Talk:Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant/Archive 1

Overview of "Plutonium contamination of the Denver metropolitan area"
Without being alarmist, with the 24,000-year half-life of Pu-239, this is a serious problem that is effectively permanent, though one which will be partially mitigated by natural processes of wind and weather that will spread out (albeit, and in some cases, concentrate) this plutonium contamination over time. For all practical intents and purposes though, the Pu-239 that was released from Rocky Flats will be with us forever in some fashion. It's just a question of where it exists...not whether it exists.

Medically, the principal threat from plutonium is from ingestion such as inhaling it in dust form. Even the smallest amounts of Pu-239 can cause cancer and other illnesses from it's radioactive decay, principally alpha particle decay.

Pu-239 is virtually nonexistent in nature, and is produced by bombarding uranium-238 with slow neutrons. Under the right circumstances, such as high concentration and tight geometries of Pu-239, local neutron attenuation by way of immersion in water, for example, can result in uncontrolled criticality.

Notably, Pu-239 is not poisonous to the human body in the same fashion as the metalloid arsenic, which shuts down critical bodily functions by way of interfering with ATP's function as a coenzyme for intracellular energy tranfer. Plutonium's life-threatening effects on the body come from its radioactive decay, whose effects may not be noted -- if at all -- for years. Unless specifically monitored for, cancers from Pu-239 are indistinguishable from the same cancers caused by other sources and can in any case take years to become active...thus creating potential controversy over plutonium's causality.

To the best of my knowledge by way of the literature I've read, there are neither historical nor on-going true statistical health studies for the effects of the Pu-239 contamination on the on-going health of Denver area residents. If anyone might come to know of any, please bring them to my attention. As radioactivity has its cancerous effects by way of disturbing a cell's DNA, and rapidly reproducing cells are more vulnerable to DNA damage being replicated before being repaired by the body's immune system, small children are at greater risk than adults, and similarly so are DNA-active areas of the body (hair growth, intestinal functions, etc.).

One final note: I have omitted from the current article the citable opinion of a female medical doctor that the Pu contamination of Denver renders it uninhabitable. As there are no doubt any number of other medical opinions, I have left this out intentionally in the interests of maintaining a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). This does not mean that IMHO she is technically incorrect; there is no 'safe' prescribed amount for internal Pu-239 exposure (body burden).

--FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and original research tags
I think there is a lot of good material in this article, which is why I took the time to copy edit it. I think, though, that there are still some issues with not including all major points of view, and with original research. The original research in question is related to the subject of the article itself; there do not seem to be any inline citations directly supporting the claim that Denver was contaminated from the Rocky Flats fires. Please understand that I am not questioning this hypothesis itself - it is just that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, can only report things that have already been reported in reliable sources. If we can find citations that directly state that Denver was contaminated as a result of the fires the plant, it should solve this issue.

The neutral point of view tag is there because the article consistently states positions which are critical of the nuclear plant, and underline the danger from the radiation. Note that I am also not questioning what the degree of danger is - it is just Wikipedia policy to include all major points of view on a subject. I think it is important to hear the government line on the fires, as well as the more critical material. It is not our job to editorialize - we should leave the decision of what to believe up to the reader. If you have any questions, feel free to reply below or on my talk page. All the best.— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, I appreciate the constructive criticism with no if's, and's or but's. Thank you.


 * The government is cited in this article. The fact remains that they do not KNOW how much they crapped up the Denver area with Plutonium. Having read the cited material extensively, I'm a little taken aback that anyone questions this (the plutonium contamination of Denver from Rocky Flats), so I've added the Jefferson County health director's published notes and graphics on the Pu contamination of the greater Denver area. Again...this is also mentioned in the body of the article ("...millicuries of plutonium per square kilometer..."), with a specific cite of the graphic that shows this isopleth map, so I'm a little frustrated that this is being questioned with such extensive citation.


 * I'll endeavor to discuss the government's point of view as best possible...but let us bear in mind that "the government" covered up the worst fire at Rocky Flats in 1957, and to this day refuses to release contamination information even after the Superfund was designated 'complete'. This endeavor will bring up the fact that the Superfund cleanup was done at a fraction of the estimated time (tens of years) and cost (tens of billions of dollars) in the original estimates, but so be it.


 * Any serious student of this event will find the government to be appallingly unwilling to be forthcoming with information. That's not solely my observation, but much-more-damagingly includes the opinions of the lead FBI investigator during the Rocky Flats raid and the foreman of the grand jury that investigated the raid's results. See their YouTube presentations, which --again-- are already cited in the article.


 * --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Am still sort of shocked at one of the first comments in this 'NPOV' labeling, in particular the "no in-line citations of Pu contamination of Denver." This is a fact that is called out many times in the article, but let me list the principal source that come to mind, focusing on graphical information as I understand that everyone's reading time here (and elsewhere) is limited:


 * http://www.rockyflatsnuclearguardianship.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/leroy-moore-papers/dem-public-heath-at-rf-12-10.pdf


 * The above .pdf file is cited in the article several times, as it is so information-rich. Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 all provide Pu contamination of the Denver area, and each come from their own, cited, highly valid sources.


 * As the principal objection to 'NPOV' -- whether or not Denver was in fact contaminated with plutonium -- seems to be clearly and readily removed by this information, I am removing the NPOV citation on that basis. Further supporting this, I have also added a citation to the DOE documentation on the 1957 fire, located as the sole reference at the end of the lede. Similarly, I know of no "original research" in this entire article. Please point out any single instance of it that you may perceive, but with all the many citations being used, be prepared to back up your claim. Please do not re-add this tag without actually reading the citations!


 * --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is yet another visual for the Denver area plutonium contamination from the 1957 fire (alone); this is a colorized version of one of the above the figures in the just-previous link:


 * http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm


 * The text that accompanies the contamination levels in this particular citation mention that it is only expected to be accurate within two orders of magnitude. Other readings indicate that this may actually be an aggressive estimate, in that the Pu contamination level estimates from the 1957 fire actually span 40 grams to 100s of kilograms of released plutonium...a difference of roughly 3-4 orders of magnitude.


