Talk:Chernobyl
[edit] Additions
So I have added some information about what, why, how. I don't know how much information is prudent in this article. I think I have gotten most of my points right. Do we need more info here or is this good for an outline page, since it should be one considering that Chernobyl can cover dozens of pages, even when all the info is done point by point. The wikipedia article is huge, so I tried to include the most basic facts that is within scope. What say others? -- EWildman (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. If you want to expand more, great.ТyTalk. 04:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I find most of the additions quite wrong. Editor at CPmały książe 10:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then fix them. ТyTalk. 13:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- They're mostly OK, i think. The main one I have a problem with is that the opertors had no experience of running a nuclear power staion. The Soviets had had nuclear power for 30-ish years by 1986. I also think the amount of addition dilutes the missiontasticness of the article. One trim coming up. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I might do it later. Editor at CPmały książe 19:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then fix them. ТyTalk. 13:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I find most of the additions quite wrong. Editor at CPmały książe 10:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] This article is terrible
Looks to me like this article could use some TLC of the whitewashing kind. That is all. ConfickerInternational woman of mystery 02:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative reports on Chernobyl
"Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" requires a separate page that debunks it. If anything could be called anti-nuclear pseudoscience, then this is it. --Tweenk (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)