Talk:Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases

Chernobyl compared to other radioactivity releases

This is grammatically incorrect- it is always "compared with", not "compared to"- I have corrected some occurrences of this within the article, others have been corrected by other people. Please can the title of this article be changed (corrected)? 84.110.163.104 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)V. Welch

The paragraph containing the background dose in Europe vs the dose released at Chernobyl states that Chernobyl released 1/6th the yearly dose in Europe... but also states that the number in Europe was 50,000 man Sieverts, and from Chernobyl was 80,000 man Sieverts. To make these numbers match, I assume that the number should be 500,000 man Sieverts?

Goiânia graph

Why does the graph picture a normalized curve for an hypothesized element? How would be the curve for the correct, non-normalized curve for the actual cesium?... -- NIC1138 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Totskoye range nuclear tests

It woluld be good to compare the Chernobyl with results of Totskoye range nuclear tests; (aim of that test was to reveal, how long can the soldiers keep their abilities after to go through the highly contaminated area). Some sources indicate, the most of participants suffered from radiation and many died; and mention the hiding of data about victims among civilians. Then, this comparison should be transferred also to the article about Hiroshima. It is important to understand, whose atoms were stronger: American military atoms or Soviet peaceful atoms. dima (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Death toll

The death toll about Chernobyl, that is vagually talked about here is suprisingly missleading. The death toll ranges from 30'000 to 400'000 (that is, if including the ultra-high cancer statistics) and there is no solid consensus about this, never was and probably will be only after some decades, at best. So I think that asumption that comparison with Hirosima is valid, should appear here. 1) human death toll - compareable (with grave difficulty of course, but still), 2) economical impact. hirosima and nagasaki are totally rebuilt, people live there, while in chernobyl that won't happen for the next 100'000 years. also, nobody, at least in europe, seem to have the money to repair sarcophagus, while hirosima and nagasaki... so chernobyl can be, again, with great difficulty, but still, compared to hirosima. 3) environmentally - the same argument as 2) - people live there, even at ground zero.

Continued reverts by Rndm85

The edit you reverted here was to remove an erroneous claim that "some researchers have said" TMI was hundreds of times worse than it actually was. The "researcher" is not a scientists, but a man who has spent the last 10 years working as a clown in a travelling circus, a man who believes shadowy pro-nuclear agents killed his brother-in-law, tried to kill him, and keep stealing copies of his anti-nuclear manifesto. Furthermore, his account is self-published not by a reliable media outlet, but by "The Institute for Southern Studies", which fails Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources itself.

Your reversions are not designed to improve the article, but to mislead the reader, and to create a WP:COATRACK article. You have reverted over a dozen of my edits already in the last couple of days, a severe violation of 3RR. So far I have chosen not to report this, in the hopes you will work with us to create better articles, rather than blatant POV pushing. FellGleaming (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop making up fake issues and threats in an attempt to remove points from articles that you disagree with from a political standpoint. You're trying to bully people to get valid opposing viewpoints removed from Wikipedia. You are the one who is reverting my edits, stalking me by looking up my contributions to Wikipedia and then reverting them.

The Institute for Southern Studies is a credible, nonprofit research center has been active for 40 years. They have made claims in their article, and people should be able to read it on Wikipedia. If you want to put an opposing viewpoint to the article in Wikipedia, you're free to do so, but do not delete sources just because you don't agree with them. I'm even willing to compromise and use the word "they claim."

You are the one in "severe violation of 3RR." Stop being a bully. Rndm85 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(a) Calling a travelling circus performer a "researcher" is inaccurate, period. (b) ISS is an activist organization. Their information is self-published, and designed by their own admission to promote a particular point of view. I suggest you review WP policy on self published reliable sources. FellGleaming (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've replied over at Talk:Nuclear power because this is all part of the same issue. You are stalking my contributions to Wikipedia and you are reverting my edits wherever the sources/information disagree with your political opinion including my references to studies by MIT and Princeton (instead of adding your own sources to the article to balance it, which is how you should be editing it).Rndm85 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I deleted the text from the non-reliable source SouthernStudies, and replaced it with a citation from the RS Washington Post. I deleted no MIT study. What "political opinion" do you think I am advancing here? Rather than the article's previously shrill tone and references to fringe sources, it now is starting to sound like an actual encyclopedia entry. FellGleaming (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)