Talk:Chernobyl disaster

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

Comments

I nominated the article to be featured and these were the comments given. If you want this article to obtain that status you must improve by these comments:

Comments The article uses the two most oft cited books on the disaster so I am fine with references. The pictures and prose are terrific and I like how the article is organized. I felt the lead was excellently done. I can not support at this time but hope to do so if a few small but important items are addressed: Large sections of article text are uncited and they seem to be easy enough to cite to the two books used as references. Some areas go into too much technical detail. This article is going to be read by people who are not interested in the minute and boring technicalities of the disaster and I felt the article could be trimmed with some of the explanations for the disaster summarized a little more. However, this is my personal opinion, not an FA criteria so there may be other reviewers who like your style and I would be fine with this article passing FA if others feel differently about this issue. The sections "Comparisons with other disasters", "In the public consciousness", "Representation in games" and "Commemoration" are unnecessary and do not add anything of value to the article. I suggest that they be completely deleted. The "Commemoration" section might be OK to keep if you had a picture to put with the section otherwise I would reduce it to a sentence and include it in the last section of the article. NancyHeise talk 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion : Some of the text have lists which can be converted into a paragraph of continuous prose. Oppose (1c) until all [citation needed] tags are resolved. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Query "The DSSS is a yellow steel object which has been placed next to the wrecked reactor; it is 63 metres (207 ft) tall and has a series of cantilevers which extend through the western buttress wall, and intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." This needs either is if the DSSS "is intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." or are if the cantilevers "are intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." ϢereSpielChequers 13:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose -

You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. Citation needed tags throughout. Unreferenced sections throughout. Bare urls in the references, as well as websites without publishers. Basically, the references are a mess and with the large sections that are unreferenced, I must oppose on sourcing issues. 76.252.50.140 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Mothman

The movie "Monthman Prophecies", claims that just before the Chernobyl disaster occured many people saw a moth-like creature (Mothman). Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.165.250 (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• There's also a belief that this event fulfilled a biblical prophecy as one of the seven trumpets of Revelation. Rj1020 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 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)

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).

Surely the point is that the steam explosion would trigger a reaction in the nuclear material immediately above it - or at the very least scatter a huge amount of highly radioactive material over a very large area? 195.188.180.1 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of a thermonuclear reaction seems rather far-fetched to me. In order for nuclear fusion to occur, temperatures of millions of degrees are required. Thus, the only way for fusion to occur would be for a fission reaction to occur first, this is how hydrogen bombs work. Fission reactions are difficult to set off, as evidenced by the complexity of the implosion spheres that are used in nuclear weapons. A simple explosion will not cause fission of the plutonium, it has to be focused with lenses of high explosives firing in on a sphere of plutonium from every direction at exactly the same instant (down to a the most minute fraction of a second.) The only other way for fission to occur is a gun assembly (such as the "Little Boy" bomb), but this cannot occur with plutonium, the only material that works in gun assemblies is highly enriched Uranium 235, which only makes up a tiny percentage of the natural uranium that would have been in use in the reactor. These factors are combined with the extreme scarcity of naturally occurring tritium and deuterium, which serve as the actual fuel for nuclear fusion. Thus it seems utterly impossible for a thermonuclear explosion to occur accidentally at Chernobyl. Windward1 —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

When did Wikipedia become youtube? Egads. --68.238.164.208 (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It takes extremely high temperature/pressure to fuse tritium and deuterium. Fusing the hydrogen in normal water (consisting of only very tiny quantities of deuterium and virtually no tritium) would require far more - conditions that only exist in stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrino42 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think it is fair to present the text from original sources, it is much easier to source-check the information for correctness. As an additional generous courtesy, a SI conversion may be offered in (brackets) - feel free to help with this task - anyway the units dont make sense to most people, SI or otherwise. If students are exposed to real world sources they may just as well get used to the unit mess, and it is not so unreasonable to ask them to consult a unit conversion website. But as I said, feel free to help if you think this is of importance. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The roentgen's equivalent in SI units is the Gray, so we would need to know what type of radioactive particles the public and liquidators were exposed to, in order to convert to the sievert.Awils1 (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I question the conversion from röntgens-per-second to grays-per-second that has recently been added to the Radiation levels section. Röntgen is a measure or ionizing radiation, while gray is a measure of absorbed radiation dose. There is no fixed conversion. A proper SI conversion from röntgen would be: 1 R = 2.58 × 10^-4 C/kg ([1]). The Gray (unit) article suggests that for certain conditions, 1&nbspGy ≈ 107.185&nbspR, but I don't believe that it would be accurate to include that conversion here. Certainly not a conversion of 1&nbspGy = 100&nbspR.

I propose removing the conversions. Does anyone object? -- Tcncv (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No objections. The original measured value and unit from the source must be kept, for checking. Problems then arise if the unit is difficult to interpret in a certain context, here a human hazard assessment context. The article thoughtfully provides a ballpark figure for lethal dose (in röntgen) for readers to relate to that number. Feinsmeckers may correctly object however, that the röntgen unit is really not suitable for that, it should be röntgen equivalent man (rem) or sievert - but a correct conversion requires that the type of radiation is known, which it is not.
As you say, the (good faith) gray (unit) conversion only clouds the situation, confusing "bare" radiation energy intensity with absorbed radiation dose, when what we really want to know is the biological effect of that absorbed radiation dose (sievert). Anyway, the units don't make sense to most people, SI or otherwise, and they are a *complete* nightmare. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:04, 1 October 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)

Changed "Thermal explosion" to "Steam explosion" and added info on draining the pool. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Some Further Problems With This Section:

This section states that the three men never reached the surface again. If this was the case, how does anyone know that their light failed, and the valves had to be found by feel? Were their diving suits connected to the surface by telephone?

