Talk:Chernobyl disaster

Cancer rates low after 19 years, high after 24?

As part of an unrelated search, I just noticed a really striking difference between whichever UN source is cited in the first paragraph of this column and this recent news and this peer reviewed article from last year, which seems to confirm the recent news.

Doesn't the IAEA have any idea what the expected cancer occurrence profile is for various sorts of contamination? I'd like to see one for depleted uranium exposure, because of Gulf War illness#Epidemiology -- Apparently all those people spending money we pay them to pay attention haven't been paying attention. 99.38.148.255 (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between DU as refined for inertial weapon use vs uranium within an active nuclear reactor for any period of time (not to speak of the graphite and all the other materials around the reactor and later poured into it). The accumulated fission products and atoms of all types irradiated with neutrons into radioactive isotopes makes any comparison complete fantasy, as would any statistics about estimated cancer deaths arising from them. No ammo for a DU war here. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction about Vehicle Field

"Many of the vehicles used by the "liquidators" remain parked in a field in the Chernobyl area to this day, most giving off doses of 10-30 R/hr (0.1-0.3 Gy/hr) over 20 years after the disaster.[53]"

I visited Chernobyl in December 2009. The field of vehicles used in the clean-up no longer exists. According to the official guide, they have now been buried. I also read on someone's account of visiting Chernobyl in 2008 that the vehicles had been acquisitioned for their metal. Which seems highly unlikely considering the amount of radiation they must have. Either way, the vehicles aren't there any more. Around 5-6 vehicles used in the clean-up have been parked in a village near Chernobyl town, which the tours take you to (I can provide pictures of this). I don't know where you could find verifiable sources to confirm this - here is the site of the guy who was told the vehicles were taken for the metal: http://www.reactor4.be/our_story.php Jigsawn (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Why would the cars be radioactive? Cs-137 and I-131 decay via beta and gamma. There isn't going to be a high neutron flux in the area. FellGleaming (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Physical Health Effects -- missing figure

In the section on NTD in Turkey, there is a figure missing in the sentence ending "the prevalence of NTDs increased to [figure missing] per 1,000 (12 cases)." As the paragraph lacks a citation, I cannot say what the missing figure is, but deduction from the following sentence suggest it to be about 20.

78.86.168.228 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)richard@the-place.net

Article prose...

...is not what it once was. I'm not sure exactly what has changed since the last time I had a look, but it's no longer as easily read or as readily understood as it used to be. Is this related to the work discussed above?

J.M. Archer (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Another note, actually:

Some of the modifications made to the text follow logically as responses to the text that was present before the changes were made but make less sense standing here alone. Readers can't be expected to have seen both versions of the text and that's just not the way an encyclopedia is supposed to work: whatever the technical reality is, there is only one Wikipedia article on the Chernobyl disaster. It needs to be complete as presented. I've copypasta'd an example below.

All of them returned to the surface and according to Ananenko, their colleagues jumped from happiness when they heard they managed to open the valves. Despite their good condition after the task completion, all of them suffered from radiation sickness, and at least two of them - Ananenko and Bezpalov - died in the process.

This seems almost a non sequitur as presented in the article. It feels out of place in context: there is no reason for the reader to assume they did not make it out, as the article says nothing of the kind. I personally happen to know--and a reader might discover from the article's history page--that this section once claimed that the three divers did not return to the surface and that all died immediately. This snippet seems to make sense as a rebuttal of the older version of the article, but that serves no purpose: there is no reason to rebut a version that is not present, and that the reader has not read.

I can't imagine this being a common practice and would like to see some of these bits and pieces made to fit better within the context of the article but don't necessarily know enough about the event itself to ensure that I can make changes without screwing up details.

J.M. Archer (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian acronyms

Created a reference subpage for translation from Russian-language webpages. --Shaddack (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Extremely long article (unwieldy)

I know it's an important topic, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a book. Can this article be heavily chopped down for readability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What time?

