Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 7

Comments
I nominated the article to be featured and these were the comments given. If you want this article to obtain that status you must improve by these comments:

''Comments The article uses the two most oft cited books on the disaster so I am fine with references. The pictures and prose are terrific and I like how the article is organized. I felt the lead was excellently done. I can not support at this time but hope to do so if a few small but important items are addressed: Large sections of article text are uncited and they seem to be easy enough to cite to the two books used as references. Some areas go into too much technical detail. This article is going to be read by people who are not interested in the minute and boring technicalities of the disaster and I felt the article could be trimmed with some of the explanations for the disaster summarized a little more. However, this is my personal opinion, not an FA criteria so there may be other reviewers who like your style and I would be fine with this article passing FA if others feel differently about this issue. The sections "Comparisons with other disasters", "In the public consciousness", "Representation in games" and "Commemoration" are unnecessary and do not add anything of value to the article. I suggest that they be completely deleted. The "Commemoration" section might be OK to keep if you had a picture to put with the section otherwise I would reduce it to a sentence and include it in the last section of the article. NancyHeise talk 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion : Some of the text have lists which can be converted into a paragraph of continuous prose. Oppose (1c) until all [citation needed] tags are resolved. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Query "The DSSS is a yellow steel object which has been placed next to the wrecked reactor; it is 63 metres (207 ft) tall and has a series of cantilevers which extend through the western buttress wall, and intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." This needs either is if the DSSS "is intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." or are if the cantilevers "are intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." ϢereSpielChequers 13:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose -

You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. Citation needed tags throughout. Unreferenced sections throughout. Bare urls in the references, as well as websites without publishers. Basically, the references are a mess and with the large sections that are unreferenced, I must oppose on sourcing issues.'' 76.252.50.140 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of thermonuclear explosion?
I just saw Discovery Channel's The Battle of Chernobyl. It contains interviews with then-general Antochkin, who was in command of the fleet of 80 helicopters used to drop material on the damaged reactor, and nuclear physicist Vassili Nesterenko, a nuclear missile designer, who was apparently also involved in damage assessment. They claim that at some point on the third or fourth day they had come to the conclusion that there was a chance of an actual thermonuclear explosion with a yield of between 3 and 5 megatons occuring if about 1400 kilograms of molten core came into contact with the water pooled beneath the core.

I find that highly implausible, given the complex technology necessary to achieve that kind of yield in weapons. Comments? --Cancun771 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. First it used natural non-enriched uranium. No combination of natural uranium and light water will ever go critical. Secondly, for a thermonuclear explosion, one needs deuterium. They could have gotten a steam explosion which would spew the contents all over the place, but not a nuclear bomb. Paul Studier (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, but there was plenty of the graphite mixed in with the molten uranium, acting as a moderator. Also, the reactor was designed to yield plutonium for weapon production, wasn't it? So there could have been a sizable Pu content in the "magma" (as they call it on DC). Also there had been helicopter drops of all sorts of material including boron, lead and sand.--Cancun771 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the quote was that an explosion would release as much radioactivity as a multimegaton bomb. That would be plausible. Paul Studier (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Antochkin and Nesterenko actually talk Russian, so I have to rely on the dubbed English translation. It says:
 * Commentary: At the bottom of the reactor, 195 tons of radioactive material are still burning, giving off incredible heat that is gradually melting the sand. On the surface of the plug, cracks begin to appear.(...)
 * Antochkin: Once we plugged up the hole, the temperature started to rise. We were afraid [of] that because it could have caused another explosion. It was terrifying. Scientists came to take readings. They were very worried. They were afraid the critical temperature would be reached and it would set off a second explosion. That would have been a terrible tragedy.
 * Commentary: The cement slab beneath the core is heating up and in danger of cracking. The magma is threatening to seep through. The water the firemen poured during the first hours of the desaster has pooled below the slab. If the radioactive magma makes contact with the water, it could set off an explosion even more devastating than the first.[...]
 * Nesterenko: If the heat managed to crack the cement slab, only 1,400 kg of uranium and graphite mixture would have [been] needed to heat the water to set off another explosion.
 * Commentary: The ensuing chain reaction could set off an explosion comparable to a gigantic atomic bomb.
 * Nesterenko: Our experts studied the possibility and concluded that the explosion would have had a force of three to five megatons. Minsk, which is 320 km from Chernobyl, would have been razed, and Europe rendered uninhabitable.
 * --Cancun771 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The explosion type they are talking about is a steam explosion, where water hits high temperature material (or visa versa) and generates a lot of steam very rapidly, causing a mechanical explosion. No nuclear process is involved in the explosion - it's just steam expanding.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But no steam explosion could ever begin to approach a fraction of the yield quoted here--Cancun771 (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Surely the point is that the steam explosion would trigger a reaction in the nuclear material immediately above it - or at the very least scatter a huge amount of highly radioactive material over a very large area? 195.188.180.1 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of a thermonuclear reaction seems rather far-fetched to me. In order for nuclear fusion to occur, temperatures of millions of degrees are required. Thus, the only way for fusion to occur would be for a fission reaction to occur first, this is how hydrogen bombs work. Fission reactions are difficult to set off, as evidenced by the complexity of the implosion spheres that are used in nuclear weapons. A simple explosion will not cause fission of the plutonium, it has to be focused with lenses of high explosives firing in on a sphere of plutonium from every direction at exactly the same instant (down to a the most minute fraction of a second.) The only other way for fission to occur is a gun assembly (such as the "Little Boy" bomb), but this cannot occur with plutonium, the only material that works in gun assemblies is highly enriched Uranium 235, which only makes up a tiny percentage of the natural uranium that would have been in use in the reactor. These factors are combined with the extreme scarcity of naturally occurring tritium and deuterium, which serve as the actual fuel for nuclear fusion. Thus it seems utterly impossible for a thermonuclear explosion to occur accidentally at Chernobyl. Windward1 —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

