Talk:Denver/Archive 2011

Updated Land area statistics

While reading the statistics for Denver it seemed odd that the Metro land area was listed as 8,414.4 sq mi, which is a square 91 miles on each side. The citation URL was dead so I did some digging and found the number "Seven-Country Metro Denver: 4,531 square miles" on http://www.denver.org/metro/media/press-blog?bid=90 I'm new to authoring so I'm not sure if this site is a good source or not. Falconerd (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The census actually has pretty good definitions of the different metropolitan statistical areas associated with Denver. The main one is the Denver-Aurora-Broomfield Metropolitan Statistical Area which constitutes Denver, Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas, Jefferson and Broomfield counties. (Boulder has its own Metropolitan Statistical Area which constitutes all of Boulder County). There is a larger Denver-Aurora-Boulder Combined Statistical Area, but that actually also includes Greeley and so Weld County. You can find the government document for this information here. So you can certainly do the math and just subtract Boulder county or add Weld to the total. Of course all of this is with the caveat that many of these areas (even Arapahoe and Adams, which border Denver) are not urbanized, so it's not exactly the same as the Web site claims as being almost as large as Connecticut, but that isn't something we'd claim anyway. Hope that helps and welcome to Wikipedia! Vertigo700 (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Population Estimate in Opening Section

'The United States Census Bureau estimated that the population of Denver was 600,158 during the 2010 census. [10] making it the 24th most populous U.S. city according to 2009 Census estimates.'

This makes no sense. For one thing it appears that 'during the 2010 census.' has just replaced 'in 2009'. I'm thinking this for a few reasons. The Census Bureau would have no need to estimate when they has Census data, the first part has been changed into a finished sentence with a full stop, but then it continues mid-sentence. Actually, I'm getting myself confused. You can see what's wrong and it'd be great that if now when someone who had some sense could fix it. Also, when will the 2010 Census data for individual cities and counties be available? So far I can only find data for states. VanillaBear23 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason being is because the census data is not available yet for every state to make a national comparsion. While the 2010 census figures are released for Colorado (see citation in article), it's not yet available for other states. The latest full data is from the 2009 U.S. Census estimates. Hope this answers your question. --Moreau36--Discuss 21:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, my question essentially is could someone change the wording of this sentence because it makes no sense, please? Actually, screw it, I'll do it myself, the sentence should read: 'The United States Census Bureau estimated that the population of Denver was 600,158 in 2009, making it the 24th most populous U.S. city.' As far as I know, this was basically what it said before some chucklehead added the 2010 bit. There is no data for 2010 yet, so why make a strained attempt to crowbar it in? VanillaBear23 (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap, I can't do it myself, because the fool who slapped that stupid 'during the 2010 census' bull in there has moronically cited it, which means I probably can't delete it without it being reversed and getting myself a warning. I do wonder sometimes about Wikipedia. There are some of us who know when a sentence doesn't make sense, but because others make poor revisions, and for some reason put some pointless reference in, we can't change them without being warned. VanillaBear23 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you feel you need to personally attack other editors on a talk thread. Also, the sentence you proposed, "'The United States Census Bureau estimated that the population of Denver was 600,158 in 2009, making it the 24th most populous U.S. city," does not make sense because the 600,158 figure is from the 2010 census not the 2009 census estimates. The reason I wrote it as I did originally was exactly because of the reasons Moreau36 said. And you actually could have changed it as long as the citation is still correct; IE you use the 2010 figures that were used in the citation. I changed the wording. Hopefully that satisfies you. Vertigo700 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any perceived attack, but it did not make sense before. Your change does indeed satisfy me, though I'm a little confused still. The reason I thought the 600,158 figure was a 2009 estimate, which was the main source of my confusion, was that in the sidebar that population it mentions being 24th in 2009 which I got mixed up. Well done, sorry again. VanillaBear23 (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

# of neighborhoods discrepancy

The article says there are 80 neighborhoods, and the map says there are 79...which is it? Error9900 (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I realized I'm coming in here late, but thought I'd drop in a couple of references. Here is the official map of statistical neighborhoods in Denver. They number 78. At one point four separate neighborhoods were merged into two: College View and South Platte merged to become College View / South Platte and Gateway and Green Valley Ranch merged to become Gateway / Green Valley Ranch. I'll update this in the article. -Killian441 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Denver culture

very sad to have'nt found any information about Denver as third capital of Beat Movement, like New York and San Francisco. more, any notice about John Fante. cultural connections whit the city of Denver that may be better underlined. Clemente Tecchia, 07-01-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.9.231 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate stats

I wanted to change the climate stats on the weather box to reflect updated numbers from NOAA, but can't figure out how to access the box to change the numbers. Anyone able to help with that? Vertigo700 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Radioactive contamination

After what has clearly been a great deal of research and appropriate citation, administrator Orlady has deleted this section in its entirety.

