Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 12

Do we want to write about Fusion in this article?
"Fusion power commonly propose the use of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in many current designs also lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[37]" (from the section Fuel Resources) does not belong in the context of this article. The lead in this article has scoped the article to be about fission, not fusion. I will delete this if there are no objections.

Kgrr (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article name is nuclear power. We can change the intro if necessary.Ultramarine (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then let's change the lead of the article so that nuclear power from fusion is included. Kgrr (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Fusion is way too far in the future to be included in an article about commercial applications of nuclear technology, and deserves no reference whatsoever in the article. It should only have a redirect at the top to the article fusion power. This article is not about hypothetical applications of nuclear power, those are in the article nuclear energy. This article is only about actual applications that produce commercial power. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's 2008, We need a more current reference here
"As of 2003, the United States had accumulated about 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors.[citation needed]" This is an old figure. Can it be updated?

Kgrr (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Environmental material
Since there is a separate article for this material, please keep this material there. In particular, no not present a pov version in the main article.Ultramarine (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Debate on Nuclear Power NPOV
Under the debate on nuclear power section, reliability is listed as an issue. The section poses an argument as to why nuclear power is reliable. But no one is debating that nuclear power can provide a base load or reliable energy. The section only poses the WNA's position and attempts to balance the position with a short statement "Opponents dispute these claims as discussed in the main article." But think about it. These are issues for Solar and Wind, not nuclear. So why bring up this argument here? This argument is essentially a strawman used by the industry regarding other forms of energy supposedly cannot compete or contribute.

The debate section lead briefly talks about the economic issue, but then does not address it with a section below. Can you see why I think the article is FULL of POV?

The debate section lead talks about dependence on foreign oil. There is no section to address dependence of foreign fuels. Do you know that about 80% of the Uranium used by the Nuclear Power industry is imported? Here is a reliable source:  But conveniently, this is not discussed. Can you begin to see how the article is not balanced?

The waste issue is touched on briefly by the lead, but never expanded upon.

Can we make a list of what the debate points are and re-write the lead of this section?

Then, we should be able to expand each of the debate points are discuss them below. I don't think this is adequately handled.

Simply put, this article on nuclear power reads like an NEI brochure and does not reflect or address any of the key dissenting opinions. The article needs to be stripped of a lot of propaganda and POV. Kgrr (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The EIA page you give there shows purchases. Purchases do not equal consumption, there is a significant fraction more Uranium being used than mined right now because previous weapons-intended material was downblended and priced out many mines.  This article also isn't about nuclear power in the United States, Wikipedia is worldwide by default.  If you're going to add something like that, add correct and comprehensive information.  I thought we had good Uranium mining articles btw. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So there are imports purchases of Uranium and local purchases. Are we consuming or stockpiling it?  Downblending HEU from nuclear weapons simply means that we are using up our stockpiles (that were very costly to make).  Yes .. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia.  But we are no longer exporting, but now importing.  There are just a few net exporters now.

Kgrr (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Truce?
Ultramarine, I am really getting tired of this revert war.


 * 1) 1 You keep needing to discredit Wing's study by coatracking him. If you had ever had written a scientific paper and have had it published, you would know that you can submit it to several peer reviewed Journals after it has gone through the peer review process.  So stating that his article had been rejected by three different journals is actually irrelevant, except to discredit the source.


 * 1) 2 You keep needing to insert behind a reference to the Greenpeace article you can't seem to locate even though the link works fine.  It appears that you did not read the article.  I know this is one of the tactics to remove a dissenting statement and its reference.

why??? Kgrr (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 It was rejected by three journals in a peer-review process. That, and that many other studies have found opposing results, casts doubt on the study.Ultramarine (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2 I looked at p. 47, nothing there that they are the same sort, Chernobyl not even mentioned. That is your own WP:OR, not allowed. Please give a quote from the paper stating that these containment systems are similar.Ultramarine (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * At least you are willing to discuss this. Thank you.


 * 1) Perhaps you don't understand the peer-review process. I am published, so I know the process well.  Journals may reject an article for a variety of reasons.  They may not be covering a particular subject in an upcoming issue.  They may have too much to publish at this time.  They may be focusing on a different angle of research... etc.  It does take work to match a piece of research to the publication.  And, with every piece that is published, it may be accepted by one publisher while being rejected by a half of a dozen others.  This does not mean it's bad science.  The article you cite does not include the names of the journals and does not name the reasons as to why.  Clearly the article you cite intends to smear Wing's credibility by making a statement about it being rejected to an an audience that does not understand the peer review process.


 * The peer review process involves having a piece reviewed by peers of the scientist that is writing. Just because one study finds different findings from the others does not mean it's valid or not, it means that by posing a slight bit different hypothesis, one obtains a different result.  Science is not about a popularity contest or about repeating the same study over and over again.    Advances in science and scientific studies are made by posing a new theory and then either proving that theory.  Just because Wing found a different result does not mean it's junk science.  In fact your stating that a different result is junk science or by discrediting it is in fact POV.  Wing's study was accepted by a peer-reviewed journal.  In fact, the journal accepted several studies about TMI that all had different findings.  It did pass the peer review process.  It would have been the same peers for the submission to the other three journals, and probably by the same scientists that published other studies.  Science is not about politics.
 * So how to write this NPOV? Instead of trying to discredit Wing (which is your POV), simply say that he's found a different result from other scientists (NPOV).


 * 2) I really thought you would have read the Introduction. "In testimony, the NRC also acknowledged that the Chernobyl reactor had a pressure-suppression containment design that was similar in philosophy to the containments used in General Electric Mark I and Mark II and Westinghouse Ice condenser reactors."    Introduction, page 6  Appendix A shows from a reliable source (NRC) that Chernobyl did have a containment and confinement.  Appendix B, the reference I gave you shows that the AEC knows that pressure-suppression containment designs (as used in GE MK I and II, Westinghouse ICE) should not be used.  The link I gave you shows you that GE MK I and II are pressure-suppression containment designs, just like Chernobyl.  There is no leap of faith here and there is no original research.  It's all contained in this document, which you evidently did NOT read.


 * Please verify the source and accept the source that is different from your POV. I realize that Greenpeace follows my POV.  So if you feel that the piece needs balance, state the fact that the NEI states that Chernobyl had no containment while the AEC and the NRC feel differently about the subject.

