Talk:Columbia University tunnels/Talk archive 2005-2006

Untitled
I definitely don't agree that this article should be removed altogether, but most of it would be more appropriate in an article on Columbia tunnel lore. The Pupin stuff was obviously just embellished for the purpose of mythologizing it; hell, I was often guilty of bending the truth for dramatic effect when I took groups down there. Even the somewhat accurate stuff is mixed up -- for example, the steam tunnels on the west side of campus don't have rails for coal carts; those are in the tunnels under the powerhouse. Anyway, the tunnels *are* interesting enough to be worth seeing, especially the coal ones cos they're awesome and they're being destroyed from all the powerhouse work, and people are going to be telling each other these stories and going down there whether there's a Wikipedia article or not. I think whoever wrote the big red box needs to chill. --dylan 24.239.137.27 04:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Pupin Hall
There's another reason why it's implausible to claim Pupin went untouched until 2003: it's where Ken Hechtman got his uranium. Durova 04:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I once spoke to George Hamawy, a Radiation Safety Officer at CU, about radiation in the basement of pupin. He said that his first job, upon being hired (a few years ago) was to clean up that basement.

And regarding the comment that there couldn't have been any remnants of old experiments on the first floor of Pupin: Pegram laboratory was a nuclear research facility, so if it connected to the first floor of Pupin, it's entirely possible that work was being done in that space after the Manhattan Project. Beth 17:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course the first floor of Pupin was visited periodically. See, for example, this excerpt from a New Yorker article: http://www.undercity.org/links/archives/collegetunnels/Columbia/columbia5.txt

I just updated the description to call it -virtually- untouched while we discuss. 66.65.127.132 01:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracy Box
I have moved the "This Article May Be Dangerously Innacurate [sic]" box to the talk page, replacing it on the main article with the disputed tag. A lengthy discussion on why the article is factually inaccurate should not be placed directly at the top of the article as it was, and this should clearly be a much better place for it. Perhaps a more devoted editor than I would like to include some of this information in the article itself, rather than just leaving it all in a large box at the top. John5008 --- talk 02:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)