Talk:Nuclear whistleblowers

Untitled

Why "Nuclear power whistleblowers" did not have its own talk page? Fer48 (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think if there is an article named List of nuclear whistleblowers, this article must be renamed as "Nuclear whistleblowers". Fer48 (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AshleyFortierUML.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi Ashley, I lookes up the Fernald story and it talks about the "grass roots" groups and what they stood for. I would add a hyperlink to reference what that group was about. Julex1524 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add some outside incidents such as the Fernald incidents. Along with this, I'd like to add a link to the organization that Crawford runs as a result of the Fernald incidents called FRESH (Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety Health). Another one to mention would be the Rocky Flats incident mentioned in another Wikipedia article here.

I would also propose adding a link to Whistle Blower support groups such as the one that can be found here. It would be most effective in Arnold Gundersen's paragraph but it could also stand on its own as its own section.

It might also be worthwhile to mention the most prominent safety regulations put forth by the NRC that can be found at this link. I will be sorting through all of the regulations and be picking the most important out. I am still compiling more sources. These are the changes that I would like to work on now.--AshleyFortierUML (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, AshleyFortierUML. This looks like a good idea. I know you're searching for sources, but here's a reminder that google scholar has a large number of sources on this subject. Be sure to mix academic, popular and government sources to get a good broad sense of what happened and how it impacted whistleblowing and nuclear power. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Adam. I am still compiling a list of sources which includes a couple of sources from Google scholar and a few from some college resources. I will be sure to implement them once I get done with adding in the smaller things. --AshleyFortierUML (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Helen Caldicott and Nuclear labor issues Suggestion

I am wondering if Helen Caldicott would be considered a nuclear whistleblower by the editors of this article. If so I'd be happy to add a section on her. Also, I placed a "see also" link to the Nuclear labor issues article I created, and would appreciate feedback if of interest.Netherzone (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your interest in this topic. I do not believe that Helen Caldicott would be considered a nuclear whistleblower as she has not technically "blown the whistle" on any particular nuclear plant. I think she is simply an anti-nuclear advocate. Thanks for the suggestion though. I will take a look at your article as well. --AshleyFortierUML (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand your perspective better - that you are focusing solely on the nuclear power industry whistleblowers. Caldicott blew the whistle on nuclear weapons testing (starting in the early 70's). From my viewpoint, that opened the door for nuclear whistleblowers within the military-industrial nexus. A thought on the page title - would "Nuclear power whistleblowers" be more accurate? Netherzone (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that. Perhaps if you wrote a brief section on Caldicott blowing the whistle on nuclear weapons testing that would be appropriate. Let me know if you need any help with it.--AshleyFortierUML (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall that some years ago this article was called Nuclear power whistleblowers, but then we decided to broaden the scope, and I think this has worked well. As for Helen C. I don't have any strong feelings about her inclusion. Guess it depends on what reliable sources are available. Johnfos (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

    Hi Ashley,
    If you are to add the suggestion by user "Netherzone" regarding Nuclear labor issues I would make it it's own catergory. It isn't            
    about Whistleblowers but what could have led to the the people who were the Whistleblowers. Julex1524 (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Fernald

Hi AshleyFortierUML Fernald was not a nuclear power plant, it was a weapons feed-material processing plant. Fernald [[Fernald_Feed_Materials_Production_Center|fabricated uranium fuel cores for the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex from 1951 to 1989. It was part of the nuclear weapons production chain, not the nuclear energy (power) industry. (I mention this for two reasons - the lead section mentions "nuclear power" but not nuclear weapons nor the correlationship between them via the military/industrial comple, and also because the Fernald section is in error.) The page is coming along nicely, thanks for your hard work on these important historical matters. Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ashley, I lookes up the Fernald story and it talks about the "grass roots" groups and what they stood for. I would add a hyperlink to reference what that group was about. Julex1524 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Julex1524 (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Julex1524, that is a good point I will consider adding that.--AshleyFortierUML (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Medicine Nuclear

The section "Nuclear Medicine Service..." should be removed. I think this case of "whistleblowing" should not come here and should be deleted. The only thing is that it has filed a complaint to the Nuclear Security Service, but this did not put any sanction. The link to the newspaper says there was also a complaint to the court but it ended in acquittal. In short, they did not put any sanction. Wikipedia is not a primary source, so Wikipedia can not include on their own the view that any sanction should have been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B2ubried (talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I understand that Wikipedia is not a primary source for anything. But I have checked the sources that were cited in this particular section and they were valid making this a simple report on what was stated in the article. I do not see anywhere in the section stating an opinion of what should have happened.--AshleyFortierUML (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

In this section appears: "A serious transgression occurred in the...". It said that the transgression ocurred. But the only thing that is proven is that complaints occurred, not that transgression occurred. Saying that transgression occurred is a gratuitous assertion unsupported. Wikipedia is not a primary source.

We can not mention as a case of whistleblowing if we can not ensure that any violation occurred.

We can not include as a case of whistleblowing all complaints, whatever with foundation or without it.

B2ubried (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I would like to propose a merger of this page (Nuclear whistleblowers) and List of Nuclear whistleblowers. They both have the same concept of listing nuclear whistleblowers and what they have done and many of the nuclear whistleblowers are stated on both pages. I believe it would be beneficial to the user as well as us editors to condense all the information into one page. Thoughts? AshleyFortierUML (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)