Kgrr (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. You seem to be confusing with me someone else. I have never said anything about "junk science" or refused to discuss the issue. Wing found an opposing result to most other studies. The weight of evidence is thus against him. That the result has not been replicated in the ten years after his study casts further doubt on it. Peer-reviewed journals have different quality. If one is rejected by a good one, then one can often be published in dubious one with lesser requirements regarding study design and so on. Also, that scentists and peer-reviewers are above politics is incorrect. They are humans with human failings.Ultramarine (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2. You state "The reactor at Chernobyl used a pressure suppression containment similar to half of the US's reactors designed by General Electric and Westinghouse." Were is the support for "half of the US's reactors designed by General Electric and Westinghouse"? Furthermore, you seem to have a double standard. Here you quote NRC, but ignore what they state regarding health effects here:.
 * 3. Spare me ad hominem. Discuss the facts, do not attack me as a person.Ultramarine (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Ok .. So Ultramarine, I may have confused you with someone else. And yes, there may be a weight of evidence but that did not make Galileo or Columbus wrong.  Has the study been exactly replicated??  No, but a recent study has had different results.  Do you have proof that Environmental Health Perspectives is an inferior Journal?  To dispel that notion, the other study by the University of Pittsburgh is published in the same Journal.


 * But what I am objecting to is this sentence "Three scientific journals had refused to print the findings Steven Wing, and some of his fellow epidemiologists dismiss him as an anti-nuclear activist who let his personal views cloud his objectivity." The sentence in itself is an ad hominem attack against Wing.  Why should this article's objectivity be clouded by such a sentence?  That sentence is being used to smear Wing's reputation.  Please remove it.


 * 2. Re-write the sentence using the facts in the Greenpeace article to suit your needs. We can go through the list of reactors.  It's about one half.


 * 3. I am not attacking you as a person, I am disputing two things: 1) that this article has an ad hominem attack against Wing in it.  The purpose of this ad hominem attack is to discredit the person Wing and his study with an irrelevant fact (his paper was rejected by other journals).  I can find quotes that discredit the Pittsburgh study as well.  But the article loses its objectivity by including it. It would in fact be pushing a anti-nuke POV. 2) I am disputing a claim that is being made throughout this article that Chernobyl had no containment.  In fact it does and this is evidenced by NRC and AEC documents that you can see for yourself.  Those are the facts.  If you feel attacked by these facts, then I don't know how to help you other than you really need to question your own objectivity.Kgrr (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. There are many other opposing studies. That his study was rejected by three journals and only published in a journal by an environmental institute make it less important. Here is a severe criticism of the article: If you prefer, we can cite this criticism instead.
 * 2. Unless you can cite a statement to this effect you are violating WP:OR.
 * 3. Again, please discuss the facts.Ultramarine (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. The severe criticism of Wing's study is an editorial in Environmental Health Perspectives. It's opinion like a blog and not a valid reference for Wikipedia.  The notable reference in that is the Univ. of Pittsburgh study.  We've already talked about it.  It's in the same Journal as Wing's study.  You have two opposing studies.  You can admit to this.
 * 2. Telling you this is not WP:OR. It's a fact you can verify yourself.
 * 3. The fact remains is that "Three scientific journals had refused to print the findings Steven Wing, and some of his fellow epidemiologists dismiss him as an anti-nuclear activist who let his personal views cloud his objectivity." The sentence in itself is an ad hominem attack against Wing.  For example, in the harsh editorial, do they bring up that Wing was rejected by three different Journals - no.  They would not dare.  Did they bring up the POV about Wing being a biased anti-nuke environmentalist - no.  They would not dare.  Clearly your POV does not belong in Wikipedia. Kgrr (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. No more a blog than the article. There are numerous opposing studies. But again, see what NRC writes on health: [
 * 2. See WP:SYN, not allowed.
 * 3. As stated, we can cite the critical reply instead, if you prefer.Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Chernobyl containment
When we speak of "containment" in the nuclear context we mean a specific structure with particular properties i.e.
 * -Is cast from a single-pour of concrete onto heavily steel reinforced frame
 * -Has a welded solid steel pressure vessel either inside the reinforced concrete itself, or within the concrete building
 * -Encases the entire nuclear portion of the facility
 * -Is negative-pressure sealed

RBMK reactors consist of a large block of graphite which has vertical channels cut into it (the moderator). Within each channel is a steel pressure tube housing one fuel bundle. The large channel structure is housed within a biological shield which is made of concrete slabs which do not form nearly as robust a structure as the containment described above. When the accident occurred at Chernobyl #4, the surge in power vaporised all of the water in the individual pressure tubes. This caused them to simultaneously rupture. This rupture blew the top slab of the biological shield off of its supports and through the roof of the building. The hole in the building allowed air to reach the graphite in the core which sparked a massive graphite fire which spread fission fragments from the ruptured fuel tubes into the atmosphere via smoke through the hole in the roof. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_power&action=edit&section=9 Containments of the type described above and mandated in all other reactors around the world would have prevented the steam explosion from breeching them--large internal explosions are what they are designed to withstand.

This is not to mention that PWRs and BWRs have a single large thick reactor vessel designed to withstand spikes in pressure.

Containment suppression systems, are designed to lower temperature and pressure inside containment during a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). They cannot stop a large instantaneous steam explosion from happening. The Greenpeace source is distorting the facts and language of the matter to support their anti-nuclear position.

This is the overwhelming consensus on the matter (others may list their disagreement with this below to prove otherwise). Further edit warring on this issue will result in administrative involvement. Lwnf360 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lwnf360, Thanks for the brief history lesson. I understand that the rigors of the industry has changed since the 1950's due to corrective actions after each incident. US Reactor design has learned from several big mistakes at Idaho Falls and the fire at Windscale.


 * I am an engineer by trade and can see past the hogwash of both sides. I understand that both sides distort facts and language of the matter to support their positions.  But a Wikipedia article cannot have a position.  That is what WP:NPOV is all about.  Also, I can appreciate yet another definition representing another unknown "we".  "we" often represents a side in an argument, and not a true concensus.  Wikipedia must be devoid of "we"'s that don't include both sides.   We don't really need to drill-down into all of that.  What really bothers me is that POV is being pushed with sentences like "Chernobyl did not have a containment" but when reading the articles for meaning in the whole gives me a very different picture.  Let me explain:


 * The definition of Containment building lead line defines containment to have the following key elements: 1)is a steel or reinforced concrete structure 2)enclosing a nuclear reactor. 3)It is designed to, in any emergency, contain the escape of radiation to a maximum pressure in the range of 60 to 200 psi ( 410 to 1400 kPa). 4)The containment is the final barrier to radioactive release.