In the article, I noticed that the infobox said the explosion was at 1:21am, but the third paragraph said the time was 1:23am. I tagged them both as dubious. Could someone please fix those times so they are correct and consistent? Thanks, Oxguy the 3rd (talk). Tagged: 23:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the time zone is incorrect. It is listed only as +3. It is true that Ukraine was in the Moscow Time Zone when the accident occurred. However DST was observed in the Soviet Union at this time beginning in late March. Moscow Summer Time +4 would have been in effect. Ukraine currently observes Eastern European Time, +2 in the winter and +3 in the summer. Skywayman (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of "invisible Note" system

I have remove this text from the article:

"First: No fact of "turning off the turbogenerators" were registered, this "turning off" was pre-overridden by operators (they lowered the threshold of triggering). Second: EPS-5 (AZ-5?) is the system, which scrams a reactor. Indeed, the system, whose signals were overridden, is the AZ-2 (or, in English, EPS-2). This system, as a part, cuts-off the steam to turbogenerators in cause of abnormal steam-water levels in separator drums. Third: One of two turbogenerators, by the 23:00 was already turned-off, thus, no need to speak in plural. Fourth: The source you specified below contains no assertions about "turning off turbogenerators", nor about triggering EPS-5 at this time-points."

It was placed in the article as an "invisible note" but I think that although invisible notes have their uses this argument should have been brought here to the talk page. I also think that the English is below the standard required for articles. Britmax (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree: my recent edit restoring an invisible note was of parenthetical material and not a commentary on the facts. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fallout Comparison

"400 times the fallout". This claim has been tagged as dubious for a while without anyone supporting it. This claim has several problems. First, it is demagogic and overly dramatic in tone. Secondly, the work of SCOPE (see [1]) suggests such comparisons are impossible; they are inherently "apples to oranges" comparisons. Third, it leaves a false impression in the reader's mind. Hiroshima may have killed as many as 100,000 people from fallout. Yet a release some four hundred times larger has killed possibly as few as 20, and certainly no more than 4,000? Even the source in this case points out that "Early estimates that tens or hundreds of thousands of people would die from Chernobyl have been discredited."

Properly caveated, it might possibly have some relevance elsewhere in the article, but it has no place in the lede. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That is basically an argument from personal incredulity, a classic logical flaw. The fact is well-sourced; it comes ultimately from Ten years after Chernobyl: what do we really know?, published in 1997 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (which I'm sure you would accept as an authority). The source states (page 8): "The Chernobyl explosion put 400 times more radioactive material into the Earth's atmosphere than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima." Your "false impression" is, I'm afraid, one that is based on ignorance; Hiroshima killed so many people because it was a nuclear explosion with associated blast, fire and radiation effects. Contamination was relatively minor. That's why the city was rebuilt so quickly. Chernobyl's death toll was almost entirely due to radioactive contamination rather than the initial blast and fire. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Chernobyl Nuclear Accident

