Talk:Chernobyl disaster

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

Speed of Insertion of Control Rods

The section "Fatal experiment" cites a control rod insertion speed of 18-20 seconds, but "Possible causes of the disaster" states that "The main process computer [...] would have also started the "Emergency Core Protection System" that introduces 24 control rods into the active zone within 2.5 seconds..." The 18-20 number may be based on time to insert manual control rods, but if this is the case the article should say so. Is ECPS a more radical insertion than what would have happened at Chernobyl during a normal SCRAM? Fish-man (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Other Disasters

Is there a reason why this section shouldn't be removed on the grounds of irrelevance? Psychobabble 06:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, I would say it's highly relevant. One of the big questions with regards to nuclear power is how bad a nuclear accident is. Therefore, it is very relevant to compare the worst nuclear accident in history with other serious industrial/technological disasters. --Robert Merkel 06:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a "keep": Any disaster with a "nuclear" connotation is magnified and intensified in the public imagination. This section does a lot to keep it in proportion. Moonraker88 07:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, it just seems like it's not anything like apples with apples there. You're comparing disasters which by their nature had large, immediate and identifiable death tolls with a disaster where the fatality figures are controversial and likely to occur in longer time frame. I thought it was an unusual comparision, but if others think it's fine I won't argue ;). Psychobabble 01:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why Bhopal? For nuclear power accidents, shouldn't the comparison be with other means of producing electricity? In that case, the comparison should be Banqiao.216.57.220.63 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but the only reason Banqiao was missing was because this section was eviscerated in Aug 07. I've restored it. Joffan (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick question about "conditions prior to the accident": The last sentence of that section indicates that only the Xe-135 reactor poison was keeping the reactor at its low power level. Is this technically accuarate? Given the positive void coefficient, and the statement in the same paragraph that increasing water flow above safety limits further reduced power due to the neutron absorption of the water, isn't it so that only the reactor poison AND the relatively cold (void free) extra water were both keeping the power levels low? Even if the Xe-135 was mostly responsible, this is not an insignificant point. In fact, the water displaced during the re-insertion of the control rods set off the whole thing, didn't it? Then when the water started to boil, more voids created even more power, all the while burning off the Xe-135. Have I got this right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet authorities later forbade doctors to cite "radiation" on death certificates

Professional doctor will not write "radiation" in death certificate. He will write "cancer" or "leukemia". Radiation poitioning (Acute radiation syndrome) is "ray desease" in Russian so it does not contain the word "radiation" and this sindrome cannot cause death after years. Only 8 fire fighters who were exposed to extreme radiation levels dead in hours after the desaster from this desease. No illness has the word "radiation" in its clinic name in Russian and as such if one doctor was forbidden to write it in a certificate only shows that he was unproffessional if he wanted to do so. So I suggest to remove the sentece. --Dojarca 16:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the intention to remove or reword the sentence, however if there is a reliable reference that can be quoted to this effect, then it can stay. If you can find what was actually ordered to be written or not written, then please edit the article accordingly. I was going to remove some of the emotional language in this section anyway.

A reference has been provided, but it is not really very solid. This sentence has the feel of a perhaps-true but deceptive statement. As Dojarca describes it, it would simply be unprofessional in almost all cases to give cause of death as "radiation"; which would be enough to forbid its use in the interests of good record-keeping. I will delete (or relocate) in a week or so unless there are further thoughts here. Joffan (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dr. Mettler who is quoted in this article is also quoted in ISBN 9780307266569 to the effect that Ukraine now requires all deaths in the Chernobyl area to be attributed to the disaster. "An official said to me, 'How else are we going to get aid?' " Should this be added to the article? Vgy7ujm (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Kid of speed

At the end, it lists "Kidofspeed" as another thing to look at. It should be "Kiddofspeed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.129.211 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over neutrality of "Alternative views of Chernobyl"

There has been some strange behaviour here. The earlier sections of this article stress 'official' views of the accident (such as UNSCEAR's) and present their recommendations and casualty figures as fact. But when (well-researched) alternatives were posed in this (much smaller, less emphatic) section - one clearly enitled 'Alternative Views' so no-one can read it as a statement of ideology, because it merely offers the scientifically-sound approach of suggesting where re-interpretation of casualties and outcomes might be justified - then a great deal of activity ensues in an attempt to quash it. There were some early total deletions and, later, some very heavy-handed and clearly biased re-editing.

Given that the outcomes of Chernobyl need - desperately need - an ongoing sense of re-interpretation and research (beyond the few irrefutable facts), it is almost comical for perhaps the most even-handed portion of this article to be targeted as 'non-neutral'! No unjustified statements are made under "Alternative views of Chernobyl", and much is qualified by alternative views. Its role is to keep the relevant questions open. It seems some people out there simply don't like that idea or can't tolerate any alternative views on the subject, however well substantiated they are!Anne Prouse (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest for a moment that you consider the 'Alternative Views' section, it is the case that some claims have been made by some fringe scientists. These claims have been repeated in the section, and then a discussion of these claims has been added. I would be very careful about using phrases such as scientifically-sound as how can you make such a judgement as to the worth (or lack of worth) of a scientists work.Cadmium (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't care about whether its true or not. I care about an "encyclopaedia" lecturing me about "irresponsible journalism". Cut the commentary crap from the alternative views section... providing your own subjective analysis in an encyclopaedia is awful "journalism". 81.104.186.141 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This section sounds more like what you might read in a journal than an encyclopedia. It certainly makes sense to me, but it has too much of an argumentative tone, rather than an informative tone. Masema —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.198.172 (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First, there is article Chernobyl disaster effects which better describes this problem. Second, I agree with Anne Prouse. Certainly, all reports should be included. UNSCEAR and IAEA reports are not any better than others. These organizations are prone to various political manipulations. They are less reliable than normal publication in scientific journals or studies by independent national or international organizations.Biophys (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

For example, this article states that "Reports by anti-nuclear power protest groups and irresponsible journalists,[53] based on speculation rather than evidence, may have contributed to the anxiety and depression of people in the fallout zones.. I checked provided reference [53]: [1], and it tells exactly the opposite:

"Humans have fared badly. In the past few weeks four major scientific reports have challenged the World Health Organisation (WHO), which believes that only 50 people have died and 9,000 may over the coming years. The reports widely accuse WHO of ignoring the evidence and dismissing illnesses that many doctors in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus say are worsening, especially in children of liquidators.

The charge is led by the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, which last week declared that 212,000 people have now died as a direct consequence of Chernobyl. Meanwhile, a major report commissioned by Greenpeace considers the evidence of 52 scientists and estimates the deaths and illnesses to be 93,000 terminal cancers already and perhaps 100,000 deaths in time. A further report for European parliamentarians suggested 60,000 deaths. "

And so on and so on. This must be corrected.Biophys (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that current text does not meet WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability criteria.Biophys (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

good source, a serious scientific study, conducted by well known people, such as Yablokov and many others. Biophys (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact this is very simple. For example, this source tells that "50,000 to 100,000 liquidators (clean-up workers) died in the years up to 2006.". But how many liquidators died according to the UN report?. They do not tell (!). I looked through ~500 pages of their report and found no their estimates of this critically important number. Unless someone finds alternative numbers in the UN report, I am going to write in this article that "50,000 to 100,000 liquidators (clean-up workers) died in the years up to 2006.", and so on.Biophys (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Robots

Were robots really used to construct the sarcophagus? I haven't heard that anywhere else 97.101.109.164 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, operator-less backhoes were used there from the very beginning. Not sure if they were true robots or RC. You can google for references or, if you can, find any Russian documentary about the accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.237.110.207 (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is proof that Robots have been used: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6XnYVZTGs_o&feature=related (first minute) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.59.172.219 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There were large 20-ton tracked bulldozers with simple RC control, supplied by the fomer East Germany. These did heavy earth grading around the buildings and broke down pretty soon due to radiation killing their transistors. There were a few smaller sized six-wheeled debris-clearing robots working on the remaining roof-top of the reactor. These were hastily derived from the decade earlier Lunokhod moon vehicles and worked pretty well, because the original robotic moon rover was Polonium-heated, so the whole instrument block was designed to resist radiation from the very beginning. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

International spread of radioactivity

Please, review the first sentence of the above mentioned article. It states: "...radioactive cloud which floated over Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, but also the European part of the Republic of Macedonia,...". I am a little confused as no information for the Australian part of Republic of Macedonia is provided... ;)))) StMt 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I also haven't heard of it... although Macedonian fellow may argue :-) I moved the "European part" from Macedonia to Turkey anyway. Vroomfundel (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, now it looks better! I really hope they will not get upset about it.. :O --StMt 10:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoyan.stoyan (talk • contribs)

Assessing the disaster's effects on human health

{{editprotected}} In this section, please add after "Thyroid cancer is generally treatable" the reference Experts Find Reduced Effects of Chernobyl, and the words "the five year survival rate of thyroid cancer is 96%, and 92% after 30 years, with proper treatment." ref Thyroid Cancer

Also please throw ref tags around the two URLs in the same section. 199.125.109.45 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted

Someone just deleted the whole article.

Possibility of thermonuclear explosion?

I just saw Discovery Channel's The Battle of Chernobyl. It contains interviews with then-general Antochkin, who was in command of the fleet of 80 helicopters used to drop material on the damaged reactor, and nuclear physicist Vassili Nesterenko, a nuclear missile designer, who was apparently also involved in damage assessment. They claim that at some point on the third or fourth day they had come to the conclusion that there was a chance of an actual thermonuclear explosion with a yield of between 3 and 5 megatons occuring if about 1400 kilograms of molten core came into contact with the water pooled beneath the core.

I find that highly implausible, given the complex technology necessary to achieve that kind of yield in weapons. Comments? --Cancun771 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. First it used natural non-enriched uranium. No combination of natural uranium and light water will ever go critical. Secondly, for a thermonuclear explosion, one needs deuterium. They could have gotten a steam explosion which would spew the contents all over the place, but not a nuclear bomb. Paul Studier (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, but there was plenty of the graphite mixed in with the molten uranium, acting as a moderator. Also, the reactor was designed to yield plutonium for weapon production, wasn't it? So there could have been a sizable Pu content in the "magma" (as they call it on DC). Also there had been helicopter drops of all sorts of material including boron, lead and sand.--Cancun771 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the quote was that an explosion would release as much radioactivity as a multimegaton bomb. That would be plausible. Paul Studier (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Antochkin and Nesterenko actually talk Russian, so I have to rely on the dubbed English translation. It says:

Commentary: At the bottom of the reactor, 195 tons of radioactive material are still burning, giving off incredible heat that is gradually melting the sand. On the surface of the plug, cracks begin to appear.(...)

Antochkin: Once we plugged up the hole, the temperature started to rise. We were afraid [of] that because it could have caused another explosion. It was terrifying. Scientists came to take readings. They were very worried. They were afraid the critical temperature would be reached and it would set off a second explosion. That would have been a terrible tragedy.

Commentary: The cement slab beneath the core is heating up and in danger of cracking. The magma is threatening to seep through. The water the firemen poured during the first hours of the desaster has pooled below the slab. If the radioactive magma makes contact with the water, it could set off an explosion even more devastating than the first.[...]

Nesterenko: If the heat managed to crack the cement slab, only 1,400 kg of uranium and graphite mixture would have [been] needed to heat the water to set off another explosion.

Commentary: The ensuing chain reaction could set off an explosion comparable to a gigantic atomic bomb.

Nesterenko: Our experts studied the possibility and concluded that the explosion would have had a force of three to five megatons. Minsk, which is 320 km from Chernobyl, would have been razed, and Europe rendered uninhabitable.

--Cancun771 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The explosion type they are talking about is a steam explosion, where water hits high temperature material (or visa versa) and generates a lot of steam very rapidly, causing a mechanical explosion. No nuclear process is involved in the explosion - it's just steam expanding. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But no steam explosion could ever begin to approach a fraction of the yield quoted here--Cancun771 (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Blackbird of Chernobyl

Should the sightings of a mothman-like creature arising from the burning power station have any place in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.173.136 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• No. No, the alleged sightings of non-existent creatures should not be mentioned in a serious, informational article about one of the greatest disasters in history.

DRoninLA (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)DRoninLA

Sloppy job with the radiation unit used

I would be happy to see the unit "rontgen" or whatever it is called changed to the standard SI units of sievert. I can understand the implications of using that unit to describe the event--it happened in old time Soviet Union; writer probably copied from old print sources--but I should remind you that students do, from time to time, come around this site and actually quote something out of it. So please be more responsible here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.90.129 (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

neo-Nostradamus over Chernobyl.

Soon after the bad 1979 TMI accident, some US novelist wrote a fiction about an even worse reactor mishap and his book turned out to be an eerie prediction of the 1986 disaster, so exacting some accused him of being a time traveller. It even had details like the helicopter flight over the decapped reactor complex with the vacuum chamber bursting the fuse due to incredible radiation.

Ok, who was that guy and shouldn't he get a mention in this article? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Map

If anyone has or knows of a map we can use for this article, it would be much appreciated. Without a map displaying Cesium-137 (or other radioactive isotope) deposition over the entire European continent the article seems to emphasize the local effects. For example, Scandinavia and Switzerland received substantial radiation. A good (but possibly copyrighted) map is here. -kslays (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WHO is a disputed source in this context!

The intro gives the impression that the estimations of the WHO may be considered to be reliable - as I also always thought. However, it is a current news item (related to the 22th Chernobyl anniversary) that the WHO should not be deemed a reliable source in this context due to its pact with the nuclear lobby, and apparently it has long been known ba specialists that its estimations have been disputed. See for example http://www.independentwho.info/. Obviously the fact that the WHO is not neutral must be mentioned and alternative estimations must be added. Harald88 (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thermal explosion

The article talks about three men who entered the plant, attempting to open water sluices to prevent a thermal explosion. It doesnt say whether they were successful or not. Could this be included into the section? --Simpsons fan 66 06:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Inexperienced team"

I removed the following phrase:

"This reactor crew had little or no experience in nuclear power plants, as many had been drafted in from coal powered plants, and Anatoly Dyatlov, deputy chief engineer of the plant and the effective crew chief during the experiment, had some experience installing nuclear reactors in submarines. -ref- BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) Documentary entitled "Days That Shook The World" -ref- "

BBC is plain wrong on this. The crew with "little or no experience in nuclear power plants" simply CANNOT operate the reactor. Period. There are thousands of controls to watch and adjust.

Anatoly Dyatlov indeed had "some" experience installing nuclear reactors in submarines - from ~1959 to 1973! Then from 1973 he worked on Chernobyl station till 1986. Don't you think that this is quite a bit of experience?

I don't know how many years of operational experience the rest of the team had, but I read both Medvedev's and Dyatlov's accounts on the catastrophe and they both say in no uncertain terms that reactor operators were qualified for the job, and actually did nothing very different from what any other similar team of RBMK reactor would do in this situation.

They operated it somewhat out of regulations, but this was quite typical on USSR's reactors! They simply did not know that RBMK had a few serious design flaws.

Another thing I deleted: "Operators, unaware of the poisoning phenomenon,...". Again, both Medvedev's and Dyatlov's accounts talk A LOT about xenon poisoning, and reactor team clearly knew that it has happened. These are basics of reactor operations.89.102.207.196 (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)