Talk:Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster

missing sources

The "Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster" page is dreadful and does not have a meaningful number for the number of deaths, world organisations estimated only 4000 deaths and were criticised for the number being biased and too low. DELETE IT or merge some of it elsewhere. Kie 2015

Ummm, perhaps that's because there is no universally agreed upon number, even by experts? You have read the comments here explaining how difficult it is to determine the causes of deaths? Does that mean we are to leave the rest of posterity ignorant of the issues?

As for "dreadful", get down to examples and/or essay fixes if that's what you think it needs.

Also, a tip: instead of signing your comment in your own inimitable way, use four tilde characters; that will leave ways to communicate with you on your talk page, provide a time stamp - don't forget that "posterity" mentioned above.  :) SkoreKeep (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The death toll total from this list doesn't agree with the official count, and many of these individuals aren't sourced properly. I'm going to give an editor some time to clean this up before I delete any of the unsourced material. Thanks. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 19:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If other editors feel this article should more properly include those who survived Chernobyl, they should nominate it for renaming. I myself don't see the value of such an article. How exactly do we define a "survivor"? Where do we draw the line? 600,000 people were evacuated, and received at least a very minor dose. Do we include them also? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoever was in the plant or in its significant vicinity at the moment it went kaboom and couple hours before and after potentially deserves a mention. Same for the first responders. There are several official counts, depending who is or is not included. Names of the survivors are important to locate many difficult-to-find resources about the event (hence the importance of the cyrillic spelling column in the table), as many are quoted in later published materials. Many of the unsourced people were either sourced in the section before (from underneath this table was yanked); some of the unlisted ones are mentioned in the Medvedev's book. Should be easy to find in original Russian/Ukrainian sources. When I created the table (it is pretty much purely my work), I wanted it to be a resource for looking up more details, and a beginning for a collaboration about putting up together the little scattered pieces of the event as it happened, who was where and what they did, including where different sources disagree. --Shaddack (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that "significant vicinity" has no clear cut definition. One editor will say it ends 50 meters outside the plant, another will say it ends 500 km away. What is the firm criteria by which people are included in this list? Is the guy who fished in the cooling pond right outside eligible? What about a worker in the city of Chernobyl? Or Pripyat? Or someone who got thyroid cancer from it in Kiev?

Of course they should be added, if they died or were injured on that day. On that matter, the increased rates of death and permanent evacuation numbers should be mentioned, if not the names. People in the towns nearby still were injured or died, after all. If we don't know their names we should mention that they were affected. 67.180.92.188 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In any case, opinions differ. If you believe the article should be moved, simply put it through the movereq process and see what people think. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 05:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no firm criteria and the line is blurry. The fishermen belong there as their reports are quoted in a number of sources. The people on the night shift in the blocks 3/4 are certain to be included. The next shift that handled the initial cleanup as well. The previous shift, the people who were preparing the test or should've run it themselves, too. The first responders as well. Plant management important for the event (Fomin, etc.) too. Some random workers whose names are not mentioned anywhere or are involved only tangentially and indirectly (your mentioned cancer in Kiev) fall on the other side of the blurred line. Essentially, if the relevant literature, reports or movies mention - or even interview! - them, and their name can serve as a keyword for finding another piece of the puzzle with further research, they should be listed. (And please no lawyering about "relevant".) Can you please link me to the req process, as I never did such bureaucracy before? --Shaddack (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the list should include, at a minimum, the 56 official deaths mentioned in the Chernobyl Forum's 2005 report. That includes the personnel in the helicopter accident, 28 emergency workers from ARS, 2 immediate deaths, 1 possible heart attack, and 19 others who died from 1987 through 2004, including 9 from thyroid cancer, I believe. Perhaps an additional column to indicate that they are on that list. SkoreKeep (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster" should presumably include not just people who died "on that day", but those who died of acute radiation sickness in the weeks and months following, and also mention the large numbers of early deaths due to cancer (although it is of course impossible to conclusively attribute every case to radiation poisoning). It should also mention the large number of miscarriages in places like the Ukraine and Belarus, etc., etc. We shouldn't limit it to deaths "on that day", because the Chernobyl disaster was not a one day event. (Disaster's over! You can all move back to Pripyat!) Some of these figures are controversial, and the article should explain the controversy in a neutral manner. Fuzzypeg★ 12:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Name Change?

