Talk:Elephant's Foot (Chernobyl)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elephant's Foot (Chernobyl) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days

Energy Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

How come the image to this article keeps getting removed? This is at least the second time that I can tell that the image has been removed or deleted. Can someone put up an image and actually.. yknow, keep it there? 75.134.45.1 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They get removed because they cannot be shown to be public domain or owned by someone who releases all copyright claim personally. Wikipedia has an absolute ban on using anything that cannot be proven to be free of copyright claims. See

WP:COPYOTHERS. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

can i see it legally ????? 173.219.184.139 (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone else notice the article has two links to the article on radioactive decay? I thought double-linking like this was frowned upon. --StudiousGoblin (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why? 151.251.242.26 (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To break off a sample for scientific testing.Sredmash (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they used old cameras how were the photos took if it emits a lethal dose in five minutes and radiation screws with cameras? 2603:7080:BC38:F605:8927:D92E:FDE8:12D2 (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a selfie taken by Artur Korneyev, a Deputy Director of the Chernobyl sarcophagus, from a mounted camera on time delay (more here). Radiation produces grainness which is seen on the photo. Korneyev himself appears to be in a protective suit (although I can't see face-covering headgear other than simple helmet). Brandmeister^talk 09:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The radiation of the EF may have started out at 8-10,000 roentgens, but it decays. The main radioactive ingredient is Cs-137, which has a half-life of 30 years. It has been about 38 years since the accident, so the radiation has backed off by about 1.34 half-lives, making it only about 40% of what it once was. However, a lot of fast elements in the mix declined even faster. so it is likely more like about 10-20% of what it started out as.

BTW, Korolev's HAZMAT suit is not capable of protecting him from radiation. The respirator keeps it from becoming internal, but the suit is there to make his body easier to wash later and to keep him from tracking the stuff home to the kiddies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkoreKeep (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

they were being careful I guess Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does this article sound like it was written by an 8th grader for a school project?

Given the time, I might rewrite the whole thing to make it sound more... mature, I guess (and informative).

Cheers Gøøse060 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts in particular need improvement? I agree that the prose is flat, but it conveys an understandable picture of the object. Reconrabbit (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Origin paragraph, for example. The sentences seem to jump from topic to topic, include minute details that do not belong in the section (like the room number), and includes very little on the actual origin of the Elephant's Foot. The content of the paragraph, which mostly belongs in the top section (it's basically a summary of the object), jumps from material, to appearance, to origin, to location, and finally back to origin.

Additionally, the first half of the "Composition" paragraph is very very technical. Like, how would the average reader know what "uranium dioxide dendrites" are or why the elongation of the zircon matters? Sure, we have links to other articles, but we shouldn't have to go "Oh, just read about it over there" to anybody who wants to this article. Gøøse060 (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The material of the object seems fairly relevant to its origin. The description of its appearance could probably be moved into the lead paragraph, and the rest of the items could be moved around within the section - e.g., "The Elephant's Foot was formed during the Chernobyl disaster in April 1986 due to (X conditions in reactor No. 4 - I don't know how detailed sources are on the actual formation of the object). The material making up the Elephant's Foot burnt through [...] to reach its current location, but the visible object is only a part of the larger mass [...]"

Under Composition, the first sentence is fine enough, but from that point forward the use of technical language could be cleared up by explaining the relevance of each of its components rather than jumping into 'depolymerized silicate glass'.

I'm willing to implement some changes similar to these should they be acceptable. Reconrabbit (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of your points and would be willing to help with any changes, should you need it.

The composition section definitely needs reworking, but I have no clue what "depolymerized silicate glass" is, so I don't think I'll be much help :] Gøøse060 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did a once-over of the whole thing. Not sure if my work right at the end identifying its most recent radioactive measurement is accurate - it treats alpha-tracks (the number of particles detected per square centimeter) as dpm (or Bq). It's clear that this is information people want to know, but the data needs extrapolation (which I don't know if we have the tools to do). Obviously if we had a real count and knew how much material was in the Foot we could just calculate half-lives and have a fancy template in the article that auto calculates how radioactive it is.

Also, I read that the photographer died in 2022, but the only source is a Facebook obituary (and Reddit thread that references it) which I can't link to. Reconrabbit (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Elephant's Foot looks as if it's a liquid, wit its many layers giving it the resemblance of peanut butter in texture. Just wondering! Barcodc (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is answered by the "Composition" section. Since it's made of corium, when it was hot, it was a liquid and flowed like lava, but has settled and cooled down and is now solid. The article states that as of 3 years ago it had the texture of sand. Reconrabbit 20:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]