Talk:Ramsar, Iran

Radioactivity resistance

 * This high level of radiation does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area and even possibly has made them slightly more radioresistant, which is puzzling and has been called "radiation paradox". It has also been claimed that residents have healthier and longer lives.

These claims need references. I put a fact-tag on the first sentence because it had no reference. The second sentence has a reference, but it is to a brief mention in passing from a geologist, not from a medical study from a reliable source. In my opinion both of these claims should be treated with extreme skepticism unless reliable medical studies are cited. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the dubious tag is warranted. The article Radiation hormesis contains some citations that could also be attached to the Ramsar article. The article states "It has also been claimed that residents have healthier and longer lives". That is not dubious at all. Claims like that have been in fact made by many studies (Just read the linked article). Whether those claims turn out to be true or not is, of course, is still controversial but the Ramsar article doesn't take sides on that controversy simply stating the true fact that claims of radiation hormesis have been made. You should remove the tag. BTW I happen to believe that there is likely some truth to those claims. Dauto (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The article does not need work.

It currently reads in part The prevailing model of radiation-induced cancer posits that the risk rises linearly with dose at a rate of 5% per Sv.

That is not only unreferenced and untrue, it is pure political propaganda. The prevailing model does nothing of the sort, as the following sentence does attempt to clarify. Such claims are common in anti-nuclear-power literature, and it is permissible and even good to repeat them here if they are properly sourced. But they should not be repeated in the voice of Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A source for the 5.5%/Sv claim is given in Radiation-induced_cancer. Is that not good enough? Amaurea (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not good enough. If the claim is made in this article, the source should be cited in this article.
 * Does the source say that the prevailing model is the LNT model, and that the LNT predicts the risk rises linearly, or just that the risk rises at most linearly? The latter claim is valid. The former is a misapplication of the LNT. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Flagged2
I have flagged the claim as dubious. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Background Radiation
I believe a mention of Ramsar having a high level of natural radiation is warranted. Ref: http://www.probeinternational.org/Ramsar.pdf Kevink707 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ramsar Montage.png

They are talking to gilaki language
They are talking to gilaki language 5.121.108.181 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

143 or 14.3 microsieverts per hour?
In the photo showing the dosimeters, is it certain that the dosimeter shows 143 microsieverts per hour? This is a HUGE number, amounting to 1250 mSv (1250000 microsieverts) per year if continuously exposed, since 0.143 mSv * 365 * 24 = 1250 mSv

Are the readings not 14.3 microsieverts per hour, which would lead to annual exposure of about 125 mSv/a? Still this is a very very large amount. Fsikkema (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)