Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 4

The graphs???

What is the does units for the first graph? The 2nd graph means nothing when you really lok at it. It means that at the end only CS-148 was the only iodide that was in the air, but gives no meaning of dosage and it is survived at the end becasue it probably has the highest half life.

Qualifications of Dyatlov

Currently the article states: "Anatoliy Dyatlov himself, deputy chief engineer of reactors 3 and 4, had only "some experience with small nuclear reactors", namely smaller versions of the VVER nuclear reactors that were designed for the Soviet Navy's nuclear submarines."

This implies that Dyatlov was not qualified to be a deputy chief engineer of a nuclear power plant. However, according to http://rrc2.narod.ru/book/gl0.html (Abridged Biography of A.S Dyatlov, in Russian), he transfered to Chernobyl NPP from Lenin Komsomol Ship Building Plant at Komsomolsk-na-Amure in 1973, started at a deputy chief of reactor maintenance and advanced to deputy chief operations engineer of NPP. 12 years of experience at Chernobyl hardly seems to imply lack of qualification.

Does this warrant correction/rewording?

Wormwood

Does Chernobyl really mean "wormwood" as some state as evidence for the Christian End Times? -- Kent Wang 17:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to an Arte report diffused a few days ago, it does. Lapaz 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My friends in Ukraine have told me that it does, but I count this as evidence, rather than proof, since their English language translation is not perfect. Kierant 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Look it up in wikipedia :-) Chernobyl means mugwort rather than wormwood. Both plants belong to the same genus artemisia though. Sometimes the name of the most common species is used to refer to the whole genus. By the way, the wormwood mentioned in the bible most probably was a different weed. The author of land of the wolves also connects the word to a plant on her way through the deserted landscape north of Kiev.-----<(kaimartin)>--- 08:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Claimed Policy Violations and grey areas

OK, but there have been conspiracy theories. No system, including Wikipedia's is perfect. I will put this article as due for Cleanup and look for an admin to have a look at it because i think that we should leave in the argument about conspiracy. It is not violating NPOV, because we are not saying there were conspiracies, but just there might have been. I will use a citation, common sense. Common sense here would not go amiss, just use common sense, i don't think there was a conspiracy, but why not include it? We are not here to just reproduce one point of view. Wikipedia can go further into articles and stories, it may be sensible at this rate to have another article. "Chernobyl Conspiracy Theories." Innocent until proven guilty aside, I know, just from my instincts and common sense that we should leave the conspiracy theory in.

86.140.242.55 18:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to Hiroshima

As this sentence is only very misleading, I have not totally deleted it, but am moving it to the separate Chernobyl_accident_effects article where it is better placed and will add a proviso to it. - Axel Berger 21:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed report?

I removed the following:

from the intro since the reference does not support the assertion.

It does, in that Greenpeace claims a much higher death toll than the IAEA report. However, that specific reference is no longer necessary, as there are other examples of how the figure is disputed now present in the article that weren't when the original reference to Greenpeace was added. --Robert Merkel 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition to Other Disasters List

I added the 9/11 hijackings to the list of other man-made disasters due to that event's historical and national significance. I pulled the death toll from the corresponding Wikipedia article. In making this addition, I deliberately did not distinguish between deliberate and accidental man-made disasters, but at the same time, I did not consider 9/11 to be an act of war perpetrated by one state against another. Had I chosen to include acts of war - most notably the siege and battle of Stalingrad, with over a million casualties - doing so would have rendered the inclusion of the list in this article meaningless.

I think this addition does not belong to this section. It´s obviously out of "synch" with the other disasters. This section was meant to be accidental disasters, on par with Chernobyl. Terrorism does not apply here. Historical and national significance does not alone make this addition pertainable to the list of man made disasters. You do not consider 9/11 to be an act of war, but that´s your opinion, POV. We should avoid it. If it enter the list then the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, much more properly, should made into the list too (they are, after all, nuclear man made disasters). Regards Loudenvier 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wet suit story in "Immediate Crisis Management"

The article says: "Two of these were sent in wet suits to release the valve to vent the radioactive water, and thus prevent a thermal explosion. These men, just like the other liquidators and firefighters that helped with the cleanup, were not told of the danger they faced. The two men saved millions by releasing the water, yet it is likely they did not even reach the surface again before they died." I never heard this before, is there a source? 84.191.221.158 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, it contains weasel words and it doesn't make sense. Water is an excellent radiation shield, it's completely implausible that these two received a high enough dose to be immediately incapacitated. If no source is added, it should be removed. 88.73.246.202 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, i can easily imagine that water might have radioactive material either dissolved or suspended within it, which would mean it was bringing the radioactivity to you, rather than doing any shielding. Sandpiper 23:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

removed some part

I have removed ", and large areas in the UK are still banned from selling sheep because of contamination arising from the accident", since it is not supported by the cited article.

And I have reinserted it, as it is. Please sign your contributions. Thanks. Guinnog 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The BBC article does not claim that selling the sheep is banned, although they are not allowed to enter the human food chain. This government pdf shows the current status. I suggest the sentence should be "... and sheep farming in some areas of the UK still operates under government restrictions on movement and sales because of contamination arising from the accident" Joffan 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The updated text is not bad, but sheep from affected farms are not prohibited outright from entering the food chain, but they are subject to testing before they may be sold. The entry should be edited accordingly.--DocS 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that Guinnog 21:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Stolen funds

A big claim like "Most of the money donated by foreign countries and contributed by Ukraine has been squandered by inefficient distribution of construction contracts and overall management, or simply stolen." needs some supporting evidence so I've removed it until some is provided. --Xilog 15:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Computer Virus

The CIH computer virus was popularly named "the Chernobyl virus" by many in the media, after the fact that the v1.2 variant activated on April 26 of each year: the anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. However, this is simply because of a coincidence with the virus author's birthday.

Is this true?  How do we know that's why the person who created the virus began it then?  Maybe we should re-phrase to

However, this may be a coincidence with the virus author's birthday?

IPPNW

Lapaz, you seem very keen to include an IPPNW report referenced in a Le Monde article[1]. However, a search of the IPPNW website[2] does not reveal the report. On a topic such as this I do not think Wikipedia should use it unless and until it is actually published, and even then not with the prominence it currently has in the article. Additionally, if there are no English sources for the information given on such a topic it would be highly unusual and rather suspicious. Joffan 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This might be of interest http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4917526.stm Guinnog 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that would be a reasonable study to mention in the article - fully sourced, publicly available. Joffan 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is the IPPNW's Nobel Peace Prize (awarded before Chernobyl even happened, for anti-proliferation work) relevant to the Chernobyl accident? It seems like a POV-related attempt to inflate the IPPNW's credibility relative to the IAEA (which, coincidentally, won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for its anti-proliferation activities) and the WHO. Both references removed pending justification.--DocS 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It also seems redundant to include detail of the 2005 report and controversy up front in the introduction, and again (in barely more detail) in its own section. Perhaps the mentions in the introduction are best replaced with a summary sentence, with the details left to the appropriate section?--DocS 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The IPPNW report is referenced by the Le Monde article [3] but also by Arte article [4], which is an interview of the head of the German section of the IPPNW. I suppose that when an organization gains a Nobel prize, it should be mentioned. If you feel that for NPOV it should also be mentioned that the IAEA has recently won that prize, you could also add it (I underlined it for the IPPNW, because as it is not an official organization such as the famous IAEA, it is important, in my eyes, for the reader to know this fact). Concerning the study itself and that a search on the IPPNW website doesn't reveal it (I made the same search and I'm of course surprised as you are - maybe it is the search engine?), I will argue that:

• there is no Wikipedia policy against the use of foreign languages
• there is no Wikipedia policy against the use of resources not published on the internet

To call this study "fictionous" when two major French media, Le Monde newspaper and Arte German-French TV (I could also add the AFP news agency) have talked about it is outrageous, to say the least. However, it does give interesting insight concerning the worldwide perception of the Chernobyl catastrophe. There is no reason to delete this reference; in fact, if you feel on insisting on this theme, I would advise you (please do not take offence for this suggestion) to send a letter to the BBC asking them why Le Monde, Arte and the AFP have deemed it interesting enough to report it but not the BBC itself? Lapaz 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the Nobel Prizes awarded to IAEA or IPPNW pertain in any way to their work on Chernobyl and, as such, are not relevant to this article. --DocS 14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to explain the reason of the inclusion of this study. When the 2005 IAEA report was publicized, it was harshly criticized by several organizations and scientists. Those critics were reported by the AFP among others. So, when I read six months later that the IPPNW had published an alternate report and explicitly criticized this controversial report (I suppose the term "controversial" is here, for once, totally adequate and it would be in fact confusing not to qualify it as such), I searched Wikipedia for the Chernobyl catastrophe. So I was really surprised when, while tens of studies have been done, the only one quoted by Wikipedia was the IAEA 2005 report! This was certainly against NPOV, and this is why I insist on having alternate reports. Discussions on numbers are far from over, and there is many legitimate reasons, whatever your POV, to take at least with some precaution a report made by the IAEA (which is not exactly the most anti-nuclear organization in the world, albeit it won a Nobel peace prize!) and, even more importantly, by Belarus (which recent elections have highlighted to world opinion the nature of its very "democratic" regime...), Russia (same goes...see the repression on NGOs) and Ukraine. Lapaz

Mention of the IPPNW report should be included, but a direct reference should be provided; snippets from a news report make for a weak reference, and may be misleading as to the report's conclusions.--DocS 16:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The interview with Angelika Claussen, head of the German IPPNW, is not misleading. The Le Monde article isn't either. The report exists, and is referenced. Lapaz

Lapaz, you have not shown that the IPPNW report exists. Certainly someone at IPPNW has persuaded a couple of newspapers to print their press releases but until I see a direct reference to the report I am not convinced. Without widespread access to the report, how do you know that the news reports are accurate?