 * Can we agree that by the current definition offered by Wikipedia in Containment building, Chernobyl #4 did have a containment building (except that it was only designed to 57 psi)? Perhaps can we agree that Chernobyl did not have a robust containment?
 * RBMK reactors do not have containment as defined by the Containment building article. They have a biological shield made of concrete slabs (which are not heavily reinforced) and no steel liner.  To my expert knowledge, the biological shield and the superstructure of RBMK reactors is also not designed to maintain integrity in the range of pressure specified.  If you have a reliable source that states that RBMK reactors, specifically Chernobyl 3&4 designs, biological shield and superstructure could withstand these pressures please cite it.  Thus RBMK reactors fail to meet both 1 and 3 of the definition provided.  This is the overwhelmingly vast majority opinion on the matter from the perspective of design, research, independent, industry, and intergovernmental studies, groups, and organizations.  This is very well documented.  If you can provide reliable sources that state otherwise, please cite them.  Having the phrase "RBMK[Chernobyl] reactors lack containment" or any similar phrase does not inject POV in any way--it is objective truth. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Chernobyl #4 reactor meets #1 because the definition says "steel or reinforced concrete" not "steel AND reinforced concrete" . Chernobyl-4 did have a steel building designed to 57 psi that is separate from the enclosure that had the concrete biological shield on top of it.  Yes, Chernobyl-4 barely does not meet requirement #3 (by 5%).  The pressure requirement in the definition, where ever it came from (there is no reference), was cherry-picked to define 60 psi as the minimum requirement.74.61.37.1 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern is that the articles are not consistent within themselves and each other. In some places the Nuclear power  article says that Chernobyl had no containment, in others it does.Kgrr (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any references within this article or any article which deals with RBMK reactors, including Chernobyl #4, should be corrected to reflect the reality that RBMK reactors do not have containment as typically meant. Just because it is incorrect elsewhere, does not make this a contentious issue. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not make a difference whether or not US style LWR containments can withstand a chernobyl type steam explosion (which they can). We must remember that what caused the initial steam explosion at Chernobyl were design defects in the RBMK reactor design (i.e. the massive Positive Void Coefficient and reactor instability at low powers), which are not present in western style LWRs. Thus, a steam explosion of the magnitude that was seen at Chernobyl cannot occur at a US style reactor. So in reality, it seems like the debate whether or not US containment designs could survive a Chernobyl type steam explosion is inconsequential, because a Chernobyl type steam explosion is impossible at Western style LWR. Jkrellenstein (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I am not debating whether or not Chernobyl was correctly designed. We all know it was an inferior design.  I am not debating whether other accidents can or can't happen, I am debating a much simpler thing:  The articles that are presented here in Wikipedia should be internally consistent to themselves and consistent to each other (at least to where definitions are concerned).  So by the definition presented by Containment building (which initially was not linked to by this article), Chernobyl had a containment, but it was not robust enough.  We need to step aside from our biases and write an article that will present a balanced viewpoint.


 * As an engineer, I will never use the word "impossible". It's far too absolute.  The engineers of the Titanic used the word "impossible" quite a bit.  Saying something is "impossible" is POV.  If it is truly "impossible" to breach a containment, then why have an INES level 7?  Saying something is unlikely does not push POV and still allows the opinions of others to be represented.Kgrr (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some things are impossible from a scientific standpoint. It is dependent on context in order to ascertain if 'impossible' is being used correctly or not.  To which statement are you referring? Lwnf360 (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said a containment breach or steam explosion is impossible at a western reactor, rather I said that a "chernobyl style" steam explosion is impossible. As we all know, a large positive void coefficient (as reactor temperature increases, reactor reactivity increases) allowed the reactor (unit 4) at Chernobyl to reach power levels many times higher then design. The reason for this is that RBMKs use graphite as the primary moderator, whereas LWRs use water as a moderator (see Void Coefficient for more information) This is what caused the initial steam explosion, which blew off the biological shield and allowed air to reach the graphite, which subsequently ignited. Western Power Reactors have a strong negative void coefficient, which means that as reactor temperature increases reactor reactivity decreases, which prevents the "runaway reactor" scenario that caused the steam explosion at Chernobyl. Saying that a "Chernobyl type steam explosion is impossible at Western style LWR" is not POV, but rather physical law. I support adding to the article that Chernobyl had a partial containment with pressure suppression systems, however it must be included that 1) these were not as extensive as US systems and 2) that a Chernobyl type accident is impossible at a US plant (because of the above reasons). Jkrellenstein (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that Greenpeace and similar propaganda needs to be removed from many articles, I think we need to be careful not to accept pro-nuclear propaganda too. To say that Chernobyl #4 had no containment is simply not true; It did. The designers considered a worst credible accident scenario, and designed the building to withstand it. That's containment. Their mistake was, they did not consider any scenario that would lift the top plate. Apparently, the actions of the operators leading up to the disaster were not credible... and in hindsight, reading the reconstructions of the event, I can see the designers' point of view. They had to try really hard to break it like that. (The same could be said of Three Mile Island.)

The response to the Chernobyl accident was and continues to be ill-informed in many respects. As is pointed out above, there's no reason to believe that there's any risk of a similar accident in a PWR or BWR, for many reasons. If any Western organisations should have been criticised over the RBMK, surely it was the anti-nuclear groups who had breathed not a word of criticism of them prior to the accident. Either they didn't know that some nukes were very significantly safer than others, or they did know and chose not to say. The instability of the RBMK design had been publicly discussed and soundly condemned by western experts at international conferences dating back to the 1950s, so either scenario is damning.

But how best to express all that, while having both pro and anti activists riding interference, is a real challenge. Andrewa (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For the most part, I agree with you, Andrewa. What qualifies a well documented Greenpeace article to be "propaganda"?  Their published articles are well researched.  The reason I used the source is because it had copies of both memos obtained from the AEC and DOE under freedom of information act (FOI).


