Talk:Mayak

Old talk

I question the NPOV of this article a bit, I have difficulty justifing some of the statments made by any site other than greenpeace (which is listed thrice as a reference) and I do not really consider greenpeace to be a source of reliable and unbiased information.

--Matthew 07:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

More old talk

This could be a fine article. There's plenty of encyclopedia quality sources easily available via a goole search. Here are some I'd start with:

• Mayak's Walking Wounded | The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
• The last paragraph of this: http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/29/gpprotnucwaste.shtml

JesseW 20:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moving the External link from Cephalic_disorder here. Greenpeace Mayak web site (Warning: Graphic Images) As

I've now written a stub for the article, and included these references, although it would be good if someone would go through them and pull out more information about the article. JesseW 20:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is also a good amount of information relating to health effects available from peer-reviewed journal articles (for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=mayak%20radiation). Maybe some of this could be incorporated? Jimjamjak (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional old talk

In the german article it is stated as the biggest nuclear accident, as the contamination of the surroundings was two to six times higher as that of chernobyl. -- Lightkey 11:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The 1957 Mayak Incident

I've given this entry my considered attention, even though I am no authority on Mayak and on the 1957 incident, because I believe that that incident was a major event in the Cold War, although one not owned up to as such. It could well be that the Mayak incident released more radiation than Chernobyl. For years, I thought that the 1957 incident took place in Sverdlovsk. I first encountered "Mayak" and "Chelyabinsk" while researching this article -- Concerned Cynic.

Date of official acknowledgment

The article says ""Only in 1992, shortly after the fall of the USSR, did the Russians officially acknowledge the accident". But an article in German newspaper "Die Welt" (http://www.welt.de/data/1996/04/09/686606.html , linked from article in de.wikipedia) :

"Doch erst im Juli 1989 - mit 32 Jahren Verspätung - informierte das in der Sowjetunion nach dem Unglück von Tschernobyl neu geschaffene Ministerium für Atomenergie die Internationale Atomenergie-Organisation (IAEO) über das Unglück."

("Only in July 1989 - 32 years late - did the ministry of nuclear energy (newly created in the SU after the Chernobyl disaster) inform the IAEO about the accident").

Which is correct, 1989 or 1992? sleske 2006-04-27

Rationale for Keeping Mayak Secret Proven or Supposition?

"...the CIA knew of the 1957 Mayak accident all along, but kept it secret to prevent adverse consequences for the fledgling USA nuclear industry. "Ralph Nader surmised that the information had not been released because of the reluctance of the CIA to highlight a nuclear accident in the USSR, that could cause concern among people living near nuclear facilities in the USA" (Pollock 1978: 9)"

So first we have the article saying that it was kept secret for industrial reasons, and then as evidence states that Nader only surmised that this was the case. Do we have any concrete sources stating the articles conclusion, or only might have beens?

MSTCrow 02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

rm dab

Removed: :This article is about a nuclear factory. Mayak (meaning "the beacon") is also a radio station in Russia, operating since 1964. [1] - Disambiguate only if there is an article. Femto 11:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

More incidents

Mark Hertsgaard, writing recently in The Nation ("Return to Chelyabinsk", posted October 26, 2006, published in the November 13, 2006 issue) says that the 1957 accident is only a small part of the story on nuclear disaster and radiation pollution:

The Mayak nuclear complex, located fifty miles north of the city, suffered the first of its three nuclear disasters in 1949, when officials started pouring nuclear waste directly into the Techa River, which runs through the complex. According to studies by Russian experts and scientists with the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council, 28,000 people received average individual doses fifty-seven times greater than those later received at Chernobyl. Only 7,500 people were evacuated, and people were not forbidden to use the river water until 1953. The second disaster was in 1957, when a waste dump exploded, spewing some seventy-five metric tons of radioactive waste into the air, exposing 272,000 people to doses of radiation equivalent to those at Chernobyl. The third came in 1967, when a cyclone whirled across the drought-exposed shores of a lake being used as a waste dump; 5 million additional curies of radioactivity were dispersed.

