Talk:Elephant's Foot (Chernobyl)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Elephant's Foot (Chernobyl). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Merger
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was not to merge per WP:GNG. Notability warrants article. Pagliaccious (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
This topic is already substantially covered at Corium (nuclear reactor), so I think any new content in this article can easily move to Corium. Pagliaccious (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. It seems like there is little in this stub that is not already covered in the main Corium article, and some of the wording in this article is deceptive [in good faith] (e.g., "Over time, it decomposed, ...", it will decompose, but it has not yet). I think a blank-and-redirect is in order.
#REDIRECT [[Corium (nuclear reactor)#Chernobyl accident]]
I will hold off for a while in case there are objections. Tar-Elessar (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC) - Agreed Midgley (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- While I agree that the article for corium does cover the topic better than this, and this subject doesn't seem like it belongs in its own article, the article for corium seems like kind of an awkward place to cover the topic, since that article is about the substance. It seems kind of like if Denali just redirected to Stone, though that analogy is far from perfect. Hppavilion1 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps there should be an article just for specific incidents? The Corium article already covers three incidents, and maybe they would be better suited for their own article by your logic. Pagliaccious (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- While I agree that the article for corium does cover the topic better than this, and this subject doesn't seem like it belongs in its own article, the article for corium seems like kind of an awkward place to cover the topic, since that article is about the substance. It seems kind of like if Denali just redirected to Stone, though that analogy is far from perfect. Hppavilion1 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The "Elephant's Foot" doesn't have Bieber-level coverage, but there's definitely enough written about it to satisfy WP:N. An article seems to be warranted. 198.98.183.43 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an article for all Corium-related incidents be a good compromise? That way we have a separate article for the Elephant's Foot and we can remove the rest of the incidents from the main Corium page. Pagliaccious (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Disagree The Elephant's Foot is very widely known and absolutely satisfies the criteria for notability. It is part of history and popular culture, and even (although that's not an absolute indicator of renown) has more Google results than Corium. Merging whould be like placing Hurricane Katrina into tropical depression. Both deserve their respective place in the encyclopedia. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Just as a matter of curiosity, how did you find the number of google hits without including references to actual elephant feet? (I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious). Hppavilion1 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Disagree The Elephant's foot should stay its own article, but maybe we can place it in a subsection containing disasters that involve corium reactors. icemilkcoffee101 (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2018 (PST)
- Do you mean place the article in a Corium disaster category, or put the contents of the article in a section of the Corium article? It sounds like you mean the latter, and the Elephant's Foot is already covered in a subsection of the Corium article, so I believe that a redirect to the main Corium article is adequate. Pagliaccious (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Disagree Per comments above. 344917661X (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Restructured article
I agree with the concerns raised above regarding conflicting and stale material, and hope that will be addressed. In the meantime, I have restructured the article to look less like a stub. RobP (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
reference 3 conflicts with rest of page
When reading the reference 3, it appears taht its information conflict with both the Chernobyl section in Corium article, and information in this article For instance its say that 30 second near the Elephant Foot would kill in 86, whereas this page say 5 minutes. Also, in Corium page, it says that the formation is around room temperature, which doesnt make any sense if it is burning through the ground Mallorne (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, the article cited from McGill is citing data from the Foot's discovery in 1986, but the editor who put it in our article states it as if it was measured yesterday. I know of no reputable sources who still fear the Foot is so hot as to be still digging through the concrete; but rather that it was on its last legs when it reached the basement, where it solidified. I'm loathe to delete the lines, however, as McGill should be a reliable source and it does say what is in the article, so I left it but added some "on the other hand..." information. The thing obviously has lost most of its sting considering Korneyev's selfie taken in 1996, and today is probably around 1 Gray/hr according to the 7/10 rule. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Half life
Generally, highly radioactive substances have a short half life. The radiation levels listed here are from 1989, and are very likely no longer correct.
What is the half life of the substance?
Moreover a structure was placed over Chernobyl recently which would make this thing inaccessible.
This article needs updating Skysong263 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- The half-life of the active ingredients of the corium would be difficult to say, being a mixture of the uranium fuel and all the fission products in it, each with its own half-life. A more reliable indicator of its ongoing radiation would preferably be a direct measurement (of which I cannot find any), or, failing that, an estimate made using the 7/10 rule which is generally applicable to post-fission waste. By that measure, a baseline of 80 grays/hr after 8 months (measurement was taken when it was found in December 1986) would indicate 8 Grays/hr in June of 1991, 0.8 Grays/hr in 2024. This is also obviously my own conclusion and so can't be cited, but I can't find any more reputable person who does the same analysis, so it has to remain here. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Where is the picture?
I am happy that this article has made improvements, such as clarifying its claims on how lethal the elephant's foot is, how fast it could kill, etc. When I first saw this article, it claimed it could kill in seconds while simultaneously showing the selfie that Korneyev took. All my edits to clarify this were removed. Thankfully, the article is finally better now thanks to people more persistent than myself.
Where is Korneyev's picture now?! Why would we remove the actual image of the elephant's foot from the article about it, and replace it with a picture of some sign at Chernobyl? --CarterMassey (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)cartermassey
I am happy to see that the picture is now back up. Awesome! Thanks, Wikipedia community. ~~cartermassey
Missing "Not"?
The following para doesn't seem to make sense....
