Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 2

Page Name #1
Regarding the move of the accident information to a new page:

Q: Why are you moving the accident information to a new page called 'Chernobyl accident'? A: Because this article really deals with the event we know as 'Chernobyl accident' and not much about the city of Chernobyl (or Chornobyl). The accident actually ocurred just outside the town of Pryp'yat, 10 miles (16 km) northwest of the city of Chernobyl.

Q: Why are you using 'Chernobyl accident' instead of 'Chornobyl accident'? A: The nuclear reactor was called Chernobyl, using the Russian spelling. Remember this accident happened when Ukraine was still a part of the Soviet Union, so they used the Russian spelling. And because it happened during that era, when it was known as Chernobyl, it should be called the 'Chernobyl accident.' -- Cantus 04:50, March 7, 2004 (UTC)

Page Name #2
Shouldn't the page be at Chernobyl disaster, as that is what it is most commonly called? -- 63.228.39.66 17:35, April 23, 2005 (UTC)

Move to Chernobyl incident
Because this event was caused by human action, knowingly violating the safety measures of the plant, overriding safety switches, and in many ways knowingly and willfully instigating the reaction, I propose moving it to "Chernobyl Incident" - it is simply specious to suggest that what occured was accidental. Benjamin Gatti 23:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Second
I second Benjamin Gatti's motion. Even though it is not the official opinion of the Russian government and the evidence is only circumstantial, most of my Russian friends (as far as I know there was no public opinion poll about this) think that it was a sabotage. Cruise 03:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no offense intended, but those views are something what we call "демшиза" here. That is, "libertarian nutjobs". -- 83.237.192.204 05:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, do you really think that it was a deliberate act? If you fellows want to assert that it was deliberate, please present evidence to back up such statements. The opinions of your Russian friends is anecdotal evidence and doesn't count. As for the name: if it must be changed, I would prefer Chernobyl disaster. -- FP  04:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I could see it as intentional to cover up the theft of bomb-making materials, but I have definitely read too many spy novels. --noösfractal 06:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sabotage
FP, do not twist the argument by claiming that we are 'asserting' sabotage. And do not dare to remove heading from my comments. Cruise 05:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No offence intended. I was only trying to tidy this talk page so it was easy for other people to understand. I felt your heading was un-necessary so I removed it. Honestly all my changes have been in good faith.
 * Now, back on topic: if I understand you correctly, you're denying the disaster was an accident, and also denying it was deliberate; in that case, what are you asserting? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position. -- FP 06:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Open minds
There is not enough reliable evidence with respect to this event. We should keep our minds open to all plausible alternatives and hope that, with the passage of time, we will be in a better position to solve this riddle. What I try to say is that we should not a priori reject the 'accident' or the 'sabotage' hypothesis, as neither of us is able to prove our theses beyond a reasonable doubt. This is also why I support the classification of this event as an 'incident.' Cruise 07:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am responding to the "request for comment" regarding sabotage:

I have followed the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident for years and the facts that suggest an accident seem to be greater by far than those suggesting sabotage. Still, I feel that an inclusion of the opinion which some hold that it could have been sabotage is merited. This needs perhaps to be done in the manner that articles on other disasters and incidents here have been where there is some dispute on the cause of the incident: by mentioning that sabotage may be involved but that most researchers do not take the concept seriously.--Mike 08:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Army units and protection
I am not going to edit, since the article is somewhat of a stirred hornets nest and I don't usually edit english articles anyway, so here's for your information. Firstly, stating that the russian goverment brought in "workers" to contains the disaster, that is, civilians, is just plain wrong. The soviet army engineers and chemical corps (a substantial part of who were mobilised from reserve) actually took the brunt of the work of desactivation of the actual reactor and the nearby terrain. The civilian agencies were more or less staining they pants and wasting valuable time when the army took over, pardon my language. They were provided with needed protective clothing (which, by the way, at the time was absolutely identical to US specimens, and still used in both countries), but the problem was that they did not have enough dosimeters at the beginning, when they arrived. Oh, and the extraordinary levels of radiation, of course. With protective clothing or without it, you get a high dose anyway, and that's that.

PS User:83.237.192.204 is actually me -- Dyadya sam 06:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This post is not entirely accurate. While it is true that civilians were never involved in the clean-up operations, there is a view among some commentators that reservists are in fact civilians and this has probably led to some confusion. Also the fact that the great majority of the people involved in the clean-up were not trained in any way in the speciality of nuclear power could also lead to the label civilians.