Since the article contains the names of those injured, it shouldn't be titled "Deaths" due to etc.געגאנגען/Gegangen (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have to agree. That doesn't make sense. One of the people listed near the top is a guy arrested and sent to jail with no mention of any injuries even. Either retitle this article, or strip out those who are not dead. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My personal preference would probably be a renaming of the article, with the current name given to the first table, and those survivors who are deemed notable in a second table below.

What do others deem the most appropriate? A F K When Needed 23:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with your idea of splitting the table. The name of the article definitely has to be changed as death is not apparent with all cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.120.110 (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rephrasing of helicopter crash deaths

Regarding the death of Hanzhuk, Mykola Oleksandrovych which was added recently. The phrasing: "the helicopter flew into the radiation cloud, malfunctioned and crashed;" needs work. At 30 seconds you'll see the crash here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw-ik1U4Uvk&t=0m30s it is plain as day that the helicopter's rotor cuts into the metal crane wires, damaging both, and causing the crash. I don't think linking what is essentially a snuff video is a good idea, does someone know of a good text reference source that can confirm or clarify what exactly caused the crash? SirShill (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree that the description needs to be redone; I don't think those are my original words, as it is, from the film, obviously an industrial accident, not mysterious or unusual. Further, there is no "cloud" in evidence, nor was there as the smoke was long gone (this was in August, 4 months after the explosion). However, that movie is pretty iconic of the Chernobyl situation. It implies the problems of trying to stop the outpouring of radioactive material, the three crewmen killed are officially listed among those killed by the disaster (I'm not quite sure who the "official" is, but it was someone in the original Soviet investigation), and the movie was taken by Shevoshenko, who died of ARS complications in March of the next year (I also placed him in the list, though he is not "officially" a member; the chances of getting ARS elsewhere in the USSR were small). I think it is a valuable resource, and evidential in the debate over what happened in the helicopter accident. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Article title

I'm thinking that since there seem to be up to 1,000,000 deaths so far from Chernobyl, that the title could better be described as perhaps, "Immediate deaths and injuries due to Chernobyl". What do the other editors think? WriterHound (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth having one centralised article where the real human toll is considered. You could have one article for immediate casualties and another for later casualties, and another for trends of likely Chernobyl-related cancers, etc., but all this does is scatter the information most readers would (I believe) be hoping to find in one place. Fuzzypeg★ 12:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How about Casualties of the Chernobyl disaster? Boneyard90 (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds perfect. No other opinions have surfaced yet; so perhaps we should start modifying the article towards a more inclusive approach, and rename it in a couple of days if no other opinions have surfaced. Fuzzypeg★ 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggested title: "death" is something well-defined. "Casualty" is more vague. I disagree that "immediate" must be a setarate page, because this term is subjective: who will decide what is immediate? It is not like a battle, held from May 14 to May 16, so that we count dead and injured to some precision. Here, people may be slowly dying for years. And I see no difference whether it was because he was a liquidator "immediately" irradiated by hot rods or some granny who tended her geeze when the radioactive cloud descended unto her. Ladnadruk (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "proven" deaths should be the title - all the other deaths are unproven speculation. Which is not what Wikipedia is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.130.51 (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor issue

I noticed that the section for Sitnikov, Anatoly Andreyevich describes him as having died of exposure to "1500 roentgens or 15 Sv". The American standard unit corresponding to Sv would be rem, not roentgen. Is this just a typo? I don't want to change it without knowing the source. IDK112 (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's a bunch of units and they are not all commensurate:

Raw Radioactive intensity is in roentgens (SI unit); this is the measurement made with a geiger counter or other instrument.

Absorbed dose is radioactive intensity corrected for the absorbing material, such as flesh, water or lead. The RAD (old unit) or Gray (SI unit).

