Talk:Nuclear safety and security/Archive 2

Strong POV concerns here too
I was visiting this talk page to raise my own concerns about the negative tone of the entire article, when I noticed the above posts saying the same. A few examples:


 * 1) Introduction - "The nuclear power industry has improved the safety and performance of reactors, and has proposed new safer (but generally untested) reactor designs but there is no guarantee...". There is no mention of current status quo, just that they have made efforts to improve (from what starting point or successes is never said) but it's not guaranteed it will work. It's implied to be a failed starting point with not a lot of improvement.
 * I would have thought that the statement "The nuclear power industry has improved the safety and performance of reactors" was quite a strong positive one to start off with. Johnfos (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Same section - 5 serious accidents is based on counting 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl - but Fukushima (due to one event affecting multiple plants in the same complex) is counted 3 times to imply 5 incidents rather than 3.
 * This breakdown is given in the source cited; if you have another source with a different approach, by all means add it in. Johnfos (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) "Responsible agencies" - 2nd sentence immediately hits a "weasel word" negative starting tone, "Some scientists say that the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents have revealed that the nuclear industry lacks sufficient oversight, leading to renewed calls to redefine [its] mandate" and hence develops into a catalog of one-sided failings. Which scientists, how authoritative, or people holding other views, are all unsaid.
 * Details of one of the scientists is given in the very next sentence -- Najmedin Meshkati of University of Southern California.


 * 1) "nuclear power plant -> complexity" - starts immediately with statement they are immensely complex and then the negative-tone-setting statement, "Any complex system, no matter how well it is designed and engineered, cannot be deemed failure-proof", setting a strong negative viewpoint and followed by complete focus on failings and nothing else.
 * Much of this section is based on Charles Perrow's classic book Normal Accidents. I think we are fortunate to have such an authoritive source to draw from. Johnfos (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The article continues this way. It's very strongly POV to a point that it cannot be described as a balanced or neutral reference work on the topic. While safety issues exist and the facts are right, they should be presented in an appropriate balanced tone, style and manner. It might not take much to fix, and if I get a chance I'll have a go. Would endorse tagging as NPOV.

FT2 (Talk 00:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, "safety issues exist and the facts are right", so the main issue is presentation rather than content. By all means improve wording to provide a better "tone, style and manner". Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The main issue might be presentation, or presentation and content. It's not uncommon for facts to be correct but incomplete (or indeed correct, complete but presented in a way that's likely to leave a reader with an unrepresentative impression) – BLPs are a good example of this problem. FT2 (Talk 22:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I really had hoped that someone else might have commented on this, as you have given us little to go on. I’ve challenged the four points you have made at the top of this section, showing that this article does say some strong positive things about nuclear safety and that it uses some very authoritative sources. And now you are saying the problem "might be" this or it might be that. Not very helpful. Johnfos (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion removal of paragraph
A lot of poorly sourced material has recently been added on nuclear fusion. I tagged it, as "citations needed", and removed one unsourced paragraph. This note is from my Talk page... Johnfos (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You removed a paragraph on fusion safety . saying it was "too much".


 * Not only it was short, but it was the only overview paragraph on fusion safety for a long article that otherwise deals almost exclusively with fission and non-power related radioactives. Fusion power related activity isn't trivial. It's the recipient (right or wrongly) of almost 1/2 of research funds for new power sources, it is under research and development in a wide range of projects, and has taken place in the real world (as opposed to theory or speculation) for over 20 years (controlled fusion, 1991, JET).


 * The bulk of the article contains statements about "nuclear power" that are incorrect, uncited, or inaccurate for fusion as it stands. That distinction needs to be made early on so readers can appreciate that later statements about "nuclear safety" may not apply, or apply equally or unqualified, to fusion. Otherwise each mention of "nuclear" needs to be specified as to fission or fusion.


 * Would you be willing to reinstate the paragraph you removed? I think it's really needed for clarity.


 * FT2 (Talk 21:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I have this right. There are no nuclear fusion power stations anywhere in the world which supply commercial electricity to the grid. Yet we now have a long, speculative, poorly sourced section on nuclear fusion in this article. And you are suggesting that we include another unsourced paragraph about it in the very first section of the article? Surely this is a case of WP:Undue weight?


 * Someone above suggested that we include more on nuclear medicine and I would agree that this is a much more relevant topic for expansion. Johnfos (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You have it not-right. The article is on nuclear safety, not nuclear safety in established commercial activities. Fusion research stations have nuclear safety considerations. The prospective power stations they are intended to lead to, have had nuclear safety analysis. Fusion reactors exist, though not in great numbers and not commercially. Many statements related to nuclear safety simply don't apply to all "nuclear reactors". They only apply to nuclear fission reactors. As for nuclear medicine - agreed this could do with more. FT2 (Talk 10:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the paragraph that you want reinstated, in the first section of the article, see :


 * Power from nuclear fusion, currently under long term development and not yet in use, has a very different risk profile from nuclear fission, the predominant process in use today. A number of the most serious nuclear risks are absent or greatly reduced in the context of fusion power generation - for example, fuel quantities are much smaller, waste is much shorter lived, byproducts are not readily capable of weapons use, and thermal runaway or nuclear meltdown which give rise to many of the worst effects of nuclear fission disasters cannot occur (reactions cease immediately control is lost). Other than in the context of nuclear weapons, "nuclear power" and "nuclear safety" in this article generally refer to radioactivity and fission related issues, but may not apply to fusion power technology.


