Talk:Atomic Policy in Poland

comments on the main article
I guess the following phrasings of the main article might be not accurate, and should be checked:
 * first paragraph, second sentence: "However, until today, Poland never has made uses of atomic power for commercial energy production, nor have there ever been intentions to set up a nuclear industry, neither for for nuclear fuel production nor to obtain fissile material for military use."
 * I wonder if it can be correct that there have never been intentions to set up a nuclear industry - what other reason should the research program and the attempt to build two reactors have had? And at the latests in the new millenium, when the new Polish nuclear power program was published, this intention has been formulated quite clearly. --ATOMI (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2015 (CEST)
 * This is also a contradiction to the phrasing in the third paragraph, where it says "new" plans were developed: "After the millennium, new plans for the implementation of a domestic nuclear industry with a core of two commercial power plants were developed." --ATOMI (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2015 (CEST)


 * third paragraph, first sentence: "In 1980 Poland once already had begun constructing of two commercial atomic power plants."
 * Instead of two (...) plants it should be "two commercial atomic reactors" or "a commercial nuclear power plant" or "a commercial nuclear power plant with two reactors", because as far as I understand it, there was 1 NPP with 2 reactors under construction... --ATOMI (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2015 (CEST)
 * The same mistakes occurs a few sentences later in the same paragraph: "After the millennium, new plans for the implementation of a domestic nuclear industry with a core of two commercial power plants were developed." --ATOMI (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2015 (CEST)
 * And again this wording appears in section "Plans to build the first reactor in Poland", first paragraph, second sentence: "The first adopted programme version (early 2009) envisaged that this company would build two first NPPs by 2020 and 2022 respectively." --ATOMI (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2015 (CEST)
 * BTW: the section's headline uses "reactor" (in singular form), here it could make more sense to use the term "nuclear power plant" (instead of all other mentioned ones): "Plans to build the first reactor in Poland" --ATOMI (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2015 (CEST)


 * in section "New uranium mining", first paragraph, second senctence: "This seems reasonable since uranium prices at the world market are continuously pretty high, (...)"
 * It should be checked if it is still true that the uranium prices are "continuously pretty high"... --ATOMI (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2015 (CEST)


 * in section "New uranium mining", second paragraph about fracking
 * It seems a bit too positive talking about fracking: resistance against it in Poland shows it is not accepted; costs are highly disputed. My suggestion is to add a sentence at the end: "And the resistance forming in Poland against it illustrates that fracking is in no way a more accepted resource. The hypothesis this technology could cheaply produce gas is highly disputed, too." --ATOMI (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2015 (CEST)


 * section "Plans to build the first reactor in Poland", first paragraph, fourth sentence: "One of the leading candidate sites so far is Żarnowiec, a village in northern Poland, some 60 kilometres Northwest of the regional capital of Gdańsk."
 * This should be updated - as of spring 2015, there are three major candidate sites: Lubiatowo, Gąski and Żarnowiec. Thus, this sentences should be updated, for instance adding this piece to the end of it: ", Lubiatowo (Pomerania Province) und Gąski (West Pomerania Province)" + adding "(Pomerania Province)" behind the word "Żarnowiec". --ATOMI (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2015 (CEST)


 * last sentence in section "Plans to build the first reactor in Poland: "Safety is not a tangible issue at this stage except for the usual doubts."
 * The message of this sentence is rather difficult to get. Better to explain a bit more, like adding at the end: ", because the reactor design decisions haven't been made yet" --ATOMI (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2015 (CEST)