Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Was it "test" or "experiment"?

In section "Conditions before the accident" there is a sentence: "The night shift had very limited time to prepare for and carry out the _experiment_" (note word "experiment") but in same section, at beginning, article state: "The conditions to run the _test_ were established before the day shift of 25 April 1986." - So was it "test" or "experiment"? Calimero (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Answer: it was experiment, but experiment consisted several tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.58.158 (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong picture in article

I bring to attention that in picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#/media/File:Chernobyl-LWR-comparison.PNG , the RBMK drawing is completely wrong. RBMK reactor is not filled by water, like the LWR reactor is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.58.158 (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The drawing doesn't show it full of water. The white space above the blue is steam. If you're saying the core isn't immersed in water, you are wrong. It is. Please be more exlicit about how the drawing is wrong. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chernobyl disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2016

Hi,

I am requesting that this Nautilus article (http://nautil.us/blog/chernobyls-hot-mess-the-elephants-foot-is-still-lethal) be cited as a reference in the paragraph that mentions "the elephant's foot."

Thanks,

Brian Brianscottg (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done that is a blog, not a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2016

reference 47 "Cross-sectional view of the RBMK-1000 main building". Retrieved 11 September 2010. - is no longer available The same section is available from http://en.shram.kiev.ua/img/work/chernobl/Picture01.jpg - which is a part of this webpage http://en.shram.kiev.ua/work/chernobl1.shtml - Retreived 13 March 2016. Mdnx (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: I've added an archived version of the source from the WayBack Machine (found here). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Time zone

"Accident On 26 April 1986, at 01:23 (UTC+3), reactor four suffered a catastrophic power increase..."

I have some doubt about the time zone UTC+3. In 1986 there was "decree time" plus daylight saving time, resulting in a UTC+4. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_time Therefore the accident happened on April 25th, 11:24 p.m. Central European Summer Time. Is that right? Stefan E., Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.167.172 (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chernobyl disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Upper / lower half of the core.

"upper" in a sentence "As a result, the SCRAM actually increased the reaction rate in the upper half of the core as the tips displaced water." should be replaced by "lower".

That sentence makes no sense, because graphite displaced water in the lower 1.25 m of the core as the rods moved down and caused a local increase of reactivity in the BOTTOM of the core. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Control_rods

Stepukas88 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Errr, it is my understanding that the rods began to enter the vessel from the top bioshield and did not make it very far into the vessel before the first explosion jammed them. That comes primarily from my understanding of the reactor construction and from what is said about it in Medvedev's book. See RBMK. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, what I understand about reactor construction is that the control rods have a 4.5 m long graphite section at the end, separated by a 1.25 m long telescope (which creates a water-filled space between the graphite and the absorber). So, as control rod is fully retracted, the graphite displacer is located in the middle of the core height, with 1.25 m of water at each of its ends. As rods start descending, so does the graphite, displacing water (so, increasing reaction rate) in the lowest 1.25 m of the core. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Control_rods. --Stepukas88 (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the paragraph

"A few seconds after the start of the SCRAM, the graphite rod tips entered the fuel pile. A massive power spike occurred, and the core overheated, causing some of the fuel rods to fracture, blocking the control rod columns and jamming the control rods at one-third insertion, with the graphite tips in the middle of the core. Within three seconds the reactor output rose above 530 MW."

is misleading. SCRAM was started at 01:23:40, reactor output reached 530 MW thermal power at 01:23:43 (3 seconds after SCRAM, but not after control rods being jammed) and, finally, control rods jammed at 01:23:49 (according to INSAG-7), being half-way down (also INSAG-7; not one-third) and graphite displacers being somewhere at the bottom, but clearly not in the middle of the core. See INSAG-7 http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub913e_web.pdf. --Stepukas88 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll withdraw my objections, as I don't know as much about the rods as I thought I did. Carry on!  :) SkoreKeep (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Incorrect resolution. Reopening, sorry. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 09:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Stepukas88 is correct, it is explicitly mentioned in INSAG-7 (page 4):
  • The dimensions of rod and displacer were such that when the rod was fully extracted the displacer sat centrally within the fuelled region of the core with 1.25 m of water at either end. On receipt of a scram signal causing a fully withdrawn rod to fall, the displacement of water from the lower part of the channel as the rod moved downwards from its upper limit stop position caused a local insertion of positive reactivity in the lower part of the core.
I'll make the changes. Prevalence 22:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chernobyl disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Baranov lived?

According to [1] this article is full of misinformation. It cites [2], an apparent obituary of Baranov from 2005, not "weeks later". I don't speak Ukrainian and I can't be sure if this source is really accurate, but it gives me pause. We have a situation in which everybody is repeating everybody and they could all be wrong. Wnt (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh my. Several documentaries, of which I will cite later, showed the divers checking into hospitals. They were so radio active, that everything they touched had to be destroyed. To put this in perspective, one of the guys on the roof kicked a piece of radioactive material ( much less than the divers were exposed to, ) and received on the order of 5,000uVs. 25 will make you sick, 50 will burn you, and 100 will give you an immediate sun tan... so any competent medical professional will tell you that when a dosimeter goes off the chart... you are going to have a real bad day, and will not see the night.
This is the testimony of medical professionals: https://youtuxxx.be/dS3WvKKSpKI?t=1431 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC82:B600:8C40:161C:318B:851B (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh my as well. Got anythiing deeper than documentaries, like a journal article? "Medical professionals" on youtube don't seem to be very useful.
I have to question your post as well. There is not a verifyable or accurate statement in it, starting with people so radioactive that "everything they touched had to be destroyed" down to the units you quote from your numbers (micro-volts? Really?). The ability of radioactive source to "make you sick" has so many variables to consider that the variance in your numbers could be +/- a factor of ten in either direction, provided we can determine what the numbers mean. Your comment on dosimeters is just hyperbole; only very rarely does ARS kill in less then several days; no one at Chernobyl died from ARS in less than ten days. And where the hell is "https://youtuxxx.be"? SkoreKeep (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

One of the Chernobyl images looks like it has come from a video game, not from a photograph

Chernobyl_disaster#/media/File:VOA_Markosian_-_Chernobyl02.jpg

Looks like it came from Call of Pripyat or one of the other STALKER games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.137.32 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not think so. Ruslik_Zero 20:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

dyatlov?

Article does not directly mention Anatoly Dyatlov who was senior engineer in the control room at the time. Probably not an adequate source, but Discovery Channel documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eEpaSLi5WQ suggests that he ordered the test to go ahead at 200 mW over the strenuous objections of Akimov and Toptunov. It does not seem like anyone in the control room really understood the stability issues of light water-cooled graphite-moderated cores running at low power levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:601:AF00:6DA1:1227:D5A4:2154 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chernobyl disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Abortion propaganda?