Example of many points of data that were deleted, clearly showing impact on Denver:

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm

As plutonium has a 24,000 year half-life, and the continuing impact of Rocky Flats on Denver is without question, it is for Orlady to explain his/her unitlateral action, which was done without any discussion whatsoever. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There were dozens of edits to the article over the past few days. You (a newly registered user) and several anonymous IPs -- all behaving "remarkably" alike -- have repeatedly created and expanded a "Radioactive contamination" section to this article. The section comprised roughly 10% of the article (that's a lot of "Wikipedia real estate") and was written in the style of an exposé placing Denver in a negative light. Another user removed the section at least twice, pointing out that the Rocky Flats Plant is not in, nor particularly near, the city of Denver, which happens to be the subject of the article. Those removals were reverted by one or more of the various participants in creating the section. Additionally, a bot removed some external links that had been added because they violated Wikipedia's guidelines on external links; those removals also were reverted. That's edit warring, apparently with the purpose of pushing some point of view (about radioactivity, the U.S. government, Denver, or some related topic). Edit warring and POV-pushing are disruptive -- all the more so in a widely read article such as Denver, which also is a Good article. I semi-protected the article to stop the disruption. On my talk page, you say that my action was "not what I'm used to seeing from a Wikipedia administrator," so I have a hunch that you are also aware of policies on matters like edit-warring.

The subject matter added to this article is generally appropriate (to the extent that it is reliably sourced and written in neutral language) to Rocky Flats Plant, which article the IPs also have edited. That article is not protected. This talk page is available for you to provide a reasoned explanation for why you think that an extensive detailed history of Rocky Flats needs to be in the article about the City of Denver under the judgmental heading "Radioactive contamination." Please note that the half-life of plutonium is not a sufficient basis for adding extensive details about the history of Rocky Flats to the article about the city of Denver, please see WP:UNDUE, and please note that the article text does mention the presence of Rocky Flats in the area, and it contains a link to the article Rocky Flats Plant (one of many important topics about Denver and environs that are treated in that same fashion). --Orlady (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My...how much more quickly you're able to respond once I've complained to Jimmy Wales on administrator abuse.

While your observation seems to focus solely on the number of edits, I suggest that you hone your skills as an admin by focusing on content...not number of edits. I don't see you questioning the validity of any of the content, which is all very focused on what has happened here in the Denver area over decades regarding Rocky Flats contamination.

Yes, the IPs were mine, but I'm not engaging in sock puppetry. In fact, I created this ID to help fix the Denver content, which GLARINGLY ignores the plutonium contamination issue, a health risk to all in the Denver metropolitan area. The original IP I used was at my home, and after a recent thunderstorm the IP shifted. So what? How is that relevant to your complete destruction of the subarticle, which given the huge body of evidence for effects on Denver I still see NO excuse for.

I didn't log in this morning for my edits, I just edited. Again...so what? How is that relevant to the content and goodness or badness of the edits? If it rankles your sensibilities, I'll make the effort to log in before making edits.

Your deletion of the section in its entirety -- one clearly heavily researched and cited -- was heavy-handed and wrong.

As regards NPOV, I don't know how to write anything positive about plutonium contamination in an area populated by 2.5 million people. Do you? That's why I stuck to FACTUAL citations of the plutonium mess here, one that is quite well known of in every place one might look, EXCEPT the Denver article. Pray tell...why is that, and how do you justify it by deleting the entire subsection?

If you take issue with particular edits, I invite you to participate in the tidying up of the 'Radioactive contamination' subsection, but to completely delete it reveals an agenda on your part that has nothing to do with being a Wikipedia admin, and perhaps a great deal to being from Oak Ridge. BTW, I'm not assuming bad faith...I'm observing it.

I invoke you to restore the subsection as-written. Your participation in making it a great article is heavily encouraged.

--FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As I believe you are aware, the entire "Radioactive contamination" section is preserved in the article history. There is no need to restore it in order to discuss it. And regarding your anonymous edits, if you weren't trying to pretend to be several people, why did you write messages to yourself? (Links to the messages you wrote to the IPs: [1][2]) --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice try in the art of obfuscation, Orlady...but as my comments "to myself" specifically mentioned, they were only posted notices of this being escalated to the Dispute Resolution Board. These notifications, one-time, one each for the two IPs I'd used when not logged in, were required to be made by the DRB's comment forms. I complied with the notification requirements as a formality. That simple...and made that clear in those TWO comments. I continue to be unimpressed with your integrity...all strictly IMHO. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess that a person who is dishonest enough to send messages to himself as a pretense has a hard time believing that anyone else possesses integrity. --Orlady (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the matter at hand -- the currently-suppressed knowledge of plutonium contamination in the Denver article, and all related information -- I want to note for the record and as a point of argument that the article as it exists now is lacking NPOV. It completely disregards Rocky Flats long-lasting plutonium effects on Denver. If that isn't POV, I don't know what is.

Also, for the record, the U.S. government nuclear authorities' record at Rocky Flats in regard to release of essential information to the public, not least of which was the 1957 plutonium fire that distributed plutonium thoroughout the Denver area -- is one of obfuscation, lying, and withholding information. That's a sad fact, and the records quoted support that, with the exclamation point perhaps being the FBI raid of Rocky Flats. I bring this up because what we're seeing now with this deletion of 'Radioactive contamination' from the Denver article is to me a very creepy deja vu. It's wrong...that simple. I again invoke Orlady to do the right thing and release the subsection for public review and comment. This isn't Soviet Russia.

--FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. A simple visual aid (but currently suppressed on Denver) in this situation that speaks more than the proverbial 1,000 words: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm Everything else is details. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

[EC] That graph is not very legible and you link to it without providing any context. However, the website where you found it indicates that a person who was downwind and outdoors on the night of the 1957 fire and spent a lot of time working outdoors at that location incurred an increased risk of cancer, over his/her lifetime, of about 2 x 10^-6 -- that is, a one-in-500,000 increased chance of getting cancer -- as a result of exposure to that fire. The risk within Denver was much less. If properly sourced (i.e., to the actual report, rather than to the "lite" and poorly reproduced summary on the website) that is certainly relevant to the article about Rocky Flats, but I fail to see why it needs to be mentioned in the Denver article -- much less why it should make up 10% of the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please try reading the rest of what you deleted before commenting further, Orlady. There are plenty of references and graphs for you to see, including specific Pu contamination levels of DOWNTOWN Denver and beyond. As noted in the subsection that you clearly deleted without reading first, the U.S. government has denied from the public the final contamination levels, even after the so-called cleanup. They also sealed the same documentation both during and after the grand jury investigation. The grand jury foreman -- become Colorado State Congressman -- has as recently as last August announced excessive levels of Pu found in the area. These are all facts that are supported by the citations in the entire subsection that you deleted. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding this proposed section...:

"Despite the fact that elevated levels of plutonium have been found in dead bone cancer victims such as 11 year-old Kristen Haag,[50] whose home was six miles away from Rocky Flats, related long-term health studies for the general population of the Greater Denver Metropolitan Area do not exist and are not on-going.[51]"