previous move request -- now closed

Requested move Chernobyl disaster → Chernobyl nuclear accident — Formal request per discussion below. Beagel (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC) NOTE: Based on the multitude of names being proposed, I'm going to wait another day or two, then reopen the move request with whichever name has the most traction at that point, to avoid any potential procedural issues FellGleaming (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, shouldn't this article be called the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident as opposed to the Chernobyl Disaster? Disaster can apply to anything, Nuclear Accident is more specific. WritersCramp (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Probably so; it would be more accurate. FellGleaming (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Do we have consensus on this before I move it? FellGleaming (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC) The International Nuclear Event Scale talks about various kinds of "accidents". However, Chernobyl was really something special, and should be distinguished in some way. How about we go with the INES wording and call it Chernobyl major nuclear accident.? Simesa (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC) That seems logical. I did a Google search and the "accident" form turned up twice as often as the "disaster" form ... and the sources appeared to be much higher quality on the former as well. FellGleaming (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I disagree with this move. It might be better to wait a little longer and see what others think before moving it. I'll put it back meantime. --John (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC) John, the issue has been open ten days. You say nothing during that period, then revert the move 5 minutes after its done? We have 3 editors here believing it should be moved. Please do not go against WP:CON FellGleaming (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) That's right. Can you take this to WP:RM please, or else list it on project talk to generate a greater discussion? Three editors is not a very strong consensus, considering how long the article has been at this title. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Sure, there's no problem with giving the issue more time to gel. FellGleaming (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Rename per Simesa. Beagel (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Rename: Reasons: The "accident" form is more common, more neutral and encyclopedic in tone, and seems to be the form preferred by higher quality WP:RS. Further, article sources show the original effects of the accident were not nearly as bad as originally feared, and we should capture that in our terminology. FellGleaming (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; we aren't here to invent English usage, especially when no useful precision is gained; English speakers know precisely which disaster is referred to when they hear "Chernobyl disaster", there is no ambiguity. Knepflerle (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Invent? There are twice as many Google hits for "Chernobyl Accident" as "Chernobyl Disaster". I think both terms are precise, but one is more neutral than the other. "Chernobyl Accident" (with or without the incorrect capitalisation) is not the proposed destination of this page. Knepflerle (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Rename per my reasons above. I think the picture says it all. Simesa (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Move to 'accident' . Three times as many search terms show 'accident' vs. 'disaster', and those results lead to many of the highest quality reliable sources. Disaster is emotion-laden, accident is neutral. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Strongly oppose move to Chernobyl major nuclear accident, support move to Chernobyl nuclear accident. The latter is accurate and reasonably free from heavy-handed emotional implications; the former sounds ridiculously clinical and sterile, reeking of an odd mixture of non-native English, legalese, and some sort of future dystopian Newspeak. It's fine for the INES's purposes, perhaps, but unfit for ours. There aren't any "minor" nuclear accidents in Chernobyl to necessitate this added level of distinction (some might argue that there's no such thing as a "minor" nuclear accident, period, but that's neither here nor there). Additionally, there's no real precedent for copying an investigative bureau's exact terminology, especially when it's as awkwardly phrased as this. As a comparision, I offer the Tenerife airport disaster: it's not Accident involving aircraft Boeing 747 PH-BUF of KLM and Boeing 747 N 736 PA of PANAM as per the NTSB's English translation of the Spanish report. Badger Drink (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Lol, great example. FellGleaming (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC) So, we're looking like Chernobyl nuclear accident? Simesa (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with Badger Drink's logic. As the originator of the thread noted, there are many kinds of disasters, including natural ones. "Accident" means it was human-caused, with the implication of error. "Major" is just an empty adjective. "Chernobyl Accident" or Chernobyl Nuclear Accident" will help readers find the article.--Cde3 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Oppose My Google search for "Chernobyl disaster" gives 133,000 hits, whereas "Chernobyl nuclear accident" gives 49,700. "Chernobyl major nuclear accident" gives one - our own WP:RM page! It seems that it already has the most commonly used name. --Nigelj (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC) "Chernobyl Accident" without "Nuclear" gets 422,000 hits on Google if quote signs are included and 499,000 if not.--Cde3 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I guess between "Chernobyl disaster" and "Chernobyl accident" I prefer "Chernobyl disaster". I think we need to emphasize the severity in some way. Simesa (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC) That's a fourth optional name. The requested move was to "Chernobyl major nuclear accident". --Nigelj (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Although an accident, it was indeed a disaster. I oppose renaming. Jared Preston (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I don't think it's up to WP to decide whether or not it was a disaster. It's up to the reader. As the article explains, it's not clear just how disastrous the accident was.