 * The difference is the purpose for which the material is written. Propaganda is written primarily to pursuade. It may if well-researched and documented contain much useful information, but it's still not a good source to cite, rather the sources they use should be cited directly. The same goes for pro-nuclear bodies such as the World Nuclear Association, of course. If they cite only primary sources, and we can't find better secondary sources to cite, then we need to make this clear. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the anti-nuclear groups knew much about the Chernobyl design before the accident. So in fact, hindsight is 20/20.


 * My guess is that you are right. But it is a guess, and I don't expect to find out either way. And I note the much. I'd also guess that some knew more than others. I'd be very skeptical that nobody in the organisations concerned ever spoke to any of the hundreds of now-retired Western experts who attended the conferences in question. And surely what they would have learned about graphite moderated water cooled low enrichment designs would have been of extreme interest to them. But as to the wider issue of some nukes being safer than others, it's pretty obvious why this issue would be avoided. For example, it's not good to talk about positives of nuclear safety when you want to close one of the safest plants yet built. Disagree that hindsight is 20/20. As Paul Simon wrote, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Andrewa, I take it you are saying - Chernobyl DID have containment. So can we have a concensus on this issue? Did Chernobyl have containment or not and why? Kgrr (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm saying that if we must answer the (simplistic) question Did Chernobyl have containment? the answer is yes. But I'd also say that it's not a good question to answer in a Wikipedia article, because the term has such political overtones regarding Chernobyl #4 that either answer will mislead somebody. The answers to many related questions as to the adequacy of the containment is no. I think we already have consensus (-> on that. So consensus on what, and how will it help us to improve the article? Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is another source that does say Chernobyl-4 did have a containment: "At Chernobyl, this reactor containment building was a very simple, thin-metal-walled building, not like the three-to-six-foot thick steel-reinforced concrete containments we have in the United States and all countries other than Russia and the former Soviet Union countries." Here is an article that says "...U.S. reactors are only considered safe -- indeed are only allowed to be built -- if their domes can withstand 50 PSI." Chernobyl-4's containment was designed to 57 psi. 74.61.37.1 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is all irrelevant anyway
The presence or absence of containment is not the issue. The issue in that paragraph is did Chernobyl affect Western safety practice to which the answer is stated as "no". The reason Chernobyl is not important to Western practice is that no Western reactor is physically capable of having that particular accident. The reference to containment should be removed from the paragraph altogether. Man with two legs (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article in one remaining place says that Chernobyl had no containment. This is entirely incorrect.  Chernobyl had a containment that was under-designed and not robust enough to do the job of containing a steam or hydrogen explosion.  (Graphite+steam -> Carbon Monoxide+Hydrogen [both combustible])


 * Did Chernobyl affect western safety practice - yes definitely. We certainly had already learned our containment lesson with Windscale and Idaho Falls.  I certainly think that using Graphite moderators is out of the question.  The design pressure for Chernobyl's containment building was 57 psi, which is not far from our lower limit of 60 psi for US reactors as I understand it.  I would expect that future designs would have to prove that they can contain the pressures that steam and/or hydrogen can cause.  Either way, I don't forsee any cutting back on the amount of money spent on a containment building (which is at least 10% of the cost of a plant).  Kgrr (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for thinking graphite moderators are unsafe. The reason the UK switched to water for the last power station is because it turns out to be a cheaper way of making power.  The several remaining graphite moderated reactors in the UK can't duplicate the accident at Chernobyl because they don't use water. Man with two legs (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting speculation. Here's some of mine: The proposed PBMR saves a lot of money by eliminating the containment building, and is the darling of some environmentalists. If HTR-10 works as well as some hope, and if India was then to adopt similar gas-cooled thorium-fueled technology (rather than their current water and liquid-metal cooled plans for their vast thorium reserves) and make it work for them too, then it's quite possible that we'd go through a phase in which all new commercial nuclear power stations had no containment, and the only remaining containment buildings worldwide were around old plants and the higher-powered research reactors (including prototype LMFBRs for example). Low but finite probability IMO; I don't think it will happen but it's not impossible. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "This accident occurred due to several critical design flaws in the Soviet RBMK reactors, such as lack of a containment building which would have stopped radioactive emissions from that accident, and that security in the remaining RBMK reactors have greatly improved" should be reworded "This accident occurred due to several critical design flaws in the Soviet RBMK reactors, such as lack of a robust containment building which could have stopped radioactive emissions from that accident, and that safety in the remaining RBMK reactors have greatly improved"Kgrr (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. Try reading my paragraph above again: the whole subject of containment does not belong in that section of the article. Man with two legs (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Request edit
I'm not established enough to edit this page. Request that the Hanford, Washington link be edited to Hanford site. (Hanford, Washington was a small farming town that ceased to exist after 1943, when the nuclear site was established.) Thanks. Northwest-historian (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Be bold and make the change yourself. WP:BOLD  Although it appears that way sometimes, you don't have to have to be "established" on a page to edit it.  There is no cabal.  Kgrr (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The page is currently semi-protected, so, yeah, you do need to be an established editor. But it seems like a reasonable request.
 * —WWoods (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I thought that semi-protection meant that only people with ID could edit.  OK ... Will do.Kgrr (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The change had already been made in the Origins section, Paragraph 2.Kgrr (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Biases (NPOV disputed)
I agree with previous posts that this article is heavily biased towards the pro-nuclear argument, and there is very little anti-nuclear evidence present. There is extreme re-writing necessary here; everyone here knows the importance of a balanced case and the high esteem that wikipedia is held in by many individuals. I might even go so far to say that this is a moral question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.180.136 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you. This Wikipedia article looks like it has been scrubbed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the industry's propaganda arm.

WP:NPOV

So far, I have been met with heavy opposition with trying to balance the article with published facts. The latest edit I made concerning Chernobyl having a containment was backed by a Greenpeace document that showed what the AEC and NRC considers to be containment. A well documented piece is easily as reliable of information as a piece from the NEI. It was reverted again this morning.

WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. At least two sides of this argument have been clearly identified: Pro-nuclear and Anti-nuclear. It reasons that the article's consensus position should clearly balance these two positions. It currently does not.Kgrr (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The reactors in the greenpeace article you cite are old military reactors meant for use on submarines and they had containment in so far as they could have it. These systems would not suffice for a commercial reactor today and wouldn't have back then either. The only time the word 'containment' is mentioned in the article is in the phrase 'containment building'. Chernobyl had to have had containment systems, otherwise it wouldn't have functioned as a reactor. What it didn't have is a containment building. Wanting to point out that Chernobyl had containment systems is pointless because it's a given for any reactor. Rather than remove POV it would add it by introducing superfluous, confusing information.