I intend to again remove all references to this report shortly, pending your response of course.

Your persistence in equating the Chernobyl Forum to the IAEA, untrue despite the IAEA's key role in this group, undermines everything you say about this topic, especially since the WHO actually led the health consequence study. Joffan 23:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The 2 big players in the Forum are the IAEA and the WHO. Their relationship is... well... lease Google "wha 12.40" who iaea Natmaka 23:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as per the above:

from the introduction:

from the fatality estimates:

Joffan 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

PUT back:

"According to the April 2006 report by the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW), entitled "Chernobyl's consequences on health", more than 10 000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50 000 cases are expected. The IPPNW projected tens of thousands dead among the liquidators. In Europe, it alleged that 10 000 deformities have been observed in newborns because of Chernobyl's radioactive discharge, with 5 000 deaths among newborn children. They also claimed that several hundreds of thousands of the people who worked on the site after the accident are now sick because of radiation, and tens of thousands are dead. Moreover, according to the Union Chernobyl, the main organization of liquidators, 10% of the 600 000 liquidators are now dead, and 165 000 disabled [5] and see also the interview with Angelika Claussen, head of the German section of the IPPNW, [6].

Are you claiming that this IPPNW report does not exist? I have put sources to prove its existence, one from Le Monde the other from Arte. They should be more than enough. There is no need to have access to the original report to read about it, two mainstream news article are more than enough. Your allegations about my equating the Chernobyl Forum to the IAEA are either a complete misunderstanding or a simple personal attack. Please assume good faith concerning this kind of stuff. And, concerning this report, I am not asking you to assume good faith, just to respect the fact that there are two references about it, so it does exist. I think the problem is more that these references are in French, although you don't point the fact out. Maybe because this is not an argument against them, neither in good faith, nor according to Wikipedia policies. I am therefore putting the IPPNW report again, as it is a scientific report which is useful. Lapaz 12:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Beside, deleting the Nature article is kind of ill-advised and surely has no real rationale behind it. Lapaz 12:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Nature article is both redundant (the UN materials are already referenced directly) and POV. --DocS 13:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Which other document or link provides the very same informations? It is not POV, it quotes the very researcher who provided some results used in the report, and describes the report's publication and publicity process, among other interesting informations. Let's summarize it, or at least reference it Natmaka 20:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem out of line to me to mention the IPPNW report in the controversy section, as long as it's made clear that it's not been published (which I've done). It doesn't belong up front in the article intro, given its uncertain status and the fact that IPPNW is not a recognized authority. Contrast this with the WHO, Greenpeace and TORCH reports, which are publicly available and can be evaluated accordingly by interested readers. --DocS 13:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That the report is not available on the Internet does not mean that it is not published!!!! Of course it has been published, otherwise who would have been read it??? We don't necessarily have to put it in the intro because there are already alternative estimates, but it certainly is here. Regarding the IPPNW status, it is as recognized as Greenpeace may be, so the difference is only about it being "publicly available on the internet":

"Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources." (WP:RS)

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability). For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper. However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources." (ibid)"

I point out that the interview of Angelika Claussen is a primary source and that these policies support what I've been trying to say. Otherwise, I agree with Docs' comments about the intro, we shouldn't make it too confusing. I insist again that the IPPNW is not just any organization, and is surely relevant concerning a debate about radioactivity!!! (same goes for Greenpeace, which is surely a legitimate source in this kind of article, but would be less interesting in an article about Neptune planet). Lapaz 13:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The report needn't be available from the web, but the IPPNW itself makes no mention of this report anywhere on their website, nor do they list it in their list of publications. --DocS 13:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And, to Joffan regarding the epistemological judgment about the IPPNW report itself: "However, bear in mind that it is not the job of Wikipedians to do original research. We report what reliable publications publish. We do not investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong. See Wikipedia:No original research." In other words, it is totally NPOV saying that the IPPNW report says such and such, and we're not here to verify it. This would of course be totally above my personal possibilities, and, assuming you're not a Nobel physician with access to five laboratory teams and good connections with former Soviet scientists who have investigated in the thing, etc., I assume you don't either have the capacity of evaluating the truth of this report... or of the Chernobyl Forum's report or the TORCH report either, for this matter. Let us quote these various reports, and all of the important ones, not only the ones who got to the ears of the BBC. Beside CNN and the BBC, there are other medias in the world, and the Agence France Presse is not the least important of those. Lapaz 13:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If Le Monde and Arte is not enough, I urge you to report yourself to the AFP news cable of April 6, 2006, 16h03, titled "Le bilan de l'Onu des victimes de Tchernobyl sous-estimé (ONG)". Because of copyright reasons, I am not allowed to reproduce the article hereby, but may send you personally extracts about it. However, it should be unnecessary, since Le Monde and Arte are usually considered as reliable sources as AFP. I have no access to Reuters or AP and therefore can't search their archives about a news cable concerning the IPPNW report, but assume that this third reference will be enough to prove its existence. I urge you to find a French Wikipedian to translate you the Arte interview if you insist on disbelieving me. Lapaz 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have found direct citations by the German affiliate and the student movement of IPPNW regarding the report. I have replaced the press material with direct links. --DocS 14:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, cheers mate! I think that settle it. I'll still add the Monde ref though, concerning the Union Chernobyl's evaluation. Lapaz 14:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems we are closer to establishing that the German branch of IPPNW may have produced a review, although the report itself remains elusive. So far we have an English-language summary of a literature review, concluding with a call for the shutdown of all European nuclear reactors (I guess the French don't need electricity :) ). The "full-report" link is broken. Lapaz, you want to do some digging? Joffan 16:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move to Chernobyl disaster

It is proposed that the name of this article be moved to Chernobyl disaster to bring it inline with similar industrial disasters like the Bhopal disaster. This was no mere accident. An accident would have been someone crashing their car into a group of pedestrians. This was a long term, far reaching, and environmentally catastrophic occurance.

• Support Septentrionalis 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support—G.He_(Talk!) 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support — It was an accident that led to a disaster. Joffan 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Guinnog 06:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Isopropyl 06:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Loudenvier 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support — Whatever the cause, it was clearly disasterous. Kierant 13:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (Aid worker, Chernobyl area, Ukraine)
• Support --DocS 13:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For notice, the French name of the article is fr:Catastrophe de Tchernobyl. Lapaz 14:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Natmaka 14:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above. David Kernow 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. A suggestion, though: not to belie the effects or importance of this catastrophe, but Chernobyl incident might be more ... appropriate? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, not so sure about that. "Incident" makes it sound like Soviet propoganda trying to cover-up how disasterous this actually was. Nuclear fallout reached the eastern U.S. from this event. Hardly an "incident".JohnnyBGood t c 18:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've never read Pravda. :) Agreed: I acknowledge that a spade is a spade, but the intent of the alternate/suggestion is to mitigate potential hyperbole when rendering article titles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - @E Pluribus Anthony, Incident ranks below Accident in my vocabulary. An acccident is an incident in which someone is injured. I don't think Disaster is hyperbole for the consequences of Chernobyl. If we were restricted to (say) 50 "disasters" in the whole of Wikipedia, Chernobyl should make the list. Joffan 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Xilog 09:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support disaster seem to be the most appropriate (even the Challenger disaster uses the word "disaster" instead of "accident". --Berkut 09:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It is done.--Shanel ^§ 00:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

