Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2019

I want to Change the disaster time from 01:23:40 to 01:23:45, because this is when it really happened, as stated in the 2019 Chernobyl miniseries 2A02:C7F:A200:D400:EC1E:6BDA:6FED:E566 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The time in the article is well-sourced and explained in detail. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't use the miniseries for this, because it's partly fictionalized drama and also it is also it's much based on Medvedev's book which is also full of wrong details.Alliumnsk (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, which Medvedev, Gregori or Zhores? SkoreKeep (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

He meant Grigori. But Zhores' book is also very inaccurate because it was released while the coverup was still the dominant narrative.67.244.33.136 (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A Better Cite?

There is a statement with a dubious cite Under Accident, Reactor Shutdown and Power Excursion. The statement is: "However, the precise reason why the button was pressed when it was is not certain, as only the deceased Akimov and Toptunov partook in that decision, though the atmosphere in the control room was calm at that moment." The cite is "Chernobyl. How did it happen?" by Anatoly Dyatlov, the deputy chief-engineer at Chernobyl who oversaw the test leading to the disaster and spent time in prison as a result. I have searched for official (translated) testimony from other witnesses or a detailed timeline which shows when the power surge occurred in relation to pressing AZ-5 to corroborate this assessment unsuccessfully; however, I cannot say for certain whether this statement is true. I can, however, say that humans involved in terrible events tend to minimize their involvement and attempt to spread the blame. The quoted statement above is indicative of this: he is saying "I don't know why they pressed it: it was their decision," but he was in charge. We know that he was held criminally responsible for the test, and we know he threatened operators with job terminations if they did not proceed with it despite inadequate test conditions (Higginbotham, Adam (February 12, 2019). Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. pp. 80–82.). As the credibility of Dyatlov is uncertain, I would recommend that any reference to his book have a cross-reference with a more unbiased source or be omitted altogether, lest the credibility of this Wikipedia article also be brought into doubt.

Quietmartialartist (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You bring up a great point. I want to double-check what Higginbotham uses as a source in my copy tomorrow, and I'll expand based on that (in a sense, the whole Chernobyl background is a big clash of two major narratives, something I would like to document in the article as well). For now just a quick cross-reference, though it's a primary source: interview with a witness, Yuriy Tregub, at http://accidont.ru/evid02.html (google translate: "This moment with holding the power was somewhat nervous, but as a whole, as soon as 200 megawatts reached the power and became on the machine, everyone calmed down. ... Again went to the place of SIUT. There was no pre-emergency fuss. ..."). -- Pasky (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me follow up some more. There are two questions, one of them is whether though the atmosphere in the control room was calm at that moment can be treated as a fact and/or sourced better. To stay with Higginbotham, he says on pp. 85 "The control room was calm and quiet" (and surrounding text is written in a similar spirit). I'm adding that reference to the sentence.

The wider question is, of course, the references in general. To sketch my current understanding and solicit feedback on this - the situation is unfortunately extremely messy; I will be talking about the April 25 evening. There are some purely primary sources such as court testimonies (which may be very unreliable as they were done in a totalitarian regime and an assumption of fair trial, or even fair questioning, cannot be held - as is evident by huge discrepancy of the trial proceedings and judgment with later findings by both INSAG, local institutions and eyewitness accounts even of those who also testified), and first-hand eyewitness accounts as written testimonies or interview transcripts. Then, there are what I'd call primary/secondary sources - these are coherent sources that however have a large danger of bias, and the two I'm concerned about is Dyatlov's book and Medvedev's book. Dyatlov was an actor and undeniably is biased, but I think the book is not just a primary source as it involved heavy later research, includes testimonies and endorsement of others etc. Meanwhile, Medvedev (this book is the main source e.g. for the HBO series) builds mainly on Toptunov's immediate testimony and presents a narrative which is quite at odds with other eyewitnesses and largely uncorroborated; at the same time, Medvedev is not independent source as he is past executive of the plant and has documented negative bias towards executives of the plant incl. Dyatlov. At the same time, Toptunov who "pressed the button" would also be as unreliable a narrator as Dyatlov, but without the benefit of discussions of the events with the rest of the staff at the hospital. Finally, there are the purely secondary sources. The best out there as a factual source is likely INSAG-7, even though there are some controversies there too (covered e.g. by the NEI journal) but it is light on detail on the events in the control room. Other major ones would be probably Shcherbak, Higginbotham and Plokhy. Unfortunately, because of the conflict of Dyatlov's and Medvedev's narratives, they often contradict each other at various points, and neither of them seems to carry an uncontroversial description of the night before the explosion (perhaps the oldest one, Shcherbak, does?).

To give an example of the problems in the secondary sources, I examined "he threatened operators with job terminations if they did not proceed with it despite inadequate test conditions (Higginbotham, pp. 80-82)". He cites Medvedev whose only source was Toptunov's early testimony. He also mentions it is corroborated by Shcherbak's interviews with Kazachkov and Uskov; unfortunately, I don't have the Shcherbak's book, but I asked a friend to check them and he says the quotes are just people speaking in generalities that operators could have been fired for shutting down the reactor due to ORM. And of course, Kazachkov was not even in the room at that time, he was the previous shift supervisor. Meanwhile, you would think such an outrage would be mentioned by the many other narrators describing their eyewitness accounts, but they uniformly (AFAIK) don't. Plokhy, an extremely good source for the immediate post-explosion aftermath apparently, narrates the night in a much flatter and contradictory way.

To sum things up - primary sources are biased, there are clearly biased and controversial semi-secondary sources that are currently used liberally in the article, and secondary sources are contradictory and even the modern ones must be read critically. I think the best long-term strategy for the article is to keep the main narrative simple and uncontroversial and describe the controversy. To implement this, the main narrative should mainly follow INSAG-7 I think; I agree that other statements should have at least two independent references. I'm not yet sure how to well describe the controversy - it would be important for the reader to understand e.g. any contradictions to the series, but there are no great secondary sources about the controversy yet. What do you think? -- Pasky (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly reasonable to ask for more sources when Dyatlov holds forth on a subject of controversy (although we have no reason to doubt his credibility on many other topics that are not points of contention). In this case there are any number of other eyewitnesses we could cite, in addition to INSAG-7 itself. This may not be germane to the article at this time, but Higginbotham's book is in fact misleading and mistaken when it claims that Dyatlov threatened anyone. If you read the primary sources which are cited in the passage you quoted, you will find that they do not support such a narrative in the least. The original source is an operator musing on whether he himself would have been fired if he had hypothetically shut down the reactor due low ORM. In other words, it has nothing at all to say about what actually happened, but tacitly supports the idea that Akimov agreed with raising the power. There is also testimony from multiple eyewitnesses making it clear that there were no protests. In everything I have read about the disaster, I have only been able to find a single source suggesting that there was any disagreement, and it is thirdhand hearsay (something Toptunov's parents heard from unnamed coworkers). Even that does not mention threats or arguments. For what it's worth, I attempted to engage Higginbotham in a discussion about this, but he wasn't interested. 2604:6000:9F00:6200:88B4:163A:35C3:48D3 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2019

Change Goiana accident => Goiânia accident 93.136.83.43 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 14:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

'Positive void coefficient' incorrect description

The article currently states that a positive void coefficient means that 'as cooling water boils excessively in the fuel pressure tubes it produces large steam voids in the coolant rather than small bubbles.' - it is in fact a coefficient used to estimate how much the reactivity of a nuclear reactor changes as voids (typically steam bubbles) form in the reactor moderator or coolant - as per Void coefficient.

