Jump to content

Talk:Hiroshima

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheGreenMartian (talk | contribs) at 21:37, 12 May 2010 (→Not Nagasaki: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

why is there no section talking about how awesome it was when all those tojos died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.174.154 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]



RFC: 100's died from radiation

An edit-war is starting to develop. Which version is makes accurate use of the sources:

In the following months, an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries and radiation.[1]

In the following months, an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries, and hundreds more from radiation. [2]


It needs more context:

1. On August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 70,000 people. Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and 6.6 percent severely damaged.[6] By the end of the year, an estimated 20,000-70,000 more people died from injuries and radiation.[8]


2. On August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 70,000 people. Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and 6.6 percent severely damaged.[6] In the following months, an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries, and hundreds more from radiation.[8] [9]

As the above comments were placed by a user in Korea I'm assuming its Bsharvy. Reading the sited source shows it talks about dosimetry; the 36 page article that is "referenced" (in the loosest sense) doesn't seem to comment at all about deaths, but refers to the lifespan study and BEIR reports, which plainly contradict the added information. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 08:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing against version #2, which is the one that cites a source on dose estimation. You're right it has nothing to do with casualty estimates, so why do you keep reverting to it? Bsharvy 12:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, none of the sources you have mentioned actually say what you try to put in the text (neither #2, nor #1 say 20,000-70,000 died from radiation, in fact number 1 the actual study indicates the numbers are likely in the low thousands). And why bother with an RFC? You've already shown on the atomic bombing page that you are not interested in the community's input as you've made plain that you own that page any any consensus can't be made without you. In fact numerous people have asked you to read to try to get you to stop your behavior on your own. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chocie #1 is correctly supported by sources. The source says deaths "within two to four months" numbered 90,000-140,000. If nobody disputes the 70,000 intital deaths, that makes 20,000-70,000 additional deaths. The source says "Deaths caused by the atomic bombings include ...deaths that occurred later from burns and radiation exposure". Choice #1 says "from injuries and radiation.". So that's OK. The source in #2 doesn't support anything and what #2 says (only 100's died from radiation) isn't supported. Ohsoh 01:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The RERF study in choice number #1 says 70k died immediately, and a total of 90-140k died by the end of the year. Hence, "an estimated 20,000-70,000 more people died". The RERF study says the deaths were from injuries and radiation, so that's what the text says. If you consider subtraction to be OR, I can certainly compromise and use the same figures used by RERF:
1. On August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 70,000 people. By the end of the year, injury and radiation brought total casualties to 90,000 to 140,000.* Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and 6.6 percent severely damaged. Radiation Effects Research Foundation

Bsharvy 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I close this RFC? Eiler7 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed it. Eiler7 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo request? (Ignore: Added in Error)

A user has added a request for a photo, but since there are more than 15 photos in the article and the request did not specify, I wonder what kind of photo the user wants? If you tell us the subject matter you want in the picture or other information we may be able to comply. Fg2 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to revert that template addition. I must have copy/pasted it in error, as obviously there are ample images in the article. - Ageekgal 00:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem. Thanks for letting us know. Fg2 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff in nuclear attack section

Why is so much other stuff in the nuclear attack section? I understand the bombing raids, but some of it has to do with a Typhoon. If it's staying shouldn't it be renamed "destruction of hiroshima" or "damage to infrastructure" or something of that sort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.197.156 (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the paragraph on the typhoon from the section on the nuclear attack to the section on postwar Hiroshima. Fg2 04:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

longer term radiation effects

Just some questions I am left wondering after reading this article, if anyone has a good source I think it would be good info to add: What has been the longer term effects of the health of the inhabbitants? We know that a lot of people died of the radiation from the bomb itself, either immediately or from the poisoning. But how long was it before the area was safe for human rehabitation? Was the main area left uninhabbited for a period of time? What are the effects in the present day? Does Hiroshima have a higher than average incidence of cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timb0h (talk • contribs) 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RERF link leads to an extended study of those topics. In general, after 1950, the deaths attributed to radiation are less than 1,000.Bsharvy (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the Hiroshima bomb was detonated as an airburst there was no crater and therefore no radioactive fallout (a factor restricted to groundbursts). Initial radiation would have decayed quite quickly with no residuals. It is therefore not surprising that there have been virtually no continuing deaths or cancers in the sixty years since the early 1950s. Most deaths since the 1950s have been among people who were exposed to the initial explosion, but to a lesser degree than the earlier mortalities. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went to this page specifically to learn about residual radiation there. Common sense would indicate that the radiation levels here would be significantly higher for tens of thousands of years, although the fact that it is a thriving city indicates that the potential hazard must be negligible. If there is no significant residual radiation, the explanation would be interesting to read. I worry that this information is being excluded because the town does not want to hinder potential tourism and business.Deproduction (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused by different types of bombs: The bomb used on Hiroshima was not the type of bomb which would leave long-term residual radiation (those are called "dirty bombs, which are generally designed to contaminate an area). After the initial radiation, it basically went back to normal. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment:

The article's source regarding # of deaths states that the precise # will never be known (and gives several reasons why). I suggest changing the "...brought total casualties to 90,000-140,000" to reflect this uncertainty. At the very least it should read "...brought total casualties to *an estimated* 90,000-140,000." The fact that the # of deaths is disputed and ultimately unknowable should be made clear. There are numerous estimates out there; I visited the peace museum in Hiroshima and their # was different, if I remember correctly. Thanks. Shibbydang (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These details should be added somewhere to the page. How is the average reader to know that Hiroshima is not still radioactive like, say, Chernobyl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.217.236 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl was a nuclear reactor accident, not a bomb, so there is no direct comparison. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that not everyone may know that. 193.11.215.37 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random Comment

Just skimming through this article I couldn't help but notice that it focus's exclusively on the nuclear attack, even bringing it up in other sections. I am not suggesting that this be deleted, but I think it would be more interesting if the regular editors of this article included more information about Hiroshima in general, like the people, the culture, ect . . . and expanded on the sections already about this, bar the nuclear attack.

After all Hiroshima was on a short list of cities to be targeted for possible dropping of the atomic bomb, meaning that Hiroshima must be important for something in and of its self besides being a war casualty. 216.255.11.132 (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Someone put before Hiroshima in bold the words "The shitty city of..."

You might want to find the IP and warn him or her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.129.134 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the vandalism. They have been warned and will be blocked if they continue. --Aude (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how pronounced?

I have heard three very different pronounciations for Hiroshima. Which is correct? Given how often the city's name is cited to prove this and that, a pronounciation guide would be a valuable edition to this article. Oldpilot (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hi-ro-shi-ma (hi - pronounced same as in "his" with short vowel; ro - pronounced same as in "ro" in "roach"; "shi" pronounced like "she" with short vowel; then "ma"). That's how I heard it pronounced by locals when visiting. I don't know how to convey that with International Phonetic Alphabet. Also, "hiro" means wide in Japanese, and "shima" is the word for island. --Aude (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would agree with that. It is a gutteral two words that sound like "Hero Shee-ma" with a glottel stop between the two final syllables with equal emphasis on all three 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize I'm also no good at explaining pronunciation in any universally understandable manner, but I can say that each syllable should be pronounced in a sort of quick, short way. Not "HEE roe SHEE ma", but more like "Hih ro shih mah", with equal emphasis (stress) on each; if there is any stress at all, it's "hih ROE shih mah", not emphasized on the "Hi" or the "shi". LordAmeth (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aude has posted a request for a sound file at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Pronunciation - short audio clip needed. A good, clear audio file will help (as do good, clear explanations). Fg2 (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of caution (this will probably be unnecessary as soon as a sound-bite is posted) - English has many if not most sylables with distinct diphthongs, whereas most sylables in Japanese are not pronounced this way - this is why the "roe" or "ro as in roach" aproximations given above are somewhat misleading, as they will invariably lead to a diphthongial pronounciation. All of the vowels in Hiroshima are monophthongs, with the stress on the "ro" sylable. (Hope all this even makes sense to users not familiar with phonetics :/ ) TomorrowTime (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Jtthunders.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify

The introductory paragraph states: "Hiroshima gained municipality status on April 1, 1889 and was designated on April 1, 1980 by government ordinance." What was Hiroshima designated as?--gnomeselby (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means Hiroshima became a designated city. See Cities of Japan and City designated by government ordinance. Oda Mari (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Nagasaki

I've removed part of this article that talks about the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. This article is about Hiroshima, not Nagasaki, and it's about the city, not just the nuclear attack.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hiroshima&oldid=361760519"