2005 IAEA/WHO Report

It appears that the total long-term casualties predicted by this report is 9000, not 4000 as widely reported. (4000 among the most exposed, 5000 among the much larger groups with less exposure). The entries will be updated accordingly.--DocS 13:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

May you please state where the 9000 figure sits? Thank you! Natmaka 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the report estimated the number to be between 4 000 and 9 000, as this BBC news article shows. Lapaz 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The BBC article is incorrect; this is not a range. The 4000 figure is only for the 200,000 liquidators and 400,000 civilians living closest to the plant at the time. The additional 5,000 (for a total of 9,000) includes fatalities from the ~7M people in the wider area exposed to lower levels of radiation.--DocS 15:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Official report, page 106, 2 first paragraphs. Total: 9000. As a sidenote the second group is 6e6+ tall Natmaka 15:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.. good catch. I'll correct the 6.8 million figure to 6 million --DocS 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In the existing text "estimated that as many as 9,000 people, among the approximately 6.6 million, will ultimately die" I'm affraid that "the 6.6 million" is not very accurate. [7] states "A reasonable central estimate is about 4,000 fatal radiation induced cancers during the lifetime of the 600,000 most highly exposed individuals and perhaps another 5,000 in more peripheral populations.", therefore we may replace the quoted text above by: "estimated that as many as 9,000 people, among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed, will ultimately die" Natmaka 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

IAEA disinformation

Sept. 2005: the Chernobyl Forum (IAEA, in fact), during a press conference, publishes an abstract of its draft report stating that 4000 people have and will die. But the name of the authors abstract and report was not known, it did not state that those 4000 people are from a small subset of the human beings concerned, the report did not contain the key sentence of the abstract, the report was presented as an UN report albeit it was not (it is published by agencies, and not published by UN), it was only a draft...

The abstract (4,000 people will die from the effects of the 1986 accident at Chernobyl) was largely propagated (see for example this BBC's account).

April 2006: the very same Chernobyl Forum discreetly publishes the definitive version of the report, where this 4000 figure was replaced by 9000, and limited to a subset of the European population. It was then accepted by the UN. See http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060417/full/440982a.html, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4922508.stm

Let's clearly state that this 4000 figure was plain disinformation (this is a magnificient case for disinformation!) Natmaka 07:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, Natmaka, that your above comment is a better candidate for disinformation; unsigned, and falsely alleging that the Chernobyl Forum is nothing more than the IAEA.

Joffan 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

...or... did the IAEA change mind? Lapaz

Oops, I signed it here. And I'm there. It is not unsigned. Moreover the IAEA is the founder and most prominent member of the Forum... and it handles the WHO in this atomic field. Even without any interpretation we do have here a superb case of disinformation Natmaka 07:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

I think it's important that this article not read like Greenpeace or IPPNW marketing material; its credibility would diminish accordingly. I have excised some of the worst examples of POV language.--DocS 16:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The IAEA/Forum can plainly disinform, for example by stating A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded. (albeit the report was a draft, did not contain such assertion, the names of the scientists stating that there will be 4,000 dead remains unknown...). See [8] and [9].

Then some truth started to shrine.

Will we only fix the article by replacing 4000 by 9000? The article now containts as many as 9,000 people may ultimately die from long term accident-related illnessesand he total predicted number of deaths due to the accident at 9,000... Are we neglecting that this last figures (9000) is only stated ((please read the definitive report, page 106) for solid cancers and for the approx 7 million most exposed people, ignoring both other pathologies and other European people affected? This is blatantly misleading.

Aren't we somewhat neglecting that Wikipedia published for numerous month a plain false 4,000 figure? Let's clearly state, in the article, this patent attempt to disinform Natmaka 16:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no question that the IAEA press release was misleading. This does not bear on the content of the actual report, nor the validity of the various estimates by the WHO, Greenpeace or others. State the facts, and readers can decide which studies are more credible. Debates on the relative credibility of UN agencies versus Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear activist groups do not belong in an encyclopedic article on the Chernobyl disaster.--DocS 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't escape debate on numbers, and the IAEA report has been since the beginning highly controversial. The point is to show that there are various estimates, for various reasons (of which you are well aware). Lapaz

There's no problem with presenting the various figures; there is a problem when POV opinions on the figures are presented in the article, as was the case.--DocS 12:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: it is clearly stated in the article as currently written where the 4000/9000 figures in the 2005 report come from, and what populations each is based upon.--DocS 16:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clearly state my point, then edited the article. Let us know Natmaka 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your changes make sense. It's not clear to me that the WHO health report itself has changed since Sept 2005, though.--DocS 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The POV situation in the IAEA report sections has gotten completely out of control, and probably merits an NPOV title on the article. Dedicating 4 or 5 lines to the content of the report, and then ten times that number to opposing views (with a heavy slant on attack quotes) is textbook POV. --DocS 14:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Prejudicial section title fixed to "Controversy over fatality estimates". POV sections and repetitions (some of the TORCH report related stuff was repeated *three* times) removed to restore some balance. Quoting in length from only selected reports is pretty blatant.--DocS 15:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the TORCH report saying that...

"In terms of their surface areas, Belarus (22% of its land area) and Austria (13%) were most affected by higher levels of contamination. Other countries were seriously affected; for example, more than 5% of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden were contaminated to high levels (> 40,000 Bq/m2 caesium-137). More than 80% of Moldova, the European part of Turkey, Slovenia, Switzerland, Austria and the Slovak Republic were contaminated to lower levels (> 4,000 Bq/m2 caesium-137). And 44% of Germany and 34% of the UK were similarly affected." (See map of radioactive fallout of Caesium-137 in Europe)"

...is relevant information. If you don't like this estimate, than finds one which contradict it. You won't find it in the AIEA report, since the TORCH report explictly states that the AIEA report only considered contaminated areas with higher than 40 000 Bq per square meters. This is no POV! I'm sure you are aware that no one on Earth disputes that radioactivity is dangerous, the controversy among scientists is about which level of radioactivity can be considered dangerous. So the controversy necessarily is on numbers estimates (is an area contaminated with more than 4 000 bq/m2 dangerous? Or is it only dangerous with more than 40 000 bq/m2? Is 1 000 Bq/kg in food dangerous (as the UE has it)? Or does danger begins with 300 Bq/Kg (lower estimates followed by scientists such as Yuri Bandhazevsky. This is the real controversy, and deleting precise numbers is certainly not a way to enforce NPOV. Other modifications were welcomed. Lapaz 15:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If that were the only passage returned to the article, I wouldn't have reverted it. It is, however, repetitive with the bullet summary of the TORCH report immediately above and one or the other should be removed. Your insistence on injecting attempts to discredit the UN report, even into the single paragraph dedicated to the actual report itself, and the presentation of the conficting claims in UN-claim-then-refutation format, are blatant POV-pushing. I will not be violating the three-revert rule, but if the article continues to read like promotional material for your preferred viewpoint, I will be adding an NPOV tag. --DocS 15:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Input and impressions from other editors would be welcome on this issue--DocS 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I share Doc S's impression of imbalance. I also think it is very dangerous to rely on what one report says about another. ("... the TORCH report explictly states that the AIEA report only considered...") This is often inaccurate or selective, as in this case. Joffan 23:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This entire section is now so totally unbalanced as to render it useless for research purposes. References to the Chernobyl forum report being challenged should be limited to providing basic details of the challenges and links to enable the reader to further research and form their own POV. The groups cited as disputing the IAEA report clearly have agenda's of their own and I find the reference to 'Elisabeth Cardis of the International Agency for Research on Cancer' particularly disconcerting as there is no reference as to whether Ms Cardis was speaking on her own behalf or as spokesperson for the IARC, which is part of the WHO who, in turn, were part of the forum which made the intial report.

Valve heroes?

I have some questions regarding the section:

The problem presented by this was the fact that the smouldering fuel and other material on the reactor floor was starting to burn its way through this floor, and was being made worse by materials being dropped from helicopters, which simply acted as a furnace to increase the temperatures further. If this material came into contact with the water, it would have generated a thermal explosion which would have arguably been worse than the initial reactor explosion itself, and would have, by many estimates, rendered land in a radius of hundreds of miles from the plant uninhabitable for at least one hundred years.

In order to prevent this, "liquidators"—members of the army and other workers—were sent in as cleanup staff by the Soviet government. Two of these were sent in wet suits to release the valve to vent the radioactive water, and thus prevent a thermal explosion. ....

1) Which material do you mean?

2) Are there any references describing this event?

3) Especially, typical pipe diameter around the reactor is 400 mm, can its valves be operated by humans? (See [10] how it looks now under the reactor)

4) Is really concact of "lava" with water really so explosive (hundreds of miles)? Usual lava is not...

