This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has useful information in it, and I don't think it deserves to be separated from the main article on the accident. If I were thumbing through a paper encyclopedia, I would expect the article on the accident to discuss the aftermath in full. I don't think the extra few paragraphs added to the main article would be unwieldy. I'm proposing the merger now, and if there's no objections I'll get back to it in a month and do it. Michael (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I came back 5 years later to take a look, and since there were conflicting opinions, decided not to merge. Michael (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This article has a lot of sections that talk about the negative effects of the accident, but that doesn't reflect the current literature, which finds nearly no negative effects. The article also draws heavily from 2 sources -- Joseph Mangano and Dr. Steven Wing. In addition to the cited lines, there are several sentences lifted from Mangano that are not cited. (IMO this could verge on plagiarism.) It's good to show "both sides" of the story, but it needs to be done from a neutral point of view. Michael (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
“Incidence of thyroid cancer in residents surrounding the three-mile island nuclear facility“
In this piece, it says there were increases in thyroid cancer rates in two counties close to TMI. However, those increases could not be causally linked to the accident at TMI. The key issue there is causal inference, which is incredibly difficult. This citation is being used to say there are numerous studies showing no link, but that is not what this piece does— it shows *a* link, just not one that can be considered causal evidence. 2600:1700:BB58:8E90:747C:C5D4:625:4F14 ( talk) 00:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has useful information in it, and I don't think it deserves to be separated from the main article on the accident. If I were thumbing through a paper encyclopedia, I would expect the article on the accident to discuss the aftermath in full. I don't think the extra few paragraphs added to the main article would be unwieldy. I'm proposing the merger now, and if there's no objections I'll get back to it in a month and do it. Michael (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I came back 5 years later to take a look, and since there were conflicting opinions, decided not to merge. Michael (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This article has a lot of sections that talk about the negative effects of the accident, but that doesn't reflect the current literature, which finds nearly no negative effects. The article also draws heavily from 2 sources -- Joseph Mangano and Dr. Steven Wing. In addition to the cited lines, there are several sentences lifted from Mangano that are not cited. (IMO this could verge on plagiarism.) It's good to show "both sides" of the story, but it needs to be done from a neutral point of view. Michael (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
“Incidence of thyroid cancer in residents surrounding the three-mile island nuclear facility“
In this piece, it says there were increases in thyroid cancer rates in two counties close to TMI. However, those increases could not be causally linked to the accident at TMI. The key issue there is causal inference, which is incredibly difficult. This citation is being used to say there are numerous studies showing no link, but that is not what this piece does— it shows *a* link, just not one that can be considered causal evidence. 2600:1700:BB58:8E90:747C:C5D4:625:4F14 ( talk) 00:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)