Talk:Lake Karachay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Lake Karachay is part of WikiProject Lakes, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve lake-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project. |
 |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Picture?
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Russia may be able to help! |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It would be nice to get a picture of the lake. Does anyone know of one in the Public Domain? The Jade Knight 23:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- It should be possible to get one through Google Earth, but I don't know the coordinates. Simen 88 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm relatively sure the lake can be seen here, but I can't confirm it. If it is not in fact the very dry patch shown on that satellite image, it will still be nearby. The Mayak plant is directly to the west. Livedo 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The exact coordinates (atleast according to google earth) are: 55°39'42.03"N and 60°51'16.01"E. BebopBob 21:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm relatively sure the lake can be seen here, but I can't confirm it. If it is not in fact the very dry patch shown on that satellite image, it will still be nearby. The Mayak plant is directly to the west. Livedo 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lethal dose
500 roentgens in 5 hours = 100 roentgen per hour doesn't it? (User:66.186.69.169)
- No, it's not. It's something like this:
- 1200 roentgens per day
- 500 roentgens per five hours
- 200 roentgens per hour
- bogdan 00:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've let my edit of 100 röntgen per hour stand because I can't find a source for the strange progression you offered above. Can you cite a source? I looked at a bunch of other methods for measuring radiation dossage in humans, but they were all too complicated for me to make a call, so, again, I left it alone. See: Sievert, Gray (unit), ionizing radiation, and radiation poisoning. Anyone who knows what's what is welcome to fix the article. —ZorkFox 02:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's a little more complicated than that. Radiation is ultimately measured in nuclear disintegrations per second. However, not all disintegrations are equal. The higher the frequency of the produced radition, the more dangerous it is (because more energetic photons can more easily break the molecular bonds found in the cells in your body). So 100 roentgens from something that produces low-freuqency radition is nowhere near as toxic as something that produces 100 roentgens of high frequency radition. That's why the Equivalent dose scale was invented, in order to take this into account. Raul654 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- So, what we really need it someone who understands exactly what kind of radiation the lake is putting out, who can also evaluate all the integrals and whatnot to determine the actual danger level of the lake. In the meanwhile, I propose to make the statement more general; something like: "The level of radiation dossage a human would receive at the lake in one hour is significantly higher than a lethal dose." How does that sound? —ZorkFox 02:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's a little more complicated than that. Radiation is ultimately measured in nuclear disintegrations per second. However, not all disintegrations are equal. The higher the frequency of the produced radition, the more dangerous it is (because more energetic photons can more easily break the molecular bonds found in the cells in your body). So 100 roentgens from something that produces low-freuqency radition is nowhere near as toxic as something that produces 100 roentgens of high frequency radition. That's why the Equivalent dose scale was invented, in order to take this into account. Raul654 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've let my edit of 100 röntgen per hour stand because I can't find a source for the strange progression you offered above. Can you cite a source? I looked at a bunch of other methods for measuring radiation dossage in humans, but they were all too complicated for me to make a call, so, again, I left it alone. See: Sievert, Gray (unit), ionizing radiation, and radiation poisoning. Anyone who knows what's what is welcome to fix the article. —ZorkFox 02:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Russian external links
- Lake Karachay - Open-Air Depository for Radioactive Waste (in Russian)
- Lake Karachay: Reality and Fantasies (in Russian)
- Karachay Lake Will Disappear in Five Years (in Russian)
- Radioactive Lake Has Been Practically Annihilated (in Russian)
- Lake Karachay Has Been Filled Up (in Russian)
—ZorkFox 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I also added some external links in English... which might actually have enough information to expand this article and/or start one about the Chelyabinsk-40 site (or Chelyabinsk-65, as it is apparently now called). —ZorkFox 09:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Let me explain. In Soviet times, closed cities were called by the name of the nearest big city (in this case, it was Chelyabinsk (the city I live in, BTW :))) plus the last digits of the postal code. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many if not all of the "closed cities" were given their own names, e.g. Zlatoust-36 became Trehgorny. So, in this case, the first name for this very town or city (population ~100,000) we are talking about was Chelyabinsk-40, then it was changed to Chelyabinsk-65, and since 1990s, it is Ozersk or Ozyorsk (Озёрск). But actually, the nuclear wastes storage & reprocessing plant is located outside of this town, about 8 km to south-east. --Anthony Ivanoff 19:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone point me at the correct "weblinking" guidelines mentioned by Ghirlandajo on the history page for this article? I looked around a little and found some stuff that seems appropriate, but it doesn't weigh in on what language external links should use. Personally, I can't read a single word of Russian, and though I realize the English language Wikipedia isn't here solely for my use, I can't be the only one. :) —ZorkFox 10:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- As best I know, foreign-language links are recommended, when there are no websites that contain the same information in English. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) --Ghirla | talk 11:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I can't tell whether or not the sites have similar or different information. :) The style guide says that English links are preferred, so I would still consider the Russian links for removal, but I'll let a consensus decide. —ZorkFox 02:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Feel free to ask me to translate anything from Russian. --Anthony Ivanoff 19:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