Otherwise, thanks for a nice article.... Tomáš —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.240.168.50 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC) -213.219.162.40 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but my understanding of the paragraph is:

• 1) the material was fragments of the reactor assembly: graphite, rod linings, pipes, as well as the uranium oxide fuel
• 2) I found no cite for the exact claims, but BBC news cites concerns of contaminating Kiev's water supplies.
• 3) interesting link, although the comments are often wildly uninformed. If you mean [11] then the comments indicate they are steam dump valves and not water vent valves. From the reactor diagram I would say the vent valves are at levels below those images.
• 4) the material was molten and very hot, maybe around 3000 Kelvin (fuel oxide mixed with anything that it had flowed through). At this temperature almost any metal will react violently with the superheated steam that would arise after contact with water. Even Uranium dioxide appears to further oxidise in air and (slowly) in room temperature water. I do not know if the rate of reaction in 3000 K steam is sufficient for a Thermal explosion (Thermal runaway) (which could have been worse than the original explosion), but maybe simply a steam explosion would have ejected a lot of the graphite and other particles outside the reactor and into the atmosphere to be dispersed over a large area. -213.219.162.40 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this last sentence of the second paragraph, shown by Tomáš as "..." (claim requires cite): The two men saved millions by releasing the water, yet it is likely they did not even reach the surface again before they died. -213.219.162.40 22:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Tomáš wrote: So,. googling yielded some references, and, they were -- divers. Their fate is not mentioned in these links.

[12] : The Soviets were worried about the possibility of the core collapsing into the water pool below, causing a burst of steam. So they sent courageous divers into the pool to open some valves and empty it.

[13] : Worse yet, underneath the shattered reactor core was a concrete base, situated just above a "bubbler pool" of water. If the uranium burned through the concrete, it would react with the water, turning it into hydrogen and oxygen which would promptly detonate with horrific results. Unfortunately, the water could only be drained through gate valves located at the bottom of the pool. Two brave engineers volunteered to dive to the bottom and open the flood gates; they succeeded despite great risk to personal health [Read 132-135].

Where [Read] Read, Piers Paul. Ablaze: The Story of the Heroes and Victims of Chernobyl. New York: Random House, 1993.

As I understand this and other references, they thought, that the hot core would en-block fall into the pool but it actually formed lava streams.

Soviet sign/medal

I changed the "medal" to a "sign" because it is not actually a medal. Soviet awards were divided into signs, medals, orders and Hero stars. They have differences in fixing mechanism, signs have not usually any information its back side. Medals usually have round shape and special 5-angle form for strip holder. Also differs the awarding mechanism. Such sign was awarded to any liquidator, not for special heroism and it did not need special decision from any council. This sign is just like "Победитель соцсоревнования" sign.--Nixer 16:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Sign" may be a literal translation but it doesn't read well in English... perhaps just "award" would be a better choice? Joffan 02:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not an award I guess. For example on medals may be written "To participant of..." or "For participation in...", here we see "Participant of liquidation...". May be it shoul be translated as "decoration"--Nixer 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Mark" is perhaps a better word which can mean the same as "sign". As in eg. "This is a mark of your participation in..." Joffan 20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe badge? At least its the literal translation, I think, because in Russian the word for badge is the deminutive from the word for sign... Some of such badges (and this one I suppose) had the shape like a medal or order and even had a certificate of the same type.--Nixer 09:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Badge" sounds good - changed. Joffan 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Link removal

This article has a lot of link spam (people adding their commercial website or a friend's/personal website) and links that are just not very useful. The article is fairly thorough, and websites that don't add anything significant should be removed.

I suggest removing non-English websites that don't have translations, as well, because they are not useful to our readers. People who speak those languages can click on the links to the Russian, Polish or Ukranian articles. The links could be moved those articles, too. None of the links appear to be essential.

Most, but not all, of the links about Pripyat could be moved to that article, though it could probably use some link reduction as well.

Most of charity sites do not have content that would be useful to someone reading the article, like information about the disaster. This makes them essentially advertisements, though for a good cause. Also, one of the charity sites is broken and another is under construction.

Finally, while some links cover information that the article does not have, they are redundant with other links. Are there any comments for or against removing the links? -- Kjkolb 06:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Other languages links are relevant, and many people using English Wikipedia know other languages. The foreign Wikipedia articles are often not always as good as the English one, and so these foreign links should be kept. At least, the basis for selection is quality, not language. There is no Wikipedia policy which legitimize the removal of foreign references. Lapaz 12:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Lapaz. The following should not be taken as hostile, I'm just attempting to address your points. :-) First, I am unable to determine whether the foreign language sites are of high quality, except for length and website design, and neither can other editors who don't speak Russian or Polish. Someone could add a link to an irrelevant commercial site, a personal site or a spam site and most editors would have no idea. Having links in other languages prevents Wikipedians who don't speak those languages from editing the links, which are part of the article. Editors are already limited in what they can work on by knowledge and skill, understanding a second or third language should not be an additional barrier. Second, if the readers are using the English Wikipedia instead of their own language because it is better, then they should be able to read the sites that are in English. Third, the links to the articles in other languages are right on the side of the article. The Russian article on Chernobyl appears to be extensive, though I am unable to determine its quality. The Polish article is not as long, but it is a decent size. Again, I don't know about its quality. The other wikipedias may not be as extensive as the English one, but they tend to have the topics that are important to speakers of that language, so there is a decent chance that there is a version in the reader's own language. Finally, if Wikipedia included a link or two in the 5 to 10 most common languages that its readers speak, the external links section would dominate many articles. They would dwarf the rest of the article if the links in other languages even attempted to be as comprehensive as the English ones.

The only reasons that I can think of to link sites in other languages is if the link is to the official/definitive site of the article's subject or if it is not necessary to understand the language to use the site and it provides something the English sites don't. -- Kjkolb 10:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RS. If you can't judge its quality because you can't read it, than why do you want to remove them? "if Wikipedia included a link or two etc." is not an argument, we're talking this page. If you wish to discuss policy, this is not the place. Russian links are definitely relevant in an article about Chernobyl, and most international languages are, because Chernobyl has affected a lot of countries. We could discuss the point if there were 30 Russian links and 2 English one, but this is not the case. Cheers! Lapaz 18:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from WP:RS.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability). For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper. However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources.

There are a huge number of links to English sites and I doubt the foreign language sites have anything significant that can't be found in the links we already have or that we could find if necessary. Therefore, they are not needed.

Anyway, the foreign language sites are only part of the problem. As I explained originally, there are many links that are not very useful for the purposes of the article. -- Kjkolb 06:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed some of the links, but all of the foreign language ones remain for now. Since there was no consensus, please feel free to revert. -- Kjkolb 08:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarcophagus POV

This section is POV and selfcontradictory. It states that the sarcophagus roof leaks water, and at the same time that dust will be raised when it collapses. Has anybody ever seen wet dust raised? Perhaps radioactive mud will be splashed about the immediate surroundings. The section makes the planned SIP look like an international effort with unanimous assent that serves to "protect" the environment from the radioactive material contained in the destroyed reactor. Actually at a recent conference on radiation protection in Heidelberg, Germany (http://heidelberg06.dpg-tagungen.de/), the SIP was seen more as an effort to burn money as effectively as possible, or at least pump it into the companies involved. I got the impression that it is only attractive for politicians and seen as completely useless by actual radiation protection researchers. gbrandt 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest (especially since I don't speak German), but it does not seem unreasonable that the sarcophagus could leak water and raise dust when it collapses. It is unlikely that the leak in the sarcophagus completely eliminates the dust problem, since not all of the contents may be wet and it could dry out after it has not rained for a while. Also, the dust could come from the material the sarcophagus is made out of or from the ground or structures adjacent to it. However, having content about the opinion of experts about the sarcophagus would be good to have. -- Kjkolb 08:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Continued POV Problems