Can someone remove the two paragraphs of anti-abortion propaganda that are in this article? In most countries, abortions are not "deaths." By including an extensive discussion about increased elective abortions, the article violates the NPOV standard.Helpful professor (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Leaving aside the glaring fact that the peer-reviewed quotation presently in the article, states these were indeed "deaths", and therefore you charge of NPOV is entirely without merit, to say the least.
You seem a bit confused, so can you provide a reference to this "most countries" opinion of yours? Because as far as I'm aware, the present situation is that most countries don't consider the human fetus a "person", so legally it is not "murder" to abort. Is this what you are getting confused with?
As that is a completely separate issue from what you're claiming, as "most countries" actually do legally or (more importantly) scientifically regard it as a "death" of a human, which it quite clearly is, especially after the heart/nervous system/brain develops. No more or less than say, the deaths of dolphins.
On the topic of relevance, as a thought experiment, could you ask yourself the question that, assuming the radiation had actually inflicted stillbirths on a large scale, then would you not acknowledge this outcome as part of the human death-toll? I sure would, so it appears to be a bit of a double-standard to exclude the anxiety-abortions, in my humble opinion. In fact, one particular anti-nuclear advocate Joseph Mangano, claims(with no support from the broader medical community) that Fukushima caused stillbirths on the West coast of the US, so the question of pregnancy outcomes is very much a relevant addition.
Lastly, I've no interest in getting into an abortion debate with you, but the scientific consensus is that they are indeed deaths, no more or less than say, the deaths of dolphins.
However if you can provide a WP:RELIABLE scientific-reference for your personal view that they are not considered "deaths", then by all means share it.
Boundarylayer (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the material again. I don't find any of the above persuasive in the least. Protonk (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What reliable sources WP:RS are you invoking that over-ride the substantial medical literature? Currently, you do not present any reasoned or substantiated rationale here, but perhaps you actually do have something worth considering?
Boundarylayer (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. You can tone it down a notch. I read what you wrote above and it was incredibly condescending. You can make an affirmative case for the material you want to include without adding comments like "You seem a bit confused" or "perhaps you actually do have something worth considering". Assume good faith of other editors.
I understand that there is literature about selective abortions in the wake of the accident, and that should be included in the article as such. What editors have been disputing is the characterization of those abortions as "verifiable human deaths" and the prominent placement in the article. Protonk (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
"I don't find any of the above persuasive in the least". Secondly, the actual references and indeed the prominent quotation taken from one of the refereed papers, states unequivocally, that these were "fetal deaths" and that they are the only verifiable ones that are known. The concern over potential pregnancy outcomes was, and continues to be large in the public conscience, that you suggest that it doesn't deserve such "prominent placement" in the article, is patently absurd.
By right, the article should begin with the 29 deaths that occurred soon after the accident, the few thousand fetal deaths caused by radiophobia, then the 30 odd deaths that are regarded to have been due to the accident(that is the 9 children who have so far died from thyroid cancer) and then and only then, should the article get into pretty speculative cancer projection numbers. Numbers which are about as dubious as it comes, as how are we to know what the state of cancer treatment will be in the year "2065"?
Do you follow me? We should begin the overview section with what is known with certainty and then move out into increasingly speculative projections of deaths that haven't happened yet. Does this not seem proportionate and logical to you? Right now however, the overview section is decidedly silent on what is known and instead, spends all of its content on speculative things that might happen in "2065". A state of affairs that is clearly backwards in its priorities.
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"Verifiable Human Deaths" in the Overview

I'm undoing User:Boundarylayer's reversion of my edit. Four paragraphs about fear abortions in the overview is giving it undue weight, and it's not clear from the section title (Verifiable Human Deaths) that the section is going to be about the resulting abortions. Plus, The Verifiable Human Deaths section is basically an expansion of the Abortion Requests section that's farther down the page. Having all of that information under Abortion Requests just makes sense and makes the article easier to navigate. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

So what your arguing is, that contrary to the medical community, "you feel" that the "fear abortions" are receiving undue weight? That is, the largest verifiable fatality effect from the accident, is getting undue weight?
Okay...From what I've read, the issue of the increased number of abortions after the accident, was-and-continues-to-be treated with very high interest and notability by the medical community and even apparently by the IAEA themselves. Such elevation by the scholarly community clearly necessitates that any encyclopedic discussion on the accident should have the "mutation worries->abortion requests" dimension to the accident, receiving its fair dues, specifically that is, to place the information closer to the top of the article, and not to bury it way down in the page, where the page is interspered with terribly researched claptrap and therefore again, it really does not belong.
Secondly, the purpose of the overview section is to do exactly that, provide an overview of the salient and important effects of the accident. Yet in your edit, you have not attempted to summarize the abortion requests/fetal deaths in the overview of the article. You've instead decided to completely remove all mention to the largest verifiable human fatality effect from the overview section. To which I can only ask; how can you regard this as appropriate, proportionate or an improvement?