Spyritdragon (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. This was corrected. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead too long

These are the guidelines. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out! You are absolutely correct. The article is quite long (something that would be worth addressing at some point too), therefore the lead section cannot be super-short, but still. This is my first idea on how could we make a well-structured, shorter lead section, by paragraphs:

• Definition. We can keep the current paragraph, I think.
• Description of the accident - background, cause, and progression.
• The immediate impact - radiation, management, evacuation, causalities.
• The long-term aftermath - containment, liquidation, cost, causalities.

This will require significant shortening, but I believe the current summary also gives a very useful level of detail. Therefore, at least for now I'd move these paragraphs at the beginning of the respective sections and then it can be consolidated further in the future. Feedback on this plan is welcome! --Pasky (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

---

It is good to see some challenge here, but please note that the lead has seen considerable ediiting in the last 5 months or so to make it more relevant, less wordy and include all the main points that can be easily assimilated. It was very uneven at the beginning of summer and did not cover all the headings above. It even described the disaster as being an energy accident, NOT a nuclear accident. It also had detail such as who did what in the causes of the disaster, yet missed out several aspects of the story.

The MoS says, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". The headings above are nearly all in the lead, except for liquidation, but that's a challenge how to meaningfully explain without detailed explanation of what liquidation means in this context.

I have spent a good deal of time making the lead a concise, coherent, comprehensive, readable summary. Note that the MoS says that "Alexa reports the average Wikipedia user spends 4 minutes 15 seconds on the site." So the average reader is not there long, and the best service is to give them an easily-digested summary. It should also be noted that there were in fact TWO leads until a few months ago, the lead section itself, and an overview. This latter repeated points from the lead and added a random selection of other details. I rationalised this by removing the overview altogether on 24th June, removing duplications, putting some summary points in the lead, and remaining detail in the body text. That meant readers were straight into a description of the accident; which is what people want to know about - how did it happen? Note that Fukushima Daiichi also suffered the same issue of a lead and an overview until recently and was billed as an energy disaster.

I have already defended the lead length with an edit on 26th June "Copyedit of lead reducing words by 39 but keeping key points. Lead represents less than 4% of article size, which is not excessive to produce a good summary". I have also reverted sloppy language such as on the 27th June when I said "Reverted because the sense is changed - "had" means they knew it at the time, which they did. The gap is implicitly time, but "operating" may clarify. The generators, do not "kick in", which is a colloquial non-technical term. They actually start rotating quickly, but have to stabilise speed before the load is thrown on them. This is in body text. Better to clearly say 'provide power'".

This lead is very important, being read by 500,000 people a day when the miniseries came out, and +20k a day at the moment, so each word must be weighed carefully. There is still scope for improvement, probably in the pruning of long term medical effects to give an overall comment, and to simply get across the uncertain statistical nature of long term predictions for stochastic effects. (see sievert). The cost of the cleanup may not be of great interest also; though it's been shortened a lot lately. There is some good editing at the moment going on in the body text under accident, and INSAG, where there were unclear statements. But please, let's keep the lead informative and comprehensive.

Dougsim (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed overview, Dougsim! I had no idea about this personally. I still feel that there is room to reduce detail and flesh out section intros instead, but my opinion shifted to a very neutral one now. (I agree that near the end of the lead section, something can be shortened for sure.) --Pasky (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I did a bit of that after posting. I didn't edit out the para about the how the accident happened, other than grammar, because it does make a couple of more specific and pertinent points which help with the general picture. The lead is vital, not many people are going to wade the large amounts of text later on. Fukushima Daiichi is a good example of this also. The "four paragraphs" rule of thumb is proscriptive and should be flexible for the context. I shall probably edit that guidance.

Dougsim (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm removing the template, as there has been discussion about this here, and no strong argument to say the lead is too long.

Dougsim (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

The time of Chernobyl is 1:23:45, the time which is current is the time Aleksandr Akimov engaged AZ5 Benstoddard05 (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2020 (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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

cited material being removed again

Having contributed heavily to this article over the years, dropping in from time to time. I'm always perplexed to see the entire article slanted on returning. One of the more egregious deletions is on the dose to the evacuees and all information on the decontamination foam, has just been jettisoned from the arricle.

I have to do this every year, go back through the history, see no convincing rationale, if any, was given  for this materials removal and then re-instate it.

It gets pretty tiresome.

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

So has it remained around this time Boundarylayer? :) | MK17b | (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

First sentence under Background reads [X]:

In steady-state operation, a significant fraction (over 6%) of the power from a nuclear reactor is derived not from fission but from the decay heat of its accumulated fission products.

This is poorly expressed and I suggest [Y]:

In steady-state operation, a significant fraction (over 6%) of the power from a nuclear reactor is derived not from primary fission of the uranium fuel but from the decay heat resulting from further fission of the accumulated fission products.

Please change X to Y. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, are you sure that your proposed changes are correct? From my understanding, accumulated fission products generally are not fissile. The decay heat comes from beta particles and gamma rays emitted by the daughter nuclei, and beta and gamma emissions are not fission. But thanks for your suggestion. Altamel (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks for looking at this. The referenced article on decay heat says alpha and beta [plus gamma]. Alpha decay is definitely fission, in that the nucleus splits, albeit for the most part spontaneous fission rather than neutron mediated fission.78.33.185.122 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Alpha decay is not the same as nuclear fission (or Spontaneous fission). Please at least read the relevant Wikipedia articles before contributing. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

How about "In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, nuclear fission is a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into two or more smaller, lighter nuclei." What is an alpha particle but a lighter nucleus? BTW, try to think of a way of not being pompous and patronising about a good faith suggestion when you disagree and even read what you are using to beat someone else down with and think about what it means. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"The unpredictable composition of the products (which vary in a broad probabilistic and somewhat chaotic manner) distinguishes fission from purely quantum tunneling processes such as proton emission, alpha decay, and cluster decay, which give the same products each time." It's literally in the lead of the article on nuclear fission. By the way, I am not the one accusing the article of being wrong while not understanding even the basics of what it is about. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Grow up. I have not accused the article of being wrong. I said 'Poorly expressed' and suggested an improvement. Ok, it does not meet approval. I can live perfectly well without yours. Have a nice life. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

External links - photographs of Pripyat- why link to sites reliant on we archive?