...Kristen Haag was born in 1967...two years before the second major fire in 1969, which spread less contamination than the 1957 plutonium fire. I believe that her parents, who hired a lab that discovered plutonium in her ashes after her death, would not agree from a practical standpoint with the grossly understated risks in that map. I include it mainly to illustrate the realities of the distribution of plutonium as being throughout the Denver area. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• I was a little uneasy too about the wholesale removal of sourced info. I would invite you, FNS, to propose a slimmed-down version of what you wish to include here in talk. This answers Orlady's valid concern about undue weight. I do think there should be a place in this article to record this interesting and valid chapter in the city's history. It probably shouldn't take up 10% of the article though. --John (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John for your honest observation and suggestion. I'll give it a shot. To cut Orlady (Oak Ridge lady...her claim, not mine) some slack, this is not an easy subject, and I do see how she could have misinterpreted my IP saga. But, as you say, this was valid and cited information...and clearly not some random vandalism. Once I looked into Rocky Flats, particularly all the very apparent coverups -- as substantiated by the FBI agent in charge of the raid and the foreman-become-Congressman of the grand jury investigation and the guilty plea by Rockwell International -- the complete absence of information in the Denver article is something that I simply will not let stand. The facts in this matter are the facts, harsh as they may be, and withholding them from the public is unconscionable. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. A minor correction: from the standpoint of the 24,000-year half-life plutonium in the Denver area, this happened yesterday. This is actual, current events...not just a part of history. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Plutonium is a hazard primarily from inhalation. During and shortly after a fire at Rocky Flats, people in the area would have unknowingly inhaled plutonium particles from the smoke. Airborne particles do settle out, so the inhalation hazard would have been highest during the fire and shortly thereafter. The unfortunate little girl who lived downwind from Rocky Flats (but not in the city/county of Denver) played in a sandbox where particles would have settled, so she would have been stirring up particles and continuing to inhale them. There undoubtedly is still some plutonium in the environment of the area, but it is presumably incorporated into soil and is no longer readily inhalable, as it would have been shortly after the fire. The fact that this girl died from cancer does not indicate anything about the levels of contamination or potential for human exposure in the area now -- for that, we need information about monitoring that has been done recently. --Orlady (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"There undoubtedly is still some plutonium in the environment of the area." Q.E.D. Thank you for this admission, one which I take no pride or happiness in. I wish the case were otherwise. But this is precisely the point of including some notification of the plutonium problem in the Denver article. There are sections of land in the area, yes, close to Rocky Flats, that require the removal of topsoil to build there due to the Pu contamination. Plutonium can also be stirred up during construction or gardening...anything that disturbs the soil, including high winds...and cause the Pu to drift downwind, which it has undoubtedly done over the last 40 years. It needs to be said that there should be ZERO plutonium in the soil. That there is any tolerance for it whatsoever is because the Denver area, and Colorado in general, was the first area forced to come up with Pu contamination standards, which were promptly made much less conservative by a large factor due to the levels of contamination that exist here. This is a notable fact of the Denver area, as readers of the proposed subarticle are coming to see. That Denver cannot complete its beltway in the northwest sector due to Rocky Flats is another highlighting fact of the problem in the area...which is effectively permanent due to Pu's extreme half-life of 24,000 years. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"...we need information about monitoring that has been done recently." There is information as recently as last year of breathable Pu outside of Rocky Flats, as encouraged by Wes McKinley, the former grand jury foreman, here, which is information contained in the subsection I drafted and is now suppressed. One quote from now-Congressman McKinley says it all:

""The grand jury," he said, "reviewed a lot of damaging data about Rocky Flats, but it got sealed in the grand jury vault and I'm not allowed to tell people about it. Since DOE is hiding its damaging data, I figured we'd just collect data ourselves."

The U.S. government has deliberately prevented the release of contamination level measurements even after the so-called clean-up, as also noted in the proposed subarticle. And yes, exactly as you say, Orlady...we the people need that information. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"The unfortunate little girl who lived downwind from Rocky Flats (but not in the city/county of Denver) played in a sandbox where particles would have settled, so she would have been stirring up particles and continuing to inhale them." Re-read what you just wrote, Orlady, in the context of the half-life of plutonium. Ask yourself, Where is that sandbox today?. Is it possible that children are still playing in it...and many others like it...and simply don't know what they're playing with? As you say, the plutonium is still there. There is no on-going Pu monitoring program in the general Denver area, and the U.S. government is for some reason continuing to suppress its contamination measurements...so who knows? It is a diabolical situation, one that clearly merits mentioning in the Denver article. Again, Denver is both contaminated with plutonium itself from the fires, and remains downwind of Rocky Flats contamination that continues to blow in its direction. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If these contamination events are such a big deal and so very important, why does the Rocky Flats Plant article only give the 1957 contamination event three lines of text and the 1969 event two lines of text? This info is all well and good, but it is probably best placed in the Rocky Flats Plant article. I would also say to FNS, assume good faith. Comparing an editorial dispute to a government cover up does not make it look like you are interested in seeking and building consensus the foundation of what we do in this collaborative editing process. EricSerge (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How does the Rocky Flats article's allocation of comment have anything whatsoever to do with the citations and edits in the section proposed? There seems to be some collective group think going on here that is frankly somewhat impenetrable to me. At first blush, it's clear that some people are commenting without reading the proposed subsection, such as it was before being suppressed. Read (or see, on YouTube) the foreman of the Rocky Flats grand jury's observations. Do the same for the FBI Special Agent who led the raid on Rocky Flats, then come lecture me about being over-sensitive to suppression of information.

