Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident/Archive 13

There's been more than one death!
The studies have shown that chucking tens of thousands of people out of their homes and, even more importantly, shutting down all the hospitals, KILLS PEOPLE.

The studies have shown that even just the disruption to medical services has killed around 200 people. When people can't easily get their insulin or heart pills or blood thinners or whatever, guess what? They die. The nuclear disaster shut down all the hospitals in the area.

That's not "stress", it's not that people are terrified by the radiation, nor is stress simply a psychological condition. Their entire lives have been thrown out of their control.

Meanwhile people here are still trying to pretend that 'nuclear hasn't really killed anyone' and are trying to claim only one person died in the entire disaster, whereas the studies currently point to more people dying from the effects of the meltdown, than were killed in the entire province by the tsunami. GliderMaven (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * stress related, not accident related. and you are conforming it--Dwalin (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not Due To Nuclear
 * This is why it should NOT be called a "nuclear disaster". "Disaster" is a scary word, and accounts for the extremely bad decision for people to be evacuated from, and subsequently to abandon, the entire area.The earthquake was a disaster that broke Daiichi's connection to the grid, but these three power plants survived it, until the tsunami destroyed their emergency backup diesel power.
 * Shall we call it a "Diesel disaster" or a "tsunami disaster"?
 * The use that people who are fanatically against nuclear power, either from ignorance, or from the knowledge that it could put them, Fossil Carbon, out of business, is a propaganda disaster for the biosphere. --
 * DaveyHume (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that more visibility should be given to the effects of the evacuations because they were the greatest health effect of the accident. But it is difficult to decide which number to use. 51 people died during the evacuation. The 1600 "disaster-related deaths", or a newer publication says about 2000, is more controversial. There is an incentive to classify deaths as disaster-related because then relatives get some compensation. But there is no proof that all those deaths were actually caused by the evacuation. They may have been caused by the evacuation, which entitles for the compensation money. --TuomoS (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for your contributions! As we edit this article, please keep in mind that there are many contributors with good intentions and with a deep, emotional connection to its topic.  Disputes regarding content are fraught and we all need to keep any discussions civil. For instance, I think we can all agree that the sources make clear that the "stress", to which some deaths can be attributed, was a product of the disaster and the response to it. Also, perhaps we should avoid using all caps and exclamation points :-)
 * I feel confident that the issue of how the government's response to the event has affected the evacuees is a significant part of the story, and the article should contain a well-sourced and appropriately-placed discussion of it. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * While I would agree Informata ob Iniquitatum, is there likely to be a reliable AKA non-informed-by-lawyers secondary source, ever to be published that we can use to tell this "significant part of the story"? I'll keep an eye out, though haven't come across one as of yet. Likely it will be published in Japanese first, right? Perhaps there are some sources from the Japanese-wiki article?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "non-informed-by-lawyers secondary source". The article contains reliable sources already, including Nature and the Mainichi Daily News. Full disclosure, I am an attorney in RL.  Please don't hate me :-)  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * regarding all i can add. there are also compensation of workers that had tumors AND received dose of 5mSv. but all literature agrees that that levels of radiation is not cangerogenic. if it is so, a good part of italian population, or spanish, or finnish, have to die of radiation tumors for natural backgrount. in japan it is only a temporal correlation, not a causal correlation for workers. it is hard to whrite, and also hard to explain to people that knows nothing of radiation. so, how we can define stress-related deaths? in mayor count? no, they are not related to accident, they are related to relocation, not for relocation of a nuclear accident. hardly--Dwalin (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A point of clarification. There is no such thing as radiation that is not carcinogenic. Additionally, the Mainichi Daily News article was mistranslated and as such, I have deleted the references to the figures quoted in it.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source that says that "it is only a temporal correlation, not a causal correlation" for those workers? If so, please show me and feel free to make or propose an edit. Thanks again.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How about formulating the infobox like this: 51 people died during the evacuation[111]; mortality increased due to the long-term relocation[5] Would this be acceptable to all? --TuomoS (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be acceptable for me. It should also be noted that stress-related premature deaths are estimated, and cannot be taken as actual deaths resulting from the accident. They also mostly affect people over 70. Also, the most important part to mention for context is that the evacuation itself is widely considered to have been unnecessary and harmful, thus it is a result of poor accident management rather than the accident itself.