I'm curious as to how and why the photo website's linked from under "external links" were selected? Both are reliant on webarchive to function. Chelu.eu is just one page and features copyrighted material from others etc. Why not link to a more current site? I appreciate there must be many websites vying for links (I run www.chernobylgallery.com) but there are numerous good quality websites in existence with better photos of Pripyat and the Zone. Darknoiz (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We can discuss the replacement of the current external links with better links, can you suggest better ones here? Thank you! --Ita140188 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would put forward 3 for consideration, thanks:

Www.Pripyat.com/en/gallery www.chernobylgallery.com www.pripyat-city.ru Darknoiz (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-proteced edit request on 4 June 2020

The Fukishima Disaster article has the Japanese name for the disaster, 福島第一原子力発電所事故. Can somebody add the Ukrainian name for the Cherynobyl Disaster, Чорнобильська катастрофа to the article? Stunts1990 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see the reason for doing this. This is the English language WP and Chernobyl disaster seems to be a commonly understood description. I have often wondered why the English language Fukishima article has Japanese characters. Dougsim (talk)

The reason why the Japanese name for the Fukishima Disaster is given is that the disaster is relevant in Japanese. The relevant disaster name in the relevant language should be given. In this case the relevant language is Ukrainian. Stunts1990 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't give the ukrainian name either. I'm not sure what benefit it would give our readers; if someone wants to know Ukrainian for "Chernobyl disaster", they should look in a reliable online Ukrainian dictionary rather than rely on english-language wikipedia. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You are right that the Ukrainian name for the Chernobyl disaster should not be given on the English Wikipedia. It would be, however, inconsistent that the Japanese name for the Fukishima disaster is given on the English Wikipedia. This can only mean that the correct thing to do in this case is to not give the Ukrainian name for the Chernobyl disaster and let the Chernobyl nuclear disaster be inconsistent with the Fukishima nuclear disaster. Stunts1990 (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Minor typo fix (since page is protected from editing)

Please change "Lonf term confinement" to "Long-term confinement"

 Not done: There seems to be a lack of "Lonf term confinement" in the article. Stunts1990 (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Conversion rate between Roubles/USD

Currency - can someone change the opening para to correct the 1:1 conversion rate between Roubles/USD? One rouble is worth around 2 cents currently...

It looks fine to me. I think the amount (18 billion rubles) was converted to a contemporary dollar amount which was then adjusted for inflation to 2019 dollars. I don’t see how you even would have a "current" exchange rate, since the ruble hasn’t existed since 1993. Also, the conversion provided is not 1:1. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 21:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Positioning of "Equipment assembled included remote-controlled bulldozers and robot-carts that could detect radioactivity and carry hot debris." mention

I feel that this section should be moved down to the "Debris removal" section where there is already mention of "approximately 60 remote-controlled robots" as this is where the robots were used, as opposed to the initial "Fire containment". 2001:4898:80E8:A:9581:C731:D166:205E (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks for catching this; it definitely didn’t belong in "Fire containment." I worked the Legasov quote into the appropriate paragraph in "Debris removal." — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Outdated information / misleading phraseology

This page appears to be inevitable for some reason. In Para 4 of the intro, it states "reviewed all the published research on the incident and found that at present, fewer than 100 documented deaths are likely to be attributable to increased exposure to radiation" 1. "at present" is inappropriate phrasing unless the article is updated daily: in fact, the reference refers to a page last updated in 2012, that references reports from 2008. 2. The sentence is grossly misleading, even for an introduction. many thousands of deaths have been attributed to increased exposure to radiation. This paragraph is so utterly distorted I feel forced to question the protection the page seems to be having. Protection from the truth? 92.15.194.75 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"At present" is perfectly fine when the incident happened decades ago; we don’t get daily updates on Chernobyl deaths in 2020. Furthermore, it says fewer than 100 documented deaths — it’s difficult to attribute individual deaths to radiation because if people get cancer, it takes years to develop. It’s often unclear whether cancer would’ve developed without the exposure. The lead quite sufficiently explains the human toll of the disaster, though. As for your inability to edit the page, that is the result of page protection put in place due to persistent vandalism. See WP:SEMI for more information. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 00:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Economics

Someone with some financial sense needs to wring out this section. I corrected one error where rubles and dollars in 1988 were equated as even par; immediately below that section (in which 18 billion rubles was equated with breaking the Soviet Union) Ukraine is said to have lost $235 billion. It seems the sources and especially the conversions need to be checked and worked on. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sarcophagus

Construction of the sarcophagus was not "the largest civil engineering task in history," as the article states. This should be re-written to something like "a monumental civil engineering task." Thanks. 66.223.179.60 (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Definition needed template added to section. This whole section needs a re-write to reflect the larger parent article. Helicopter accident is not key to the narrative. Dougsim (talk)

Grammar edit request 2

This appears to be a sentence fragment in the paragraph on abortions in the section on human impact. In one small behavioral study in 1998, with low statistical power and limited multivariate analysis which, akin to the widely published Hiroshima and Nagasaki studies, investigated and selected the children; who were in utero during the rapidly dividing and therefore radiosensitive phase of neurogenesis (8 to 16 weeks of gestation), and whose mothers were evacuated from some of the more energetic hot-spot parts of the Chernobyl exclusion zone following the accident.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Rewrote. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

RBMK Reactors

As of 2021, there are only nine operational RBMK reactors, so the sentence at the end of the lead section that states that there are ten operational RBMK reactors as of 2019 should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleBanana12345 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

shouldn't it be eastern europe

parts of the USSR and western Europe, especially Belarus those are opposite sides of europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thou fool. (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Punctuation

In the section "Water Bodies" under "Environmental Impact" there are commas instead of periods. At the end of the first two sentences in the second paragraph of the section the commas need to be replaced with periods. --PurpleBanana12345 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 07:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Correct it!

Main photo wasn't made on april 27th. It was made later, in summer of '86. Void 17 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This was fixed, thanks! --Ita140188 (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Metallic taste

I am a throat cancer survivor and radiation gave me a metallic taste, I expect there are references for that. I was treated at Dana Farber in 2014. For 7 weeks I got daily radiation treatment to a tumor in my throat. After the first treatment I tasted metal, this didn't go away for more than six months. By four weeks water tasted almost too disgusting to drink. Metallic is the closest description but it wasn't exactly that. The radiologist said my exposure was "200 gray" when I asked. I have no knowledge of duration, the treatment lasted 40 minutes or so but the machine wasn't always on. Maybe this was the whole dosage (exposure?). Clearly this was delivered to a very small volume but radiation had to travel through my saliva glands (which packed up working for a year) to get there. So, metallic taste is an early symptom of radiation, I know there is one reference to a nuclear blast cashing it, also I expect throat cancer research documents this. Hope this helps. Sebbbb (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't. Personal anecdotes are useless here on Wikipedia. We use Reliable Sources.50.111.50.145 (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How is this related to Chernobyl? Ruslik_Zero 14:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Diagram

The diagram in article -- "A simplified diagram comparing the Chernobyl RBMK and the most common nuclear reactor design, the Light water reactor." -- is NOT CORRECT.

A RBMK reactor doesn't have such feature that fuel rods are placed into water that is filling tank. There is NO water tank where the reactor core is placed. BWR and PWR reactors have such water tanks. A RBMK reactor have separate channels for fuel rods, control rods and water or steam filled tubes.

Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor or CANDU reactor are more similar to RBMK reactor, than BWR or PWR.

Well it is a simplified diagram. I see the diagram as indicating water circulation. Another diagram on the page shows the water tubes better. Also, this isn't the page about the RBMK, folks can go there for more detailed info. But otherwise it's unlikely to just get "fixed", making graphics is hard. You can try to find an alternative though! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirect "Chernobyl" here?