Also, if the sluice gates were opened, why was it still necessary to use fire pumps to drain the water?

RogerInPDX (talk) 06:14, 9 August 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)

Deleted {Refimprovesect|date=June 2007} in section "Immediate crisis management"

The text is in broad accordance with Medvedev 1990 chapter 2 and while some more references would be helpful I see no reason to degrade the whole section with this tag. Individuel statements can be marked with {fact} ad libitum if felt unsubstantiated. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

References, and concerns regarding section: Historical significance of the Chernobyl disaster

While those are some good edits, I would like to see more ref's then just Medvedev's book. Also, could you please provide more publishing info (I.e. title, etc) about the book so others can look it up. Also, the historical significance section needs more ref's it still comes off as opinions/original research. Brothejr (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw the book ref that Power.corrupts put up and I thought it would be better in a further reading section along with another book I knew of. Someone can correct me, but if a reader clicks on on of Power.corrupts ref's they will see the author's name and can still look up to the further reading section to see what the ref is. Brothejr (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are fair enough. I forgot to add the monograph to the references section - done. Regarding your requests for more refs in the historical significance section, I really cant do much. I only have the quotes from Valeri Legasov - as you can see he is no lightweight, and it is not original research. What I can do however, is to subject his claims to a reality check (which i did before the edits):

• He says that 5,000 km2 is made impossible for human life - that is in rough numbers two areas each of 50 km x 50 km. There is a 30 km exclusion zone around the reactor, where nobody "can live". I dont know what that means, but I suppose that it equal to "impossible for human life". That constitutes the first chunk of the two 2,500 km2's (in fact 2,827 km2). About 60 percent of the fallout was deposited in Belarus, I have no idea of the areas there, but have read that nature reserves have been created where radiation is too high - I assume again that equals "impossible for human life". Look at the map on Chernobyl disaster effects#Evacuation - the red areas are "Confiscated closed zone". While I cannot qualify Legasov's statement I would say that, in all, an area of some 5,000 km2 does not seem unreasonable at all.
• He says that the sarcophagus must remain intact for far longer than the Egyptian pyramids. This one is more difficult. My Medvedev source says that about 1,000 kg of Plutonium is inside the sarcophagus. The most significant isotope of plutonium is 239Pu, with a half-life of 24,100 years. The Egyptian pyramids are about 4,000 years old. Perhaps the claim is not completely unjustified. I then searched a little further: Plans for the US Yucca storage facility says the geology shall be suitable for storing the waste for a million years (NY Times)[2]. Another NYT article says the EPA will call for the repository to hold the bulk of the radiation for 10,000 years [3]. I have no idea why the two periods differ with two orders of magnitude - but both are significantly longer than the present age of the pyramids.

Summa sumarum - while I cannot qualify Legasov's claims, they pass a crude reality check. And they are definitely not original research. Power.corrupts (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who can back him up on that data? I know he can pass the basic check, but the section comes off a little bit like original research. Maybe I'm looking a little too deep into it. I think it best just to leave the citations up there for a bit to see how it pans out. Brothejr (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Chernobyl disaster will, like Vesuvius, be remembered for many thousands of years. The giant sarcophagus which has been built to contain the destroyed reactor core must remain intact for far longer than the Egyptian pyramids."

Is this a quote? As a statement, it's got problems. Predicting what "will" happen is iffy, and anyway the famous eruption of Vesuvius occurred less than 2 thousand years ago. And whatever the sarcophagus "must" do, as I understand it, its lifespan is more appropriately measured in decades than millennia.

Also, with books by two different Medvedevs in the "Further Reading", maybe the references should specify the author (presumably 'Medvedev, Z.'). —WWoods (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The section from the book reads:

(p19)One Soviet expert did begin to write a book about Chernobyl in 1987. Academician Valery Legasov had every opportunity to prepare an accurate account. As head of the scientific team in the government commission sent to Chernobyl on z6 April 1986, he was given the task of presenting the Soviet report to the IAEA post-accident meeting in Vienna. Since he was First Deputy Director of the Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy, where RBMK reactors were invented, designed and developed, he was clearly the most qualified man in the world to compile the documentary record of the causes and consequences of the accident. He began to dictate his memoirs about Chernobyl at the end of 1987, but only a small section (in the form of a personal introduction) has been published so far. [ref20] It does not add much to what is already known. For reasons that are not yet clear, Legasov committed suicide on 27 April 1988, a day after the second anniversary of the Chernobyl accident.
In the brief published section of his account, Legasov compared the (p20) historical significance of Chernobyl to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius which buried Pompei in AD 79. The comparison is justified. The hot ashes from Vesuvius completely covered Pompei; the hot debris of the Chernobyl reactor covered an area more than 5,000 km2 with nearly 20 million curies of radionuclides, making human life impossible. Well beyond that area 30 million curies of debris, aerosol and gaseous radionuclides were dispersed, creating spots of serious radioactive contamination in Sweden, Germany, Northern Italy, Poland, Austria, Yugoslavia, Greece and many other countries. Like Vesuvius, the eruption of the Chernobyl radioactive volcano will be remembered for many thousands of years. The giant sarcophagus which surrounds the destroyed reactor core containing nearly i,ooo kg of plutonium must remain intact for far longer even than the Egyptian pyramids. When the current structure begins to decay it will have to be rebuilt many times (unless future robots are sophisticated enough to be placed inside to fragment and pack debris for burial elsewhere).