When did Wikipedia become youtube? Egads. --68.238.164.208 (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It takes extremely high temperature/pressure to fuse tritium and deuterium. Fusing the hydrogen in normal water (consisting of only very tiny quantities of deuterium and virtually no tritium) would require far more - conditions that only exist in stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrino42 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture?
shouldnt there be a section on pop culture. the city/disaster is featured in call of duty 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.23.123 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.255.133 (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The S.T.A.L.K.E.R series too. 142.35.5.51 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a pop culture reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.166.186 (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ukritiye International
Who is this group, and why is a dispute about the facts interlaced with information about this group? 98.215.82.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * References to this group were added on 17 July by without any references.  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 evidence can be found.  Similar edits were also made to Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and New Safe Confinement.  -- Tcncv (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Bjelleklang -  talk 17:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They're back. These edits added several references to this group and its view along with a reference to their web site.  (I added a translation link, but this is not to be interpreted as support for this addition.)  A Google search fails to show up any mainstream media coverage of this group – only a few blog like references and a few dead ends.  Although I don't oppose differing views, I don't think this group has sufficient notoriety to justify inclusion in the article.  -- Tcncv (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Should references to this organization be removed entirely due to lack of notability? I cannot find any media coverage or other useful references to the organization other than its own web site.  -- Tcncv (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose removing references to this group on grounds of lack of notability (no known media coverage) and no usable sources except an apparent self published web page. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

why don't you try the russian internet (in russian)? that is where it is. i speak mostly only russian. i deserve fair right to forward my own plan. we are legitamit group. we are as fare as nsc and deserve rigts to say. either that or remove all refrence to nsc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.245.253 (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you provide some references to demonstrate Notability we can better evaluate your organization. Please note that the standard for notability is that a "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  That may indicate sufficient notability to support an Ukritiye International article.  The amount of coverage given in this article will depend on the the degree of notability.  The coverage might consist of a brief statement with a reference to the article containing more in-depth coverage.  -- Tcncv (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Charnobyl
There are meny medasens that couls helpit but do to the ukraion fraud. the medasen were pulled. The technology's went from vaughn nebeker to us seniter secutary to the nuclear regulator comishion to charnobyl an bult. do to the ukraine declared inanchecy. new fundinf be slow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.162.186 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? 68.32.48.221 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Death toll
What's going on here? The article says around 4000 or 5000 people died, but greenpeace says it may have been as many as 100000 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406 I mean even if they're wrong, they're greenpeace and their figures should still be mentioned. --ScWizard (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean like the article does in the second to the last paragraph in the Assessing the disaster's effects on human health section?  I did notice that the reference needs correction, which I have taken care of.   -- Tcncv (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a fundamental error in the article, both in the opening chapter, and chapter "Assessing the disaster's effects on human health" claim that there would be 4000 fatalities "and it roughly estimated that cancers deaths caused by Chernobyl may reach a total of about 4000 among the 600 000 people having received the greatest exposures.", the source that is referenced in [1] and [86] does not have this information, but states that there are 4000 cases of cancer (of which few percent is estimated to be due to the accident, and the fatality of the cancer type is under 10%). It is said that due to the proportionally small increase in the cancer, co-occuring with the increased screenings, etc factors it is impossible to determine the cancer death toll that is due to the radiation, and that it could be from dozens to thousands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.190.124 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

tone
this article seems to have been written as if someone is narrating it... not an a encyclopedic tone... anyone else notice this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.130.53 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

i dont think it sounds like a narrative. I read the page and it does sound encyclopedic, but some areas may need some work for 100% readability Thefloogadooga (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with both of you. Although I do think the tone is "encyclopedic," at certain points it almost seems as if it is a narration. I believe this, and the readability issue might both due to the fact that the text was possibly written by someone who does not speak English as a first language. 98.231.187.237 (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

'Costliest disaster in modern history'
Whilst I'm not disputing that the Chernobyl disaster may well be the costliest in modern history, the so-called source (http://www.wreckedexotics.com/articles/011.shtml?%3F) is in no way reliable, and misses out on a lot. For one thing, the Three Mile Island disaster, which according to its Wikipedia article cost $975m (presumably in 1993 dollars) to clear up, is nowhere found in that list. So either a reputable source should be found, or this paragraph should be removed altogether. As things stand now, it is entirely based on just a page on the internet that is demonstratedly inaccurate. SeverityOne (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the use of the word disaster is misleading; this was an accident, which can be a disaster, but this list doesn't take into consideration natural disasters such as hurricanes or earthquakes --69.143.30.224 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, this calamity sent to be unhabitated a territory in size of Portugal.Chernobyl wasn't in a desert, but in fertile land.Agre22 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)agre22

Did Chernobyl help bring down the Soviet Union?
Alan Weisman, in his book The World Without Us, reports (on page 216) that the Soviet Union seeded clouds headed east during the Chernobyl reactor fire so that heavily contaminated rain would fall short of Moscow. As Weisman puts it: "Instead, it drenched the USSR's richest breadbasket, 100 miles from Chernobyl at the intersection of Ukraine, Belarus, and western Russia's Novozybkov region." This fact, alleges Weisman, was covered up by the government because it didn't want a nationwide food panic on its hands. Fast forward three years: scientists discovered the cover-up in 1989 (or thereabouts) and evacuated most of Novozybkov. The Soviet Union had a centrally planned economy, and I wonder if reports of bread lines in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s (and the post-Soviet crash in life expectancy) had anything to do with Chernobyl. 68.32.48.221 (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In many aspects, this calamity really as terrible to Soviet Union, because among other things, Chernobyl: 1-Sent to death by cancer and other diseases thousands of persons.Wheat and many other foods produced in this region were really sold in all former Soviet Union. They never were eaten by nomenklatura, but for common people. 2-The 1, May, 1986 labor's day in Ukraine parade was did and contaminated tens of thousands of persons for nothing. 3-Put Perestroika and Glasnost in popular mind. 4-Showed former Soviet Union's products as contaminated and bad.Agre22 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)agre22

vaughn nebeker : scince andor technology...
to save the 3,000 childern at charnobyl wenavastock summer camp.. the erbeal tea was used. It a tea that remove;s heavy metel's from the humen body's. the 3,000 chilren saved. it wild oragen grape's ; yellow yearrow :exstracit of sage brush ; cut with a black tea... the anti-crsnomia drug pergrassion... it been slowing dowen death towell's four year's.. the mixster of shark grisse' -30% of the carsnomia the bee pallen solfiner sabatrea deasert catiuss -97 % of the carsnomia...

it a oddity of govit pallasie.. the old comminest system allow's free education and or medacel care. how ever i do not live in russia... in the west one has to pay for educatien and or mediceal care...  it not that I do  not under stood. it just the oddity of politeacl type system's.

the new carsnomia drug desine; widh is a delooted out venuem of the astralen browen death adder target's the carsnomia 100% taking the carsnomia's out at the nee's.... the big tug of war is ther ukraine ask's for a perbonio use. Were western law say's it's a no no..

the oddity's the drug desine do work.. if i allow the ukraine [ probonio medaiciel program ] it would make the western pharmasuticel compeny's not pay up for completed scince and or technology completed...  it more of the oddity of the inter net crossing inter nasel bounders. with out taking in the indavigueal ideaoligie's of defrenit contey's law's oridealogies.

vaughn nebeker; the origenel auther an inventer of the technology that put out chernobyl.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.144.104.65 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Independant Russia
Paragraph four states that "The now-independent countries of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened..."