There's quite a bit else that looks useful in his article. I'm not at all knowledgable on this topic, so I'm just leaving this note here to suggest that as a source for people who are working on the article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to Chernobyl

If this article is accurate, I don't see how it can be claimed that Chernobyl was worse. Hundreds of people dying vs 56 deaths, mostly of firefighters at Chernobyl. Now that new, more accurate data about Chernobyl has come to light, that the estimates of thousands of cases of cancer and thyroid damage were seriously overstated for political purposes of the day, maybe it is time to recognize this officially and set the record straight. Gigs 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you've been mislead. The oft cited UNSCEAR report puts the current death toll of Chernobyl at 56 but the final death toll at ~4000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.194.33 (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't find that particular figure in the UNSCEAR report (http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf). It seems to me that they report a certain number of deaths, postulate that other deaths were probably caused by exposure to radiation at relatively low doses, but that results of any predictive modelling are not reported due to the very high degree of uncertainty associated with the methods used. All that said, I don't think that this reflects on "which accident was worse" - there are all manner of other aspects to consider in such an assessment of overall impact.Jimjamjak (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Still secret and fairly underestimated

I couldn't believe what I was reading here, English Wikipedia does not reflect even a fraction of what really means Mayak. Chernobyl is nothing against it. For all you people able to read german, please verify the german version, which gives very accurate information about dimensions of Radiation arround Mayak and the Karatschai lake. Recently, there was an international study, which indicated that the Karatschai lake is the most poluted spot on earth. If you ever visit this place, the max limit to stay and not to die by guarantee, is between 5 and 15 mins. If you stay longer, you will not survive the next hour. This is really no exageration, please verify the german site. But I guess my discomposure is understandable. --194.203.215.254 11:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This Person speaks the truth. Also perhaps one should mention the Soviet Movie "Stalker" because the Area around Mayak was a big inspiration for the mysterious and deadly "zone" in this movie.92.192.41.123 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't dramatize. I know many people working at Mayak for years so I can say with confidence that "the Area around Mayak" has nothing to do with "the Area around Chernobyl" - the radiation levels are not comparable! Certainly if you are not going to swim in Karatschai lake or Techa river. 217.197.1.215 (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Do people live there?

How is the plant used today to make Tritium if it's dangerous for people to drive their cars with the windows down even hundreds of miles away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.188.237 (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get that either. Apparently the town closest to the plant still has many thousands of inhabitants, and officially is recognized as a city since 2004. 213.89.222.42 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about Russia afterall so anything is possible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR1wo5s3Ua4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.197.173.159 (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

They do. Also, the local large towns - Chelyabinsk and Ekaterinburg have the higher level of radiation than Ozyorsk. The area of radioactive hazard - mostly forests and fields - is called as "Eastern Ural Radioactive Trace" and not many habited. 217.197.1.215 (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There's numerous evacuated villages around the areas contaminated with radiation.

New buildings

If you compare current google maps images to old ones you can see that east of the "Fissile material storage facility" there are a couple of new buildings. Does anyone have information about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCH (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The FMSF was still under construction at the time the NASA World Wind Images were shot. It was completed in the meantime, which you can see on the current Google images. However, there are no free up-to-date aerial images available. --JanRieke (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Third worst...

I don't understand what is intended by the statement that, "Mayak was the site of the third-worst nuclear accident in history (after the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters)". In which way was it "less bad" than Fukushima and Chernobyl? In terms of net human health impacts? In terms of the scale of the accident(s)? Does this kind of sentence even make sense?Jimjamjak (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Which disaster is "the worst" (or second, third or whatever worst) is opinion. Which of the three examples is the worst it open to debate and the whole idea will need rejigging should another such incident occur (which hopefully it won't.) So I have replaced "the worst" with "one of the worst" which is, I think, something few would take issue about. Britmax (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, "worst" is a subjective term. In terms of the INES scale, Mayak's the 3rd "worst" behind Fukuskima and Chernobyl because they were the only level 7 INES events and Mayak was the only level 6. Three Mile Island was a level 5. In reality, Mayak should be a rock-solid 7 due to an explosion with massive onsite/offsite contamination and multiple deaths. Fukushima really ought to be a 5 and Three Mile Island a 4, since both were partial meltdowns where one caused severe onsite/mild offsite contamination with onsite radiation injuries and the other moderate onsite/no offsite contamination with no injuries. Either way, I'll reword it. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the refrasing of that sentence. Foxtrot are there any references that you can use to support that? If so it would be a good addition to the article.Millertime246 (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RT-1 Reprocessing

Reprocessing plant at Mayak to begin reprocessing of VVER-1000 fuel. This does mean that Makak is extracting plutonium and uranium from the spent fuel. http://fissilematerials.org/blog/2016/12/reprocessing_plant_at_may.html  kgrr ^talk 19:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

FMSF

So did the Fissile Material Storage Facility ever get completed and put into operation? All the pictures here appear to show it under construction and are quite old. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)