Users searching for "Chernobyl" are far more likely to be seeking the current article instead of Chernobyl (Ukraine). This is the common usage established in news coverage. A hatnote pointing to other users should suffice. Chernobyl (disambiguation) should identify Chernobyl disaster as the main topic. fgnievinski (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I have personally tried to get to the disaster article by typing just "Chernobyl" and was annoyed when it led me to the town. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

To formally establish consensus for this, please start a requested move at Talk:Chernobyl. This is the standard process for changing article titles that may prove controversial. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Done: Talk:Chernobyl#Requested_move_30_April_2021. fgnievinski (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Grammar - Soviet criminal trial 1987

In listing those charged in the criminal trial the word and is used twice. It seems another name was added without removing the previous and. LandonBee (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The sentence is divided into two lists, the people sentenced and the sentenced plant employees (in parenthesis). Yuri A. Laushkin, the inspector, was the only person sentenced who wasn't a plant employee. Both lists finish with "and", so this looks grammatically correct to me. Jr8825 • Talk 16:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2021

The article states that the time of the accident was 1:23:40, it was actually 1:23:45. Not sure how or why this was changed (I wrote a paper on this tragedy in highschool, about 10 years ago) but I know it was 1:23:45 because that's how I opened my paper, and it's the name of the first episode of the docuseries that was made about this accident. Gorehound94 (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I just checked a number of the sources, which all refer to 1:23:40. 1:23:40 a.m. Readings showed the reactor's temperature had climbed to 4,650 C, almost as hot as the surface of the sun. Leatherbarrow recently published a book, called "1:23:40: The Incredible True Story of the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster," that recounts the catastrophe's history on its 30th anniversary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The source you are referring to should be regarded as entertainment for laymen, and not reliable or definitive, but even so I think you are misinterpreting it. At 1:23:40 reactor power was only 200 MW, or slightly higher. This is the moment the accident began, before any sudden rise in temperatures.Sredmash (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Improving this article

This article could use some work to address some issues with inaccurate technical information, tendentious wording and unreputable sources. The biggest issue is citing proper sources which are themselves reputable, rigorous, and cite primary sources (eyewitnesses, experts and data). I will work to trim out passages that rely exclusively on low-quality hearsay sources not based on eyewitness statements, which are especially common with regards to Chernobyl. As I work through the article, please feel free to post concerns and feedback here. Many sources may be in Russian, but I can paraphrase them if needed. Cheers! Sredmash (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I made the first round of edits, but still need to go back for some sources (mostly I was editing unsourced paragraphs to begin with). Please post any responses here before. The accident sequence sections have a lot of flow and redundancy issues, which we can likely improve.Sredmash (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Violation of neutrality statements on this page.

This article contains politicized statements of questionable ethical background. Mlesch (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. What matters is sources, and the ones provided are clearly WP:RELIABLE. Even looking at WP:NPOV, the statement of Many Ukrainians viewed the Chernobyl disaster as another attempt by Russians to destroy them, comparable to the Holodomor is valid. Why? The NPOV says - All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The phrasing of the sentence is as neutral as possible, and the sources used for it are OK and definitely not WP:DEPRECATED. Your reverts will lead nowhere and continuing this edit war is futile.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Do Russian conspiracy theories about the CIA or Gorbachev blowing up the reactor also belong in this article so long as we can find a 'source' for those beliefs? I think not. The passage in question should be replaced by something from Dr. Plokhii's book regarding Chernobyl as a catalyst for Ukrainian pro-independence sentiment. Fringe beliefs are not sufficiently notable to receive attention in this articles, but the disaster's impact on national politics is. Sredmash (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Such comparisons are misguided and false. There is nothing even remotely close between Russian nonsensical conspiracy theories and internationally approved statements agreed to by professional historians like Niels F. May, Thomas Maissen, Oleg Bazhan (link to Ukrainian wiki) and respectable individuals like Ivan Drach and Zenonas Prūsas. The passage must be left as is because it is by no measure a fringe belief, considering all the mainstream material mentioning it.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The "Russians" deliberately blowing up the reactor to harm Ukraine is just as fringe as Gorbachev deliberately blowing up the reactor to harm the Soviet Union. It is literally the same conspiracy theory, just with a different perception of who benefits. The latter is also very popular online, and if I wanted to I could "cite" dozens of articles and TV documentaries about it. An actually balanced and fairer summary of Ukrainian sentiment would not specify the accident as a deliberate attack on Ukraine, but blame the Soviets for placing unsafe reactors on Ukrainian soil and not taking proper steps to protect the populace from fallout.Sredmash (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sourced additions confirming what you have just stated would be very useful. Even then, the contested sentence should remain unremoved.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Is "attempt to destroy them" a direct quote from the cited source? If not, it should be reworded to something more representative of Ukrainian public opinion, where Chernobyl is part of a larger negative Soviet legacy, but not an act of deliberate nuclear terrorism.Sredmash (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Attempt to destroy them" is indeed a direct quote from one of the sources, whereas the remaining references follow in the same vein. I have added quotes from the sources (and translated one of them) to show that they say indeed support the sentence.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

More grammar

Under "Unexpected drop of the reactor power": "most reports attributed it to Toptunov's mistake, but Dyatlov also that it was due to an equipment failure." seems poorly worded. I might word it "most reports attributed it to Toptunov's mistake, but Dyatlov also said that it was due to an equipment failure." The wording from the referenced text is "Dyatlov [...] in a private communication refers to the system not working properly." Jbboehr (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Under "Reactor conditions priming the accident": "The increased coolant flow rate the extra water flow lowered the overall core temperature and reduced the existing steam voids in the core" seems poorly worded. Perhaps "The increased coolant flow rate lowered the overall core temperature and reduced the existing steam voids in the core" Jbboehr (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Under "Reactor conditions priming the accident": "This was no apparent to the operators" should probably be "This was not apparent to the operators" Jbboehr (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Under "Reactor shutdown and power excursion": "the precise reason why the button was pressed when it was is not certain" seems poorly worded. Perhaps "the precise reason for the timing of the button press is not certain"

Agreed, thanks.Sredmash (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Liquidators

The term "liquidator" is used 6 times prior to a pseudo definition given in the section Area Cleanup. It would be better to highlight the definition and use of this term earlier in the article, as it appears prominently throughout the article and is of key interest to the overall narrative. SquashEngineer (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

'Failures of Communism' section

This new section needs some work at the minimum. Personally I don't see why a single random editorial in a news periodical is sufficiently noteworthy that it needs an entire section in already overlong article. When you cite an editorial, the result is also editorialized and not a neutral POV. If we leave this section is, someone will go and add a bunch of cited passages for how only a Communist state could muster such a robust response to the disaster (re-housing 50,000 people, etc). More importantly the second sentence is absurd. Fukushima objectively WAS a disaster. It was a Level 7 accident on the INES scale, which is the highest level. Lastly I am not sure that Plokhii is being paraphrased correctly, so a quote would help. Soviet nuclear engineers had MORE latitude to make decisions than their Western counterparts in many places, which was also a factor in the accident. Perhaps this passage is supposed to be referring to the plant director's ability to make decisions to protect personnel and civilians?Sredmash (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sredmash: I have come around to your view that the section written should not have been in the Nuclear Debate section, but still think it ought to be in some part of a "cause" or "potential cause" section. If this is in fact an article you plan to edit majorly. Just something you may wish to consider. Thanks. Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 21:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Spelling

It should be spelled Chornobyl Disaster since the place it was named after is actually pronounced Chornobyl in Ukrainian. Chernobyl is Russian for the name, but Chernobyl is in Ukraine. 94.187.238.111 (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, and uses the most common spelling in that language. That is Chernobyl. Britmax (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Already handled by redirect: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Chornobyl_disaster&redirect=no Sredmash (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Syssrq2016.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

Vegetation impact

A new study in the United States in 2013 showed that the Chernobyl nuclear accident had a sustained adverse impact on local trees.

