Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident/Archive 7

why we shouldn't label images with USA constantly
its quite true most of the PD pics we can find about this event are from the US military. However I'm trying to use one that aren't obvious from any nation when possible, to avoid petty POV local conflicts, and so this encyclopedia maintains a neutral appearance. Also anyone who worked on the Haiti earthquake page will know this policy was consensus on that page. Anyways I have noticed someone keeps identifying images with "US" or "American" etc without making any other edits. I have been reverting when I notice it but I would appreciate help from other editors. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with openly identifying the content of a photo. If the photo is of a US Air Force plane, then there's nothing wrong with saying so.  The photo of the US Navy barge should definitely be labeled as such, because it is explained in the text that US Navy barges are being used to supply fresh water to the reactor. Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't edit the Hati article, so I am not sure what conclusions were made during that edit. However, labeling this caption as being a US barge seems to be logical -- otherwise, I would assume it was a Japanese SDF barge. While a lot of references to one particular country (either because of national pride or the easy availability of the photos/information) could be construed as a POV issue, consciously omitting facts could verge on being a POV issue as well. I think these have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, adjusting for the tone of the entire article. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * this is exactly the point, you seem to be clueless to the fact JSDF is towing the barge as reported by media... presenting this a multinational effort is the only npov solution when we don't have all the facts and many nations are involved. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's true that the Japanese military doesn't have much heavy airlift (including large helicopters) or sealift capability, so the fact that the US is providing significant assistance in that regard shouldn't be a POV concern. It's the reality. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did a lot of editing on the Haiti article and the situation was quite different than what we have here. If I remember correctly, there was a suggestion that the aid agencies be treated equally rather than give too much copy, or photos, to US aid.  At any rate, it never was a big problem.Gandydancer (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * thats probably why every time I identified a helicopter type it was reverted. I think you need to check the archives a bit 66.220.113.98 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * also I would like to point out that the attempts to over-nationalize the picture captions led to some serious errors... the pumps being prepared for fukushima were not provided by the US, but by the Aussies, as a basic reading of the cite will show you. So again this is why we don't allow hyper-nationalism on all the disaster pages. I understand the motivations and I was originally one of the main jingoistic US-uploaders on the haiti page, but the more I worked on it, the more I saw these same type of decisions made incorrectly, and making that wp less accurate or less appealing, so I started to change my mind. The focus on the US will lead to a US centered page which long term will not work, regardless of how passionate we may feel now, about the vastness of the seventh fleet and the appeal of benevolent militarism. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think an error should definitely be corrected, but captioning it with correct details improves story. I'm not sure of the details of this particular pump photo, but 'US military delivers Australian-donated pumps' gives jumping off details for further research on the type of pump and shows an international-effort by *example* rather than stating 'it is an international-effort'. In comparison, 'International workers prepare a pump' is stripped of information. That said, adding 'United States Navy donated' and 'United States Air force dontated' to every sentence about a donation does NOT add a lot of additional information or details and is not neutral. Photos of significant nature should be picked (see my comment below). In my mind: (1) boron from South Korea; (2) robots from France; (3) water-barge from the US; (4) fire fighting equipment during the (assumed) unit 4 SFP fire are each items that were critical donations (as opposed to photos of dogs arriving in Tokyo). 165.230.93.100 (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to accuse other editors who add information to image labels you disagree with of being "jinoistic nationalists", then I think you should step away from this article, as you're taking it way to personally. No one else here agrees with your removals of the country-identifying information from the picture labels, so I think your should stop revert warring over it. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In an ideal world, we would have an indefinate choice of pictures to choose from, and we would all be arguing for a balanced inclusion of pictures from different countries. Unfortunately we only have a few to choose from, whic makes us not care where they come from. It makes however sence to describe what is in it in enough detail (so that's why I agree with addition of the US things...) and there is not much we can do about that. The consequence of that is that countries who have a good/open media policy get a bit more coverage in pictures than others. I understand the concern of the IP, that we are falling a bit for that, but I think there is not much we can do about it, nor is it something that is extremely important in the context of this article (we are clearly not reporting US-POV if the dog/boat happens to be from the US-military....). ....And now I am going to look up jingoistic in wikipedia.... L.tak (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Having accumulated several hundred edits classify photos from this disaster on Wikicommons, I can say that free pictures relating to Fukushima are rather rare. We already have hundreds of earthquake/tsunami damage and humanitarian relief pictures, virtually all of which are from the U.S. military but many of which are generic enough not to need to mention it. But only a few pictures relate to Fukushima. Even the U.S. has not released any of its overflight images. Rmhermen (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While making the page overly US-centric is a valid concern, picking photos to avoid US-centric content could be a disservice. Picking the most interesting and telling photos and managing the captions makes more sense to me. 165.230.93.100 (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If they are providing pictures and no one else is, we use them. It is not necessary to credit them here. If anyone from the Japanese government reads this and is upset there is us bias on the article because there are no pictures of Japanese workers trying to help, they know what they need to do. Sandpiper (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

6 deaths
Although I would not be surprised if it were true, I removed the recently added mention of six military deaths in one of the explosions. This should be headline news (as the only deaths of the accident so far) - not buried in a one-line mention at the end of a paragraph near the end of an foreign newspaper article (which is all our source gives). With the high amount of misreporting concerning this entire event, I would like to see some independent confirmation of this before we return it. TEPCO, IAEA, Japanese media don't seem to have this story. I wonder if this was one off-duty fireman reporting a rumor to a reporter who took it for truth without checking it. See source: Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Interview includes worker discussing the six dead soldiers. http://english.cntv.cn/20110328/102896_2.shtml FX (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A 16 March Fox News report (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/16/fukushima-50-stay-prevent-nuclear-meltdown/) mentions 2 missing workers (unclear if firefighters / military / nuclear workers) immediately after the second explosion on 15 March. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.191.165 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the workers who were "missing after explosion" are in fact the workers who have been gone since the tsunami. --85.78.197.19 (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work Rmhermen. I put the info in but have now found contradiction. "Six troops had just arrived at the scene, ready to operate two pump trucks and a 4WD vehicle. Only 20m away from the building that exploded, all three vehicles took a direct hit from concrete slabs blasted from the building's outer wall. The troops crawled out of their vehicles to safety. Four men sustained injuries ...." source. Nurg (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reporting of this event has certainly been anything but journalism's shining hour. Now that most of the media attention has switched to Libya, I worry about what stories we are missing from Japan. Rmhermen (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything in the Japanese media about this. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Evacuation zone
Should this information be included?

"The UN nuclear watchdog has suggested Japan consider widening an evacuation zone around a tsunami-damaged nuclear plant as radiation continues to leak into seawater near the plant.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Thursday radiation measured at the village of Iitate, 40km from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, exceeded a criterion for evacuation." http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/03/201133144337292491.html  Gandydancer (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This information has been added. Gandydancer (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

New aerial pictures from 20th/24th
There's been a leak of previously unpublished pictures at cryptome.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.112.253 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

nisa63
"As the malfunction of temporary motor-driven pump injecting to the Spent Fuel Pool of Unit 2 was confirmed to be in a bad condition, the injection pump was switched to the Fire Pump Truck. However, because cracks were confirmed in the hose (12:47 and 13:10 March 30th), the injection was currently being suspended."

You cant help think conditions are ever so slightly desperate. Sandpiper (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Which sources are reputable? Is the hype intended?
It's well known by this point that almost all media outlets are over-hyping this situation, with all sorts of exaggerations. The current article reads somewhat the same way, with focus on the most shocking figures (big spikes that last a couple of minutes or focusing on areas were noone would be exposed). Just because news paper X assumes that 100x background radiation is enough to cause mass deaths, I don't think this article should reflect that. Also maybe sticking to a single measurement scale would do the article some good, instead of switching constantly. Although 'Readings peaked at 10850 μSv/hour' feels like its just placed to scare people.

I'd suggest someone with some time compare some of the less hyped stories and see what they can come up with.

Some articles from the register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/fukushima_scaremongering_debunk/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/tokyo_tapwater_fukushima/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/22/fukushima_tuesday_2/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/21/fukushima_after_weekend_2/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/

Maybe we need a section on the media response to the situation. --KHobbits (T 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Number 1 talks about radiation leaks and workers getting sunburn. Radiation from contaminated water sufficient to burn is not sunburn. The issue of radiation for workers might not be worse than a bad day on the beach, but generally people who have a bad day on the beach stay indoors the next. If all TEPCOs engineers have a bad day on the beach and stay home, who exactly is going to fix the plant? There is a real risk that as contamination around the plant worsens - as it is doing - no one will be able to work there to fix it. At the moment they are wondering what to do with large quantities of radioactive water. When the run out of saucepans they will dump it in the sea, because that is better than leaving it where it is. Radioactive iodine in Tokyo tapwater is relatively minor. Except Tokyo is 100 miles away and matters are not yet under control. We do not know how bad the damage is, but I personally do not fancy wading through radioactive water to fix it. It is not fixed yet, merely contained. If radioactive water is escaping from failed reactor containment that is not an imminent danger but it is an ongoing release of radiaoctivity. Cooling systems have not been repaired which might allow cooling other than by keep adding water. Which will keep getting out. I see the articles are eternally optimistic about restoring power to the plant too. Having rewired the outdoors supply, all they have to do is rewire all the buildings. Easy. I read a report which said the reactor pumps take 12 hours to start under ordinary conditions. Im not holding my breath. Sandpiper (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"When they run out of saucepans they will dump it in the sea, because that is better than leaving it where it is." Thank you for having the courage to state this. 172.129.60.133 (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BG
 * I do hope it will not come to this. At the moment they seem to be trying to pump the water into storage tanks in the reactor buildings. It just might be possible to pump it back into the reactors. But as a last resort they could not allow access to the plant to become impossible. This may not sound very nice but the sea is very big. There is already sea contamination and I am not clear what the exact cause is. Either this is airborne material which has dropped into the sea-better than it dropping on land-or it is already from contaminated water escapes. Sandpiper (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Sea dumping is not that bad, particularly if they run a pipe >100 meters from the shore and take account of currents.  Many fish are actually better off, not being fished. I doubt that the quantity could be airborne. 172.129.19.240 (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Newest report:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/fukushima_panic_breaks_completely_free_of_facts/ --KHobbits (T 11:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Images (and a new section) that would improve the article
I've contributed a fair amount of text, but I don't know much about the restrictions / usage / processes of using images. However, I think these images (all originally from a Japanese newspaper) would really help the understanding of the "trenches and tunnels" text.

This: http://www.asahicom.jp/national/update/0329/images/TKY201103280598.jpg shows the arrangement of the PRV, the turbine, and the tunnels, and how water (likely) leaks from unit 2 turbine (and maybe unit 2 PRV and unit 1 turbine ) into the tunnels, then overflows into the sea.

This: http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0329/images/TKY201103290240.jpg shows the (unmodified plan) of pumping water to the condensate storage tanks, to empty the water from the tunnels.

And this:http://www.asahi.com/photonews/gallery/infographics/images/110330_kakusantaisaku.jpg shows a currently proposed plant to pump the water into a tanker ship, and cover the buildings with (expensive) tarps to reduce environmental contamination.