Certain editors persist in injecting POV language and structure into the article. All I can do is recommend that they read the NPOV policy and articles, but it appears inevitable that dispute resolution will be required.--DocS 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are refering to the "See also" descriptive remarks concerning the linked articles, I fail to see why you would consider them POV. If you feel that it is "inevitable that dispute resolution will be required", please state with precision disputed points. Cheers! Lapaz 15:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The "See also" issue was minor (but taking a position on alleged political repression is POV). I am more concerned with the overall balance of the Controversy section and the use there of prejudicial language and structure (the "however"s and "only"s, for instance). These will give a reader the impression that the article endorses the more severe impact assessments (and related assertions, including attacks on the credibility and honesty of other investigators) of the anti-nuclear groups. --DocS 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume you refer for example to the "The IAEA/WHO and UNSCEAR considered areas with exposure greater than 40,000 Bq/m2; the TORCH report also included areas contaminated with more than 4,000 Bq/m2 of Cs-137." sentence. Although NPOV of course requires a neutral language, I think however that, for the basis of comprehension (and syntax), link words are to be used. I will not revert that sentence anymore, but I do think, for example, that writing: "The IAEA/WHO and UNSCEAR considered only areas with exposure greater than 40,000 Bq/m2, while the TORCH report also included areas contaminated with more than 4,000 Bq/m2 of Cs-137." is not a breach of NPOV, but a simple grammatical opposition which actually reflect a real debate. I may however misunderstand the use of certain link-words, but I believe that NPOV does not entail weasel words and a bland language. In any cases, if language and wording is the real issue, I do not think this warrant a POV debate, since we agree on the existence of the studies and the necessity to quote them all. The article is only reflecting, IMO, the scale of the debate concerning numbers, which is very much the least we can wait for a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, you are aware of course that your "impression that the article endorses the more severe impact assessments" is, as you say, your subjective impression. Others would doubtlessly agree with me that earlier edits which only stated the Forum's study (although, twenty years later, this is only one of the many studies) was an endorsing of the nuclear lobby's evaluation. We both know that nuclear is a controversial subject, as this talk page shows. Lapaz 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that the use of words like "only" and "however" can be tendentious in English; in this case it implies that the WHO was less diligent than the TORCH authors, when in fact there exists a difference of opinion on the estimable effect of very low doses on large populations (a topic where there is no general professional consensus) . The particulars of the competing methodologies are well beyond the scope of this article; the descriptions should therefore be kept brief, factual and without language that implies a preference for any given method or outcome.--DocS 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Radiation level rising detected in Finland 27.4.1986

should this information from an interview in the largest finnish newspaper be added to this page?

"The radiation level had risen the previous night at the Kajaani monitoring station, but it was a Sunday, and there were no attempts to investigate the cause."

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Chernobyl+disaster+20+years+ago+was+wake-up+call+for+Finns/1135219632463

These two back to back sentences (each with a source) contradict each other.

"About 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus [1]. According to the 2006 TORCH report, half of the radioactive fallout landed outside the three soviet countries [2]." Both of these can't be true at the same time. Or am I missing something? Joncnunn 14:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

These numbers come from different sources (the 60% is official post-soviet estimates). Both of these can't be true at the same time, that's exactly why both should be said, because there is a big debate going on there. Note also that apart from the first source being state estimation, it's from 2001, when the TORCH report is from 2006 and was done by 2 UK scientists. Lapaz 15:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Weren't those two scientists Doctors of Philosophy?

Have a look at this Flash animation (2min30) for an animated map of radioactive fallout caesium-137, produced by the French Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire. Lapaz 15:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, Joncnunn. This contradiction is a very bad way to start the article. We should remove both sentences from the introduction, and deal with the alternative views elsewhere in the article. Joffan 16:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the best way to go around is not to address the controversy. And the controversy is important enough to be stated in the intro. Beside, it is of interest to put in the intro where did the radioactive fallout go. So, since there's a debate about that, it is only normal that we put two contradictory sources. That's called democratic debate. Lapaz 17:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion / Food restriction

Please explain why you deleted this passage (I've reverted this deletion, because I feel this explains well interesting things, in particular the limit of 1 000 Bq/kg introduced in 1986. Beside, it states that there has been a reduction of over 95% since 1986, showing the difference in time in a rather precise manner):

"Some of this radioactivity, predominantly radiocaesium-137, was deposited on certain upland areas of the UK, where sheep-farming is the primary land-use. Due to the particular chemical and physical properties of the peaty soil types present in these upland areas, the radiocaesium is still able to pass easily from soil to grass and hence accumulate in sheep. A maximum limit of 1 000 Becquerels per kilogramme (Bq/kg) of radiocaesium is applied to sheep meat affected by the accident to protect consumers. This limit was introduced in the UK in 1986, based on advice from the European Commission's Article 31 group of experts. Under power provided under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA), Emergency Orders have been used since 1986 to impose restrictions on the movement and sale of sheep exceeding the limit in certain parts of Cumbria, North Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland... When the Emergency Orders were introduced in 1986, the Restricted Areas were large, covering almost 9 000 farms, and over 4 million sheep. Since 1986, the areas covered by restrictions have dramatically decreased and now cover 374 farms, or part farms, and around 200 000 sheep. This represents a reduction of over 95% since 1986, with only limited areas of Cumbria, South Western Scotland and North Wales, covered by restrictions. "Post-Chernobyl Monitoring and Controls Survey Report" (PDF). UK Food Standards Agency. Retrieved April 19, 2006.

Lapaz 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well as I said we need to summarise. The restrictions in the UK are interesting and indicative and should definitely be in the section on food restrictions, no question. However amount of text devoted to them with this extensive quote seems disproportionate to the other topics in the section, and the whole section should not be allowed to overshadow other important aspects of the Chernobyl disaster. Perhaps another sentence introduced into the summary would be appropriate - do you want to do this? Joffan 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and this deletion was not "unexplained". Perhaps the title of this talk section should be

Deletion noted in the edit summary

- you can't condense an article without deleting something, y'know. Joffan 20:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the above quote, this is not a book, no, it's a serious article. The article deals with the Chernobyl catastrophe in all its aspects. The 1985 UK FEPA act, the 1 000 BQ/Kg limit applied in 1986, the food restrictions and all, is not a detail! IF the food restrictions section grows too big, don't worry, we'll just make Food restrictions following the Chernobyl disaster article. You'll ask for deletion if you don't want it. Lapaz 18:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, so I reverted the deletion of the extract above. Joffan, if you really believe these details about public health policies (the 1985 UK FEPA Act, the 1 000 Bq/kg limit applied in 1986, etc.) are irrelevant and uninteresting, as well as the fact that 95% of the restricted areas are not restricted anymore, please explain your point. The Wikipedia community will have to decide... Lapaz 17:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz, who said they were irrelevant and uninteresting? Don't mischaracterise my arguments, please. I'm saying they are more detail than is required for a balanced and comprehensive article. And I will summarise the facts you mentioned as of interest to you, since you did not take up my offer. Joffan 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

French legal cases / Does somebody knows precisions about "papillary thyroid cancers"?

Joffan, I don't think it's a "minor edit" suppressing the sentence stating that "papillary thyroid cancers are necessarily linked to radioactivity". It is exactly this fact, which is present in the IRSN study, which contradicts the conclusion of the IRSN study alleging no "clear links are found between thyroid cancers and Chernobyl". You know what I call that? Whitewashing, not even saying revisionism. Lapaz 18:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I plead guilty to accidently leaving the minor edit box checked. I only intended to clean up the English a bit. However I noticed the inaccuracy about papillary thyroid cancers tagged as "necessarily linked to radioactivity" and cleaned it up the easy way, by deleting the incorrect phrase. Papillary thyroid cancer is the normal form of the disease.

I'm a bit annoyed that you reverted everything else, though. Why not just revert the detail that you disagree with? If what I did is "revisionism", then what you did is vandalism. Joffan 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't plead guilty please, we're not in a trial! I'm not a doctor, but thyroid cancer seems to have four forms: "There are four forms: papillary, follicular, medullary and anaplastic.", the most common ones being the papillary and the follicular one. However, I did hear last afternoon on RFI that the papillary cancer is always caused by radioactivity. If you have source to counter this, I'll believe you - you just can't trust the media, can you?? :) And about condensation, well, I'm not sure I agree in condensing technical parts about the public health policies that have followed this major disaster. Maybe if we (citizens) didn't feel like we had been lie to, we would be more keen on stopping talking about this 20 years old "incident". Lapaz 04:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My source was in fact the Wikipedia article on thyroid cancer. It's entirely possible that radiation-induced thyroid cancer is always papillary; however nothing I can see implies that the reverse is true, that the papillary form is always caused by radiation. (Plenty of people and organisations are perfectly willing to commit this logical error in dozens of situations, unfortunately.) If papillary thyroid cancer were only caused by radiation, it would not be the most common form. QED. Joffan 04:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I heard this on RFI, while the CRIIRAD and the French Association of Thyroid-Affected People discussed that. They were not making this "logical error": this clearly said that papillary cancer is always radiation-induced, and not the reverse. Your argument about "If papillary thyroid cancer were only caused by radiation, it would not be the most common form" is simple common sense (or seems to be - except if you have source to back-it up). No offense meant, but common sense does not make science, rather simple POV. Lapaz 17:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to go against logic and common sense, you definitely need a source or that is entirely POV. Here's an example of a cancer information site which covers this topic; couple of quotes:

• "One proven risk factor for papillary thyroid cancer is ... radiation"
• "Most people with thyroid cancer... have no apparent risk factors"

Here we can see that the papillary type is over 70% of all thyroid cancers.