 * Also, this article is about nuclear power, not nuclear power politics. Pro and anti nuclear are political positions, not factual positions. Wanting to add anti-nuclear power opinion to this page would, again, introduce POV problems, not remove them. Also, the anti-nuclear movement has its own article on wikipedia, we don't need to dupe it here. Please feel free to point out any passages in this article which you feel convey pro-nuclear political opinion as these need to be removed, just as anti-nuclear political opinion need not be added. Nailedtooth (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is a political position for one person may be a "factual position" for another. Either case, they are POV.  So if your "facts" are wrong, does that make it political?  Stating both opinions or interpretations of the "facts" balances the article.  You may believe that the GE MK I, GE MK II, and Westinghouse ICEs are military reactors.  It's your POV.  It does not make it a "fact" position.  In fact GE MK I and GE MK II and Westinghouse ICE reactors are not Military submarine reactors, but rather they are BWRs used in many nuclear power stations needing to be retrofitted or decommissioned.  For example, the recently re-started Browns Ferry Unit 1 is a GE MK I and so are the other two - units 2 and 3.  Now is this a political opinion?  I don't think so.  Please check your "facts" Kgrr (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you're wrong. There are some factual positions that can be regarded as political, but the issues at hand isn't one of them. The fact that Chernobyl 4 didn't have a containment building is not-disputable. This article isn't about interperiting facts, it's about presenting them as free from interpretation as possible. Pro and anti nuclear opinion should be removed from this article, not added. Thank you for the information on the GE Mk1 and 2, however, even though my information about their purpose was incorrect I don't see how this helps your case. Brown's Ferry has a containment building in addition to pressure suppression. Chernobyl lacks a containment building and the pressure suppression system is dissimilar to that of a GE Mk1 or 2. They're both called pressure suppression, but that's about it. Nailedtooth (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this article is about nuclear power not nuclear power politics. If you (or anyone) has a reliable source which disputes or clarifies facts stated in this article, you can cite them.  Stating that "RBMK reactors have containment" adds a minority opinion which quibbles with the precise meaning of 'containment' (on a philosophical note regarding meanings of words and necessary and sufficient conditions cf. Wittgenstein on open texture and family resemblance).  This injects POV. I do not understand your fixation on this issue; there are probably many other statements in this article which are more NPOV than this one. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Wikipedia Containment building's definition of a containment, Chernobyl 4 had a containment. Stating that RBMK reactors did not have containment is a falsehood spread by the NEI, a pro-nuclear industry advocacy group.  This injects POV if it's the only opinion offered.  To balance the article, both viewpoints should be presented.  NPOV in Wikipedia is not about removing "minority opinions", it's about presenting a balanced viewpoint.Kgrr (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is bizarre. You've linked to the article on containment buildings but you seem to have no idea what that article says. Your arguments are patently false with even a quick read of the intro section. The idea that Chernobyl 4 didn't have a containment building is not POV, it's an obvious fact to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the situation. Nailedtooth (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are looking at. As soon as I post a link to what I hope you look, the link gets removed or changed. I am trying to show you where the NRC had a conference in 1986 and they did indeed say that Chernobyl had a combination of containment and confinement.  Note the back cover is upside down. Kgrr (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Even in that case, the quote you provide in all caps below does not help you. It states specifically that the confinement buildings cannot be considered pressure retention structures. As such, they cannot be containment buildings.Nailedtooth (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again Greenpeace is an anti-nuclear advocacy organization. Citing original research from them does not constitute a reliable source and injects POV. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah... it doesn't say that. Find me something that says Chernobyl's containment was designed for a positive 20 psi pressure.  It wasn't. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok ... How about this source: "Chernobyl security report_Lessons for lower quality utilities_June_1986" Q Donaldson. Lutkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation, 1986 (see the appendix. Question to NRC regarding whether or not Chernobyl had a containment versus confinement.  Their answer was "UNIT 4 AT CHERNOBYL CONTAINS CHARACTERISTICS OF BOTH CONTAINMENT AND CONFINEMENT. THERE A RE TWO REGIONS THAT APPEAR TO BE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND 27 PSI AND 57 PSI. THESE VOLUMES ARE IN TURN INTERCONNECTED WITH TWO SUPPRESSION POOLS VIA PRESSURE RELIEF VALVES AND DOWNCOMERS. THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF THE PLANT ARE HOUSED WITHIN A CONFINEMENT STRUCTURE. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION, THE CONFINEHENT BUILDING CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A FILTRATION SYSTEM WITH LITTLE OR NO PRESSURE RETENTION CAPABILITY. THE FIRST CONTAlNMENT REGION, REFERRED TO AS THE REACTOR VAULT. IS SHOWN IN THE ENCLOSED FIGURES, I T SURROUNDS THE REACTOR AND PORTIONS OF THE INLET AND OUTLET WATER PIPING, THE DESIGN PRESSURE IS ,18 MPA (27 PSI). AT LEAST TWO RELIEF VALVES CONNECT THIS REGION TO THE SUPPRESSION POOL(S). THE SETPOlNT OF THESE VALVES IS .02 MPA (3 PSI). ENCLOSED PIPING CONSISTS OF RELATIVELY SMALL DIAMETER (].E,, 6 INCH DIAMETER) TUBING ?HEREBY ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR A HlGHER DESIGN PRESSURE." "THE SECOND CONTAINMENT REGION ENCLOSES THE MAJOR DIAMETER PIPING AND HEADERS OF THE SYSTEM. THE LARGEST PIPE IN THIS VOLUME IS VOLUME IS SHOWN JN THE ATTACHED FIGURE. THIS REGION HAS A DESIGN 90 CM (35 INCH) IN DIAMETER, THE BOUNDARY OF THE ENCLOSED PRESSURE OF .35 MPA (57 PSI). DOWNCOMERS CONNECT THIS REGION TO THE SUPPRESSION POOLS. THE SUPPRESSION POOLS ARE ARRANGED ONE ON TOP OF THE OTHER, AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED FIGURE. EACH POOL REGION IS APPROXIMATELY ElGHT FEET HIGH WITH A POOL DEPTH OF ABOUT 4 FT. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY OVERHEAD SPRAY SYSTEMS OR DYNAMIC COOLlNG SYSTEMS INSIDE OF THE CONFlNEMENT BUILDING SIMILAR TO THOSE USED IN U.S. LWRs"  Kgrr (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand the words you're putting on the page here. Your ALL CAPS quote specifically states the confinement building above the reactor had no pressure retention capabilities, meaning it is highly uncharacteristic of a containment building. In fact, it says the confinement building can be considered an air-filtration system. The fact that Chernobyl 4 was designed to maintain containment during some accidents does not change the fact that it was not designed to maintain containment during the accident it suffered. Chernobyl 4 didn't have a containment building. Nailedtooth (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "It was originally written in ALL CAPS. I'm sorry the NRC chooses to YELL in their momos."Kgrr (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Says who? The Greenpeace reference does qualify as a reliable source.  The article is certainly not original synthesis like a blog or an editorial.  The piece from Greenpeace (which has been removed again by ultramarine even though the NPOV tags were there) is a published original research article with references.  Greenpeace is a peaceful environmental group but is not an extremist source.  May I suggest you re-read reliable source and WP:OR.Kgrr (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem producing hordes of references that specifically state that it did not have a containment. There is a question of definition here, because it did have something and of course nobody disputes that.  The Greenpeace reference there makes a convincing case, but... it just isn't consistent with anything else I've read. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to remove questionable POV statements regarding Chernobyl how about: "As such, the Chernobyl accident, involving a badly designed RBMK reactor in the Soviet Union, operated dangerously in an unauthorized way by untrained personnel, has absolutely no relevance to the question of the use of nuclear energy in the Western world today." I do not agree with "absolutely no relevance..." It bears mentioning that the type of accident that occurred at Chernobyl cannot happen in LWRs, but that is all. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That statement is ridiculous - where does it occur? Of course the accident has relevance, if only politically. For example, prior to the accident, there was a complete absence of any public debate, interest or awareness of the possibility that some reactor types might be better than others. And of course it is also POV... It reads like a debator's oratory because that's exactly what it is. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article currently reads as if no accidents are possible using the current reactors. Remember this is a world-wide article and there are many more countries in the world besides the United States.  The GE MK I and MK IIs and the Westinghouse ICEs have to be retrofitted to get re-licensed.Kgrr (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just getting back to editting and have yet to read the comments above: for now, I've just changed the text to read as "This accident occurred due to several critical design flaws in the Soviet RBMK reactors, such as lack of a complete amd proper containment building which would have stopped radioactive emissions from that accident, and that security in the remaining RBMK reactors have greatly improved. As such, the Chernobyl accident, involving a badly designed RBMK reactor in the Soviet Union, operated dangerously in an unauthorized way by untrained personnel, is not generally regarded by Western experts as having relevance to the question of the use of nuclear energy in the Western world today." While true, a cite will be neded as well (there used to be many).  A balancing statement such as "(Some organizations disagree - ____ in particular objects on the gounds that ____)" might also be appropriate. Simesa (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... No, Chernobyl did not have what a Western nuclear engineer would count as a containment building. It also would never have had a Western operating license. Simesa (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think many people here are missing a big point. It's not a question of if nuclear power is dangerous or not. Of course its dangerous, everything in the universe is dangerous! The question is HOW dangerous is it compared to other things. Nuclear power stations only kill people when there is an accident. Coal, gas and oil power stations kill people every day, by design, through air pollution. What we have here is a severe case of plane crash syndrome where rare spectacular events cause much more fear than every day less spectacular events. -OOPSIE- (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The anti-nuclear movement article mostly describes the anti-nuclear movement, and is not a detailed examination of nuclear power, which is what this article is supposed to be, so it is wrong to expect that only positive things should be said about nuclear power in this article. It is proper for every statement about nuclear power to be questioned and examined in this article. For example, if it was economically viable why is it being heavily subsidized? It's not like it is a new industry, in fact it is at the end of it's life. Why is the NRC paying half the licensing cost? Why are the licenses issued without debate for 20 years and are renewable for another 20 years without public input? Why is the nuclear industry immune from having to buy insurance against damages? Why was the PUHCA quietly terminated (to the glee of nuclear proponents). 199.125.109.64 (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

