Talk:Human decontamination

"Although there are the obvious privacy concerns in surveillance, one can also argue that due to the high risk nature of terrorism, such surveillance is warranted, as it is in other high risk areas like bathing complexes where surveillance is often used because of the risk of drowning. In these cases the importance of safety may often be thought to outweigh privacy concerns."

Couldn't this be better worded to be more neutral? It brings up privacy concerns only to show why they 'may' be unfounded, or, at least, inconsequential. I hardly believe such concerns are so easily dismissed. While this article is about a different topic than privacy, I believe such problems should either not be brought up (and so seemingly easily dismissed) or put in a more neutral way, necessarily expanding this portion of the article. I doubt this will be changed, but perhaps someone like myself will come upon this article and what I have written and feel more comfortable editing the article, knowing that they aren't the only ones who feel there is something wrong with it. Masema (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just people and not things?

The whole of this article concerns people and not the processes involved in decontaminating rooms, factories, and other objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.171.242 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to start a post on decontamination of buildings and equipment or land areas. But there is a wealth of information in the US from either the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on nrc.gov or the US Department of Energy doe.gov but their information is a little harder to find. In the US and other countries the facility that had any uses of unsealed radioactive material has a phased process of decommissioning as required under Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20 dose objectives. Decommissioning funding is required when a facility has liquid effluent releases of long lived radioisotopes (having a half life greater than 120 days). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsdnuke69 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unruly Victims?

It's pretty sweet to think that someone is being "unruly" when they don't want to be strip-searched by police officers. But you know, we are all terrorists until proven Christian anyways. This article reads like a Homeland Security wet dream: there is very little information about the decontamination process, but there is a lot of information about collecting evidence, the merits of videotaping the whole process (akin to a pool-safety camera? people go to the pool knowing they are going to be in their bathing suits around strangers), and how to restrain and forcibly remove the clothing of a "victim". It sure is nice to know that if I am ever the innocent victim of an attack of this nature, that my basic human rights will be thrown out the window at the same time. You know what, being in the same building as an anthrax laced letter is the same as having a warrant issued for your arrest, detention, and the search of your personal property. Thanks FEMA! Peace. Fastsince85 (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with part concerning the quality of the article. Those [1] [2] links might have some good information to work with.--PLNR (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the movie Silkwood?

Silkwood creeped the hell out of me as a kid when I saw it because of this process! Worth mentioning?

Macshill (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human decontamination. 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/20040902165227/http://deconference.com/ to http://deconference.com/

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) 13:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human decontamination. 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/20151222143544/http://qub9.com/environmental/ to http://qub9.com/environmental/

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) 14:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]