Do you need further explanation or can you understand what I'm saying?

Joffan 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the second source Joffan: I think we can precise this. The first source however didn't state any other risk factor than radiation (so was rather proving my point). Concerning common sense, no offense meant, but science has nothing to do with "common sense", which Socrates called doxa. Dealing with scientific matters we need sources, not "common sense", this thing "the most shared in the world", as Descartes ironically stated it. Lapaz 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this second source would probably not considered valid by scientifics. Why? Stating that "Accounts for 85% of thyroid cancers due to radiation exposure" (talking about papillary) without stating where those numbers come from and if they are US or worldwide statistics is not very serious. Who is this Endocrine Web, and this Norman Endocrine Surgery Clinic? Concerning this papillary thyroid cancer, I'm not going to rv your change since we both seem as ignorants concerning this scientific question. But, to tell you the truth, I trust better the interview I heard on RFI than your or anybody's else "common sense"... Racism and the existence of biological races, you know, was supported for a long time by people who thought it was just "common sense" to mistake skin color with races... As you say, I hope you get my point? Lapaz 19:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the first source proved your point at all. Quite the reverse, if you combine the two quotes I gave. And incidentally, it's you that started the use of the term "common sense" - I've just been using simple logic, which is an essential ingredient of science. Joffan 21:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You see how easy it is to make that logical error I was talking about. According to that site, papillary thyroid cancer "accounts for 85% of thyroid cancers due to radiation exposure". The error is to think that this means that radiation accounts for 85%, or any large proportion, of papillary thyroid cancers. Even if the figure was (as implied elsewhere) 100%, this tells us nothing about what proportion of papillary thyroid cancers are due to radation. Joffan 21:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

=:) You're right! My fault, bad & too quick reading!... I'll just leave it there, because I don't have any written source to prove that papillary thyroid cancers are always caused by radiation either than that interview I listened to. However, without discussing common sense & science (that would involve a lot of philosophical reading, starting from Plato till modern epistemology), you haven't proved anything either. I don't think these two sources have shown anything, now that you pointed out my grammatical mistake. Lapaz 02:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was looking around the ISRN site, trying to reconcile the implausible statement that there was no sign of excess thyroid cancers due to Chernobyl along with a tripling of papillary thyroid cancers. I was looking eg. here. As far as I can see, and my French is not great, ISRN has made no statement about tripling of papillary cancers. Can we attribute the tripling claim properly? Who really made this statement? Joffan 04:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple doses of TORCH

The quote from the nature article in the 'other studies' section is practically verbatim the same words used in the TORCH report (pages 10-11). Should this be listed under 'other studies' when it is in fact a report on the TORCH study. It appears to be an attempt to cite the same study twice.
(remark by 195.92.168.170 17:03, 28 April 2006)

TORCH has been overused in this article, both directly and indirectly, and needs some pruning back. I'm standing back a bit from this article at present however. Joffan 02:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

fixed. Leaving the reference to other NAture article in note though. Lapaz 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Death by cancers: up to 38000, prolly about 16000

IARC (WHO) predicts, in a study titled The Cancer Burden from Chernobyl in Europe, that about 16000 people (min 11000, max 38000) will die in Europe (at least: the major part of it: 570 millions inhabitants, 1986) from Chernobyl-disaster-induced cancers.

Don't forget the chrono Natmaka 23:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. some points that should be taken into account in reporting that figure:

• that's not an additional 16,000: that includes the 9,000 that in the earlier figure.
• that includes deaths all the way to 2065.
• what are the life-years lost (if you die at 81 rather than 82 that may be a "premature" death, but is it such a big deal?)
• The analysis relies on the linear-no-threshold hypothesis on radiation cancer risk. While this is currently the best guess, evidence it it over alternative hypotheses is pretty weak.
• such an increase in cancer deaths will be completely undetectable, given that it represents a tiny fraction of those who will die of cancer over the next 60 years. It will therefore remain conjecture forever, unless we somehow get better data.
• By comparison, fine particle pollution from fossil fuels: 272,000 premature deaths (2.5 million life years lost) from fine particle pollution by 2020 throughout EU. [14].

The increase in cancer deaths in the rest of Europe (outside the 7 million) is centred at 7000 deaths out of 565000000 at an excess cancer risk of 0.006%. That's not just undetectable - it's basically imaginary. You could almost argue that heightened awareness of screening assisted by Chernobyl would save more people than that. Joffan 03:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

life-years. Therefore one may kill anybody then say hey, he could have die tomorrow!. A kill is a kill (is a kill...)

Dr Cardis, who worked on this, is the very scientist who (in 1996) provided the work used by the IAEA report: 4000 in a subset (and 4000 total in the press report), then 9000 in subset seven months later...

evidence, conjecture: all those studies conclusions are conjectures. Take a look at IAEA's report, page 106: It must be stressed that this estimate is is bounded by large uncertainties

comparisons with other pollutions: the underlying question is how dangerous is a nuclear reactor?. The optimistic answer is it isn't and the pessimistic one is many may cause a disaster, let's try to assess an existing disaster in order to imagine how whacked we may be after a bunch of major blows Natmaka 19:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Context

I think we should provide some context for the death totals by briefly mentioning the number of premature deaths caused by fossil fuel pollution throughout Europe, which by most estimates exceed even Greenpeace's estimates for the number of deaths caused by Chernobyl. Obviously, this is not an article about the relative merits of nuclear power and other methods, but I feel that without at least a little context the death tolls lack meaning. --Robert Merkel 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. This will cause other controversy on the number of premature deaths caused by fossil fuel pollution, with a lot of different studies. Lapaz 02:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Since Chernobyl is often used as propoganda by the anti-nuclear lobby the increased level of risks due to the incident would benefit from a comparison with other risk factors such as fossil fuels, smoking and traffic fumes.

Well, I went ahead and did so, adding a paragraph to "comparison with other disasters". --Robert Merkel 23:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for either pro- or anti-nuclear campaigning. If you want to put in the irrelevant fossil fuel stat by your logic an anti-nuke partisan could put in a comparison to Hiroshima. It's all POV and none of it should be here. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Chernobyl is a heavily politicised topic, and I fully admit that I support nuclear power. But there are plenty of cases in the article where (appropriately attributedd) disputed information is put in the article (for instance, the disputed claims that the radiation is causing high rates of heart abnormalities). And the enormous death tolls claimed by Greenpeace and the like are being used directly as evidence that nuclear power is too dangerous to use. So I don't see why one sentence pointing out that fossil fuels routinely kill larger numbers is going to unbalance the article. In fact, I believe that by its omission, the lack of information about the danger of alternatives gives a anti-nuke POV perspective.

As to Hiroshima comparisons, the article already compares Chernobyl to Hiroshima in terms of radioactive material released. --Robert Merkel 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Bk0 felt it necessary to remove reference to deaths caused by fossil fuels I have removed the reference to Hiroshima "The disaster released over 400 times more radiation than the atomic bomb of Hiroshima" from the first Para. As stated by Bk0 "It's all POV and none of it should be here". I can only wonder why Bk0 did not see fit to remove it at the same time as the article was reverted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.167 (talk • contribs) .

RM, I think you're mistaking advocacy articles with facts articles. Personally, you would probably be surprised to learn that I also support nuclear power, since for the time being, I don't see much alternative. The point is not there. Removing the ref to Hiroshima is removing a classic comparison which has been often done and gives sort of an idea. Lapaz 17:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion RM if you want to create a debate: why not create Debate about the values of nuclear power? Lapaz 17:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Or better yet, on the models of Arguments for and against drug prohibition, Arguments for and against nuclear power.Lapaz 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It was not RM who removed the comparison to Hiroshima. It was myself to prove a point raised by Bk0. The reference to Hiroshima may be a classic comparison but it is not a valid one. The amount of radioactive fallout produced is in no way indicative of the magnitude or danger caused by the events being compared. In Hiroshima approximately 20,000 people died from radiation exposure in the first few months following detonation. In Chernobyl the number was 28 in the same period. In Hiroshima the fallout was a secondary effect of a device designed to release massive doses of Gamma and neutron energy as well as destructive heat and shock waves, none of which occured in Chernobyl. If the reference to deaths caused by fossil fuels is irrelevent then the reference to Hiroshima is also irrelevent. One seeks to put the number of deaths into context by comparison the other the amount of fallout by comparison. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.176 (talk • contribs) .