--Cde3 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) update: based on still-developing consensus, I've changed the move discussion to "Chernobyl nuclear accident". If this affects your vote, please note as much here. FellGleaming (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Changing tracks halfway through only leads to confusion; stop the discussion and restart it, or let this run its course and propose a second if necessary afterwards (there's no rush after all). On the new proposed title however, what non-nuclear accidents of international renown have there been in this small Ukrainian town? There's no need for the extra precision. Knepflerle (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I understand your point, but a nuclear accident is no ordinary industrial accident. The Bhopal disaster is the only event of the same order of magnitude that I know. I wouldn't feel right just calling this event simply the "Chernobyl accident". Simesa (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC) There is the List of industrial disasters. Simesa (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Bhopal killed several thousand people within the first couple weeks...nearly all civilians. Chernobyl killed 39 within the first couple weeks...all of which were plant workers or emergency responders. FellGleaming (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Most of whom (not "which" btw) were also civilians. What difference does that make to this discussion? --John (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC) The difference is two fold. One is simple scale -- several thousand vs. three dozen. The second is that non-connected civilians are generally regarded as a greater tragedy than those intentionally risking their lives. For instance, 3,000 people killed in the 9/11 attacks is considered worse than 3,000 soldiers killed in a war. FellGleaming (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I don't agree, and I don't agree with the proposed page move either. (Not that I want to get into a protracted debate about this, you understand, but many of the dead on 9/11 were firefighters just like the guys at Chernobyl. So what?) --John (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Oppose either "Chernobyl accident" or "Chernobyl disaster" would be more common, or just "Chernobyl" . "Chernobyl meltdown" is also pretty common. WP:COMMONNAME 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I pretty strongly disagree with "Chernobyl accident", and am guardedly neutral with "Chernobyl disaster". "Nuclear" is a good word to use to distinguish this particular incident from thousands of unplanned mishaps of varying degrees of severity that have no doubt affected the geographical locale in question over the course of mankind. If we're truly going to go with WP:COMMONNAME, I think the most common designator of this would be simply "Chernobyl" (c.f. "Pearl Harbor" or "9/11" / "September 11th"; rather than "Pearl Harbor bombing" or "September 11th terrorist hijackings"), but, for obvious reasons, that alone won't do. I'm fine with "Chernobyl nuclear disaster", but can sympathize with those who feel it's a bit too pejorative and emotionally-laden. "Chernobyl nuclear accident" is pretty good as well, maybe a bit "apologetic" ("aw, come on, guys, it was just an accident, nobody's really to blame"), but does a good job of summarizing what transpired. Without the "nuclear", and without "disaster" to signify the magnitude of the incident in question, it's just a bit too vague to sit well with me. Google searches aren't perfect; speaking hypothetically, twenty news / scientific journal headlines / titles that read "Chernobyl nuclear accident" carry a lot more weight with me than five thousand mentions of the "Chernobyl accident" bured in the middle paragraphs of a tangentially-related writing. Badger Drink (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I also oppose a move to either "Chernobyl accident" or "Chernobyl nuclear disaster". There seems no need to make such a move; there has only been one major disaster there and it made worldwide news. The word "accident" has connotations of a vehicular accident. -84user (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC) (However, if the article was just being created I would be 50/50 split between "Chernobyl catastrophe" and "Chernobyl disaster", for what is worth. -84user (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)) Agreed. Accident is far too mild. It certainly was a disaster (or catastrophe) for Chernobyl. --81.149.203.93 (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Due to the name change, I am closing the old incident and reopening this as a discussion on the move to "Chernobyl accident". If you expressed a view for either this name, or to leave simply as "Chernobyl disaster", you do not need to reexpress your position. If you expressed a view for one of the alternate names discussed above, please restate your vote here for clarity. Thanks. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 17:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Support: I strongly support, as per WP:COMMONNAME. This google search [2] shows many more hits for the "accident" form than disaster, and these hits appear to be from more reliable sources in general. Further, the name is more neutral and encyclopedic in tone, and makes no unbiased assumptions about how serious the accident really was (and the article makes clear there is dispute in this regard). Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Presuming you mean "Chernobyl accident" as we don't capitalize non-proper nouns in article titles. Strongly oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME. I suggest this will soon become disruptive. --John (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral I really don't see a good reason to move it, though "accident" seems a bit more common, but much less than "Chernobyl". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• MOVE. It wasn't the disaster some tried to say it was. 216.24.167.196 (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move. The name "Chernobyl disaster" has served us well for a long time, and this really was no ordinary accident. Johnfos (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This would be far too mild a name. The existing WP:COMMONNAME is more specific and accurate. All the relevant points were made in the previous discussion, now closed. A few editors tried to close the last RfM far too soon, and now we have another almost immediately. Any more of this will certainly look disruptive.--Nigelj (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, as agreed to in talk, the last one was closed as multiple names were being discussed simultaneously. The process was thus restarted. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 16:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is the talk page, and I've looked twice now for that discussion, but I still don't see it. --Nigelj (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's collapsed, right above this one. Click the expand link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I know about the other RfM, obviously (I mentioned it above and I !voted in it). What I can't find are the discussions about when to close it, about the reasons for closing it, and for the decision immediately to open a new RfM. --Nigelj (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If I fall and cut my knee, it's an accident. This was an event on a much larger scale and with far greater effects: disaster is a far more appropriate term. As for the comment that It wasn't the disaster some tried to say it was, I'd say that an incident that leaves a whole town off-limits, causes numerous birth deformities and health problems across at least three countries, and sparks widespread panic across much of a continent is as close to a disaster as you're likely to get. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from the NY Times, "Nor has there been any detectable decrease in fertility or increase in birth defects, said the report, which was written for the Chernobyl Forum, a group that includes the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, six other UN agencies and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia."