the [ref20] is >Legasov, V. (20 May 1988), "Moi dolg rasskazat' ob etom", Pravda, 20 May 1988.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) )

I could be uncertain of how much is Legasov, and how much is Medvedev Z. - but it is definitely a quote in a published source, be it in Pravda or in WW Norton. It is NOT original research.

I see it as an attempt to provide a historical perspective to this disaster. He gives perspective to the two facts mentioned elsewhere in the article, 1) that substantial areas are contaminated to an extent that make them unsuitable for human settlement, 2) that nuclear waste is a headache to store, think of the US Yucca storage facility, in particular when it is such a &%#! mess in a collapsed building as is the case in Chernobyl.

- Wwoods, my responses to your comments:

1. in my opinion it is not iffy, it relates to facts, we are talking about long-lived highly radioactive waste that needs to be controlled in some way
2. the Vesuvio perspective concerns the volcano perspective; Vesuvio is famous and scarry because we can see petrified humans attemptting in vain to escape from the hot ashes and lava; and becasue the event was recorded by Cicero (believe it was Cicero?) - this is an emotional thing. It has nothing to do with time, therefore it is irrelevant if it happened 2,000 or 3,000 years ago.
3. the pyramid perspective concerns time, the perishable nature of human constructions. The pyramids are the oldest (relatively) intact contructions man has made, the other six wonders have long gone. Unfortunately, you are right: the lifetime of the sarcophagus is more appropriately measured in decades, a new one is already now being planned. That is, precisely, the problem that Legasov wants to highlight with this pyramid perspective.
4. the Medvedev Z is needed, yes

Could I ask -Brothejr and -Wwoods to spell out, as precisely as you can, why you dislike the Legasov perspective. Perhaps then some other Wikipedians can contribute with their views as well. If the consensus is that the small section must go, so be it. The main contribution of the section to the article is not facts, but perspective - and I value that as much as facts. Unless somebody specifically ask me for my opinion I wont comment further on this issue. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My main thing is that the section comes off as guesses or predictions. While the author may say that in the book, and others may echo it in other books and articles, it is still dealing with something in the future, and who knows what really will happen in the future. I'd prefer to stick to the facts that can be backed up. My personal opinion would be to remove the section. While it is a cool section and does give some ideas of what might happen in the future, I see it as little too speculative to be fact even if it was backed up in the book. Brothejr (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, :-) cant help a last comment: Look at Yucca Mountain - is it speculation or fact? Power.corrupts (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's a quote, I don't have a problem with it; I just want it marked as such, so it doesn't look as though it's the voice of Wikipedia. ("Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", etc.):

“ The Chernobyl disaster will, like Vesuvius, be remembered for many thousands of years. The giant sarcophagus which has been built to contain the destroyed reactor core must remain intact for far longer than the Egyptian pyramids. When the current structure begins to decay it will have to be rebuilt many times. ” — Valeri Legasov , [source]

—WWoods (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WWOODS, if it was done as a quote then that would be better, because it would be attributed to someone else. I also agree that theYucca Mountain looks a little too speculative and should also be rewritten a little bit. As I mentioned above, I'm not against the section. However, as it is written now, it seems a little too WP:OR. If it was rewritten just a little bit to make it a quote attributed to the book, then that would better to understand and less Original Research. Brothejr (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It still looks like crystal ball. This article is too long as it is, it got borderline trivia all over the place, and surrogating a quote for crystal ball does not help. The actual research that is going on with chernobyl gives two conflicting stories, only after 20 years, one cannot extrapoloate 2000 years into the future. I have talked to at least 3 youngsters here just out of college, not a one of them knows of Chernobyl most people are aware of Pompei. Point of advice on the article as a whole, when it looks like a lot of nutso contributions - people will turn off. When it is too long and too biased people who are already familiar with it will read it, may not understand it and everyone else will jump to another site. My opinion is this article propogates radioparanoia unjustly, how many people have died from accidents involving chemical industry (fossil fuel refining). Those wild horses, of course, don't seem to mind that people are irrationally paranoid about what happened at chernobyl. Wiki has a preferential size about 32kbytes in size, 60 or 70 is about maximal for a good article. This article is 94 kbytes in size, so the core argument needs to be what can be shrunk, if not split-off and tangential information needs to be bitbucketed.PB666 ^yap 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The historical significance of the disaster in the shorter-term is that failed government efforts to cover-up the story of what happened, as well as economic effects of the disaster, contributed directly to the collapse of the Soviet Union about five years later. This is obvious to most editors, but may not be obvious to most readers, so I've added a sentence about it to this section. --arkuat (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, it is not obvious to most people. The sentence comes off as Original Research, is there any ref's that can back up the statement? If not, then it's got to go. Brothejr (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A few comments on the very long comments already placed.

