Talk:Hiroshima

RFC: 100's died from radiation

An edit-war is starting to develop. Which version is makes accurate use of the sources:

In the following months, an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries and radiation.[1]

In the following months, an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries, and hundreds more from radiation. [2]

• Actual ref tag: (ref) Dose estimation for atomic bomb survivor studies: its evolution and present status Cullings HM, Fujita S, Funamoto S, Grant EJ, Kerr GD, Preston DL Radiat Res 166(1):219-54, 2006 (/ref)(ref) See also BEIR VII report from the National Academy of Sciences (/ref)

It needs more context:

1. On August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 70,000 people. Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and 6.6 percent severely damaged.[6] By the end of the year, an estimated 20,000-70,000 more people died from injuries and radiation.[8]

• Radiation Effects Research Foundation

2. On August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 70,000 people. Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and 6.6 percent severely damaged.[6] In the following months, an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries, and hundreds more from radiation.[8] [9]

• Dose estimation for atomic bomb survivor studies: its evolution and present status Cullings HM, Fujita S, Funamoto S, Grant EJ, Kerr GD, Preston DL Radiat Res 166(1):219-54, 2006 See also BEIR VII report from the National Academy of Sciences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.217.199.46 (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As the above comments were placed by a user in Korea I'm assuming its Bsharvy. Reading the sited source shows it talks about dosimetry; the 36 page article that is "referenced" (in the loosest sense) doesn't seem to comment at all about deaths, but refers to the lifespan study and BEIR reports, which plainly contradict the added information. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 08:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing against version #2, which is the one that cites a source on dose estimation. You're right it has nothing to do with casualty estimates, so why do you keep reverting to it? Bsharvy 12:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, none of the sources you have mentioned actually say what you try to put in the text (neither #2, nor #1 say 20,000-70,000 died from radiation, in fact number 1 the actual study indicates the numbers are likely in the low thousands). And why bother with an RFC? You've already shown on the atomic bombing page that you are not interested in the community's input as you've made plain that you own that page any any consensus can't be made without you. In fact numerous people have asked you to read to try to get you to stop your behavior on your own. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Chocie #1 is correctly supported by sources. The source says deaths "within two to four months" numbered 90,000-140,000. If nobody disputes the 70,000 intital deaths, that makes 20,000-70,000 additional deaths. The source says "Deaths caused by the atomic bombings include ...deaths that occurred later from burns and radiation exposure". Choice #1 says "from injuries and radiation.". So that's OK. The source in #2 doesn't support anything and what #2 says (only 100's died from radiation) isn't supported. Ohsoh 01:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The RERF study in choice number #1 says 70k died immediately, and a total of 90-140k died by the end of the year. Hence, "an estimated 20,000-70,000 more people died". The RERF study says the deaths were from injuries and radiation, so that's what the text says. If you consider subtraction to be OR, I can certainly compromise and use the same figures used by RERF:

1. On August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 70,000 people. By the end of the year, injury and radiation brought total casualties to 90,000 to 140,000.* Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and 6.6 percent severely damaged. Radiation Effects Research Foundation

Bsharvy 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I close this RFC? Eiler7 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have closed it. Eiler7 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo request? (Ignore: Added in Error)

A user has added a request for a photo, but since there are more than 15 photos in the article and the request did not specify, I wonder what kind of photo the user wants? If you tell us the subject matter you want in the picture or other information we may be able to comply. Fg2 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to revert that template addition. I must have copy/pasted it in error, as obviously there are ample images in the article. - Ageekgal 00:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks for letting us know. Fg2 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff in nuclear attack section

Why is so much other stuff in the nuclear attack section? I understand the bombing raids, but some of it has to do with a Typhoon. If it's staying shouldn't it be renamed "destruction of hiroshima" or "damage to infrastructure" or something of that sort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.197.156 (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved the paragraph on the typhoon from the section on the nuclear attack to the section on postwar Hiroshima. Fg2 04:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

longer term radiation effects

Just some questions I am left wondering after reading this article, if anyone has a good source I think it would be good info to add: What has been the longer term effects of the health of the inhabbitants? We know that a lot of people died of the radiation from the bomb itself, either immediately or from the poisoning. But how long was it before the area was safe for human rehabitation? Was the main area left uninhabbited for a period of time? What are the effects in the present day? Does Hiroshima have a higher than average incidence of cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timb0h (talk • contribs) 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The RERF link leads to an extended study of those topics. In general, after 1950, the deaths attributed to radiation are less than 1,000.Bsharvy (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Random Comment

Just skimming through this article I couldn't help but notice that it focus's exclusively on the nuclear attack, even bringing it up in other sections. I am not suggesting that this be deleted, but I think it would be more interesting if the regular editors of this article included more information about Hiroshima in general, like the people, the culture, ect . . . and expanded on the sections already about this, bar the nuclear attack.

After all Hiroshima was on a short list of cities to be targeted for possible dropping of the atomic bomb, meaning that Hiroshima must be important for something in and of its self besides being a war casualty. 216.255.11.132 (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone put before Hiroshima in bold the words "The shitty city of..."

You might want to find the IP and warn him or her.