 * --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again FormerNukeSubmariner, and thank you for the long and detailed reply. It looks like I caused some confusion in my posting, so I apologise for that. The general standard in Wikipedia is to provide an inline citation for any claim that is challenged or likely to be challenged. This means directly including a reference after the claim in question, which gives you a number to click on so that you can view the source easily. I agree that there were lots of references in this version of the article - the one my tags were referring to. However, even though these references were probably sufficient to cover every claim made in the article, there wasn't a reference directly included after every claim. For example, there is no number to click on after the passage "... and a major plutonium fire in 1957[1] and another in 1969[2] occurred at Rocky Flats that spread radioactive contamination throughout the northwest corridor of Denver, including downtown, which is directly in the path of of prevailing winds.", and neither of the two previous references in the sentence seem to mention radioactive material reaching Denver, or anything about the prevaling winds. This is why I tagged it for original research, although I think that has now been fixed by the subsequent addition of references. I think that a few of these references could be improved by the addition of page numbers, though, and I might try and add a few myself.— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Substantial impact"
The first sentence of the Rocky Flats Plant fires section says "With substantial impact on the Greater Denver Metropolitan Area, including downtown, during the Cold War the Rocky Flats Plant nuclear weapons production facility was built with high security conditions by the U.S. Government". What kind of impact is this referring to? Health impact? Economic impact? This needs to be made clear, I think.— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This refers to the plutonium contamination of the Denver area from Rocky Flats. Pu contamination is the "substantial effect." See the above response, as based on your above comments I think you have yet to see the graphic that shows Pu contamination of Denver. I again thank you for your review and comments. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Upon further reflection, I have self-edited this statement out of the article, as it does seem to be more assessing rather than reporting the facts, which can stand on their own just fine in this story. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

New title?
I have noticed that almost all of the references refer to the contamination in question as being associated with the Rocky Flats Plant, rather than the Denver metropolitan area itself. I know that Denver being contaminated is an essential aspect of this article, but in Wikipedia article names it is recommended that we go with what reliable sources use to describe the subject. (See WP:TITLE for details.) For this reason, would you be willing to move the article to a new title, one that is associated with the Rocky Flats Plant rather than Denver? I'm thinking of something like Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant. Regards— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My natural concern is that the title needs to convey the meaning of the article, and the source of the contamination is all but incidental to its effects.


 * BTW, crackerjack job on your part in cleaning up the citations' formatting and templates. Very nicely done, especially getting the JSTOR copy of the Jefferson County health director's published findings. Thank you for doing that. Notably, and I only just realized this myself, his article's title, Cancer Incidence in an Area Contaminated with Radionuclides Near a Nuclear Installation, focuses as well on the area contaminated with plutonium...not Rocky Flats, per se. This just makes sense to me as well.


 * I gave the title of the article a lot of thought before drafting it, and am concerned that parochial interests in the Denver metro area (which some maps show were most affected by the Pu fire smoke...even more-so than Rocky Flats) will naturally default to the problem being 'up there' in Rocky Flats. The emphatic point of the article is that it continues to predominantly affect the entire Denver metro area. Rocky Flats itself is fairly uninhabited.


 * In any case, the "radioactive material" needs, IMHO, to be named in the title as plutonium. Its half-life is of such a magnitude that the situation merits calling it out by name -- much "radioactive material" that naturally comes to mind such as Cobalt-60, Radium, even Americium (perhaps) has a relatively short enough half-life that there's a background impression that it isn't permanent...that it goes away over time, and can thus be dismissed to some degree. For instance, people now tour some of the blast sites for nuclear weapons tests, even Chernobyl to some degree, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki are re-populated...so 'what's the big deal?' Pu-239 has a 24,100-yr half-life...and, in effect, "...is forever." That's the core problem, so to speak.


 * --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that Johnson's study focuses on the contaminated area, rather than Rocky Flats; the thing is that the other references almost all talk about Rocky Flats primarily. We have "The September 1957 Rocky Flats fire", "Rocky Flats Nuclear Site Too Hot for Public Access, Citizens Warn", "Invasive weeds raise nuclear concerns at Rocky Flats", "Rocky Flats Virtual Museum", etc. Making a conservative count (for example counting all the CDPHE pages as one source), I get nine references that mention Rocky Flats directly in the title, two that primarily mention other areas ("Plutonium: The Jefferson Parkway`s biggest problem", "Cancer Incidence in an Area Contaminated with Radionuclides Near a Nuclear Installation"), and three that don't mention a specific area. Of these final three, two are still primarily concerned with Rocky Flats rather than Denver ("The Ambushed Grand Jury", "1957: Fateful Year for the Nuclear Weapons Industry"), and one, Weyler 2004, I don't have access to. Following the sources, the case for Rocky Flats in the title is much stronger than Denver, in my opinion. As for "plutonium" vs. "radioactive", I went for "radioactive" because it wasn't just plutonium that was released, although the plutonium is clearly the most dangerous of the elements released and deserves the most weight in the article. For example, the first paragraph of Johnson's study contains the text "Exposures of a large population in the Denver area to plutonium and other radionuclides in the exhaust plumes from the plant date back to 1953" (my italics). Using "radioactive" rather than "plutonium" would allow us to treat these other elements in the article without straying off-topic. Anyway, it looks like we have quite different opinions on this, so I think I might file a requested move. This will open up the debate to more editors and save us arguing back and forth over these points. All the best— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, Mr. Stradivarius...but in all fairness and as a major counterpoint to your reference/citation-title based argument, just scan the major source of information here (in fact, the single listed reference), LeRoy Moore's Democracy and Public Health at Rocky Flats: The Examples of Edward Martell and Carl J. Johnson and notice something: all of the graphical Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 show maps of the contamination of the greater Denver area, even though the title mentions the source as "Rocky Flats." The issue at hand here, clearly, is the Pu-239 contamination of the greater Denver area, in my opinion. As we both know, it is differences of opinion that make for a horse race...so nothing personal, and again I sincerely thank you for your hearty contributions in cleaning up the reference and citations. This has clearly benefited the article. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. Perhaps in the category of "trendspotting," notice how one of the most recent articles in the public domain on this issue is titled: Plutonium: The Jefferson Parkway`s biggest problem. IMHO, this is just an appropriate effort to address the real issue at hand and thus the real meat of the article...and it's not Rocky Flats, per se. Not any more. Cheers. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of the 3rd opinion provider getting all the facts, I will play devil's advocate here a little. One good argument that the page should refer to the Denver area rather than Rocky Flats is that the Rocky Flats Plant no longer exists - it has been turned into the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Whether or not this trumps the sources referring to Rocky Flats, I shall leave for other editors to decide for themselves.— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:15, 25 September 2011 (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. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Plutonium contamination of the Denver metropolitan area → Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant – I think that using "Rocky Flats" in the title is more appropriate than using "Denver", as a large majority of the sources on the subject discuss contamination in relation to the Rocky Flats Plant, the originator of the contamination, rather than the Denver metropolitan area, where most of the contaminated material ended up. I also wish to change "plutonium" to "radioactive" because more radioactive elements than plutonium were involved, although plutonium is by far the most dangerous and long-lasting. Please see the section "New title?" above for previous discussion on this subject.— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree - The entire thrust of the article is the plutonium contamination in the greater Denver metro area; the source (Rocky Flats) is effectively incidental, though clearly relevant. Moreover, the Rocky Flats Plant has been completely removed and no longer exists; the area it previously existed is now a fallow field (satellite map of Rocky Flats Plant's former location). The Pu-239 contamination of the Denver metropolitan area, on the other hand, still exists...and thus, again, is the principal relevant issue. Other relevant comments are noted in the 'New Title?' section here. Cheers. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have advertised this discussion on WikiProject Colorado here.— Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 14:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And also at Talk:Denver here.—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 03:03, 23 September 2011 (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.

