This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Russia: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health 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.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Both the Dyatlov and Akimov sections claim that the respective person was the one to press the AZ-5 button, which seems incorrect. Not sure if it is known who pressed it.

This article needs considerable work. People are referred to as if in passing, by last name only, before they are introduced; the order of events is not at all clear; and in at least one instance, the same statement, with only minor changes in punctuation, is repeated within the same paragraph. I have been known to edit Wikipedia for grammar and clarity on many occasions, but I have always tried to limit my contributions to only fixing minor issues. To fix this article, I would need to substantially rewrite the article's structure, and I believe that is a task best left to more experienced and registered users, if not staff editors.170.141.177.61 (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Section heading added. jonkerz♠ 19:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say go ahead and make any changes you feel would make the article better. I posted a few link on your talk page. Reading those is preferred (but not required) if you're not familiar with the basic guidelines. The most important of them may be WP:BOLD - be bold! Don't worry too much about the wiki syntax and Wikipedia's manual of style, I or someone else can fix stuff like that later. Happy editing, jonkerz♠ 19:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the table that had been on the "Deaths in the Chernobyl Disaster" page onto this entry, prior to deleting surviving individuals from the "deaths" entry, to eliminate unnecessary overlap. Also, I've updated the information on Aleksandr P. Kovalenko within that table. Based on the acknowledgements in <a href:="http://books.google.com/books?id=O36UC03ODtcC&pg=PR16&dq=Aleksandr+P.+Kovalenko&hl=en&ei=KLODTZz2C5DqgQeyjszeCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">Chernobyl Record: the Definitive History of the Chernobyl Catastrophe</a> by Richard Francis Mould (c. 2000 IOP Publishing Ltd.), the fact of Mr. Kovalenko's conviction, and the fact that a gentleman with the same name & generation is currently employed as DGD at the Russian state-owned energy company Zarubezhneft (http://www.nestro.ru/www/webnew.nsf/index/RukKAP_eng) provide convincing evidence that Kovalenko did not die in the mid-1980's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelia Fotheringay (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a photo of Alexander Kovalenko in this PDF here, hosted by Zarubezhneft. I believe the photo was taken in 2013 (it uses the same format as the other photographs; some of the other staff on that page are said to have joined in 2012 and 2013). He looks very fresh-faced for someone who was an official at Chernobyl twenty-six years earlier. Time Magazine's article says that he was 46 years old in 1987, which means that he would be 72 years old in that photo. Could it be that there are two Alexander Kovalenkos who work in the energy industry? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact he has a bio page here, which says that he graduated in the post-Soviet era and entered the workplace in 1992, so I'm convinced that there are in fact two Alexander Kovalenkos, one who was involved in Chernobyl and one who joined Zarubezhneft. I'll edit the page accordingly. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	An image used in this article, File:Khodemchuk memorial.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After studying various documents and books, it seems to me that many facts, events and actions are lifted from the book by G.Medvedev. The book is a literary adaptation, a documentary novel, and does not pretend to be factually accurate. This article on the other hand does. I may point out things which appear to be fiction by Medvedev:

1. Perevozchenko witnessing the dance of the 350kg blocks, then "the destruction of the reactor building from the broken windows of the deaerator gallery".
2. Dyatlov "overrode Akimov's and Toptunov's objections, threatening to hand the shift to Tregub (the previous shift operator who had remained on-site), intimidating them into attempting to increase the reactor power." This has never been alleged even at his criminal trial, only in the book.
3. Again, Dyatlov, "despite seeing the graphite blocks scattered on the ground outside the plant, he still believed the reactor was intact" also directly from the book. The exact same sentence is repeated again lower in the paragraph.
4. Akimov: "He supported Toptunov's decision to shut down the poisoned reactor, but was over-ridden by Dyatlov and forced to continue" Also from the book. Later on: "the main circulation pumps started cavitating due to the too high temperature of inlet water" this is from the Soviet official report, which was later found to not be the case.