• http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/world/europe/05iht-nuke.html

It goes on to state the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were.

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The report acknowledged that there was a core of people, probably numbering 100,000 to 200,000, who continued to be severely affected by the disaster: poor rural dwellers who live in the few severely contaminated areas, the people with thyroid cancer and citizens who were resettled after the disaster but never found a home or employment in their new communities. Anyway, it's irrelevant what you or I or Joe Bloggs says about this. What do the reliable sources say? --John (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"What do the reliable sources say?" -- Click on the link. It says "Chernobyl's dangers called far exaggerated".

I did. Where does it say "the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were"? I didn't see that bit. --John (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It says the largest problem is mental health, then follows with this to explain why:

"People have developed a paralyzing fatalism because they think they are at much higher risk than they are, so that leads to things like drug and alcohol use, and unprotected sex and unemployment..."

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 05:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLLOCKS. Have you ever visited the Ukraine or the affected areas? I have, and I've been round the Ukrainian National Chernobyl Museum in Kiev, which shows the effects of Chernobyl in graphic detail. If you trotted out your claims there, you'd likely get a punch in the face. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

While the "punch in the face" rebuttal is certainly unique, the fact remains that the health effects very vastly overstated, and, as the New York Times points out, the majority of the (very real) suffering is simply mental anguish, from the over hyped, overemotional reporting of the incident, that unfairly left residents in fear for decades. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, of course. It's universally called the Chernobyl disaster. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; we aren't here to invent English usage, especially when no useful precision is gained; English speakers know precisely which disaster is referred to when they hear "Chernobyl disaster", there is no ambiguity. Knepflerle (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Invent? There are twice as many Google hits for "Chernobyl Accident" as "Chernobyl Disaster". I think both terms are precise, but one is more neutral than the other. "Chernobyl Accident" (with or without the incorrect capitalisation) is not the proposed destination of this page. Knepflerle (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Rename per my reasons above. I think the picture says it all. Simesa (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Move to 'accident' . Three times as many search terms show 'accident' vs. 'disaster', and those results lead to many of the highest quality reliable sources. Disaster is emotion-laden, accident is neutral. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)