Now how does that make sense? Clearly Russia was always independent. It invaded the surrounding countries then formed the Soviet union. No, Russia was never (talking about the period of communism) dependant. Someone sholud fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.1.238 (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, the term "excursion" is used in the following: "It resulted in a severe release of radioactivity into the environment following a massive power excursion which destroyed the reactor." Given the highly technical nature of this term in this context, would it not be useful to provide a definition? Rlinde40 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC) rlinde40 Rlinde40 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. Readers can check on a dictionary if they wish. Leujohn  ( talk ) 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Um no way, I don't know what an excursion is - no this is not a text book which is exactly why we should not use such technical words that can't be simply understood. I see the word has been wikilinked by another user which should have been done in the first place. If the article has to be protected then the least that established users can do is comply with legitimate requests.Jdrewitt (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Excursion
In the first paragraph, the term "excursion" is used in the following: "It resulted in a severe release of radioactivity into the environment following a massive power excursion which destroyed the reactor." Given the highly technical nature of this term in this context, would it not be useful to provide a definition? Rlinde40 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC) rlinde40 Rlinde40 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please do not put multiple requests before the first request is accepted/rejected. Leujohn  ( talk ) 02:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done I've Wikilinked the term power excursion which redirects to Criticality accident article. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bridge of death
Removed the Bridge of Death. Ghost Town Prypiat - ChernobylDisaster.com is an obvious exaggeration. They even claimed that the trees glowed red in the dark. Paul Studier (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Conditions prior to the accident
Penultimate paragraph; core temperature is linked to body temperature. Needs editing/removing link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.190.120 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for helicoper crash video
I tried to add the citation, but the page is protected. I don't know how to deal with that so maybe someone who does can add this.

The video showing the helicopter crash can be seen on YouTube at; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbCcutzXzYg

The crash is at 4:50 into the video.

I hope this is helpfull.

Bernie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.255.213 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * YouTube isn't a reliable source and isn't valid as a citation. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Youtube is only the host of the video, there is no doubt that the video portrays the incident, and as you can read from the first paragraph of reliable source:This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception .I think a link to Youtube is allowed in this instance. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Late 1990s Geocities page
Does anyone remember around 1999, 2000 or 1998 a GeoCities page popped up claiming to show pictures of the area around Chernobyl? I seem to remember it being this way...absolutely. absolutely absolutelyIt starts off with a woman on a motorcycle, who is the person that takes the photos. She shows pictures of old rusted cars and abandoned buildings. I believe that there was a lot of Cyrillic writing on signs and the cars, although of course the pictures could have been taken elsewhere in the area.

It ends with her saying that after a certain point the radiation is too dangerous to go on. But she had already supposedly gone farther than most people do, or something like that.

