Talk:Accidental release source terms/Draft

	NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
	I released this article to Wikipedia. In particular, the identical text that appears there is of my sole authorship. Therefore, no credit for Wikipedia content on the Citizendium applies.
	Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

Wikipedia has an article with the same title

I was the original creator and major contributor to the Wikipedia article. I have reworded parts of it and made a few other changes to make it suitable for Citizendium. Milton Beychok 19:03, 22 February 2008 (CST)

Looks ready for approval

I added a few related terms and started/updated some emergency management and decontamination. You may well know more about decontaminating fuel spills than I do; that's on the list.

Did you want to include any meteorological information?

I'd like to align the table of contents a bit, and there are a couple of sub-references whose formatting I'd like to examine. Personally, I like the 2-column reflist, but that's certainly your call.

Otherwise, are you happy with having it approved? I will be looking at some thing below it as well. You have no idea how pleasant it is to be reading this as a relief from homeopathy

Howard C. Berkowitz 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Howard, I am thoroughly confused! Are you talking about approving this article? If so, I don't see where you made any of the changes you mentioned above.

Or are you talking about my approving the Incident Command System article?

Please clarify. Regards, Milton Beychok 18:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange. They weren't there; perhaps I saved wrong.

Also, look at the line beginning "Whenever the ratio of the absolute source pressure to the absolute downstream ambient pressure is less than"... Just an exponent wraps into the next line. I am just learning math formatting and don't want to break anything. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Howard, first let me thank you for your review and comments. Now that your changes are visible:

• Your additions to the Related Articles subpage are fine with me.
• Your fix of the sub-references is a definite improvement. Thanks.
• If you want to format the references into two columns, go ahead and do so. I have no preference.
• There is no need for any meteorological information in any of the article's equations other than wind velocity ... and that is up to the user of the equations to select.
• I don't see any exponent wrapping into the next line where you indicated. My browser is Internet Explorer and I use a screen resolution of 800x600. I suspect that you are using a different resolution. I will try to fix it so that the HTML equation is on a separate line completely.
• With all due respect, I know that you like the TOC location to be at or near the top of an article. However, I really prefer the way I had it originally, so I plan to change it back.

Yes, I think it is ready for approval and, once again, I thank you. Regards, Milton Beychok 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If all the conflict in the world were limited to tables of content, we'd all do better. It's certainly your call.

I have a higher-resolution screen, and am using Firefox 3.0, so that could explain it.

I'll go make the approval recommendation, always muttering "do I remember all the quirks". As I have time in the next few days, I'll look at the others; these are really interesting given WMD and emergency management interests. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that mathematical expression so that it only appears once (instead of three times) and it will render correctly at any resolution since it is now on a line of its own. Does it look okay to you now? Milton Beychok 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Approval Version 1.1

Version 1.1 has been approved. Please keep comments for future versions below this line. D. Matt Innis 00:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Given those mass flow rates, atmospheric dispersion modeling studies then be performed.

This sentence has no proper predicate. Andres Luure 20:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Governmental regulations in a good many countries require that the probability of such accidental releases be analyzed and their quantitative impact upon the environment and human health be determined so that mitigating steps can be planned and implemented.

This sentence at the end of the first paragraph seems to be is out of topic ands is confusing about the topic of the article. Andres Luure 20:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Andres, thanks very much for picking up the error in Given those mass flow rates, atmospheric dispersion modeling studies then be performed which I have now corrected to read Given those mass flow rates, atmospheric dispersion modeling studies can then be performed.

I disagree that the other sentence you quoted is out of context. It explains why methods for calculating accidental release flows are important and serve a useful function. I don't think that sentence is at all confusing.

Regards, and thanks again. Milton Beychok 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence indirectly indicates the importance of the topic. But I think it at least isn't at its right place, or otherwise, the same sentence could stand in any article about some related topic. It should be more specific. The beginning of the article should, first of all, specify the topic of the article. This specification should be more unambigous. The topic is the rate of flow of a substance in the case of an accident, but the reader can think that it is about probability of such accidents or their summary substance flow rate, and the second sentence seems to confirm this reading. Andres Luure 12:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I made the change that Milt made on the draft to the approved version as a copy type edit since Milt was the author of the article and the meaning was apparent. If Howard feels differently, please let me know and I will revert. D. Matt Innis 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The copy change is fine. Both comments on the second sentence have some merit. Would it clarify Governmental regulations in a good many countries require that the probability of such accidental releases be analyzed and their quantitative impact upon the environment and human health be determined so that mitigating steps can be planned and implemented. if a sentence were inserted after it, Standardized terminology in describing the quantitative characteristics of the release is critical for proper flow modeling to be done as part of emergency management.? --Howard C. Berkowitz 17:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Howard and Andres, I still think there is nothing ambiguous about the introductory section. The sentence in question explains why calculation of accidental flow releases is important and it neither out of context nor confusing. However, if we *must* add something to that sentence, then I would much prefer that what Howard has proposed be revised to this: Determining the the flow rate and the amount of an accidental release is critical for proper flow modeling as part of emergency management. Milton Beychok 19:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How many countries constitutes a "good many" of them? I suggest removal of "good" as a modifier and simply saying "many countries" or, better yet: according to whatever-source-justifies- the-claim of a "good many" countries having such governmental regulations state that X number of countries have such regulations. Christine Bush 20:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Do the governmental regulations in fact stipulate that the probability of these events be analyzed, or that their probability be determined in the first place? I am not a mathematician, but neither are most politicians. If it is possible to analyze a probability, I don't know what value that yields for a government vs. knowing what the probability of such an event actually is. (At the same time, I absolutely allow that many governments are quite capable of developing vague regulations which do not say what they mean ;-)) Christine Bush 20:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)