Talk:Effects of the Chernobyl disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Belarus  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated C-class, Mid-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
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Assessment Summary[edit]

The article itself meets the various requirements of a good article. I'd like to seem some more in-article references, but otherwise, its ok. I cna agree in some respects with the comments listed below. However, my assessment is derived from the article as presented, not where it might be merged or what it is duplicative of. SkipperClipper 02:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the radiation numbers look backwards. Checking is needed.Longinus876 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No, that's just Cyrillic ;)—An Sealgair (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I do not think this topic should exist both here and on the Chernobyl disaster page.

Either the entire article should be moved from the main page to here, leaving only the link, or this page should be removed leaving the topic on the main page.

Linking out while the topic remains on the main page leaves two pages to be updated by editors and a comparison between the two shows that the main page is being updated far more frequently than this one. BRT01 02:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


This article should be incorporated into the Chernobyl disaster article. There is already information regarding the effects on that page, and a certain amount of redundancy exists between the two. They should be merged and rationalized. Biddlesby 11:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of the merger. The Chernobyl Disaster article is already far too long. So a summary of effects should be left there with a reference to the Chernobyl disaster effects article.
Don't forget that there is also the Red Forest article to consider, as it has a lot about effects on the natural world. Would you be wanting to merge it too? I think not. -- Johnfos 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The Red Forest article should stay separate in my opinion. Also, the combined length of two 'effects' articles - one separate and one included - is greater than just one. If the articles are not merged then the content from the included section should be merged into the separate page. Biddlesby 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If you go in to edit Chernobyl disaster, this is the message at the top of the editing page: "This page is 85 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." So we should be looking to rationalise the situation by splitting more articles off the Chernobyl disaster article, not trying to build onto it. Can't you see this? -- Johnfos 10:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the merger, as the disaster effects is a long enough, and important enough, article to stand on its own. It looks like the redundancy in the main article as already been taken out. Topkai22 10:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the articles should be merged because this article is in a way continued on in the main page, with the immediate results and the health and farming effects.
  • The main Chernobyl disaster article is already long, disaster effects deserve another, more in-depth article. Redundant text should be cleaned up.--JyriL talk 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • against the merger, the article Red Forest stands on its own, and if someone feels it douse not, well Than I say to you "Be Bold" and Edit it. Max ╦╩ 23:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Red Forest[edit]

I think there should be a section or Whole page to the Red Forest. Right now 'Red Forest' redirects Chernobyl disaster effects. I would like to help on the new section or pageMax 16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the Red Forest article should be merge with this one, the red forest is definatly an effect of the Chernobyl disaster and hence should be on this page Would also love to help with the new section

Not a good article[edit]

There aren't barely any citations, and death counts are so low you might expect them to come from old sources of soviet propaganda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.39.207.98 (talkcontribs).

There are 33 citations. You are welcome to provide data on death counts that are less "old," as well as cite these. Be bold!.--Riurik(discuss) 05:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Radioactive fallout caesium137 after Chernobyl.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Radioactive fallout caesium137 after Chernobyl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

POV[edit]

This article does not present the controversy in a neutral light. The various reports on health effects must be contrasted against the internationally accepted UNSCEAR and IAEA reports. I'm not trying to downplay the controversy, but to only show reports saying that there are tens of thousands of deaths and to not include the official UN reports saying that there are essentially none, is dishonest. See the UNSCEAR report at: http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html#Health I feel that presenting the various reports in order based on severity will help greatly. Lwnf360 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good, easy-to-follow scheme. The citations will need to be strong of course and I fear there may be some opposition, as demonstrated by this "soviet propaganda" comment above. --Old Moonraker 22:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
UNSCEAR and IAEA reports used to be part of this entry. I am not surprised that they gradually disappeared. They should be included. While having a pov discussion is helpful, why not include the missing material with references and make a comment about it on the Talk Page? As it is, there has been no progress on this article since 16 October.--Riurik(discuss) 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, all reports should be included. But UNSCEAR and IAEA reports are not better than others. These organizations are prone to various political manipulations. They are less reliable than normal publications in scientific journals or studies by independent national or international organizations.Biophys (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

All reports should be included. It is arguable The UN report was corrupted. It had people from the nuclear industry lobby on it so was just a consensus report. The nuclear lobby try to claim only 56 people died. Even though most series medical studies claim tens of thousands have died from cancer, not including the other illness issues. Plus even the UN report did not say barely anyone died it said between 4000 and 9000 died. Why do you claim it said no one died. The nuclear lobby is corrupt in the extreme to spread these lies.

