Talk:Chernobyl disaster

Archives
March 2004 – 18 August 2005 Previous page name discussions, 18 August 2005 – 15 December 2005 19 December 2005 –

Wormwood

Does Chernobyl really mean "wormwood" as some state as evidence for the Christian End Times? -- Kent Wang 17:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to an Arte report diffused a few days ago, it does. Lapaz 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My friends in Ukraine have told me that it does, but I count this as evidence, rather than proof, since their English language translation is not perfect. Kierant 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Claimed Policy Violations and grey areas

OK, but there have been conspiracy theories. No system, including Wikipedia's is perfect. I will put this article as due for Cleanup and look for an admin to have a look at it because i think that we should leave in the argument about conspiracy. It is not violating NPOV, because we are not saying there were conspiracies, but just there might have been. I will use a citation, common sense. Common sense here would not go amiss, just use common sense, i don't think there was a conspiracy, but why not include it? We are not here to just reproduce one point of view. Wikipedia can go further into articles and stories, it may be sensible at this rate to have another article. "Chernobyl Conspiracy Theories." Innocent until proven guilty aside, I know, just from my instincts and common sense that we should leave the conspiracy theory in.

86.140.242.55 18:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to Hiroshima

As this sentence is only very misleading, I have not totally deleted it, but am moving it to the separate Chernobyl_accident_effects article where it is better placed and will add a proviso to it. - Axel Berger 21:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed report?

I removed the following: Greenpeace, amongst others, disputes the study's conclusions. from the intro since the reference does not support the assertion.

It does, in that Greenpeace claims a much higher death toll than the IAEA report. However, that specific reference is no longer necessary, as there are other examples of how the figure is disputed now present in the article that weren't when the original reference to Greenpeace was added. --Robert Merkel 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition to Other Disasters List

I added the 9/11 hijackings to the list of other man-made disasters due to that event's historical and national significance. I pulled the death toll from the corresponding Wikipedia article. In making this addition, I deliberately did not distinguish between deliberate and accidental man-made disasters, but at the same time, I did not consider 9/11 to be an act of war perpetrated by one state against another. Had I chosen to include acts of war - most notably the siege and battle of Stalingrad, with over a million casualties - doing so would have rendered the inclusion of the list in this article meaningless.

I think this addition does not belong to this section. It´s obviously out of "synch" with the other disasters. This section was meant to be accidental disasters, on par with Chernobyl. Terrorism does not apply here. Historical and national significance does not alone make this addition pertainable to the list of man made disasters. You do not consider 9/11 to be an act of war, but that´s your opinion, POV. We should avoid it. If it enter the list then the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, much more properly, should made into the list too (they are, after all, nuclear man made disasters). Regards Loudenvier 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wet suit story in "Immediate Crisis Management"

The article says: "Two of these were sent in wet suits to release the valve to vent the radioactive water, and thus prevent a thermal explosion. These men, just like the other liquidators and firefighters that helped with the cleanup, were not told of the danger they faced. The two men saved millions by releasing the water, yet it is likely they did not even reach the surface again before they died." I never heard this before, is there a source? 84.191.221.158 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

removed some part

I have removed ", and large areas in the UK are still banned from selling sheep because of contamination arising from the accident", since it is not supported by the cited article.

And I have reinserted it, as it is. Please sign your contributions. Thanks. Guinnog 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The BBC article does not claim that selling the sheep is banned, although they are not allowed to enter the human food chain. This government pdf shows the current status. I suggest the sentence should be "... and sheep farming in some areas of the UK still operates under government restrictions on movement and sales because of contamination arising from the accident" Joffan 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The updated text is not bad, but sheep from affected farms are not prohibited outright from entering the food chain, but they are subject to testing before they may be sold. The entry should be edited accordingly.--DocS 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that Guinnog 21:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Stolen funds

A big claim like "Most of the money donated by foreign countries and contributed by Ukraine has been squandered by inefficient distribution of construction contracts and overall management, or simply stolen." needs some supporting evidence so I've removed it until some is provided. --Xilog 15:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Computer Virus

The CIH computer virus was popularly named "the Chernobyl virus" by many in the media, after the fact that the v1.2 variant activated on April 26 of each year: the anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. However, this is simply because of a coincidence with the virus author's birthday.