I'm sure it was fake, but does anyone remember what I'm talking about? Is that page still around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.148.222.114 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Elena Filatova. Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 1 has some discussion. 84user (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Current page is here:--AltGrendel (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wildlife thrives in the exclusion zone
Wildlife thrives in the exclusion zone is a statement and should not be a title, a title should be descriptive and not state what to some people could be POV. It would be like renaming the article "The Chernobyl disaster was a sad event" instead of just "Chernobyl disaster". Even renaming the section "Wildlife in the exclusion zone" would be superfluos since the exclusion zone is clearly what the section is about. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say I find your logic contradictory. Following your logic, perhaps we should rename "Chernobyl disaster" as "Chernobyl nuclear event", for the word disaster implies "great misfortune, loss or failure" and that clearly isn't the case for some competing commercial entities, people or now thriving animal species. --C1010 (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't change the fact that the heading is a statement. There is a difference between encyclopaedic style and journalistic style of writing.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Thriving Wildlife", "Wildlife Haven", "A Haven for Wildlife" could be alternative titles. Do I understand correctly that you'll support renaming the article as "Chernobyl nuclear event" for more neutral POV? --C1010 (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag
I agree that this section is not neutral and have added a POV tag. There are many recent reports about decline of some species and abnormalities in others. Johnfos (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Decline of some species" isn't a fact according to your own sources: the claims are rejected by other scientists who dismissed the findings and drew "opposite conclusions" from the same data, stating that "his work is inaccurate, to be blunt." I firmly believe the section's title is well supported by cited references and should stand as it is, POV tag should be removed. --C1010 (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is debate on this issue, but this debate is not captured in the section as written. The section needs to reflect both sides of the debate and then it will be neutral. Until then the POV tag must stay. That some scientists have reported a decline of some species certainly needs to be mentioned, as well as the fact that other scientists have different views. Johnfos (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what gave you the impression that I'm against adding this information to the section. Add away! --C1010 (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have noticed that these issues are discussed at Chernobyl disaster effects, which is the best place for it. So am removing "Widlife haven" discussion in this article.  Johnfos (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The section you removed is directly related to the "Exclusion Zone" piece that's still in the article, see "Chernobyl's Exclusion Zone" section. The logic dictates that either both of them must go, or both should remain. Am restoring the removed subsection until consensus is reached.--C1010 (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice that the Wildlife Haven issue is also mentioned at Chernobyl disaster. This makes the POV section doubly redundant and I am removing it again. Johnfos (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned above, the section you keep removing is directly related to the Exclusion Zone and what happened to it after the accident. Chernobyl_disaster is the best place for it. Your claim of POV is wrong - the subsection is titled Controversy and, as I've already stated above, you're welcome improve the article by adding whatever you feel is missing. Removed duplicate info, restored the section. --C1010 (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A skim of this suggests that there is a distinction between the Flora and Fauna section under Effects (focussing on radiation effects) and Wildife Exclusion Zone controversy (which is about the effect of the zone itself - of lack of human habitation). Should be possible to avoid POV and overlap by carefully splitting the issue in that way (though effects of radiation on the larger wildlife population creates an overlap, that issue can be kept in Effects). Rd232 talk 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
My suggestion is similar to that of Rd232 above but I suggest either merging this section into the Flora and Fauna section or retitling this section 'Wildlife'. In either case, the article needs more on the impact of radiation (or rather, the uncertainties associated with the impact of radiation) on wildlife. Reading the references it is clear that ''wildlife is thriving but animals are also getting an unprecedented exposure to radiation and that this exposure is having physiological effects. What these physiological effects will do to this population in the long term is unclear''. The way the article is currently written, the wildlife haven is a bonanza with no negatives and that seems to deserve a POV tag. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Retitling to "wildlife" would be appropriate, it would leave plenty of scope for further expansion, since it is about the current situation and further additions will probably warrant removal of the POV tag; for that reason, I don't think it should be merged with the Flora and Fauna section because it belongs to an earlier section dealing with the immediate aftermath of the incident (if I'm right).Brutaldeluxe (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be kept separate from flora and fauna. The resurgence of wildlife is an interesting and important fact and should be weighted accordingly. I, for example, though old enough to recall the news coverage at that time, was unaware of this resurgence till I arrived on this talk page! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Casualties (IAEA)
The Chernobyl Forum report estimated that there may be 9,000 (not 4,000 as reported in this article) extra cancer deaths. It used to be adequately reported in this article, then was truncated. Natmaka (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what is happening in the exclusion zone. On the one hand we are being told that there are 10,000 resettlers there. On the other, there are reports that wildlife is thriving in the absence of humans. Which is correct? Johnfos (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates Are Wrong
The geographic coordinates given for the plant are incorrect. The Unit 4 Containment Structure resides at 51.3895, 30.10. The given coordinates are for a former open space near the plant. Using coordinates 51.3895, 30.10 results in the marker being applied to the Unit 4 stack, with the containment structures to the right and left. Someone unfamiliar with the photos and maps may be misled by the listed coordinates into believing the structure was demolished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.67.88 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The current coordinates (51° 23′ 22″ N, 30° 05′ 56″ E) appears correct. Several maps I checked put this on top of the sarcophagus. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgotten batteries (accumulators)
"It was a design requirement that the rotational momentum of the steam turbine, as it spun down, could be used to generate electricity to run the cooling water pumps to bridge the power gap. A previous test had been unsuccessful. Apparently, the test had not been completed successfully by March 1984 when the unit was brought into commercial operation ahead of schedule and celebrated as a "labour victory". Under pressure, the director of the Chernobyl station Viktor Bryukhanov signed an acceptance document on the last day of 1983, in order to declare that works planned for that year had been fulfilled. Had he not done so, thousands of workers, engineers and his own superiors would have lost bonuses, awards and other extras. Records were falsified to hide this fact.[12]" - it seems the citation is based sole on Mr. Medvedev's assumptions, because the mentioned power gap was by the design of the nuclear plant bridged by 3 independent sets of accumulators (200% safety margin). Thus there was no real need to carry out the experiment - it was only an attempt to raise the safety and probably spare the costly accumulators ... Contributions/195.168.239.9 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Containment
The uninformed public is continuously misledad by the unprofessional press and film makers, that a containment could prevent the catastrophe. In the reality, it is highly improbable, that a then containment would be able to sustain the enormous energy excursion from the failed reactor. At this time the designers assumed as the biggest thinkable accident a plumbing broke of the primary circuit. On the other side, the reactor operators managed the probably biggest possible and totally unimaginable disaster - by the way, even a saboteur like James Bond - could not make worser (without external explosive, of course). Contrary, it is possible, that an containment could make the excursion stronger - unfortunately, nobody was yet trying to evaluate this option. Contributions/195.168.239.9 (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tours
I pulled the "tours" section. Neither a travel blog and especially not the Filatova site are reliable sources. Plus, that blog page didn't even support any of the facts. That tours exist is mentioned in Prypiat, Ukraine and Zone of alienation articles. However, I never saw any claim of any tours to the actual reactor site, so it seems out of place in this article. Averell (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Corrections
The sections of article, which relate directly to the technical aspects of emergency need serious correction. The main source, on the basis of which are written these sections, is the book of Grigoriy Medvedev, the very tendentious artistic work, very distant from the reality although he named its documentary narrative. G.Medvedev was not present at the plant during the emergency, was not a member of the Commissions of investigation, and generally he not that person, such as it is presented in the article. He did not work for long as the deputy chief engineer of Chernobyl NPP, and this was when the plant only just began to be built, and then he passed to the work into the staff of the Ministry of Power Engineering. His primary occupation always was only the delivery of equipment to plants which are under the building, and he is insufficiently competent in the technical questions, about which he writes. There are much more competent and authoritative sources for describing the facts that G.Medvedev attempted to depict. There are the detailed technically competent descriptions of the events, published by A. Djatlov and N.Karpan, which at the moment of emergency worked at the Chernobyl NPP as the deputy chief engineers in the science and on the operation. Finally, there are government sources, reports from the IAEA, and also there is much concrete documentation on questions connected with the emergency in the scans form, that are accessible in the network. And from the artistic literature, it is better to be oriented toward writer Yurii Shcherbak, who interrogated immediately after events many of its participants and described picture honestly, as it to him was seen, it came out considerably more documentary than in Medvedev. References to all these sources in the article are absent. The deficiencies indicated and the real errors, which are contained in the article, must be removed. The text of article and the references should be brought into correspondence with their analogs in Russian version of Wikipedia.VicDim (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are other sources and versions, they should be included. In general, Wikipedia does not care which version is correct, more credible or official. We care that the articles are neutral and verifiable. If there are multiple versions of an event we should cover all of them, according to their importance. We should also include the criticisms that were published in reliable sources. Unfortunately I don't speak Russian, so I won't be much help extracting additional information from the Russian version. Averell (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not speak about the fact that some version of circumstances and reasons for emergency is better than another. But all which is presented in Wikipedia must be correct from a scientific and technical point of view. And furthermore must be presented the essence of a problem, but not the emotional perception of various authors. At last, are possible the purely editorial correctings, which improve substantially the quality of the perception of text. From your agreement I want to get down to work and to begin to correct the article, and I will make this part by part, since to correcting is necessary much. I will begin in the order (but not on the importance) from the subsection “Planning the test of the safety device”. The essence of subsection is consist of three questions. 1) Why it was necessary to carry out this experiment, what was checked? 2) How was organized the work, how was conducted experiment itself and what relation all this did have to the emergency? 3) The technicalities and the difficulty of maintaining the regime of run down of turbine-generator (the experiment consisted of this). In the article the answers to these questions are mixed and smash each other, so it does not contribute to the clarity of understanding. This deficiency let us easily remove by the simple transposition of the fragments of text. Much worse is another matter.