undefined Add "|Questionable Biases (NPOV disputed)" to the POV tag at the top of the article to direct editors to this section. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this article is biased in favor of nuclear power. For a balanced perspective, see: Article on the history of the U.S. nuclear power industry and the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant -- at the end of the article are links to peer-reviewed academic books and articles. Eeshawilliams (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Chernobyl containment
There's a lot said above. Here's a summary of what I think we ended up with:

1. It's unwise for Wikipedia articles to say either way whether Chernobyl #4 had containment (unqualified). It did did have something that the designers intended to be containment, and which they even called containment, but the term is so politically charged and disputed in meaning in the context of Chernobyl that it's better avoided in our text. It's OK in relevant quotes. The term secondary containment is similarly best avoided in the article text.

2. Chernobyl #4 did have containment structures, in the form of structures such as walls that would have been there anyway but which were specially strengthened in order to contain the radioactive material in the event of an accident. And which of course failed to do so.

3. Chernobyl #4 did not have a containment building, and nor do many Western power reactors, both proposed and actual.

4. Chernobyl #4 would not have been licensed in any Western country that licenses power reactors because its containment structures would not have met the safety standards.

5. Had a containment building of the sort required by Western licensing been in existence at Chernobyl #4, the release of radioactive material would have been greatly reduced. However the plant would still have failed other safety criteria, and would still not have been licensed. Moreover, the size of containment building required for this design of reactor would have made the plant uneconomical.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Point 3: Yes all Western power reactors have a containment!!! What are you talking about? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about a containment building. If you think that all Western power reactors have a containment building, then you wouldn't be the first to claim this, it's a very, very common mistake. But for example, the Magnox plants have no containment building, and nor would the proposed PBMR. Andrewa (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The point in mentioning that Chernobyl didn't have a containment building is that - along with its other design features and how it was operated - its part of what makes Chernobyl irrelevant to the discussion of modern Western nuclear power stations. The fact that there are some old, obsolete stations and some proposed designs that don't have containment buildings does not change this. The obsolete stations have no relevance to modern plants and the proposed designs haven't been licensed yet, and even if they are they bear no resemblance to an RBMK reactor. It might be interesting to note that there are some Western reactors that don't have containment buildings, but they too are atypical of modern Western nuclear power stations. Nailedtooth (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a big difference between claiming that a typical Western power reactor has a containment building and claiming that all Western power reactors have containment buildings. Yes, the vast majority of Western power reactors have containment buildings. A few go even further and have attached vacuum buildings as well.


