Talk:Dnieper reservoir cascade

Sources

The article has only two sources (assuming the external links can be sources). First is discover channel:

1. http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/battle_of_chernobyl/consequences/index.shtml it has exactly one sentence remotely related to the reservoirs: Radioactive particles are easily bound and form residue very quickly. This meant that standing waters, such as reservoirs, were contaminated in the short term. . It has nothing said about long-term contamination of the Dnieper reservoirs.
2. The second source is a Russian-language publication in an online site (usually reputable) of an interview with some leader of "independent researchers working on prognosing the results of catastrophes"), named Vasyly Kredo. There is no data on the affiliations, credentials or even name of the group. The article is very cautious in stating that all information is just an opinion of this Vasyly Kredo. The article also has an absurd caption to the photography of the dam stating that the emergency rate of the dam is 93%. By the context of the article it is probably mean that the dam creates a radioactive tsunami 93% of all the time.

Most of the info is not supported by any sources whatsoever. Some info might be a public knowledge, but some is dubious. abakharev 13:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The article could use more sourcing but it is somewhat better now. I will give it some more time though, later. --Irpen 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging

• Restored according to researcher Vasily Kredo - there is no facts showing the exitential threat for the whole Europe. Removed Young and Ukrainian - there is no indications of Vasily's age, no nationality
• The reservoirs as a nuclear threat. There is no sources to the highly dubious statement that a release of every but southernmost reservoir would cause the destruction of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. It is certainly very dubious (the nuclear stations are expected to survive highly improbable situations like the fall of an airplane. They should be expected to resist some sort of flooding as well.
• I agree that contamination of the silt is a common knowledge, That is not the common is the degree of the contamination. Especially after 10 years since the catastrophe. Is it 1% of the original radioactive materials escaped from Chernobyl? 0.1%? 0.001%? Would the escape of 1/1000 of the original Chernobyl radioactivity crate a Europe-wide catastrophe? I removed badly, the only source provided said short-term
• The info that Dniepropeterovsk open air radioactive dumps is unsourced and highly dubious. Actually the whole paragraph is unsourced, but lets consider the other staff to be a common knowledge
• There is no info about Kredo been environmentalist nor about him been young and Ukrainian, I used wording independent researcher.
• There is only one phrase about the surface water in the second link, i used more general details of the contamination abakharev 13:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation Chastise

I have added link to Operation Chastise. The British-Australian operation on destruction of a number of German dams in the densely-populated Ruhr region. Lets what is needed to destroy a dam - specially designed 4tonn bomb, exploding at the bottom of the dam. Nothing man-portable nor almost anything conventional exploded at the surface is unable to damage a dam. Thus, the terrorist threat to the dams is very dubious.

The article can be used to estimate to probable losses. Germans lost 1250 people (including 750 POWs), as well as a number of mines (flooded), steel mills, plants, agricultural land. All this was a significant loss probably contributed to our Victory. It was not a Europe-wide doomsday though. I see no indications that destruction of Dnepr dam would provide worse results. abakharev 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New links

Copyed from User talk:AlexPU

---

Easily:

• Dnepriada:The Black Hole re: nuclides in the reservoirs; draining them

• Not Sure how to translate Re: possible flooding of Kiev

• Not Sure how to translate Re: Fake terrorist alert of 2005

No English versions :(((.

But he already reverted you, must be aiming to AfD. Don't you care about links cause they won't. Just revert.

More links coming up on Soviet partisans and Category:Russia (I already have about a dozen, and counting). Like Khruschtchev said: Ми їх поховаємо!

And thank you.AlexPU 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I have added references to the material supported by the links. Still the bulk of the info is not supported by any references. For the record, I am against the deletion of the article. It is an important topic. I just want to separate facts, from attributed opinions and from Urban Legends. This is the Wikipedia way as oppose to the Yellow Press way. Still even Urban Legends could be a notable topic. abakharev 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

Wouldn't a more logical name for this article be Reservoirs on the Dnieper or something similar?--Peta 02:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The author of the article (now blocked for a month) can't respond but I will give my take on this. This article is devoted to the specific issue, a threat of several catastrophic scenarios, not to the reservoirs in general. Actually, there are separate articles about each reservoir. The reservoir "list" article isn't needed since they are listed in Dnieper. There is no article yet about the concept of the reservoir system development, their relationship, problems their addressed (navigabilty, electric power) and caused (see this one). Such article can be written or even developped from this one. If this is what will happen to this article in its evolution, we could rename it then. Currently, the article is more about what the current title is. --Irpen 02:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Hopefully the main page exposure will get the article some better sourcing ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Now we need a map

OK, I developed the nuclear sites section with details and references. Now we need a nice map showing those bloody points of grave danger, first of all:

• Dniprodzerzhynsk
• Dnipropetrovsk
• Zaporizhzhia
• Enerhodar
• Zhovti Vody (possibly other uranium centers)

I'd even say a regional map showing only the Dnieper, the larger cities and these points. Volunteers?AlexPU (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try and make a map, but can't make any promises. —dima/talk/ 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You've just made one:))) Thanks in advance!AlexPU (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to make it clear: if DDima or someone else does find his time for the map, we would need point inscriptions "PHZ" instead of "Dniprodzerzhynsk", "Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant" instead of "Enerhodar", and so on. You know, to show that we are clear about where exactly those industrial sites, not the cities, are located. However, If we had a detailed regional map, than we could indicate both the cities and the hazard sites inside them (do I want too much?) Anyway, the Dnieper is the main thing we need on the map:) Thanks,AlexPU (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed]

A lot of presuppositions in this text appear to lack sources and are flagged accordingly. Are we building a theory (in the sense of hypothesis) there? --84.130.252.249 (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)