Talk:Ramsar, Iran

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ramsar, Iran article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cities Start‑class

	Cities portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Iran Start‑class

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Radioactivity resistance

This high level of radiation does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area and even possibly has made them slightly more radioresistant, which is puzzling and has been called "radiation paradox". It has also been claimed that residents have healthier and longer lives.

These claims need references. I put a fact-tag on the first sentence because it had no reference. The second sentence has a reference, but it is to a brief mention in passing from a geologist, not from a medical study from a reliable source. In my opinion both of these claims should be treated with extreme skepticism unless reliable medical studies are cited. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the dubious tag is warranted. The article Radiation hormesis contains some citations that could also be attached to the Ramsar article. The article states "It has also been claimed that residents have healthier and longer lives". That is not dubious at all. Claims like that have been in fact made by many studies (Just read the linked article). Whether those claims turn out to be true or not is, of course, is still controversial but the Ramsar article doesn't take sides on that controversy simply stating the true fact that claims of radiation hormesis have been made. You should remove the tag. BTW I happen to believe that there is likely some truth to those claims. Dauto (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not need work.

It currently reads in part The prevailing model of radiation-induced cancer posits that the risk rises linearly with dose at a rate of 5% per Sv.

That is not only unreferenced and untrue, it is pure political propaganda. The prevailing model does nothing of the sort, as the following sentence does attempt to clarify. Such claims are common in anti-nuclear-power literature, and it is permissible and even good to repeat them here if they are properly sourced. But they should not be repeated in the voice of Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A source for the 5.5%/Sv claim is given in Radiation-induced_cancer. Is that not good enough? Amaurea (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged2

I have flagged the claim as dubious. [1] Comments? Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background Radiation

I believe a mention of Ramsar having a high level of natural radiation is warranted. Ref: http://www.probeinternational.org/Ramsar.pdf Kevink707 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Ramsar Montage.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are talking to gilaki language

They are talking to gilaki language 5.121.108.181 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]