Boundarylayer (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This should not be controversial. An article on the Chernobyl disaster should have it's main focus be on the disaster. The abortion requests were a result of that disaster. Having the information as a subsection under Human Impact and not right up front is reasonable, and it gives the section the context it needs right in the heading, unlike Verifiable Human Deaths.
Based on the section above, I'm not the only person who has objections to the way the section is presented. You opened your message on my talk page by saying that you might be biased because you wrote the section, but that doesn't mean you should ignore it when multiple editors raise concerns about the way your content is being presented in the article. Just because you think the rest of the article is poorly researched doesn't mean we should put what you wrote at the top. It makes sense to have that information in the Abortion Requests section, and I think it should stay there. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing an actual well reasoned explanation for what you all seem to regard as the largest verifiable fatality effect from the accident, is getting undue weight? - So you make an edit to the article that removes all mention to this and you place it 2/3rds of the way down in the article instead. Are you by any chance trolls?
I removed a line that was contradicted in the next sentence and moved your section to an already existing section with a better title. I don't see how that makes me a troll. Kaciemonster (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The overview section should summarize what the human effects of the accident were. Right now, in the present edited state that you prefer, the overview section goes on-and-on about "cancer projections", which are as the name suggestions, dubious and speculative effects that haven't happened and may never happen. By right, as I detail above, the overview of the article should give priority to what actually happened and only at the end of the overview, should a bit on "projections" be mentioned. As having an overview section that spends its entire time mulling over what might/"maybe happen by the year 2065" and yet remain totally silent on what actually really did happen, is backwards in the extreme.
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
What really did happen is people might have gotten abortions because of the disaster. That's based on information from the section you wrote. "Worldwide, an estimated excess of about 150,000 elective abortions may have been performed on otherwise healthy pregnancies out of unfounded fears of radiation from Chernobyl, according to Dr Robert Baker and ultimately a 1987 article published by Linda E. Ketchum in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine which mentions but does not reference an IAEA source on the matter." The overview should be a summary of the content in the article (which honestly the lede should already be doing), or important background details that are necessary to understand information that comes later in the article. It definitely doesn't need 4 paragraphs of "There might have been a lot of abortions" when there's already a section for that purpose located in a spot that is less confusing. Kaciemonster (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It appears you did not read past the first few lines? As it is verifiable that a few thousand abortions were directly due to the chernobyl accident. In writing the section I purposefully convey that the number "150,000" is so far, uncorroborated. As we don't have the data from the Ukraine nor Belarus. So with that claim given its fair dues, I then delve into the actual verifiable medical literature from Greece, were 2500 occurred etc.
Secondly, as I've said already, I do actually advocate a re-structuring of the overview section to include what is known and what is just speculation. Right now, as is plain to see, the overview section just goes on-and-on about cancer projection nonsense that might happen by the year "2065", if and only if, the fantastical notion that advances in cancer treatment technology somehow cease at the 2006 level(a rarther absurb notion I hope you can grasp?). Now, while it is definitely worth mentioning these dubious medical projections, the overview section is clearly no place for the mary-mother of make-believe suggestions/"science fiction" of the green party and greenpeace. Especially when evidence exists of actual verifiable cause-and-effect consequences of the chernobyl accident, consequences that presently do not have the slightest mention being given to them-thanks to none other, than your edits. In summary, the very fact that you misrepresent the entire section I wrote; on what is known with certainty, signals nothing else but that you are not qualified to really discuss the matter. When you care to inform yourself of the actual medical literature that I took the time to summarize for readers, I'd be willing to discuss this further with you. Until then I hope you can see, there isn't much point.
Boundarylayer (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I read the whole section. That was how I determined that it didn't belong in the overview. None of those abortions were verifiable human deaths, and putting information about it in a section labeled as such at the very top of the article is not only misleading, but it's giving undue weight to ONE ASPECT of the mass panic that occurred after the accident, which is honestly clear from many of the articles you cited.
I don't care about your feelings on the cancer projections section. If it bothers you that much, move it to a different place in the article, but I didn't move it because it was at least clear from the section title what the section was about.
Stop attacking your fellow editors. You're not the gatekeeper for this article and don't get to decide who can and can't make edits to it.  Kaciemonster (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This article seems to be well researched, however, the continuous use of the word "probably" throughout multiple sections (ex. Causes: Operator Error, Human Impact: Abortion requests) makes the information presented to be less verifiable and fact-based. The sources referenced to support those claims (if there were sources referenced) do not seem to be the strongest sources. Moore.sa (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Source does not contain the fact

B. Medvedev (June 1989). "JPRS Report: Soviet Union Economic Affairs Chernobyl Notebook" (Republished by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service ed.). Novy Mir. Retrieved 27 March 2011.

This source does *not* say anything about that 'in the vincinity of' the 4th reactor experienced 300 Sieverts/hour, AFAIK. Whoeverver wrote this, please specify!

It is on page 24, upper right. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Confirming on Page 24 of report JPRS-UEA-034-89, it states: "30,0000 roentgens per hour plus the powerful neutron radiation". Netherzone (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

In the section where the date of the incident is mentioned on the right hand side box, I would like to update the bit that says 30 years ago to 31 years ago, as it is soon the 31st anniversary of the incident. Goldflaw (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to do so. The infobox date is connected to software that automatically updates on the anniversary of the event. Haploidavey (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Supreme Soviet (Supreme Council), not Verkhovna Rada

"Valentyna Shevchenko, then Chairman of the Presidium of Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR" should be "Valentyna Shevchenko, then Chairman of the Presidium of Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR"

We are talking about 1986. Verkhovna Rada was established in 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.72.180.110 (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The change was made. Thanks for pointing that out. Netherzone (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Now it reads "then Chairman of the Presidium of Verkhovna Rada Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR", which is also incorrect. It's just "Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR" without "Verkhovna Rada". Although, historically, Verkhovna Rada is, indeed, the successor of Ukrainian Supreme Soviet, but the official namechange took place only after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. Sorry for obtrusiveness. :-) 128.72.180.110 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you just fix it? Netherzone (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to register and then learn how to Wiki just to fix this one small mistake. Also I'm not a native English speaker (which means my English is far from good), so there is really no reason for me to edit English wiki pages. I just happened to notice it, thought I could tell someone here...128.72.180.110 (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Hurried"?

"Hurried test" I don't see how you can call the test hurried. It was delayed 12 hours. It had been done previously. Over several months they had been trying to get an answer to the problem of the gap in power supply. There is nothing that should have been done more slowly in the test. There is nothing that they should have waited for before continuing with the test (they should have stopped it, but continuing it is not the same as hurrying). They waited to get reactor power back up before starting the test. The word 'hurried' could just be removed. Peteroakley (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"wreathes" (photograph caption)

This should read "wreaths" ("wreathes" is the verb), but there's no Edit function for the article, so all I can do is mention it here in the hope that someone can make the correction.213.127.210.95 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, with thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Shelter No Longer in Development

One of the lower sections of the articles notes a fund for a shelter in development to cover the reactor site - Is this the same shelter that was built last year? ToxicReap (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There have been two shelters. The first was essentially slapped up in the two years following the accident, is leaky and not well founded. The second started construction in 2012 and will complete that construction later this year, I believe. It is in place and is being sealed and outfitted for decommissioning work and includes a number of exterior buildings. So I presume the answer to your question is yes. SkoreKeep (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

please see this NOVA on the arch put in pkace 2016 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/chernobyls-megatomb.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.95.225 (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Weird link

that appeared to "flood up into infinity".