If someone has the knowledge and time, I think adding an modified or interpretive image similar to these would describe the situation better than a lot of text.
 * The fastest way might be to ask at Graphic Lab/Map workshop, although you'll have to be a bit more specific (just say you want an image based on the info in the images above, which shows a, b, c etc). If the process is too complicated, just let me know! L.tak (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted over there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Fukushima_I_nuclear_accident_image). I'm not entirely sure the request is done entirely correctly, but I presume that won't deter someone who wants to create the image. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Finally, if someone does so -- I think it makes sense to add it to a new section "Connecting tunnels" above the "Central fuel storage areas" section because these tunnels are all interconnected, and the information doesn't really belong in the sections for each reactor. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since no one objected, I went ahead a created this section and moved some of the detail from unit 2 into it. I added the image created by the graphic lab as well.  It was a large change, so I appreciate anyone looking it over. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Radioactive contamination getting into the ocean
It's mentioned in the timeline but nowhere else in the article. The one newspaper article I found online, on the sites I go to at home (I avoid going most places at home, just to be safe, and the library I go to was closed today), wasn't detailed enough to be useful, but it did mention radiation "above legal limits" in the Pacific. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It should definitely be described in the main article.--Razionale (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * it is mentioned qualitatively in the relevant paragraph, but I will add some specifics... L.tak (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hot trench water

 * emitting radiation at 1000 mSv/h

Doesn't this confuse lumens with lux? &mdash; MaxEnt 17:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * no, the association that radioacitivity will "light up in the dark" is not true (except for Cerenkov radiation). The 1000 mSv/h were true dose rates, which were actually reported in several media.... L.tak (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Files_for_deletion/2011_March_28
All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 19:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Milk in Spokane, Washington
Although it was far below unhealthy levels and the newspaper article mentioned we get radiation from many sources, in the Spokane, Washington area there was Iodine-131 in milk. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You could give it a brief mention maybe, but you don't want to be causing a panic among milk-drinkers (though I buy mine from local New York farms, Organic Valley ftw). One or two sentences, but that's it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Which section? Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

crack length vs width
Our article is describing the crack causing the leak to the ocean as a 20cm long crack. I know that description has been in many articles, but I fear it surely must be a poor translation from Japanese. I believe it is more likely a 20cm wide crack. They couldn't possibly be having so much trouble with a little 20cm long crack.

Here's an article which uses wide ... http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9d7b6070-5d40-11e0-a008-00144feab49a.html#axzz1IUXLVagP 199.106.103.249 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The link no longer uses wide, but rather is very generic. Here is an actual picture of the crack: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/03_22.html But, I'm not sure I could say it is 20cm wide vs. long from this photo. I assume the problem with stopping the leak has more to do with the amount of "force" behind the crack, rather than its size, as some reports indicate as much as 500 m^3 of water an hour was exiting the crack. This number seems uncreditable to me because (even before the latest pumping reduction) the numbers seem to indicate only 400m^3 a day of "makeup" water being pumped into unit 2.  Since the leaking pit is above the trenches that connect to units 1 and 3, this doesn't seem possible. I have been waiting for more accurate reporting. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The FT article indeed still uses the word "wide". It says "Staff discovered the 20cm-wide crack in a shaft storing supply cables close to reactor No 2." 199.106.103.249 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the photo you link is more likely water entering the pit, rather than water leaving the pit via "the crack". Misleading.199.106.103.249 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I only get this: "Tokyo Electric Power is struggling to block a crack in a pit that is leaking highly radioactive water into the ocean at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The utility also said it had found the bodies of two employees at the stricken facility" when I click on the FT link. But I don't have an FT account.  I surmised the NHK photo is the exit (the "pit") crack based on this illustration from the Asahi newspaper: http://www.asahi.com/photonews/gallery/infographics3/images/0403_pit.jpg (but I haven't watched the NHK video) and because this image shows the effort to "fix" the crack http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/bodies-found-as-nuclear-plant-leak-poisons-ocean/story-e6frg6so-1226032895940  But I don't think it is possible to certain of this right now. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima primary victims, as this activity and healthy! Their stress and Tokyo University School of Medicine!
Fukushima primary victims, as this activity and healthy! Their stress and Tokyo University School of Medicine! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQcgw9CDYO8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.99.230.241 (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry, this is in japanese. anyone know what it is about?Sandpiper (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

New source, from talk by a US DOE official
I don't see this source already mentioned in the article: DOE's Brinkman: It could be a year before Japan's reactors are fully under control. It might be helpful for improving the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Key grafs: "'it's probably not going to be over for six months to a year before things really settle down in a way in which we're absolutely sure that nothing is going to happen'" "'he emphasized there still are many unknowns and great uncertainties regarding the conditions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. ... Asked about his comment that it could take up to a year to get the reactors fully under control, Brinkman added, 'And then it's going to be five or 10 years before you can really do anything. They're going to just let them sit there for the next five or 10 years and let them cook themselves out. You have no choice. The pools are very hot. The reactor vessel's hot. Man, the radiation inside there is enormous. So, it's a mess. There's clearly been a meltdown in at least three, the three reactors, and they're talking about 70 percent of the fuel rods having melted down. That's a lot. So it's just a mess -- a very radioactive mess.''"

TEPCO low-level radioactive will release into the ocean tomorrow.
2011.04.04 TEPCO low-level radioactive contaminated water is now even saved (total groundwater Sabudorenpitto Unit 5 Unit 6 million tons of approximately 1 Wed. piled up residence in a central waste treatment facility to 1,500 tons) Announced that the release into the ocean tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.99.230.241 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * so the saucepans have indeed run out. The attempts to plug the leak seem reminiscent of the attempts to stop the gulf oil well leak with chopped up car tyres and golfballs. More seriously, I remain confused about the exact nature of this leak and its size/ extent.Sandpiper (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a big deal. See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/04/us-japan-nuclear-water-idUSTRE7336L720110404 172.129.7.208 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC) BG

If water must be added, it must be dealt with. The initial release of the 10,000 tons of water added radioactivity in the overall ocean that was trivial and can not even be measured. Now the waste-water should be removed quickly, to allow for more flushing, or hopefully servicing. The barges could work. A pipe to a nearby radioactive waste water treatment facility could work. Sand filters might help. This may not be the place for it, but another option could be running a drain pipe a mile off shore or where ever the shore line drops off precipitously, hosing down all the contaminated structures, and letting all the contaminated drain-off run into the sea. Probably most radioactive material could be removed by setting up an on-site precipitator followed by a filter. Even with barges the water should probably be pre-filtered. In the beginning the filters would need frequent changing, and could be stored in pools, possibly off-site. Effluent directly vented from the reactors or damaged fuel rod storage pools should go to separate filtering devices. This would go a long way to decontaminating the facilities, would allow much easier servicing, and might help the accident from getting worse. Some people will protest, but in the 1950's large amounts of radioactive material were routinely dumped in the ocean. Most people's concern is not about ocean life, only that eating ocean life might be dangerous for them. Let them go vegetarian for a while. 172.162.3.206 (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC) BG172.130.101.122 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC) BG 172.129.158.80 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)BG172.129.181.52 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)BG70.107.99.10 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)BG172.129.113.160 (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)BG172.162.162.65 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)BG

nhk news poorly broadcasted on other channels
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/05_38.html

Plant radiation monitor says levels immeasurable

A radiation monitor at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says workers there are exposed to immeasurable levels of radiation.

The monitor told NHK that no one can enter the plant's No. 1 through 3 reactor buildings because radiation levels are so high that monitoring devices have been rendered useless. He said even levels outside the buildings exceed 100 millisieverts in some places.

Pools and streams of water contaminated by high-level radiation are being found throughout the facility.

The monitor said he takes measurements as soon as he finds water, because he can't determine whether it's contaminated just by looking at it. He said he's very worried about the safety of workers there.

Contaminated water and efforts to remove it have been hampering much-needed work to cool the reactors.

The monitor expressed frustration, likening the situation to looking up a mountain that one has to climb, without having taken a step up.

Tuesday, April 05, 2011 19:51 +0900 (JST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.82.187.225 (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Fukushima has a tummy ache" viral video
I understand that this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUzBvxdnCFM viral video, made by a Japanese TV celebrity, is a big hit in Japan, getting 1.5 million hits on You Tube alone. Are there Japanese sources to use to add a small section on it to this article? Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw it a couple of days ago, maby it could be mentionned in the reactions? But the info contained was either already outdated or mixed with lies to make everything seem safe and okay. Correjon (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The err..."adult version" is more...err... I enjoyed it! (Uploaded by ConfusionDistortion) Gandydancer (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it really notable enough to be included in the article? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At best it's pop culture. I don't see it having a place in the article.MartinezMD (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned quite a bit in Japanese media. Every Japanese person I've mentioned it to has heard about it or watched it.  If it fades from memory, which seems possible, then mention of it in this article probably won't be necessary.  For those of us trying to learn Japanese, the video is an entertaining and helpful study aid. Cla68 (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but outside of Japan how many people have heard of it and how many RSs talk about it? Also, how do we know they won't stop talking about it in a week or so like Flea Market Montgomery? I mean we all remember it, but who still talks about it? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unit 2 leak
Please see this video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42440388/ns/world_news-asia-pacific/

It seems we have been discussing the escaping radioactive water as coming from a crack that they have attempted to seal. However, this video states that the water is "bubbling up from gravel that was underneath that pit" and suggests that the "crack" is not at all sealed and that the escaping water "is still going to keep coming so it still gotta go somewhere". So, is there actually a visible crack or not? Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything about it in Japanese media yet, but will keep an eye out. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Well, it does seem odd to me.  It has been discribed as both a "crack in the sidewall of the pit", and "a crack under reactor 2", and there is the discussion above on this page.  Then too, I have read the amount of water escaping from the crack, and it was a substantial amount - I would assume it to be squirting out with some force due to the high amount of pressure.  All things considered, I am wondering how they would go about measuring such a crack.  Somehow they must have a photo of it?, but if it is actually under the the reactor, how would they do that?  Furthermore, there is the Reuters report where Rep Markey said that the core has melted (which has since been pulled).  Ed Markey is a straight-shooter and has been one of the few to tell the truth about another disaster of a few months ago (I am thinking of his remarks about another leak-the oil leak in the BP Gulf oil disaster).  Gandydancer (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Unit 2 core melt?
Should this information be included?