Interesting how as soon as an edit by Robert Merkel gets reverted, suddenly several anon users coming from UK/AU proxies start to chime in. --Bk0 (Talk) 18:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You read too many conspiracy theories Bk0

I think that an attempt to compare the Hiroshima bomb with the Chernobyl fire is doomed to failure becuase the isotropic signature of the two releases were so different. I imagine that on day one at zero hour 5 minutes the dose rate at Hiroshima would have been jolly high. But after a year it would have been much lower even if the majority of the radioactivity had rained out as local fallout, and then after a few decades it would be very low. I think that it is currently very hard to detect radioactivity at Hiroshima (activation products in steel have decayed to close to the detection limits). But the lifetime of the activity of the chernobyl fallout is much longer, this is becuase more activity (in Bq) of long lived radioisotopes was released at chernobyl while at Hiroshima more activity (in Bq) of shortlived isotopes was released. Becuase of this fact I have chosen to remove the comparison with Hiroshima from the article.Cadmium

Vandal deleting source

Someone has deleted the source about the IARC report claiming it does not support the assertion. So, the source is this one, and does state that:

"By 2065, these models predict that about 16,000f cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths from these cancers may occur. About two-thirds of the thyroid cancer cases and at least one half of the other cancers are expected to occur in Belarus, Ukraine and the most contaminated territories of the Russian Federation. The number of cancer cases in Europe possibly resulting from radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident up to now, and in the lifetime of the exposed populations, is therefore expected to be large in absolute terms. While these figures reflect human suffering and death, they nevertheless represent only a very small fraction of the total number of cancers seen since the accident and expected in the future in Europe. It is unlikely therefore that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be ever be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics."

In other words, this is vandalism (the vandal is 195.92.168.176, the guy doing the unsigned comments above). Lapaz 20:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You will be pleased to know that I now have an account. I deleted the citation and reinserted the citation required template as the citation, as posted, did not exist. It directed to an editing template page. I think you will agree that an article that doesn't exist cannot be used as a citation. In fact the citation as reinserted also directs to this page so I have taken the liberty of fixing it. BRT01 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Studies

What do others think of the way studies and reports are presented

As I write there are four 'major studies' in their own sections and five 'studies' highlighted under 'other studies'. If I may give my thoughts on the latter.

• The first is not a study as such but a quote taken from the last paragraph of a french newspaper article primarily concerning the TORCH report.

It is not a study but the official number given by the Ukrainian Health Minister, as quoted by radio RFI (which, likes the BBC, doesn't archive its articles - they are always on-line). Lapaz 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• The second Highlighting mortality in Sweden is a study to which I have added a link alongside the news story originally linked to.
• The third is a link to the UNSCEAR report which is a very comprehensive report on global radiation sources and effects. The annexe that deals with chernobyl runs to 155 pages and the full report is over 2,000 pages long. Does this merit its own section as some much smaller reports have been given?
• The fourth is again not a study but yet another quote taken from a french newspaper article primarily concerning the IPNWW study

Again, it is not a study but the number given by the Union Chernobyl, main organization of liquidators as you can read. It was quoted in the Le Monde article, that did deals mainly with the IPPNW study; but if that part was separated from the IPPNW study, you may see that is because the source for the number is not the IPPNW, but the Union Chernobyl. Lapaz 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• The final study is the recent IARC study. Again a major study possibly deserving of the same sort of space allotted to other reports.

You are encouraged to resume other important studies. Please do not make a section for "articles of interest", this is not necessary. Again, if these two French articles are given, it is because they give numbers from the Ukrainian HEalth Minister & the Union Chernobyl. If you can find good English sources for them, so much the better. I recall for personal usage that Le Monde is the French newspaper of record and that RFI is the French BBC, at least for international stuff. Lapaz 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective only one of the articles in the section is deserving as being classified as 'other studies'. Two are of similar or greater importance than studies allocated their own section and two are not studies at all.

Of the major reports it is my opinion that, while it is a valid report, the space allocated to the TORCH report, and the numerous references to it throughout the article overinflate its importance in relation to other reports. You could say that the credibility of the entire article has been torched.

We need a concensus on how major studies are presented in order to maintain a NPOV on the topic. I credit users with more common sense than to have to be presented with every argument and counterargument on every study, and quote from within foreign news articles, that appears.

I suggest that major studies be given their own heading with one paragraph to present an overview on the conclusions of the study and one further paragraph to cite criticisms.

Minor studies along the lines of the Swedish mortality study, should be under other studies. Random quotes from news articles should have their own section as articles of interest.

Your thoughts?

Oops Forgot to sign it BRT01 03:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the stuff on long-term effect studies could do with a rewrite. Expect all manner of arguments if you less prominently cite studies that estimate higher casualty figures. Such a report should also discuss non-cancer illnesses in a bit more detail. --Robert Merkel 04:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

More detailed report

This page provides a second-by-second report of the last few minutes before the explosion (in Russian).

http://chernobil.land.ru/

I will translate parts of it when I have time. --Whichone 23:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Small removal

I've just removed "their bravery" from here. I don't want to seem like a bitch, but apparently they were not told of the specific dangers. It was brave to go into a burning building, and to risk themselves. But they were as brave as everybody else involved in the cleanup, so why the special mention? Szandor 19:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Containment would not have prevented the fallout

I removed the phrase Because there was no containment building, as it implies that a containment might have prevented the fallout. This is not the case. The initial powerful explosions that followed the power excursions would have ruptured the containment easily. The containment of a nuclear plant is designed to hold back radioactive material that was released by the reactor. It is a steel vessel with walls a few centimeters thick. Thus it is by no means capable to stand a violent explosion from the inside.-----<(kaimartin)>--- 09:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored the phrase. Containment buildings are built to withstand the worst-case plausible accident, and it would simply have been a matter of engineering to build an adequate one. An extremely expensive one, to be sure, given the criminality of the RBMK design, but outside of the Soviet Union a precaution that would have been absolutely required. The cite is Cohen, p. 158 in [15]. Simesa 10:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It the cite is legitimate, put it in the article, the talk page is just for deciding controversies. Such as the unilateral move down there to "delist" the article... Lapaz 13:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like my choice to delist the article Lapaz please feel free to seek a review, or address the concerns raised and renominate it. Thats the way it works. BRT01 19:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Cohen cite did not have any information on whether a containment building would have been able to prevent the fallout (I'm not contending it would or wouldn't). It just says that the containment buildings on Chernobyl and Western plants are different. -- Kjkolb 09:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll re-read that. However, I agree that a link to one of the actual studies would be better, and I'll try to get one or more. Simesa 15:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Delisted

I have delisted this article from the Good articles list due to problems as mentioned on the review page pending the redundancy of the The effects of the Chernobyl disaster link and the POV issues regarding the various reports being addressed. BRT01 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The The effects of the Chernobyl disaster was intended as a spin-off to reduce the size of this article, as it was becoming very large, however, the section within this article is being perpetually re-expanded. Some section of this article needs to be kept seperate, as it's getting really huge, and it seems like that section can most easily stand on its own.--Matthew 02:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Doubtlessly. Although we may wonder if it is not, in the end, a POV-fork to separate the "effects of Chernobyl disaster" (I initially created the article out of complaints of size). "Popular consciousness" has already been spinned out, maybe we could also keep resume of others sections here and spin them out, as we certainly can not take out all of the effects of Chernobyl part (we may be able to reduce it, but it isn't, on its own, so big). Lapaz 17:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created two new "main articles" that are waiting to be filled-out in order to prepare them to spin-out. This would allow to keep the three main sections here on the main article, with resumes (like this, all sections are resumed, and none privilegied over the other). Lapaz 17:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually BRT01 delisted the article, although I didn't see him participate in any attempt at "pov-conciliation". It was & still is a unilateral move. Luckily for him, nobody really bothers about reversing that move, and I ain't either... Lapaz 17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an entire page above this posting which is literally filled with POV concerns. Fact remains that the article does not meet the good article criteria. Why should it then be listed under good articles while the issues are resolved? It is either good or it is not (It is not). Once again, If you don't like my choice to delist the article please feel free to seek a review, or address the concerns raised and renominate it. BRT01 15:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

RBMK?

Using light water for cooling and graphite for moderation, it is possible to use natural uranium for fuel.

It might be worth drawing attention to the stupidity of such a design in a nuclear reactor, given the reaction of the two components @ ~1000C

RBMK design is described in the RBMK article.