For some reason, this phrase in the article has "flood up into infinity" link to the article on space. This isn't needed, right? 50.5.104.20 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC) 

    I removed it for the time being, as it seems mostly irrelevant. Anybody feel free to reverse that change if you want, but it doesn't relate directly to the concept of "flooding up into infinity", as weirdly phrased as that is. Well done noting the link, though. 
                                   ToxicReap (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree. It's a metaphor, and space is not the essence of the metaphor in any case; infinity is. I hate in when people have to explain jokes, serious or funny. SkoreKeep (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "appeared to flood up into infinity" is a quotation from the reference so therefore, when I wrote the section. I kept the phrase as it is from a first-hand account.
However, when I considered that not-every-reader would be able to determine that "shooting into infinity" is a metaphor for going into outer-space. I added the link space, to prevent reader ambiguity.
So what exactly is so "weird" about this? ToxicReap and why does SkoreKeep think that the "metaphor" is literal? Then it isn't a metaphor anymore? Is it old friend? So look. It is a metaphor for the ionized air beam appearing like a LASER and shooting into outer-space, that is, not flooding into an "infinity" realm. Or whatever, if such a thing exists.
So I considered it important to prevent this ambiguity, as the sheer volume of misinformation relating to Chernobyl, requires edits to be made carefully, to prevent any possibilty of more ambiguity, arising in the future.
What was in my mind when writing the section was, - last thing I want to hear from kids in the future, is that the Chernobyl explosion created a flood of light into the infinity realm, PA-ZOMGA! You know? So I thought it prudent to once again add the link outer-space to the article.
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

MegaTomb

I was wondering when you folks are going to add a section about the Mega tomb that was build to go over the damaged reactor 4. You can find the documentary at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/chernobyls-megatomb.html. I haven't found nothing on it on this site. Info on the web is very little. but It been built and all at the cost of 1.5 billion dollars and took years to build. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorJared29 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Try Chernobyl New Safe Confinement. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
on the episode they say it make take to 100 years for the reactor and building to be completely torn apart and all. that could be sped up when the Russians come up with artificial Compound 27 - 4. which render radiation harmless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorJared29 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I agree with the 100 years estimate, but this "Compound 27" has me half way between bewilderment and stitches. I watched the NOVA show last week and they mentioned nothing about such. I fear that you must be misinterpreting something. Rad Away is just not in the cards. SkoreKeep (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't mention in the Nova episode at all it was mention in a movie but i went ahead and looked it up on the web. the problem is there isn't enough of it in nature. so the Russians are going to have to artificially make it. Here the site where they talk about it. https://www.rt.com/news/russian-scientists-discover-radiation-absorbing-mineral/

Don't hold your breath.  :) SkoreKeep (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Im not. lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorJared29 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
While sounding like science-fiction SkoreKeep & MajorJared29. You can bet that Russian scientists are working on their own Cytoprotectant variants of the synthetic compound recilisib sodium or the more promising protein Entolimod. Which are just two of a number of very real drugs being investigated by the likes of the US-Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute for war-fighting reasons and by radiotherapy oncologists for patient-survival reasons.
Now, while I'm skeptical that the un-published Russian work on this quasi-mythical "compound 24-7" will work as advertised and totally "render radiation harmless", by making one immune to the ionized products/"free-radicals", generated by being within environments with ionizing radiation...I just thought I'd correct you fellas that these sorts of compounds do really exist.
You know actually, Upon reading the RussiaToday/Pravda article, it appears that in reality this "mineral" is not destined for human ingestion, like Ex-Rad, but that it simply "absorbs radiation from water". Which means it's in fact a scavenging Sorbent, such as this one developed for Co-60. [3] Which consists of diatomaceous earth (DE) that is coated with an amorphous form of aluminium hydroxide. The shoe fits here. Especially seen as this product designed for Co-60 clean-ups, is produced by Argonide, a US company that employs russian scientists originally based in Tomsk/or more accurately, Tomsk-7, I'd wager.
However if this mystical "compound 24-7" is a cheap broad-spectrum sorbent for all long lived radioisotopes and not just those with the properties of Co-60, then that would be great news. However I'd be skeptical that it's as broad-sprectrum as advertised. Though still, great news. Another arrow in the quiver for rapid clean-up operations.
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, but a drug in phase 1 trials does not a medicine make. As I said, don't hold your breath. The sorbent theory holds a lot more water (no pun), IMO. SkoreKeep (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Stress test ?

It was a safety test. Nothing was meant to be stressed. The reactor was not in a normal configuration but no component was intended to be tested beyond its operational limits or until it broke. Peteroakley (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a safety test, done to test the reactor under stress. Seen as it was the Cold War in 1986, namely the stress of simulating the conditions of an attack by the US/NATO on the reactor and its environs. An attack that specifically resulted in a loss of power. So it was a warfare-stress-test in some respects, though I take your narrow materials science definition of what a "stress test" is. I hope now, you can maybe see the broader reason for why I used that phrase here Peteroakley, considering the motivations for the test?
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

In Fiction

In the novel, Hitherto & Thitherto, Russia uncovers in the decade of the 2020s evidence of sabotage by the United States at the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor. The Russian government then becomes active in creating internal discord in America as revenge for the nuclear disaster that eventually leads to a great revolution in the United States in the 2040s. Zeerwriter (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

information Note: Semi-protected template was used in a separate section by the same user; later removed by another editor. Replacing it here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 21:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the link to the evidentiary publication:

https://www.amazon.com/Hitherto-Thitherto-Ozair-Siddiqui-ebook/dp/B073N9FNGB/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499302577&sr=8-1&keywords=ozair+siddiqui — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeerwriter (talk • contribs) 00:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chernobyl disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2017

"repeated again" to "repeated" since it is repetitious 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Chernobyl disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Chernobyl disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

The "experiment and explosion" section describes the reactor upper plate as weighing "2,000 tons," which defies common sense.

(Edit by --Peter10003 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Peter10003 It may not be common sense, but it is corroborated by Nuclear Technology magazine 2017 as "This surge produced overheated steam in the whole cavity until the reactor tank ruptured and sent its 2000-ton upper lid some tens of meters up through the reactor hall before it fell back on the rim of the tank and came to rest bent open at an angle of about 75 deg. ".) 

The space shuttle weighed about 2,000 tons. The steel upper plate on an RBMK reactor like at Chernobyl is apparently 14.5m diameter x 40mm thick steel (according to this http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Malko1.pdf), which would weigh about 50-55 tons. I'd just take the "2000-ton" part out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lqstuart42069 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Done —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 22:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
To Peter10003, I believe it was you who added this hypothesis into the lead, if not you then to whomever did add it. I have moved it down the article as (1) facts were presented in a fantastical manner, as pointed out by the IP editor here. It is really not very news worthy despite all the fan-fare. The first explosion which it discusses, was not very energetic. Dubasov in 2009 estimated the more damaging second explosion as equivalent to about 10 tons of TNT and argued that this explosion was a nuclear fizzle, in contrast, the more recent analysis by the retired physicist in 2017 instead argues that the first explosion was the fizzle event.
While much news has been made about this more recent analysis in 2017, likely because the author wasn't Russian, the first explosion was pretty wimpy. The second one, the steam explosion, caused pretty much all the major damage.
So (2) any sensationalist editorializing that the first explosion was a "nuclear bomb" is really rather misleading. What next, every Criticality accident is going to be described, as -> "exploded like a nuclear bomb!". for real?
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree. There is a reason that 90% enrichment was so expensively pursued in the middle of a world war. If 5% was enough, the bomb could have been produced much earlier. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Abridgement of Description of Mutated Pig in Difficulties in assessment, media hysteria and unscientific claims