"The indications we have, from the reactor to radiation readings and the materials they are seeing, suggest that the core has melted through the bottom of the pressure vessel in unit two, and at least some of it is down on the floor of the drywell," Lahey said. "I hope I am wrong, but that is certainly what the evidence is pointing towards." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-lost-race-save-nuclear-reactor Gandydancer (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like very interesting information but a read through the article reveals that it seems to be pure speculation, I will add it if no one opposes, but will clearly indicate it is speculation. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm just going to go ahead and add it. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tough call as it is a single person observation from outside and it is quite a strong opinion; but from a reliable it seems. I have rephrased a bit, but -unless it is contested by other scientists or proven incorrect by inspection later- it should indeed be in... L.tak (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They appear to have found someone respectable to talk about it, but I am not clear how fuel is supposed to have melted through the pressure vessel. It is difficult to see how this would be possible while it still contains water. They seem to be adding water to all 3 reactors at 1oo-200 l/min, 150 m3/day without the water levels rising. Sandpiper (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is the quantity of water being pumped and the LACK of any rise in the water level. Is the water evaporating? Vessel pressure? Is the water leaking somewhere, there seems to be quite a few "radioactive puddles" around in the basement and turbine halls. While this is more speculation, a breach is possible and would explain a lot. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The water is ending up in the condensor. As it is boiled off, it is being condensed in the condensor - which is why when they wanted to transfer the water in the trench to the condenser, they found the condensor full. MWadwell (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Core protection in all the reactors could probably have been accomplished by depressurizing/filling the system and letting it boil. See: 172.129.60.133 (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BG
 * Thats what they tried to do. A reactor pump is the size of a car, Japan was just flooded, there was no power, no diesel, no spare pumps, the buildings were flooded, no fresh water. They used mobile pumps, which might mean fire engines, to pump as much water as they could by some emergency pipework not intended for adding water. They could not pump enough. On the night after the tsunami they had no idea what was happening inside the reactors. Sandpiper (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant very soon after the earthquake, see the reference. After shutdown the depressurized water requirements per reactor would have been reasonable. Hindsight is 20/20 of course. Cores melted the first few days; that's what caused the hydrogen explosions. Also see this article about unpreparedness: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576232961004646464.html 172.129.19.240 (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BG
 * I cant say what was in the mind of the operators at the time. They were concerned to organise evacuations before any radioactive releases took place. As soon as reactors were depressurised a lot of water would boil off. They were at well above 100C and the pressure stops water boiling. All that water would have to be replaced. No working pumps made this difficult so what they did was try to keep as much water inside for as long as possible. The cited article talks about the half an hour or so before the tsunami struck, when they still had control of the normal systems of the plant. Clearly, at that point they did not take desperate measures because they believed they had just survived the earthquake. Standard procedures would forbid venting steam because it would be mildly radioactive. Very mild compared to what has happened now, but by ordinary standards that would have constituted a forbidden release of radioactive material. Similarly, had they known that a disaster was about to happen then they might have added more water while they still could, but of course they did not know. Reactor emergency plans are supposed to think of the worst possible disaster and plan how to deal with it. The size of the actual tsunami was greater than the worst possible tsunami, so the plans failed. I have to say, this is not the first time this has happened. In britain we do not have tsunamis (ahem) but in recent years there have been a couple of cases of towns being flooded by impossibly high rainfall and flash floods. Just couldnt happen. Sandpiper (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, cooling the cores by relatively rapidly depressurizing & filling the system might be more easily accomplished if the steam dryers were a few meters higher than in the existing design. That way water getting into the turbines would be less of a problem. 172.129.52.161 (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC) BG
 * The nuclear industry would universally agree that they can build safer reactors nowadays and argue their new designs would have survived what happened here. Plus there has been a suggestion that some relatively simple alterations to protect equipment from flooding might have made matters much better. 5&6 survived better than 1-4 and from the pictures seem to be built on higher ground.Sandpiper (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Long Term Health Effects
At the moment, the section on long term health effects relies soley on Chris Busby. He has been discredited by the Journal of Radiological Protection personally and I have updated his biographical entry and cited the Journal's report on this. It categorically states:

"Chris Busby ... is apparently quite prepared to self-publish reports containing glaring errors in data and/or analyses; nonetheless, the findings are duly given publicity in the media, presumably a principal objective. Efforts should be made to enable journalists, in particular, to distinguish between the reliability to be placed upon the results given in self-published documents and those appearing in scientific journals"

and...

"Chris Busby is essentially an aspiring politician who happens to have scientific qualifications – he is the Green Party’s spokesperson on science and technology and has stood for election to the European Parliament – and, in my view, his actions must be seen in this light. It would be asking too much of him to make substantial concessions on the very issue that has brought the media publicity that provides the fuel to drive a political career."

These are pretty damning statements from a Journal. He cannot and should not be relied upon as any sort of meaningful source for a neutral and accurate assessment of the situation.

MatthewFP (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Busby's paper is self-published, so I removed the section in its entirety. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did in this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is pretty funny: http://www.theonion.com/articles/actual-expert-too-boring-for-tv,1764/  Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, i wish to comment on the assumtion that Dr. C. Busby cannot be relied upon and that Dr. Richard Wakeford (the cited author) can be. Please take a look at Dr. C. Busby`s cv here (http://www.llrc.org/misc/subtopic/cvbusby.pdf). Then please note the form of Dr. Richard Wakeford`s cited article, it is clearly not a scientific paper but a call to arms in form of an editorial. Dr. Richard Wakeford identifies himself as a member of the "nuclear industry" in it. A further search identifies him as the "Editor-in-Chief" of the publishing Journal. Which allows to question the "neutrality" of both Dr. Richard Wakeford and the Journal of Radiological Protection. In science, one usually has only to look for the money source to find bias. Therefore "Peer-reviewed" doesn`t necessary mean neutral. Also, Editorials of the editor in chief are, to the best of my knowledge, not peer-reviewed. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Boy it didn't take you long to show up. Self published work that makes factual claims with little to no evidence or proof to back up those claims doesn't get to stay in an article like this. Sorry about your luck. Also, bringing up the fact that someone who discredited you is also self published doesn't mean that YOU weren't doing it in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.246.144 (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Error in diagram
Unit 2 leak drawing: "It had beed stopped by injection of Sodium silicate, but somewhere the water swirling in the buildings." No one sees the grammar error here? What is the editor trying to say? It doesn't make sense to me. MartinezMD (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one can help me out here, I will remove the fragment of a sentence in the second line of the diagram, and it can be replaced later if necessary.MartinezMD (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevance?
"Plutonium contamination has been detected in the soil at two sites in the plant." How is this relevant? Does it show anything about the danger levels involved to workers at the plant that cannot be found elsewhere in the opening summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.1.60 (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Addition information can be added, but since Pu can have a half-life of thousands or millions of years (depending on the isotope), its relevance is at the very least long-term contamination beyond that of the other isotopes released (cesium, iodine) and that it wasn't one-location event.MartinezMD (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fission underway in Unit 2
In the day-by-day events we write (sourced) that there is proof that fission is underway. This must be because of the high (retracted?) levels iodine-134 (half life 50 minutes,not -131 we are talking about normally). We also know that within the reactor activity is about 30 Sv/h (see here, much higher than the 1 mSv/h. My question: does the news of 1 Sv/h indicate i) fission is underway within the cooling water, or ii) fission is underway in the reactor. I read "ii" in our text, but find it a bit of a weird conclusion as I would expect we'd know based on the 30 Sv/h whether fission is taking place or not within the reactor (and we know for a week now) and that the 1 Sv/h gives not much info on fission-status of the reactor... L.tak (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The high iodine-134 measurement has been retracted. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_24.html 199.106.103.249 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course we know, and yes it has been obvious for some time now. But today was the first official confirmation (NISA), so whereas in the past it has been necessary to use qualifiers, we can now state it directly. HopelessGleek (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you might be right... If we have reliable sources discussing this, I think we can make a point of this... L.tak (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * At what point do we stop considering TEPCO a reliable source? The fact that they accidentally reported iodine-134 readings when they now supposedly haven't even tested for it is yet another example of criminal fraud or profound incompetence. I know that we're not supposed to bring personal biases into our edits, but I think it can be stated pretty objectively that TEPCO is full of  crap. A nuclear power company doesn't "accidentally" announce measurements for a specific radioisotope that implicitly confirms the presence of a fission reaction. That's something even TEPCO would double check. They've obviously decided to change their story (for whatever unfathomable reason) after the fact. As NHK reports, "The company said on Sunday evening that the data for iodine-134 announced earlier in the day was actually for another substance that has a longer half-life." To quote Sigourney Weaver, "They're pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain." They don't even bother to identify the other substance they were supposedly looking for. And on the off chance that another iodine-134 report was a genuine mixup, is it any less damaging to their credibility? We have been continually hampered from stating obvious facts apparent to anyone with even a high school level  understanding of physics and nuclear energy. TEPCO has either withheld information or changed its story time and again. Should they not be held to the same standards of credibility required of any other source on Wikipedia? Obviously we cannot ignore them, but at what point can we call BS when they're obviously lying? ..END OF TIRADE.   HopelessGleek (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple (though not satifying maybe): when reuters, cnn, washington post, bbc etc are; it is not up to us! Until then, we have the (frustrating?) task to wait and assume the same level of faith they do. I must say that except for the fission story (which I simply don't understand, see my specific paragraph), I don't see them much obvious BS in this crisis however (but that may well be naive...)... L.tak (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not simply a question of whether they are a reliable source. They are at the centre of this and as the entity most involved, anything they say is relevant whether it is accurate or not. If they report inaccurately, that in itself is part of the story. So a simple report without comment that they have said something may be how to present it.Sandpiper (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the facts are not being reliably reported. Obviously they (TEPCO and various governments) are trying to avoid a massive panic and the costs and problems that it would involve. For example: everyone trying to leave Tokyo at once would be really bad for the economy they are trying to stabilize through showing that everything is fine. There are competing interests at play here: economic, disaster recovery, nuclear, global financial markets etc... It does not help these other fronts if the true magnitude of the nuclear situation was revealed. We know there was a fission reaction-its a nuclear power plant, thats how it works. The important part would be what is the link between this specific isotope and something dangerous, which is presumably to do with how I134 is created, but I do not see an explanation of this.

I've been following the Fukushima I nuclear disaster pretty closely, and if one reads enough reports you become able to read between the lines and discover what is actually going on. The truth is hidden in the details but most don't have time to discover it. This is perhaps the most complicated disaster ever, with multiple fronts and global interests at play. Since TEPCO, not the Japanese government, is calling the shots here we must recognize that their vested interest is to make things look as good as possible to the public. I suspect what is actually happening on the ground is much worse than reported. TEPCO or Japan does not benefit from releasing the true nature of the situation and only benefit from keeping it vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatmonk (talk • contribs) 02:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to reconsider your stance after it's all over. TEPCO has already been more accurate than the NRC. --85.78.197.19 (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have yet to find something explaining the significance of I134, which is the point here, surely. The wiki article says virtually nothing about it. The news article says it was found. wow. and the significance is? Sandpiper (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandpiper. The term "monoisotopic" means that only one form (I-127) of nucleid-composition is found within this element in natural surroundings. The finding of I-134 implies either the leakage of fuel or the massive irradiation of seawater (don`t know which, sorry). Also iodine is a micronutritient and therefore its radioactive isotopes are regarded as very dangerous when entering the body/food-chain. Regarding the mentioning of fission, i do not fully understand the question. Radioactive emission is a product of fission/fusion, therefore it is save to say that there is fission in progress within the core and unfortunately outside of its supposed containment. People may ask whether the emission comes from indirectly irradiated seawater which gives of small amounts of aquired radiation rapidly and "becomes clean" again somehow or whether the actual highly radioactive, long lasting substances in the cores have found their way out. This is just how i understand it of course. For a quotable form one would need a library and search for environmental analytics or such. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your post is wrong on such a basic level that I have to correct it. I'm going to assume you actually meant [ionizing] radiation by "radioactive emanation", but either way, it's wrong. Radioactive decay and fission are NOT the same thing. The presence of large amounts of I-134 (which, as has already been pointed out, was never actually detected), would indeed have meant continuing fission, due to two things: 1) I-134 has a very short half-life - meaning that it has to be continually produced to be present in any major amount - and 2) it's not a daughter nuclide in any decay chain - meaning that it has to be produced through some other means than plain radioactive decay: i.e. fission and neutron irradiation. -- Kolbasz (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kolbasz for your valueable correction. Let me try to save some dignity here: My physics professor (don`t start laughing now, i am a marine biologist, not an physics authority) got fired for claiming the find of radioactive isotopes near a nuclear power plant, so what national news agencies claim doesn`t mean much to me. But i do not care to propagate the (for me) obvious. So lets just rewrite the points i seem to have messed up: 1. Detectable radiation is a product of fission/fusion/radioactive decay... 2. I-134 is a known product of fission of heavy, fissible materials 3. induced fission is taking place in the core, spontaneous fission would be possible outside the core if particulate fuel would leak 4. Taking point 2 into regard, there is no need for my speculative "irradiated seawater hypothesis" (sorry :) If you would care to edit the page "Isotopes of iodine" in regard of I-134 i am sure it would help. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As an industry expert, I say with extreme confidence that there is no significant fission (i.e. criticality) underway at any of the Fukushima units. There would be the expected very low-level residual/natural decay which would release neutrons (this would be the same level that would be there under normal shutdown conditions--i.e. source range neutron counts). I don't need or care about TEPCO press releases, or news articles to know this. A brief list of reasons:


 * 1) The reactor trips were successful.  This means that the control rods were fully inserted 3 seconds after the operators hit the manual reactor trip button.  The control rods add so much negative reactivity, that even if the reactor coolant was pure water it wouldn't go critical.
 * 2)  Once the fuel rods began to melt, the control rods would melt along with them.  They would bow, deform, and eventually form a solid mass (if left uncovered long enough).  The control rod materials would be embedded within the damaged fuel.  If you want a great analog of what the final state of the damaged reactor internals will be see: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tmi/video/
 * 3)  The water being used to fill the reactor coolant system is saturated with boric acid.  This adds even more negative reactivity.  If there ever was at a time when they were using just straight seawater (which is possible for the early days of the accident), they have surely since saturated the water with boron.  If not, they would be scrambling to do so, and it would be all over the news.
 * 4)  If the fuel has melted into a solid mass, there is no water within it to moderate the reaction.  By design, it is impossible to have criticality in an LWR without the moderator.  As for water surrounding the solid mass--any neutrons would be traveling outwards, so it would not serve to moderate the reaction (once the neutron leaves the boundary of the outermost fuel assembly, it is "lost").
 * 5)  Fission would produce neutron flux which would be detectable by the Nuclear Instrumentation System (NIS).  The NIS is Qualified to the IEEE 1E radiation harsh environment standard (I don't know the number off the top of my head).  That's the highest pedigree of plant I&C equipment.  Without getting into the details of I&C Equipment Qualification, that instrumentation has been TESTED and VERIFIED to be able to withstand the harshest post-accident conditions (which is what they are in now), and a "design basis earthquake" immediately under the equipment (I read somewhere that the design basis was 6.7 for this plant.  I'd be interested to hear a geologist's take as to what the magnitude of shaking would be immediately under the plant for this earthquake.).  As long as electrical power has been restored to the safety I&C system (which is the first thing they would do), the NIS is up and running.  Guaranteed.  If they were getting neutron flux readings outside of the normal source range, it would be THE news story, and they would be scrambling to stop it.  There is no way they could keep quiet about this.  The plant workers would be scared shitless and leak the information.
 * 6)  The way they determine which isotopes are causing contamination and at what concentration is a lot less scientific than you would expect.  Basically, they're making educated guesses based on counts per second for the most part.  You'd have to put samples into a mass spectrometer to get a better idea.  I'm sure they have one in the rad chem lab at each unit, but they're specially set up in enclosures to protect the chem engineers.  You probably wouldn't be able to get a sample of water from "outside" into the spectrometer.  Also, the water we're talking about is so highly contaminated that you would literally have to handle the sample with a 50 ft. pole.  I don't expect they have done detailed mass spec. analysis on more than a handful of samples.

That's my expert analysis of the situation. I'm not interested enough to dig up freely available public sources to support this (for some of it they may be hard/impossible to find). You can either take me at my word, or research it for yourself. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "'The way they determine which isotopes are causing contamination and at what concentration is a lot less scientific than you would expect. Basically, they're making educated guesses based on counts per second for the most part.'" On-site, I would assume they were using gamma spectroscopy to get a basic idea of what they're dealing with. -- Kolbasz (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Lwnf360. Since the existence of spontaneous fission is described, i felt save to say that there has to be fission, taking further into account the high readings in the cores. Regarding the situation at hand, my selfish argumentation seems misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding [citation needed] in the role of the transmission lines in the chain of causes of damage to the plant
Regarding my notation of in the text: Fukushima 2 (Daini) was taking power from the substation for cooling pumps by midnight of the 11th. Fukushima 1 (Daiichi) is served by the same substation, by three tower chains, each with two circuits. However Daiichi was not taking power from the substation for well over a week.

Although it has often been repeated that the grid was down at Daiichi, there has been no evidence released to support that assertion, and the implication that this was one of the factors in the nuclear accident. A few towers were washed away, farther north, by the tsunami. But the towers serving Daiichi are back from the coast and up a cliff. There were no reports of towers being re-constructed near Daiichi, whereas there were reports and pictures of line work being done on the plant property itself. Line work on the plant site does not constitute a grid failure or what is normally called station blackout. That is, this type of failure, that requires on-site line work, would be a failure of the plant, not of the grid. ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Do you mean 'earthquake caused major damage to the power grid'? No. There were reports of power suppply disruption caused by the disaster, you found a ref saying daini had grid power by midnight? its there If so, then it did not have grid power before midnight? No info It is not necessary to physically destroy the towers for power to fail, because something has to generate that power and something uses it. If the load becomes too great then circuits will disconnect automatically. I cannot say what happened her, but buildings being washed away sound like potentially shorted supplies increasing load and a lot of power stations shut down reducing supply. Power therefore failed, but I have no information on exactly what and whether critical routes or grids would be protected. Logically an area normally supplied by both daini and daiichi, both of which shut down, would be badly hit as regards maintaining any supply. My guess is that everything switched off automatically and then engineers had to come back and switch it back on where it was undamaged. This might be easier said than done in the middle of a disaster. these wires go only to the plants
 * I agree that power is spoken of very loosely in reports without explaining exactly what happened. It seems probable that the company did manage to get emergency generators to the plant fast - and could have obtained more with greater capacity - but that these could not be used once they were on site. Virtually nothing of the original equipment in 1-4 seems to be operating even now. It should be noted that 5 and 6 were already shut down before the accident and had been for some time, so most of the residual heating had stopped, but they still nearly got out of control when power failed. 5 and 6 seem to be built on higher ground and so fared better and some equipment is now operating, but this is just judging from the aerial photos. They started operating again on their own generators, not on external grid power, which must still have been faulty for some reason. You may be correct that the grid supply to 1-4 was undamaged and power lines still ran into the buildings, but that the switch rooms they arrived in were under water. The transformers seem to be on high ground again, so might not have been flooded. I am uncertain about this though because the water seems to have been pretty high and arriving on shore with full force would possibly tend to run up embankments and be forced higher running between them.


 * As to the period between earthquake and tsunami specifically, the emergency generators started up and this would have been in response to a power failure, but I dont know how much of a power failure would be needed to do this. They might start up on partial loss of one supply, and simply shutting down on site generation might have been enough. Your map shows there is a single point where grid supplies come together and where it is presumably possible to switch supplies. Apart from overload, was this damaged? I think the red lines are higher voltage than the orange, so not immediately inter-operable without transformer connections. Sandpiper (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the question of obtaining a power supply was probably mostly irrelevant after the tsunami because there was nothing functional to power. Operators had no idea even what was happening to the reactors, which turned out to be not quite so bad as it might. Some things not needing electricity did work. What we need is some eye witness reports from those who were on duty. I expect they have been told to say nothing? Clearly Japanese officials by now know exactly what happened. It is possible that had the magnitude of the future problem been known immediately, then some action might have been taken even just after the tsunami which would have made matters better now, but we cant know that without a clear knowledge of what did happen. It seems possible there were no plans of just what to do in a situation this bad, because a situation this bad could not happen. Sandpiper (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your discussion might be more appropriate a few paragraphs up, rather than here. This paragraph only explains the [citation needed] addition to the article where the claim was made that the transmission lines to Daiichi played a role in the causal chain of damage to the plant. I change the title to make that clearer. I apologize for the confusion. Any references to facts would be appreciated. ( Martin | talk • contribs 07:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

"Japanese power plant controls" photo is not
The photo titled "Japanese power plant controls" (currently the last photo in the article) is, if you read its own description, actually a shot of the controls of a substation, where the foreman is balancing electrical load. --Dustin (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. It might find a home in 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, but as it has nothing to do with the Fukushima accidents as such, I'm removing it from this article. -- Kolbasz (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The local transmission grid, owned by Tomoku Power
It seems possibly that the grid at Fukushima Dai-ichi has been energized for some time, and possibly went down, if at all, only briefly. Therefore, please be careful not to state without reference that the grid was down, or that the diesel generators were the only potential sources of power, and that the failure of the generators due to the tsunami caused the failure of the pumps which caused the heat to accumulate. The Dai-ini plant, 7 miles away, was taking power from the same grid on March 12th.  Thanks. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

More - Were there photos of pylons knocked over or wires down? There are 6 circuits into Dai-ichi. The connection to units 1&2 is high on a berm, and the wires are connected, even after the explosions. The grid connection is in the left half of the lower right quadrant. You can also see the the berm, with bushes planted along it. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Not really. We know that outside (grid) power wasn't restored to the site until March 18 after they ran a kilometer of new line and the temporary water pumps for the reactors were only switched to grid power on April 3. The reactor pumps have not been restarted yet at the 4 damaged units. Rmhermen (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "We know"? Do you have a reference for that? That is the story we think we hear, but I can't find a citation.
 * A kilometer is not enough to get off the plant property. But that's quibbling.
 * There are 6 circuits into and out of Dai-ichi (cant post link to Google maps) . Were all six down? Did towers (pylons) fall down? A fallen tower would be a front page photo.
 * I have looked and I have found nothing, except men working on site - probably behind units 1&2. I will go find the best citation I can. I am not talking about pumps however, only the electricity, the power, and I don't see anything that says the grid was down, especially at the plant boundary. Did you look at the photo referred to above? Link 2? BRB ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Here is an article that shows that the plant's connection to the grid was down. ( Martin |  talk • contribs 06:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

I think I saw a photo of men working on one of the pylons at the power station and it seemd to have cables strung. I agree 1 km of cable is not much, especially if it is being laid in several parallel pieces. I have seen nothing explaining exactly what happened. Power was connected first to 5&6 via the transmission line behind that block, tepco reported connecting to the line by name. They probably said via its existing transformers. I do not know where the switching equipment would be and how it is operated or whether damaged. Before this, tepco reported working on connecting to the transformers sited behind 2 but this was not completed until after 5&6 got power. Logically this was from the transmission line coming to that unit, which incidentally is lower voltage than that to 5&6. Possibly the laying of cable was to repair the pylon line. Or possibly laying a ground cable from another switch point at a distance. Or possibly they meant cables inside the plant to connect from the transformer station. It appears they did have to do this. Somehow the transformers still functioned but had to have new cables connected taking power to a new distribution point in an office nearby. Perhaps the connection down from the pylon to the transformer was damaged. It is clear electrical distribution equipment inside the plants was trashed. It seems highly probable equipment was in the basement and was flooded and therefore made useless. It might be that the transformers were totally unharmed, but the existing low voltage cables were underwater within the reactor building, so had to be disconnected at the transformer end and new cables run to a new distribution point. I agree it looks in the photo as though the transformers are relatively high up. It might be the case that the plant was not set up to take power from the pylon line behind it, only to transmit power from its main generators. Some connections might be at lower voltage and underground, connecting to the local town supply, etc.

It was stated that diesels started and were running after the earthquake, and I think it was stated that some external power had been lost. This is not clear, because I dont know how many possible external links there are. Even if there are 6 circuits, they may not all be connectable to run the plant. The official line seems to be that the failure of the diesels (they did all fail, but I saw one suggestion this was because fuel tanks were washed away) caused the loss of power. However, it seems probable the company did manage to bring further portable generators to the plant which could not be connected for some reason. Most likely, because the basement where they might be connected was full of water. It seems that only the generators on 5&6 have been repaired, which was completed before grid power was restored and they started running cooling from these first. I do not know where the generators are located, whether they are in separate buildings or again in basements. At a different plant one generator was 'in the open' and washed away, whereas another had recently had protective walls built around it and thus survived. Building work was ongoing to improve the plant.

