| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 26, 2008. |
Although commonly called the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, The Official Name is the Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Nuclear Power Plant; Often Shortened to V.I. Lenin NPP during the Soviet Era. The Current Name was termed after Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union when they broke up in 1991 and thus dropped the reference to Vladimir Lenin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.8.197.150 (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These two statements are obviously inconsistent with each other:
If all four reactors had one common turbine hall [which I think was/is not the case], where exactly would "the turbine hall of reactor No. 2" be?
These two statements are obviously inconsistent with each other:
This^^^ is either pure magic or turbine reproduction of some sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrejPodzimek (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page needs a breakdown of the reactors #1-4, their operation output etc... There is a history of the other three reactors Ottawakismet (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Today, many countries that were in the Soviet Union have been paid money from the European Union to shut down such first-generation units, as they pose a threat to the environment" - only Russia, Lithuania and Ukraine had RBMK-reactors. So this sentence is misleading, at best 83.108.109.43 (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that all links labeled "Sarcophagus" in this article lead to an article on Sarcophagi for use in human burial. I edited this to a more relevant link yesterday but it appears to have reverted back to the irrelevant one. Could someone either change these to articles pertaining to the subject or give an explanation why we shouldn't do so? 71.218.16.26 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For reference Section 1 (Construction) Paragraph 2 at the end of sentence 4,Section 2.2 (Accidents, 1986) sentence 2 both contain this particular misleading link. 71.218.16.26 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some mention of the thriving wildlife near the plant should be made.- MSTCrow 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References this group were added on 17 July by 67.43.245.253 (talk) without any sources. A google search for this group turns up nothing except references back to this Wikipedia article and others updated by the same anonymous user. I suggest undoing the changes if no supporting sources can be found. Similar edits were also made to Chernobyl disaster and New Safe Confinement. -- Tcncv (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a "photo" on this page that is actually a screenshot from the game STALKER shadow of Chernobyl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.204.108 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“After the explosion at reactor four, the remaining three reactors at the power plant continued to operate.” - I think this needs more explanation and resources. It surely isn't obvious who would still work for years in the presumably highly contaminated area and how. charon (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is going to be a link to other articles, including Three Mile Island, can we consider a link to the Fukushima Daiichi, the leaking and crippled nuclear power plant in Eastern Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.106.188 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. 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:
{{dead link}} tag to http://www.holtecinternational.com/sites/default/files/pr/HH22_18.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed some of the photos. Hope people don't mind. Updated the main photo as it was about ten years old and didn't have the NSC on it. Updated the NSC photo from April 2015 to August 2016. Replaced a photo of Reactor 4 with one of 5 & 6 as there was two of 4. Cls14 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time right now, but can we explain HOW reactor NO 4 exploded under the "Accidents" section? ...or at the least, provide a summary of how? Right now, all that it says is that "was destroyed." I feel like it would be nice to provide at least a brief explanation about it. - Yurtpoh (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article could be improved if there was a better photograph of the overall plant than the one currently in the infobox - "shot from a nearby road." Any thoughts or images? Netherzone (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. 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:
{{dead link}} tag to http://snpp.rosenergoatom.ru/eng/about/production/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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. 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:
{{dead link}} tag to http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10865344When 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing all the "N." to "No."? Is it correct to use "N."? I've never seen it used anywhere before. UnsignificantEditor (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At some time the photograph in the Infobox was changed to a photograph of a sculpture in front of the powerplant, rather than a photograph of the power plant itself (as was previously in the Infobox). I think it should be changed back, as it makes no sense to have an image of artwork in front of the building, rather than the Nuclear Powerplant. I recommend this file:
Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I may switch it with the file you suggested but I will check Commons first for better quality images. Kylesenior (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the image captions claims that a helicopter is spraying "a decontamination liquid" over the area. What substance can "decontaminate" a radioactive environment? Wash down, yes; contain or cover, maybe to some degree; but "decontaminate"? This sounds rather euphemistic to me. -- Seelefant (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image of this site is false, with two high resolution towers that are obviously not real. Charles Juvon (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Due to current events the 2022 war bit will need to be uppaled as events happen Huumas (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On "Operator(S)" put "Russian Federation." To my knowledge SAZEM is no longer in control. BAFAFF982 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]In the section on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, it mentions a waste repository being hit. Looking at the cited source, it appears that there are no references to any shells hitting them.
Am I mistaken? Mdrakea3 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
currently, the infobox gives the country the ChNPP is in as "Ukraine (de jure), Russia (de facto)", with a source stating, that russian tropps have taken the location. While this does mean, that russia controls the area the plant is in, this does not mean, that the plant is defacto in russia, since to my knowledge, the russian gouvernment dosn't claim that the area in question is russian territory. --1234567891011a (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Main article: Battle of Chernobyl During the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russian forces attacked Ukrainian forces near the site of the Chernobyl disaster and seized the ruined power plant.[25][26][27][28] The resulting activity led to an increase in radiation levels in the area.[29]
According to link below: "Experts of the Ecocenter connect this with disturbance of the top layer of soil from movement of a large number of radio heavy military machinery through the Exclusion zone and increase of air pollution."
Då.nu (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
I disagree with the inclusion of a crude graph for radiation levels at the plant. This is an example of recency bias. Why not a graph showing the vastly higher radiation levels after the accident itself? The data are also not trustworthy because the plant's own website continues to report normal radiation levels. No credible source is currently capable of confirming the reality of the dosimetric situation, therefore the inclusion of a graph presents tentative information an incontrovertible fact. Maybe when the truth is known and we have data for the last two days, such a graph might be useful. But currently it is just a suspicious snapshot of 2/25/22.Sredmash (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the following line in the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" subsection:
"The resulting activity reportedly led to an increase in radiation levels in the area." to... "The resulting activity reportedly led to an increase in radiation levels in the area due to disruption of contaminated soil."
This clarifies the cause of increased levels. Leebickmtu (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]How many deaths did the Černobyl nuclear disaster caused in the 1989? 2A0E:422:2EA9:0:91E1:B33:4E78:4E50 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The withdrawal of Russian troops does not imply the recapture of the plant by Ukrainian forces.--GreatBernard (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The beginning of the article correctly says that the name of the power plant is Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant. However, if I open the article of Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant, I get incorrectly redirected to "Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant". Shouldn't the official name be used as the primary name, and the name in the neighbouring country's language be an alternative name, with a redirect to the official name?
Dakkus (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The below paragraph/sentence doesn't read very well towards the end. I think the 'and' between the words 'process and requires' is unnecessary
"Although the reactors have all ceased generation, Chernobyl maintains a large workforce as the ongoing decommissioning process and requires constant management." 80.4.24.220 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Fixed it A diehard editor (talk | edits) 21:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The official name of the power plant is the Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Nuclear Power Plant. I think it would be prudent to include this in the bold print at the beginning of the article, instead of the cursory reference at the end of the first paragraph. 151.111.138.40 (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