Equivalent dose is radioactivity corrected for equivalence of sources (alpha, beta, gamma, neutron) and equivalent injury potential of different tissues (heart, muscle, brain) is the REM (old units) or Sieverts (SI unit).

Now all three of these classes of units all measure the same thing: radioactive intensity, essentially energy delivered / mass, but the units are not equatable as they have different meanings; therefore the referenced sentence is wrong, as it equates radioactivity to equivalent dose, but which was the original value? It is most certainly a fatal value in any case. I believe that wikipedia should be using all SI units. 98.245.147.199 (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In this particular case, changed the article to read "1500 roentgens" as that is what an original source states. That's not dose,and I don't know how the value was determined, but that's what it says. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Page move

Sorry; reverted. Problems with the new title:

1. What is "initial deaths"? First week, first year...?
2. The article speak of 6000 deaths; which number I doubt may be called "initial".
3. In fact, there is a section which speaks about deaths related to severe immediate effects; these deaths make sense to call "initial". The remaining 6000 deaths are due to long-term effects and consequences.
4. Above is another suggestion about article title.

Please discuss. Ladnadruk (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Natural Death Rate

5,722 decontamination workers died within 4 years. In one sense this is an incredibly low rate of deaths. Do the maths. 600,000 workers. Average life expectancy say 70 years. Therefore average natural deaths per year 8,500. Four years average deaths equals 38,000. Of course these workers were probably mostly young servicemen in the prime of life so their average death rate would be nowhere near as high as 38,000. But normality may well have been as high as 5,722. Death rates amongst soldiers etc are surprising high - and not because they tend to get shot or blown up by the enemy; British MOD data shows combat is one of the least common of the multiple 'normal' causes of death amongst service personel which includes such mundane things such as cancers, car crashes and heart attacks. All claims about Chernobyl casualty numbers both hi and lo seem suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.13.139 (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they sure are. Greenpeace claims indirect evidence for a quarter of a million, while the Chernobyl Forum cites 59 (see http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/health_impacts.html). In the first place, industrial causes (the three who died at the scene, and the helicopter crew), Acute Radiation Sickness (ARS) and radioactive thyroid cancers are about the only deaths that can be definitely attributed to the accident and radiation directly; all other causes from radiation, cancer, leukemia, birth defects, others, are all guesses, as multiple factors are always at play. The best that can be done is in noting a "bump" or increase in these problems from clinical records after the event at the expected onset time. The Chernobyl Forum notes no such bump for any of these. Dyatlov died of a heart attack 10 years after the accident, many ascribe that to his estimated 4 Sv of dose at Chernobyl as well as other exposures before that. Another helicopter pilot at Chernobyl, Anatoly Grishchenko, died in Washington state of leukemia just four years after the accident; was it radiation caused? No one will ever know with assurance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkoreKeep (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Cyrillic

This is the English Wikipedia. Is there any good reason to include the Cyrillic versions of the names of the people who died. It makes the chart harder to read while not giving any aid to the vast majority of our readers, who can't read Cyrillic. Create a Russian (or Ukrainian) Wikipedia article on this subject if you want to give the Cyrillic versions. john k (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's both more respectful and more sobering to the readers. It never hurts to get a brief dip into something completely new; and it shows that they had ;lives of their own; it makes them more human, in my estimation. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Essay" style

The following editing comment was posted:

(tagging essay - terrible quality article that reads like a blog entry; should be scrapped or at least re-written in an encyclopedic manner free of syn, rhetoric, weasel words and POV statements)

The count of the deaths at Chernobyl is a highly charged topic in the nuclear power debate. As such, it is difficult to keep POV out of the article, or to determine what non-POV demands. I have rewritten the textual part of the article, hopefully to eliminate some of whatever it is that irritates the editor so. Deleting the article is, I don't think, an option - this article is widely cited and copied on the internet; the gathering of the names from various sources has been a difficult and ongoing task, and in the English world at least, unique. There are conflicts in the sources, and I have tried to make that plain; for example, one source says that no one in the general public was hospitalized (while citing the case of the physician), and another tells of the two fishermen who were apparently hospitalized enough that their dosages were cited.