Connecting power to the plant is spoken of loosely. I also have seen nothing which definitely says the grid failed totally, but it is not unreasonable that it would. This might have been relatively temporary with overload equipment cutting power, which could be switched back on once faults were cleared, which again might simply be to switch out shorted connections. Though getting through acres of flooded wreckage to do this might be tricky. The company is being more forthcoming now about details of what is currently happening, but I havnt seen a retrospective burst of information. I understand Japan has secrecy laws to prevent information release in emergency situations, and I read they were invoked. Generally information has not been of the quality one might have expected. Sandpiper (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The IAEA refers to Units 5 & 6 running on "emergency diesel generator" while 1, 2 and 3 were on "temporary mobile power supply". Even the unexploded or unburned Units 5 and 6 didn't get these emergency generators working until March 17 and 19 and didn't get grid power until March 21 (at which point 240,000 other customers still didn't have power, but down from 5.5 million immediately after the quake). Oshima Island didn't get power back until March 27 after the US Marines used landing craft to bring power company trucks to the island. Rmhermen (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandpiper - not all that is relevant to the transmission lines, but thanks. any references?
 * Rmhermen - Yes some generation was lost. Yes local distribution may have failed. Yes the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant was a mess. The question is - what about the Tohoku transmission system? It is being implicated, and I'd like a Reference.( Martin | talk • contribs 17:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC))
 * read the tepco and nisa press releases one by one. They tend to say things as they happen and then quietly drop the details. Sandpiper (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of reading. I didn't see anything that was conclusive. Maybe you could post what convinced you (that the grid was down, rather than the plant's connection to the grid)? Just the reference, please. ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Here is a citation - Scietific American article, paragraph 3 written on the 12th that flatly says "station blackout" ( Martin | talk • contribs 21:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC))
 * This link shows a map of the transmission lines in the fukushima area. There is a substation that is shared with Dai-ni. Dai-ni took power from the grid on the 12th? Why didn't Dai-ichi? There is only one line to Da-ini and it was up. There are 3 lines to Da-ichi. Were all three down on the 12th? I say "let's see a reference". Especially since "we know" that there was a lot of work on site, stinging connections, behind units 3&4. So if the connection from the plant to the grid was washed out, isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the grid would also be down? ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

I think this discussion is getting to the reality of the situation. It would be very good to have clarification on exactly when the substation had power and if that power was accessible at the boundary of the plant sites. As a reminder, the site is 3.5 square km, so the laying of a 1 km line is obviously a strictly site action. For an example, here is an image. We all agree that the issues are with the power delivery systems at the site, although it is probably the case that the backup generators were non-functional, but this could be due to flooding of other switching equipment that supports it, or just due to the fact it didn't have fuel. If they flew in other generators it seems that the fuel wouldn't have been the problem, or at least not the only problem. Some generators were damaged, but it remains unclear to me if this mattered, or if just other stuff going wrong with electrical equipment was the real cause. The main root causes of this accident remain elusive to me and I would still like to know a lot more. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Electrical Line Images for Reproduction
I think there are some images out there that could be reproduced for reasonable effort. I'll throw out these two for now. I might come back and look into doing it later.
 * 
 * -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Broken references
There are presently four broken references here and I don't have time to fix them. Can someone please have a look? -- ke4roh (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Often a bot will come along and fix these orphaned refs, so maybe give it a few days... Johnfos (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Article is way too big - let's remove "Summarised daily events"
This article is 220Kb, which is too big. The "Summarised daily events" events section is far too long, and consists of excessive detail already covered in even more detail in the timeline article. It needs to be removed and/or merged with Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be removed to the timeline article. In its place there needs to be a two paragraph summary of the important events that occurred during the first three weeks of the crisis. Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I would suggest that the "Summarised daily events" actually replace the timeline article content, which is not at all encyclopedic. Johnfos (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I hardly think so. The problem is that this is now stretched over 5 weeks involving 6 reactors plus fuel stores so there is an awful lot of material. The material here in the daily events section is itself a summary of main daily events.Sandpiper (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Now split to Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Johnfos (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Move the relevant parts of the timeline into the relevant reactors - and highlight the link to the timeline article. MWadwell (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. AnAnthro (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As to the question put, i dont know. It can not simply be deleted. The daily events section is becoming ridiculous because of its length, and repetitious because the events are re-told in the separate sections for each reactor, fuel, whatever. Obviously, it has to stop some time before the incident is over, because it will not be resolved for months or years. So broadly I would support removing it. However...(and there is a big however..), it is currently the only place certain general and plant wide facts are mentioned. These need to be somewhere. The article also still needs some sort of summary. I would think something new following on from the initial events already mentioned in 'direct effect of the earthquake' needs to be written continuing the overview. 'direct effects' also has its problems (see discussion above).  Any daily events affecting one reactor, etc, need to be checked off to see if they are already in the relevant reactor summary section. This needs some sort of coherent overviews written, eg a paragraph explaining the history of spraying at that unit, a para talking about the power supply restoration. This is a lot of work.  As to the article length, I assume you have discounted the charts and references, which are not supposed to count towards article length arguments? we do have 400 refs, which sounds right there like an area which needs major cutting, I would think 200 could go without any problem as to verifiability, but I have concerns over the stability of refs long term. Anyone know anything about this?  Sandpiper (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know. I trust your judgement, except Sandpiper - too wordy ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
 * It certainly looks better than it did before. Curious: both of those were net-negative edits, what were you removing to save space? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents for info regarding recent consolidation in that article. Johnfos (talk)
 * Your consolidation of that article has been rejected as inappropriate. Has the information here been reformatted elsewhere? I see you have also nominated the timeline article for deletion entirely. How does deleting all this material from here and then the entire alternative article improve coverage of this event? Sandpiper (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi timeline
FYI, the timeline article, Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, was pruned of 100k of content recently with this edit. As this is a related article, it may impact on this one. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit was reverted in a context clarified by a talk-page thread here. No one misunderstood or disagreed with the reasonable goals of this edit goals; however, arguable process questions were raised. --Tenmei (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor (johnfos) who pruned it has now proposed it for deletion. Sandpiper (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The AfD suggests that I misunderstood what Johnfos was trying to do. I struck out some of my words above. In an AGF context, the massive copy-edit was construed as a mere mis-step in a plausibly constructive direction and the AfD is an arguable faux pas. --Tenmei (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Overview section redundant?
Hi there. First off, this article looks really good. Everyone contributing to it is doing an excellent job keeping up with constantly changing sources and sometimes complex information about nuclear power.

Okay, now that I've gotten that out of the way, I wanted to ask if I was the only one who thinks that having an 'Overview' section is redundant, especially directly below the lead, which, per WP:LEAD, serves "as a summary of [an article's] most important aspects." The whole overview section then becomes moot because it simply repeats what was in the lead, but in significantly fewer words. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. Yes, your observation is on-point. The overview is redundant.  Steps towards a better-focused introduction are here and here. --Tenmei (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to write a lead which summarises events in any kind of detail. The initial events are already covered in 'direct effects of earthquake'. The overview needs to continue the description from after what is covered in that section already. Sandpiper (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

INES Level 7
Does this need to be mentioned in the acticle - that the reason the INES rating was raised to 7 (from 5), is that rather then treating each reactor as a seperate accident, the 6 reactors a Fukushima I have been grouped into a single INES classification - see: IAEA Briefing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident (12 April 2011, 14:30 UTC). MWadwell (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Look like in 23 march they know this accident are lv 7 but they keep hide the fact and throwing the responsibility to others.

"On the same day, Seiji Shiroya of the nuclear commission said in a news conference that he was aware as of March 23 that the crisis might be elevated to level 7, but left the decision to the agency because the assessment was the agency's responsibility." http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/85205.html

"Seiji Shiroya, a commissioner of Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission, an independent government panel that oversees the country’s nuclear industry, said that the government had delayed issuing data on the extent of the radiation releases because of concern that the margins of error had been large in initial computer models. But he also suggested a public policy reason for having kept quiet.

“Some foreigners fled the country even when there appeared to be little risk,” he said. “If we immediately decided to label the situation as Level 7, we could have triggered a panicked reaction.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/world/asia/13japan.html Daimond (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of regulatory limits in release data is confusing
Why are all the environmental effects listed in relation to local regulatory limits? Shouldn't they be listed by actual amounts (or actual readings). Something like "7.5 million times regulatory limits" doesn't mean anything, because it's not clear what the regulatory agency is, what the time frame for the regulations are (are peaks generally allowed? Is the regulation in question intended to be a worse case scenario, or to cover normal day to day operations?)  In short, I think they should be using actual readings, with the comparison as an afterthought. Granite26 (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the media today want to shock and awe rather than produce the facts. You see the same thing when they talk about the radiation fields around the Fukushima Reactors, and then compare them to the low dose limit of 1 mSv/year (when the average person recieves 2 mSv/year from natural radiation). I agree that it would be best to report the raw figures (and limits) - but I'm sceptical that you'll be able to find them. MWadwell (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Additionally, nothing 7.5 million times the limit was ever released. Those numbers typically come from an unfiltered stream than then are passed through a big pile of rocks and sand type stuff and leave into the ocean at lower levels, although still on the order of 10s of 1000s, which depends on the specific species and all other sorts of things.  Still not anything great, but the common line repeated in the press is either misleading or a lie. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

clean clothes
I see one of the refs states that people working in the plant sleep in the hallways, have no hot meals, inadequate protective clothing and indeed inadequate ordinary clothes. Something about one blanket each, and I hardly suppose the heating is working. This is dated 5 April. Any further info? Sandpiper (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to be re-written
As the article was a "living document" back when new occurances were happening on a daily basis, the sections for Reactors Units 1 to 6 were written in almost a diary-like way (with the most recent information added to the bottom of the relevant section). However, I've noticed that since the end of March, not much has been added to the "Reactor Unit" sections of the article - making these sections quite out-dated. Obviously these sections need to be re-written, either taking into account eveything that has happened since the end of march (as this was the style up to then), or the march information needs to be trimmed down (removing a lot of minor events, to match the style since early april). Comments? What would people prefer? MWadwell (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We are still in the midst of the "accident sequence". It bears repeating that, according to experts, Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated. IMO, it is not too early to begin to grapple with copy-editing issues like the ones you propose, but we must take great care not to throw out the baby with the bathwater -- compare Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents --Tenmei (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the situation is still evolving, but there is a big difference in the way the March events have been written (i.e. they are quite detailed, describing all of what was happening), when compared to the April events (where little details that were previously reported are now not reported - such as spraying the SFP's). MWadwell (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * well, someone just deleted the daily events section without transferring across the relevant information for these sections. People had been placing the information in that section rather then in the unit sections. The sections are not quite so outdated as might seem, because little major has happened since the rather dramatic early events. They keep sparaying water and trying to figure out what to do with the resulting waste, and this is somewhat covered in the section on contamination of basements. Sandpiper (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please consider Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents#Fukushima nuclear accident log during March 2011. Constructive comments about Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011 will be welcomed. IMO, these corollary articles are arguably useful in the slow process of the copy-editing Fukushima I nuclear accidents. --Tenmei (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

