Talk:Three Mile Island accident health effects

Proposed Merge
This article has useful information in it, and I don't think it deserves to be separated from the main article on the accident. If I were thumbing through a paper encyclopedia, I would expect the article on the accident to discuss the aftermath in full. I don't think the extra few paragraphs added to the main article would be unwieldy. I'm proposing the merger now, and if there's no objections I'll get back to it in a month and do it. Michael (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I vote no. I would rather that this article stay separate.  The main TMI article is already quite long. I don't see the point in merging them.  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This is one of the advantages of having links.  More detailed information can be held on a linked page. Crumley (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I support that it be moved back. If it will make the article too long, at least be combed for essential information that has been stripped from the main article.  I only became aware today that the Wing study is not mentioned in the main article when someone edited the entire report in, which will, of course, need to be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of merging. Reading about the health effects of the radiation is probably the main reason anyone reads the TMI article. 67.116.255.66 (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I vote that the article on TMI accident health effects be merged with the article on TMI. I agree that it is properly contextualized with the main article, and is a critically important aspect of the event. Most people researching TMI would be interested in knowing the health effects. I do not think it will make the article too long. Netherzone (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I came back 5 years later to take a look, and since there were conflicting opinions, decided not to merge. Michael (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiple Issues
This article has a lot of sections that talk about the negative effects of the accident, but that doesn't reflect the current literature, which finds nearly no negative effects. The article also draws heavily from 2 sources -- Joseph Mangano and Dr. Steven Wing. In addition to the cited lines, there are several sentences lifted from Mangano that are not cited. (IMO this could verge on plagiarism.) It's good to show "both sides" of the story, but it needs to be done from a neutral point of view. Michael (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * it's shocking that this article hasn't been completely scrubbed of these claims. there is zero evidence of any negative effects. just a lot of noise and oil industry propaganda. one glaring and obvious issue is the measurement of radiation. normally you would measure exposure in not just the amount but in the time. for example, the exposure you get from a chest x-ray is just a few seconds. what people don't realize is the exposure alleged to have occurred at Three Mile Island was extremely low (less than a dose you receive from eating a banana) and this was measured over years. 69.113.236.26 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Source #5 is not actually evidence for the point it is supposed to be
“Incidence of thyroid cancer in residents surrounding the three-mile island nuclear facility“

In this piece, it says there were increases in thyroid cancer rates in two counties close to TMI. However, those increases could not be causally linked to the accident at TMI. The key issue there is causal inference, which is incredibly difficult. This citation is being used to say there are numerous studies showing no link, but that is not what this piece does— it shows *a* link, just not one that can be considered causal evidence. 2600:1700:BB58:8E90:747C:C5D4:625:4F14 (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)