Talk:Human radiation experiments

Citations and evidence

The first list seems sensational -- and unsourced. Added citation tags. I'll leave it tagged for now. Can someone cite or verify the claims in the list? Abstract 13:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are the FOIA documents, and there's this: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2914646 There's no end of high quality material about human radiation experiments... Unfortunately it's a topic that attracts the wrong kind of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

POV problems

This article seems based around a somewhat sensationalistic and journalistic account of the historical accounts. It needs more insight from more sober, scholarly, and straightforward accounts. I'll try to incorporate some of the material from Barton C. Hacker, Elements of controversy: the Atomic Energy Commission and radiation safety in nuclear weapons testing, 1947-1974 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). At the moment the page is entirely slanted towards the more sensationalistic approach, and calling some of these things "experiments" is a little off (Castle Bravo was not a "fallout test" under any sober interpretation even if it was a complete and reckless bungle). --Fastfission 17:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel a lot more citations are required. The 2nd paragraph under Fallout Research needs to be rewritten as I feel it is written as a personal account. There are no citations in Project Sunshine either. (unknown user 27/4/2006)

I don't see where the tone here is biased. The article simply states the facts as they stand and does not elaborate on them or use sensational or overly emotional language. The facts themselves are somewhat alarming, but that does not mean the article is biased as long as the facts are, in fact, supportable truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.84.121 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the tone is biased, or sure seems to be. The line "The only purpose of the experiment was to give Quaker Oats, the company behind the testing, a commercial advantage over Cream of Wheat in an advertising campaign" seems to be a pretty obvious one. I read more information about this subject than was included in this Wikipedia entry and found no mention of Quaker Oats being the company "behind the testing." That phrase gives readers the impression that Quakers conceived of this testing, developed the tests to be done, and then went ahead with it, all on their own. While they may have been involved, singling them out as the sole perpetrator is misleading. I'm sure the government and research facilities didn't just step right up and offer to spend their own money, time, and materials for the sole purpose of benefiting a Quakers ad campaign. Tha*Lunat!k (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this particular issue, but I will say that the U.S. has been plenty willing to spend its money, time, and materials to benefit other corporations (such as United Fruit in Guatemala). After all, the U.S. government is mostly comprised of corporate executives -- of course they spend the government's money, time, and materials to protect their own business interests. Note that I'm not saying that I believe or disbelieve this thing about Quaker Oats -- I'm just pointing out that one of the primary purposes of the government is to protect the property of wealthy capitalists, so it doesn't make sense to say that the government wouldn't use resources to defend corporate interests. Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent information from external source

"829 pregnant mothers received what they were told were vitamin drinks that would improve the health of their babies, but were, in fact, mixtures containing radioactive iron, to determine how fast the radio iodine crossed into the placenta"

Err, are we talking about iron or is it iodine? The sentence above is a contraction of the quotes of two different speakers and it does not make much sense in its current form. Alef0 20:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It was radioactive iron -- I've corrected it and added another source. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Definite Biased Source in Article

I don't really think Mike Adams' Naturalnews.com site really qualifies as an adequate, unbiased academic or historical source per Wikipedia:NPOV and Source Guidelines, as used in this article, and quoted in the following:

c Veracity, Dani (March 6, 2006). "Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965)" (in English). NaturalNews.com. www.naturalnews.com/019189.html. Retrieved 2009-03-12.

NaturalNews.com is a well known pseudo-science and "alternative medicine" blog known to promote unproven and highly questionable alternative health claims, many based on the opinion of Adams himself. I believe that other academic or peer-reviewed historical sources should be used to demonstrate these studies, that are more reliable..

- Chance Gearheart, NREMT-P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.254.16.200 (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with you, but in this case the essay there has extensive inline citations which do seem to be reliable and NPOV (They are located at the end of the article).Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human radiation experiments. 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/20160424042410/http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Nuclear%20Issues.htm to http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Nuclear%20Issues.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: 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) 14:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source

Is there a better source for claims that the UK tested radioactive salts on Punjabi women in 1969? The source for that is supposedly a film/documentary, but I'm unable to verify the producer's source 86.16.6.253 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit made by the IPv6 editor (Courtesy Link) as the paper reporting on the experiment (I realise this is a primary source) (External link) suggests it's a nutritional study using a radioactive tracer, as opposed to a study on radiation in humans.

The documentary and an associated India Today article, I'm not fully convinced on their reliability and independence from the topic at hand.

Then again we're only supposed to report on what reliable and independent sources say. I guess the quandary is whether we think this issue is reporting on radiation experiments on humans, or whether it's a case of an experiment being misattributed.

I haven't seen multiple reliable secondary sources discuss the experiment either way, so I'm open to discussion. Given that the India Today article was published in 1995 this may take some research. PenguinPhone (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)