tsunami
supposedly a 50 ft tsunami arrived at the plant. How high are the buildings? On the face of it, this isnt just basements being flooded but everything. Since no one drowned, surely the water could not have been this deep? Sandpiper (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC) It has been reported by several media outlets including the Wahsington Post that two workers drowned in one of the turbine halls. Also, if you look at before and after photos of some of the facilities that were washed away, such as very large fuel tanks, it is entirely believable that a very large tsunami hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.104.238 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a large number of metric to identify the height or impact of the tsunami, and none of them are fully representative. I've been digging through some Tepco sources about this, and it would appear that the area around the reactors was flooded to a height of 5 meters.  This doesn't sound very high, but that area itself was elevated to 10 meters above baseline.  I believe the "baseline" refers to a certain objective metric for sea level.  Sea level itself is not a constant value (tides, obviously) so it gets very hairy in interpreting this.  But the way that they get the number that you're referring to is by 10+5=15 m which is about 50 feet, but this doesn't translate to a true tsunami "height", but NO metrics do this job.  So stop trying to find a height for the tsunami in general.  It doesn't exist. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, there is a (poor) video on youtube capturing the wave hitting the reactors (or the breakwall outside, I'm not sure) - Japan tsunami wave smashes into nuclear plant. MWadwell (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Always the case that someone captures something which later turns out very important but misses half of it. Big flume of water thrown up in the air by the breakwaters, but hard to tell how high the flooding was compared to the buildings. So the next question is do we know what parts of the reactor buildings were therefore underwater? People have talked about basements, but that level would seem to be ground floor working up to second floor. Sandpiper (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All the reactors are involved???
I find it not correct to state that all the reactors at Fukushima I Power Plant were involved in the disaster. In fact, reactors 5 and 6 were did not sustain significant damages from the tsunami as far as I know. Therefore, in the first paragraph, I would clarify that only the reactors from 1 to 4 were serverely damaged, while the other two are in a stable condition after having been much less involved. --Vitaltrust (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not correct too: also reactor 4 itself did not experience any damage; reactors 4, 5 and 6 were all shutted down days before for normal maintenance operations, and were not operating at the time of the earthquake. Only the spent fuel pool at reactor 4 experienced a INES level 3 incident, losing some radiations and possibly exposing the spent rods for a while, because of cooling system problems in the days following the tsunami. I am going to correct it. Filippo83 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reactors 5 and 6 were wholly without electrical power and suffered cooling failures. When this started they were safely shut down. As events proceeded they started to overheat and so did their fuel pools. Had electricity not been restored they too would have overheated and started emitting radiation. If the only thing that happened had been this, it would have been regarded as a serious incident. Damage to any reactor building which wholly knocks out its electricity supply for a week is 'extremely serious damage'. Reactor 4 has suffered considerable damage - its building exploded and was on fire! Sandpiper (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Peak Ground Acceleration of Tohoku Earthquake?
The Wikipedia article titled "2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami" shows the peak ground acceleration of the March 11 quake at 2.99 g on the right sidebar and has the statement "Japan's National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED) calculated a peak ground acceleration of 2.99 g (29.33 m/s²)." under the heading "Energy". The Wikipedia article titled "Fukushima I nuclear accidents" has the statement "The 9.0 MW Tōhoku earthquake at 14:46 JST on Friday, 11 March 2011 resulted in maximum ground accelerations of 0.56, 0.52, 0.56 g (5.50, 5.07 and 5.48 m/s2) at units 2, 3 and 5 respectively," under the heading "Direct effect of the earthquake and tsunami". Is this because the ground acceleration at units 2, 3, and 5 is a local ground accelration at the reactors while the 2.99 g mentioned in the Tohoku Eartqauke article was measured at the epicenter? The information indicated for peak ground acceleration between the two articles is somewhat confusing.Splice in Place (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, those are the acceleration values at the reactors, and no, the 2.99 g was not at the epicenter. The epicenter was out in the ocean.  The 2.99 g is larger than any I've read, but I've read up to 2 g.  This could come from a number of assumptions.  It could be a maximum measured acceleration at any monitoring location, or it could be maximum calculated acceleration on the surface.  The ground acceleration is very significantly impacted by the local geology as well as the building foundation and engineering.  The acceleration at the reactor containment buildings (which are those 0.5 g numbers) is, and should be, smaller than surrounding areas, although the surrounding areas were less than the worst-hit areas that the 2.99 g applies to.  I should go ahead and say it - these reactor buildings are some of the seismically strongest structures in the nation.  The foundation plays a big role in softening the blow, and yes, I understand the confusion regarding the 6x difference in magnitudes, but it is exactly what we should expect for these specific conditions.  Nonetheless, if someone is trying to accurately critical, it may be relevant that structures outside of the "nuclear island" itself will suffer much stronger acceleration since they are not on the same foundation, and pretty much the entire root cause of the accident in the first place is because of damage done to structures OTHER than the reactor building. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But do we know if any significan damage was done by the earthquake as distinct from the tsunami? What i have read suggests the plant was undergoing shutdown under control after the earthquake but before the tsunami. Sandpiper (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The plant maintained the ability to shut down during the earthquake, but significant damage was still done. This earthquake damage has relevance today as Tepco had been searching for a leak that was allowing highly radioactive water out which eventually got to sea .  There is an image of a Tepco employee pointing out a massive fissure in a concrete structure.  If that wasn't enough for you, consider the fact that the only 2 confirmed deaths are thought to have been caused by impacts that occurred from the earthquake. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen reports of leaks from seals in the reactor because of the overpressure which built up inside it. Indeed, that such was to be expected given the pressure and had been experienced during design testing. This damage may be permanent even though pressure is now lower. Then there was the mystery explosion in the basement of 2 believed at the time to have damaged containment. Internal pressure dropped when the explosion happened. I have not seen a report definitely saying any specific damage to containment was caused by the earthquake. Sandpiper (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My suspicion is that the piping/torus has been damaged by the earthquake - witness the fact that they are pump in ~160 m3 of water/day into the reactors, but that the water level isn't rising (although a lot of the water would be lost to steam). Some of this water has become contaminated - and is (I believe) the source of the 1 Sv/h trench water. MWadwell (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

cooling fukushima nuclear power plants
Why can't liquid nitrogen be pumped into the power plants to cool the rods as well as prevent fire,as the nitrogen flashes off it would create an inert space around said plant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.152.15.54 (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Interesting. Liquid nitrogen is very cold, but it would require a huge amount. I don't understand why the reactors aren't depressurized and flooded with water, and vented at the top. The vented low pressure steam and water could probably safely go to an offshore bubbler. This could be tried on one reactor first, just by continuously adding water to the reactor and venting the reactor top thru a bubbler into a nearby tank. An outside source of fresh water of under 1000 gallons per minute should be enough to keep all the reactors and spent-fuel pools filled and cooled. [Special:Contributions/172.163.36.90|172.163.36.90]] (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC) BG172.129.114.201 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)BG172.162.232.208 (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC) BG


 * As a worker in a nuclear research reactor, this idea has got be absolutely astounded by how little people understand about a BWR.... Both the RPV and drywell are full of radioactive gases that are the results of previous venting of the RPV. Insertion of liquid nitrogen (and just to point out, the insertion of which would be difficult to do, due to the aforementioned radioactive gases) would mean that these gases have to be vented - increasing the radioactive gases being put into the environment. A much better alternative is to do what they are currently doing - slowly decreasing the temperature of the RPV (to reduce temperature based pressure fluctuations) while simultaneously allowing the previously released radioactive gases currently in the drywell to decay away while still safely trapped behind concrete. MWadwell (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If fuel temperature was reduced to about 100 degrees C, shouldn't that minimize gas production? What do you mean by slowly decreasing the temperature of the RPV? Its been a month. A few degrees/minute should be acceptable to avoid thermal shock. 172.132.70.107 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC) BG
 * Limiting the fuel temperature won't result in minimal gas production - as steam production is dependant on both temperature and pressure. If the pressure is kept high enough, the water won't boil. And as to dropping the temperature quickly - you are right, you can drop the tmperature by a few degrees per minute - but this would require a LOT of water, and produce a LOT of radioactive steam (resulting in a pressure spike in a potentially earthquake damaged reactor). I believe that they are deliberately dropping the temperature slowly so that they can draw out the time before venting - as this would allow the radioactive gases to decay away (befoer the vent), as well as give them time to design and construct some way of filtering the releases (such as carbon filters). MWadwell (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd thinking dumping the radioactive material in the sea rather than over Japan is a good idea. Whether it would have been possible to have vented gases into the sea is quite another. Someone would have to build a pipe. Maybe a thought for future designs. Liquid nitrogen, no. where would you get it? how would you handle it? if you managed to get it in, it would immediately turn to gas and there would be nothing cooling the core. Sandpiper (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, what went into the atmosphere is only a portion of what was vented - a majority of the radionuclides vented from the RPV were trapped in the water in the wetwell. And so if this was instead vented straight into the ocean, the amount of radionuclides released would have been a lot larger than what it currently is..... And so I'm very happy with the current venting method. MWadwell (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you know that?Sandpiper (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An educated guess. A majority of the radioactive gases are trapped in the fuel assemblies, and it is only the damaged fuel assemblies that have release the (previously) trapped fission products. In the OPAL reactor (where I work), the fission products are trapped behind the aluminium fuel cladding, and if that is damaged, it is then slowly released through the open pool, before reaching the filter banks on the stack. Looking at the BWR design, you see that they vent to the drywell via the wetwell (i.e. bubbling the releases through the water in the wetwell) - which would trap a majority of the particulates (having the the same effect as the HEPA filters at OPAL), and I've seen schematics that show the presence of charcoal filters in the vent to the stack (again, the same as at OPAL). So they use the same principles in a BWR design as we use at OPAL. MWadwell (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've found this image from the Nuclear Tourist website - which shows that they can vent either one of two ways. IF they have power available (to drive an extraction fan), they run the vented air through two HEPA and a charcoal filter (which captures the Iodine and aerosols/particulate - leaving only the noble gases to be released). Otherwise it has to be vented into the building. drywell, major equipment, and ventilation support systems. MWadwell (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people are not happy with the current cooling/venting method. That's whats led to this trouble. Radionuclides wouldn't have been released if the fuel was covered with unpressurized water. And its been a month and the situation is still not described as unconditionally stable. Depressurized cooling using a reliable on-site (or off-site) fresh water source would have been stable from the beginning and would have resulted in no core damage. Running a pipe is no big deal. The existing design/method is inadequate. There should never have been fuel melting or a hydrogen explosion. After Three Mile Island they even tried to blame the operators instead of the engineering design. 172.132.70.107 (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC) BG
 * I would guess that it was illegal to vent anything, and this may have been a consideration at the start. They avoided saying they were venting for some time after gas was escaping. Fresh water onsite only became available after some US tankers brought some, weeks after the start. (Any pools of water would have been flooded by the sea) There were no operable pumps and water has been added via this mystery fire main. When they got a proper water injection system running weeks later they suddenly increased the rate of adding water. I interpret this as meaning it was not possible to add water fast enough via the fire main. Electrically operated valves could not be operated. It is unclear how much of the instrumentation was working during the first 12 hours.  Some of it definitely was not and I think they honestly had no idea what was happening inside the reactor, even for sure if the control rods were home. Anyone know for sure whether the emergency batteries were also in the basement and as such under water? After the first 12 hours it is to be presumed the batteries failed and matters became even worse. So how would you have run a pipe? Where to get the pipe? tools? How hot and how pressurised does superheated water have to be before releasing the pressure would simply  cause all of it to boil away at once? Sandpiper (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The current cooling method has nothing to do with the generation of the radionuclides. When (in the first few days) the cores were uncovered and the fuel was damaged (releasing the radionuclides from the fuel assemblies), there was little that could be done that wasn't being done. The core damage resulted in the radionuclides being dispersed in the RPV water, which has since leaked out of the reactor(s) and into the seawater. Increasing the amount of water currently being added to the reactors(s) simply means that more (contaminated) water leaks from the RPV's and into the bottom of the reactor buildings (and via the trench, into the sea - however, with the trench leak stopped, the water is now going to pool in the bottom of the reactors, and (hopefully, be pumped) into storage vessels). Increasing the cooling flow also has the problem of increasing the pressure in the RPV - resulting in more venting needing to take place, and more radionuclides being released into the enviroment (for more details on this, see my comments above for more details). MWadwell (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Illegal? LOL. We apparently haven't been getting the full story anyway. Within a few days the locals were saying not to eat the fish. Maybe the tsunami was a religious experience and they decided to be vegetarians. Its illogical there wasn't a reliable large source of fresh water available, but its also illogical to build a nuclear plant in an area with a history of tsunamis. And maybe they never considered passive cooling by non-pressurized boiling. The control rods were certainly in the reactors. The batteries worked but had very limited capability. Sure, if the plant wasn't designed with reliable fresh water sources or the venting I described, it could have been added a week later. But you can't have just 50 people adequately servicing multiple reactors and fuel pools, particularly when everything is covered with debris and radioactive. Hot water boils if depressurized. Just add more cold water to cover the fuel and cool things down. Well, I suppose the hydrogen explosions provided some form of venting. Its karma. 172.129.204.185 (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC) BG