Is this true?  How do we know that's why the person who created the virus began it then?  Maybe we should re-phrase to

However, this may be a coincidence with the virus author's birthday?

IPPNW

Lapaz, you seem very keen to include an IPPNW report referenced in a Le Monde article[1]. However, a search of the IPPNW website[2] does not reveal the report. On a topic such as this I do not think Wikipedia should use it unless and until it is actually published, and even then not with the prominence it currently has in the article. Additionally, if there are no English sources for the information given on such a topic it would be highly unusual and rather suspicious. Joffan 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This might be of interest http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4917526.stm Guinnog 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that would be a reasonable study to mention in the article - fully sourced, publicly available. Joffan 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is the IPPNW's Nobel Peace Prize (awarded before Chernobyl even happened, for anti-proliferation work) relevant to the Chernobyl accident? It seems like a POV-related attempt to inflate the IPPNW's credibility relative to the IAEA (which, coincidentally, won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for its anti-proliferation activities) and the WHO. Both references removed pending justification.--DocS 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It also seems redundant to include detail of the 2005 report and controversy up front in the introduction, and again (in barely more detail) in its own section. Perhaps the mentions in the introduction are best replaced with a summary sentence, with the details left to the appropriate section?--DocS 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The IPPNW report is referenced by the Le Monde article [3] but also by Arte article [4], which is an interview of the head of the German section of the IPPNW. I suppose that when an organization gains a Nobel prize, it should be mentioned. If you feel that for NPOV it should also be mentioned that the IAEA has recently won that prize, you could also add it (I underlined it for the IPPNW, because as it is not an official organization such as the famous IAEA, it is important, in my eyes, for the reader to know this fact). Concerning the study itself and that a search on the IPPNW website doesn't reveal it (I made the same search and I'm of course surprised as you are - maybe it is the search engine?), I will argue that:

• there is no Wikipedia policy against the use of foreign languages
• there is no Wikipedia policy against the use of resources not published on the internet

To call this study "fictionous" when two major French media, Le Monde newspaper and Arte German-French TV (I could also add the AFP news agency) have talked about it is outrageous, to say the least. However, it does give interesting insight concerning the worldwide perception of the Chernobyl catastrophe. There is no reason to delete this reference; in fact, if you feel on insisting on this theme, I would advise you (please do not take offence for this suggestion) to send a letter to the BBC asking them why Le Monde, Arte and the AFP have deemed it interesting enough to report it but not the BBC itself? Lapaz 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the Nobel Prizes awarded to IAEA or IPPNW pertain in any way to their work on Chernobyl and, as such, are not relevant to this article. --DocS 14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to explain the reason of the inclusion of this study. When the 2005 IAEA report was publicized, it was harshly criticized by several organizations and scientists. Those critics were reported by the AFP among others. So, when I read six months later that the IPPNW had published an alternate report and explicitly criticized this controversial report (I suppose the term "controversial" is here, for once, totally adequate and it would be in fact confusing not to qualify it as such), I searched Wikipedia for the Chernobyl catastrophe. So I was really surprised when, while tens of studies have been done, the only one quoted by Wikipedia was the IAEA 2005 report! This was certainly against NPOV, and this is why I insist on having alternate reports. Discussions on numbers are far from over, and there is many legitimate reasons, whatever your POV, to take at least with some precaution a report made by the IAEA (which is not exactly the most anti-nuclear organization in the world, albeit it won a Nobel peace prize!) and, even more importantly, by Belarus (which recent elections have highlighted to world opinion the nature of its very "democratic" regime...), Russia (same goes...see the repression on NGOs) and Ukraine. Lapaz

Mention of the IPPNW report should be included, but a direct reference should be provided; snippets from a news report make for a weak reference, and may be misleading as to the report's conclusions.--DocS 16:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The interview with Angelika Claussen, head of the German IPPNW, is not misleading. The Le Monde article isn't either. The report exists, and is referenced. Lapaz

Lapaz, you have not shown that the IPPNW report exists. Certainly IPPNW have persuaded a couple of newspapers to print their press releases but until I see a direct reference to the report I am not convinced. Without direct access to the report, how do you know that the news reports are accurate?

I intend to again remove all references to this report shortly, pending your response of course.