UK official view on health consequences

THis may be a useful reference. I've not attempted to integrate it, just prvide it here:- http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/news/articles/press_releases/2006/060425_chernobyl.htm Midgley 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This ref speaks again about Elizabeth Cardis, that I had quoted in this article concerning her opinion about the IAEA study (she originally provided the numbers for that study). This quote was deleted (considered "POV"). Now we see that the UK considers her important enough to state her in this April 25, 2006 press release. Any thought about reintegrating Cardis' statement concerning the IAEA study? Lapaz 17:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

explosion coordinates

I would have been nice to have the reactor 4 coordinates. So people can use the goggle to sea an aerial photo. I could find any print or web source BUT I measure it to (51.389623,30.099733) which give to the link:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=&t=k&om=1&ll=51.389623,30.099733&spn=0.001667,0.004989

(chimney coordinates. The chimney is a very distinctive feature of reactor 4. Note, also, the cranes.)

ALSO should the time of the events be expressed in UTC time, not local time. I believe the explosion took place at 1986-04-25T23:23 UTC . Although probably you will find a few minutes difference between sources.

Jose Simoes

I would think the times should be kept as local time with the UTC noted afterwards in parenthesis, as the events are more relevant in local time (with the explosion happening at night at the end of the shift). --Matthew 04:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mayak

Shouldn't this article contain a reference to mayak considering the enormous effects which that nuclear complex had on the environment and the people during the 1957 accident and the 1968 Lake Karachay accident? --Hardscarf 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think it should, be bold and do it. --Matthew 04:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's covered under Nuclear and radiation accidents, but if you can find cites drawing special links between what happened at Chernobyl and at Mayak then I'd say those links would be worthy of mentioning. (There's an article Nuclear power in Russia but it is trivial.) Simesa 08:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Prior to Accident section

Near the middle of that section, on line five, is the text "[xenon production rate]:[xenon loss rate]". Are those botched links or are the brackets there for a reason? 24.50.211.226 14:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Water's neutron absorption and moderation

The article refers to water's neutron absorbing ability several times, but water also moderates neutrons, which is not mentioned anywhere in the article. A note was left an the bottom of the article that water is a neutron moderator, not an absorber, so it appears that people might be confused about this.

There is also this sentence, "The coolant (water), a neutron absorber, is therefore replaced by graphite, a neutron moderator – that is, a material that enables the nuclear reaction, rather than slows the reaction down." This is terribly confusing to someone who knows that water moderates neutrons, but does not know this, (from the RBMK article) "With moderation largely due to the fixed graphite, excess boiling simply reduces the cooling and neutron absorption without inhibiting the fission reaction, so the reactor can have a large positive void coefficient, and a positive feedback problem can arise, such as at Chernobyl, which was a RBMK reactor." I suggest that the article be modified to clear this up. -- Kjkolb 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

UK TV Horizon program, less than 100 deaths

For the benefit of non uk readers, I would explain that BBC TV has a long standing and respected science documentary program called Horizon. I just happened to see a program discussing the effects of relatively low doses of radiation exposure, 100 mSv or less, which appears to be a dose double the permitted maximum exposure for nuclear workers. The information being presented by the program is that essentialy there is significant debate whether doses in this range are harmfull at all.

Somewhere above is mentioned that an assumption is traditionally made that risk from radiation is precisely proportional to exposure. Actual risks have been calculated from situations where people were exposed to known large doses, in all cases greater than 100 mSv, and where the death rate as a result could be measured. There is apparently no evidence of any identifible deaths resulting from low doses. The example cited for sources of the data were incidents such as the Hiroshima explosion. However, airline crews are regularly exposed to low levels of radiation by virtue of spending a lot of time above the radiation shielding effects of the earth's atmosphere, and apparently suffer no measurable ill effects, despite such effects being predicted from the linear damage assumption.

The question under discussion was to what extent a linear rise in radiation damage would be expected. Biological systems (including us) have built in damage repair systems which are designed to handle low level radiation damage. The program presented research into animals living in the vicinity of Chernobyl, in contaminated regions, and while they managed to find plenty of mildly radioactive animals, they failed to find any suffering damage as a result. What they did find was high levels of activity in the damage repair mechanisms of those animals. Similarly, they failed to find any firm evidence of more than total approx 100 actual deaths from the radiation release (Essentilly repair workers and people who were exposed to radioactive iodine immediately after the event). Now, it is possible that local authorities might have a vested interest in covering up any such deaths, but this still does not provide any evidence that such have actually occurred. Also, contrary to what i noticed above, they also stated that deaths from consequential cancers should have been well under way by 10 years after the accident, whereas 20 years later we have yet to find any.

The death toll cited in this article may necessarily have to be included, because wiki reports accepted views of events, but it would appear to me that in fact not only is this theoretical death toll probably largely undetectable amongst the numbers of cancer deaths throughout the population concerned, but more significantly, there would seem to be little or no actual evidence supporting the theory that it ought to occur. The point seems to be a lot of controversy and hype, but no actual evidence of deaths at all.BBC Horizon [[[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I also saw this program and think that a the majority of the information within it is already included in the article. e.g. The information on insectivorous hedgehogs being very weakly irradiated while rodents were more so with neither apparently suffering health effects is covered in the long term health effects section.

Funny that. I added it after the program :-) WolfKeeper 01:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you did, at 23:30pm. My post was dated some 2 hours later. I comment on the page as it existed at the time of posting. BRT01 19:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The information on sheep still being monitored in parts of Britain is covered in the food restrictions section. There are also mentions in the article covering the low number of deaths so far in The Chernobyl Forum report section. The high numbers of deaths mentioned in most reports, and subject to question, are projected numbers.

The only information I believe is not covered were the theory that low level (<100mSv) radiation may not be harmful and the controversial J curve theory that such low level doses may actually be beneficial. However I do not think that this article would be the correct place for such, as yet unproven, theories

I added a wiki link to radiation hormesis which is the place for that to be discussed. It's an amazingly empty article, but I've fleshed it out a bit; linked it into some of the other material already in the wikipedia.WolfKeeper 01:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

which would make even the 16,000 predicted deaths in the IARC's 2006 report based on the latest linear no threshold model high.

The website for the program is Chernobyl's 'nuclear nightmares' and states that the show was based on information from the Chernobyl forum BRT01 01:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See [16], this is a paper about a set of flats in the far east which were made using rebar which contained Co-60. It is interesting to note that the population exposed did not become unhealthy.Cadmium

Yes i noticed that the article does contain some comments already. It is difficult to write definitively when different estimates of expected deaths are ranging from 0 to 300,000. But possibly this range should be mentioned in the intro where it first sites an estimate. It is not clear to me (and I imagine not to anyone else either?), how much these various reports are relying on particular assumptions regarding the risk from low doses. The thing is, that even if there were 1000 reports anticipating high death rates, they would all be invalidaded if they are based on the same erroneous assumption. Does the article explain that the issue depends upon the particular assumption of linear risk, which is in dispute? (I didn't notice that it did) Sandpiper 11:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Added reference to this programme in "Other studies and claims", then read this discussion. Should have been the other way around — apologies to all. Moonraker88 09:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Discovery channel program

an anon added a paragraph citing a vast death toll according tio a discovery channel program. any suggestions what he was talking about? Sandpiper 07:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange aritmatic

I noticed the following in the second paragraph

• • estimated that as many as 9000 people, among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed, may die from some form of cancer (one of the induced diseases). [4] This may be put into perspective however, since the deaths from smoking would be perhaps a thousand times higher in this same population ****

If smoking causes 1000 times more deaths than the 9000 deaths asserted as due to the accident - that would be 9 million deaths due to smoking - in a population asserted to be 6.6 million! I can accept something like half a million deaths due to smoking in a population of 6.6 million, but the assertion of 1000 times as many is surely wrong. I do not propose to edit the article myself as I may be mistaken, and this is a very hot article and I dont want to find myself on the wrong end of an argument. Perhaps somebody else is brave enough to edit the article.

Smoking is very popular in the soviet union. Smoking kills half of the people that do it. The thousand times more was an order of magnitude estimate I read somewhere, but it's probably only a 2-3 million deaths from smoking; that's close to 3 orders of magnitude more people.WolfKeeper 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that the reference to smoking deaths has been removed. Perhaps it would be best to put something like that there will be 300 times more deaths due to smoking. The antiscience fanaticism of the greenies must be stopped but that does not excuse sloppy use of numbers.

Discussion page

It's getting a bit long. Is it time to Archive? BRT01 17:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that it's long enough. However the guidelines suggest 50 topics, so since we're at 46 we may as well wait a few more days, since there's sometimes friction caused when archiving is done too soon. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to retain sections which are often discussed (estimates, the reports, etc.) Archive only discussions which won't probably be used again. Lapaz 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)