Talk:Goiânia accident

Sv·h−1
The article systematically uses negative exponents like "Sv·h−1" instead of simply "Sv/h". Is there a reason why? 111.220.239.198 (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself(Note, relates to section flagged for needing citation)
In the initial section it's stated "All of the objects from within those houses, including personal possessions, were seized and incinerated" while under cleanup it's stated that care was put in to recover personal possessions in those particular houses. Along with not citing anything overall in how the situation was handled under cleanup. 131.125.11.1 (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Opening sections with run-on sentences as poor form for encylopedic content.
As of this posting, the opening sentence of the "Legal" section of this article reads as follows

In addition to a public civil action for damages to the environment was brought in September 1995 by the Federal Public Prosecution Service (Department of Justice), together with the State of Goiás’ Public Prosecution Service, before the 8th Federal Court of Goiânia, legal proceedings were also brought against the Federal Union; the National Nuclear Energy Commission; the State of Goiás (through its Health Department); the Social Security Institute for Civil Servants in the State of Goiás – IPASGO, which at the time of the accident was the private owner of the land where the IGR was located; the four medical doctors who owned IGR; and the clinic’s physicist, who was also the supervisor.

As one who has studied a sufficient level of English can see, this is an incredibly overloaded sentence who's very opening context is quickly upset and lost in the weeds amidst multiple tangents by induction of commas. Or put most simply, it reads poorly. It requires attention to separation of details. It has sufficient content to compose at least three statements. It is ostensibly a paragraph by volume alone. I'm pretty confident we can strive for better on Wikipedia.

I'm sure this statement is supposed to tell me something in relation to the rest of the article it presents from. However it instead reads as a poorly formed list with a fragment of context. By the end of it, I'm left wondering precisely what actions correlate with which parties. Even after several minutes of struggling to decipher it, I have become compelled to ask of anybody else who does comprehend what it's saying to improve upon it's terribly muddled structure. 99bluefoxx (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * An IP editor was responsible for the addition of nearly all the information under the Legal matters section heading, as seen in this edit. It could be reverted to the state it was in before if it's beneficial to the article. I will look at it. The grammar is awkward to parse. Recon  rabbit  22:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)