Page move
It's a shame we couldn't get any outside editors to participate in the requested move discussion. As I see it, we're still at a deadlock over the title of this page, and I still think it would be good to get some outside input. There are two ways which I have thought of to get an outside opinion on this: the first is making a request at the 3rd opinions page, and the second is to start a new thread at the neutral point of view noticeboard. Do you have any preference over which one we take this to? I'd also be open to hearing suggestions for other venues as well. Regards—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Am at least mildly surprised that more input wasn't received, but at the same time this is a topic that Denverites and Coloradoans (I am both, though recently) have all but deliberately ignored for a long time. Don't know Wikipedia well enough to offer 'best' advice, but what about advertising with the group(s) that are generally solicited for reviewing new articles that might exist? IMHO, I do not think that the NPOVN is the right fit. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One more thought just occurred to me: Colorado's population is relatively small, but it is a frequent destination for many travelers. Major sources of new residents include California and Texas -- the two most populous states in the U.S. Soliciting California and Texas for input via their respective talk pages might get the right amount of attention. If you agree, for balance I'd suggest soliciting both...not just one or the other. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there's no guarantee we'll get a response if we ask California or Texas (or another WikiProject), but we definitely will if we list it at a noticeboard. Looking at Noticeboards, there's no article title noticeboard, so there's no extremely obvious one. There's the dispute resolution noticeboard, of course, but I am heavily involved as a clerk there, so we should probably avoid that in the interests of neutrality. If we rule that out then the closest one does seem to be the NPOVN, as I am claiming that the title puts undue weight on the Denver Metropolitan Area, and undue weight is part of the neutrality policy. However, I will respect your opinion that it is not the right fit, and list it at 3rd opinions.—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

To the 3rd opinion provider: myself and FormerNukeSubmariner are disputing the suitability of the article title. I would like a 3rd opinion on the title proposed in the requested move, which didn't generate any responses from uninvolved editors during the 7 days it was open. There is discussion on the matter in the section above the requested move as well. Thanks—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 11:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I had arrived here from the 3O request page. However, I no longer consider myself to be a 3O. I have had some of my disputes reaching the DRN and it is possible that some others might continue to reach there. So, it is difficult to see myself as a 3O here. But (as a bystander without being a 3O) I would like to say that both of you seem to have equally good reasons for saying what you say. This may be the reason for the RFC failing to generate a response. It seems difficult to find even a shade more weight on one side or the other. Perhaps someone could come up with a new compromise proposal which could address parts of both concerns at the same time? Regards. M W ℳ 02:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am responding to the request at WP:3O. The title of this article should be changed to a less sensational title, as the current one could be mistaken for a news headline. The Rocky Flats Plant should be included in the title as well; it is relevant as the source of any material released. Including "Plutonium" in the title is not necessary, that information should be in the body of the article and summarized in the lede. I suggest Radiation effects from the Rocky Flats Plant. This is consistent with other articles about similar subjects, such as Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and Chernobyl disaster effects. In addition, I think this alternate title better meets WP:NDESC since it does not presuppose contamination of any specific type or geography. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you MangoWong and VQaukr for your opinions. I like VQuakr's suggestion of Radiation effects from the Rocky Flats Plant, and thank them for pointing out the names of articles on similar subjects; indeed, I think it is better and more neutral than my suggestion in the requested move. I also agree that the current title is sensationalist, which is probably something I should have pointed out in the discussion above. MangoWong, I thank you for your suggestion, but I think a compromise solution would probably not work in this case. A hybrid title (for example Radiation effects from the Rocky Flats Plant on the Denver metropolitan area) would be very long whatever wording was chosen, and I would argue that it would still not count as being neutral. I will be bold and perform the page move to VQuakr's suggested title, and if there is any objection we can look at other dispute resolution processes. Thanks—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 05:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the names of other similar articles, I too have an inclination to think that the title suggested by VQaukr is a good one, and it does seem to be more neutral. I accept that working out a compromise may have been awkward because of its length. Thanks. M W ℳ 06:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Post name-change, my thoughts are these:
 * While "Plutonium contamination of the Denver metropolitan area" might seem "sensationalist," that is in fact most accurately the problem at hand, thus the previous title. Sometimes reality is "sensationalist," I suppose.
 * "Radiation effects," regardless of its usage elsewhere in Wikipedia, may be less "sensationalist"...but it is also rather obscure. Technically, radiation is the temporal effect of radioactivity -- i.e., a high energy photon such as a gamma ray or x-ray, or alpha or beta particle decay. So, to someone like myself who knows the meaning of the jargon well, it's frankly odd nomenclature that smacks of uninformed editorializing or an effort at spin control rather than frank, direct and efficient language. Just sayin'. To me, it obfuscates more than it informs, and generates something of a "huh?" reaction, not an "ah-ha" reaction.
 * Having said all that, I can of course (cock my head to the side a bit and) "kin the meaning" of the new title, with the knowledge that "radiation" is a commonly mis-applied term by laymen, such as newspaper editors, whereas in fact "radioactivity" is the more accurate term. Then again, and even more-so, so is the word "plutonium" here.
 * I can live with the new naming, frankly & only because of the Wikipedia common usage, but apologize in advance (for agreeing with this) to those who know the terminology used here is now slightly askew and a somewhat uninformed bit of editorializing, no offense intended.

--FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Google for the term "radiation effects." It really is being misapplied here on Wikipedia, folks. That term in most common usage is simply not what this article is about; I can't speak for the other "W" usages. I want to go on record as saying that this most recent name change is a mistake, and would offer the opinion that we've jumped the gun a bit and need more input. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, just because it is commonly being used on Wikipedia doesn't mean that it is right - I think you are making good points there. It may be that we need to change the title of the Fukushima article as well. It was the "Denver metropolitan area" text that I didn't think was neutral in the original title, rather than the "plutonium" part, due to the sourcing issues that I mentioned. Actually, I wouldn't mind using "plutonium" all that much, but it will allow the article to be more comprehensive if we talk about radioactivity in general, rather than just plutonium. So, if it came down to a choice between the two, would you prefer my original suggestion of "Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant" to the current title of "Radiation effects from the Rocky Flats Plant"? There's nothing to stop us moving the page again. Regards—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 14:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Radioactive contamination" is technically correct language, albeit an unnecessary and less-clear change from "plutonium", IMHO. My objections to "Rocky Flats" are as previously noted. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, hopefully this graphic (one of several from various sources) will be helpful to those who are not steeped in this material -- clearly, we are talking about the Denver metropolitan area, even more-so than Rocky Flats...the plant of which no longer exists:


 * Link: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm


 * --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have moved the page to Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant. If you can live with this, we can leave the issue; if not, it is probably time for the neutral point of view noticeboard or a request for comments. Thanks—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 08:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not nearly as wrong as "radiation effects," and does allow for including other radionuclides, but as Dr. Carl Johnson (former Jefferson County health director) points out in his AMBIO paper, plutonium is far and away the radionuclide of greatest concern. I do not like watering this fact down, or pinning the title to the Rocky Flats Plant as its current non-existence could lend itself to setting a comfort factor on the part of the reader that, IMHO, should not be there in light of the continuing Pu-239 contamination in a major metropolitan area. I'd be interested in the findings of an independent review, such as NPOV noticeboard, or an RFQ...so please proceed in like fashion. Thank you again for your intentions & efforts in improving the article. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest posting the question at the dispute resolution noticeboard. VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there should be some more discussion on the issue. The discussion should be based on Article titles. Maybe examining the policy could clarify the issue. Even if not, it would be helpful to have had a policy based discussion before taking it further? M W ℳ 14:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're probably right. We may be able to reach a consensus by further examining the policy in relation to this article without going to another noticeboard, and even if we do end up going to a noticeboard, having such a discussion will help everyone be clear on the issues involved. I think I'll start this in a new thread.—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 15:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Page moved without consensus...?
Not to just let this sort of behavior slide by: how is it that this page was moved from "Plutonium contamination of the Denver metropolitan area" without a consensus being formed, a fact which was confirmed by the Page Move Request?


 * Cite: No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What was the point of asking for consensus, not receiving it...only to see the page get moved after all? The article should be returned to its original title pending the formation of a 'real' consensus, hopefully including subject matter experts and Neutral Points of View. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Article title policy
Per MangoWong's suggestion above, I am posting my thoughts on article title policy and how it relates to the present article. In Article titles it says that in page move discussions, consensus has generally formed around the criteria of recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. I shall take these in turn: I also note that this incident doesn't have a common name, although Rocky Flats is more common than Denver in the sources. About the neutrality of the title, I think I may have misunderstood this principle. The things I claimed were "not neutral" before actually seem like perfectly straightforward descriptions, not biased or partisan in the sense it is used in WP:POVTITLE and WP:NDESC; the things I was disagreeing with seem better expressed as "not precise", as I have pointed out above. So, to sum up, "Denver" comes out better in recognizability and naturalness, but "Rocky Flats" comes out better in precision and consistency. Some variation on "radioactivity" or "radiation" comes out better than "plutonium" across all the criteria. I have tried to keep my judgement neutral, but please let me know if you think I misrepresented something or if there was anything I missed. Thanks—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 16:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Recognizability - In my opinion all the titles proposed are recognizable descriptions of the topic, although having said that, Denver is more recognizable than the Rocky Flats Plant.
 * Naturalness - In my opinion, readers looking to find this article would search for a variety of phrases, including both "Denver" and "Rocky Flats", depending on the specific information they were looking for. Again, Denver would probably be searched for more often because it is more widely known. "Radioactivity", "radiation", or variations thereof will probably be searched for more than "plutonium", as they are more general terms.
 * Precision - I think this is where titles based on Denver come into difficulties. Knowing where all the plutonium from Rocky Flats ended up is an imprecise science to say the least; while a lot of it undoubtedly ended up in the wider Denver area, some could have gone further (correct me if I'm wrong here), and the greatest concentration is near the old Rocky Flats Plant site itself. However, all of the contamination came from Rocky Flats by definition, so "Rocky Flats" is preferable to "Denver" under this criterion. Also, "radioactive contamination" is more precise than "plutonium contamination", as it was not just plutonium that was released, although the plutonium is the most dangerous. "Radioactive contamination" also looks to be more precise than "radiation effects", for the reasons FormerNukeSubmariner explained.
 * Conciseness - I don't think there is much difference between any of the proposed titles here.
 * Consistency - There don't seem to be any specific naming guidelines for articles on nuclear accidents or industrial accidents. The closest I could find was Naming conventions (events), and that only says "the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors: where the incident happened, [and] what happened", which covers all the titles proposed. VQuakr pointed out two articles on similar topics, Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and Chernobyl disaster effects. I see that the titles both refer to the source of the contamination rather than the area affected, making the case for "Rocky Flats" stronger; I also see they both use "effects", although that may be more appropriate for a section heading rather than an article title in this case. I also found some articles on Three Mile Island for comparison: Three Mile Island accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects.


 * Some related thoughts:


 * Ultimately, the only reason this article exists -- speaking as the original author who initiated and drafted it, with some occasional and appreciated assistance -- is because of the plutonium contamination that still exists in the Denver metropolitan area. It is permanent. The other contamination will more or less quickly go away, if it hasn't already.


 * The source of the contamination is of course a major point of interest, thus the coverage in the article, but it's not the issue at hand. What is: (1) Plutonium, and (2) the entire Denver metropolitan area. The Rocky Flats Plant itself is completely gone, and merely of historical/sourcing interest.


 * The minimalist, technically-correct labeling within the Denver article itself is "Radioactive contamination" -- which is what I set it to yesterday -- and is plenty functional within that article which has, of course, the broad label of "Denver" to set context for the reader.