I would invite comments which can lead to a better exposition of the topic. Even more I solicit further sources of data on the deaths and others that may have been overlooked. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's better, but it still needs work. I'll try to find some time to improve this. It really did (and still does to some extent) read like a high school essay, though. I think controversial topics need better care. This needs fewer rambling suppositions and colorful adjectives and more "X claims this; Y claims that; Z disputes that and agrees with Y." It's sufficient to lay out the general consensus if it goes against, for example, something Greenpeace said, without winking at the reader and then calling dissenters some luddite "pressure group." It makes sense to talk about what's generally accepted as a matter of fact, but we don't need Wikipedia's editors' personal feelings on dissenting voices. There's also a lot of problems with grammar and clarity. Still, thanks for trying to address it and sorry for the curt edit summary without much explanation. fi (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternative opinion of the number of deaths

Three doctors came up with an estimate of 900,000 deaths from the disaster. I don't see a mention of this opinion. "That bullet did not come from my gun...you prove it"--Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment

Got a reference? I'll write it up if you supply one. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, looking into it, I find that the reference is to the NY Academy of Sciences publication of the Yablakov, Nestorenko and Nestorenko paper "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published in English version by the New York Academy of Sciences. The NYAS republished their Russian work in the spirit of "Open Forum"; see their statement on that at http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1. The article "does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences".

As it stands, the lede paragraph states:

The scientific consensus on the effects of the disaster has been developed by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). In peer-reviewed publications UNSCEAR has identified fewer than 60 immediate deaths from trauma, acute radiation poisoning and cases of thyroid cancer from an original group of about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancers in the affected area. Other non-governmental organizations, many with staunch positions on the spectrum of the nuclear power debate, have claimed numbers up to a million excess deaths caused by the nuclear disaster. UN and other international agencies such as the Chernobyl Forum and the World Health Organization state that such numbers are wildly over-estimated, stressing a need for hard documentation of deaths. It is thought that the principal long-term adverse health outcomes are anxiety and depression among the general public across Eastern Europe as a result of irresponsible reporting and exaggerated statements by anti-nuclear power activists.

So, in the context of this article, which is stressing known, nameable deaths, the content of the NYAS article is covered. If you want to get more into that article in particular, go to Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Divers are fictional?

Comes forth 91.155.218.215, who removes Ananenko, Baranov and Bespalov, the divers who opened the basement floodgates, with the comment, "(People with fictional personal histories need to be removed from an authoritative site!)". Inasmuch as there is not an immediate citation on them, I will take a look. I think there is rather too much detail in their narrative to be made up, but odder things have happened.

Oh, yes, and he messed up the table formatting in the process. For shame. SkoreKeep (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I found them cited in Maples book, so I went back and reverted the change and added the citation. Then I noticed one of them already had a citation on it, a news story from AP, two weeks after the accident, in which the feat was described by TASS, and the AP picked it up a bare 4 days after it happened. The last paragraph reads: "The report did not mention if the men suffered any ill effects." So much for fictional personal histories. SkoreKeep (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. 91.155.218.215 tells me that, "(Invented personal histories and inadequate references. In the Soviet Union, each deceased person would have the full personal info with the place of bith and patronyms. Bring forward an original Soviet source, or do not repost!)". Man, what a hard time they must have in that country - you can't even die without full information.

Some points:

- People die all the time, and they don't always give up their middle names and dates to the local news. Even in the USSR.

- The USSR died on 25 December 1991, but left no patronymic, either.

- This is the US version of Wikipedia. What they may do in Russia is of no particular concern to me. There is a discussion above asking whether the Cyrillic names should be removed, presumably with patronymics. Is that what you would prefer?

- What rule requires me to have "an original Soviet source"?

- I presume you aren't arguing with whether their act occurred or not, but rather whether they died. The book says they did. It was a Canadian book written in Toronto; I presume they're not aware of your requirements.

