Talk:Chernobyl disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Chernobyl disaster is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / History (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Belarus (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Europe (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Energy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Chernobyl disaster is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Chernobyl disaster at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 


is this right?[edit]

On 12 February 2013 a 600 m2 (6,500 sq ft) section of the roof of the turbine-building — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.5.150 (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it is right. Section is about how the remains of the building are neglected, news source is 13 feb 2013. EmilTyf (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed clarification request[edit]

"Reactor 4 at Chernobyl consisted of about 1,600 individual fuel channels; each required a coolant flow of 28 metric tons (28,000 liters or 7,400 U.S. gallons) per hour" (section Accident) had an clarification needed tag with it, with the reason not possible, each 1600 fuel channel requires 28 tons of water an hour? please check source

I don't have acces to the source either (book), but although it seems like a huge amount, a quick calculation shows it's not unreasonable. 3200 MW power production means that amount has to be absorbed by the water, so these 1600 * 28000 litres of water would warm up by:
3,2 * 10^9 W * 3600 s / (4184 J/kg K * 1600 * 28000 L * 1 kg/L) = 61 K increase in warmth for the water. This seems likely to me, so I have removed the tag. EmilTyf (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It amounts to just less than 8 liters per second per fuel rod, which has a good feel. The water pumps in gigawatt-class water-cooled reactors are simply huge. A reactor document (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~doster/NE405/Manuals/PWR_Manual.pdf) rates the Westinghouse pumps at 7000 HP, 100,000 gpm, (that's 3000 liters/sec) and there's 4 of them in an 1100 megawatt reactor. SkoreKeep (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Long-term potential cancer impact numbers[edit]

Under overview, the statement "...several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes." - with no further quote from the citation is very misleading. If every person in the entire region through 2065 contracted cancer, that would still be a stretch?

The source is of course reputable and academic but it goes on to say immediately afterward which is not part of the current edit, "Although these estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the Chernobyl accident." Trep26 (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

→I don't mean to diminish how tragic this was and still is... just saying "several hundred million" sounds unreal/sensationalist and it doesn't seem possible. Trep26 (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you are reading it correctly; the "several hundred million" figure is for all cancers - malignant, benign, etc - for all of Europe and parts of the Russian Federation over some 80 years, not attributable to radiation from Chernobyl. Rather than "sensationalising" the number of cancers arising from Chernobyl, it places it in context with all other cancers unrelated to the incident. Blackberry Sorbet (talkcontribs) 10:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Consider, if you will, that the National Cancer Institute says that everyone born this year has a 43% chance that cancer will visit them sometime before they die; about half of those will die from it. That is up from 37% in the first decade of the 1900s. The rise is due not to increasing cancer rates, but because we now live longer then they did, giving cancer more of a chance; we did that mainly by killing off cancer's competition for sickness and death in the communicable diseases. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request March 2, 2014[edit]

In the Evacuation Developments section, the sentence "A state commission was set up the same day (26 April) and tasked with investigating the accident." is preceded by a sentence referencing events on the 28th of April. The sentence should be changed to reflect that the commission was set up on the day of the accident; not the day of the announcement. "A state commission was set up on the same day as the accident and tasked with the investigation." 192.0.133.61 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Which date is accurate and please link some WP:RS to back up that information... Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 02:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Unclear wording[edit]

It's not clear from this sentence whether it was Ukraine or the nuclear plant "under the direct jurisdiction of the central authorities" of Soviet Union:

"[...] was a catastrophic nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine (then officially the Ukrainian SSR), which was under the direct jurisdiction of the central authorities of the Soviet Union."

Dchestnykh (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

opening[edit]

In terms of total radiation released, Fukushima is the worst nuclear disaster. Fukushima Daichi stored much more nuclear material onsite since it is a much larger complex than Chernobyl. Fukushima is the 10th largest nculear facility in the world, and Chernobyl did not even rank in the top 100. It is estimated that 80% of the entire fuel supply was lost to the environment according to independent studies. Furthermore, the highest radiation readings ever taken occurred in the area surrounding Fukushima. I am confused as to how Chernobyl could be considered the worst. Very dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.172.212 (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to be having this discussion, but let's have a swing at some of your facts, shall we?
Chernobyl generated 4 GWe, Fukushima 4.7 GWe. Chernobyl was much larger in area, so I think your "largest" claim is just marginal, and not significant.
It's going to be really difficult to know for a while yet how much of Fukushima radiation load was lost "to the environment", but in Chernobyl a significant amount was lost to the air and air exposure by the initial explosion and subsequent fire. No equivalent explosion or air exposure has happened at Fukushima, and inasmuch as only three reactors of the six at Fukushima have melted down, I don't think your 80% figure can be correct (unless you burden it with a load of unmentioned restrictions).
The highest radiation reading at Fukushima was 73 Sv/hr inside reactor 2; 300 Sv/hr measured near core at Chernobyl.
In general the main argument for Chernobyl is that an internal explosion through reactor innards all over the area, and the fire ongoing for nearly a month spread radiation through the air at a tremendous rate.
There is a page for just these willy-length sort of facts; its Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents. You'll have to back them up, though. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

18 billion rubles is 500 million US today, suggest adding to opening to put into perspective for wider western audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.47.198.254 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)