 * Conclusion: I can live with "Radioactive contamination of the Denver metropolitan area" for the daughter article, as it is sufficienly informative and technically correct...and consistent with labeling within the Denver article.


 * 'Thank you' to everyone who has provided inputs and thoughtful consideration. I know everyone's time is precious.


 * --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have another thought on the precision issue, following from DonFB's edit of Denver. While it is probably true that the vast majority of the radioactive material fell in the Denver metropolitan area, having the title as "radioactive contamination of the Denver metropolitan area" may make readers jump to the conclusion that the entire Denver metropolitan area is contaminated with plutonium - something which is not backed up by the sources. This is why my first gut reaction to the title "Plutonium contamination of the Denver metropolitan area" was that it was sensationalist - it implies a greater claim than is made in the article itself. (Though the facts of the matter are still pretty shocking, admittedly.)—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 07:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have zero doubt that the entire Denver metro area was affected. None. The citations show about 80-90+% of Denver affected, and beyond, but that's merely at the limits of the isopleth maps' scale (millicuries/km2). It is wishful thinking and borderline false editorializing to imagine that the entire area is not affected...not that I don't also wish the entire area wasn't. The graphs/maps are quite clear on this. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * DonFB made a good point about this in their talk page post that accompanied the edit to Denver I linked above. The claim that is being backed up with the chart - that the entire Denver metropolitan area was affected by plutonium fallout - is not a fact included directly in the chart data, but rather a subjective interpretation of that chart. That makes it original research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. I am quite willing to accept that the entire Denver area was affected, but only if this claim can be backed up by reliable sources (with the caveats found at WP:SCICON).—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 09:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * He absolutely does not make 'a good point.' Reading a chart, and seeing that plutonium is spread in the area, is not hardly any kind of "original research." The AMBIO article also speaks to the spread of plutonium in the Denver area. I make no other claims regarding health affects for the plutonium spread except as specifically noted, so I'm happy to take this to the NPOV route, as need be, for others insights as well. To me, this just goes to show the extent of DonFB's own POV that he would make such a claim (of NPOV). --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the AMBIO paper - I can only see the first page on JSTOR, but I don't see any sweeping claims saying that the entire Denver metropolitan area was affected. The claims made (on the first page, at least) are more specific: 'There is a "dissemination of the finest radionuclide particles throughout the area over a radius of several miles from the plant site" and "these smallest particles are not noticeably reduced in number by gravitational settling to three miles from the apparent point of origin and presumably reached much farther afield"'. I'm not sure if Johnson is using the same isopleth maps that were used to create the chart you uploaded, but it seems reasonable. I would say that we could use this to cite a claim of "smaller radioactive particles reached at least 3 miles from Rocky Flats, and probably much farther", but not "radioactive particles are spread throughout the Denver metropolitan area". Maybe there is a passage in the study where Johnson is more specific about the area contaminated?—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 15:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is, to me unsurprisingly, yet another instance of proof that a large portion of the Denver area was affected by plutonium contamination:


 * "Exposures of a large population in the Denver area to plutonium and other radionuclides in the exhaust plumes from the plant date back to 1953."


 * Given all the charts (four) that show the Pu-239 contamination of the Denver metro area, I find it somewhat appalling that people's time is being wasted by the facile insistence that "text" must accompany the charts/maps of the Pu-239 contamination, or else it is "original research." It was a needless argument, and the above quote proves the non-starter nature of this attempt at debating the facts. Anyone who needs more proof of the Pu-239 contamination of Denver should take the time to read the above citation in its entirety before trying to censor this article with clearly unsupported arguments of "original research." --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Reading a chart, and seeing that plutonium is spread in the area, is not hardly any kind of "original research." There are FOUR charts that each show the spread of Pu-239 contamination in the Denver area. The AMBIO article also speaks to the spread of plutonium. I make no other claims regarding effects (except for specific health citations) for the plutonium spread, so I'm happy to take this to the NPOV route for others insights as well. To me, this just goes to show the extent of one's own POV that anyone would make such a claim (of POV / "original research"). --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Uncited in the article here, but clearly supporting what's been documented of Pu-239 contamination of the Denver area, from Dr. Carl Johnson (emphasis added):


 * "Based on my education, training, and experience as a medical doctor, and my understanding of how the body works, and of the effects of ionizing radiation on the human body, and based on my studies of the radioactive emissions of the Rocky Flats Plant and the area-wide contamination of the Denver area from those releases, and my studies of cancer mortality and cancer incidence in contaminated areas, and having considered other possible causes, it is my opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, that the radioactive emissions from the Rocky Flats Plant have caused an excess of cancer in the exposed areas."


 * As I continue to shake my head over the fact that an argument that Denver is not contaminated by Pu-239 ever surfaced -- and that stating such constituted "original research" -- I am amazed that this line of argument was ever proposed, much less that more than one person has bought off on it. I can only attribute the "original research" and "POV" claims to an agenda other than creating a factual, encyclopedic article...which -- given all the effort and citations put into this...dismays me.--FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have just stumbled across this page from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which shows that there were non-radioactive substances released from Rocky Flats which could have had health implications for residents. In light of this, maybe we should work these substances into the article too, and rename it to something like Health effects of contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant?—<b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 10:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a chance. The same claim could be made of Fukushima, TMI, etc. They, too, have 'other' contaminant discharges that they make. Such a move would be a clear POV attempt to hijack this article and 'hide' the issue at hand...radioactive plutonium in the Denver area. This article serves -- via well-supported citations -- to inform the reader of plutonium in the Denver area...not just citable health effects. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

More info in support of the emphasis on plutonium in the title:

"'Plutonium is a very potent carcinogen and considered the most important risk to health, and so is monitored on a regular basis. Release of other actinides and radionuclides is checked less frequently.'"


 * AMBIO article

--FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Area affected
I approve of the addition of the quotation from Dr. Johnson where he says, "Exposures of a large population in the Denver area..." I believe the article benefits from this kind of specificity and attribution. Keep in mind, his phrase serves to identify the geographic region of the nation where the incidents happened; his phrase does not explicitly denote the city itself, although a reader (but not an editor) may apply such an interpretation if he wishes.