Secondly there is the assertion that the said reservists were issued with protective clothing identical to US specimens. This is, again, misleading, as the reservists were given heavy lead suits and face masks to wear. The US clothing would have been a plastic sealed suit with a separate air-supply. While protection did improve as time went on and as protective equipment became available, this could have meant a day, a month, a year or even longer.

Finally the assertion that with or without protective clothing a high dose would have been taken cannot be denied. When the robots sent in to clear the roof of the reactor failed because of the extreme radioactivity they called in the reservists, who failed less quickly. Halyna 19:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Censorship
Yesterday, Robert Merkel stated his opinion favoring the 'accident' argument on this talk page. When he encountered an opinion which conflicts with his beliefs, Merkel experienced hightened emotionality and, unable to rationally resolve his cognitive dissonance, resorted to foul language (I deleted this crud) and aggression (censorship). This behavior cannot be tolerated, if we want to KEEP WIKIPEDIA FREE. Cruise 17:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever. You haven't presented any evidence than anyone other than a few conspiracy theorists (most of whom seem to have constructed a Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory involving everything from Roswell back) believe this, and you haven't presented any evidence that sabotage was involved. By the way, I suggest you keep your amateur cognitive psychology to yourself.  --Robert Merkel 23:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Respect
Today, Robert Merkel deleted the following parahraph


 * From 1992 on, the possibility that Chernobyl 'accident' was staged by foreign secret service agencies started to emerge (Sovietskaya Rossiya, June 16, 1992, April 25, 1996) and elsewhere. These allegations are based on observations that, under scrutiny, it is unlikely that the sequence of events that led to meltdown could have been accidental and that technicians which disconnected the safety mechanisms of the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant, Alexandrov, Feinberg, Sagdeev, Zaslavsky, are now living in comfort abroad.

and replaced it with


 * There have been occasional claims that the accident was in fact the result of sabotage instigated by Western intelligence agencies. Such claims have found very little support or attention outside the realms of groups generally regarded as conspiracy theorists.

I reverted his deletion and left his opinion intact. Robert, I respect your opinion, please respect opinions of others. Cruise 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether you personally believe it, or whether I don't believe it; neither of these things is particularly relevant to whether it gets mentioned in this article. The relevant piece of policy is contained in Neutral point of view.  You haven't provided any evidence that the belief that Chernobyl was the result of Western sabotage is anything other than an extreme minority position held by a very small group of people who tend to also believe in in Grand Unified Theories of Conspiracy from Roswell on.  That's why it deserves a minimal mention, if at all.   --Robert Merkel 02:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Listed on Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology
I have listed this dispute on RFC. --Robert Merkel 02:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I commented above. Regarding whether it was an accident or sabotage, I think the broad international opinion (including that of scientists and engineers) greatly suggests that this was an accident and not sabotage. I see no harm in the article mentioning that some people believe otherwise, but the stress should fall on the educated opinion most informed researchers have advocated and such is that Chernobyl was a horrible accident.--Mike 09:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Grand Unified Theories of Conspiracy
Merkel, there is no evidence linking people who support the notion that the sequence of actions that resulted in the nuclear explosion at Chernobyl was too deliberate to be accidental with people who believe that extraterrestrials landed at Roswell.


 * Do a google search on "Chernobyl sabotage conspiracy" or something similar. The only links I can find discussing the possibility that the 1986 accident was the result of sabotage was this one, by some "historian", and this one, who claimed that the CIA was using some kind of astral travel mind control for the purpose. --Robert Merkel 04:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

WHY can't you just realise 1. There is "some" speculation over the cause of the incident. 2. People should, as per NPOV, understand that there have been "some" conspiracy theories. Look at Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories, they are "numerous." Just because you think you know there was no conspiracy, how do you KNOW. Until you can give me a citation with PROOF that there WAS NOT a conspiracy theory, we should leave the article in. Look at the Article in Wiki [Conspiracy Theory] and then see. People said the "Titanic" was (virtually) un-sinkable. I don't think there was a conspiracy theory, but I don't KNOW. If I don't know, then we should at least respect people who Died because of the "incident" by not adding our own agendas to the article PLEASE. Ian Morgan 1859 April 06

Argumentum ad populum
Merkel, you campain to suppress, to ban, to silence. Your arguments are subject to numerous logical fallacies. One of them is the "argumentum ad populum." There was a time when only a few people reasoned that there is something wrong with the cosmology which everyone believed in, i.e., that the Sun revolves around the Earth. These skeptics were not only censored, silenced, imprisoned, but also burned at the stake. Do you really advocate the return to the Middle Ages?


 * I advocate that, to warrant inclusion in the Wikipedia, you (or any other supporter the inclusion of stuff on supposed Chernobyl sabotage) find some more substantial evidence for your position. Galileo, Kepler, and Newton were capable of finding compelling evidence to support their position; you, so far, haven't.  --Robert Merkel 04:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia had been around in the early 16th century, we would not have included Copernicus's theories. As they had not recieved attention from mainstream science, they would have been considered original research. --Carnildo 05:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Robert, you argue that I "haven't provided any evidence that the belief that Chernobyl was the result of Western sabotage." Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false, and vice versa. You know, as the saying goes, "lack of proof is not proof" and as you disregard this maxim you can argue that since I cannot prove that the actions of technicians at Chernobyl were deliberate, they must be accidental.

You know, in the social sciences, to solve a problem, you have to consider all possibilities and contemplate things such as qui bono. In this context, the report of the  Sovietskaya Rossiya that the technicians which disconnected the safety mechanisms of the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant, Alexandrov, Feinberg, Sagdeev, Zaslavsky, are now living in comfort abroad, is not without significance. Of course, you'll not hear things like that on the Fox news.


 * I don't see that the sequence of events is unlikely. Disabling cumbersome safety mechanisms is a common cause of industrial accident.  Why do you want to believe it was malicious?  --noösfractal 06:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing with you as to whether the sabotage theory is *true* or not. I'm not arguing with you about whether it's even *plausible* or not.  I just want you to provide evidence as to the numbers and credentials of people who believe it to be a) true or b) plausible.  In the face of an overwhelming consensus that the Chernobyl disaster was an accident caused by a badly designed reactor being operated by poorly trained staff, one isolated article in a Russian-language newspaper of uncertain provenance and your personal belief in a sabotage theory is not sufficient reason to be mentioned on Wikipedia, any more than my personal belief that it was caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  If we mention your sabotage theory, His Holy Noodlyness deserves equal time! --Robert Merkel 08:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Summa Summarum
This controversy is getting long and it is important to keep things in perspective. It started, to begin with, with the statement of Benjamin Gatti that


 * This event was caused by human actions, knowingly violating the safety measures of the plant, overriding safety switches, and in many ways knowingly and willfully instigating the reaction. It is simply specious to suggest that what occured was accidental.

This statement is no "conspiracy theory." On the other hand, actions of Robert Merkel who repeatedly deleted a factual statement consisting of two sentences and two references to PUBLISHED articles in a Russian newspaper are malicious attempts to censor and to abridge freedom of expression on Wikipedia. Cruise 11:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Policy violations
I don't care about argumentum ad hoc, summa cum laude, argumentum ad fundum, asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum or any other logical fallacy you care to cite. What you're missing is that the conspiracy theory you keep adding violates a number of Wikipedia policies: --Carnildo 21:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Cite your sources
 * 2) Use reliable sources
 * 3) Verifiablity
 * 4) No original research

Adieu
There must be some better way of conflict resolution than repeated deletes and undeletes, where a person used to perform repetitive tasks wins. Anyway, thank you for participating in a social experiment where a patent nonsense (Chernobyl and the Bible) generated negligible discussion, meanwhile two lines of text about a 'conspiracy theory' generated lenghty and highly emotional controversy. Robert, if you are interested in modern opinions about conspiracy theories, I recommend Guy Debord's Commentaires sur la société du spectacle. Cruise 21:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Missing Man
The write-ups of today puzzle me in one regard - when I was studying Chernobyl for my utility back in 1986, one key cause of the accident was an unqualified engineer was placed in charge of the plant for the turbine rundown test, and coerced the operators by threatening to relieve them. has something like that. says, "The director of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, V.P. Bryukhanov, was not a specialist in nuclear energy. His specialty was turbines. His experience and training were in a coal-fired power plant. Likewise, his chief engineer, Nikolai Fomin, came directly from a conventional power plant to Chernobyl. Anatoly Dyatlov, deputy chief engineer of Reactors 3 and 4, had some experience with small nuclear reactors but had not dealt with the intricacies of a large reactor." - also, permission to perform the test was never received.


 * That sounds relevant and useful; please add it.

BTW - in PWRs and BWRs, the automatic scram function is in the Reactor Protective System and, if installed properly, it's not overrideable - you'd have to sabotage it. Also, in the U.S. the Operations staff is always advised in the movement of control rods, boron, etc., by the Reactor Engineers, who are all college-trained nuclear engineers who first certify on their plant. Finally, changes to the operation of the plant (including especially tests) have to be approved by SORC, the Site Operations Review Committee, well in advance - and from my own experience SORC is no push-over. Simesa 02:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting. --Robert Merkel 08:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Casualties...
The introductory paragraph claims that estimates for the number of deaths vary from the hundreds to the hundreds of thousands. I think this is inaccurate.

I've read the UNSCEAR reports, which are summarised reasonably well in the body of the article, which seem to indicate that aside from the children's thyroid cancers, other long-term effects attributable to the radiation have not been established (somewhat to their surprise, it seems) and in fact the social dislocation caused by the evacuation has probably done more damage than the radiation itself (though of course if the evacuation had not happened who knows what the cancer rates would be like). There are others who disagree, notably Yuri Bandazhevsky, a Belorussian surgeon whose work has been somewhat obscured by his bizarre treatment by the Belorussian government, who has published some papers claiming that the contamination is causing childhood heart disease, but UNSCEAR hasn't accepted this work yet. Chernobyl Heart, the Oscar-winning documentary, makes a number of claims about the effects of Chernobyl on children, notably relating to hearts, but while that documentary is very high on shock value it's remarkably low on actual evidence that the rate of disease in the area is unusual. Finally, I've had a look at the UN nationwide human development index; Belarus's figures for life expectancy and whatnot don't differ significantly from its neighbours, which it would if the claims of hundreds of thousands of premature deaths held up.

So where are the estimates that "hundreds of thousands" of people died as a result of Chernobyl from? Do Greenpeace or its ilk have their own estimate? Are there some alternative epidemiological analyses that give higher casualty figures? If so, they probably should be mentioned in the article body. And what would be an appropriate summary of the casualty and other human impact for the opening paragraph? --Robert Merkel 11:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I've been bold and rewritten the casualty statement in the introduction. --Robert Merkel 04:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted move.
I reverted this page move for several reasons.


 * 1) It's obviously an accident.
 * 2) You should think about page titles better, that one was horrible by any standards. Way too long.
 * 3) If there's a valid POV that it wasn't an accident, I would suggest Chernobyl incident.
 * 4) Did it even melt down?

Please respect my revert and do not revert back without discussing it. -- Phroziac  ( talk ) 19:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * It did melt down, to my knowledge. But this title is preferrable anyway. Dysprosia 06:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion up there ^^^^^^ suggests that also. -- Phroziac  ( talk ) 03:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Chernobyl: Chronicle of Difficult Weeks
Should we make reference to the Volodymyr (or was it vladimir?) Shevchenko doccumentary "Chernobyl" Chronicle of Difficult Weeks", from the glastnost film festavle 1986?

They sell it on video, but i dont think its avalible online


 * This name is spelled Vladimir in Russian, Volodymyr in Ukrainian.

Slight Rewording
Per "Missing Man" above, I inserted the phrase "crew's management". To the best of my recollection from the time, the operators balked at performing the test and A. Dyatlov (who later wrote a book in his defense) overruled them. A source in "Missing Man" backs this up. Simesa 18:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Management in "Causes"
Per "Missing Man" above, I added text about the qualifications of the plant's management.

It perhaps should be noted that, as the Russians learned, the Station Shift Supervisor runs the plant and should be able to throw anyone, CEO or President, off-site. Simesa 18:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Chernobyl accident victims in the x-files
An X-Files episode (2x02 - The Host) featured pictures of alleged Chernobyl accident victims. Were these pictures simply mock-ups or are they genuine? If the latter, it seems that linking to them (the originals - not screenshots of what was shown in the X-Files episode) in the parent article might be a good idea.

Here's what was shown in that X-Files episode, for those currious:

http://www.geocities.com/terra1024/xfiles1.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/terra1024/xfiles2.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/terra1024/xfiles3.jpg

TerraFrost 20:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Dunno. My guess is that they'd almost certainly be fakes, for reasons of sensitivity towards the families of the real victims.  --Robert Merkel 22:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd assume that anything on the X-Files is fake, just because of the nature of the show. --Carnildo 22:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps information worthy of notation on the x-files article (if it exists)... I haven't read the article though... so maybe it is appropriate somewhere? My first impress would be "No" though. --CyclePat 01:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is the story about the overgrown liver fluke which is half human then it is a total fiction. It is not possible with irradation of a human to make a human/fluke hybrid.Cadmium 18:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Short-term effects:Civilians
I have done some minor editing and polished the text of this section; however, I'm not a nuclear physicist/chemist or a specialist in radiomedicine, so I can't be certain that I got it all 100% right. If someone could review this section (and add some citations if you have time :) I'd appreciate it. --Andymussell 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)]