- If you persist, this will be your third reversion, and someone higher up will have to get involved. If you have some overwhelming argument which you wish to acquaint me with, I hope you bring it here instead of just reverting again.

- It would be much more useful, perhaps, if you could verify their deaths, if you can. Or verify they didn't die. I would certainly like the information, even if it results in they having lived. Actually, PARTICULARLY if they lived.

To be taken seriously, you need to show me the place in Wikipedia policy that says death is fictional unless patronymic and dates are given. Other than that your own rules mean nothing. Have you a reference which says the story is untrue, the dives never happened or the men didn't die? You have removed verified information twice, now. Think before doing it again. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

At least one of the divers (Boris Baranov) was still alive in 2005 and gave an interview to a local newspaper: http://tribuna.com.ua/news/124286.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.215.222 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Website tribuna.com.ua defunct as of 10/1/2015. SkoreKeep (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article should start by discussing the controversy surrounding the wildly differing claims and methods used by various studies and reports.

As it stands, the article is a pro-nuclear-power puff piece which simply presents the UNSCEAR findings as gospel and not just dismisses any other claims, but actually goes so far as to say that those other findings are responsible for the worst actual effects of the disaster (depression and anxiety).

It is entirely ridiculous. This is not an encyclopedic article at all. --85.197.7.43 (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, by all means, jump right in. This article has always needed more editors. I, for one, would appreciate your input. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nah, as long as POV editors such as yourself are around, it's useless to waste time repairing the damage you're intentionally doing. Same reason I largely gave up on editing Wikipedia in general. It's a boken system that favors POV editors like you at the expense of encyclopedic accuracy. I'll try to repair the article if and only if you promise to stay away from editing the article forever. Deal? --87.79.162.123 (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Trust is two way, friend, not just your way. SkoreKeep (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't your version of "neutrality" cause a POV tilt your way? Let's see you take a whack at it. Dkendr (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Some additional sources

• http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/04/chernobyl_death_toll_how_many_cancer_cases_are_caused_by_low_level_radiation.html
• https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20403-25-years-after-chernobyl-we-dont-know-how-many-died/
• http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/10/chernobyl-nuclear-deaths-cancers-dispute
• http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-18/green-and-karamoskos---do-we-know-the-chernobyl-death-toll3f/56842
• http://science.time.com/2011/04/22/how-many-did-chernobyl-kill-more-than-4000/
• https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf
• http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pinning-health-problems-nuclear-disaster/
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889503/

Why is this page necessary?

I don't understand the purpose of this page. "In the list following are 41 people whose deaths are directly attributable to the Chernobyl disaster." But we all know thoiusands deaths after the accident were nonetheless attributable to the disaster, even if they occurred at a time frame distant from the accident. By listing the few names on this page, it somehow suggests that the deaths of these persons were somehow more important than the deaths of the thousands of others, and that the many other deaths were not somehow "directly attributable" to Chernobyl; but that is rubbish. Were it not for the fact that this accident happened, none of the thousands of others would have died.

I propose that this page be deleted unless someone can come up with a better reason why it should be kept.

Princeton wu (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

To answer your questions, yes, I think it is as necessary as any other Wikipedia page because it attempts to particularize history, and I'm sorry you don't understand that. It may come as a shock, but no, we (or perhaps only I) don't "all know thoiusands deaths after the accident were nonetheless attributable to the disaster". Another way to express that is, please, document for us anyone - anyone at all - who you feel should be included but is not. I think that keeping the names and bare facts available is important to the history of Chernobyl, and I will add names which can be documented as being directly killed by the Chernobyl disaster. I have gone to considerable lengths to discover more names, but have not been able to do so for more than a handful not on the official lists. For example, the cinematographer Shevchenko, because the evidence was good that he died primarily of ARS, though he is on no official list. I reject your feeling expressed about some "somehow" being more important than others; what we have here are some better known than others. That we can fix. And, no, determining direct attribution, at least in the cases of ARS and thyroid cancer, is not rubbish. The last sentence is simply wishful thinking. I propose the page stay. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This page would merit its own heading section in the Chernobyl disaster article, which would be somewhat lengthy and unreadable, so IMO it merits its own page as a "see also"/main article outlink from that page. Dkendr (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The fates of the three divers (myth)