 * I think that's fine. I'm not sure if the evacuation content belongs in the infobox.   Again, while I see your point about poor planning, I think you're splitting hairs here.  I mean, ultimately, you can always trace damage from a disaster to past decisions.  If a house is destroyed in a forest fire, you (typically) wouldn't say that it was a result of poor planning on the part of the builder who located it there rather than the fire itself.  The accident exposed the poor preparedness on the part of TEPCO and the government, but it's still part of the story of the disaster.   Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. An equivalent to your fire example would be to blame the government for allowing to build houses next to the plant. But this was not the problem. The evacuation order was a direct result of overly conservative radiation exposure limits and irrational fear of radiation exposure. If the government had not ordered the evacuation, these deaths would not have happened. These deaths therefore are not the direct result of the accident itself, but of a mistake of the government. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I updated the infobox. There is no space in the infobox for explaing about the necessity of the evacuations, or about evacuating too many people for too long time. If somebody is going to update the article text, this and this may be good references, in addition to those that are already there. --TuomoS (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that my forest fire analogy is not entirely apt. Yes, the evacuation and its effects were a product of decisions (perhaps poorly-made) by those in charge.  However, all of them--the decisions, the evacuation, and its effect, all flowed causally from the disaster.  Therefore it belongs here.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I absolutely don't agree that this is just the result of the Government screwing up an evacuation. If they hadn't evacuated people, for example, allowed the older people who are less sensitive to radiation to stay, how would they have looked after them, in the middle of a fallout zone, where anyone who has a family or was young would have quite sensibly left? Who would provide nursing care, or doctor services? How would you get food to them? Maybe there's some way to thread that needle and end up with fewer deaths, but FFS would nobody have died with what would almost certainly have been a situation that all the hospitals ended up shutdown in that zone??? It's just ridiculous. People would still have died. GliderMaven (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I propose we remove the fatalities and injury section from the infobox and instead create an "effects" entry which would contain the evacuation details (#'s, areas, short and long term), amount of radiation released, physical damage to the plant, costs, and monetary damage figures. There body can deal with this topic more fully.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That sounds as a step in the scholarly direction, as raw numbers of 'deaths' without any context will be misinterpreted, moreover it would be to engage in WP:OR/original resource.
 * As something of a guide for all editors, within the scientific literature of energy accidents, it is frequent to describe health effects as direct and indirect. However contrary to what you might be now thinking, the indirect health effects within the scientific literature are still casual, such as the pollution related issues, which in our case would be the suspected elevated cancer rate from the fallout and associated mortality projections. The present Indirect deaths category within the literature, does not entertain any such government/social/hysteria related deaths, as they could just as easily have occured if a new president arrives and decrees evacuation, out of a city for no apparent reason. Just like how after September eleventh, people started fearing planes and with that driving a lot more in the US, instead of flying and with that increased road-usage, there is the convincing data that more people died worldwide from road-traffic accidents as a social result of the event, than actually died on the day itself.


 * professor estimates an extra 1,595 Americans died in car accidents in year after September 11 attacks - Yes that is a coincidence in numerical amount to the oft-cited decision-making effects from Fukushima


 * Though that is still notable, did the hijackers or whomever cause it? It isn't included in the infobox of that article, as to do so would be absolutely absurd. So with that in mind, I think we can take something of a guide from that article on how to deal with this one. A completely separate addendum to these casual categories of direct and indirect health insults, should at least in my assessment, include the health effects from the social/government mismanagement/radiophobia chain of events. Alongside the panic-induced, reactionary policy, that whomever was in government. Clearly didn't consult with any health physicists, over whether it was necessary to evacuate a disc shaped area of land around Fukushima.


 * In this proposed addendum for our article, to cover the social-effects-deaths, There is also this quasi-notable other attempted or still ongoing lawsuit, that given your occupation, you might alreadly be keenly aware of? USS_Ronald_Reagan. That too should be added to the fuzzy social-effects addendum.
 * https://www.courthousenews.com/attorneys-implore-judge-to-keep-sailors-fukushima-case-in-u-s/


 * Apparently the attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of those 'sick' sailors, Charles Barner has a history of making one billion dollar requests in damages. Keep trying I suppose, someday he may have his break? Though to answer your other question, no I don't hate all lawyers as that would be too broad, it is well accepted though that people on the other hand, don't have much time for charlatans who frequently are lawyers engaged in court-room FUD theatre [and ethically maligned Dramaturgy], in order to win and then consider their win as evidence of health impacts when all scientists know, that to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt, is literally and absurdly impossible, it is a joke but unethical lawyers have gamed the court-room AKA the drama-stage multiple times in order to pervert and influence broader society in so many ways that have set human living back, that its full effects can only begin to be imagined. With the very same fearmongering done, only slightly evolved as it has, from the days of the witch-hunt. 'Placed in water, if she sinks she is a witch, if she doesn't she is now a dead witch.'