A joint study by the University of South Carolina and other institutions in the United States shows that many trees in Chernobyl have a very abnormal shape due to long-term exposure to radiation, which is due to mutations in the genes of trees. The increasing gene mutations have significantly affected the growth, reproduction and survival rate of trees. In addition, the study found that the trees that survived the accident, especially the relatively young trees, are more and more difficult to bear the environmental pressure such as drought.

This is the first large-scale study of the ecological impact of radiation leakage. Tim Muso, an expert at the University of South Carolina who participated in the study, said: "our results refer to many previous small-scale research results and reports on the genetic impact of trees in the region."

The researchers pointed out that they hope to follow the experience of this study and conduct similar research in the Fukushima nuclear leakage area of Japan to measure the ecological and economic impact of nuclear radiation.

216.209.218.133 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikis are not reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

free Animation spread nuclear fall-out cloud?

cf "....radioactive cloud which floated over Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, but also the European...", I know this youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ74Rqh7yDE&t=59s - can we find something similar to post here? Especially with the war going on between Putin & co and Ukraine, if they start hitting the nuclear plants in Ukraine in and out of use? Peace, SvenAERTS (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

As this cannot retrospectively change the incident, any details of this change belong in the reactor's main article. Britmax (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine and occupation of Chernobyl

This article should be updated to reflect the current change in administration of the Chernobyl area resulting from its occupation by Russian forces during the current invasion of the Ukraine. It should also reflect the skirmishes reported nearby during the invasion of the area and relevant public statements made by the IAEA and others concerning them. Additionally, media claims of the detention of certain Chernobyl site personnel should be investigated and included herein if appropriate. Any other recent effects of the change in administration of Chernobyl after the invasion operation of Russian troops in Ukraine should be reflected appropriately.

That's not a part of this article, it belongs at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Britmax (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Current events have nothing to do with the nuclear disaster. They belong on the page devoted to the power plant itself.Sredmash (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Poor Choice of Words

"It is considered the worst nuclear disaster in history both in cost and casualties.[3]" Can we please edit this sentence to distinguish it from far worse nuclear disasters. This may be the "worst nuclear accident" in history but the Hiroshima bombing was a far worse "nuclear disaster". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexlieberman (talk • contribs) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hiroshima was a wartime attack. 'Disaster' in this context means unintentional mishap.Sredmash (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Name of City/Plant

Why "Chernobyl" and not "Chornobyl" as it should be translated from ukrainian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.90.63.175 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The Russian transliteration is a household name in English-speaking countries, and more commonly used. The Russian name was also more commonly used when the plant war in operation, not to mention current employees predominantly use Russian in the workplace.Sredmash (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

per WP:COMMONNAME policy --Ita140188 (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Reactor 5 and 6 construction continued

On a blog style site [1] is an interesting note saying construction continued throughout the night of the incident and the morning shift even showed up but were evacuated a few hours later. I found no mention of this in the article. Then construction resumed around 6 months later for around 6 months before stopping. It seems that nuclear material was installed at some point. Video on Youtube by Kreosan stalkers exploring the building did not show particularly high radiation levels or any active security at the site. Technophant (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There was a drone inspection that confirmed that there is currently no nuclear material in Reactor 5. [2]. Curious as to why this could’ve been a possibility. Not sure if the material was there but was removed. Needs more research. Technophant (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to see Chernobyl (as a red dot or shape) on a map that showed the nearby countries and the Black sea. Thanks.

Came for a map.

Left more interactive.

I wanted to see Chernobyl (as a red dot or shape) on a(n outline) map that showed the nearby countries and the Black sea. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:7407:5879:E5D4:481A:E785:B80 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2022

Adding established rate of inflation; in 2022, 68 billion US dollars would be worth $76,897,608,905.68$ with a rate of 13.1% inflation. Alternatively, 18 billion rubles would be equal to 8,011,624,616,128.98 rubles in 2022. Inflation of the ruble increased 23.4%. NotVeryMajestic (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Add more to Long term site remediation

Add a section that talks about ultra long term 100+ years possible issues if the Reactor/area is not maintained/cleaned up, any possibility of future explosion or reignition of what is left of the core? I believe that this should be kept on everyone's radar? Changes to the social/political situation in the area could greatly increase the risks that come with the storage and up keep of so much dangerous material? I myself was trying to find out how long this site could be dangerous, including what would happen if the area was left to itself. Now that I re-read this, maybe a 100+ years is being overly optimistic.. 🤔😕 35.141.24.10 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no risk of a future explosion or reignition of the core.Sredmash (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Dispute over the effect of reduced coolant flow from turbine spindown

I would like to make a major correction/revision regarding the course of events leading up to the disaster. Most of this article follows INSAG-1/7, which is a good source, but is not free from errors or statements which may be misleading to the general public (and wiki writers). No power increase is observed until reactor shutdown. Is there a reason why this correction has not been made on this article or why this uncertainty is not mentioned? KnowledgeableHrvatica (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to add a sentence stating that reactor power did not spike until after AZ-5 was pressed. I would just ask that it go in the section lower down, rather than the overly-long article intro.Sredmash (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Also I just made some further adjustments to the sentences you edited so let's discuss them here and adjust the wording together if needed.Sredmash (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of "Unexpected drop of the reactor power" subsection doesn't make sense

When the reactor power had decreased to approximately 500 MW, the reactor power control was switched from LAR (Local Automatic Regulator) to Automatic Regulators. in order to manually maintain the required power level.[6]: 11 [31] AR-1 would activate, removing all four of AR-1's Control Rods automatically, AR-2 would fail to activate due to an imbalance in AR-2's ionization chambers, to fix this, Toptunov would press the BSM button to stabilize the Automatic Regulators. Because of this, the power suddenly fell into an unintended near-shutdown state, with a power output of 30 MW thermal or less. The exact circumstances that caused the power fall are unknown because Akimov died in hospital on 10 May and Toptunov died on 14 May; most reports attributed the power drop to Toptunov's error, but Dyatlov also reported that it was due to an equipment failure.[6]: 11 '

There are many sentences that do not make sense due to poor grammar. Even the last sentence is weird because of the inclusion of "also". 137.120.184.136 (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. Feel free to draft any improvements here.Sredmash (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Human Impacts section issues

It is not very well organized and lots of information is repeated. Unless there are any major objections, I will consolidate the information into fewer sections (content/information will mostly be kept the same) KnowledgeableHrvatica (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It could probably be consolidated, but let's go over any citations you want to remove entirely first.Sredmash (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Russian Attacks

I think the effects of the radiation on them should be mentioned here. Dawsongfg (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If and when something reliable is published about them. I think its going to be a while before that happens. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a few sources about the effects when the Russian military went into the Red Forest. Dawsongfg (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022

In the section

"which further increased coolant temperatures (a a positive feedback loop). This process resulted in steam explosions and melting of the reactor core.[3]"

There is a duplicate "a" letter.

