Talk:Chernobyl disaster

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/wiki/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 [made a change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chernobyl_disaster&diff=prev&oldid=1219563042] 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. Recon  rabbit  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * 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.'Sredmash (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Factual correction request
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, still remained, as of 2018, parked in a field in the Chernobyl area.

This statement is not correct, as comparison photos here 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.'' 194.22.3.6 (talk) 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.Sredmash (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)