I'm going to take a few days off of this, and then revisit. Again, I'm very unimpressed with the quality of the reviews and process here. Just plainly speaking. I hope we'll hear more from people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to nuclear physics, plutonium contamination and its pervasiveness, and the effects on DENVER of Rocky Flats. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting reading. I think you have enough sourced material where you could create a separate article..ie "Denver Nuclear Contamination Events" or similar. Postoak (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Postoak. I agree with you 100%. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I also think a separate article solution could be workable. From my Google Books search, it looks like most of the sources that deal with contamination in Denver do it in the context of the Rocky Flats Plant. For this reason, I think we should first add the content to Rocky Flats Plant, and then if the section there becomes too big we can split it to a new article. I think we can make a short mention of the subject in this article, too. On the dispute resolution noticeboard I suggested a sentence, and I would say definitely not more than a paragraph. How does this sound to everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for hitting the nail on the head. I tried earlier and failed. You make the point that in the reliable sources the contamination is all from the context of the Rocky Flats Plant, the source of it all. A sentence or even a paragraph would be perfectly reasonable to add to the Denver article. FormerNukeSubmariner, as you seem to be the most well read editor on the subject, perhaps you would like to propose that sentence or paragraph on this page? EricSerge (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy to do so sometime in the next week, EricSerge. I think the suggestions being made are very reasonable, and invite further comment and positive suggestions.

It is important to keep in mind that the substantial plutonium contamination from Rocky Flats -- over decades, not just the major fires that undoubtedly released many kilograms of burning Pu-239 to the air -- vented up smokestacks (whose filters were destroyed in the fires). This Pu didn't come to earth in the immediate vicinity of Rocky Flats, but rather instead the Arvada area in particular and the Denver area in general -- thus the definite need to mention this in the Denver article.

The map that shows cancer estimates from the 1957 fire -- which, as it indicates, is only expected to be accurate within two orders of magnitude -- demonstrates this very visually. The immediate area around Rocky Flats shows no impact, in fact (clearly an arguable assertion). U.S. government authorities and Rocky Flats managers flatly refused to measure plutonium outside of Rocky Flats, as the liability implications were, and are, astronomical. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For ease of use, here is the cancer-risk map I'm referring to above...just one of many sources listed in the original subsection that is currently suppressed: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm

--FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistent with the above dialogue and suggestions, I have today -- the 54th anniversary of the original September 11, 1957 plutonium fire -- edited the article by way of a new paragraph that points to Plutonium contamination of the Denver metropolitan area. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that this chart <http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm> has been mentioned as supporting documentation to justify a phrase like "[entire greater] Denver metropolitan area" in the Rocky Flats contamination section of this article (and the daughter article). I believe that such a citation constitutes original research. That's because the assertion of contamination coverage is based on a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the chart, rather than a statement by a reliable source about the coverage. For example, I notice the shaded area on the chart seems to exclude much of Denver, as well as Lakewood and Aurora, all considered part of the "metropolitan area". But this kind of interpretive discussion should not proceed. It is for a qualified scientist or researcher, cited in a reliable source, to state what the contamination coverage is/was and the terminology or phrasing to describe it. DonFB (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This looks very much like interpretation of sources, which counts as original research. We should be careful in how we word this section (and the daughter article) to avoid such problems. Also, I think the present version, at three (short) paragraphs, is a little too long; I want to keep this section as short as possible to avoid putting undue weight on it. I think we can trim out the part about the closure of the plant as it is not relevant to this article per se. Readers who are interested can explore it in more detail in the daughter article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading a chart, and seeing that plutonium is spread in the area, is not hardly any kind of "original research." There are FOUR charts that each show the spread of Pu-239 contamination in the Denver area. The AMBIO article also speaks to the spread of plutonium. I make no other claims regarding effects (except for specific health citations) for the plutonium spread, so I'm happy to take this to the NPOV route for others insights as well. To me, this just goes to show the extent of one's own POV that anyone would make such a claim (of POV / "original research"). --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is, to me unsurprisingly, yet another instance of proof that a large portion of the Denver area was affected by plutonium contamination:

"Exposures of a large population in the Denver area to plutonium and other radionuclides in the exhaust plumes from the plant date back to 1953."

Given all the charts that show the Pu-239 contamination of the Denver metro area, I find it somewhat appalling that people's time is being wasted by the insistence that "text" must accompany the charts/maps, or else it is "original research." It was a needless argument, and the above quote proves the non-starter nature of this attempt at debating the facts. Anyone who needs more proof of the Pu-239 contamination of Denver should take the time to read the above citation in its entirety before trying to censor this article with clearly unsupported arguments of "original research." --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncited in the article here, but clearly supporting what's been documented of Pu-239 contamination of the Denver area, from Dr. Carl Johnson (emphasis added):