• Sarcophagus - If the radiation is such a detriment to life in the region, then chances are once the radioactivity in the body cools substantial, robotic devices can be made to clean it up, and therefore we cannot predict that in 100 or 1000 years this is going to be a problem.
• Again this is from a major science magazine. The fact of the matter, people do live within the 30 km exclusion zones, and animals are multiplying and unceding the territories occupied by humans.

• There are regions in the world, like Northern Iran, where background radiation are a magnitude higher than elsewhere, and yet the rate of cancer is not higher (i can get the reference if you like). There is an adaptive response to excess DNA damage that involves increasing the DNA damage and repair.
• comparing apples and oranges. At the time of the Romans the life expectancy was lower and more people died in infancy from largely unknown causes. Vesuvius immediately killed 1000s of people, poof - dead. In modern times there is a high expectation for longevity. Wild animals that live in the wildlife preserve have no such expectancy evolution dictates survive and reproduce, once accomplished there is success. There is a risk-reward in evolution. The reward of greater windfalls of available food, housing or opportunities for reproduction out-weigh the risk associated with lower reproductive fitness as a result of off-spring loss. And, in addition, each of the members is in the same state. The study on mice revealed that mice could transit in an out of the most dangerous areas on a seasonal basis and remain viable, but if permanently kept in these areas they degenerated. This indicates that wild animals have the capability of assessing and averting risk.
• As one of the people living in the exclusion zone remarked, and something the animal studies clearly point out - the greatest risk is people - human behavior - that, if you read the page- caused the accident. A man with a gun is much more of risk to a wolf than radioactivity that will eventually kill it (if it does not die of other causes first).
• The unseen reward of chernobyl is that in changing climate, animals living in the preserve will undergo more rapid adaptation, particularly in the context of changes human have created and it may be a place of rapid evolution of wild animals for the global context of extreme human domination of biomes.
• I predict that, in the next few years with tightening food supplies, people will look at the chernobyl ecosystem, and make the decision that for farming the reward outweighs the risk, they may not house their families there, but they might hunt and farm in the region as food supplies become far less than demand. Risk is relative.

-PB666 ^yap 22:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image size and caption edits by MickMacNee

MickMacNee, I'm afraid I consider your edit somewhat disruptive. You resize pictures and delete passages of text that I (and others) have written quite carefully. And your only arguments are, and I consider them weak, rigid references to Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

• Filesizes are comprised in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images It says that "Image size is a matter of preference". For the majority of pictures I have used the default size, i.e. I have not specified the size of a thumbnail image. But for a few ones, for which I felt there was a good reason, I enlarged. You repeatedly reduce all image sizes to default, I consider this unnecessarily rigoristic - The MOS is a guideline, not law.
• You have deleted caption text, sole argument: "reduce image captions per MOS" - again a very rigoristic approach. Take a look at Wikipedia:Captions#Some criteria for a good caption. It says

There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption

1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious.
2. is succinct.
3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article.
4. provides context for the picture.
5. draws the reader into the article.

Another way of approaching the job: imagine you're giving a lecture based on the encyclopaedia article, and you are using the image to illustrate the lecture. What would you say while attention is on the image? What do you want your audience to notice in the image, and why?

My captions reflect this approach. Deleting text "per MOS" is not constructive, nor particularly nice.

I have reverted your edits. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable (and stupid). Discuss the issues here first. Anyway, I will have to leave Wiki for some time due to other committments.
Power.corrupts (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1. It is established practise to not specify the size of all but the lead image. People read the wiki on different screen resolutions, it is not up to you to decide if an image is not going to affect the way the article looks to them. The thumnail feature exists for a very good reason.
2. The images next to the TOC should not even be there, but placed in their appropriate sections, some people choose to view articles with the TOC collapsed, your argument that 'there is space' is clearly misguided in that case. On my screen size their large width compacted some the table of contents to undesirable wrapped 2 line entries
3. The caption guideline is quite clear. Your overlong captions are not appropriate and should be in the text, and the image should be placed next to the appropriate section. Some people view an article with viewing images disabled, captions are not there to replace text.
4. Your view that an image caption should be appropriate for a powerpoint presentation is odd to say the least. You should be writing with consideration of the article as a whole.
5. Editing in line with the MOS is not disruptive. Taking offense at having 'your' captions edited is an indication of article ownership issues.

I am reverting again, if youi still disagree with the above comments, I suggest you request a third opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Chaps... please allow a third opinion to be offered by somebody who constantly sees this page appear in his watch-list.

The settings applied by Power.corrupts make the article look attractive on my screen, as I imagine they do on his or hers. So, good work if you were desktop-publishing a printed encyclopaedia, and thanks for putting in the effort. Also, you are right that guidelines are not the same as rules.

However, MickMacNee clearly highlights the reasons why, in this case, the guidelines do matter. I am entirely in agreement with his points here. Many people view Wikipedia on low- or mobile-technology viewers. We cannot predict the display capabilities or accessibility needs of our desired readership. The more we specify layout for looks, rather than information hierarchy, the more likely it is that our information becomes inaccessible.