This is the caption that is currently contained under the picture:

Piglet with dipygus on exhibit at the Ukrainian National Chornobyl Museum. The knowledge that extremely high doses of radiation can cause mutations during gestation has directly resulted in a major confirmation bias issue amongst the popular mindset,[160] were any and all congenital malformations, that are to now occur after the accident are no longer seen as potentially part of the normal background rate of mutation, but as a result of the disaster.[160] In a similar manner to guilt by association, when without proper studies and controls, such anecdotal "specimen" exhibiting, could in reality be from a myriad of other causes far more prevalent in the region, such as chemical mutagenics, inbreeding and so on.[160][161] This confirmation bias issue is not solely a Chernobyl/radiation issue but is a common human response seen in a wide range of other economically controversial subjects such as the similar picture of "A deformed pig fed GMOs in Denmark".[162][160]

It's worth mentioning that every source cited save for 2 are the same source which has nothing to do with Radiation nor Chernobyl but is just a definition of what confirmation bias is. What's more is that this is an argumentative paragraph. It clearly has a proposition: "The knowledge that extremely high doses of radiation can cause mutations during gestation has directly resulted in a major confirmation bias issue amongst the popular mindset..." Wikipedia however, as far as I know uses explanatory writing, not justificatory. The proposition is not cited, the citation used is just a definition of Confirmation Bias. I would say that every sentence after the first one is biased, and has no place in this article as it is not cited, and presents a justificatory argument. My proposal for the new caption is:

Piglet with dipygus on exhibit at the Ukrainian National Chornobyl Museum.

This is explanatory, and fulfils the needs of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.176.229 (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I would say that it's inclusion in the article implies it was caused by the Chernobyl nuclear event, whether that is stated or not. If there is no evidence that that is true, (and I'll freely admit that such evidence would be extremely hard to come by, even assuming the proposition is true) then the picture ought to be deleted altogether. Moreover, the government of Ukraine had (and has) a vested interest in implying the inuendo. What they do in their museum to support their claims of profound damages from the accident need to be described as such in context or ignored in this article. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with SkoreKeep. It would be useful however to find a reference for the confirmation bias effect specifically related to Chernobyl. --Ita140188 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chernobyl disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chernobyl disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2018

There are two misspellings of 'radioactive' in this article that I found, 'radiative' and 'radioative' 197.157.233.114 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

Can someone fix the sourcing on the 3 men who went through the water to close the valves? The sourcing is terrible--if anything, there is debate about whether the 3 men died or not, and I can find no sources other than the book mentioned in the article (though suspiciously not the source of the information) indicating that the men survived the incident. The article should be phrased that sources conflict on whether the 3 men survived, with British news sources reporting that the 3 died of acute radiation sickness, and 1 author contending they did not. Also the cites are not credible for that section--the whole thing needs to be rewritten. 74.109.213.158 (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

First section

What the hell is with the first section (Overview) of this article? There's random debate over whether London's air pollution is worse than Chernobyl and whether it was justified to evacuate on highways rather than to stay inside. What is even the purpose of including this information? Highly amateurish! I had to read all the way down even to see anything about the reactor at all! FIX PLEASE. Move to another section or delete. Hwfr (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If the article's a problem for you, then by all means, edit it, so we have some idea about what exactly you require of us. Then perhaps next time we can be Johnny-on-the-spot to erase your anxieties. "FIX, PLEASE." indeed.
Now, I have to agree that I find a section entitled "Overview" with a single subsection "Cancer projection" rather bad form, and it should be moved and rewritten, but if I felt that strongly I'd damned well do it myself, as inelegant a writer as I am, and trust other editors to smooth that out. I would not demand someone else do it for me without any excuse. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I edited it somewhat, moved it down to health consequences. requires more cleanup though Fsikkema (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2018

In the "Thyroid Cancer" part of "Human Impact" theres this part:

Well-differentiated thyroid cancers are generally treatable,[208] and when treated the five-year survival rate of thyroid cancer is 96%, and 92% after 30 years.[209] th eUnited Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation had reported 15 deaths from thyroid cancer in 2011.[210]

That should be "The United"

cmon man lemme change it TheRealTalos (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not the page for requesting page permissions. I've made the change as it's an obvious typo any editor would fix. Semi-protected pages such as this one are editable by anyone with an account that is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits to Wikipedia. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Was it so?

Hallo!: the path to accident was described in other sources as follows: the communist party man in command of plant called workers for an special test, he was the only aware of nature and procedures. The main cooling system was disconnected, then an emergency backup cooling system was annulated too, and finally, an automated blockade that prevented reactor to be run under these conditions was circumvented. After this no-cooling situation was stablished, the commander said the central to be put at full power output; the operators realized it was about to explode under their feet, and send down in a rush the control bars, to slow down the chain reaction. They say initially, the bars increased the neutron flow inside the reactor core, leading to a catastrophic overheating and the meltdown event. If things happened this way: is there a way to reject the idea that the catastrophe was deliberate? I'd say, no, no, no. Aims? Ethnic cleansing of Ukraine, its inhabitants having a centuries old confrontation with Russians, and showing the 'psychotic', -meaning 'psychopaths', in western terms-, capitalist nations the dangers of a Nuclear conflict? Gorbatschow claimed an absolute ignorance of all the steps and about the accident itself. It's hard to find evidences, but this tale closely matches the events. Regards. Salut + — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijuecutivo (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Whitewash apologia for nuclear energy use

The article is full of POV refutations against the idea that there were increased cancers and deformities following the accident. In contrast, the media present this issue as one open for debate. The article presently (June 10, 2018) is scrubbed of negative material supporting the contention that radiation related illnesses increased.

From the sanitized presentation it is likely that negative material will be removed. So, I present it here. From "Business Insider":

"Physicians in the region have reported a sharp rise in birth defects there since 1986.

A 2010 study by the American Academy of Pediatrics found a correlation between the presence of hazardous levels of strontium-90 — a radioactive element produced by nuclear fission — and dramatically high rates of certain congenital birth defects.

Belarus, whose border with Ukraine is just four miles from the Chernobyl power plant, absorbed an estimated 70% of the nuclear fallout.