"Based on my education, training, and experience as a medical doctor, and my understanding of how the body works, and of the effects of ionizing radiation on the human body, and based on my studies of the radioactive emissions of the Rocky Flats Plant and the area-wide contamination of the Denver area from those releases, and my studies of cancer mortality and cancer incidence in contaminated areas, and having considered other possible causes, it is my opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, that the radioactive emissions from the Rocky Flats Plant have caused an excess of cancer in the exposed areas." [3]

As I continue to shake my head over the fact that an argument that Denver is not contaminated by Pu-239 ever surfaced -- and that stating such constituted "original research" -- I am amazed that this line of argument was ever proposed, much less that more than one person has bought off on it. I can only attribute the "original research" and "POV" claims to an agenda other than creating a factual, encyclopedic article...which -- given all the effort and citations put into this...dismays me. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Having not been a part of this conversation until now, in my opinion, I think the Rocky Flats contamination is given too much prominence in the Denver article. There are three paragraphs in this section, yet only three words of one sentence dealing with contamination WITHIN the city of Denver. This article is about the city of Denver not the metropolitan or suburban areas of Denver. And while I do see that the map shows some contamination within Denver city limits, it affects maybe 5-6 neighborhoods in the far northwest section at most. Perhaps everyone would be better served if the bulk of this article was moved to Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area, since that appears to be where the vast majority of this contamination appears to have occurred. Furthermore, I do not think it is appropriate for this section to be a part of "Geography" as that section deals with the current geographical features of the city of Denver. The subsection does not have any cited material that there is current contamination anywhere in Denver only that "contamination has been found outside the former plant site as recently as August 2010." Rocky Flats is 15 miles away from the Denver border, which is where the text suggests any current contamination might be. Therefore, if this subsection is to be kept in Denver in any form, it should most likely be as a subsection of "History," rather than "Geography," as most of this contamination event is a part of the past. Vertigo700 (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You should consider reading more material before coming to conclusions. See the "More info" link within the graphic showing the 1957 plutonium fire's plume; there are three other maps that show Pu-239 levels via isopleth graduations that extend not just into but past Denver. The natural instinct for "denial" on this topic is more than just a little bit, and I do understand that. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Having read a bit more in depth some of the previous discussion on here, I have a feeling there will be claims that since radioactive contamination lasts a long time, it's still a current event and therefore should not be in history. I would argue that is should be in history as the contamination event itself took place in the past and the way the current text is written deals exclusively with past events. History certainly affects the present but the geography section should deal with current geographic features and the text as it is written does not. Vertigo700 (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The Pu-239 contamination is now permanently a part of the geography. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Length of the "radioactive contamination" section

Myself and FormerNukeSubmariner have been disputing the length of the "radioactive contamination" section. (See my shorter version, their longer version, and the diff of the two.) This article is already very long, and we should be trying to reduce the length as much as possible, rather than adding more material. There are some parts of the long version that are not directly related to Denver, and I think these should be taken out; I would also like the section to be less than one paragraph. I think having some more opinions on this would be a good idea. So, should the section be long, or short? Should we include the chart? I also see Vertigo700 has suggested moving the information to the "history" section, which I support. What does everyone else think? Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pu-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, so this isn't just about "history." The section currently has three short paragraphs. Given the importance of the topic, I restored the section to the last version by DonFB before adding an additional citation mentioning that Pu contamination is several times background (post nuclear testing) levels. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

But the way it is written does not describe current geography in any big way. Only three words in one sentence even get close to that and only then it says contamination near the plant site which is not in Denver. If you have a study of plutonium contamination currently measured IN the city of Denver, we can include that, but otherwise it should be in history (The out-of-context quote you included is from a study in 1972). Lots of things about "History" are still of importance today. If you notice, "History" includes how Denver was named, certainly that is still a part of the city identity. Also look at Niagara Falls, New York, where the section about contamination in the Love Canal area is included in "History" not "Geography." I agree with User:Mr. Stradivarius completely that Denver's article length needs to be reduced and only a very small part of this contamination actually affects the CITY of Denver. I think the expanded version should be in Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area and a much smaller version included in the Denver article under history (I approve of the shorter version specified). Vertigo700 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a difficult subject, and I do understand your emotional response. However, you are not looking at the facts that have been cited and spoken to, even after being shown where to look. For ease of review of the substantial evidence that describes plutonium contamination in Denver, here is a brief summary of a few sources (emphasis added for clarity):

• The four maps here show Pu-239 contamination of Denver.
• The Health Physics Society abstract here plainly states that "In the more densely populated areas of Denver, the Pu (plutonium) contamination level in surface soils is several times fallout."
• Dr. Carl Johnson, health director for Jefferson County, states here that "...based on my studies of the radioactive emissions of the Rocky Flats Plant and the area-wide contamination of the Denver area from those releases, and my studies of cancer mortality and cancer incidence in contaminated areas..."
• Moreover, as stated here, "Exposures of a large population in the Denver area to plutonium and other radionuclides in the exhaust plumes from the plant date back to 1953."

