Talk:Design-basis event

Correct spelling?
As far as I can see, "Design Basis Accident" is not the correct spelling, but "design basis accident" or "design-basis accident" is the proper use. Could some native speaker confirm this, please? --Trofobi (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Fukushima Daiichi
The idea that the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami were beyond design basis needs to be questioned; certainly it is not in any cited reference, as they were written before the accident. While the earthquake had a magnitude 9.0 at its epicenter, this was many kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi plant itself. At the plant, the magnitude was below 7.0, which is not beyond design basis. And while the tsunami that hit the plant had 14 meter waves, this is not a remarkable size, given the history of Japanese tsunamis. Closer to the epicenter, the 2011 tsunami hit the coast with maximum waves of 38.9 meters, the 1933 tsunami hit the same coastal area with 28.7-meter waves, and in 1896, the area was hit with waves of 38.2 meters. A check of Historic Tsunamis provides a list of eleven hitting the coast of Japan in the last 300 years with maximum waves of 10 meters or more, and these waves averaged over 30 meters.

It would appear that the specifications for the design of Fukushima Daiichi were not based on an empirical evaluation of a worst credible accident at all, but on some other consideration. It would really be interesting to know what the specification of 5.7 meters for the seawall was based on. ghh 12:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)

Beyond Design Basis Events and Plagiarism
This section is almost entirely plagiarized from the given source. Due to this, I am replacing it immediately, and other editors can add more nuance if they see fit. This is the same edit I have made at Nuclear Safety in the United States, and my rationale can be found on the talk page there. 128.252.20.193 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Move and merge
I think this article should be called "Design-basis event" and we should merge in the article Beyond design-basis. Rationale: Any thoughts on this?
 * Event not accident because it includes things that you can't really call accidents - earthquakes and torndoes. Indeed, design-basis earthquakes are probably the one people talk about most.
 * Include Beyond design-basis because it is very hard to talk about design-basis events without talking about beyond design-basis events, and vice versa.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Go for it Better one comprehensive discussion in one place than a trail of breadcrumbs through five million articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

✅. Yaris678 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)