There were fears that it may continue to penetrate deeper into the ground and come into contact with groundwater, contaminating the area's drinking water and leading to illnesses and deaths[10]; however, as of 2019, the mass has moved significantly since its discovery and is estimated to be only slightly warmer than its environment due to heat from the ongoing nuclear decay.
It feels like "the mass has moved significantly" should be "the mass has not moved significantly" to fit with the sense of the rest of the paragraph. Does it mean there were fears, but there aren't any more 'cos the mass has stopped moving and has decayed significantly.
46.227.49.108 (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Amen - noticed that myself and fixed it. It was removed by a vandal and got neglected. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Lethality
The source says 8,000 roentgens per hour. Where tf did you get 1 million?
- If you are referring to me, I found yesterday that someone had changed 10,000 and 3 minutes into a million and less than a second in the sentences. I fixed them last night. You're welcome. SkoreKeep (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Renewed merge proposal
I am renewing the July 2018 merge discussion because consideration was not given of Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages.
Right now, the Elephant's Foot is covered in three articles: here, Chernobyl disaster#Lava-like fuel-containing materials (FCMs) (although there is also one paragraph in Chernobyl disaster#Debris removal) and Corium (nuclear reactor)#Chernobyl accident.
The most extensive discussion is in Corium (nuclear reactor)#Chernobyl accident. This, of course, is not tenable because, if a separate article here is to be kept, it should be the more expansive treatment. Adding to the absurdity is that the section at Corium contains a hatnote identifying this page as the main article, even though it is barely half the size of the treatment at Corium and considerably more basic.
So there are two possibilities. The first is to merge this article into the other two. Corium would focus on the science, and Chernobyl disaster would focus on the history. Both sections would be hatnoted to each other. The second is to do the converse, make Corium and Chernobyl disaster summaries and make merge the excess here.
I prefer the former. Because the discussion at this article is so basic, little would be required to merge it into the other two. Of the several breakout articles from Chernobyl disaster, the Elephant's Foot is a small one, and I think it makes little sense that such a small part be split when such larger parts remain integrated into the main article. Chernobyl disaster will still have to be better split. Currently, Chernobyl disaster is too large. However, that is not a reason not to merge. Firstly, the merged content is not substantial, because Chernobyl disaster already contains a treatment of the topic. Secondly, Chernobyl disaster will be too large regardless of the merge.
--Bsherr (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I should also mention that, if this article does remain, it will have to be renamed, because the current title contravenes WP:DEFINITE. --Bsherr (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:SPLIT as before, especialy in relation to Chernobyl disaster. The Elephant's Foot itself is quite informative and potentially expandable further, has significant coverage in reliable sources. The Chernobyl disaster is already too large to accommodate such topic. Corium (nuclear reactor) in my opinion also favors split to avoid excessive focus on one subject. Brandmeistertalk 10:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The historicity, public awareness and disinformation about the EF itself is plenty cause, in my opinion, for leaving the article intact. The substance of the Foot takes a back seat to that, and in fact, the article needs references to the substance so as to concentrate on its particular notoriety. I will see about doing that myself soon if I'm not beaten to the draw. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The section at Corium (nuclear reactor)#Chernobyl accident is far too large already, and there is enough sources to warrant a seperate article. AtlasDuane (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose there is plenty of coverage of the subject under this article name. The article is large enough to stand on its own.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
You what? Really?
Many thanks to shorekeep for the correction (see above). Shorekeep mentioned vandalism at the cause, which makes me wonder about...
"The mass is quite dense, unyielding to a drill, but able to be damaged by a Kalashnikov rifle."
... A Kalashnikov? Really?
Is this vandalism too or does the reference [2] really suggest the Kalashnikov test as a standard measure of hardness?
46.227.49.108 (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, so I decided not to be so lazy and tried to check it out. I can't find an online copy of the book but a google shows up several relevant references, including..
"such as the so-called 'Elephant's Foot' mass for which samples were chipped off using Kalashnikov rifles"
... I found another reference where it was suggested that bullets were, indeed, fired at it from a Kalashnikov to chip bits off for retrieval and analysis.
So it looks like it might be true after all. It would be great if someone with access to Moults book could confirm - I feel like buying it just for this bit. 46.227.49.108 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I looked up the book through my university library, and it does state exactly that. The reason cited is due to not being able to use robots to chip away at it, though I don't see how shooting at it is a better solution. 80.230.80.150 (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This picture https://i.stack.imgur.com/CcxRB.jpg shows the affected location close to the Elephant Foot in Room 217/2 on the 6.0 m level. A stalactite-like piece (0.5 m length, 0.3 m diameter) was shot off with an AK-74. Note that the dose rate close to the lava-like fuel containing mass is given as 800 roentgen per hour (not 8000). --Emeldir (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Image under fair use?
Would it be possible to have a photo of the elephant's foot in this article under a claim of fair use, given that it is extremely unlikely that any free-use images will become available? I am unsure if it would qualify, as it is technically possible for someone to take a photograph of the mass and release the photo. -Thespündragon 04:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Seems to me there's a strong argument it meets the criteria. I think the problem is it just hasn't been uploaded with good documentation. --Bsherr (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
'Medusa' nickname
This edit by 2607:fcc8:e08d:1a00:f1d9:6dc4:590c:d2e9 stated that the Elephant's Foot's nickname is "Medusa". Unless there's proof of this, I'm removing this information. — Melofors TC 02:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)