but I will check Commons first for better quality images. Kylesenior (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

image caption, "decontamination" per helicopter
One of the image captions claims that a helicopter is spraying "a decontamination liquid" over the area. What substance can "decontaminate" a radioactive environment? Wash down, yes; contain or cover, maybe to some degree; but "decontaminate"? This sounds rather euphemistic to me. -- Seelefant (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * : Hi, according to https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfinfo-doku/super-gau-tschernobyl-sarkophag-fuer-die-ewigkeit-100.html Minute 11:30 ff. the helicopters dropped "lead and other materials", and according to https://en.chernobylhistory.com/chernobyl-last-mi-8-flight/, "The helicopter pilots called up for Chernobyl in the first stream had a slightly different task – they dumped sand and lead bags directly onto the reactor, the dose of radiation to the pilots was off scale. Only a few survived. The second stream dealt with decontamination of the territory…", so I suggest changing it to "lead and sand" pls the references? BR 17387349L8764 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Chernobyl second sarcophacus 2018 hnapel 14.jpg

Fake Google Pro Image
The image of this site is false, with two high resolution towers that are obviously not real. Charles Juvon (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Current events
Due to current events the 2022 war bit will need to be uppaled as events happen Huumas (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022
On "Operator(S)" put "Russian Federation." To my knowledge SAZEM is no longer in control. BAFAFF982 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Were any waste containers actually hit by shelling?
In the section on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, it mentions a waste repository being hit. Looking at the cited source, it appears that there are no references to any shells hitting them.

Am I mistaken? Mdrakea3 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No evidence of damage. This was probably due to poor translation from a Ukrainian gov't advisor.Sredmash (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

country given as russia
currently, the infobox gives the country the ChNPP is in as "Ukraine (de jure), Russia (de facto)", with a source stating, that russian tropps have taken the location. While this does mean, that russia controls the area the plant is in, this does not mean, that the plant is defacto in russia, since to my knowledge, the russian gouvernment dosn't claim that the area in question is russian territory. --1234567891011a (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Fixed. ehn (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Add info to the section: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Main article: Battle of Chernobyl During the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russian forces attacked Ukrainian forces near the site of the Chernobyl disaster and seized the ruined power plant.[25][26][27][28] The resulting activity led to an increase in radiation levels in the area.[29]

According to link below: "Experts of the Ecocenter connect this with disturbance of the top layer of soil from movement of a large number of radio heavy military machinery through the Exclusion zone and increase of air pollution."

Då.nu (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Radiation graph not sufficiently noteworthy
I disagree with the inclusion of a crude graph for radiation levels at the plant. This is an example of recency bias. Why not a graph showing the vastly higher radiation levels after the accident itself? The data are also not trustworthy because the plant's own website continues to report normal radiation levels. No credible source is currently capable of confirming the reality of the dosimetric situation, therefore the inclusion of a graph presents tentative information an incontrovertible fact. Maybe when the truth is known and we have data for the last two days, such a graph might be useful. But currently it is just a suspicious snapshot of 2/25/22.Sredmash (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2022
Change the following line in the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" subsection:

"The resulting activity reportedly led to an increase in radiation levels in the area." to... "The resulting activity reportedly led to an increase in radiation levels in the area due to disruption of contaminated soil."

This clarifies the cause of increased levels. Leebickmtu (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  09:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Černobyl
How many deaths did the Černobyl nuclear disaster caused in the 1989? 2A0E:422:2EA9:0:91E1:B33:4E78:4E50 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawal
The withdrawal of Russian troops does not imply the recapture of the plant by Ukrainian forces.--GreatBernard (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Name of the article
The beginning of the article correctly says that the name of the power plant is Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant. However, if I open the article of Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant, I get incorrectly redirected to "Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant". Shouldn't the official name be used as the primary name, and the name in the neighbouring country's language be an alternative name, with a redirect to the official name?

Dakkus (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many other discussions of this which reference Wikipedia policy better than I can. But the gist of it is, 'Chernobyl' is enough of a household name in English-speaking countries that it is the correct version to use for the article name (due to prominence). Contrast this with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant. Most people have never heard of this particular plant, so the transliteration of the Ukrainian name is used.Sredmash (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2022
The below paragraph/sentence doesn't read very well towards the end. I think the 'and' between the words 'process and requires' is unnecessary

"Although the reactors have all ceased generation, Chernobyl maintains a large workforce as the ongoing decommissioning process and requires constant management." 80.4.24.220 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed it A diehard editor (talk &#124; edits) 21:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Chernobyl second sarcophacus 2018 hnapel 14.jpg

Name of the power plant
The official name of the power plant is the Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Nuclear Power Plant. I think it would be prudent to include this in the bold print at the beginning of the article, instead of the cursory reference at the end of the first paragraph. 151.111.138.40 (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That is not, and never was, the official name of the plant. Not sure why everyone is so desperate to make reality match the HBO miniseries.Sredmash (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I haven't even seen the HBO miniseries, so my suggestion had nothing to do with that. And I have read several sources which ascribe this name to the plant. These include National Geographic, the IAEA, and USA Today. 151.111.138.40 (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Americans like to exoticize the place by mistranslating the name to highlight the Communist pickle, what can I tell you. No Soviet source will ever omit the "Chernobylskaya" part of the name, while uttering the phrase "Leninskaya Stantsiy" or "Atomnaya Stantsiya imeni V. I. Lenina" would make you look like a weirdo. The Soviets tacked the suffice "imeni V. I. Lenina" onto just about everything important.Sredmash (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I came here to make a similar comment, and have also not seen the HBO series. In the lede, we say the plant is named after Lenin, which seems very strange when the only name we've given is "Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant". The only hint of the Lenin name is in Cyrillic in the #Computer systems section, but even that is talking about Leningrad. Maybe it was the same computer system for the Chernobyl and Leningrad plants? While the Russian article does use the name, what we've had here is just confusing. I've removed it for now. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would recommend restoring the reference you removed. To be exhaustive with the names (which is not necessary), the plant in Soviet times was the "Chernobyl Atomic Energy Station of V. I. Lenin." In independent Ukraine the Lenin reference was dropped. Finally, during decommissioning the name has changed to the "State Special Enterprise (my Ukrainian translation here might be imprecise) Chernobyl Atomic Energy Station." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sredmash (talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to saying what you just did, though perhaps it's more detail than we need in the lede. I only objected to a single "the plant was named for Lenin" with no follow-up, since it looks wrong without ever getting into the old formal name. --BDD (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)