 * For completeness for our article however, this very preliminary study, would also be a necessary addition to our article, for all these downstream decision-making-determined deaths.
 * Japan's coal-fired plants 'to cause thousands of early deaths'
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please append your comment to the bottom of the discussion. If needed you can cite a specific comment. If we all start modifying the discussion by appending comments in the middle it would soon be impossible to follow anything. As for the evacuation, I am not suggesting that everybody should have been evacuated except old people. I was citing studies that demonstrate that the whole evacuation was unnecessary, as the radiation levels of the "fallout" (as you call it) is actually within the natural variation of background radiation, thus it does not constitute a danger to the population. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, how about no, you don't get tell me what to do?


 * Anyway, even if that was the case, which frankly is a pretty fucking big if, the people that died, still died because of the Fukushima meltdown, and not the tsunami. You don't get to erase deaths because a study that was performed years after the fact suggested that there might have been a better way. Hey, maybe the Titanic would have had less deaths if (something) (something). It makes no difference. We can only hope the next meltdown will be better; there's always another meltdown, roughly every 20 years. GliderMaven (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * FWIW the populations of people that are native to regions with very high background radiation levels seem to be evolutionarily disposed to higher immunity to radiation; children that were highly sensitive would have died before reproducing- over thousands of generations you would be left with a population with genes that can handle it better. This says nothing good about how Fukushima's population would respond to a similar situation- their population genome hasn't evolved liked that. GliderMaven (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In any case, that's irrelevant, what's relevant is that there's excess deaths specifically in Fukushima. GliderMaven (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for contributing! Per the sources and the definition used by the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, this topic is appropriately called a disaster. I disagree that "accident" is more neutral. It implies the lack of human agency in the event and that suggests that the decisions and actions of the government and TEPCO played no part in the damage done. I like your point about the public's fear of nuclear power and the harmful effects of fossil fuels, but that discussion probably doesn't belong here. See Nuclear power, Nuclear power debate, or Anti-nuclear movement, for a more appropriate venue. Also, it would be helpful to me and other participants if you could put your comments at the end of the discussion, instead of inserting them between two prior edits. Thanks again Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Accident" does not imply the lack of human agency in the event. Actually, it is the opposite. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, accident is "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance". This definition perfectly fits the Fukushima accident. Disaster, on the other hand, is "a sudden calamitous event bringing great damage, loss, or destruction". Thus, the word disaster is far from neutral; it implies that the event caused "great" damage, which is very subjective. --TuomoS (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That is the second definition that Merriam Webster gives. the first is "an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance" (emphasis mine). You cannot hold a person responsible for something that was unforseen. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as happening "unexpectedly and unintentionally." But more to the point, the groups who respond to disasters have their own definition, which doesn't involve cause at all. Too wit: "a sudden, calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community or society and causes human, material, and economic or environmental losses that exceed the community’s or society’s ability to cope using its own resources. Though often caused by nature, disasters can have human origins." This topic clearly satisfies the IFRC's neutral definition. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the false claim that more people have died due to evacuations
I attempted to address this a long time ago, when this article was structured quite differently, and I had the user who included this information come after me very aggressively. I've now come back to find the segment that I proved to be incorrect now included very prominently in the article's lede. I'll say this clearly. This article is pushing propaganda, using a dead link, to an article that I demonstrated was a mistranslation of a Japanese source. The 1,600 deaths referred to, accounts for all deaths that occurred due to the evacuation from the Tsunami. That there has been no new sources added to back up this claim, for what is a momentous deathtoll for a manmade disaster, while the false information has been made more prominent in the article since 2013 only serves to illustrate that this is being included in the article incorrectly. I'll be deleting the line shortly, and will expect a full explanation and more up to date sources before anyone attempts to include it again.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The above is retrieved via Google Translate from the Newspaper's Japanese language article, which the English article used as a source for both Wikipedia and other source for the figure (NBC). I've twice now confirmed with Japanese people that this meaning is clear. The article refers to the natural disaster evacuations in general, and not specifically people who died due to evacuations caused by the reaction to Fukushima plant's failures. Further, this erroneous information seems to have been used repeatedly throughout this Wikipedia article, and is included in sentences that clearly are there to imply outcomes that are misleading.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you run into trouble, you can leave a message on your talk page asking me to support you to avoid running into the 3 revert rule problem. (I may or may not be immediately active on Wikipedia, though).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll keep that in mind. I'm not very active myself, so I'll just check in here when I get the chance.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Section 8.1 Non-Sequitur
I'm not a regular editor or anything so I didn't want to just dive in and change things, but the second to last paragraph of section 8.1, Japan's Reaction to the disaster, seems to end on a massive non-sequitur. After mentioning a local group using off-the-shelf Geiger counters, it launches into a diatribe on a specific design of radiation dose-detecting equipment, ending with a random note about how UC Berkeley did air testing. My impression is that this is a combination error- one person going overzealous trying to discredit the Geiger-counter using group by going way too in-depth on the "proper" equipment they would need to use to be taken seriously. The second is someone accidentally posting the bit about UC Berkeley under the "Japan" reaction section instead of the international section.