Most radionuclides had better been vented in the ocean. I can't believe the figure that 10% of the radioactivity of Chernobyl was released, but regardless you wouldn't want it on land. 172.162.199.170 (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC) BG
 * ?at chernobyl the thing was literally an open bonfire. But im not sure if you think the figure too big or too small. Sandpiper (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! I thought the 10% figure was way too high, but now it turns out 10% might be about right. Shocking. The fish-eating Japanese better try vegetarianism. And now the news says they still don't have a master plan for cold shutdown and clean-up. Someone better consider alternative cooling and clean-up methods like the above for the plant. This is going to be a bigger financial mess (some call it a disaster) than necessary unless its dealt with intelligently now. Contaminated soil outside the plant could be easier to deal with than people think, but thats a separate subject. Somehow I see Karma working. 172.162.243.45 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC) BG
 * You are correct, 10% is shocking - I'm incredibly surprised that it isn't higher! Think about it - Chernobyl 4 was 1000 MWe, and the 4 Fukushima reactors had a combined total power output of over 2500 MWe. So to only have 10% of the radiation released means that the Fukushima 50 have done damn well..... MWadwell (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Experts agree the reactor design here is better than at chernobyl. (if memory serves, at the time of Chernobyl all the water reactor people were going round tut tutting saying how much better their designs are.) A graphite reactor burns nicely! Also, things have been better under control throughout. I am unclear as to what they are currently trying to do, but I would think the plant is still not wholly written off despite comments. Cooling now seems to be under control and the passing of time makes matters better as they cool naturally.I dont know what has happened to the fuel rods, but it seems likely they are still largely intact. At Chernobyl it melted its way into the basement. I think they are still unable to reconnect normal systems because the basement areas are full of radioactive water, and this is what they are trying to deal with. It is far far better they try to get back control of ordinary systems than any of these wild ideas of entombing the place or whatever. The fuel ponds are a separate issue and I dont know if there has been fuel melting there too. This is open to the air so might be responsible for much more dangerous radioactive escapes. Sandpiper (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, entombing sounds like a poor solution, and probably causes more long term problems because it hinders long term clean-up. Is a decent 1000 gpm fresh water source available like a municipal supply or well, or do they have to use barges? 172.164.11.135 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 172.162.150.253 (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)BG


 * Normally they'd make the demineralised water on site (it's not hard - that's what we do at the OPAL Reactor. However, with all of the damage/electrical supply issues I'm not sure if it would be available. MWadwell (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC) ***** Having a significant working fresh water source available should be very doable. Also most water from unpressurized boiling could optionally be retained with a condenser. The stored fuel should of course always have been under water. 172.162.150.253 (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC) BG

INES level
I added some detail, as well as IAEA and NISA updates, on the current INES level rating, which is provisional, here. It was raised because they are now considering the event in the whole, and not by separate incidents: which are rated, level 5 for reactors 1, 2 and 3; level 3 for the spent fuel pool at reactor 4. Filippo83 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * as mentioned above, what would be the INES rating for the incident at 5&6? Sandpiper (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My reading would be that they are INES Level 2 events - as they were "Significant failures in safety ­provisions but with no actual ­consequences". But that's just my opinion. MWadwell (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Upgrades
Have the 'INES (individual)' ranks for reactors 1, 2, and 3 been upgraded to 7, or are they each still at level 5? -161 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.54.63 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that individually they are still a 5, but collectively they are a 7. MWadwell (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The rating isn't that important. I wouldn't trade this situation for Chernobyl in a second. 172.162.150.253 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC) BG

Agreed. I know that I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Those guys at Fukushima have done a hell of a good job under incredible conditions. MWadwell (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Change article's name to Fukushima Nuclear Disaster
Given the information that this disaster is far worse than Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster) and according to various internet sources: http://rt.com/news/japan-alert-maximum-plutonium/, http://rt.com/news/japan-fukushima-tsunami-earthquake/, http://www.innovationsinnewspapers.com/index.php/2011/03/12/first-pictures-from-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/, http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/nuclear/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/. In chernobyl one reactor had a meltdown and radiation leak and it did not include plutonium as fuel. Regarding the events in fukushima I, four reactors are confirmed leaking nuclear waste and one of them contains plutonium as fuel, which has a half-life of 24100 years. I think this is a clear reason to rename the article as Fukushima Nuclear Disaster or Fukushima Disaster. Barbarbaron (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the name change. However, Chernobyl is still far worse than this.--RaptorHunter (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember one TV newsmagazine years later. No one was in Chernobyl. The visitors had a Geiger counter which was chattering away. Hopefully that won't be true in Japan. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the name change and concur that Chernobyl (at the current moment) is a far worse event. Barbarbaron, you should read a little more about the Chernobyl disaster, the acute deaths and long-term deaths, to get a better perspsective.  And other than the non-neutral Greenpeace source, do any of your references say Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl? MartinezMD (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "do any of your references say Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl?" This source does: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1120218/1/.html Barbarbaron (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the follow up, but the expert giving the opinion is somewhat biased ("a leading anti-nuclear activist") and speculative: "likely", "could be even higher" etc.MartinezMD (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with MartinezMD. If Fukushima is really as bad as Chernobyl, we should be able to find a source that is non-biased and backs up the claim with sensible numbers: compare the amount of material released, at the very least. Whether the half-life of the isotope is 30 or 24000 years is irrelevant. The number of reactors is irrelevant.  The amount of radiation exposure to humans is the important thing. Spiel496 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Following the same pattern as Chernobyl disaster, I suggest Fukushima nuclear disaster

Keep as Fukushima I nuclear accidents, this hasn't reached the point of Chernobyl. V7-sport (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because it's not quite at chernobyl yet, doesn't mean it's not a disaster. They have detected 3.7 million bequerels of cesium-137 per square meter over 40KM away from the plant (the standard at chernobyl for evacuation was 1.48 million becquerels). This means that the land will be uninhabitable for at least a century. --RaptorHunter (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Move The land will be uninhabitable for over a century. Nuclear plants costing billions have been destroyed. They will cost billions more just to clean up. 25% of Japan's power generation has been knocked out which means the rolling blackouts will continue for over a year. Crops from several prefectures have been banned from sale and will end up being destroyed. That's a disaster.--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, one reactor meltdown in chernobyl costed around 300 bln dollars to fix (humanitarian, ecological and the cost of sarcophagus). The total impact of this disaster to the japanese economy and environment will be much bigger: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1120218/1/.html Barbarbaron (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Baloney. 172.163.104.223 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)BG
 * Thank you for your insightful opinion. --RaptorHunter (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep: by changing the article name now, we will once again lose all the statistics of the accesses to this page. But I agree, it is a true nuclear disaster. The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) now proposes a level 7 on the INES scale for the whole Fukushima site. I suggest to still wait a little bit to change the page name. Shinkolobwe (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Much of the long term damage from Chernobyl was preventable. One can find interviews of cleanup workers who were outright lied to concerning their radiation exposure and the dangers thereof. That will not happen in Japan, which is being continually monitored by the entire world. Furthermore, the majority of radioactive cesium was released in the first hours of the accident, and went out to sea. The hot spots outside the evacuation zone are long term problems, but can be cleaned using proven techniques. It is inconceivable that Japan would allow people to continue living there for years without taking action, as happened int he Soviet Union. Furthermore, the majority of the cleanup costs associated with Chernobyl were due to the construction of the sarcophagus, which will not be needed in this case since their containment systems are largely intact (though probably damaged and leaking). In Chernobyl they had to use remote controlled bulldozers and helicopters to approach the building. In Fukushima the workers are able to walk around the site freely, though only for short periods of time. This really cannot be called a disaster until either more people have died/been injured, or until reputable organizations predict severe large long term effects. Neither has happened yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.227.67 (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose did you forget about the tsunami and earthquake that hit Fukushima that started the nuclear mess??? That's also a disaster, and different from the nuclear disaster. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note when I lodged this opinion, the target requested was "Fukushima disaster". 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment since the press is referring to it as Fukushima Daiichi, why would you call it just "Fukushima"? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note when I lodged this comment, the target requested was "Fukushima disaster". 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as Fukushima I nuclear accidents. So far, it's still an accident, not a disaster.  This reminds me however, that the article may need to soon include a section on how anti-nuclear activist organizations like Greenpeace are trying to mine this accident to further their anti-nuclear power campaign. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see this vote won't pass, but in a few months after even more radiation has leaked out and a few hundred square kilometers of japan are declared a permanent exclusion zone and the town of Iitate becomes a ghost town like pripyat. Then this "accident" will finally be called a disaster.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support: My four main reasons to call this a disaster: 1) The 1331 highly radioactive spent fuel rods in reactor No.4 are fully exposed to air as the pool water that they were kept in has boiled and non-existent at the moment. The fuel rods are not kept in a steel containment vessel as in other reactors (they should be) and there's virtually no way to keep these rods cool now, a meltdown of these fuel rods cannot be prevented from now on and possibly has started. There have been various explosions and fires in the reactor No. 4 and the only containment vessel that can prevent a radiation leak (the concrete wall) has been breached. 2) It is known that one or more of the other reactors that have containment vessels are either known or suspected to have cracks that leak high doses of radiation to the atmosphere and the environment. One of the blown off reactors (reactor No.3) contains plutonium fuel and the containment vessel has been breached. 3) Considering the above information, economic and environment impact of this disaster will be far worse than chernobyl or any other nuclear disaster. The economic outcome is considered to be catastrophic to japanese people and economic crisis kills people too as radioactive contamination does. It is clear now that a wide area around the plant will be uninhabitable for a very long time considering the plutonium leak from reactor No. 3 4) Comparing the fukushima disaster to Chernobyl disaster in terms of governments' reaction to the events is misleading, the two events can't be compared according to this only according to the scale of the damage (both economy and environment) and fukushima disaster is clearly the biggest nuclear catastrophe in human history. One known fact is that whatever the situation is, these kind of problems in a nuclear power plant should not happen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWlDtqTU-tE&feature=fvst Barbarbaron (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Barbarbaron, you state "It is clear now that a wide area around the plant will be uninhabitable for a very long time". Presently, there is nothing in the article to back up this remark. If you have new information from a reliable source, you should add it to the article, or discuss it in a separate section on the talk page.  This move-request is not a forum for your views on the situation. Spiel496 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this time Why not wait a month or two? If it turns out to be the disaster that some of the above predict then go ahead and rename it. Disaster normally implies large loss of life (as in Titanic). Hasn't happened here yet. But it is a big big accident(s) and a frightful mess. These were old reactors near the end of their useful life, but the very high cleanup costs will nullify that. To put it in perspective, the economic damage related to the nuclear facilities is a small fraction of the other economic damage caused by the tsunami, and trivial compared to the US savings and loan bailout "disaster" a few years ago.  Wait and see what has to be evacuated and abandoned. 172.129.52.161 (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC) BG
 * Oppose at this time Why not wait a month or two. The earthquake and tsunami would qualify. The dimensions of the event will be getting clearer. Maybe the discussion should be what are the criteria for calling something a "disaster", as we will be revisiting this shortly.We have one death so far, the suicide of the spinach farmer.( Martin | talk • contribs 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC))
 * "Kyshtym Disaster" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster) didn't have huge economic and human health consequences, but its not called an accident. Only because a large area is still uninhabitable after the event. In fukushima we clearly have orders of magnitude more damage than this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWlDtqTU-tE&feature=fvst Barbarbaron (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