"...a a positive feedback loop..."

Change to remove the first "a".

"...a positive feedback loop..."

170.231.4.85 (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• |Checkmark| Somebody fixed it. Dawsongfg (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Promotes One POV

This author clearly views the Chernobyl Disaster’s aftermath to be overblown and, in actuality, to be of far less consequence than the world has been led to believe. That’s fine, but must every word of this entry go to support his argument thereof? This entry just goes on about how there were only a handful of firefighters and two engineers that died from the initial meltdown; the numbers are actually very low! Plus, only a FEW additional juvenile cancer cases developed afterwards, and kids recover so easily these days, so what’s the big deal? Oh, and the voles in the restricted, supposedly~radiation~affected areas are popping out perfect replicates of themselves, therefore there have been no birth defects whatsoever! This reads like it was written by the Russian government, to save face: one~sided, without presenting facts and arguments from both points of view. The author only offers subject matter that supports his point of view. This is supposed to be an informative entry on the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster; not an op~ed piece on how much he believes (or doesn’t) the survivors have suffered in the aftermath of the disaster. 2001:56A:7C06:9C00:D119:126C:D9EC:D0D (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

What 'author'? There are hundreds of authors. Should the article invent several hundred dead firefighters?Sredmash (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Radiation levels inconsistency

In the "Radiation levels" section it says

"The ionizing radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the reactor building have been estimated to be 5.6 roentgens per second (R/s), equivalent to more than 20,000 roentgens per hour. A lethal dose is around 500 roentgens (~5 Gray (Gy) in modern radiation units) over five hours, so in some areas, unprotected workers received fatal doses in less than a minute."

At 5.6 roentgens per second, it would take about 1 minute and 30 seconds, not less than a minute, to receive a lethal dose of 500 roentgens. (500 / 5.6 = 89.28) 216.251.179.210 (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly that whole section is problematic. Should probably rewrite it some day.Sredmash (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Difficult to read sentence

Resettlement is an even stronger predictor, with residents who were evacuated to uncontaminated areas erroneously believing they had an illness related to radiation exposure more often than those who remained in the contaminated regions and brings into question the effectiveness of resettlement. 24.9.94.24 (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Broke up the sentence; let us know if the rewording remains unclear. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

Referenced number from the WHO citation 14 says on the wikipedia site reads "The most widely cited studies by the World Health Organization predict an eventual 4,000 fatalities in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.[14]"

The WHO website referenced says, "WHO also estimates there may be up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths due to Chernobyl among the people who worked on the clean-up operations, evacuees and residents of the highly and lower-contaminated regions in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine."

Therefore the number should be changed from 4000 to 9000 to correct the error. Better yet, just replace the entire statement with the correct quote to remove any ambiguity about who we are talking about and how many. SnoopySJC (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2023

change: These fears ultimately proved unfounded, since corium began dripping harmlessly into the flooded bubbler pools before the water could be removed. To: These fears ultimately proved unfounded, since corium began dripping harmlessly into the flooded bubbler pools before the water could be removed. 2403:5803:6040:0:9CFA:4772:FC6F:5132 (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done, although I moved the {{cn}} tag to the next sentence since they're both unsourced. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Chornobyl, not Chernobyl

Please correct the error. 46.211.106.175 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies, regardless of the actual Ukrainian orthography. Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

And yet we've been changing Ukrainian place names right and left from those used for centuries, funny that. 31.94.25.180 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That's because they've become the common usage in media and reliable sources. Spare us the snark. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eyespy444 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Eyespy444 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Rename the arcticle “Chernobyl disaster” to “Chornobyl disaster”

The official name of the town is Chornobyl, as it should be by transcription from Ukrainian. The original name appeared due to a Russian transcription from Soviet times, which is outdated. MichaelKarikov (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The name of the town has little bearing on the name of the disaster specifically, which has entered the history books under the spelling of the name of the location at the time, i.e. its historical context. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The historical context in books can change over time, just like the change of the town’s name itself. It’s simply grammatically more accurate to the time considering this disaster nowadays. MichaelKarikov (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's this simple. The proposed spelling is a statistically insignificant drop in the ocean of available sourcing, so neutrality with respect to the English-language sources (as this is en.wiki), per the core policy of WP:NPOV, means not using it at the expense of the almost unanimous mainstream spelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the study cited by the WHO in 2006 regarding protracted cancer risk

Hi @Sredmash, here is a clarification of my edit:

The UN retracted their LNT estimates in follow-up reports: most notably in a UNSCEAR report from 2008 which they now use as the main authoritative source for general health risks following the Chernobyl disaster. This is further corroborated by a later WHO report in 2016. These are the reasons they give, if you don't want to bother reading it:

>The Committee has decided not to use models to project absolute numbers of effects in populations exposed to low radiation doses from the Chernobyl accident, because of unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions. ... [Additionally, t]he use of theoretical projections is fraught with difficulty. It is extremely difficult to communicate such projections accurately and honestly to officials and the general public.

And further clarify:

>To date, there has been no persuasive evidence of any other [(i.e., besides the 30 initial fatalities, thyroid cancer (15 terminal), and cataracts/leukaemia among rescue workers)] health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure.

Of course, this is not to say that the LNT model is not useful, as the report also clarifies (or so I recall, perhaps I am misremembering). These numbers simply do not belong on the "front page", as it does in many other journalist writings. Perhaps it would be most constructive to dedicate a section of the page to discussing the prevalence of these models? Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you link the reports? I think we can add a sentence or two qualifying the 4,000 deaths passage, cite the information and that will improve the article. I'll give them a read and propose some new wording here on the talk page.Sredmash (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Also @[User:Inanimatecarbonrobin|Inanimatecarbonrobin]] would you please go back and make sure that the information and citations you removed from the preamble are repeated elsewhere in the article? Although I agree the preamble was too lengthy, none of the information it contained should disappear from the article as a whole. Thanks!Sredmash (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is the report from 2008: https://doi.org/10.18356/ce8f288a-en It seems Annex D (the important part) was republished in 2011 for some purpose, found here: https://doi.org/10.18356/6f16bace-en It seems to be identical in both versions but perhaps there are some small errors in the 2008 version. I would stick to reading the later one, as it is the version cited by the WHO 30-year update in 2016 (found here: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/1986-2016-chernobyl-at-30). Keep in mind that these reports are essentially an assessment of various studies; if you do use any data in these sources, make sure you cite the source of the data instead of the report.