However, I still have an issue with phrasing in this article which says, "the greater Denver metropolitan area". I still think a qualifier is needed, such as my earlier edit which used the word "portions". If the phrase "greater Denver metropolitan area" is based on a personal interpretation of the CDPE chart, I disagree. In that chart, the bulk of east and southeast Denver and most or all of Lakewood and Aurora are not shaded. Again, I don't want to engage in extended debate about what the chart shows. I am simply stating my disagreement with the current phrasing in the article which apparently is based on the chart, and is not referenced to a source in the clear manner that the phrase "the Denver area" is attributed to a verifiable source, Dr. Johnson's report.

FNS, I am sure you have read more of the documentation than I have, so if there is a clear source to support the phrasing which I am challenging, please specify it. If such explicit support for the phrase cannot be found, the wording should be modified so that it does not imply a larger or more inclusive area than can be supported by specific references. I have the same issue with your phrase "substantially including Denver" which I will also challenge in the main article, so I hope we can address and resolve the issue in both articles. DonFB (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're picking a needless bone here, DonFB. I removed the "entire" comment in an attempt for 'textual purity', and spend a good bit of time (see above) citing the obvious...that the greater Denver area was contaminated with plutonium. The maps speak for themselves with no 'interpretation' of isopleth Pu-239 levels required. Moreover, we have this from Dr. Johnson:


 * ...and the area-wide contamination of the Denver area from those releases....(see above cite)


 * The word "portions" implies some small subset, to my way of reading it. Whereas in fact the maps show Pu-239, by eyeball, to cover about 80-95% of Denver, much less its coverage of the Denver metro area, which is somewhat undefined. My concern is that your efforts smack of an agenda, rather than an honest portrayal of the facts. I've removed the 'fact' tags with plenty of backup if you'd care to take this for an NPOV review, I think the time has come for that. In fact, I think we've abundantly overindulged this alleged issue with great generosity of people's time & efforts.


 * There is much more than can and should be covered in this article, including the pattern of U.S. government coverups and seizing of evidence as a requirement for settling from landowners that brought damage suits...but my time is being consumed with attending to the -- to me -- obvious condition of Denver's contamination by Pu-239. Enough. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Dr. Johnson quotation, "the area-wide contamination of the Denver area from those releases" is very useful and can be used in either or both the main and daughter articles. I don't know if his phrase means the same thing as the article's "greater Denver metropolitan area", however, so I have replaced that phrase and explicitly quoted Dr. Johnson and cited the source.

Even so, we still have quite different interpretations of the coverage shown by the plume chart. I see the northern metro area shaded and the southern metro area unshaded. I do not see "downtown" Denver shaded.

Reading this article more closely, I notice questionable instances of the word "downtown", referring to Denver. These are the phrases: "northwest corridor of Denver, including much of the downtown...." and, "contamination extending well throughout the downtown Denver area". These are very specific statements, which are referenced to the Moore 2007 article.

My question is: what information in the Moore 2007 article supports these uses of the word "downtown" (Denver) in this article?

Let's try to resolve these differences, so you can continue to devote your very valuable time to the additional issues you want to address in the article. DonFB (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As what matters most -- to me -- are high Pu levels in the most populated regions of the Denver area, I am shifting my attention to that specific issue. See latest edits and citation regarding Pu contamination in the populous regions of Denver, and those east of Rocky Flats. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above reference (see Health Physics Society abstract ), the most informative maps that show Pu contamination of Denver...including downtown...are contained in this article by Leroy Moore, which is heavily cited for the sources of this information. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoting text without in-text attribution
I find that there are some instances of quoted text in this article. Quotations, says ...''Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn whose words a quote is...'' I think the speakers should be named within the article body. Otherwise, it may be a copyvio. A look at Copy-paste and Copy-paste may also be relevant. Thanks. M W ℳ 02:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific and as this article's current principal author I'll be happy to clean it up. If anything, I think the article is overloaded with citations....but the more the merrier for some, perhaps. Alternatively, I'd welcome any help in providing "in-text" attribution...particularly if the issue is not that there isn't a citation, but that the reader has to tap on a citation link to get that info.


 * In general, I've taken the approach of making the text more readable by providing the cites at the end of the text, however "in-text" attributions do make sense to me, but can clutter the article to the point of illegibility if not done with some sense of where/when this is really needed. Again, an outside perspective on where/when this is necessary would be welcome...albeit with appropriate caution regarding readability. Cheers, --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Discovery, prosecution and assessment" doesn't belong in this article
The history of the RF grand jury is covered in the main article, and doesn't belong here as it doesn't have to do with the topic of the article (Radioactive contamination from the plant). Parts of it are also ridiculously POV. Barring some good reason not to do so, I intend to delete material from the article. --Sjsilverman (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

