Talk:Hinkley groundwater contamination

Locked down

As of June 21, 2011, this article is tagged as disputed in terms of both neutrality and accuracy, yet there is no discussion. Why does it appear to be locked down?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.32.170 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was never locked down. The tags were removed on 7 September 2011, and quite right to. Drive-by tagging is an absolute pest. HairyWombat 04:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hinkley groundwater contamination. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/hinkley-22901-erin-spreads.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Environmental Working Group

This section is misleading and this is a biased interest group. The EWG papers cited in this section offer misleading information in an obvious attempt at fear-mongering with shaky information.

An editor with more experience than I should look into whether this section even belongs in the article at all.

Cyanoplex (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

agreed, i did a little to work on this but I think Cyanoplex, you perhpas could tag the article as needing a medical expert.

Boundarylayer (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hinkley groundwater contamination. 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/20090520235233/http://www.calepa.ca.gov/About/History01/oehha.htm to http://www.calepa.ca.gov/About/History01/oehha.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Consistency, Sources

In its present state, I find this article confusing. There does not appear to be a medical reference for, essentially, health risk versus concentration. The legal cases seem to hem and haw around the matter, but law does not require scientific rigor, they only need to convince a jury (or not even that, in the case of settlement). This page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexavalent_chromium#Hinkley gives a worst-case measurement of 580 ppb, but with no reference. Perhaps this is as much a call for references on that page, too. Alternately, if the reason for the hemming and hawing, is that there is no medical conclusion on what concentration is statistically significant, then it might be nice to note this in the article. 2605:A000:140A:400C:8446:6CD3:2987:7E06 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

clarity

The article insinuates that PG&E falsified the retraction and funded subsequent research finding that chromium is not toxic. I don't know the history but in either case the article needs to be more explicit and detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.32.24 (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)