The 'other' reports are from any better sources? No, they are from groups such as Greenpeace, they are far more inaccurate than IAEA and UNSCEAR ever would be.--Nemmie (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Utter rubbish ? The IAEA and UNSCEAR are nuclear lobby groups. Why would a undemocratic nuclear lobby group be more reliable for deaths due to the nuclear industry, than charities. Such groups are corrupt. The UN report was just a consensus report. But I suppose big corporations always honest just like the banks and tobacco companies. No, they are not - they are United Nations Scientific Comittees, like the IPCC is for Climate Change, representing scientific consensus. This consensus is sometimes against commercial interests of powerful lobby groups, just watch the "climate change" debate. Of course there are commercial interests in attacking science interfering here as well, after all, some of the anti-nuclear lobby-groups use images of deformed children as means to attract funds, could you imagine anything more disgusting than that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalb2003 (talkcontribs) 21:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cartcriirad.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Cartcriirad.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

===Comment=============[edit]

Chernobyl contamination effect in Finland http://www.stuk.fi/sateilytietoa/sateily_ymparistossa/tshernobyl/cesiumlaskeuma/fi_FI/laskeuma/

This is from Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority ( http://www.stuk.fi/en_GB/)

===Comment=============[edit]

Map[edit]

If anyone has or knows of a map we can use for this article, it would be much appreciated. Without a map displaying Cesium-137 (or other radioactive isotope) deposition over the entire European continent the article seems to emphasize the local effects. For example, Scandinavia and Switzerland received substantial radiation. A good (but possibly unsuitable for Wikipedia due to copyright) map is here. -kslays (talkcontribs) 22:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

another Map: http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/14898/chernobyl_fallout.jpg Interpolated: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-vY_1ru3dNYg/TYYwFNf7jbI/AAAAAAAABEc/6KBJsOEc-sU/s1600/zz+Chernobyl2.jpg GLOBAL Simulation: http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=Radioactive_fall-out_from_the_Chernobyl_accident.jpg Is it True that Turky Area was That strongly affected???

It is a Very strange thing, like a WEAPON DESIGN preparing EUROPEAN Ground, that all east of Moskow is NOT affected....

--Wikistallion (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag[edit]

There is nothing neutral about this article. For example, "There are reports of mutations in some plants in the area, leading to unsubstantiated tales of a "forest of wonders" containing many strangely mutated plants. Specifically, some trees have weirdly twisted branches that do not reach for the sky." The citation following it does not have "unsubstantiated tales", it is a BBC article quoting a radioecologist. Nor does it say anything about a "forest of wonders". Throughout the article, an anti-nuclear person or group "claims", "accuses", etc. and a pro-nuclear group or study "states" and "describes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.239 (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the Neutrality tag on the article. This isn't a great article, but it appears to neutrally describe the different opinions about human effects. The article has been tagged since December 2007, so any burst of good editing from the tagging has probably settled down. Right now I think the tag puts inappropriate doubt on the many well cited contents of the article.

I did remove a bunch of uncited material that clearly contradicted information in Wormword forest by Mary Mycio.