It seems that there are no reliable sources (correct me if i'm wrong) on the circumstances of death of any of the plant personnel tasked with opening the sluice gates. It is also strange that these people, who were supposed to have died shortly after their mission, never made it to the official list. They had families, friends and coworkers, all of whom would have exposed this glaring omission in an heartbeat. From the talk page I can see that several others also had an issue with the information about on of these three. I intend to show that the info on all three is false. Those referenced below are clearly the divers. It's not possible that had the same names and work histories by pure coincidence. (All referenced pages are in Russian, my native language. You can use machine translation to verify the info.)

• First background some info on the job these three did, from the Soviet paper "Trud"link:

"Они вызвались сами – начальник смены Чернобыльской станции Б.Баранов, старший инженер управления блоком турбинного цеха номер два В.Беспалов и старший инженер-механик реакторного цеха номер два А.Ананенко. Роли распределились так: Алексей Ананенко знает места задвижек и возьмет на себя одну, вторую покажет Валерию Беспалову. Борис Баранов будет помогать им светом."

Translation: "They volunteered: shift manager B. Baranov; second senior turbine hall engineer V. Bespalov; and senior engineer-mechanic from reactor number 2, A. Ananenko. Their roles were divided as follows: Ananenko knows where to find the gate valves and will take care of one of them; he will point Bespalov to the second valve; Baranov will be in charge of providing lighting."

-- As far as I have been able to find out, Baranov was not a "diver" here, or at least he had far less contact with the water than the other two. Some other sources have been more explicit on this point but, I can't provide the other references without hours of digging. There is also an interesting comment on the divers at the end of the comments section linked here. Clearly states that Baranov was alive in the 1990's. Side note: there is another RS describing the three as "volunteers" here.

Let's find out what happened to each of them:

• Baranov, Boris (Баранов, Борис)

From a site dedicated to liquidators, an obituary dating from 2005: "На 65 году жизни остановилось сердце Баранова Бориса Александровича [..] Всю свою жизнь Борис Александрович посвятил энергетике. Начинал на Криворожской ТЭЦ. С 1976 года и до конца дней своих работает на Чернобыльской АЕС: СИУТ, ЗНСС, НСС. Таковы ступени его роста, на последней должности он проработал почти 22 года."link

Translation: "Baranov's heart stopped in the 65th year of his life [..] He has devoted much of his life to energy. He started out in Krivishkaya Thermal. [...] He spent his last 22 working years at Chernobyl."

--Picture of the younger Baranov date 1986 is provided.

• Bespalov, Valeri (Беспалов, Валерий). You have misspelled his last name as "Безпалов".

From the Корреспондент, dated 2008 (there is also a pdf of their actual print article somewhere, with more information on Bespalov). You need to scroll to the picture of the man with the telephone in the control center. Caption reads:

"Валерий Беспалов, сотрудник с 25-летним стажем, начальник смены первой очереди ЧАЭС. Лично контролирует состояние отработанного топлива в отключенном реакторе первого эторгоблока. Называет себя патриотом станции" link

Translation: "Valery Bespalov: on staff for 25 years, leading manager of the first shift at Chernobyl. Personally charged with controlling the condition of the spent fuel at reactor #1. Calls himself a patriot of the plant."