 * This is not the place to promote nuclear power, but it is a good place to correct errors, and a particularly good one to correct widespread errors, such as the one we are discussing here. I am personally convinced that the facts support the use of nuclear power, and if this is the case then setting them straight works in its favour. And conversely, spreading inaccuracies works against it.


 * And there's a place to argue the case for nuclear power, too. It's a good thing to do. Just not here.


 * The whole issue of containment is critical to the development of nuclear power. In many plants appropriate containment is the difference between a safe plant and an unsafe one, and/or between an economically viable plant and a white elephant. Andrewa (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Except the article has never said that all Western reactors have containment buildings. What the article has consistently said is Chernobyl has little relevance to the question of modern nuclear power in the West. This is true regardless of the fact that a few obsolete reactors or as-of-yet unbuilt designs don't have containment buildings. It's not the containment building per se that's the issue, it's whether the Chernobyl accident has relevance (which it does not). Even if Chernobyl had a containment building it would still be of little relevance because the reactor design chosen would never have been licensed or built, if not for safety reasons then for economic ones.Nailedtooth (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree that the containment building is not an issue. There has been much discussion, both here and in the archives of this page, as to whether or not Chernobyl #4 had containment. It has been plagued by confused terminology.


 * This section was started as an attempt to state the facts clearly. I listed them as points 1-5 above. You objected to point 3, which was specifically about containment buildings. Have we now dealt with this? If not, what's the problem? If so, are there any other problems you see with points 1-5?


 * I never said the containment building was not an issue. I said it was part of a larger issue and even if the 'containment building' issue didn't exist that larger issue would still remain. I am essentially agreeing with point 5 above.


 * I wasn't the one who objected to point 3. Rereading it I'd only object to the word 'many' as there are only two Magnox reactors still running and no PBMR reactors. The Westinghouse and GE reactors in the discussion above all have containment buildings. I have no objections worth mentioning to any of the other points, they seem to be an accurate summary. Nailedtooth (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite right, and I stand corrected. The objection was by someone else, and you joined the discussion later.


 * The many refers to other reactors than just the Magnox. It was an example.


 * There are two remaining Magnox power stations, with two reactors each, and all must close in the next few years as it's uneconomic to keep the fuel reprocessing line open. I'm not sure whether the AGR has a separate containment building and suspect not (same issues as the Magnox - enormous and unnecessary), if not then it will soon be the only operating power reactor class in the Western world without containment buildings AFAIK. But the point is, many Magnox reactors were licensed, and operated safely, and the PBMR will be licensed if it proves to be practical and economic, and can be expected to operate safely too. So the simplistic reaction to the Chernobyl accident that every power reactor should have a containment building is not supported by practice or experience. Rather, the RBMK was a bad design choice right from the start, and the Russians were told this right from the start. There's also a lot more to a nuclear power program than just the reactors; If Chernobyl had been intended to operate with more enrichment (as other RBMKs have since the accident), the program would probably have been abandoned as uneconomic owing to the higher fuel costs.


 * The fact that no new power reactors are being built without containment buildings just reflects the particular types of design that are currently favoured. A major factor in this is that currently, both uranium and enrichment services are relatively cheap. Andrewa (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I totally agree about correcting this error. Mentioning it would be an appropriate part of the discussion on general safety. It seems there's a general idea that nuclear safety is one thing and one thing only, whereas in reality it's a multifaceted problem. Some nuclear generators totally and completely passively safe while other sources of nuclear power are highly unstable. Like you said, the difference between a safe and unsafe reactor can be a single thing, such as specific containment systems. Perhaps expanding the discussion in the article on nuclear safety is in order. Nailedtooth (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a separate article on nuclear power plant safety would be a good idea. But I caution against trying to make points such as you are making above in it, or in any part of Wikipedia. It appears to me to be the very sort of promotion that both Wikipedia and the pro-nuclear-power movement can do without, Wikipedia because our policies prohibit it, and the pro-nuclear-power movement because we have little to gain by playing politics, and much to lose. At best, our rhetoric may make us seem no better than the antis, whose pseudo-technical claims are generally laughable (I have for example been ridiculed for claiming that some isotopes of naturally-occurring Uranium had longer half-lives than any of Plutonium) and are I believe coming to be seen as just that. The post-modern generations are far better at critical reading than any previous ones. At worst, if by our rhetoric we manage to convince people that unsafe plants are safe, then eventually we'll just have another Chernobyl #4. Andrewa (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been said that the end of nuclear power will come when the next big accident occurs - with the only question being when, and not if. In a similar vein I have argued that the space shuttle should continue flying until the next accident, instead of an arbitrary date. Would you want to go up in the shuttle if you knew that? 199.125.109.108 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's also been said that the first big accident would end nuclear power. Then came TMI. Then they said the next big accident would end nuclear power. That was Chernobyl #4, and in the USA and Sweden it certainly caused a hiccup... but not in China, or India, or Japan, or France. Now they say the next big accident will end nuclear power... do I see a pattern here? Meanwhile, a growing fleet of PWRs and BWRs keep on quietly producing vast quantities of electrical energy, with no greenhouse gases, good economics, no proliferation risk, and an excellent safety record, TMI included. Andrewa (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Classic FUD. Nailedtooth (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No accidents are acceptable in the nuclear industry. Safety systems such as containment buildings do help once the accident has happened, but the largest commitment to safety comes from a "safety first" attitude to prevent the accidents.  A fear of many people is that the "safety first" attitude gets replaced with "investors first" attitude that may have come from deregulation.  A lot of nuclear power plant operators have told me that looking safe is far more important than reporting problems that are occurring in the plant.  I would agree a nuclear power plant safety article is needed as long as it does not become more nuclear industry propaganda like this article.  Let me illustrate this propaganda.  If you wanted to make a culture look advanced, you point to the advancements made by one culture versus another.
 * Indigenous people on this continent for example knew all about tracking the days, months and years on a calendar and even knew how to track the moon and venus on a calendar. They in fact knew the exact date when the sun will line up with the galactic plane.  However, these people did not have the wheel.  They were probably fully capable of building a wheel because they had a full understanding of math involving circles and triangles - trigonometry.  Westerners at the same time were still denying the existence of planets.  However, Westerners regarded this important invention as the crucial difference between primitive indigenous people and more advanced people such as themselves.  Clearly this story is full of POV.
 * Now the POV in this article continues a cold war myth that Russians are stupid and incapable of doing anything correctly. Continuous examples are given to support this POV.  The POV to further assert this myth is  that the Russians had no containment using sentences like "critical design flaws in the Soviet RBMK reactors, such as lack of a containment building."  Chernobyl did in fact have a containment, but it was not as robust as the current western design today.  Note that Western reactor designs did not use containments until the Windscale accident.  I feel the containment is being used by westerners to show how much more advanced they are and that accidents are impossible because they have a containment building.  In fact, containment buildings do not prevent accidents, procedures do.  Containments contain nuclear accidents.  And furthermore, most containments cannot adequately contain an explosion.  So quit making soviets look stupid for having had a containment that was designed to contain a mess rather that trying to contain an explosion.
 * I would settle for a lesser degree of POV: such as: "such as lack of a "robust" containment building." Kgrr (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how you can be so mistaken.Nailedtooth (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some articles that say that Chernobyl indeed had a containment building:
 * "At Chernobyl, this reactor containment building was a very simple, thin-metal-walled building, not like the three-to-six-foot thick steel-reinforced concrete containments we have in the United States and all countries other than Russia and the former Soviet Union countries."
 * "On April 26, an explosion ripped the top off the containment building, expelling radioactive material into the atmosphere; more was released in the subsequent fire."
 * "Nor was it pointed out that, even if Chernobyl had no containment, the failure or bypass of such structures remains one of the most troubling potential aspects of severe accidents in U.S. reactors."
 * "On April 16 of that year, one of the four power-generating units in the Chernobyl complex exploded, blowing the top off the containment building."
 * "Reactor building was a water tight containment building."
 * "The most significant difference between the RBMK design and most of the world's nuclear power plants is the RBMK's lack of a massive steel and/or concrete containment structure as the final barrier against large releases of radiation in an accident. The effectiveness of American-style reactor containments was shown in the 1979 Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident, when virtually all radiation was retained inside the containment building, despite considerable melting of the fuel. In the Chernobyl accident, the RBMK plant's accident localization system (the RBMK's version of containment) could not withstand the force of the accident. However, because the estimated energy released by the explosions was greater than most containment designs could withstand, it is highly unlikely that a containment structure could have prevented the release of radioactive material at Chernobyl."

