Jump to content

Talk:National Response Scenario Number One

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at and Western Carolina University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

[edit]

This article is being submitted as part of a policy analysis course. Please post feed back here. Thank you. TommyLBiddix (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

[edit]

Hurricane Katrina was not a "terrorist attack". Also what program is this under? a13ean (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article, but needs a higher amount of inline citations. Regardless, it is very scary stuff, but a great read non the less! Kayz911 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of recent student edits

[edit]

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

  • 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
  • 1 - A few minutes of work needed
  • 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
  • 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
  • 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing/copyvio issues...

[edit]

There are some issues here; I've picked out a couple of examples below:

  • Article: "The intense heat of a nuclear explosion would produce fires throughout the immediate blast zone. Damaged buildings, downed power and phone lines, broken gas lines and water mains, and weakened bridges and tunnels are hazardous conditions that will need to be assessed depending on the type of industries present. For example, chemical or petroleum production, industrial storage facilities, and manufacturing operations could cause significant releases of hazardous materials."
  • Official sources: "The detonation will cause many secondary hazards. The intense heat of the nuclear explosion and other subsequent causes will produce numerous fires located throughout the immediate blast zone. Damaged buildings, downed power and phone lines, leaking gas lines, broken water mains, and weakened bridges and tunnels are just some of the hazardous conditions that will need to be assessed. Depending on the type of industries present (such as chemical or petroleum production, industrial storage facilities, and manufacturing operations), there could be significant releases of hazardous materials."
  • Article: "The largest radiation concerns following an incident will be the radioactive material deposited on the ground, as people are evacuated from the fallout areas. These effects are likely to have significantly larger impacts on the population than internal doses. Internal doses tend to expose the body to relatively small radiation doses over a long period of time, which produces different effects than large radiation doses received during a short period of time. As the distance from ground zero increases to twelve miles, injuries due to radiation exposure will decrease, and lower level contamination, evacuation, and sheltering issues will become the major concern and distances greater than 150 miles from ground zero of a nuclear detonation, acute health concerns will not become a significant issue.
  • Official sources again: "The largest radiation concerns following an IND incident will be the “prompt” radiation (gamma ray and neutron) and the gamma dose received from the “ground shine” (radioactive particles deposited on the ground) as people are evacuated from the fallout areas. These effects are likely to have significantly larger impacts on the population than internal doses. Internal doses tend to expose the body to relatively small radiation doses over a long period of time, which produces different effects than large radiation doses received during a short period of time. As the distance from ground zero increases past 20 kilometers (~ 12 miles), the injuries due to acute radiation exposure (from prompt radiation and the subsequent fallout) will decrease, and lower level contamination, evacuation, and sheltering issues will become the major concern. In general, at distances greater than 250 kilometers (~ 150 miles) from ground zero of a 10 kiloton nuclear detonation, acute health concerns will not be a significant issue."

At first glance, it looks like there's others. The material's come from US government sources, which I don't think are copyright, but its certainly a close paraphrasing issue. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty estimates

[edit]

Why is the estimate only 5,000 killed from a 10 KT weapon? The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were broadly comparable in size and killed 10-20 times that number. The collapse of the WTC killed some 3,000. Even a small nuclear bomb would bring down a number of WTC sized buildings.122.59.140.215 (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "National Response Scenario Number One" exist?

[edit]

There may or may not be a "National Response Scenario Number One". However this article does not properly address that. It reads more as a fictional account of what might happen after a specific fictional nuclear attack. Is it perhaps the plot summary for a movie?122.59.140.215 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Response Scenario Number One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

[edit]

Not very polished wording in this article. For example, "casualties are killed" --?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.184.132 (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Response Scenario Number One. 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:

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) 06:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Response_Scenario_Number_One&oldid=1216373187"