portions of the article have a biased viewpoint.
As someone who has read hundreds of similar articles, parts of this one stands out as quite biased. As far as I understand it, articles aren't supposed to be opinionated. They are supposed to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No offense, but as someone who has done extensive research on this topic, I very much doubt that there are "hundreds of similar articles" on it. The issue you're likely taking with this article is that it does not portray the U.S. government on the whole in a very good light, something that the facts can and do speak about for themselves.  A saving grace as regards the U.S. government's reputation here is the dramatic fact that it did support and engage in a bizarrely unique raid of the U.S. Department of Energy's Rocky Flats Plant by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency to shut it down.  These are the facts...as is the continuing plutonium contamination (24,000-year half-life) of the Denver metropolitan area.  I certainly wish the facts were otherwise...but that truly is just my opinion.  --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh. No offense but considering you are quite clearly an active contributor to this article and contending that it's not opinionated strikes me as just *slightly* biased.  Good luck with that :)  P.S.  I have no interest in defending the U.S. Gov't (in ASCII text or otherwise.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * None taken. There are 59 citations in this article, and many factual statements.  The grand jury investigation alone uncovered a great deal of factual information.  If you would be kind enough to point out the "opinions" that are in this article (in your opinion ;-), I'd be more than happy to consider editing them out. Cheers.  --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"...and yet has a slightly higher cancer death rate than the U.S. as a whole"
I re-reverted this diff. I think the reference to the preceding paragraph was a mistake because the "healthy Denver" document does not appear to discuss Carl Johnson. More importantly, this phrase in the thread subject appears to be an original synthesis that misrepresents the source - elsewhere the document states "Compared to other large cities across the country, Denver rates better in things such as overall deaths, cancer deaths, and heart disease deaths..." (McConlogue 3) and states that Denver's cancer deaths are in the lowest 13% of cities (McConlogue 13). Additionally, the nationwide cancer death rates for 1999 (the same year that the page 22 table is drawn from) has a 95% confidence margin of +0.6/-0.5, so even ignoring the error bars for Denver's rate the two figures are already not different by a statistically significant margin (the published values on page 22 of McConlogue, which I was unable to replicate exactly, are 201.6 for the US and 202.0 for Denver (all in units of deaths per year per 100k people). VQuakr (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sophistry aside, that quote from the chart shall stand as-is, because it is completely factual. You don't get to cherry-pick the information from the quoted source, nor do I.  It's a highly relevant fact, and pertinent to the story.  Your take is a very convoluted interpretation.  Mine is merely factual.  Just sayin'.  Cheers.  --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:AGF; neither accusing me of "sophistry" nor "cherry picking" is compliant with that guideline. I am disappointed that you chose personal attacks and contradiction rather than actually addressing any of my concerns, as I do not see how your reply addresses them. As a reminder, you do not own this article, and I have in fact contested your claim that what you wrote is a "fact." Would you agree to consider an uninvolved third opinion? VQuakr (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, by all means...please do so. In advance of that, I have removed the "POV" tag but left the "Disputed" tag in place.  We're in disagreement (somehow) about the cited facts, perhaps, but you haven't provided any POV violation claims.  Strictly as an aside, which IMHO is where it belongs, the "no cherry picking" claim I made clearly was an admonishment to the both of us.  Moreover, "sophistry" is not a pejorative, but is rather, by definition:  "A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument." Cheers.  --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion request
Short rephrase: should one number be described in the article as "slightly higher" than the other when they are not different by a statistically significant margin, and does it constitute a violation of WP:SYN to use this description as is currently in the article ? 01:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: The reference and information shouldnt be used at all, there is nothing to tie the results to radioactive contamination. It's clearly WP:SYN. If the source said, "the slight increase in cancer rates can likely be attributed to radioactive contamination", that would perhaps be different. If you looked at any of the other results where Denver is higher, you wouldnt attirbute it to radiation, and you cant here either. Note: I havent read the entire report Nbound (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that Nbound's logic is impeccable -- the reference and its information aren't relevant to this section in terms of either causality or conclusions to be drawn -- and so have struck the same reference and inferences. Very nicely done, Nbound.  Thank you for the review. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, if it hasnt been done already I would suggest rechecking the other references to rule out the same issue. If you guys have anything else you want me to take a look at just pop me a message and link on my talk page... :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We're good. The other references, particularly those added today to the section in question, are directly relevant to Rocky Flats and in fact involved case studies of those in the area affected by plutonium.  In so-doing, I would like to thank VQuakr as well for his having brought my attention back to this article to add those studies to this section today.  An improved article, with citations, is an improved article.  Cheers to all.  --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nbound! VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Effects on health
I added some cleanup tags to the "Effects on health" section, which in my opinion suffers the worst NPOV issues in the article. These were removed without discussion here, so I am starting a section so we can discuss rather than communicating through edit summaries.
 * Despite the fact that elevated levels of plutonium have been found in deceased bone-cancer victims such as 11 year-old Kristen Haag, whose home was six miles away from Rocky Flats...
 * This fails verification - one one cancer victim is listed in the source, not plural "victims." It is an original synthesis since it presupposes that action needs to be taken as a result, in Wikipedia's voice. The source provided, Wasserman, makes it clear that the cancer victim's father is the source of association with this cancer victim with Rocky Flats. I do not think, therefore, that the source is reliable. To keep similar phrasing in the article, we would want a reliable source that shows a significant increase in cancers in the contaminated area and recommends that long-term health studies be performed. A source stating this might exist, but I have not seen it yet and it certainly is not currently in the article.


 * Blog sources - the wordpress.org blog of LeRoy Moore had its "reliable source" tag removed. Moore certainly warrants mention in this article as he has been involved with the plan as an activist for ~40 years. But his blog - a self-published, primary source - lacks peer or editorial review and is being used inappropriately as a source of authoritative information. Note that Moore's PhD is in the social sciences, not biology or physics. When discussing nuclear contamination, an appeal to credentials is doubly inappropriate here. In an edit summary, FormerNukeSubmariner says "LeRoy Moore is the source for this assertion, and his website is full of cited resources...". If that is a case, please cite the reliable sources, not a blog. VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional sources provided. See edit summaries. Cheers. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A reply of "See edit summaries" is not an appropriate justification for your repeated reversions. See WP:REVTALK and WP:AVOIDEDITWAR for the explanation why, but basically edit summaries should be used in coordination with talk page discussion, not as a substitute. In any case, you have not addressed any of my concerns above with your edits or summaries. VQuakr (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been evolving the article in good faith. Done for now, as my invocation of cited facts apparently does not suffice to satisfy your point of view/prejudice regarding my edits.  I may or may not check back.  Have fun.  Cheers.  --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Replacing "despite" with "however" does not resolve the WP:SYN problem correctly identified by VQuakr, who wrote: "It is an original synthesis since it presupposes that action needs to be taken as a result, in Wikipedia's voice." DonFB (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it is nothing short of absurd to somehow "prohibit" a comparison between the two facts by way of a single word that points out the dichotomy, but I have nonetheless removed the "comparison word" if that's such a difficulty for some.  And I am truly amazed at the perceived need for this.  --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Inline tags
I added a number of inline templates to the article today; I think many are self explanatory but if anyone has questions about my concerns, please speak up so I can provide more information. The statement "No government studies of the plutonium contamination and its effect on health are being held as of 2011" in the lede seems to be in pretty obvious contradiction to the documented contaminant monitoring going on in and around RF as part of the legacy of the superfund work, so I will remove it unless there is a reliable source available to confirm this statement. VQuakr (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Enough, VQuakr, you're being a disruptive editor. Based upon the article's record here that anyone can review, I've attempted to resolve your concerns but you keep moving the bar in a frivolous, arbitrary, uninformed fashion. The U.S. government is monitoring on-site Rocky Flats remnants from a contamination standpoint, but it is not conducting, and never has conducted, widespread off-site health monitoring as the cost and liabilities are monumental.  If you had put more energy into becoming familiar with this subject rather than lashing out at imagined foes, you'd already know this.  The U.S. government also continues to refuse to conduct on-going, off-site contamination monitoring, and what minimal amount it has ever conducted was to respond to an old lawsuit from landowners. This is reality.  --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No further edits from me, regardless of what User:VQuakr or others may inflict upon it without first doing the relevant research. I'm done here.  Cheers to all.  --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, cheers. VQuakr (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Lede section edits
I have edited the lede section for accuracy, and am adding this to the talk page due to VQuaker's unsubstantiated wholesale removal of my edits.

The latter part of the lede has most of my attention, partly because it was flat-out incorrect: the Rocky Flats plant site is not part of the new "Refuge," which is actually a perimeter area. Moreover, the refuge is off-limits to humans due to its contamination, much of which is underground.

Am unsure as to what agenda VQuaker is pushing, but in my life I have seen many times that the one who first points the finger (VQuaker: "POV", etc.) is usually the culprit.

Cheers,

--2605:6000:630E:E300:68E8:3BAC:1F55:D2C0 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. To hold out an olive branch to the clearly emotional VQuaker:  let's take the edits one at a time, please, and stick to cited facts in the process. That might prove helpful. --2605:6000:630E:E300:68E8:3BAC:1F55:D2C0 (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The peripheral outer unit was still part of the plant, it just didn't have buildings on it. We accurately summarize this in the lede and go into more detail in the body of the article already, including noting that the DOE still manages the substantially contaminated central operable unit. Please read WP:AGF. The refuge is off limits due to funding, not contamination despite what some activists believe. We already talk about the contamination of Denver in the lede and your addition was not in improvement - particularly, we don't need to cite a general interest mag (The Atlantic) when we already have Martel's and Johnson's published papers. VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This statement: "The land formerly occupied by the plant is now the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge." is rubbish.  The plant was in a relatively small area, and is the area that the DOE now manages.  And the "refuge" does have  plutonium contamination underground.  As the original creator of this article, it's fair to say that I am also more than a bit aware of the published papers it cites.  --2605:6000:630E:E300:7C78:87E0:28B3:B881 (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. See WP:OWN. VQuakr (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's every bit as relevant as your humorously citing Martel and Johnson, whom I first added to the page. Address the facts I've added, please...and stop deleting them. --2605:6000:630E:E300:A57D:FA9B:80B6:52EA (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A statement doesn't become fact just because you say so. The lede needs to summarize the body. Material added needs to be neutral, verifiable, and based on reliable sources. You need to get consensus for contested changes rather than edit warring. You haven't addressed any of this in your responses so far. Do you think getting a third opinion would be helpful in this case? VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The big facts: parts of Denver and the surrounding area were contaminated by plutonium, and the "Wildlife Refuge" does not include the original plant site, but rather encompasses the perimeter area which was somewhat less contaminated by plutonium and other radionuclides. The Johnson material, which I included when originating this article, supports this and more.  You seem to be emotionally tied to some sort of ego-centric outcome that frankly escapes me in terms of refuting any facts I've presented...including, very much, Johnson.  If your real issue is style, that's no justification for deleting my edits in their entirety.  You're hardly the final arbiter for style on an article that you are simply one more contributor to.  --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. To avoid edit warring in the future, may I suggest that you not delete entire sets of edits by authors you haven't even communicated with.  That's edit warring at the outset. Not a good quality to embrace. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question or address any of the issues I brought up. A statement doesn't become fact just because you say so. You are presupposing a conclusion and ignoring the sources. When you do that you are not editing an encyclopedia; you are publishing your opinion. This is not a blog or forum for your opinions. VQuakr (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * PS no, I reverted a proposed change, which is a a normal part of the editing process. I also only reverted the parts that were problematic (which admittedly was almost all in this case). It became edit warring when you attempted to "force it through" rather than seeking consensus here. VQuakr (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130724044900/http://www.rockyflatsnuclearguardianship.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/leroy-moore-papers/dem-public-heath-at-rf-12-10.pdf to http://www.rockyflatsnuclearguardianship.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/leroy-moore-papers/dem-public-heath-at-rf-12-10.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) 10:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Availability of grand jury report
I raise the question whether the third paragraph of the "Legal actions" section of the article is correct in saying that the grand jury report "remains sealed by the DOJ courts." The website Constitution.org says it shows the unredacted report, which can be seen here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160107032001/http://www.constitution.org/jury/gj/rocky_flats/rocky-flats-grand-jury-report.htm The original webpage address at the Consitution.org website no longer worked (the site itself seems as though it has just expired), so I found the page in the Internet Archive and accordingly edited the existing reference in this article. Is the grand jury report still officially "unreleased" by the government, even though the unredacted report is evidently available online? If so, I think it would help readers for this article to give a brief explicit explanation (in one sentence, or a phrase in an existing sentence) of the situation. DonFB (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is actually sufficient in this matter as-is -- this is the current state of affairs per this link:


 * The hearings, whose findings include that the Justice Department had "bargained away the truth,"[87]:98 ultimately still did not fully reveal the special grand jury's report to the public, which remains sealed by the court.[82][87]:Ch 6, note 54


 * The special grand jury report was nonetheless leaked to Westword and excerpts published in its September 29, 1992 issue.[88]


 * But I have added this as well, a quote from Dr. Carl Johnson's replacement, Dr. Mark Johnson (no relation) which is current as of September 2020:


 * "...I have called for an independent review of all the collected Rocky Flats data to determine where the risk lies. I have also called for the unsealing of the Rocky Flats grand jury report. I believe the public has the right to know what occurred at Rocky Flats, and what the risk may still be of recreating on or living near the refuge."


 * --104.15.130.191 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Substantial re-work needed
This article has gone downhill quite a bit, often due to POV-pushing editors who quote findings/data points that they like when they show up in the news, but are all "crickets" when something substantial like the shutdown of the Jefferson County Parkway Project (Denver's northwest quadrant beltway) happens due to the high plutonium levels found. This latter information is only being incorporated *eight months* after the fact, for instance.

The titles of the articles subsections -- and their contents -- have substantial overlap, and the flow of the article in its current state has both dead-ends and non sequiturs (due to the above dynamic).

"Help Needed" to fix this article. It essentially needs restructuring and a reflow for removal of redundancies, and reformatting or deletion of dated/superseded information.

Specifically, the content of these sections is highly unstructured/overlapping/dated. In short, they need editing -- and quite a bit of that:


 * 3	Reporting of contamination
 * 4	Contamination and health studies
 * 5	Legal actions
 * 6	Legacy
 * 7	Public opposition and support

I've personally given as much time to this as I can afford (for now)...but I do believe I put a solid dent in its problems. Your assistance appreciated.

--104.15.130.191 (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)