As for a comparison between the 4,000 and 9,000 LNT excess fatality estimate, although one is more than double the other, both are probably similarly valid overestimates in a discussion about statistical significance and LNT models, especially compared to the various other extreme estimates that were floating around ~50,000 to ~500,000 which were made at around the same time. Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023

Please correct a typo in the name of the city. The correction is guided by the current Constitution of Ukraine and the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, which clearly states that Chornobyl is a Ukrainian city. Therefore, the correct English spelling of the word comes from the Ukrainian language. In Ukrainian, name of town is 'Чорнобиль', with an 'o'. Therefore, the English form will also have an "o". ChOrnobyl. Шукачка справедливості (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not a typo, "E" spelling is still the WP:COMMONNAME in English for this event by far. Cannolis (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Now that suddenly the English speaking world cares about Ukraine, along with the increasing popularity of Ukrainian nationalism, I think one could make a common name argument for Ukrainian/Russian Empire placenames. For example, the page for Chernobyl. However, given that this is the name of a historical event from when most of the world used Russian placenames for cities within the USSR, I think this title should remain as it is. Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Kyiv/ Kiev

I suggest to change old style transcription to English "Kiev" to Ukrainian/ more widely used one - "Kyiv". There are both versions now used in this article, yet main Wikipedia article about the city sticks to "Kyiv" transliteration. I think that using both versions in one article may be confusing and uniformity would be better stylistically. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kyiv#Name Szekel0 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. For the sake of consistency. References to locations in pages for historical events should stick to the common place name at the time. (See: constant discussion about Chornobyl) Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

change "Chernobyl" and "Chornobyl" 194.44.160.146 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: (I assume "to" was meant, not "and). Chernobyl is the English name for the location - because the article is written in English we use that name. The Ukrainian spelling is given in the note following the first usage of the term in the first sentence. Tollens (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Moving sections into their own articles

The "Human impact" section does not need to be nearly as long as it is considering Effects of the Chernobyl disaster already exists and has much of this information in it and is linked multiple times as further reading. Cutting that down would help this article a lot - there may be justification to move other big sections of this article into their own articles, particularly "Investigations and the evolutions of identified causes" (which could be combined with "Fizzled nuclear explosion hypothesis). Reconrabbit (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, so long the destination article contains the same information and sources.Sredmash (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Volume (Mass) of Uranium Used

Volume or Mass of Uranium ratio to Metal/Steel Container used, what were the Mass/Volume of Titanium/Platinum used per Mass/Volume of Uranium activated.?? 103.224.95.4 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Alexey v. Alexy v. Alexei

The third paragraph under Core meltdown risk mitigation introduces Alexei Ananenko. However, the next paragraph refers to him as "Alexy" Ananenko. Then, citation 80 says its "Alexey." Should they be changed for consistency? ~tayanaru (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I would vote for AlexeiSredmash (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent sources on his own article refer to him as Oleksiy, why not use that name instead? Reconrabbit 00:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

thats a good idea ~tayanaru (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Amazing writing 64.185.43.184 (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Splitting proposal - investigations

Given the size of this article and the difficulty in effectively merging the "effects" section into that article, which has its own issues, I propose that the "investigations sections" be split off into their own article, similar to Investigations into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Reconrabbit 19:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support not sure if you're still interested in doing the split yourself @Reconrabbit: but if you are, I'd recommend just doing the split now without waiting for additional comments here. Cheers, Dan the Animator 05:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'll take action on it then. Reconrabbit 05:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done: Investigations into the Chernobyl disaster I've never done a split before but this one was pretty clean. Let me know if I screwed anything up. Worth noting that this article is now at 18,000 words - we're getting there but it's still huge. Reconrabbit 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing the split, it look perfect! :) Great job with writing the lead for the new article too! My only suggestion would be, if possible, to split additional content from the article (not necessarily to the investigations article but in general) given it still is well above the recommended 9,000-10,000 readable prose word limit. That said, I'm not an expert on the subject matter but after taking a cursory look through the article, I think it might be advisable to split off most of the content under the Human impact section (especially the Abortions and Cancer assessments parts, which are disproportionately long in comparison to the other subsections). Dan the Animator 21:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also thought I'd put this out there but I'd be happy to help bring this article through WP:GAN if you want. Cheers, Dan the Animator 21:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the offer. I believe all that needs to be done to bring the word count down is to move more of the "effects" into Effects of the Chernobyl disaster, which is weirdly divided between these articles. I'm not intimately familiar with the text right now, but by the time I'm finished with that I probably will be ready for a nomination. Reconrabbit 22:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good and agree with merging content into the Effects article. No rush with editing the article and feel free to nominate whenever you're ready. When you do nominate it though, make sure to ping/message me if you want me as the reviewer since I'll probably forget about this in the meantime. In any case, thanks for taking the time to work on this article! :) Dan the Animator 00:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Famous persons associated with the liquidators of the Chernobyl disaster

Good day to you all and to you personally!!!!!!

So,exactly how it was removed from the article on the English version of the Wikipedia website,but still,I think that it will be interesting to someone,let it be in the discussion of this article-so,well,please,at least in the discussion,don’t delete!!!!!!

This is all taken from the same article,but from the Ukrainian version of the Wikipedia website and translated in the Google Translate Internet service!!!!!!

• Ukrainian poet Yuriy Izdryk worked as a liquidator of the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster since the end of May 1986 year .At least some mention: .
• The father of Wladimir Klitschko ( Boxing ) and Vitali Klitschko ( Boxing and Mayor of Kyiv , Ukraine in 2014 year –present , etc. ,etc.), Klitschko Volodymyr Rodionovych, participated in overcoming the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.At least some mention:
• The father Oleksandr of the vocalist of the Ukrainian electro-folk band "ONUKA" Nataliya Zhyzhchenko was one of the liquidators of the consequences of the tragedy at the nuclear power plant.At least some mention: .

Nokil83a (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

So out of the three people there is one actual notable person, a poet. The other two are fathers of other people. No reason for inclusion. And for a third time, there is no need to link to common words. Or using six exclamation marks!!!!!! soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Thickness of Test Metals Around the Reactor, ratio per Mass Uranium..

Heat and at 30 gigaWatts....South Korean Nuclear Electric Plant 103.224.94.4 (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024

Remove entirely: Such psychological distresses can also significantly increase cancer mortality rates, possibly as much as 97%, nearly double,[170] resulting in as many as ~100,000 additional cancer mortalities among the liquidators. From this accident, the fear of radiological illness has been more of a detriment, and potentially more lethal, upon the lives of affected people than the illnesses themselves and, unlike radioactive contaminants, shows no signs of diminishing in the near future.[165]

Reason: The source study finds an *association* between psychological distress and increased cancer mortality *among people with a history of cancer*. This is a correlation and is certainly not causal. Among those with a history of cancer, correlation between stress and mortality is almost certainly a result of the sicker patients being more psychologically stressed. It is no way suggests that that stress causes increased chances of death; in fact, the opposite is surely the reason. "Stress causes a 97% increase in the changes of dying from cancer" does not pass the smell test and is not stated in the source article. The statement "fear of radiological illness has been more of a detriment, and potentially more lethal, upon the lives of affected people than the illnesses themselves" is completely unsupported and is based on quite obviously faulty logical reasoning. Ngibian (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Done - This was clear original research and has been removed. Jamedeus (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There is currently no source for the assertion that the room was calm when AZ-5 was pressed or that the use of AZ-5 was pre-planned, other than Dyatlov's book.

