Talk:Effects of the Chernobyl disaster

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Assessment Summary

The article itself meets the various requirements of a good article. I'd like to seem some more in-article references, but otherwise, its ok. I cna agree in some respects with the comments listed below. However, my assessment is derived from the article as presented, not where it might be merged or what it is duplicative of. SkipperClipper 02:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the radiation numbers look backwards. Checking is needed.Longinus876 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just Cyrillic ;)—An Sealgair (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I do not think this topic should exist both here and on the Chernobyl disaster page.

Either the entire article should be moved from the main page to here, leaving only the link, or this page should be removed leaving the topic on the main page.

Linking out while the topic remains on the main page leaves two pages to be updated by editors and a comparison between the two shows that the main page is being updated far more frequently than this one. BRT01 02:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article should be incorporated into the Chernobyl disaster article. There is already information regarding the effects on that page, and a certain amount of redundancy exists between the two. They should be merged and rationalized. Biddlesby 11:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favor of the merger. The Chernobyl Disaster article is already far too long. So a summary of effects should be left there with a reference to the Chernobyl disaster effects article.
Don't forget that there is also the Red Forest article to consider, as it has a lot about effects on the natural world. Would you be wanting to merge it too? I think not. -- Johnfos 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Forest article should stay separate in my opinion. Also, the combined length of two 'effects' articles - one separate and one included - is greater than just one. If the articles are not merged then the content from the included section should be merged into the separate page. Biddlesby 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you go in to edit Chernobyl disaster, this is the message at the top of the editing page: "This page is 85 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." So we should be looking to rationalise the situation by splitting more articles off the Chernobyl disaster article, not trying to build onto it. Can't you see this? -- Johnfos 10:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against the merger, as the disaster effects is a long enough, and important enough, article to stand on its own. It looks like the redundancy in the main article as already been taken out. Topkai22 10:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the articles should be merged because this article is in a way continued on in the main page, with the immediate results and the health and farming effects.
  • The main Chernobyl disaster article is already long, disaster effects deserve another, more in-depth article. Redundant text should be cleaned up.--JyriL talk 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • against the merger, the article Red Forest stands on its own, and if someone feels it douse not, well Than I say to you "Be Bold" and Edit it. Max ╦╩ 23:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Forest

I think there should be a section or Whole page to the Red Forest. Right now 'Red Forest' redirects Chernobyl disaster effects. I would like to help on the new section or pageMax 16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the Red Forest article should be merge with this one, the red forest is definatly an effect of the Chernobyl disaster and hence should be on this page Would also love to help with the new section

Not a good article

There aren't barely any citations, and death counts are so low you might expect them to come from old sources of soviet propaganda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.39.207.98 (talk • contribs).

There are 33 citations. You are welcome to provide data on death counts that are less "old," as well as cite these. Be bold!.--Riurik(discuss) 05:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Radioactive fallout caesium137 after Chernobyl.jpg

Image:Radioactive fallout caesium137 after Chernobyl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article does not present the controversy in a neutral light. The various reports on health effects must be contrasted against the internationally accepted UNSCEAR and IAEA reports. I'm not trying to downplay the controversy, but to only show reports saying that there are tens of thousands of deaths and to not include the official UN reports saying that there are essentially none, is dishonest. See the UNSCEAR report at: http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html#Health I feel that presenting the various reports in order based on severity will help greatly. Lwnf360 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good, easy-to-follow scheme. The citations will need to be strong of course and I fear there may be some opposition, as demonstrated by this "soviet propaganda" comment above. --Old Moonraker 22:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UNSCEAR and IAEA reports used to be part of this entry. I am not surprised that they gradually disappeared. They should be included. While having a pov discussion is helpful, why not include the missing material with references and make a comment about it on the Talk Page? As it is, there has been no progress on this article since 16 October.--Riurik(discuss) 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all reports should be included. But UNSCEAR and IAEA reports are not better than others. These organizations are prone to various political manipulations. They are less reliable than normal publications in scientific journals or studies by independent national or international organizations.Biophys (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All reports should be included. It is arguable The UN report was corrupted. It had people from the nuclear industry lobby on it so was just a consensus report. The nuclear lobby try to claim only 56 people died. Even though most series medical studies claim tens of thousands have died from cancer, not including the other illness issues. Plus even the UN report did not say barely anyone died it said between 4000 and 9000 died. Why do you claim it said no one died. The nuclear lobby is corrupt in the extreme to spread these lies.

