Talk:Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases

Belarus Low‑importance

	Belarus portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chernobyl compared to other radioactivity releases

This is grammatically incorrect- it is always "compared with", not "compared to"- I have corrected some occurrences of this within the article, others have been corrected by other people. Please can the title of this article be changed (corrected)? 84.110.163.104 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)V. Welch[reply]

The paragraph containing the background dose in Europe vs the dose released at Chernobyl states that Chernobyl released 1/6th the yearly dose in Europe... but also states that the number in Europe was 50,000 man Sieverts, and from Chernobyl was 80,000 man Sieverts. To make these numbers match, I assume that the number should be 500,000 man Sieverts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.232.210.116 (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC) This comment makes no sense, cause article doesn't say 80,000 man Sieverts per year / month / day / hour, it says only 80,000 man Sieverts - which makes no sense whatsoever[reply]

Goiânia graph

Why does the graph picture a normalized curve for an hypothesized element? How would be the curve for the correct, non-normalized curve for the actual cesium?... -- NIC1138 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rational basis for comparing Chernobyl to a 137Cs release by analyzing the biological consequences for 106Ru? It has a grossly different half-life, only emits low energy betas, and decays to a radioactive daughter with a short half-life that emits gammas 5x as energetic as 137Cs. Without justification, this needs to be deleted.50.147.26.108 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totskoye range nuclear tests

It woluld be good to compare the Chernobyl with results of Totskoye range nuclear tests; (aim of that test was to reveal, how long can the soldiers keep their abilities after to go through the highly contaminated area). Some sources indicate, the most of participants suffered from radiation and many died; and mention the hiding of data about victims among civilians. Then, this comparison should be transferred also to the article about Hiroshima. It is important to understand, whose atoms were stronger: American military atoms or Soviet peaceful atoms. dima (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

The death toll about Chernobyl, that is vagually talked about here is suprisingly missleading. The death toll ranges from 30'000 to 400'000 (that is, if including the ultra-high cancer statistics) and there is no solid consensus about this, never was and probably will be only after some decades, at best. So I think that asumption that comparison with Hirosima is valid, should appear here. 1) human death toll - compareable (with grave difficulty of course, but still), 2) economical impact. hirosima and nagasaki are totally rebuilt, people live there, while in chernobyl that won't happen for the next 100'000 years. also, nobody, at least in europe, seem to have the money to repair sarcophagus, while hirosima and nagasaki... so chernobyl can be, again, with great difficulty, but still, compared to hirosima. 3) environmentally - the same argument as 2) - people live there, even at ground zero.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Controversy_over_human_health_effects. The estimates by expert international organizations, which were peer-reviewed, grossly contradict the information you assert above. The numbers you give jive better with estimates performed by Greenpeace and other activist organizations.50.147.26.108 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued reverts by Rndm85

The edit you reverted here was to remove an erroneous claim that "some researchers have said" TMI was hundreds of times worse than it actually was. The "researcher" is not a scientists, but a man who has spent the last 10 years working as a clown in a travelling circus, a man who believes shadowy pro-nuclear agents killed his brother-in-law, tried to kill him, and keep stealing copies of his anti-nuclear manifesto. Furthermore, his account is self-published not by a reliable media outlet, but by "The Institute for Southern Studies", which fails Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources itself.

Your reversions are not designed to improve the article, but to mislead the reader, and to create a WP:COATRACK article. You have reverted over a dozen of my edits already in the last couple of days, a severe violation of 3RR. So far I have chosen not to report this, in the hopes you will work with us to create better articles, rather than blatant POV pushing. FellGleaming (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making up fake issues and threats in an attempt to remove points from articles that you disagree with from a political standpoint. You're trying to bully people to get valid opposing viewpoints removed from Wikipedia. You are the one who is reverting my edits, stalking me by looking up my contributions to Wikipedia and then reverting them.

The Institute for Southern Studies is a credible, nonprofit research center has been active for 40 years. They have made claims in their article, and people should be able to read it on Wikipedia. If you want to put an opposing viewpoint to the article in Wikipedia, you're free to do so, but do not delete sources just because you don't agree with them. I'm even willing to compromise and use the word "they claim."

You are the one in "severe violation of 3RR." Stop being a bully. Rndm85 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Calling a travelling circus performer a "researcher" is inaccurate, period. (b) ISS is an activist organization. Their information is self-published, and designed by their own admission to promote a particular point of view. I suggest you review WP policy on self published reliable sources. FellGleaming (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied over at Talk:Nuclear power because this is all part of the same issue. You are stalking my contributions to Wikipedia and you are reverting my edits wherever the sources/information disagree with your political opinion including my references to studies by MIT and Princeton (instead of adding your own sources to the article to balance it, which is how you should be editing it).Rndm85 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I deleted the text from the non-reliable source SouthernStudies, and replaced it with a citation from the RS Washington Post. I deleted no MIT study. What "political opinion" do you think I am advancing here? Rather than the article's previously shrill tone and references to fringe sources, it now is starting to sound like an actual encyclopedia entry. FellGleaming (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an update is in order from someone with knowledge on the subject

One example would be a comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima, in terms of released radioisotopes and dispersion of the same. Though the accidents were vastly different in terms of plant damage/destruction, hence, the release of isotopes would be different, I'm not conversant enough to make the suggested edit.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking that this was needed as well. I'll have a look and see if I can find any good sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923145221/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf37.htm to http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf37.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity of time against dose rate graph in open air

Hi Please could someone clarify to me how the time against dose rate comparing the hypothetical nuclear bomb and Chernobyl was created? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpentland2 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]