Your persistence in equating the Chernobyl Forum to the IAEA, untrue despite the IAEA's key role in this group, undermines everything you say about this topic, especially since the WHO actually led the health consequence study. Joffan 23:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move to Chernobyl disaster

It is proposed that the name of this article be moved to Chernobyl disaster to bring it inline with similar industrial disasters like the Bhopal disaster. This was no mere accident. An accident would have been someone crashing their car into a group of pedestrians. This was a long term, far reaching, and environmentally catastrophic occurance.

• Support Septentrionalis 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support—G.He_(Talk!) 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support — It was an accident that led to a disaster. Joffan 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Guinnog 06:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Isopropyl 06:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Loudenvier 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support — Whatever the cause, it was clearly disasterous. Kierant 13:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (Aid worker, Chernobyl area, Ukraine)
• Support --DocS 13:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For notice, the French name of the article is fr:Catastrophe de Tchernobyl. Lapaz 14:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Natmaka 14:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above. David Kernow 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. A suggestion, though: not to belie the effects or importance of this catastrophe, but Chernobyl incident might be more ... appropriate? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, not so sure about that. "Incident" makes it sound like Soviet propoganda trying to cover-up how disasterous this actually was. Nuclear fallout reached the eastern U.S. from this event. Hardly an "incident".JohnnyBGood t c 18:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've never read Pravda. :) Agreed: I acknowledge that a spade is a spade, but the intent of the alternate/suggestion is to mitigate potential hyperbole when rendering article titles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - @E Pluribus Anthony, Incident ranks below Accident in my vocabulary. An acccident is an incident in which someone is injured. I don't think Disaster is hyperbole for the consequences of Chernobyl. If we were restricted to (say) 50 "disasters" in the whole of Wikipedia, Chernobyl should make the list.

• Support --Xilog 09:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support disaster seem to be the most appropriate (even the Challenger disaster uses the word "disaster" instead of "accident". --Berkut 09:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

2005 IAEA/WHO Report

It appears that the total long-term casualties predicted by this report is 9000, not 4000 as widely reported. (4000 among the most exposed, 5000 among the much larger groups with less exposure). The entries will be updated accordingly.--DocS 13:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

May you please state where the 9000 figure sits? Thank you! Natmaka 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the report estimated the number to be between 4 000 and 9 000, as this BBC news article shows. Lapaz 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The BBC article is incorrect; this is not a range. The 4000 figure is only for the 200,000 liquidators and 400,000 civilians living closest to the plant at the time. The additional 5,000 (for a total of 9,000) includes fatalities from the ~7M people in the wider area exposed to lower levels of radiation.--DocS 15:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Official report, page 106, 2 first paragraphs. Total: 9000. As a sidenote the second group is 6e6+ tall Natmaka 15:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.. good catch. I'll correct the 6.8 million figure to 6 million --DocS 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

IAEA disinformation

Sept. 2005: the Chernobyl Forum (IAEA, in fact), during a press conference, publishes an abstract of its draft report stating that 4000 people have and will die. But the name of the authors abstract and report was not known, it did not state that those 4000 people are from a small subset of the human beings concerned, the report did not contain the key sentence of the abstract, the report was presented as an UN report albeit it was not (it is published by agencies, and not published by UN), it was only a draft...

The abstract (4,000 people will die from the effects of the 1986 accident at Chernobyl) was largely propagated (see for example this BBC's account).

April 2006: the very same Chernobyl Forum discreetly publishes the definitive version of the report, where this 4000 figure was replaced by 9000, and limited to a subset of the European population. It was then accepted by the UN. See http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060417/full/440982a.html, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4922508.stm

Let's clearly state that this 4000 figure was plain disinformation (this is a magnificient case for disinformation!) Natmaka 07:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, Natmaka, that your above comment is a better candidate for disinformation; unsigned, and falsely alleging that the Chernobyl Forum is nothing more than the IAEA.

Joffan 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

...or... did the IAEA change mind? Lapaz

Oops, I signed it here. And I'm there. It is not unsigned. Moreover the IAEA is the founder and most prominent member of the Forum... and it handles the WHO in this atomic field. Even without any interpretation we do have here a superb case of disinformation Natmaka 07:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

I think it's important that this article not read like Greenpeace or IPPNW marketing material; its credibility would diminish accordingly. I have excised some of the worst examples of POV language.--DocS 16:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The IAEA/Forum can plainly disinform, for example by stating A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded. (albeit the report was a draft, did not contain such assertion, the names of the scientists stating that there will be 4,000 dead remains unknown...). See [5] and [6].