The 'other' reports are from any better sources? No, they are from groups such as Greenpeace, they are far more inaccurate than IAEA and UNSCEAR ever would be.--Nemmie (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish ? The IAEA and UNSCEAR are nuclear lobby groups. Why would a undemocratic nuclear lobby group be more reliable for deaths due to the nuclear industry, than charities. Such groups are corrupt. The UN report was just a consensus report. But I suppose big corporations always honest just like the banks and tobacco companies. No, they are not - they are United Nations Scientific Comittees, like the IPCC is for Climate Change, representing scientific consensus. This consensus is sometimes against commercial interests of powerful lobby groups, just watch the "climate change" debate. Of course there are commercial interests in attacking science interfering here as well, after all, some of the anti-nuclear lobby-groups use images of deformed children as means to attract funds, could you imagine anything more disgusting than that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalb2003 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cartcriirad.gif

Image:Cartcriirad.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===Comment=============

Chernobyl contamination effect in Finland http://www.stuk.fi/sateilytietoa/sateily_ymparistossa/tshernobyl/cesiumlaskeuma/fi_FI/laskeuma/

This is from Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority ( http://www.stuk.fi/en_GB/)

===Comment=============

Map

If anyone has or knows of a map we can use for this article, it would be much appreciated. Without a map displaying Cesium-137 (or other radioactive isotope) deposition over the entire European continent the article seems to emphasize the local effects. For example, Scandinavia and Switzerland received substantial radiation. A good (but possibly unsuitable for Wikipedia due to copyright) map is here. -kslays (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another Map: http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/14898/chernobyl_fallout.jpg Interpolated: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-vY_1ru3dNYg/TYYwFNf7jbI/AAAAAAAABEc/6KBJsOEc-sU/s1600/zz+Chernobyl2.jpg GLOBAL Simulation: http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=Radioactive_fall-out_from_the_Chernobyl_accident.jpg Is it True that Turky Area was That strongly affected???

It is a Very strange thing, like a WEAPON DESIGN preparing EUROPEAN Ground, that all east of Moskow is NOT affected....

--Wikistallion (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag

There is nothing neutral about this article. For example, "There are reports of mutations in some plants in the area, leading to unsubstantiated tales of a "forest of wonders" containing many strangely mutated plants. Specifically, some trees have weirdly twisted branches that do not reach for the sky." The citation following it does not have "unsubstantiated tales", it is a BBC article quoting a radioecologist. Nor does it say anything about a "forest of wonders". Throughout the article, an anti-nuclear person or group "claims", "accuses", etc. and a pro-nuclear group or study "states" and "describes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.239 (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we remove the Neutrality tag on the article. This isn't a great article, but it appears to neutrally describe the different opinions about human effects. The article has been tagged since December 2007, so any burst of good editing from the tagging has probably settled down. Right now I think the tag puts inappropriate doubt on the many well cited contents of the article.

I did remove a bunch of uncited material that clearly contradicted information in Wormword forest by Mary Mycio.

If no-one responds in the next two days, I'll remove the neutrality tag myself. - Enuja (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congenital defects

I have just removed a perfectly valid citation from a WP:RS because it contradicts the text. This, of course, is the wrong way around, so expect an adjustment to the text shortly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: it didn't contradict the text. The paragraph concerned discusses civilian exposure, but the removed citation discusses the children of the "liquidators", obviously not civilians. No changes are required. This is the WP:RS; I might attach it to the right paragraph in due course. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now added to the "Workers and liquidators" paragraph. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the last sentence "However, this effect has diminished sharply over time" is clear but could be misleading to many readers. The mutated children (and their future offspring) are permanently affected. I have to check if this is in your original paragraph or if someone has added it.Createangelos (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs some significant work...