More baloney. At Fukushima we clearly have orders of magnitude less radioactive material released than Kyshtym. 172.163.104.223 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC) BG

Correction: At Fukushima we clearly have much less radioactive material released than Kyshtym. More importantly most of it went into the ocean instead of on land.172.162.92.246 (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC) BG
 * Its only a matter of time before Fukushima Nuclear Disaster becomes the biggest nuclear catasthrope known to our beloved free world. A very large part of japan will be uninhabitable. Ghost towns and cities will emerge like mushrooms. Then we can make documentaries about the disaster and put some old teddybears on long abandoned beds, some rusty metal amusement park scenes, a sad music on the background and say "you see... everything began when TEPCO energy company and the japanese government didn't close a nuclear plant in its scheduled date". Barbarbaron (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment this requested move appears invalid, the suggested target title changed between the initial request and currently, without notice. See this DIFF that shows that changed the target from Fukushima disaster to Fukushima nuclear disaster without anything indicating such a change occurred. 65.93.12.101 (talk)
 * This is an open discussion not a binding vote. I read your comment above and agreed with you that Fukushima nuclear disaster made more sense than Fukushima disaster. Therefore, I modified my proposal.--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since there's a tsunami and earthquake disaster in the area too and since corpses lay on the radioactive ground that couldn't be taken from the evacuation zone, I too insist on the name "Fukushima Nuclear Disaster". Barbarbaron (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Without indicating a change, one who previously commented may not notice that the request has changed. Further, the person who closes this will not necessarily understand the meaning of the comments present (such as mine). when they do not match the state of the request. It should be indicated when a request is changed so that previous opinions may be revised to the current state of the request, if necessary. Without making a statement saying the request has changed, it can make the course of opinions seem inchoate, thus making the closer ignore substanced and nuanced opinions as they no longer match the facts of the request. Whereas the people who lodged those opinions may wish to adjust their position to match the current state of affairs. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. It doesnt really matter what it is called for now and we can decided after its under control one way or another what it really is. For the present we have already had several page moves as people argued over what to call it and this should cease. See past discussions. This is not yet a national disaster. I dont know if it is one for tepco, but if they are insured maybe not even for them. I think we are still on a deaths score of Tsunami 25,000 reactor nil. Sandpiper (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weakly Oppose. Both sides make good arguments.  I'd say it is presently a disaster, and from everything I've seen and read (the opinions of scientists that I tend to trust) I fully expect it to get only worse.  Perhaps just an emotional reaction on my part, but "accident" seems more of an on-going word, which it is, and "disaster" seems more final. Gandydancer (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the situation is still not under control, there has yet been no massive radioactive damage to the general population. That still could happen, but for the time being the real disaster is the tsunami and earthquake. walk victor falktalk 14:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. --Tenmei (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. The current title on Japanese Wikipedia is "Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident". —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Move accidents is an understatement. What is happening is already a nuclear disaster because of the huge amount of radiation leaks and billions of destroyed material. Correjon (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time "Disaster" is a strongly value-laden term. It is not Wikipedia's job to make an assessment, but rather to describe and explain.  Frankly, I would lean towards using "accident" for Chernobyl and Bhopal, too, even though those are clearly disasters.  That's only a leaning because do see the argument that using a milder term might be interpreted as downplaying the severity, but we should at least wait for society's judgment on this one.Mark Foskey (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Radiation in other countries section - "man made" vs "natural" radiation
"An important distinction that many experts are not making between natural radiation sources, and man made isotopes like Iodine 131, Cesium 134, Cesium 137 is that natural radiation has been around for the whole evolution of life on earth and is an instrumental part of that evolution, whilst Iodine 131, Cesium 134 and Cesium 137 are man made and have been around for only a few decades.[269][270] Therefore, it should not be expected that our bodies could have developed any mechanisms to cope with them.[271]"

The citations in this section do not support the argument it is making. [269] points at http://www.seafriends.org.nz/books/periodi.htm which is just general information about the elements. [270] and [271] both point to a paper about ionizing radiation and children's health at http://iicph.org/files/actaradiation.pdf. Now, that paper does NOT say that our bodies can't have evolved mechanisms against "man made" versus "natural" radiation. It does mention that we are now exposed to evolutionarily novel isotopes, and it also mentions that there are difficulties in assessing the effective dose from internal exposure, but it doesn't support the idea that there is a qualitative difference between "natural" and "man made" radiation.

The idea it's pushing seems very unlikely. There are natural ionising radiation emitters, like Potassium 40, inside the body already. There are multiple redundant DNA repair mechanisms which look for damage of different kinds and fix it. It's hard to see how it would matter if a DNA strand was damaged by a beta particle emitted from "natural" Potassium 40 or from "man made" Iodine 131 - the body's capability to repair the damage would be the same.

So the statement is unsupported by the references provided, and seems like it is original research. I think it should be removed unless some research can be found to support it.

Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that section is utter bullshit. And bullshit that isn't even supported by its references. I'm deleting it. -- Kolbasz (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, lower down: "The reason these radioisotopes are more concerning is their extended half life, for instance Cesium 137 has a half life of 30 years,[284][285][286] meaning that it will bio-accumulate in the food chain and stay there for the long term.[287] This effect together with the fact that internal emitters can proportionally cause more damage than external ones[288] makes any comparison with natural and external sources of radiation invalid.[289] If the release of Cesium 137 and other long lived radioisotopes would have stopped already,[290] their long term biological effect on target cells once absorbed into the organism would still be very concerning,[291][292][293][294] since the radiation would last for 300 years or ten half times of 30 years.[295][296]"

Again, this assumes that there are no naturally occurring long-lived, internal radioisotopes, but that isn't true. Potassium 40 has a half life of 1.2 billion years.

It is correct to say that Cesium 137 is more concerning because of its long half-life, but it is not correct to say that it can't be compared to "natural and external sources of radiation". It would be wrong to compare it to external radiation sources on a like for like basis, but it can be compared to natural, internal Potassium 40 which is already in the food chain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuchmoreexotic (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The section is mostly on the mark about Cs-137 being an isotope of particular concern, but the whole bit about "natural" and "man-made" is just baloney. If you want an example of a natural radiological hazard, just take a look at the uranium series - radon is a killer. -- Kolbasz (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ... I just made the mistake of reading the second reference in this section: "This effect together with the fact that internal emitters can proportionally cause more damage than external ones makes any comparison with natural and external sources of radiation invalid." Jesus. All that's missing is a section on how Big Nuclear is covering up the invention of the water-driven internal combustion engine. -- Kolbasz (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure which bit you are complaining about. Internal emitters are more dangerous than external ones seems to be true.Sandpiper (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about internal versus external transmitters. The problem is the idea that "any comparison with natural and external sources of radiation" is "invalid". Comparison with external sources would be invalid, but comparison with natural internal sources is not, necessarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuchmoreexotic (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 April 2011
 * Potassium-40 is both a natural and internal source of radiation. Also this, while entertaining, is not a reliable source.Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What Suffusion of Yellow said. As I said, it was about the reference - which nobody who even glances at its first page can call a reliable source. It's basically just one long rant about how the nuclear industry is secretly controlling the world's radiation protection agencies, and how there's this big conspiracy to keep the dangers of radiation quiet. That internal radiation is worse than external is the one part of that sentence that's actually ok. -- Kolbasz (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, what was this doing in the section "Radiation in other countries"? Even if there were a difference between "man-made" and "natural" radiation, it would have no relevance to the U.S., China, etc. unless it were first established that amount of new radioactive material in these places not "tiny, tiny, tiny", as the sources indicate. This really seems like a bit of synthesis. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the "makes any comparison with natural and external sources of radiation invalid" part for now. And then someone needs to go in and rewrite that entire section of the article. -- Kolbasz (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I removed the rest of User:Spine001's recent additions to that section. A long discussion of the dangers of some particular radioisotopes is misleading, given that the levels in the places discussed are so low. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I support your changes to the section. I do agree that there is no physical reason at all to distinguish between natural or artificial radiations: all them emit in the same way, alpha decay, beta +/- decay, or gamma rays, and this is the only thing that counts. It is instead true that radioactive isotopes are more dangerous inside human body that outside it, but the atoms theirselves behave in the same way wherever they are: so internal and external emitters do not exist, they are always the same elements behaving in the same ways. Also, it is important to point out: It gets no sense to say "there is X radioactive isotope" if we do not know how much of it is present, and how it is dangerous. I am making an example. Uranium and polonium are both two alpha emitters: it means that a tiny paper sheet or very few inches of air are enough to prevent any radiation to pass; but, when absorbed by the body (blood) uranium is virtually harmless being released through urines before getting dangerous, while polonium is deadly in very short time and in very low quantity; but, if one otherwise breath in uranium, it could cause lung cancer, behaving in the same way of any other "heavy metal". Why the difference, being both two alpha emitters? Polonium has a much, much shorter half-life, compared to the billions years of uranium, rudely meaning that its radioactivity is much higher. The same for other radioactive isotopes, like e.g. Pu-239 or I-131, which pose an health threat only above a certain measurable dose, and which danger is to be absorbed by the body and to fix inside it (respectively in the bones or in the thyroid) rather than spreading radioactive beams around them. Filippo83 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the type of decay;
 * the time of half-life;
 * the material itself;
 * the quantity/concentration.

I rewrote the section to try to remove this stuff and give a better indication that the risks to people outside Japan are probably very low. It's now been updated, with some information that seems good, but again statements have been added like "some experts point out that the biological effects of natural radiation sources can not be compared with the effects of radiation produced by man made isotopes" with some dodgy references that either don't support the claim or are talking about radiation in general, not Fukushima. Some of the links are bizarre, like a link to the Physicians for Social Responsibility site in an About.com frame.

I'm not up on Wikipedia rules so not sure how to proceed, but it seems like this should be discussed further. In particular, the claim about natural versus man made radiation is supported by three references that aren't relevant, so it seems dishonest to add it back without even discussing it here.

Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to tidy the section up a bit more and remove some of the dubious statements. There is a lot of material about Chernobyl in the "Long-term health effects" subsection which doesn't really seem to belong on this page, because I don't think it's true to say that the situation is comparable to Chernobyl. Should that be removed?

Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO that information is appropriate and should not be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amuchmoreexotic, the section is much better now. My main concern now with the "Long-term health consequences" section is that it's in the wrong place - alarmist or not, it shouldn't be a subsection of "Radiation in other countries". -- Kolbasz (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)