Then some truth started to shrine.

Will we only fix the article by replacing 4000 by 9000? The article now containts as many as 9,000 people may ultimately die from long term accident-related illnessesand he total predicted number of deaths due to the accident at 9,000... Are we neglecting that this last figures (9000) is only stated ((please read the definitive report, page 106) for solid cancers and for the approx 7 million most exposed people, ignoring both other pathologies and other European people affected? This is blatantly misleading.

Aren't we somewhat neglecting that Wikipedia published for numerous month a plain false 4,000 figure? Let's clearly state, in the article, this patent attempt to disinform Natmaka 16:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no question that the IAEA press release was misleading. This does not bear on the content of the actual report, nor the validity of the various estimates by the WHO, Greenpeace or others. State the facts, and readers can decide which studies are more credible. Debates on the relative credibility of UN agencies versus Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear activist groups do not belong in an encyclopedic article on the Chernobyl disaster.--DocS 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't escape debate on numbers, and the IAEA report has been since the beginning highly controversial. The point is to show that there are various estimates, for various reasons (of which you are well aware). Lapaz

There's no problem with presenting the various figures; there is a problem when POV opinions on the figures are presented in the article, as was the case.--DocS 12:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: it is clearly stated in the article as currently written where the 4000/9000 figures in the 2005 report come from, and what populations each is based upon.--DocS 16:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clearly state my point, then edited the article. Let us know Natmaka 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your changes make sense. It's not clear to me that the WHO health report itself has changed since Sept 2005, though.--DocS 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The POV situation in the IAEA report sections has gotten completely out of control, and probably merits an NPOV title on the article. Dedicating 4 or 5 lines to the content of the report, and then ten times that number to opposing views (with a heavy slant on attack quotes) is textbook POV. --DocS 14:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Prejudicial section title fixed to "Controversy over fatality estimates". POV sections and repetitions (some of the TORCH report related stuff was repeated *three* times) removed to restore some balance. Quoting in length from only selected reports is pretty blatant.--DocS 15:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the TORCH report saying that...

"In terms of their surface areas, Belarus (22% of its land area) and Austria (13%) were most affected by higher levels of contamination. Other countries were seriously affected; for example, more than 5% of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden were contaminated to high levels (> 40,000 Bq/m2 caesium-137). More than 80% of Moldova, the European part of Turkey, Slovenia, Switzerland, Austria and the Slovak Republic were contaminated to lower levels (> 4,000 Bq/m2 caesium-137). And 44% of Germany and 34% of the UK were similarly affected." (See map of radioactive fallout of Caesium-137 in Europe)"

...is relevant information. If you don't like this estimate, than finds one which contradict it. You won't find it in the AIEA report, since the TORCH report explictly states that the AIEA report only considered contaminated areas with higher than 40 000 Bq per square meters. This is no POV! I'm sure you are aware that no one on Earth disputes that radioactivity is dangerous, the controversy among scientists is about which level of radioactivity can be considered dangerous. So the controversy necessarily is on numbers estimates (is an area contaminated with more than 4 000 bq/m2 dangerous? Or is it only dangerous with more than 40 000 bq/m2? Is 1 000 Bq/kg in food dangerous (as the UE has it)? Or does danger begins with 300 Bq/Kg (lower estimates followed by scientists such as Yuri Bandhazevsky. This is the real controversy, and deleting precise numbers is certainly not a way to enforce NPOV. Other modifications were welcomed. Lapaz 15:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If that were the only passage returned to the article, I wouldn't have reverted it. It is, however, repetitive with the bullet summary of the TORCH report immediately above and one or the other should be removed. Your insistence on injecting attempts to discredit the UN report, even into the single paragraph dedicated to the actual report itself, and the presentation of the conficting claims in UN-claim-then-refutation format, are blatant POV-pushing. I will not be violating the three-revert rule, but if the article continues to read like promotional material for your preferred viewpoint, I will be adding an NPOV tag. --DocS 15:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Input and impressions from other editors would be welcome on this issue--DocS 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I share Doc S's impression of imbalance. I also think it is very dangerous to rely on what one report says about another. ("... the TORCH report explictly states that the AIEA report only considered...") This is often inaccurate or selective, as in this case. Joffan 23:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)