Er, yes, the pressure vessel is empty; the fuel melted and slumped to the bottom of the building. That's why it needs a lot of cooling water. This does not mean that it has left the building entirely. Unfortunately, there are a lot of completely uncited assertions in this article, of varying degrees of plausibility. If someone would like to take it on... 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Four years later. --Robertiki (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French legal action

I was unable to find the publication that has the conflicting statements on the site of the French institute for Radioprotection itself. The link in the text only leads to the site of the radiostation RFI, not to the report. Does someone know which report it is, exactly?

GilHamiltonTheArm (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chernobyl Documentary

The article references a documentary of very questionable scientific validity. Either the reference to the documentary should be removed, or alternatively, the reliability of the documentary should be stated to be low. I made an alteration to the article, but this was reverted by a user called John - I would invite John (and indeed others) to give an adequate reason as to why the reference to the documentary should be included in the article without pointing to the inaccuracies, and lack of reliability of the documentary which to anyone with any scientific background are glaringly apparent, failing which I will revert to the previous page Leor klier (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Leor Klier[reply]

Here is a website listed some of the inaccuracies - http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/the-battle-for-chernobyl/. It should be noted that all of these errors are ones which would certainly be spotted by someone who had taken A-Level Physics, and likely several of them would have been spotted by someone who had taken GCSE Physics.Leor klier (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the offending material per WP:NPOV and WP:V. --John (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IAEA Advisory Group Meeting, Paris 1987: The medical handling of skin lesions following high level accidental irradiation.

I was an official UK delegate at this first meeting on the skin lesions seen at Chernobyl (www.armadale.org.uk/chernobyl.htm). Has anyone ever seen an official report of this meeting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr John Wells (talk • contribs) 07:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly structured

The article as it stands contains many statements that are not organised into relevant sections and occur somewhat as non-sequiturs. Also, discussions of human health effects are spread through many sections, and mostly relegated to late in the article, in two sections that seem to have roughly the same purpose: "Chernobyl Forum report and criticisms" (which actually has a lot of material relating to health effects more broadly, rather than just in the context of the Chernobyl Forum's report) and "Controversy over human health effects".

If I have time, I shall try to restructure things a bit more sensibly. Thanks for your patience, and feel free to help! Fuzzypeg★ 01:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When will it be safe again?

I came to this article looking for the answer to one important question: When will Chernobyl be safe again; that is, when will all the radiation have subsided to safe levels (hundreds of years?, thousands?) and life can get back to normal. I scanned through the article and couldn't find the answer. I think it deserves its own subsection if anyone knows. 5Q5 (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider "safe level" 0? never. "2 x natural background": ready to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalb2003 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To support 5Q5's point, in the article there is a map showing caesium-137 contamination in the Chernobyl area as of 1996. The timeframe of when this land, soil, flora and fauna, associated groundwater, etc. will become safe for human use is a critical public safety issue. I have seen figures elsewhere ranging from 900 years to 100,000. I think this deserves due weight through the citation of an authoritative risk assessment that includes timeframes. I haven't found one yet either.—An Sealgair (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really a single number, since "Chernobyl" could be anything from the reactor hall, to the power station surroundings, to the edges of the exclusion zone. And there's no single level of "safe", depending on risk appetite, the way you interact with the environment, and so on. At the moment, I'd happily spend a few months living in certain parts of Pripyat, but I wouldn't want to eat any food gathered locally. Decontamination work could also make a big difference in many cases - not hosing down the entire region, but rather removing specific contaminated objects so that people wouldn't accidentally interact with them - and it's hard to predict the full extent of decontamination work in the long term. bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As implied by users Sealgair and Bobrayner, time or duration of exposure is also a factor. In other words, do you mean for visiting or for permanent settlement. So your question should be "when will it be safe for X purpose/time?" There are currently tours in some of the areas in Pripyat that are said to be safe for a certain number of minutes. Of course, nothing is completely safe, and these declarations of safety should be researched and carefully considered before "vvisiting" Chernobyl. Ileanadu (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