• Ananenko, Alexei (Ананенко, Алексей)

"Родился 13 октября 1959 года в г. Инта Коми АССР (Россия). В 1983-м окончил Московский энергетический институт по специальности «Атомные электростанции и установки». С апреля 1983 по октябрь 1989 года работал в реакторном цехе на Чернобыльской АЭС. 1989-1992 гг - инженер Киевского института «Атомэнергопроект» 1992 - 1994гг. - Работал начальником лаборатории Научно-технического центра ядерной и радиационной безопасности. 1994-2010 гг - начальник управления, Государственный комитет ядерного регулирования Украины. 2010-2011гг .- начальник международного отдела, Государственный Научно-технический центр по ядерной и радиационной безопасности. С мая 2011г .- директор по институциональному развитию Ассоциации «Украинский ядерный форум». В 1989г. награжден Орденом Почета за участие в ликвидации последствий аварии на ЧАЭС, в 2005г. - Почетной грамотой Кабинета Министров Украины за значительный личный вклад в создание Государственного комитета ядерного регулирования, развитие и безопасность ядерной энергетики Украины."link

--I won't translate the entire thing, but the gist is that Ananenko worked in the reactor hall (reactor number not noted) from 1983-89. Since 2011 he has been the "Director of Institutional Development" at the Ukraine Nuclear Forum association. He's the one with the moustache, for reference.

So only Baranov, supposedly the guy who lived longest, is known to be dead (died in 2005). The false info about their immediate deaths all seems to come from a single blogpost somewhere, I really doubt this info comes from Marple's book on Chernobyl. So the material on the fate of each diver in this article is precisely and demonstrably wrong. I am taking a break from block-enforced break from wikipedia, so I won't delete the offending text myself.