--- is asserted ‘’The reactor was designed such that it needed coolant even when not actively operating’’. But this is a property of any nuclear reactor, but not the special feature of reactor RBMK. --- Erroneously is indicated the reason for the danger of conducting the experiment at the end of the first operating cycle of reactor, but not at its beginning. Danger not in the fact that accumulated the large number of radioactivity, but in the fact that from the reactor are by this time extracted all additional absorbers, and this made void reactivity coefficient positive and very large. About this it is necessary either to speak in sufficient detail (otherwise for the uninitiated reader it sounds as gibberish) or in this place about this generally nothing it is necessary to speak. --- The concept of the fuel cycle of nuclear reactor is used incorrectly. This concept in its classical form to the reactor RBMK is not applicable, since in it the regime of the continuous overload of nuclear fuel is used.
 * 1) There is in the text of paragraphs erroneous assertions and inaccuracies in the technical descriptions. For example:
 * 1) There are questionable and technically inaccurate statements on the questions, which are been debatable. These questions must be discussed in other division - about the reasons for emergency, and here these statements (for example, about turning off of the system of emergency cooling) disrupt the principle of neutrality.
 * 2) The second of the questions enumerated earlier, is one of the debatable. Technical, organizational and social-and-political aspects are mixed in it (in the subsection this are two next-to-last paragraphs). But meanwhile, these different aspects must be clearly distinguished. I propose to leave to Jaures Medvedev social-and-political questions which he examines well. All that can be in regard to this here said, he told in the secondly of these two paragraphs. But the first paragraph must be replaced, after leaving it to specialists, who professionally dealt with the detailed investigation of all circumstances and reasons for emergency.

Thus, I begin to correct the article.VicDim (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That obvious factual errors should be corrected, goes without saying. What I meant above is that Wikipedia limits more or less limits itself to reporting what other sources had to say - that is, we don't do original research or draw own conclusions. But instead of discussing these finer points, I guess you should just be bold and work on the article. If other editors disagree, they'll let you know and you can discuss it here. Averell (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thus, I continue to correct the article. The following correcting concerns the subsection “Conditions prior to the accident”. Its first five paragraphs - this of the description of general situation and actions of the operators prior to the tests, and this part of the subsection does not require any serious corrections (only small additions and explanation), with exception of paragraph 3. This paragraph must be removed for the following reasons.

The information, reported in it, causes large doubts. In this case the reference is given not to ultimate source itself, but to its account by another author, incompetent in this question. Furthermore, everything, which communicates meaningful in this paragraph, is said either in previous or in the following paragraphs. It is better instead of this paragraph to give only one phrase about how it is important to keep the regulations and standards of safety.

The remaining part of the subsection (consisting of three paragraphs) is dedicated to the state of reactor and to the actions of operators during 40 minutes from the beginning of night shift to the beginning of experiment, and it needs serious processing.

The text of these paragraphs, the especially first and last, is a collection of inexpert or illiterate assertions and at the same time about the most discussed object it is said actually nothing. These events of emergency are very important for understanding of the fact that occurred, and they must be presented on the basis the competent ultimate sources, but not the Zhores Medvedev’s book. He is a specialist in radiation biology, a good publicist and writer, but the technology of nuclear reactors he examines weakly.VicDim (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Machine translations
A recent addition was a machine translation from an unspecified source. It displaced edits made in standard English. I reverted, but some of the stuff is back. The poster has left a note on my talk page explaining that "Wikipedia is not a reference book on the English orthography" and suggesting that I should help with the language, but unfortunately I can't understand enough of it to do so. Views, please, on the acceptability the material? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if this material might be informative, the English is not acceptable for inclusion in article space. Example:
 * But at the same time, SKALA is clearly registered signal precisely from the button. Despite everything a question about that, when was pressed the button AZ-5 (and was it pressed generally) undergoes discussion.
 * This is only barely understandable. What is "precisely from the button"? How do you press a button "generally" and what exactly is it that "undergoes discussion"? I could go on for hours.
 * Machine translations can be very useful to start from, but it can't be pasted in articles without first being subjected to some very serious copyediting. And I won't even approach the potential issues of copyright infringement through plagiarizing. If the new material is in such a poor state it should be kept on the talkpage or in sometype of sandbox until it's readable. Right now it's somewhere between a linguistic headache and a good laugh.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But if instead of "precisely from the button" this was "exactly from the button" either "namely from the button" then my words would be to you intelligible, or also not very. If you do not object, I would want to have a talk with you on your talk page.VicDim (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get deeply involved in this, Vic. It's not my topic and I'm rather busy with other projects. What I'm trying to say is that the text you have contributed is not merely broken, difficult English, but is occasionally impossible for an outsider to understand. I actually have experience with this problem, since I worked briefly on cleaning up the language of doctoral thesis with very similar deficiencies in English. (Incidently, it was also written by a Russian.) As someone with at least a minimum of experience with professional translation to and from English I can tell you that the quality of the language you have tried to include in article space so far is never, ever going to be accepted. Before you try to argue the merit of the actual information you've provided, you need to package it properly.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed it again. For me it's the "headache" effect, so I didn't put it here. In the page history I noted that it is unsourced, but I see that User:VicDim says, in "Corrections" above, that the references can be found in the Russian Wikipedia. He disputes the competence of Zhores Medvedev, one of the English Wikipedia sources, because "He did not work for long as the deputy chief engineer of Chernobyl NPP". --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, you confuse Zhores Medvedev with Grigory Medvedev. In the second, to Zhores Medvedev as to the specialist I do not have any claims, but only he is a specialist entirely in another area. In the third, when something you correct, it is necessary but to look that precisely you guide, and from the headache it is better to take tablets.VicDim (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I make the last attempt to correct the text of subsection «Experiment and explosion». Since there are claims to my English, then I made this in the sandbox on the personal page. More details on my talk page. If someone has a desire and possibility, edit if you please my language and transfer this correcting in the article. VicDim (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen. Since no specific proposals apropos of my last correcting no longer it entered, I return correcting in the article.VicDim (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have reverted this again. We appreciate your contributions. But: Entries in Wikipedia must be at least close to standard English. Your edits still look like raw machine translations. It is quite impossible for outside readers (especially those who don't speak English well) to make sense of it. Because of this, it is also difficult to help with fixing it. I suggest that you go in smal pieces. Ask for help on this page, and maybe you can find another Russian-speaking editor who can help you with the translation work? You could also ask at Translation for a translator. 85.37.157.235 Averell (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Averell and Moonraker, on your advise I have applied for help to the Proofreaders ru-en from the list given by Translation, but they all keep silent. It seams, that this is a dead matter. So, what is obtained? Poor article in a good English better than a good article in the poor English. But I read opposite somewhere in Translation. If you could find time for look on the separate paragraphs of my last correcting, this would move us from deadlock. It is located now in my sandbox. We can begin right now, if you do not object, and discuss it on my talk page. So, what you do not please in my first paragraph? VicDim (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen. My correcting has been checked and edited by Haerenia whose native language is English. So, that I move it in the article. Are there objections?VicDim (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Linkrot
I noticed some dead links in Chernobyl disaster so I ran the User:Dispenser/Checklinks tool and made these fixes.

I then replaced a dead link with a copy from archive.org.

There remain several dead links and links requiring subscriptions and two requiring some kind of password. I could not find fixes for those.

The current link status can be found: here.