A study by UNICEF suggested that more than 20% of adolescent children in Belarus suffer from disabilities caused by birth defects."Dogru144 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Scrubbed? Huh? Show us how the boar contamination was scrubbed, or the thyroid-cancer-increase was "scrubbed"? In reality, the article actually has a problem with being very lenient towards "negative" rumor and conjecture, it even includes considerable ink to the "opinions" of highly partisan green parties, anti-nuclear groups and general quack-science-fiction publishers and so on. We really don't need more.
Secondly, we don't allow fake news outlets like Business insider to have a platform on medical matters. As are you for real? Have a look at who their fossil fuel advertisers are Dogru144.
Actual reputable studies do not back up any of the FUDite "business insider" sentences you clearly swallowed hook line and sinker. Perhaps if you had looked into it, instead of wasting my time. You would realize that they're in reality, the carefully tailored cherry-pickings of a biased publication which clearly set out with its conclusion and then went looking for quotations and studies to shoe-horn into that mould. This encyclopedia article should be focused on WP:RSMED, away from these rags.
Though if you want to contribute, that is, instead of regurgitating fossil fuel dramatizations, you could have considered looking past the FUD and hunted down the reputable WP:RSMED. To get you started, Business insider isn't one.
The author of the mentioned 2010 polissia/Rivne study by the American Academy of Pediatrics had, his qualifiers unsurprisingly, completely snipped-out of the Business Insider hit-piece. So how about a quote from a WP:RSMED to start you off. "Wertelecki is keen to point out that the study does not claim that radiation exposure is definitively the cause of the defects. The study lacked data about prenatal drinking and the diet of mothers in the region, he stresses. Both are key to understanding the causes of the defects as fetal exposure to alcohol and a lack of folates during pregnancy can lead to both types of birth defects".
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(10)60605-8.pdf - that's what a reliable source looks like, by the way.
You're probably not too familiar with the science I take it, but to let you know, some other publishers have even suggested that the doubling of neural tube defects(NTDs) in Turkey was caused by Chernobyl. Yes that's right, the rate in Turkey is twice that of living beside chernobyl itself and some researchers likewise tried to draw a connection to chernobyl, though with some really dubious low confidence. "NTDs (26.1/10 000) have a higher prevalence in the Polissia [chernobyl] region (in the Rivne province) as compared to the rest of the Rivne province (respectively 16.4/10 000 between 2000 and 2009) that was less contaminated with radioisotopes after the Chernobyl disaster...In Turkey, NTD occurrence also increased from an average of 21.2/10,000 to 43.9/10,000 the first 2 years following the disaster, which may be due to the radioactive contaminants originating from the Chernobyl disaster (Mocan, Bozkaya, Mocan, & Furtun, 1990)."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bdr2.1161#bdr21161-bib-0009
Yes according to some, Turkey was worse affected" by Chernobyl than people living essentially downwind of Chernobyl itself. omg gee whiz. Stop the presses let's get this out to the world! Or you know maybe, just maybes, seen as Turkey didn't get much of any fallout at all, this could instead simply be a study of poverty, folate deficiency and agricultural nitrate pollution of drinking supplies. Both of which are the actual uncontroversial causes of neural tube defects. With surprisingly. neither of these highly published teratogens, having been controlled for, in any of these studies. Now that's small oversight.
Indeed, in follow up examination of this Eastern Turkey-Chernobyl suggestion. "the increases observed occurred mainly in infants conceived well over a year after the Chernobyl disaster, suggesting that other factors may be responsible".
While the dietary folate issue is fairly widely popularized at this stage, here's a primer on the evidence for >5 mg of nitrates in drinking water causing NTDs, that is, if you're unfamiliar. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27007730
The human capacity for confirmation bias knows no bounds. So seen as no multi-factorial studies in or near chernobyl have ever shown any increase in NTDs, in even mice living and eating in the most heavily contaminated Chernobyl region. If you can't get controlled mice studies to show up any increase, with multi-factorial analysis. You don't have science, you pretty clearly have a case of Pirates and global warming. Especially with regard to Turkey.
As for the other cherry-picking example from Business insider. I went hunting down this alleged UNICEF "fact". Once again, the business insider author is, showing their readers contempt by grossly misleading them. The actual source never states this science-fiction of "20% of adolescents have disabilities caused by birth defects". Honestly, at this stage, you begin to wonder, with all this consistent slanting and misquoting, are they even pretending to be unbiased? Or do they just want us to stop taking them seriously and permanently put their work in the oil-funded comedy magazine stand?
As the actual source, doesn't mention Chernobyl being the cause of any of this "20%" and neither do they mention birth defect rates. It is simply a UNICEF review of the children of a poor country with rampant organized crime, HIV/AIDS, heavy drug use and a woefully bad education system etc. etc.
Here's what UNICEF actually was talking about before their work was once again co-opted by the fake news outlet, the Business insider: "In 2008, the share of adolescents with chronic diseases and disabilities amounted to 21.7% versus 14.6% of school children of all age groups. Smoking, alcohol consumption and drug misuse by adolescents are growing risk factors. As of January 2010, there were 25,336 orphans and children deprived of parental care in formal care. Of them 6,767 children (26.7%) resided in 72 public residential care institutions and 18,596 children (73.3%) were in substitute family care, including guardianship, foster families, and family type children’s homes. In 2010, de-institutionalization strategies resulted in placement of 74% of new cases of children deprived of parental care in family-based alternatives (an 11.5% decrease of children in residential care versus 2009). UNICEF continues to advocate and support the country’s efforts to expand the on-going practice of return of children deprived of parental care to their biological families.
Due to focused interventions (early intervention, perinatal care) child disability has decreased. Nevertheless, 25,867 disabled children and some 120,000 children are in need of special education. Children with disabilities represent 35% of all institutionalized children.
As of November 1, 2010 the cumulative number of HIV cases increased to 11,562 which are 10 % higher than in 2009; 65.7% of those infected are aged 15-29."
https://web.archive.org/web/20120429182343/https://www.unicef.by/junisef_v_belarusi/unicef_belarus_annual_report_2010/
We can only speculate on what motivates those who pen these cherry-picking Business insider articles and who their paymasters are. Though at this stage, any illusion of the author striving for journalistic integrity when writing their piece, is pretty clearly just that. It it not only a litany of egregious falsehoods and confabulations but something truly Goebbels-esque. As once again, UNICEF did not state that 20% of adolescents have birth defects, UNICEF in 2010 instead said the kids have chronic diseases and disabilities with smoking, drugs, alcohol consumption and HIV as the growing risk factors for the adolescent diseases and disabilities.
There are actually more registered "disabled" children in Moldova per capita than Belarus. Just to hopefully highlight for you, that number-of-disabled does not equate to contamination levels nor to birth defects. Moreover there were some "1.8 million" Belorussian adolescents in 2010, just to put UNICEFs numbers in perspective. http://eap-csf.eu/wp-content/uploads/Background-Analysis-Report_amended-18-01-2017.pdf
However if you're interested in knowing the actual medical data on if there was any evidence for Chernobyl increasing birth defects in Belarus, if you're genuinely curious about birth defects and if any correlation to the most contaminated regions of Belarus was found. Here's a quote from the abstract of the excellent update on Lazjuk's earlier 1995 and 1997 papers. Nine easily diagnosed malformations have been monitored since 1983 [in Belarus]. Reporting completeness exceeds 85% for all periods and all regions. In all periods, the prevalence at birth of these malformations was lower in the most contaminated regions and showed a similar positive time trend in areas of low and high contamination [since 1983, that is to remind you, some 3 years before the Chernobyl releases].
The congenital anomalies registry in Belarus: a tool for assessing the public health impact of the Chernobyl accident. . Lazjuk et. al 2003
Ergo, no connection to radiation exposure found, Lazjuk looked at the abortion registry too, by the way.
Now, after all that, could you see about adding these, the actual WP:RSMED? As I kind of tire of these oil-advertiser fake-news outlets, who cherry-pick studies, misquote UN bodies and generally are only fit, to be placed in the comedic FUD magazine stalls.
78.19.37.180 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