The issue of divers is important not just for its human interest, but also for how the liquidators in general are represented. The current false info feeds the narrative of the liquidators as foolhardy kamikazes, thrown at the radioactive waste by their callous overlords. This crass sensationalism is profoundly dehumanizing and offensive to the liquidators, who were complex, intelligent and courageous individuals. It also disparages their heroic efforts as stupid forced labor; in fact, their efforts were generally the opposite of "stupid" and "forced". And perhaps the radioactivity of the water was a little less ;) than sensational accounts would have you believe. 81.171.71.29 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok here is the original source of this nonsense: an article in The Scotsman. So much for being "Scotland's leading newspaper". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.130.204.145 (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll take WP:CRACKPOT for $400, Alex... Dkendr (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that supposed to mean something? gucci81.171.71.36 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You're free to reach your own conclusions. Dkendr (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So are you. You are also free to get banned for trolling 81.88.116.27 (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Bring it. Calling WP:CRACKPOT on someone is hardly trolling, especially when that "someone" is hiding behind an IP. Dkendr (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Guccisamsclub - all IP edits. Aside from that You're just fuming and throwing insults, and you can't even explain why you you're doing it - not that I want to hear your reasoning at this point. -gucci81.88.116.27 (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Then why not sign in? Unless you're banned under a different user name. Just sayin'... and that IP's user page shows some funny business in its history... and the fact that you threatened me with a block and are now walking back said threat while dismissing me as irrelevant... WP:CRACKPOT. Dkendr (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The answer to your question is Javascript "wikibreak enforcer" - though obviously it hasn't worked too well. But I really can't continue responding to these irrelevant and idiotic insinuations. Consider this your last warning. 81.88.116.27 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My last warning toward what? I called WP:CRACKPOT on your lengthy post which is both WP:PATENT and WP:FRINGE. If any of your claims held water they'd have been put in the article or as an adjunct to it, but no, you posted it in the talk pages, where it was fair game for review and commentary. My comment was that it was the product of a WP:CRACKPOT and conspiracy nut. You responded by calling me a troll, telling me I was irrelevant, and then threatening me, each time stating I was beneath your contempt. So again I call WP:CRACKPOT on this escalating pattern of behavior. Dkendr (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You can "call" it "WP:LEMONADE" for all I care. Either you are here discuss the topic - or you her to ... I don't even know what the hell youre tryin to do here. Have you even read the post you're responding to? BTW - I did correct the article and removed the erroneous information about the divers some time ago. The purpose of the "lengthy" post on the talk page was to present all the relevant source material and to explain the reason for the proposed edit. The target audience was editors with an elementary level of reading comprehension. Why do I even .... are you sure on you're in the right place? -Guccisamscub 81.88.116.27 (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You targeted elementary-level editors; however, anyone above that level knows WP:CRACKPOT when they see it. In case you couldn't tell, some of your Russian-language sources are of dubious authenticity. You're also trying to convince me that you want to take a break... but just can't stay away. Do I need to get an order of protection? Dkendr (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah - I can't tell they are of dubious authenticity. But what do I know? I've only read them in the original and translated them for the benefit of people who can read English. Alright, yawn. I suggest you find somebody else to pester, because I'm exhausted from this bizarre exchange and don't think I'll be able to keep replying for much longer.81.88.116.27 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You could read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its original and translate it to English and it would be no more authentic. And your missing that point is proof you're in a WP:CRACKPOT fog. You have now threatened, bloviated, pounded your desk, complained you're above it, complained it's beneath you, and whined about me. The fact of the matter is that you have yet to discuss the legitimacy of your conspiracy theory, its connection to anything, and whether or not it's really encyclopediac... and of course you're doing it on a talk page so it won't get deleted for the crap it is. Dkendr (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't just call something is a "conspiracy theory", "nonsense", "crackpot", "analogous to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion". You have to SHOW that is those things, using reliable sources and logic. This is how people usually determine what's true and what's false, at least in the ideal. Is this clear enough for you? But I see on your page that youre both a "professional comedian" and "insane". If you're just having a laugh, you might as well come clean about it cause the joke is getting old. 81.88.116.27 (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I can, and yes I did, largely because a) you're a crackpot, b) you're spewing drivel, c) it doesn't make sense, and d) there is no credible explanation of why the divers' fates were misrepresented. What I did not do was compare your bloviation to Protocols, just said that your use of original crackpot evidence in its original language carried no more weight than if you read it in English. Try to up your reading comprehension. Lastly, whether I'm having a joke is irrelevant; you are complaining that my notes on your silly and overlong post signifying nothing were somehow against Wikipedia policy because <unexplained> and I should be banned, tarred, feathered, transferred to some sort of state institution for slow adults, or otherwise castigated for daring to knock your tin foil hat askew. Did I miss anything? Dkendr (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The divers' fates were misrepresented in one short sentence in one short article from the Scotsman, from a just a few years back - the article was not even a proper news story (breaking news, sources, research, interviews etc), and was probably never even printed - and on a few blogs. Hardly a "conspiracy" - more like a boo-boo in a couple of less-than-serious sources. That's all the sources (reliable or otherwise) I could find - and I looked, unlike you apparently. You know - not everything you read on the internet is true. Well anyhow - you have any more abuse you want to throw my way or are you tired?81.88.116.27 (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So, all of this to correct one perceived slight in one sentence of one article? If we don't already have WP:QUIXOTRY to go along with WP:CRACKPOT we need to invent one, stat. Dkendr (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes that's what it takes. If an article (on the Scotsman website, which is an RS) claims something it true, you need to present evidence to the contrary to prove it false and remove the erroneous claim. I think it's important to get facts regarding the life and death of liquidators right. 81.88.116.27 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So what this all comes down to is that someone claimed three guys dived into a pool under the plant, received enough radiation that their ancestors climbed out of their graves glowing in the dark, somehow didn't die themselves until at least 2005, and yet only one of them is on the official death roll. So based on that, you are presenting evidence that they did not in fact die, but have been managing a 7-11 in Minsk for the past 20-odd years? Why isn't this in a "disputed deaths" section on the article itself? Why is this an enormous blather on a talk page? Could it be because there's no story here and someone invented a conspiracy to make three guys who should be dead look like heroes? WP:CRACKPOT. Dkendr (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well apparently none of them were on the official death roll. if you have a source contradicting this - cite it. the rest i cant respond to because it makes no sense.81.88.116.27 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Baranov's in the article to which this talk page is attached, on the official list, and footnoted. I didn't care enough to research the other two, because, WP:CRACKPOT. Dkendr (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah finally a verifiable claim from you, but it's WRONG. That's Anatoly Baranov - not Boris Baranov the diver. But you could have checked that yourself, if you actually cared about the topic of the article. Again - this is the wrong place for you - go away.81.88.116.27 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)