Talk:List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll/Archive 1

Need suppressed data from the Chernobyl reactor 4
Article should have mention of the suppressed data from the Chernobyl reactor 4 explosion. Actual deaths are in the hundreds of thousands, mainly due to subsequent pathology of various cancers in the surrounding populations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.229.154  (talk • contribs)  2011-04-10T22:50:34


 * Find citations that meet Wikipedia's guidelines (see "Article policies" in the box above), and use them to add this to the article. Lentower (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima
I put Fukushima I accident at the bottom of the list, since no casualty has still been reported nor calculated from radiation effects; I have anyway preserved, in a note, the death toll of 47 people, 2 technicians killed by the tsunami inside the plant, and 45 elder people dead of dehydration during evacuation. Filippo83 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Spurious rigor & other problems
There are two problems: --Tweenk (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "4056 deaths" from Chernobyl is very similar to the joke about a dinosaur bone being 64 000 005 years old. One part of this (4000 deaths) is speculative and cannot actually be proven, and the 56 deaths part is fairly well documented. I think the speculative element (cancer deaths at some unspecified time in the future) should be separated from the factual element (actual deaths).
 * 2) The second report about Chernobyl should not be mentioned in this article. This source is counter-consensus and is regarded as having little scientific value.


 * I have removed reference to the controversial Chernobyl report, but discussion of the 56 direct deaths and estimated 4,000 extra cancer deaths remains as it is quite clear and well-referenced. Johnfos (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Therac-25
Should Therac-25 be listed here? Three deaths attributed to it. Hawk777 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Apples to oranges?
I'm not sure if the ordering is fair, as noted by Tweenk above. For the some incidents (particularly the large, highly visible ones) projected deaths due to cancers are included in the tally, but for other incidents, e.g. Goiânia incident, the fatalities (4) is the number who died immediately due to acute radiation poisoning. So the ordering is largely meaningless, it would be better to maintain two (or more) rankings: for immediate deaths (within say 1 year); long term health problems (excess cancers & such); and possibly non-radiological deaths (such as the Mihama plant accident). It's true that in some cases estimates the second category are hard to come by, but that is precisely the point.

Such breakdowns are important for a more sophisticated understanding of the dangers (or not, as you prefer) of nuclear technology. Circumstances, such as location, technological improvements, or whether or not there was followup monitoring can significantly alter the balance of numbers in each category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.27.72 (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Fukushima death toll = 0?
I'm a little confused as to why Fukushima is listed second on a page about nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll, when according to the text there have not been any deaths as a consequence of the nuclear disaster. (There have been deaths caused by the tsunami that triggered the disaster and the ensuing evacuations, though.) Is there a clarification available? --TheSophera (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Also that page - at least now - clearly states that nobody until now has died from radiation exposure, but only from workplace-related incidents or health problems (e.g. heart attack). So no problem at all, even if I agree that having Fukushima in that page may lead to serious misunderstandings.
 * Filippo83 (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What about SL-1?? 3 deaths from nuclear reactor accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.0.243 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
You've got the death toll at Chernobyl pegged at around 4,000 but the World Health Organization, and a team of more than 100 international Scientists, have concluded that less than 50 died. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viral In Nature (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hO7gbe9a?url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf to http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hO7gbe9a?url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf to http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusing
It is confusing having deaths due to nuclear reactor accidents lumped in to the same chart as deaths due to accidental medical exposure. These should be separate lists. Also, deaths in military weapons research activities should be seperated from those in civilian power generation situations. Without having some subcategorization, this chart is pretty much useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Untitled
CHO/WHO is not a reliable source for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.37.18 (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"disputed"
Strange that this list includes so many " disputed" deaths. Why is the opinion of one person or one anti-nuclear organization as important as carefully collected facts of a large scientific body, such as the WHO? Fsikkema (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)