Much like yourself, I too wish that Denver weren't contaminated with an excess of plutonium. Plainly, the facts indicate that it is contaminated with Pu-239, and IMHO it is irresponsible to pretend otherwise. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

But the brief description that User:Mr. Stradivarius pointed to is more than sufficient to say a) this event happened and b) there may be some contamination in Denver. The other three paragraphs are unnecessary in the context of a Denver article as none of these events occurred WITHIN the city of Denver, which is the subject of the article. We can say all we need in two short sentences as Mr. Stradivarius suggested. For a larger, more detailed article, people can click the link that you already provided. Vertigo700 (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we need to keep the article on-topic, especially given the size. I didn't link to it earlier, but Wikipedia:Article size says that at 50k and above of readable text, articles should generally be split into sub-articles. The current article is 100k, and although I haven't counted, I think it is obvious that the readable text is over 50k. Even if there weren't the arguments about which parts of the radioactive contamination section are relevant to Denver itself, the size issue by itself would be a good reason to keep the section short. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify here that I have never been of the opinion that the Denver area has not been contaminated by plutonium - all the references point to the fact that it has. I am just concerned that we transcribe what the references say as faithfully as possible, and avoid overstating any claims. I propose a compromise of stating the positions of each of the studies involved. This might read something like: "A study by Poet and Martell found that 'In the more densely populated areas of Denver the Pu contamination level in surface soils is several times fallout', and a review by Johnson found that [insert Johnson quote here]." This would avoid us overstating our claims, and would also give readers a good idea of what reliable studies say on the situation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Referring to Vertigo700's request that Mr. Stradivarius' statement that Denver "may be contaminated with plutonium" be used: as there is an abundance of evidence and citations regarding Denver's contamination with plutonium, use of this kind of expression of doubt ("may be") lapses into something Wikipedia calls weasel words (their characterization, not mine), that are expressly forbidden when it comes to intentionally diluting cited content.