reads very poorly and non-neutral

This article reads like it is trying to push a POV. The Overview section should concentrate on the costs, immediate impacts, etc., but instead devotes much of paragraph three with weasel phrases like 'is largely political in nature', all of paragraph four and five, some of paragraph six ('unusual design' - this should not be just dropped in there without explanation) to minimising the impact.

I could not read beyond this, as while I am not well-informed enough to comment on the science of the cancer risk to those exposed, it was clear from the first few paragraphs that this article has been written not to describe the events, but rather to minimise the current political impact.

Scanning further ahead suggests the article does not get better, with phrases like ' It characterized the estimate of nearly a million deaths as more in the realm of science fiction than science.', and 'Two anti-nuclear advocacy groups have publicized non-peer-reviewed estimates'.

This is embarrassingly bad writing: the overview should describe the actual events, clean-up operation, contemporary actions in response, and keep the POVing analysis of cancer statistics to a bare minimum, as there seems to be plenty of room for POV-pushing elsewhere in this long article, without devoting much of the lead to debunking the presumed existing beliefs of the reader.

It is uncontroversial fact, for example, that x numbers of people were evacuated on x date, or that x number of people were involved in the clean-up, or indeed that the accident resulted in serious damage to the nuclear industry, without any need for 'you would have been worse off in London' content (which COULD possibly find a place elsewhere, in a section, perhaps on the response to the accident).

I have not posted to Wikipedia for quite some years but those involved with this effort should be embarrassed, as it shows much of what is bad about Wikipedia. 125.161.107.156 (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


The RBMK reactor design is contrary to you sentiments here, indeed a very unusual reactor design. It has not only a positive void coefficient but the highest positive value, of any commercial reactor ever constructed. Meaning positive feedback, were heating will increase reactivity, increasing heating even more. That is unusual. The most common reactor design worldwide, the PWRs has a negative void coefficient. So from that very basic level, the chernobyl reactor fleet is an unusual design. It is not the same as most reactors, it will go into reactivity runaway in certain conditions.
So your false belief that this is a case of "weasel wording", shows that you're not really all that grounded in reality there? Nor did you bother to read the article or any of the WP:RS that state the "science-fiction" quote, which is from the national academy of sciences, that analysed the claim, close to a zillion deaths was due to Chernobyl.
You should be embarrassed for seeing weasel words were there aren't any and then trying to attack quotes from the national academy of sciences. You then should tell us why you want to divorce the occurrence of the later evacuations from the peer-reviewed data that computes it caused more deaths than it prevented, by pushing evacuees into smog filled cities.
78.19.37.180 (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Please update new evidence

The first explosion was a neutron cascade, nuclear explosion through the fuel tubes, creating a nuclear jet, impaling a worker to the ceiling and spreading xenon fission products at Cherepovets, 370 km north of Moscow. It was the second explosion that was steam.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00295450.2017.1384269

This timeline reads like a screenplay of a horror movie. http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/timeline/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:8500:9221:D097:87D0:2C2F:87D2 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

We already discussed Lars' work. We therefore don't need to update anything and we certainly don't need to do as you've done and conflate the events of the SL-1 accident were a man who failed to foresee the effects of his actions fully removing a control rod, did indeed impale himself to the roof. Though that was in the US.
78.19.37.180 (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Cancer assessments

This section header needs to be capitalized, if someone would be so kind—don't have my Wikipedia account login handy. 98.251.192.45 (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2018

In "Experiment and explosion" section please change:

After the larger explosion, a number of employees at the power station went outside to get a clearer view of the extent of the damage. One such survivor, Alexander Yuvchenko, recounts that once he stopped outside and looked up towards the reactor hall, he saw a "very beautiful" LASER-like beam of light bluish light caused by the ionization of air that appeared to "flood up into infinity".[52][53][54]

to:

After the larger explosion, a number of employees at the power station went outside to get a clearer view of the extent of the damage. One such survivor, Alexander Yuvchenko, recounts that once he stepped outside and looked up towards the reactor hall, he saw a "very beautiful" LASER-like beam of light bluish light caused by the ionization of air that appeared to "flood up into infinity".[52][53][54]

"Stopped" needs to be changed to "stepped" Batmobileri (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Some apparently peer-reviewed papers

Health of pregnant women. The Chernobyl disaster. Kiev, Naukova Dumka Publishers, 1995; Krasnopolskiy, V.I., Fedorova, M.Ye., Zhilenko, M.I. et al., Pregnancy and birth in the region of the Chernobyl accident. Obstetrics and Gynecology, No.8-12, 1992. 213.202.133.187 (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Poor geographical wording

Maybe someone who knows the details can repair the sentence that says "This radioactive material precipitated onto parts of the western USSR and Europe." The problem is, the Western USSR was part of Europe. Wegesrand (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have done this, for now. "This radioactive material precipitated onto parts of the western USSR and other European countries." That is factually correct and unambiguous, I hope. It is probably not the place to put a detailed list of which European countries, which would be too much detail at that place in the document. But this is Wikipedia, feel free to improve it if you can. Tiger99 (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

162.40.62.46 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Please, read instructions in the template. Ruslik_Zero 20:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Anatoly Dyaltov?