As you can see, even a current containment building would not have been sufficient in the opinion of the above writers to contain the steam explosion at Chernobyl. Let's not propagate the old cold war lies about the Soviet Union and tell a more balanced, worldly story about nuclear power.Kgrr (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Except the fact that three of those sources flat-out say that Chernobyl had no containment building, and the others are cases of incorrect terminology use. You are wrong. Please stop trying to force your incorrect views. Nailedtooth (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Every nuclear industry magazine, every institute that has studied Chernobyl and THE RUSSIANs all say that the RMBK reactors were designed without containment. I would challange anyone here to find a citation that shows the Russians or any engineering group considered that what surrounded the Chernobyl reactor was there for "containment of radioactivity". Can you even cite, in any popular press, evidence to back the asertion that the Cernobyly reactor building was designed as a "containment building" as we understand it?DavidMIA (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends on who you mean by "we" when you say "as we understand it". The Soviets had children, and didn't intend to poison the world for them. So they did a risk analysis, and they included such measures as they thought necessary, and some of these were called "containment" (rough translation from Russian of course). To say Chernobyl had "no containment" is as naive and simplistic as to say it had a "containment building"... But on this politically charged subject, many who should know better do make such naive and simplistic statements. Ideally, Wikipedia should report and source such statements, and steer clear of them ourselves.


 * Mayday at Chernobyl, by Henry Hamman and Stuart Parrott (ISBN 0-450-40858-2), is one of many popular accounts that reproduce official Soviet diagrams with the word "containment" against some of the structures. These are secondary containment as far as I can see. Andrewa (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dust
The following text was removed - and, in retrospect, rightly so. These types of facilities must and do know to have dust suppression systems. However, I thought some of us here on the Discussion page might like the info (since explosions have occurred: see the articles), so I'll post it here and we can then forget it. "Facilities that produce dust (coal dust, grain dust or even from sugar ) also have the potential to explode." P.S. - Sawdust will also explode. Simesa (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Only relevant to very dusty nuclear facilities. If there's an article on dust explosion I suspect relevant info is already there.  -- SEWilco (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Future of the industry
This section needs cleanup. Right now there are information about some countries. At the same time the listing is not comprehensive as several projects for nuclear development or decommissioning are missing. More comprehensive (although not a perfect) information is provided in the Nuclear energy policy article. I propose to move the country related information into Nuclear energy policy article and rewrite this section using summary style.Beagel (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish I had time to go through and correlate all the sources ... following is a simple regurgitation of the first page of today's Google search results for "nuclear power plants in china" to give someone a head start on current events. Ranging from recent (2004) to new (yesterday), there is also plenty of information on the current state of nuclear power in other countries. JimScott (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/04/content_7716947.htm
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSPEK33676020080218
 * http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
 * http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-02/19/content_6465565.htm
 * http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
 * http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200401/07/eng20040107_132027.shtml
 * http://english.sina.com/special_report/040902nuclear.shtml
 * http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1995/environ/ENV149.HTM
 * http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-2/p19.html
 * http://www.nti.org/db/china/pwrrctr.htm

The nuclear power series articles are quite messy and should be arranged in complex way. I propose to remove country specific information from this article. Of course, there could be some examples (the first something was built; the largest something is located in etc), but information like country X has 10 reactors and country Y plans two more should be removed. Information about current facilities should be moved into Nuclear power by country, and info about policies and planned reactors should be moved into Nuclear energy policy by country after splitting it from the Nuclear energy policy.Beagel (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

DONT REMOVE PERFECT DATA
I WONT TOLERATE IT FROM RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastchancepowerdrive (talk • contribs) 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)