If no-one responds in the next two days, I'll remove the neutrality tag myself. - Enuja (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Congenital defects[edit]

I have just removed a perfectly valid citation from a WP:RS because it contradicts the text. This, of course, is the wrong way around, so expect an adjustment to the text shortly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry: it didn't contradict the text. The paragraph concerned discusses civilian exposure, but the removed citation discusses the children of the "liquidators", obviously not civilians. No changes are required. This is the WP:RS; I might attach it to the right paragraph in due course. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Now added to the "Workers and liquidators" paragraph. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely needs some significant work...[edit]

Er, yes, the pressure vessel is empty; the fuel melted and slumped to the bottom of the building. That's why it needs a lot of cooling water. This does not mean that it has left the building entirely. Unfortunately, there are a lot of completely uncited assertions in this article, of varying degrees of plausibility. If someone would like to take it on... 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Four years later. --Robertiki (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

French legal action[edit]

I was unable to find the publication that has the conflicting statements on the site of the French institute for Radioprotection itself. The link in the text only leads to the site of the radiostation RFI, not to the report. Does someone know which report it is, exactly?

GilHamiltonTheArm (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Chernobyl Documentary[edit]

The article references a documentary of very questionable scientific validity. Either the reference to the documentary should be removed, or alternatively, the reliability of the documentary should be stated to be low. I made an alteration to the article, but this was reverted by a user called John - I would invite John (and indeed others) to give an adequate reason as to why the reference to the documentary should be included in the article without pointing to the inaccuracies, and lack of reliability of the documentary which to anyone with any scientific background are glaringly apparent, failing which I will revert to the previous page Leor klier (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Leor Klier

Here is a website listed some of the inaccuracies - http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/the-battle-for-chernobyl/. It should be noted that all of these errors are ones which would certainly be spotted by someone who had taken A-Level Physics, and likely several of them would have been spotted by someone who had taken GCSE Physics.Leor klier (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the offending material per WP:NPOV and WP:V. --John (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

IAEA Advisory Group Meeting, Paris 1987: The medical handling of skin lesions following high level accidental irradiation.[edit]

I was an official UK delegate at this first meeting on the skin lesions seen at Chernobyl (www.armadale.org.uk/chernobyl.htm). Has anyone ever seen an official report of this meeting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr John Wells (talkcontribs) 07:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Poorly structured[edit]

The article as it stands contains many statements that are not organised into relevant sections and occur somewhat as non-sequiturs. Also, discussions of human health effects are spread through many sections, and mostly relegated to late in the article, in two sections that seem to have roughly the same purpose: "Chernobyl Forum report and criticisms" (which actually has a lot of material relating to health effects more broadly, rather than just in the context of the Chernobyl Forum's report) and "Controversy over human health effects".

If I have time, I shall try to restructure things a bit more sensibly. Thanks for your patience, and feel free to help! Fuzzypeg 01:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

When will it be safe again?[edit]

I came to this article looking for the answer to one important question: When will Chernobyl be safe again; that is, when will all the radiation have subsided to safe levels (hundreds of years?, thousands?) and life can get back to normal. I scanned through the article and couldn't find the answer. I think it deserves its own subsection if anyone knows. 5Q5 (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What would you consider "safe level" 0? never. "2 x natural background": ready to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalb2003 (talkcontribs) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In the article, there is a map showing caesium-137 contamination in the Chernobyl area as of 1996. The timeframe of when this land, soil, flora and fauna, associated groundwater, etc. will become safe for human use is a critical public safety issue. I have seen figures elsewhere ranging from 900 years to 100,000. I think this deserves due weight.—An Sealgair (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

I've flagged the article for undue weight because it gives quite extensive coverage to fringe views on the effects of the Chernobyl incident. The WHO report is analogous to the IPCC's analysis of climate change. It represents the most rigorous research by the top scientists in the relevant fields, and thus represents the scientific consensus on the matter. There will always be dissenting views with radically different conclusions, and we should report the most notable of these, but (just as with climate change) they should be given equal weight to the mainstream scientific consensus analysis. -Helvetica (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


I've edited out a claim that the Ukrainian Health Minister attributed 428000 injuries to Chernobyl. There is a reference attached to an article in French where the claim appears to have originated. It is a claim in the article that the quote comes from the Ukrainian Health Ministry ministère which has been mistranslated. But there is simply no evidence that either the Minister or the Ministry ever said it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talkcontribs) 08:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)