I hope this has been helpful. -84user (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for remarks. Two dead links are now alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VicDim (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Section “Causes” correcting
Section “Causes” is one of the most significant in the article about the Chernobyl disaster, and it is very grievous that it is written exclusively on the basis of the artistic work of Grigori Medvedev, but not on the basis of official and competent sources. To these sources there is not one reference, of 10 existing references 9 this of reference to G. Medvedev, and only one reference is given to the authoritative Internet source, in which strictly about the emergency there are only three lines. That position must be corrected. The narrative of G. Medvedev “Chernobyl notebook”, received wide public reputation as thou it is the reliable detailed description of Chernobyl emergency with the analysis of its reasons. Moreover it is translated into the English (published in the form the book by the name "The Truth About Chernonyl"; therefore it cannot be manage without the reference to it. But also to give it is more than one reference to very fact of existence of this book unnecessarily. But all the remaining references in this section must be given to the professional information sources.

According to that, the text of section needs essential addition and certain correction. It is first of all, necessary to clearly outline the presence of two points of view for the explanation of the reasons for Chernobyl emergency and to explain them in sufficient detail, of what matter each of them consists. Then it is necessary to remove the whole of superfluous things that does not concern directly the specific causes of emergency, but it is the reasoning of the author (G. Medvedev) about that, “which is good and which is bad”. Finally, it is necessary to add the absent or incorrectly (or preconceived) presented information from the ultimate sources so that it would be very clear what are we talking about.

The following correctings specifically are proposed.
 * 1) The second paragraph must be substituted completely, since this is nothing else but the advertisement of G. Medvedev and discredit of the chief engineer of Chernobyl NPP N. Fomin. Such information, gotten from the artistic work, refers small to the specific reasons for emergency and is absolutely inappropriate in Wikipedia, regardless of the fact, how it is correlated with the reality. The information about G. Medvedev has already been located in the article about his book,  there is no need of it right here.
 * 2) The description of the first of the points of view to the reasons for emergency in the first three paragraphs must complete by conclusion and by explanation, why another point of view appeared after 5 years. This is proposed to add in the form new fourth paragraph.
 * 3) The second point of view is wholly assigned to Valeri Legasov personality, and that is erroneous in the root. First he was altogether only the director of the Kurchatov Institute, where one or another point of view was formed (for presenting to the IAEA). Secondly he was the leader of Soviet delegation at the meeting in the IAEA in Vienna in 1986 who reported exactly the first, but not second point of view. It is no coincidence, that there are no references whatever to the sources, which would confirm statement said in the first introductory phrase of this paragraph, and there are no references in this paragraph at all. As far as the content of paragraph itself is concerned, only first two points of six refer to the matter, and they require only a small correction. All the remaining points these are the criticism of RBMK design, which either does not refer any to the causes of emergency (points 3 and 4), or presented it is erroneous (points 5 and 6). These four points should be removed, and instead of that it is necessary to give before the paragraph an introductory text with the references to the ultimate sources, in which it would be explained: of what consists the second point of view to the reasons for emergency and why it appeared.
 * 4) The texts of two last paragraphs it is proposed to replace completely by the more competent and are more those relating to the matter, with the references to the official and competent source.

The proposed correcting is located now in my Sandbox. Request to all who can and wants to repair my poor English. Thank you in advance. VicDim (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The many thanks to Haerenia, who took upon himself the labor to edit the text of my correcting. The English is good now, I am guaranteed the rest, and if there are no objections, I move this correcting into the article. VicDim (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

charnobyl oddity's
it been reported to me that there been a 1,500,000 death aroun chearnobyl. what not been reported is the w's. withere it is industreal plushion and or a radasen sickness death's. with out knowing. there no way to combat the high death towell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.162.186 (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wildlife section - erroneous science
I deleted this line from the wildlife sentence: Researchers are also concerned that the mutated birds might pass on abnormal genes to the global population, "In the worst case scenario these genetic mutations will spread out, and the species as a whole may experience enhanced levels of mutation." While this is taken directly from the reference, to me this idea is based on a flawed understanding of natural selection. Natural selection would select against any deleterious mutations from birds exposed to Chernobyl radiation. Mutations are part of the environmental bargain for animal species living in the Exclusion Zone, but the idea that these harmful mutations would spread and become common in populations outside of Chernobyl - against natural selection - is wrong.Electrosaurus (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was obvious nonsense. Thanks for finding and removing it.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 01:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Quality
Hello All. I decided to read about the chernobyl disaster, to get some specifics on the causes. Although it is not anyone's fault individually, and i can't blame anyone as it is my responsibility as much as yours to fix it, this article was significantly better written 2 years ago. Everything is short and to the point, without skimping on detail. Inspiration should be taken from the old version. SECProto (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just been through the same process, and came to the same conclusion! The current article is very poor. Dan100 (Talk) 17:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Chornobyl"?
Anyone know why this spelling is seemingly interchangeable with Chernobyl? Mattandrews (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Chernobyl is the transliteration from the Cyrillic alphabet in Russian, the official language under the Soviets at the time of the disaster; Chornobyl is the transliteration in Ukrainian, the official language in the country today. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 16:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha. Thanks for the update. Someone's removed the 'Chor' spelling from this article though, which is better. Maybe your description above merits inclusion in the name to avoid ambiguity? Or is it already in the article for the place itself...? Matt Andrews (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Speculation?
Is it just me, or do the phrases "The station managers must have wished to correct this" and "The special team of electrical engineers must have been exhausted from the long wait" sound like speculation? The way they're worded-- particularly with the phrase "must have"-- has bugged me for a while. They sound like unsourceable statements. Kcowolf (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious specualtion. Surprised they've lasted so long.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * sofixit! Dan100 (Talk) 17:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed one instance (and the one that bugged me more in my opinion). Not sure how to reword the other one.  Kcowolf (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Two points of view
To circumstances and reasons for emergency there are two irreconcilable points of view.
 * 1) The main thing, about which one should speak, this is the actions of operational personnel. They flagrantly disrupted operating instructions and nuclear safety; therefore emergency occurred. Deficiencies in the reactor design, this is the secondary matter, and about this there is no necessity to speak at all.
 * 2) Errors in the reactor design are the main reason for emergency, and it is necessary to speak first of all about this.  But as far as the actions of personnel are concerned, it is here necessary to examine what they did actually disrupt while what they assign to them in vain and how concretely these actions did led to the emergency.

Some clarity into this infinite discussion about the reasons for Chernobyl emergency could introduce the publication of primary data and documents, on basis of which was carried out the initial investigation. But Soviet and Russian official bodies, unfortunately, did not do this. Such data and information can be found only in the unofficial sources.