Adding to the above, it bears mentioning that Mr. Stradivarius came to the conclusion at the very outset of the creation of this article -- and before the abundance of evidence regarding Denver's Pu contamination were cited -- that there should only be a sentence or two. I don't know why such a prejudice exists, or why his thinking hasn't evolved as evidence has continued to mount and be cited, as this is clearly a high-merit topic for the Denver article...I merely observe it. Needless to say, I do not believe that three short paragraphs for such an important topic (excess Pu-239 contamination of Denver) is overdoing it. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:Advocacy. The fact that you think this is a highly important topic does not mean it should be given undue weight in this article - Wikipedia is not the place to raise the public's consciousness about this or any other issue. A brief mention in the history section, with a link to an article giving details is plenty. Nothing is suppressed, but the weight this issue is given in this article needs to reflect the weight given by most reliable sources about the City of Denver. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Three short paragraphs on Pu-239 contamination of Denver hardly constitutes 'undue weight.' It is not merely part of history, such as Love Canal was. Love Canal has been cleaned up. Denver has not been remediated of Pu-239 by any effort -- the Superfund effort focused solely on Rocky Flats. If any consciousness raising is occurring in the process, it is only because it has clearly been suppressed information in past versions of the Denver article. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This article should give this topic as much weight as it is given in reliable sources about the City of Denver (as opposed to those sources about this particular topic). You apparently think it SHOULD be a prominent topic in the article, but this is advocacy (did you read the links above)? If you think people need to be warned about Pu-239 contamination in Denver you should start a blog, or take out newspaper ads, or go door to door - any number of things other than arguing that a substantial section of this article should be devoted to this topic. Wikipedia articles reflect reliable sources. As far as I know, reliable sources about the city don't give this topic much weight (if you know of sources that do, please cite them). Therefore this article shouldn't either. It's that simple. And once again, no one is trying to suppress anything here. One sentence in the History section (or Geology section - I don't think it really matters very much where) with a link to the more detailed article is sufficient. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rick Block and Mr. Stradivarius. Also I would point out that none of the cited material that I read (I did read much of the cited material) suggests current contamination within the city of Denver. I understand that with the long half-life of plutonium, there is likely contamination, but the cited material doesn't say that. It just points to two articles that show contamination only near the Rocky Flats site, which as I pointed out before is 15 miles from Denver and another article that measured plutonium in "densely populated areas of Denver" in the late 1960s. I do understand that the other cited information suggests there may indeed be plutonium contamination in Denver, but it's not really a "weasel word" to use "may be" when the cited information is not definitive. If there is information that can be cited that suggests CURRENT plutonium contamination in Denver that would be a different issue (and by current I mean something that says plutonium was measured in the soil, water, or in some other way in Denver within at least the last five years, not something that says there were fires four decades ago that likely contaminated Denver with plutonium). We can say something like "was measured in the soil of the Denver area in the late 1960s" or something like that but we simply cannot say that there is current plutonium contamination in the city of Denver with the cited materials, because those materials do not say that (I am speaking of This, this and This. Vertigo700 (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is good evidence for plutonium contamination of downtown Denver, most of it collected by Johnson. A good summary is in LeRoy Moore (2007), "Democracy and Public Health at Rocky Flats: The Examples of Edward Martell and Carl J. Johnson, pages 96-100. Also see information about cancer incidence on pages 103-105, and the controversy over the cancer study on pages 108-109. (Note, however, that while Moore seems reliable, he does not seem entirely neutral on the issues.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify that the Johnson studies are not recent - they were carried out in the late 70s and early 80s. There is the ENS source that says plutonium was detected near Rocky Flats last year, but no recent studies that I have seen for Denver itself. FormerNukeSubmariner quite rightly points out, however, that plutonium 239 has a half-life of 24,000 years; any reduction in contamination in Denver will be due to particles getting buried, being blown to different areas, etc., rather than becoming less radioactive. I definitely agree that we should use language like "a 1977 study by Johnson found", rather than making the statement that Denver is contaminated in Wikipedia's voice. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's well-stated, and I agree. Using Johnson's "voice" (or other sources on the issue), rather than Wikipedia's, should also apply to the Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant‎ article. DonFB (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have had a go at moving the radioactive contamination material to the "history" section. I have updated the wording too - hopefully FormerNukeSubmariner will be happier with this version than my last, even if it is a lot shorter than theirs. I'm sure the wording can be improved, so feel free to tweak, etc., and let me know your thoughts. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have become ill and cannot give this appropriate attention right now, but wanted to at least drop a note. The history section needs to point to the daughter article on Pu contamination of Denver, but perhaps it already does that and I just haven't seen it yet. Will check back and respond more fully once I've recovered. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your illness - I hope you get well soon. There is a link to the daughter article in my summary, but it's buried inside the second sentence, linked from "contaminated some parts of Denver". I am open to a more prominent way of linking it, but if we are going to have it in the history section I'm afraid we can't use the {{main}} template. If anyone has a wording to use where we can move the link nearer the start of the paragraph, that would be a useful addition, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Back again, and reasonably refreshed. Moving the section to the history section is an understandable compromise, as I do not have an unrealistic expectation that most of the editors here -- likely most with Denver connections -- will want to feature this issue in some other, more visibile fashion. That said, I do personally believe that it deserves its own subsection within geography, as the Pu-239 problem is of that sort of place, permanence and prominence. Have added a couple of touches for both brevity and clarity, adding a half-sentence for the current-event issue of the Jefferson Parkway, while leaving the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge for a likely later date, once this issue rises again to prominence...as it surely will. My thanks and appreciation to all. Cheers, --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad you are feeling better. I suppose I am fine with keeping your additions for the time being, though I would like to point out that neither the Jefferson Parkway nor contamination near Rocky Flats are actually pertinent to an article exclusively on the city of Denver as neither are within Denver city limits and are a part of the metropolitan area only. And yes I am that anal about this article being only about things within the city limits of Denver. Vertigo700 (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks great. Thanks Mr. Stradivarius. Vertigo700 (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas J Noel links

The Denver website has re-done their page structure and wiped out all the Thomas J Noel links. I sent them a note asking for new links. If I get any usable link info back I will update the site (assuming someone else doesn't beat me to it! :-). <rant> THIS is why I always keep old page URLs active with just a redirect in the header. Contrary to consultant's mis-advice, it does not cost any measurable amount to keep a redirect URL active, and it means the world to everyone who surfs the web to just get where they're going without being 404'd. In extreme examples where all your links "disappear" it might even be construed that your company died and the surfer moves on to another company. I used to assume that before I started developing web sites and discovered 404 actually meant something! </rant> LoL JimScott (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)