I've flagged the article for undue weight because it gives quite extensive coverage to fringe views on the effects of the Chernobyl incident. The WHO report is analogous to the IPCC's analysis of climate change. It represents the most rigorous research by the top scientists in the relevant fields, and thus represents the scientific consensus on the matter. There will always be dissenting views with radically different conclusions, and we should report the most notable of these, but (just as with climate change) they should be given equal weight to the mainstream scientific consensus analysis. -Helvetica (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited out a claim that the Ukrainian Health Minister attributed 428000 injuries to Chernobyl. There is a reference attached to an article in French where the claim appears to have originated. It is a claim in the article that the quote comes from the Ukrainian Health Ministry ministère which has been mistranslated. But there is simply no evidence that either the Minister or the Ministry ever said it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Effects of the Chernobyl disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Claims

From the current version of the article:

"A sevenfold increase in DNA mutations has been identified in children of liquidators conceived after the accident, when compared to their siblings that were conceived before. However, this effect has diminished sharply over time.[11]"
The study referenced here was publicly criticized by another paper in the same journal--it is even linked at the top of the article. See: Jeffreys, A J, and Y E Dubrova. “Monitoring Spontaneous and Induced Human Mutation by RAPD-PCR: A Response to Weinberg et Al. (2001).” Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society 268.1484 (2001): 2493–2494. PMC. Web. 14 Apr. 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088905/

The claim made by [11] is highly suspect, and as such ought not to be included in this article. Fatengineer (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________

A.P. Moller and claims regarding deformities in birds:

A.P. Moller has been accused of fraud and plagiarism multiple times by multiple accusers. See the following:
https://oikosjournal.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/is-scientific-misconduct-especially-rare-in-ecology-and-evolution/
A.P. Moller's retraction of an Oikos article is one of only two recent scientific misconduct cases in evolutionary biology. Lists 5 links to pages with more details:
1.) http://bio.fsu.edu/~dhoule/Publications/mollerreview.pdf "High Enthusiasm and Low R-Squared" David Houle. Evolution, vol. 52, issue 6. Dec. 1998.
In a scathing in-depth critique of Moller's paper "Asymmetry, Developmental Stability, and Evolution," David Houle concludes by accusing Moller of "Shoddy thinking, an unwillingness to confront the consequences of evidence, and biased interpretations" (pg. 1875). Additionally, it accuses Moller of plagiarizing the work of G.M. Clarke and V.M. Zakharov.
2.) http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/24645/title/A-Fluctuating-Reality/ An article "A Fluctuating Reality" in "The Scientist" by Brendan Borrell. January 1, 2007.
"By-line: "Accused of fraud, Anders Pape Möller has traveled from superstar evolutionary biologist to pariah." This article provides a brief overview of Moller's career, and lists multiple instances where peers in the field accused him of serious errors or misconduct.
  • 1993. Richard Palmer, an editor of the journal "Evolution," initially rejected a manuscript from Moller because of statistical flaws and flawed reasoning. Moller's conclusions turned on a single outlying data-point (i.e. manipulating data to support a thesis which is otherwise contradicted by the full dataset). After Moller "softened the language of the paper" Palmer accepted it but said, "I was left with the sense that it was more important for him to get the paper published than to be correct."
  • undated. Bob Montgomerie, a frequent reviewer of Moller's papers "says it's no secret that Möller bickers with editors and referees. As a frequent reviewer of Möller's papers, Montgomerie found himself endlessly pointing out mistakes, but "the stuff was getting published anyway.""
  • Former collaborators Andrew Pomiankowski and Adrian Thomas refused to work with Moller due to rumors of misconduct.
  • 1992. Moller's seminal paper ""Female Swallow Preference for Symmetrical Male Sexual Ornaments," was published in Nature and was immediately touted by media outlets around the world: symmetry equals attractiveness."
  • "The results were too amazing to believe at face value, which was partly what made us look so closely at the paper," says evolutionary biologist Gerald Wilkinson at the University of Maryland, who criticized the study in a published note to Nature. He and ornithologist Gerald Borgia had noticed inconsistencies with error bars on graphs and doubted the paper's conclusions. Möller published a response to their criticisms, but as Wilkinson recalls, "The only way we could reconcile what he said is if his figures had been in error, if they had been crafted improperly." I.e. Moller's correction isn't a correction at all, but rather an admission of guilt.
  • 1993. Moller is challenged at a conference by multiple attendees to further substantiate his claims. Moller worked with Randy Thornhill to produce a meta-analysis of the literature regarding his claims. The article notes that Thornhill is the "coauthor of the controversial book Natural History of Rape, had been accused of sloppy science in the past."
  • 1997. Moller and Thornhill's meta-analysis paper is rejected by Richard Palmer for publication in "Evolution" "after receiving two "vitriolic" reviews that raised serious questions about its quality. Möller and Thornhill stood by their conclusions, and eventually the paper landed at a less prominent journal, Journal of Evolutionary Biology. The editor there sensed the brewing controversy and, in an unorthodox move, invited seven commentaries to be published alongside the original article in 1997. The overall tone of these responses ranged from accusations of sloppiness to hyperbole to outright dishonesty. One set of authors suggested that Möller and Thornhill had a hidden agenda in analyzing their data: supporting their "good genes" model of sexual selection."
  • 1998. Moller publishes his 33rd paper in Oikos. He is accused of falsifying the data in the paper by Jorgen Rab?l [sic] a former professor at the same university as Moller. Moller agrees to publish a retraction in Oikos.
  • 2001. Rab?l brought the case before the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. Moller stalls and waffles on forwarding the data to the committee.
  • 2003. The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty finds: "Neither the raw data kept at the University of Copenhagen nor the data forwarded by the defendant could have generated the results that emerged from the article."
  • undated. The National Center for Scientific Research also investigates Moller for misconduct. Moller is found "not guilty of intentionally committing fraud. But even that verdict states that the committee was "lacking the material evidence necessary to establish innocence."
  • 2005. Moller's bird-banding permit was revoked, ending his career.
It is noteworthy that Jorgen Rab?l [sic.], Moller's accuser was fired by Moller shortly before the accusations were made. Moller claims revenge.
3.)http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6973/full/427381a.html
Full article behind paywall. Seems to be a summary of the accusations against Moller regarding the complaint filed by Jorgen Rabol.
4.)http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/palmer/pubs/05MollerComm/MollerExchange.htm
Richard Palmer's personal webpage detailing correspondence between Palmer, Moller and others regarding Moller's claims. Palmer establishes his criticism of Moller in detail, and showcases Moller's inadequate responses.
5.)http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2004/01/ecologists-rocked-misconduct-finding
A summary of the Jorgen Rabol case against Moller. Identifies Moller's lab technican as Jette Andersen.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/scientific-meltdown-at-chernobyl-2009-03-24/
  • An article challenging claims made by Moller which were publicized by Reuters and the BBC in March 2009.
  • Sergey Gaschak, a researcher at the Chernobyl Center in Ukraine claims Moller's study relies on flawed data, and questions Moller's ability to collect the amount of data claimed in the time that Moller spent in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
http://www.jorgenrabol.dk/default.asp?show=misconduct
  • Jorgen Rabol's personal site providing an in-depth accounting of Moller's misconduct.
  • Rabol claims the following Moller papers are based on fraudulent data or contain flawed analyses:
  • Møller, A.P. 1991. Sexual selection in the monogamous barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). I. Determinants of tail ornament size. - Evolution 45: 1823-1836.
  • Møller, A.P. 1994. Sexual selection in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). IV. Patterns of fluctuating asymmetry and selection against asymmetry. - Evolution 48: 658-670.
  • Møller, A.P. 1995: Leaf mining insects and fluctuating asymmetry in elm (Ulmus glabra Huds.) leaves. - J. Anim. Ecol. 64, 697-707.
  • Møller, A.P. & F. de Lope 1998: Herbivory affects developmental instability of Stone oak, Quercus rotundifolia. - Oikos 82, 246-252. --the retracted paper
  • Møller, A.P. 1999: Elm, Ulmus glabra, leaf asymmetry and Dutch elm disease. - Oikos 85, 109-116.
  • Møller, A.P., S.W. Gangesstad & R. Thornhill 1999. Nonlinearity and the importance of fluctuating asymmetry as a predictor of fitness. - Oikos 86: 366-368.