Why doesn't this article mention Anatoly Dyaltov a single time? He was the deputy chief engineer supervising this accident and was sentenced to 10 years in prison for it because it was his fault. How can this article cite his book 4 times and not once mention the role he played in the disaster that led to him being sent to prison for criminal mismanagement? This seems like an egregious failure of Wikipedia's objectivity Lqstuart42069 (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, he was sentenced to prison, but I have/had no special respect for the Soviet system of justice. It may have been partially his fault (or at least the BBC specials on the disaster certainly seem to think so), but have you bothered to read his explanation of the problem that led to the disaster, or even the book by Medvedev? The largest part of the blame, in my humble opinion, rests with the hierarchy of the Soviet atomic agency and the political bureaucracy itself.
In any case, you are welcome to essay a change to the page yourself. You and I are the editors; this is not wikipedia's "egregious failure", it's ours, if indeed it fits the description. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

Hopefully someone can add to this since a new well researched book by Kate Brown came out titled "Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future" I don't believe it will be released until 03/13/2019. I do not have the expertise or time to do it. Good luck! jpbarber 16:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that this book is a reliable source. Ruslik_Zero 16:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
How you saying that about a book that hasn't been released yet? Because she is merely a Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Massachusetts Institute of Technology...? --104.15.130.191 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Ummmm, how can someone add it if it was not yet published? Do we have a horse/cart problem here? In any case, you are more than welcome to insert the change yourself, if it is that urgent, and you with the apparent access to the unpublished book. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Chief Engineer of CHNPP M.M. Fomin on malfunction of turbines N7 and N8 before disaster

On April 17, 1986 the chief engineer of CHNPP M. M. Fomin in Kharkov, Kharkov turbine factory -

( Qualified translation Required ! )

ru: "С 26 апреля энергоблок № 4 ЧАЭС выводится на плановый средний ремонт. Вибросостояние турбоустановок № 7 и № 8 неудовлетворительное. Установить и устранить причины не удалось. Прошу до остановки выполнить исследования вибросостояния турбоустановок с помощью аппаратуры вибролаборатории и дать рекомендации."

From the letter Of the chief engineer of CHNPP it follows that turbines of huge mass strongly vibrate and their vibrations through a foundation and elements of a structure influence a reactor. The Turbine N 7 was stopped safely, the catastrophe arose at the stop of the turbine N8. АСмуров (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

237 people were brought from Chernobyl to Moscow and treated in a clinic there, out of these 134 had acute radiation sickness. 50 are estimated to have died from this radiation sickness. [1] PDQPotatoe (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. Is this text to add? If so, where do you want to add it? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://time.com/5255663/chernobyl-disaster-book-anniversary/

As a native Ukrainian, was wondered to see English translation for Chornobyl disaster as 'Chernobyl disaster'.

The case is that 'Chernobyl' is English transliteration from Russian, where the place is really pronounced as 'Chernobyl'. In international cources such trasliteration appreared in 1986, when the disasted happened. Ukraine was still the part of USSR then, that's why the use of Ukrainian language was restricted. Only Russian was supposed to be the language of multicultural communication inside the USSR. Thus, transliteration from Russian used to be the right one. That was the same for the capital of Ukraine: pepople used to translate it as Kiev.

Now the situation is totally different: Ukraine is an indepentent state. Thus, it would be correct to change the international transliteration of Ukrainian places/events according to Ukrainian pronounciation. So, it is correct to write Kyiv, not Kiev. Chornobyl, not Chernobyl

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

A grammatical mistake/overlook in the sentence "As planned, a gradual reduction in the output of the power unit was begun at 01:06 on 25 April", from the Conditions before the accident section. was begun should be changed to 'began' as it is past simple. 83.26.198.51 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

In fourth sentence of "Conditions before the accident" section:

"As planned, a gradual reduction in the output of the power unit has begun at 01:06 on 25 April, and the power level had reached 50%..."

Wrong tense used there - should be "had" instead of "has" (as used correctly in next sub-clause). Szagory (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree, it's a past participle sentence, it's a tricky one though.

Hence, my request is not valid anymore, it should be changed to what Szagory said. (talk)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 08:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2019

3.2 Evacuation - After "...remain evacuated for approximately three days." add "Pets were not allowed to be taken. Since people thought the evacuation will last three days, people locked their pets at home."

The source is Russian wiki page and old news Russian articles AyunaDorzh (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit request in 'Overview' regarding 'Fallout allegedly being sent into the atmosphere'

After checking the 2 sources my initial thought about the mix-up got substantiated.

It currently sais: "For the next week, the resulting fire sent long plumes of highly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere over an extensive geographical area, including Pripyat." which is obviously wrong, since the fallout as described in the correlating wiki-article is the process in which radioactive material is falling from the sky respectively the material falling out.

Please edit to:

For the next week, the resulting fire sent long plumes of highly radioactive dust into the atmosphere which caused radioactive fallout over an extensive geographical area, including Pripyat.

THX in advance dear fellows with write permission. --77.3.7.221 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! --Ita140188 (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent radiation units

There appears to be inconsistency in the use of radiation units. The röntgen used in the section Radiation levels is a legacy unit of exposure and is not dose equivalent (sievert or rem) or absorbed dose (gray or rad).

See template below for radiation related quantities. Does it really mean to say rem?

Template:Radiation related quantities

Dougsim (talk)

I believe they actually measured in röntgen and that's the data that is availble. Džuris (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Time zone is incorrect

The time zone listed for the local time of the accident is not correct. According to https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zone/@696269, Ukraine used Daylight Savings Time from March 30th in 1986 and was thus on UTC+4 in April 1986. This is also stated on the Wikipedia page for this time zone. The correct time of the accident is 01:23 UTC+4, which corresponds to 21.23 UTC. This is the time listed on Russian Wikipedia as well. 89.253.124.158 (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I got you, my man. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: The three volunteers did NOT die soon after

"Upon succeeding and emerging from the water, according to many English language news articles, books and the prominent BBC docudrama Surviving Disaster – Chernobyl Nuclear, the three knew it was a suicide-mission and began suffering from radiation sickness and died soon after.[86]"

This is false. Considering that two of them received awards for bravery last year [1] and according to the same article the third one died only in 2005, the above section should be corrected and the false claims removed. 95.123.95.227 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


This is TRUE. The quote makes clear, In english media/propaganda accounts, the 3 men died within weeks. The BBC even made a docudrama which suggests they died. It is spelled out here. We know they're not dead now. :https://www.thejournal.ie/chernobyl-basement-water-2742056-Apr2016/

Indeed the script writer of the HBO movie, recounts that, after likely reading wikipedia.

'""This nightmarish incident has been the subject of competing accounts for decades, to the point where Craig Mazin told Vox that he actually had to totally rewrite the entire scene rather *late in production* when he discovered that the layman's version of events — that the men were totally submerged, had to literally scuba dive through the basement, and died two weeks later — wasn't accurate". https://www.grunge.com/154648/times-the-chernobyl-miniseries-lied-to-you/?utm_campaign=clip

References

  1. ^ https://www.ukrinform.ru/rubric-society/2449795-prezident-vrucil-nagrady-geroamlikvidatoram-i-rabotnikam-caes.html

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2019

Chornobyl is Ukrainian town. Correct spelling is Chornobyl. Chernobyl is Russian spelling. The town is not in Russia it is in Ukraine. Buten"2018 (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Chernobyl is the most common variant used in English sources which we reflect here. – Þjarkur (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chernobyl_disaster/Archive_11&oldid=1136607994"