And on and on and on, details which can only have been lifted from that book. Personally, I would recommend the article for deletion, but if there are people willing to track down the sources and clean up, please go ahead. Kotika98 (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but can you supply a review or some opinion besides your own that Medvedev's book is fiction? That fact is not recorded anywhere I've looked, including on wikipedia's own page about it. I would appreciate it. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but can you supply a review or some opinion besides your own that Medvedev's book is fiction? That fact is not recorded anywhere I've looked, including on wikipedia's own page about it. I would appreciate it. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I stumbled upon on few comments on youtube from a guy by the name of Вован, he seems to know a lot about this topic and he provided some sources on why that stuff about Dyatlov in Medvedev's book seems made up. But the sources are in russian, so I can't verify them well and besides that, I don't know what sources should wikipedia deem more important if they somehow contradict themselves. I'm going to copy the part of his comment that seemed most important to me: "https://www.litmir.me/br/?b=139550&p=10 - Chernobyl by Scherbak, memories of Yuri Tregub who was in the control room. No mention of any argues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPRyciXh07k&t=403s" In the video, they seem to be asking Stolyarchuk (who, as far as I found, was in the control room aswell) directly about any argument. Maybe some competent editor will find this useful. Trefan9999 (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Individual involvement in the Chernobyl disaster. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100820124650/http://pripyat.com/en/publications/2008/12/29/1979.html to http://pripyat.com/en/publications/2008/12/29/1979.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103114601/http://www.krasnogorsk.ru/index.php?do=static&page=patriot.kp.chaes to http://www.krasnogorsk.ru/index.php?do=static&page=patriot.kp.chaes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100820124650/http://pripyat.com/en/publications/2008/12/29/1979.html to http://pripyat.com/en/publications/2008/12/29/1979.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100501143615/http://pripyat.com/ru/publications/version/2005/06/23/202.html to http://pripyat.com/ru/publications/version/2005/06/23/202.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pomnimih.ru/info.php?categ=8&subcateg=76&id=27

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the source for the claim for "Scientists believe that once the reactor melted through its concrete slab and plunged into the accumulated water, the resulting steam explosion would have released much more radiation into the atmosphere than the original explosion" has a citation for the book "Catastrophe: A Guide to World's Worst Industrial Disasters". There is a single review on Google Books, and it claims that the book has been plagiarized from Wikipedia.

I haven't read that book myself, but it's worth looking into.

66.109.211.150 (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning on a purge of inaccurate, unsourced and fictionalized information from this page, replacing it with sourced eyewitness testimony where possible. The deletions may cause some excitement, so let's talk about it here first. Primarily, most of the material paraphrasing G. Medevedev's book needs to be deleted, where it cites no sources of its own and where it conflicts with directly quoted testimony by eyewitnesses. This will result in excising most of Dyatlov's section, as well as the well-known 'jumping fuel caps' scene in Perevozchenko's section. Is everyone OK with a proper hierarchy of sources where books quoting eyewitnesses are given more weight than discredited books that cite no sources?2604:6000:9F00:6200:746F:35E7:4742:62CD (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have begun the (eventual) overhaul by reworking the Dyatlov section with citations from his book, Karpan's book and eyewitness statements from Tregub and Stolyarchuk.2604:6000:9F00:6200:69EC:4D:7956:6B7C (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most prominently, I have removed the account of the 'jumping fuel caps' allegedly witnessed by Perevozchenko. If anyone is curious about this, I will post Yuvchenko's written refutation of this story, for which absolutely no primary source evidence exists (it is apparently an invention of Medvedev).2604:6000:9F00:6200:69EC:4D:7956:6B7C (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Head's up, more edits were made to 'control the spread of misinformation' regarding visits to the open reactor core which are apocryphal. No time for proper citations at the moment, feel free to quiz me on the primary sources here.67.244.33.136 (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1000 milliRoentgen per second are not 3.6 Roentgen per hour, they equal 3600 Roentgen per hour. About 500 Roentgen are fatal for humans. 1000 mikroRoentgen per second (μR/s) might have been meant instead of milliRoentgen, which would fit 3.6 Roentgen per hour. Also note that the "per second" (written in the sentence before) is missing at 1000 μR/s. (Without a "per second", 1R=3.6R per hour would make even less sense.) At the moment, the article's units are incorrect. --129.13.156.135 (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that the dosimeters where either maxed at 1000 μR/s or at 1 R/h. Any other interpretation makes it unlikely to "underestimate radiation levels" by "instrument limitations" as this article states. Following this, several units in this article are likely incorrect (my best guess is, that all mR/s are actually μR/s). --129.13.156.135 (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing the citations used throughout the article to do my edits, I noticed that almost all of the citations for Anatoly Dyatlov's section are from his own book, which I feel should be updated. While it is certain that some information in the book will be factual, any claims made in this article should also be backed up by the IAEA INSAG-7 report into the disaster, as well as the Central Committee Chernobyl Commission reports into the disaster, as they also use the testimonies of other people present in the room that night, and many of those testimonies conflict with the claims Dyatlov made in his book.

BigBoiiLeem (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BigBoiiLeem, I'm just a huge nerd who loves editing Wikipedia pages in his spare time

I think you will find that are very few conflicts with Dyatlov's tesimony, but certainly feel free to cite other eyewitnesses. So long as we don't cite books that fail to cite any sources at all. Sredmash (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]