As for the images, please don't forget that the user is just one click away from seeing them at full size. Given that, there really is no justification for having a thumbnail any bigger than absolutely necessary to identify the content, except perhaps in the case of graphs and charts. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also concur with Mick, Kieran. The changes Mick made improve the article, they weren't "disruptive" and have no evidence of bad faith. While Mick quoted the MOS as his reason, that isn't to suggest that there is no good reason other than what is written in those guidelines. When I first read and watchlisted this article a few weeks ago, I thought some of the pictures were too large and the captions were wordy and excessive. Pictures should supplement the text, in the correct places, readers looking to them as they go through the prose. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on MickMacNee: "Your view that an image caption should be appropriate for a powerpoint presentation is odd to say the least". My view? Odd? I quoted directly from Wikipedia:Captions#Some criteria for a good caption - linked from MOS. That is precisely why I consider your MOS argument weak and mostly a matter of personal taste. I wouldnt mind hearing other peoples opinion on this. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's two other opinions above. I did mistake your quote about presentation as your personal opinion, but on reading it, I personaly don't see what point that part is actualy trying to make. It certainly doesn't mean you need an explanatory mini-essay in the caption as if you were presenting the subject without the article. When the caption is longer than the height of the image, you've gone too far. And when you're talking about something not illustrated by the picture (e.g. in the turbine rotor image explaining the safety protocol about maintaing momentum), you've definitely gone too far. MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you have far less support in WP:MOS than you pretend (or think) you have. The MOS on image size clearly says: "Image size is a matter of preference". Your arguments that you screen tumbles etc are fine, point taken, but it's not a carte blanche to scale all pics to default. Regarding captions, the MOS is extraordinarily flexible. Inter alia, it says that some people are visual (I am, for instance) and are tempted into reading more, if pictures and captions are appealing. Layouters have knowns this for long. My main objection is that you advance personal opinion and taste, and veil it in a "as per WP:MOS" air of (what I consider, unfounded) authority.
Also, take care not first to reduce image size, and then be annoyed, if the relative size of the caption is suddenly "too big" in your opinion. But let's see what other people think about this debate. After all, this is the strength of Wiki. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference, this is the state of the article before I touched it [4] showing the length/content of the captions. I stand by my changes, and await even more opinions if they are really needed. As a final point, in my opinion, the above original state is not so much a case of being 'drawn into the article', as spending more time reading the captions than the article text. Take the fireman as a prime example, he has a whole article to himself on the wiki, yet his life history is crammed into his image caption, making it longer than the picture itself. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) There are now three people saying that in this case there are no strong arguments for making the images big or the captions long. Leave aside the parts of the MoS which are open to interpretation, and that remains true. Yet strong arguments have been put forward for the opposite case: respecting the user's preference for thumbnails, and putting detailed text in the body of the article where it has context. (Images can jump around.) As for the point about making a presentation — the text is provided, in the prose. Why repeat it in the caption? And it should certainly not be in the caption alone, for the accessibility reasons known to all good web designers. (To spell that out: text readers for the visually impaired do not know when to read an image caption. They know when to read each main paragraph: in their logical order.) – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture?

shouldnt there be a section on pop culture. the city/disaster is featured in call of duty 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.23.123 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.255.133 (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The S.T.A.L.K.E.R series too. 142.35.5.51 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

helicopter crash

The article seems to imply the helicopter fell into the reactor. Is that accurate? I thought it fell on the ground near the reactor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.135.248 (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The wikimapia.org website shows the helicopter crash site to be a considerable distance away from the reactor. However, the video recording of the crash clearly shows the helicopter dispensing its' payload in the seconds immediately prior to the crash, as if the pilot thought he was directly over his target (which presumably was the reactor core). So, where exactly did the helicopter crash??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.135.248 (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ukritiye International

Who is this group, and why is a dispute about the facts interlaced with information about this group? 98.215.82.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

References to this group were added on 17 July by 67.43.245.253 (talk) without any references. A google search for this group turns up nothing except references back to this Wikipedia article and others updated by the same anonymous user. I suggest undoing the changes if no supporting evidence can be found. Similar edits were also made to Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and New Safe Confinement. -- Tcncv (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Bjelleklang - talk 17:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

They're back. These edits added several references to this group and its view along with a reference to their web site. (I added a translation link, but this is not to be interpreted as support for this addition.) A Google search fails to show up any mainstream media coverage of this group – only a few blog like references and a few dead ends. Although I don't oppose differing views, I don't think this group has sufficient notoriety to justify inclusion in the article. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Should references to this organization be removed entirely due to lack of notability? I cannot find any media coverage or other useful references to the organization other than its own web site. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose removing references to this group on grounds of lack of notability (no known media coverage) and no usable sources except an apparent self published web page. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

why don't you try the russian internet (in russian)? that is where it is. i speak mostly only russian. i deserve fair right to forward my own plan. we are legitamit group. we are as fare as nsc and deserve rigts to say. either that or remove all refrence to nsc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.245.253 (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you provide some references to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability we can better evaluate your organization. Please note that the standard for notability is that a "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That may indicate sufficient notability to support an Ukritiye International article. The amount of coverage given in this article will depend on the the degree of notability. The coverage might consist of a brief statement with a reference to the article containing more in-depth coverage. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Time