I [made a change https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Chernobyl_disaster&diff=prev&oldid=1219563042] to clarify that the current source - Dyatlov's book - is only an assertion from him about the use of AZ-5. My edit was reverted (actually, it wasn't merely reverted, but the language strengthened despite no new sources added).

If we are only going to use Dyatlov's book, that's fine, but the article needs to reflect that. If there are other sources for these claims, then they need to be added.RadicalHarmony (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, little update: I've found this, which seems like a viable secondary source, cites many germane primary sources, and seems to more-or-less support the current language in the article: https://chernobylcritical.blogspot.com/p/part-5-after-explosion.html

So perhaps the change I attempted to make it not needed afterall. RadicalHarmony (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to know that the author of chernobylcritical.blogspot.com is Sredmash who will probably be able to address your concerns in this specific matter. Reconrabbit 14:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't entirely clear in the original wording what was meant by the shutdown being planned in advance. The fact that shutdown was planned for that shift in particular is stated in so many sources that I don't even remember which one to cite; you would need to pick a few at random and see if you get lucky.

More unclear is whether the shift intended to shut down right at 1:23:04 when rundown began. For this we primarily have Dyatlov's assertion. In an 'original research' kind of way, it has often been pointed out that the test program contains no step for blocking the two-turbine disconnection trip, so following the instructions to the letter would indeed have automatically scrammed the reactor at 1:23:04. But in fact we can add a separate reputable source for Akimov stating that they planned to shut down as rundown began: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/20285-national-security-archive-doc-01-cc-cpsu (Control-F for "inform" and you should jump right to the relevant passage.)

Eyewitnesses reporting a calm atmosphere preceding the scram include Metlenko, Gazin and others. I agree that we need some citations here. The quotes mostly come from Nikolai Karpan's book, Revenge of the Peaceful Atom. Citing them would be far preferable to using my blog as a source, but I would need to take some time to track down page references, etc.Sredmash (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Crisis management - Evacuation: time discrepancy

The 4th paragraph of section "Crisis management", subsection "Evacuation" contains this sentence:

In the early daylight hours of 27 April, approximately 36 hours after the initial blast (...)

The initial blast occurred at 01:23 AM, therefore 36 hours after the blast would be 01:23 PM, which is certainly not an early daylight hour. 178.143.44.172 (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. That sentence is conflating the order to evacuate with the evacuation itself.02:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sredmash (talk • contribs)

Coolant Flow paradox needs further discussion.

In the last paragraph of "Background", just before we enter the "Accident", the following statement is made: "excessively high coolant flow rates through the core meant that the coolant was entering the reactor very close to the boiling point." Boiling coolant leads to steam bubbles which creates a non-liquid neutron absorbing void in the reactor core. This is clear in the discussion. However, the statement referenced appears to say that high coolant flow leads to high coolant temperatures - which is counterintuitive. In theory, if you want to cool something down, you increase the coolant flow. Perhaps there is a link to high coolant flow necessitating high coolant flow through the heat exchange system, and hence quickly moving coolant does not get a chance to cool before it reenters the reactor. (Note "perhaps", it's been a long time since I took a reactor design course.) "Bottom line", as Michael Weston would say, is this critical state of high coolant flow leading to boiling point coolant needs to be explained for it in some ways is the cause of the entire accident. QuixoteReborn (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I added a phrase or too.Sredmash (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Grammar edit recommendation

In the first paragraph of (Top), The following fact is told: "The initial emergency response and subsequent mitigation efforts involved more than 500,000 personnel and cost an estimated 18 billion roubles"

The problem is, I am 70% sure that "and cost an estimated 10 billion roubles" is not correct. Noting the article is written in past tense, I'm pretty sure "cost" should be "costed". 167.142.115.248 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No, "cost" is correct. I don't know why, but it's correct. CommandoEchino (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

NPOV issues with "Disputed investigation" section.

This section comes across as if written by a pro-nuclear defender (or apologist, depending on your POV). It mentions "Moller has been reprimanded for publishing papers that crossed the scientific "misconduct"/"fraud" line." but reading the citation/source doesn't support the wording in the article. Moller was indeed accused of scientific misconduct"/"fraud but a French panel of scientists found no credible evidence to support the claim, so it seems that claim is disputed (according to the Nature article used a source). There is talk about "continuing to publish experimentally unrepeatable and discredited papers." but no source shows that there is a a consensus that Mousseau appears related to the Chernobyl disaster general considered discredited or that his reputation overall is such that all his work should be discounted outright. Once citation/source links to a guest column at AtomicInsights.com that is the opinion by only one individual who disputes a talk Mousseau gave on Fukushima (not The Chernobyl disaster). This seems sort like an add-hominem attach on the guy because of disagreement over his Fukushima talk. If his is generally discredited in the scientific community then multiple better sources should be able to be produced and cited. Finally, the section claims the book "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" been generally discredited but neither the link presented support that claim not does the Wikipedia article on the book. It's fair to say the book is "disputed" but we need better sources if you want to claim has been "discredited". This article is not the place to debate or address the anti-nuclear movement in general as there are other Wikipedia article for that. Stick to addressing specific claims about the effects of medical & environmental of the Chernobyl Disaster specifically and whether it supports any anti-nuclear arguments or not. Leave the general arguments pro and con about nuclear energy in general to the article on Nuclear Energy, Anti-Nuclear movement, Nuclear Energy Safety, etc. - Notcharliechaplin (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak to the paper in question, but the linked article concerning the Yabloko report has adequate support for calling this non-peer-reviewed work 'discredited.'Sredmash (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Factual correction request

In the section Immediate site and area remediation, specifically in the sub-section Area cleanup, the following is stated:

Although a number of radioactive emergency vehicles were buried in trenches, many of the vehicles used by the liquidators, including the helicopters, still remained, as of 2018, parked in a field in the Chernobyl area.

This statement is not correct, as comparison photos here show the field being completely emptied some time between April 2012 and July 2013.

I suggest the following re-wording of the above text:

Although a number of radioactive emergency vehicles were buried in trenches, many of the vehicles used by the liquidators, including the helicopters, remained parked in a field in the Chernobyl area, some for over 20 years. Satellite imagery shows that the vehicles were progressively removed in the early 2000's with the field being completely emptied by July 2013. 194.22.3.6 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There is still at least one open air storage area for vehicles left, so the passage isn't inaccurate. But it could certainly be expanded to distinguish between Buryakivka, Rassokha, etc.Sredmash (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

Replace "cost an estimated 18 billion roubles—roughly US$68 billion in 2019" In the first paragraph with "with cost an estimated 18 billion roubles—roughly US$200 million in 2024" (yeah money value has gone down) Fire1324 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is comparing 1986 Soviet rubles to USD, not 2024 Russian rubles to USD.Sredmash (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like we shouldn't be putting in numbers we keep having to update every year due to inflation. It would be better to just list the cost in both roubles and dollars at some fixed point and just specify that point.

That said - I can't find the source of the numbers we DO have. Where are these numbers coming from? PianoDan (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. The 1986 exchange rate seems like it's the one to use unless reliable sources contradict me. McYeee (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)