According to the above, the following scientists have accused Moller of bad science or misconduct:

  • David Houle, Professor, Biological Science, Florida State University.
  • Richard Palmer, Professor Biological Science, University of Alberta. Current editor of multiple journals. Former editor of "Evolution" journal.
  • Bob Montgomerie, Professor Reproductive Strategies, Queens University (Canada)
  • Gerald Wilkinson, Professor Biology, University of Maryland.
  • Gerald Borgia, Professor Biology, University of Maryland.
  • Jørgen Rabøl, former Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen.
  • Jette Andersen, Moller's lab technician as cited by Jørgen Rabøl in his formal complaint.
  • Sergey Gaschak, a researcher at Chernobyl Center

The evidence against A.P. Moller as a fraud is overwhelming. All of his citations and any claims based on them ought to be removed from this article. Fatengineer (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Edited 4/15/16 to summarize the information contained in the links. Fatengineer (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence consists of one paper in 1998, where the data was bad, which he blames on an assistant, and apparently one researcher who claims Mollers methods are bad. That is far from "Overwhelming". --OpenFuture (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will enumerate the kind and number of accusations against A.P. Moller for each of those links. That will make it easy for anyone who doesn't want to read all of them. Fatengineer (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read them. The SA blog refers to a guy who says his counting of birds in Chernobyl isn't good. The Scientist also says he has been criticized for making string conclusions on weak data and other small mistakes, but also says that his papers now are scrutinized extra hard. This means that his post-2005 papers can NOT be assumed to be faulty, since they in fact has passed an extra strong peer-review, because of the misconduct accusations. The rest are about the 1998 paper. You don't have a case here. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is at least 8 accusers and at least 6 papers dating back to 1991. Someone with that kind of track record is dubious at best. Given the wiki's rules regarding biographies of living persons (FL libel laws), I will refrain from personally accusing Moller of anything. I rely on the published works of others to do that for me. Fatengineer (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not true. The other papers are mentioned as papers where he got criticism, but they still got published often after corrections. That's what the peer-review process is for. That's how it works. This is not an indication of misconduct. You also ignored everything I said above. Was I unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Effects of the Chernobyl disaster. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical matter - Short term effects

I just sort of wanted to note that the date mentioned in the first paragraph of the Short term effects section is listed incorrectly, I believe. I was going to change it myself, but it's in french in the source so I didn't want to mess with it. Who knows, maybe that is technically a correct way to state the date. I just figured it was worth mentioning. ToxicReap (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Effects of the Chernobyl disaster. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Effects of the Chernobyl disaster. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Effects of the Chernobyl disaster. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing words/punctuation

"Again, the majority of the dose was thought to be mostly due to iodine-131, and the external dose was much smaller than the[5]"

This sentence is in one of the first paragraphs. Don't know how it was supposed to end but I just wanted to point out that there is a missing part here.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Western Ontario supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster"