Wikipedia

Talk:Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

(Redirected from Talk:Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster)
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Isaidnoway in topic Very long
Learn more about this page

This article is filled with unsourced, and utterly ridiculous propaganda.

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago39 comments3 people in discussion

I have done my best to verify the information in it, but the claims are just astoundingly and blatantly false. 1,600 dead from evacuation, and 1,599 dead from the earthquake, with no corresponding source to back those numbers up? Authors opining about accepted science, and attempting to imply that all increases in thyroid cancer are attributable to stress, over radiation? I will be watching this article from now on, and I will be doing my best to recommend administrative action against anyone deliberately attempting to manipulate this article in a non-encyclopedic fashion.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

WP:AGF, etc. VQuakr (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
You are removing cited content because it doesn't fit your understanding of the topic.VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
That is a personal attack. Apologise and retract immediately.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
25 April 2017 right out of the gate you expend considerable effort in using loaded language like "unsourced, and utterly ridiculous propaganda" " astoundingly and blatantly false" "attempting to imply that all increases in thyroid cancer are attributable to stress" , SEO in your own words "That is a personal attack. Apologise and retract immediately" to VQuakr & everyone else playing nice with you & PS: i normaly do not edit , but i do trace, Waptek (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Flailing about and screaming Propaganda! Doesn't make that more ok.VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

That is a personal attack. Apologise and retract immediately.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
WP:DRAMA. Your accusations are spurious, particularly from someone who just accused another editor of supporting "propaganda". VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Also, what unsourced material are you contesting? So far you have only removed and challenged reliably sourced information. I did remove [1], which was sourced but tangential. VQuakr (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The information that was removed. I will detail it piece by piece here. As I have already requested that you discuss these, rather than edit warring, only to be ignored, I don't expect that you will act in good faith, but I now believe that I have to do this in order to demonstrate that you have taken ownership of this article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Presupposing a conclusion is poor grounding for a discussion about article content. VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
"A survey by the newspaper Mainichi Shimbun computed that there were 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation, comparable to the 1,599 deaths due to the earthquake and tsunami in the Fukushima Prefecture." This line was allegedly supported by a dead link. No other sources confirm similar numbers for deaths due to the evacuation. Given the enormity of this claim, it would need to be supported by multiple sources.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
False, the archive link works fine. Whether the original is (or ever was) online is not relevant; "verifiable" is not synonymous with "available online". A quick check online shows additional sources ie [2], but why exactly do you find this claim so exceptional? VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's a circular reference. They are referring to the dead link, and since that is cited here, it's quite likely it's due to this article, not the actual content.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Prove your unsupported assertion that the NBC news article used Wikipedia directly or indirectly as a source for that content, and I will agree that it cannot be used per WP:CIRCULAR. I note that the NBC article is dated Sept 10 2013; here is the revision of our article as of Sept 18 2013. VQuakr (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
They link to the Japanese source in their article, and cite it as the source for their information. It's genuinely troubling that after your behaviour towards a fellow editor, you are asking for proof of a circular link that YOU provided, that is so blatantly obvious.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The citation needed tag, with the following text; "Life expectancy dropped across the entire former Soviet Union, not just at Chernobyl." that you removed without discussion refers to information found in an interview, where someone is giving their opinion, and is therefore not encyclopedic. Unless you can find a better source for this information, which directly attributes that drop in life expectancy to the disaster, that segment is getting removed too.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The citation needed tag is for unsourced content. The section you mention is sourced; the tag was invalid. We provide a quote, with attribution of the quote. This is how quotes work. Shunichi Yamashita was born in 1952 in Nagasaki and is a recognized expert on radiation, public health, and Chernobyl; he is a stellar source for this information. VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The citation needed tag was the links being drawn between the quote, and the paragraph above. He did not explicitly state that the life expectancy of Chernobyl evacuees dropped because of relocation. He seems to imply it, but the paragraph above, makes a giant, uncited leap. "In the former Soviet Union, many patients with negligible radioactive exposure after the Chernobyl disaster displayed extreme anxiety about low level radiation exposure, and therefore developed many psychosomatic problems, including radiophobia, and with this an increase in fatalistic alcoholism being observed."--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The paragraph that begins with; "According to the Japanese Government, 180,592 people in the general population were screened in March 2011 for radiation exposure and no case was found which affects health." includes references that are not verifiable. The line; "It is believed that the health effects of the radioactivity release are primarily psychological rather than physical effects." in particular appears to be entirely conjecture, and the opinion of the editor, rather than encyclopedic and does not align with any of the information from any of the sources cited after it.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
False, that is taken directly from the sources, primarily [3], which states in the byline, "After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan kept people safe from the physical effects of radiation — but not from the psychological impacts." and later goes on to say, "...the chaotic nature of the evacuation makes it difficult to assess how long and severely each person was exposed. The few attempts made so far, however, have generally shown minimal risk. The health survey’s latest assessment suggests that the dose for nearly all the evacuees was very low, with a maximum of only 25 millisieverts (mSv), well below the 100-mSv exposure that has been linked to an increased risk of cancer..." and "For Fukushima evacuees, says Bromet, 'There’s going to be a tremendous amount of health-related anxiety and it’s not going to go away easily.' Yabe says that “radiophobia” remains a major problem among the Japanese refugees.".
If Nature and the NRC aren't adequate sources for this information, what possibly is? VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The issue I have here is not the quality of the sources. It is the content of the Wikipedia article. It simply draws conclusions that are not in the articles. That you are still pushing those conclusions, even while quoting the sourced material is troubling.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
What specific conclusions in the article were not drawn by the sources provided? You have made a few claims precise enough to respond to specifically, and I have done so using direct quotes from the existing sources that you have repeatedly and inaccurately claimed do not contain that very information. VQuakr (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your failure in comprehension, here, and in my warnings against edit warrings are not my responsibility. It honestly appears as if you are feigning confusion, in order to contravene Wikipedia rules.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The paragraph that begins with; "Experts on the ground in Japan agree that mental health challenges are the most significant issue." Which experts? The source never once uses terms like these, and this clearly reflects an attempt to include someone's subjective opinion. This segment needs a rewrite to reflect the actual source material, and should not be included until this is done.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
False, this is cited to Scientific American, [4]. "Experts on the ground in Japan agree. 'Mental health is the most significant issue," notes Seiji Yasumura...' VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
You really like using the word false don't you?
The context in which that quote is made is not clear in the article. The Wikipedia page again draws conclusions that are simply not in the source material. Again, I think it's worth noting that you are pushing those conclusions.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Typical of all of these, you are making no attempt to explain why you find the cited content above unsuitable. You keep claiming it isn't verifiable, but that has been demonstrated, with quotes from the source, to be untrue. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I explained it in plain English. The source material simply does not align with the assertions made in the wiki article. If you disagree, please explain why, while referencing the ACTUAL sourced content.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have already replied with quotes, repeatedly, that refute every claim you have made that is specific enough to refute. These quotes are verifiably in the sources provided, so I am not sure what else could possibly be considered better "ACTUAL sourced content" than what I have already provided. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's a lie. You have argued tooth and nail that I am not being specific, where I am, and you have not engaged in discussion, while undoing huge amounts of content that you're utterly unwilling to discuss.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
You aren't being specific (enough). I have replied to every specific complaint you have raised, with quotes from the sources that you keep removing from the article. It seems strange that you would say I am not engaging in discussion at the bottom of a ~15kB thread. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
"The relationship between mental health disorders—such as anxiety and depression—and thyroid disorders is well known in the medical community." This segment is utterly irrelevant and clearly conjecture.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Not conjecture, but I agree that it is irrelevant. Why did you restore it then? VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The link that is being made here is the conjecture. I restored it in error.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ok, we are agreed on this one. Progress. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Please cease your unilateral edit war immediately, and apologise for your previous personal attacks. I have other commitments in real life. This content should not be included in the article until the obvious, major problems with it are discussed in detail. The article was already flagged as in breach of NPOV, and rambling, and you seem to be fighting against improving it, tooth and nail, while being utterly uncivil to other editors attempting to help.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
This thread has become rather rambling as it attempted to address several proposed removals at once. I am going to start separate sections for each, as it seems unfair to expect anyone uninvolved to tackle this as written. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Will continue under sub-headings from now on.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removal - Health effects

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Proposed markup to be removed:

Status quo text

According to the Japanese Government, 180,592 people in the general population were screened in March 2011 for radiation exposure and no case was found which affects health.<ref name="Seismic Damage Information (the 127th Release)"/> Thirty workers conducting operations at the plant had exposure levels greater than 100 mSv.<ref name="Seismic Damage Information (the 110th Release)"/> It is believed that the health effects of the radioactivity release are primarily psychological rather than physical effects. Even in the most severely affected areas, radiation doses never reached more than a quarter of the radiation dose linked to an increase in cancer risk (25 mSv whereas 100 mSv has been linked to an increase in cancer rates among victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki).<ref name="Fukushima: Fallout of fear"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad-exposure-cancer.html |title=Radiation Exposure and Cancer |date=29 March 2012 |website=[[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] |accessdate=18 April 2017}}</ref> However, people who have been evacuated have suffered from depression and other mental health effects.<ref name="Fukushima: Fallout of fear"/> ... [[Radiation epidemiologist]] Roy Shore contends that estimating health effects in a population from the LNT model "is not wise because of the uncertainties".<ref name="Science 2011"/> The LNT model did not accurately model casualties from Chernobyl, Hiroshima or Nagasaki; it greatly overestimated the casualties. Evidence that the LNT model is a gross distortion of damage from radiation has existed since 1946, and was suppressed by Nobel Prize winner [[Paul Hermann Müller|Hermann Muller]] in favour of assertions that no amount of radiation is safe.<ref name="UMass researcher points to suppression of evidence on radiation effects by 1946 Nobel Laureate"/><ref name="Muller's Nobel lecture on dose–response for ionizing radiation: Ideology or science?"/><ref name="ClinicalOncologyChildren"/>

Senor Freebie, can you explain the reasoning for your proposed removal of this content? It seems relevant and well-sourced to me. The last two sentences are a bit of a digression though; do you think excising that part would resolve your concern? VQuakr (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

wait senon freebie claimed that a link to Radiation Exposure and Cancer 2008/05/06 , nrc gov [5] was contradictory to the science of radiation health effects?!! really? Waptek (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Waptek; the issue is how the information from the source is applied in the article. It's clearly a misrepresentation of the science. Especially considering the long winded segments throughout this article on the LNT. In fact when I first came here, the subject of Fukushima seemed somewhat secondary to soapboaxing about the LNT.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removal - Psychological effects of perceived radiation exposure

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Proposed markup to be removed:

Status quo text

Experts on the ground in Japan agree that mental health challenges are the most significant issue. Stress, such as that caused by dislocation, uncertainty and concern about unseen toxicants, often manifests in physical ailments, such as heart disease. So even if radiation risks are low, people are still concerned and worried. Behavioral changes can follow, including poor dietary choices, lack of exercise and sleep deprivation, all of which can have long-term negative health consequences. People who lost their homes, villages and family members, and even just those who survived the quake, will likely continue to face mental health challenges and the physical ailments that come with stress. Much of the damage was really the psychological stress of not knowing and of being relocated, according to U.C. Berkeley's McKone.<ref name="Japan's Post-Fukushima Earthquake Health Woes Go Beyond Radiation Effects"/>

Senor Freebie, that paragraph is sourced to Scientific American, [6]. I think there is improvement to be made to the paragraph, particularly with attribution in Wikipedia's vs the source's voice. Do you agree, or do you still think the section should be completely removed? If the latter, why? VQuakr (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

After your threats, to ban me from editing, I decided not to continue attempting to edit this article, that you so clearly want to control.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear 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: 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) 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Very long

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. When the tag was added, its readable prose size was 20,762 words. Consider splitting content into sub-article or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles.
Word count What to do
this article
20,762 words		 Definitely should be divided or trimmed
> 15,000 words Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
> 9,000 words Probably should be divided or trimmed.

— Isaidnoway (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)—Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster&oldid=1251162477"