The article says the time was 1:23:45, which I seriously doubt. Should that change? ~~ Frvwfr2 (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems correct based on the rest of the article. ~~ Frvwfr2 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

A small query: The article reads that the lid of the RMBK reactor was weighted at 2,000 tonnes. However, in other places I've read reports that the weight was 1,000 tonnes: here and here and here, and in fact: at Google, although you will notice from that particular link that the number of sites with 2,000 ton (or tonne) readings is more or less the same as the number with 1,000 tonne readings. Is this to do with Metric / Imperial measurement conversions, and should this be made clear on the page? ~~ EcthelionGenesis 13:17, 19 August 2008 (GMT)

As 1 short ton = 0.907 tonnes, I don't think this is a conversion error. Maybe it's something to do with what you count as the "lid". If there is a RS for both amounts, we could put that various estimates are given, from A to B, with both references. Verbal chat 12:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This page http://www.info-chernobyl.wz.cz/start.htm (Link is to page translated into English from Czech) appears to cite the weight of the lid as 1,000 tonnes (although I am not fluent in Czech, so I can't properly refer to the original). From the page: "Reaktor byl přetlakován tak, že pára odsunula horní betonovou desku reaktoru o váze 1000 tun." ~~ EcthelionGenesis 15:36, 21 September 2008 (GMT)

How Much Fallout?

The second paragraph ends, "Nearly thirty to forty times more fallout was released than had been by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." It then cites a National Geographic article the second paragraph of which begins, "The fallout, 400 times more radioactivity than was released at Hiroshima...." I'm going to edit the sentence to match the article it cites. John Bergan (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Maybe one figure refers to the mass of the fallout, and the other to the radioactivity of the fallout?

—WWoods (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a BBC report that cites the fallout as 500 times the fallout of Hiroshima... It's one of the ones on this page, although I don't know which. They're all quite interesting though. (Thought I'd add my two cents!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EcthelionGenesis (talk • contribs) 14:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It blew the 2,000 ton off

"It blew the 2,000 ton off of the reactor", 2,000 ton what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.66.168 (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Lid". I've corrected the article. Thank you. - Tcncv (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chernobyl_control_room.jpg

This message was left on my talk page:

‎The photo you put on the cherynobl Disaster page is not the control room for reactor number 4. It is actually a scaled down Image of the control room of reactor Number 3 from The August 1994 edition of National Geographic dedicated to Soviet pollution and the effects of Cherynobl. Here are some examples that the photograph is not reactor number 4 and it is post soviet. If you look at the top background you will see that one of the lights in the ceiling is burnt out and it is flurecent. The thing is that reactor 4 was a very new reactor when it went online and it would be very unlikley that it would burn out after several months. Another example is that in the background, you can see a 90's era computer resting on a desk. Not only were computers like that nonexistant in the Soviet Union (if not the world) but also that it would be very unlikley that the Soviets would use a external software system in order to control a fairly new computer. If you look at pictures of the ruined control room and this one, you will notice that the button paterns do not match and is smaller than the control room of number four. So if you could, please delete this image in order to avoid confusion. There are no known photos of The reactor 4 control room just like there is no video of the origional Explosion. This is not my real account but when I typed this talk I was not logged in at the time.-Regards RezaShah4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.190.145 (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on the image's upload page, "This image is supposedly the control room of the Chernobyl nuclear plant". I also stated that that the Czech source appeared to be in good faith. You say that the image in reality is of reactor 3, and not the ill-fated reactor 4. I really cant tell. I know however, that block four came into commercial operation March 1984, the ceiling lights must have been installed at least a year before, and the accident took place after approx two years of operation (not months), I dont know the average life of Soviet fluorescent lamps, perhaps it far exceeds three years. The personal computer first appeared in 1981 and it may not be entirely unreasonable that one should have found way into the control room in 1986. I simply dont know. I can see you have removed the image from the article. I marked the image as non-free possibly copyrighted image, and as such, a bot will automatically delete it after 7 days, if not used in any article. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the proofs that the picture of the room could be unreliable, but the one thing that makes it 100% sure that the photo is the control room of reactor number 3 is that it was origionally from The August 1994 edition of National Geographic dedicated to Soviet pollution and the effects of Cherynobl. The Photo was taken by Gerd Ludwig and was used as an example that the reactor was kept in operation so it could be exploited for energy, despite being the flawed RBMK type reactor, since the Ukaranian economy was in ruins at the time the article was written. The Picture origionally took up two pages and the other half would have shown how dilapated the control room was better than the picture provided there. I also put this on the Cherynobl disscusion page, just to let you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.190.145 (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if the photo is of the neighboring control room, I think it is still interesting enough to be included. Of course that caption should be changed based on .145's information. Before, it wasn't even clear if the photo was from Chernobyl. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic ran a story on Chernobyl, "Chornobyl" in Aug94, Vol. 186 Issue 2, p100, 16p, 1 map, 10 color - I have no online access and have little time to investigate further. However, the image's existing fair-use rationale rests on the presumption that it is of Block 4 - perhaps a weak case could be argued if it were a historical image of Block 3 with similarities to the now gone block 4. Block 3 still exists, hence it is senseless to argue, that it is impossible to obtain a non-free replacement. If it really is a 1996 image of block 3 it is a copyvio and should go. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I yield on the copyright issue. I'm not familiar with all the fair use policies and legalities involved. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Charnobyl

There are meny medasens that couls helpit but do to the ukraion fraud. the medasen were pulled. The technology's went from vaughn nebeker to us seniter secutary to the nuclear regulator comishion to charnobyl an bult. do to the ukraine declared inanchecy. new fundinf be slow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.162.186 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? 68.32.48.221 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

really the worst nuclear power plant accident in history?

Chernobyl disaster is introduced as the worst nuclear power plant accident in history. Now in the German WP it says in the article "Katastrophe von Tschernobyl" (associated by language link to this one here): Sie [pronown targetting the Ch. disaster] gilt – nach dem Unfall in der Kerntechnischen Anlage Majak 1957 – als die zweitschwerste nukleare Havarie und als eine der schlimmsten Umweltkatastrophen aller Zeiten. This means that the Majak (engl. Mayak) disaster of 1957 was worse than Chernobyl - but it was unknown for decades in the West because (due to more local radioactive effects) USSR was able to keep this secret until its fall. See Mayak, section "Serious accident in 1957" for more info (I only read in detail the German articles). Different evaluation between both wikipedias or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UKe-CH (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends the criteria people use to define "worst". If they use death toll their really is no definite answer because people who most likely died from cancer from exposure will never be known. Though it is very likely that the Mayak disaster was worse initially the exposure to radiation from the Chernobyl disaster almost most certainly passed the Mayak accident. So it just depends how they interpret things. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:COPYVIO

This edit comes from here, which is released with a "no commercial use" license. Reverted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Death toll

What's going on here? The article says around 4000 or 5000 people died, but greenpeace says it may have been as many as 100000 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406 I mean even if they're wrong, they're greenpeace and their figures should still be mentioned. --ScWizard (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean like the article does in the second to the last paragraph in the Assessing the disaster's effects on human health section? I did notice that the reference needs correction, which I have taken care of. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a fundamental error in the article, both in the opening chapter, and chapter "Assessing the disaster's effects on human health" claim that there would be 4000 fatalities "and it roughly estimated that cancers deaths caused by Chernobyl may reach a total of about 4000 among the 600 000 people having received the greatest exposures.", the source that is referenced in [1] and [86] does not have this information, but states that there are 4000 cases of cancer (of which few percent is estimated to be due to the accident, and the fatality of the cancer type is under 10%). It is said that due to the proportionally small increase in the cancer, co-occuring with the increased screenings, etc factors it is impossible to determine the cancer death toll that is due to the radiation, and that it could be from dozens to thousands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.190.124 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

tone

this article seems to have been written as if someone is narrating it... not an a encyclopedic tone... anyone else notice this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.130.53 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

i dont think it sounds like a narrative. I read the page and it does sound encyclopedic, but some areas may need some work for 100% readability Thefloogadooga (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

'Costliest disaster in modern history'

Whilst I'm not disputing that the Chernobyl disaster may well be the costliest in modern history, the so-called source (http://www.wreckedexotics.com/articles/011.shtml?%3F) is in no way reliable, and misses out on a lot. For one thing, the Three Mile Island disaster, which according to its Wikipedia article cost $975m (presumably in 1993 dollars) to clear up, is nowhere found in that list. So either a reputable source should be found, or this paragraph should be removed altogether. As things stand now, it is entirely based on just a page on the internet that is demonstratedly inaccurate. SeverityOne (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the use of the word disaster is misleading; this was an accident, which can be a disaster, but this list doesn't take into consideration natural disasters such as hurricanes or earthquakes --69.143.30.224 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, this calamity sent to be unhabitated a territory in size of Portugal.Chernobyl wasn't in a desert, but in fertile land.Agre22 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)agre22

Did Chernobyl help bring down the Soviet Union?

Alan Weisman, in his book The World Without Us, reports (on page 216) that the Soviet Union seeded clouds headed east during the Chernobyl reactor fire so that heavily contaminated rain would fall short of Moscow. As Weisman puts it: "Instead, it drenched the USSR's richest breadbasket, 100 miles from Chernobyl at thew intersection of Ukraine, Belarus, and western Russia's Novozybkov region." This fact, alleges Weisman, was covered up by the government because it didn't want a nationwide food panic on its hands. Fast forward three years: scientists discovered the cover-up in 1989 (or thereabouts) and evacuated most of Novozybkov. The Soviet Union had a centrally planned economy, and I wonder if reports of bread lines in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s (and the post-Soviet crash in life expectancy) had anything to do with Chernobyl. 68.32.48.221 (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In many aspects, this calamity really as terrible to Soviet Union, because among other things, Chernobyl: 1-Sent to death by cancer and other deseases thounsands of persons.Wheat and many other foods produced in tis region were really sold in all former Soviet Union.They never were eated by nomenklatura, but for common people. 2-The 1, may, 1986 labor's day in Ukraine parade was did and contaminated tens of thousands of persons for nothing. 3-Put Perestroika and Glasnost in popular mind. 4-Showed former Soviet Union's products as contaminated and bad.Agre22 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)agre22

vaughn nebeker : scince andor technology...

to save the 3,000 childern at charnobyl wenavastock summer camp.. the erbeal tea was used. It a tea that remove;s heavy metel's from the humen body's. the 3,000 chilren saved. it wild oragen grape's ; yellow yearrow :exstracit of sage brush ; cut with a black tea...

the anti-crsnomia drug pergrassion... it been slowing dowen death towell's four year's.. the mixster of shark grisse' -30% of the carsnomia the bee pallen solfiner sabatrea deasert catiuss -97 % of the carsnomia...

it a oddity of govit pallasie.. the old comminest system allow's free education and or medacel care. how ever i do not live in russia... in the west one has to pay for educatien and or mediceal care... it not that I do not under stood. it just the oddity of politeacl type system's.

the new carsnomia drug desine; widh is a delooted out venuem of the astralen browen death adder target's the carsnomia 100% taking the carsnomia's out at the nee's.... the big tug of war is ther ukraine ask's for a perbonio use. Were western law say's it's a no no..

the oddity's the drug desine do work.. if i allow the ukraine [ probonio medaiciel program ] it would make the western pharmasuticel compeny's not pay up for completed scince and or technology completed... it more of the oddity of the inter net crossing inter nasel bounders. with out taking in the indavigueal ideaoligie's of defrenit contey's law's oridealogies.

vaughn nebeker; the origenel auther an inventer of the technology that put out chernobyl.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.144.104.65 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Independant Russia

Paragraph four states that "The now-independent countries of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened..."

Now how does that make sense? Clearly Russia was always independent. It invaded the surrounding countries then formed the Soviet union. No, Russia was never (talking about the period of communism) dependant. Someone sholud fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.1.238 (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} In the first paragraph, the term "excursion" is used in the following: "It resulted in a severe release of radioactivity into the environment following a massive power excursion which destroyed the reactor." Given the highly technical nature of this term in this context, would it not be useful to provide a definition? Rlinde40 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC) rlinde40 Rlinde40 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. Readers can check on a dictionary if they wish. Leujohn ^(talk) 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Um no way, I don't know what an excursion is - no this is not a text book which is exactly why we should not use such technical words that can't be simply understood. I see the word has been wikilinked by another user which should have been done in the first place. If the article has to be protected then the least that established users can do is comply with legitimate requests.Jdrewitt (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Excursion

{{editsemiprotected}} In the first paragraph, the term "excursion" is used in the following: "It resulted in a severe release of radioactivity into the environment following a massive power excursion which destroyed the reactor." Given the highly technical nature of this term in this context, would it not be useful to provide a definition? Rlinde40 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC) rlinde40 Rlinde40 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: Please do not put multiple requests before the first request is accepted/rejected. Leujohn ^(talk) 02:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've Wikilinked the term power excursion which redirects to Criticality accident article. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bridge of death

Removed the Bridge of Death. Ghost Town Prypiat - ChernobylDisaster.com is an obvious exaggeration. They even claimed that the trees glowed red in the dark. Paul Studier (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Conditions prior to the accident

Penultimate paragraph; core temperature is linked to body temperature. Needs editing/removing link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.190.120 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for helicoper crash video

I tried to add the citation, but the page is protected. I don't know how to deal with that so maybe someone who does can add this.

The video showing the helicopter crash can be seen on YouTube at; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbCcutzXzYg

The crash is at 4:50 into the video.

I hope this is helpfull.

Bernie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.255.213 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube isn't a reliable source and isn't valid as a citation. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Youtube is only the host of the video, there is no doubt that the video portrays the incident, and as you can read from the first paragraph of reliable source:This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception .I think a link to Youtube is allowed in this instance. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Late 1990s Geocities page

Does anyone remember around 1999, 2000 or 1998 a GeoCities page popped up claiming to show pictures of the area around Chernobyl? I seem to remember it being this way...absolutely. absolutely absolutelyIt starts off with a woman on a motorcycle, who is the person that takes the photos. She shows pictures of old rusted cars and abandoned buildings. I believe that there was a lot of Cyrillic writing on signs and the cars, although of course the pictures could have been taken elsewhere in the area.

It ends with her saying that after a certain point the radiation is too dangerous to go on. But she had already supposedly gone farther than most people do, or something like that.

I'm sure it was fake, but does anyone remember what I'm talking about? Is that page still around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.148.222.114 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Elena Filatova. Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 1 has some discussion. 84user (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Current page is here:[5]

Wildlife thrives in the exclusion zone

Wildlife thrives in the exclusion zone is a statement and should not be a title, a title should be descriptive and not state what to some people could be POV. It would be like renaming the article "The Chernobyl disaster was a sad event" instead of just "Chernobyl disaster". Even renaming the section "Wildlife in the exclusion zone" would be superfluos since the exclusion zone is clearly what the section is about. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I agree that this section is not neutral and have added a POV tag. There are many recent reports about decline of some species and abnormalities in others. [6] [7] Johnfos (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualties (IAEA)

The Chernobyl Forum report estimated that there may be 9,000 (not 4,000 as reported in this article) extra cancer deaths. It used to be adequately reported in this article, then was truncated. Natmaka (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)