Is there an official "approved" editor who might look at and fix this section? Or can I clean it up myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8b80:fcb0:e183:89f8:8f45:45dc (talk) 19:53, September 23, 2021 (UTC)


 * You are right. I removed the sentences. By the way, there are no official "approved" editors in Wikipedia. --TuomoS (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Fukushima nuclear disaster; there's a clear consensus that just'' "disaster" is ambiguous with the accompanying tsunami, but adding "nuclear" would be precise enough whilst still being a recognised commonly used name. Sceptre (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Alternative: Fukushima nuclear disaster – Clear common name per Google NGRAMS and Google Scholar (12,100 results for "Fukushima disaster" and 8,890 results for "Fukushima nuclear disaster" compared to 4,960 for "Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster"). "Fukushima disaster" overwhelmingly refers to this event. (t · c)  buidhe  11:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412  T 07:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster → Fukushima disaster
 * Fukushima disaster → Fukushima disaster (disambiguation)


 * Disagree. The new name should be "Fukushima nuclear accident", for which Google Scholar gives 15,200 results. --TuomoS (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's another possibility but NGARMS results suggest "Fukushima nuclear accident" is significantly less popular than "Fukushima disaster". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: The proposed name is ambiguous with the broader disaster in Fukushima caused by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, of which the nuclear accident was one of many bad things that happened in the disaster. Someone looking for "Fukushima disaster" might be looking for information about the entire disaster rather than just the nuclear accident. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Proposed title isn't precise enough. Concur with BarrelProof. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Name is fine as is. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fukushima disaster could also refer to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami...and other disasters occurring in the prefecture beyond 2011.  The current name explicitly refers to the incident therefore I don't see a reason for a move. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 09:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I agree with BarrelProof, CaptainEek, and Dora the Axe-plorer: the title needs "nuclear" to avoid confusion with the overarching disaster. It should probably also keep "Daiichi" to avoid confusion with Daini. — W.andrea (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Strange discussions here. It was a nuclear disaster (or nuclear catastrophe) due to a nuclear accident. It is generally known as the 'Fukushima nuclear disaster'. Search for "nuclear disaster" fukushima site:tepco.co.jp. See e.g. https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0101.pdf or https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2013/1233165_5130.html:
 * "A progress report on the investigation into lingering questions about the causes of the Fukushima nuclear disaster ...".
 * If we talk about the technical cause, it is about the accident itself; if we talk about the consequencies/impact, it is about the disaster.
 * As this is the main article about the disaster, the title "Fukushima nuclear disaster" would be the best title. Without refering to the plant's name, thus without 'Daiichi' would be sufficient. --Wickey (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Added requested move for associated disambiguation page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BarrelProof.  ~Junedude433 (talk)  04:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fukushima nuclear disaster per Wickey - More concise, less surprising, more natural. Daini does not need disambiguating as nothing commonly referred to as a "disaster" happened there. Additionally "Daiichi" and "Daini" are simply Japanese for "No.1" and "No.2", but the reader is not going to understand this nor typically use these words. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly my experience. I was confused by the word "Daiichi". --Wickey (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Fukushima nuclear disaster per Wickey - as above; can live with current name. --User:Haraldmmueller 09:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fukushima nuclear disaster per Wickey Red   Slash  23:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Vinyl472  The title isn't really relating to the incident enough, as the 'disaster' is summarily linked to the power station's failure. 11:32 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Relisting for additional input on the alternative proposal to move this title to Fukushima nuclear disaster. BD2412  T 07:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fukushima nuclear disaster: there is no ambiguity since what happened at Daini (number 2) power plant has never been defined as a disaster; Oppose Fukushima disaster to avoid confusion with the wider Tohoku earthquake disaster in Fukushima prefecture. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fukushima nuclear disaster per others. Current title fails WP:CONCISE, Fukushima disaster fails WP:PRECISE. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify I also support Fukushima nuclear disaster as an improvement over the current title (t · c)  buidhe  06:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Fukushima nuclear disaster per Wickey and YttriumShrew Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Disaster management has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Japan has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Earthquakes has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Energy has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support alternative . Ticks all the boxes. I'm sceptical that we really need a DAB, but if we do have one it belongs at the base name as at present IMO. Andrewa (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)