Differences are manifested in everything, even in the description of the sequence of the events of emergency. It is impossible to go around these differences in the article about the Chernobyl emergency, and it is necessary to be to maximally careful in the description of circumstances and events of emergency in order to remain on the positions of neutrality. First of all, it is necessary to separate the description of real facts from the formulation in any form of the possible reasons for emergency. The latter should be concentrated in other subsection, specially dedicated to the reasons for the causes of emergency.

Observance of the neutrality
Already by itself presence in the article of subsection with the name “Disabling of the safety systems” disrupts the principle of neutrality, since the fact of disabling (and what precisely was disabled) it is the object of discussion. And all that was said in this rather short subsection concrete can completely and should be located in other subsections, dedicated to the description of concrete events, or the versions of the reasons for emergency. The proposition is: to remove subsection “Disabling of the safety systems”, and to present its content partially in the following subsection “Experiment and explosion”, and partially in other section “Causes”. Instead of the remote subsection there makes sense to add a new subsection “Documents” (from the Russian version of Wikipedia) in which are given references to actual data and primary documents, published in the Internet, into the section “Further reading”.

The disturbance of the principle of neutrality especially is manifested in the first three paragraphs of subsection “Experiment and Explosion”. Description of events here is given on the basis only of one of two existing points of view to the reasons for emergency. Not events actually are described, but perception of these events by the authors of that point of view. Exactly this way is written the book of Zhores Medvedev, to which refers the author of Wikipedia’s article. This deficiency should be corrected and the description of events must be given as it was with the references to the ultimate sources and official information.

Against this background very clumsy appears the fourth paragraph - quotation from the book of A. Dyatlov, as representing another point of view. In the reader the question inevitably will arise: “but how it is possible to assert such nonsense, after all the fact that is said in the previous paragraph?” This 4th paragraph must be removed, and its content presented together with the content of the 3rd paragraph in the normal neutral manner.

Hypotheses and reality
The following three paragraphs describe the process of the destruction of the reactor, which was not and it could not be objective registered by instruments. This process can be only rendered via the analysis of the results of destruction, statements of witnesses or with the aid of the computational simulation. Everything that it is possible to say in regard to this there will in any case be the hypotheses, which defend one or another version of events. However, in the article only one version is presented, moreover it is given in the manner that as if are described the objectively established facts. That position must be corrected, after writing these paragraphs correspondingly and after giving references also to other versions.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by VicDim (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Total financial cost?
I came here to see what the modern-day estimated total financial cost of the accident was, and am astonished to see that it is hardly even mentioned! I find that very strange in such a large article of such a significant event. There is lots of talk elsewhere online, so an attempt should be made to put that together in this article. E.g. talks of hundreds of billions as the eventual cost in lost GDP. Fig (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Still indeterminate, sorry. 99.38.148.255 (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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 -- 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)

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 [figure missing] 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

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)

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.[53]"

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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Closed since there was a second discussion started. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * Probably so; it would be more accurate. FellGleaming (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we have consensus on this before I move it? FellGleaming (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The International Nuclear Event Scale talks about various kinds of "accidents". However, Chernobyl was really something special, and should be distinguished in some way. How about we go with the INES wording and call it Chernobyl major nuclear accident.? Simesa (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems logical. I did a Google search and the "accident" form turned up twice as often as the "disaster" form ... and the sources appeared to be much higher quality on the former as well.  FellGleaming (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this move. It might be better to wait a little longer and see what others think before moving it. I'll put it back meantime. --John (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * John, the issue has been open ten days. You say nothing during that period, then revert the move 5 minutes after its done?  We have 3 editors here believing it should be moved.  Please do not go against WP:CON  FellGleaming (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's right. Can you take this to WP:RM please, or else list it on project talk to generate a greater discussion? Three editors is not a very strong consensus, considering how long the article has been at this title. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, there's no problem with giving the issue more time to gel. FellGleaming (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per Simesa. Beagel (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename: Reasons: The "accident" form is more common, more neutral and encyclopedic in tone, and seems to be the form preferred by higher quality WP:RS.  Further, article sources show the original effects of the accident were not nearly as bad as originally feared, and we should capture that in our terminology.  FellGleaming (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; we aren't here to invent English usage, especially when no useful precision is gained; English speakers know precisely which disaster is referred to when they hear "Chernobyl disaster", there is no ambiguity. Knepflerle (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Invent? There are twice as many Google hits for "Chernobyl Accident" as "Chernobyl Disaster".  I think both terms are precise, but one is more neutral than the other.
 * "Chernobyl Accident" (with or without the incorrect capitalisation) is not the proposed destination of this page. Knepflerle (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per my reasons above. I think the picture says it all. Simesa (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to 'accident' . Three times as many search terms show 'accident' vs. 'disaster', and those results lead to many of the highest quality reliable sources. Disaster is emotion-laden, accident is neutral. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose move to Chernobyl major nuclear accident, support move to Chernobyl nuclear accident. The latter is accurate and reasonably free from heavy-handed emotional implications; the former sounds ridiculously clinical and sterile, reeking of an odd mixture of non-native English, legalese, and some sort of future dystopian Newspeak. It's fine for the INES's purposes, perhaps, but unfit for ours. There aren't any "minor" nuclear accidents in Chernobyl to necessitate this added level of distinction (some might argue that there's no such thing as a "minor" nuclear accident, period, but that's neither here nor there). Additionally, there's no real precedent for copying an investigative bureau's exact terminology, especially when it's as awkwardly phrased as this. As a comparision, I offer the Tenerife airport disaster: it's not Accident involving aircraft Boeing 747 PH-BUF of KLM and Boeing 747 N 736 PA of PANAM as per the NTSB's English translation of the Spanish report. Badger Drink (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, great example. FellGleaming (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, we're looking like Chernobyl nuclear accident? Simesa (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Badger Drink's logic. As the originator of the thread noted, there are many kinds of disasters, including natural ones.  "Accident" means it was human-caused, with the implication of error.  "Major" is just an empty adjective.  "Chernobyl Accident" or Chernobyl Nuclear Accident" will help readers find the article.--Cde3 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose My Google search for "Chernobyl disaster" gives 133,000 hits, whereas "Chernobyl nuclear accident" gives 49,700. "Chernobyl major nuclear accident" gives one - our own WP:RM page! It seems that it already has the most commonly used name. --Nigelj (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Chernobyl Accident" without "Nuclear" gets 422,000 hits on Google if quote signs are included and 499,000 if not.--Cde3 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess between "Chernobyl disaster" and "Chernobyl accident" I prefer "Chernobyl disaster". I think we need to emphasize the severity in some way. Simesa (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a fourth optional name. The requested move was to "Chernobyl major nuclear accident". --Nigelj (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although an accident, it was indeed a disaster. I oppose renaming. Jared Preston (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's up to WP to decide whether or not it was a disaster. It's up to the reader.  As the article explains, it's not clear just how disastrous the accident was.--Cde3 (talk) 22:03, 13 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)


 * Changing tracks halfway through only leads to confusion; stop the discussion and restart it, or let this run its course and propose a second if necessary afterwards (there's no rush after all). On the new proposed title however, what non-nuclear accidents of international renown have there been in this small Ukrainian town?  There's no need for the extra precision. Knepflerle (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but a nuclear accident is no ordinary industrial accident. The Bhopal disaster is the only event of the same order of magnitude that I know.  I wouldn't feel right just calling this event simply the "Chernobyl accident". Simesa (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is the List of industrial disasters. Simesa (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bhopal killed several thousand people within the first couple weeks...nearly all civilians. Chernobyl killed 39 within the first couple weeks...all of which were plant workers or emergency responders. FellGleaming (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of whom (not "which" btw) were also civilians. What difference does that make to this discussion? --John (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is two fold. One is simple scale -- several thousand vs. three dozen.  The second is that non-connected civilians are generally regarded as a greater tragedy than those intentionally risking their lives.  For instance, 3,000 people killed in the 9/11 attacks is considered worse than 3,000 soldiers killed in a war. FellGleaming (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, and I don't agree with the proposed page move either. (Not that I want to get into a protracted debate about this, you understand, but many of the dead on 9/11 were firefighters just like the guys at Chernobyl. So what?) --John (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose either "Chernobyl accident" or "Chernobyl disaster" would be more common, or just "Chernobyl" . "Chernobyl meltdown" is also pretty common. WP:COMMONNAME 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I pretty strongly disagree with "Chernobyl accident", and am guardedly neutral with "Chernobyl disaster". "Nuclear" is a good word to use to distinguish this particular incident from thousands of unplanned mishaps of varying degrees of severity that have no doubt affected the geographical locale in question over the course of mankind. If we're truly going to go with WP:COMMONNAME, I think the most common designator of this would be simply "Chernobyl" (c.f. "Pearl Harbor" or "9/11" / "September 11th"; rather than "Pearl Harbor bombing" or "September 11th terrorist hijackings"), but, for obvious reasons, that alone won't do. I'm fine with "Chernobyl nuclear disaster", but can sympathize with those who feel it's a bit too pejorative and emotionally-laden. "Chernobyl nuclear accident" is pretty good as well, maybe a bit "apologetic" ("aw, come on, guys, it was just an accident, nobody's really to blame"), but does a good job of summarizing what transpired. Without the "nuclear", and without "disaster" to signify the magnitude of the incident in question, it's just a bit too vague to sit well with me. Google searches aren't perfect; speaking hypothetically, twenty news / scientific journal headlines / titles that read "Chernobyl nuclear accident" carry a lot more weight with me than five thousand mentions of the "Chernobyl accident" bured in the middle paragraphs of a tangentially-related writing. Badger Drink (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also oppose a move to either "Chernobyl accident" or "Chernobyl nuclear disaster". There seems no need to make such a move; there has only been one major disaster there and it made worldwide news. The word "accident" has connotations of a vehicular accident. -84user (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC) (However, if the article was just being created I would be 50/50 split between "Chernobyl catastrophe" and "Chernobyl disaster", for what is worth. -84user (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Agreed. Accident is far too mild. It certainly was a disaster (or catastrophe) for Chernobyl. --81.149.203.93 (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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 ( talk ) 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 ( talk ) 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 ( talk ) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  FellGleaming  (talk • contribs)  00:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know about the other RfM, obviously (I mentioned it above and I !voted in it). What I can't find are the discussions about when to close it, about the reasons for closing it, and for the decision immediately to open a new RfM. --Nigelj (talk) 09:06, 20 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."


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/world/europe/05iht-nuke.html


 * 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 ( talk ) 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)
 * "What do the reliable sources say?" -- Click on the link. It says "Chernobyl's dangers called far exaggerated".
 * I did. Where does it say "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"? I didn't see that bit. --John (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It says the largest problem is mental health, then follows with this to explain why:
 * "People have developed a paralyzing fatalism because they think they are at much higher risk than they are, so that leads to things like drug and alcohol use, and unprotected sex and unemployment..."

Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 05:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLLOCKS. Have you ever visited the Ukraine or the affected areas? I have, and I've been round the Ukrainian National Chernobyl Museum in Kiev, which shows the effects of Chernobyl in graphic detail. If you trotted out your claims there, you'd likely get a punch in the face. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While the "punch in the face" rebuttal is certainly unique, the fact remains that the health effects very vastly overstated, and, as the New York Times points out, the majority of the (very real) suffering is simply mental anguish, from the over hyped, overemotional reporting of the incident, that unfairly left residents in fear for decades. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 14:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, of course. It's universally called the Chernobyl disaster. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The more descriptive title is more useful. I am a strong supporter of nuclear energy, but this was a disaster. Fearmongering immediately following the disaster as well as long-term PR effects are validly part of the topic under either name. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As I clearly stated in the section above, "I pretty strongly disagree with 'Chernobyl accident'". That is to say, I oppose a move to "Chernobyl Accident". As I also clearly stated above, my reasoning is that "Chernobyl Accident" is too vague, and has the vague odor of hand-wringing apologeticism ("white-washing", in layman's terms). By extension, this also means that I also oppose hypothetical moves to Chernobyl Incident, Chernobyl Situation, Chernobyl Mishap, Chernobyl Blooper, Chernobyl Human Error, Chernobyl Bad Day (which, I hasten to add, also extends to "Bad Day in Chernobyl"), Chernobyl Oopsie (and, by its own extension, Chernobyl Whoopsie), Chernobyl Oh Shi-- (and any and all other phonetic representations of trailing off, or being cut off, in mid-"shit"), Chernobyl Occurrence, Chernobyl Happenstance, Chernobyl No Biggie, Chernobyl Thing, Chernobyl Stuff, Chernobyl "Nuclear Reactors Are Basically Safe, Bambi", Chernobyl "It Was Just Some Iodine You Silly Tree Huggers", Chernobyl Building of Character (and "Building of Character in Chernobyl"), Chernobyl Has (or "Had") a Posse, and I will pre-emptively vote delete on any and all "in Popular Culture" spinoffs of the above names. It is my sincere hope that I have made myself sufficiently clear this time, and that my reasoning in the previous discussion will be applied to any and all future discussions where said reasoning could be reasonably inferred to apply. Best Wishes & Etc., Badger Drink (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm going to have to oppose. While I don't believe there have been any significant number of additional birth defects, the property and emotional damage were massive.  I just don't think we can say "Chernobyl accident" the way we say Aviation accidents and incidents. Simesa (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.