 * This paragraph refers to “fusion power generation” and “Power from nuclear fusion, currently under long term development and not yet in use...” I have referred to this material and the other material on fusion you have so far added as speculative, unsourced, and putting undue weight on a technology which doesn’t exist yet commercially. The paragraph should not be reinstated.


 * In contrast, I would be happy to see a short sourced discussion (at the end of the article) of safety issues with the main nuclear fusion research reactor types which exist today, under the heading Nuclear fusion research reactors. That would be entirely grounded in reality and be very different to what we have so far. Johnfos (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're confusing yourself. Nuclear fusion reactors don't exist commercially. But their safety issues do. They have been studied, reviewed, the science has been considered and risks analyzed. A bit like the Higgs boson which I've been working towards WP:GA - the boson may not exist but studies, theoretical analyses, research, proposals, studies of safety of proposals, and coverage do. "Doesn't exist commercially" is not an issue. Reactors, studies of their safety, and science of their safety, do exist. If you want to dispute any specific statement, then that's fine, let me know any statements you feel are inaccurate. Cites are needed and should be added, but our standard is verifiability and as far as I'm aware this is pretty much uncontroversial verifiable material. FT2 (Talk 12:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You have lapsed into pro-fusion WP:POV-pushing as you are persistently presenting a one-sided view in relation to fusion power. The unsourced paragraph that you are concerned about is close to being an advertisement for fusion.

As with most high tech megaprojects, there are differing views as to the viability of particular projects, and their anticipated advantages and disadvantages. Skeptics question whether a working fusion power reactor will ever be possible (See Scientific American) and others think it could be 100 years before we have commercially viable energy from fusion (New Scientist).

Differing views of the anticipated safety issues associated fusion power are discussed in some of our own WP articles, see for example, ITER and elsewhere (see Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, New York Times).

Please accept that others may have well-founded views that differ from yours and listen to what they say rather than seeing them as “not right”, or “confused”. Johnfos (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Err.. I haven't said anything against differing views. Just that this article is incomplete and misleading as it stands. It isn't an issue whether commercial use exists or not in an article discussing nuclear safety.


 * Of your 5 links:
 * This one questions if commercial power will be achieved. It doesn't speak to the topic of nuclear safety at all. In fact it doesn't say one word about nuclear safety.
 * This one (sign in to read) seems to be much the same, discusses feasibility of commercial use, not safety.
 * ITER contains statements that decommission may be difficult (which I included) but doesn't give details. It references "problems (technical and economic)" but not safety issues. It contains just one criticism related to safety and that has to be dug for, this link, which states that Koshiba opined "ITER did not meet a certain number of conditions, namely safety and economic costs, for it to be considered the dream energy", but gives no details of any specific safety issues, nor any source for the statement. The rest is criticism of economic and renewable priorities which isn't relevant here.
 * This one says there is a proliferation issue with laser containment technologies. We do need sources on this and multiple sources of various types should exist.
 * This one is a good source on the risks of tritium escape and environmental contamination. It identifies the risk and seems to assess it fairly.


 * In other words your sources sum up as follows: 1/ decommissioning may be difficult; 2/ a scientist is quoted as saying there are "unaddressed safety issues" but we haven't any source and there's no details or indication whether major or minor; 3/ laser technology has proliferation implications; 4/ tritium escape and environmental/human impact needs mention. I don't disagree with any of these.


 * By contrast the major differences from fission are probably uncontroversial: Core runaway, uncontrolled heating, and meltdown as occurred in each of the 3 major disasters to date (3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan) are not seen as risks for current or future fusion reactors. Fuel qualities in use are far smaller. High activity level waste with thousand-year-plus danger levels is not a concern. The main types of fusion waste appear from sources to be short-lived (though difficult to trap) escaping tritium, or the radioactive decommissioned core whose "dangerous life" is 50 - 100 years rather than centuries or millennia as with current waste (Pu239: 24,000 years half life, Np237: 2 million years, Tc99: 0.2 million years, etc).


 * These are probably the causes of the most serious risks and concerns for fission reactors. I don't think any scientific or credible source will disagree with these points. So it's important to make clear that fusion and fission have these different risk profiles.


 * FT2 (Talk 17:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Update - I found the source from Koshiba (French English). It sums up as: - "we're still working out how to handle high energy (14 MeV) neutrons, including absorption materials, and this is a problem. It could be very expensive." It's valid if it's safety rather than economics, we'd need to look up the safety implications of this area as well as status of research and the mainstream views on it. FT2 (Talk 17:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What you are saying about fusion power safety is entirely speculative, WP:Crystal, because a fusion power station has never been built, and may never be built. You seem to be glossing over this fundamental point. The material you have inserted into this article presents a one-sided view of the issues as if they are simple and settled, and promotes fusion as if it is some sort of silver bullet. This is a mistake. Johnfos (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * John, I'm starting to get the concern you don't understand our policies and guidelines as much as you think. That's okay, but be aware of the concern. WP:CRYSTAL refers to speculation about what may or may not happen in future. A technology doesn't need to be in commercial use, to (a) exist, (b) have safety analyses performed on it, (c) to have significant discussion by experts of its safety situation, (d) have scientific knowledge published of plausible and implausible behaviors within current approaches. None of that is speculative since it all exists today. FT2 (Talk 10:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

POV issue with health impacts section
I have some concerns about this section, given that pro-nuclear side gets single sentence while the anti-nuclear side gets a total of nine, including an extended quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgiesler (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed the long quote, removed the tag, and invite you to add more "pro-nuclear" material if you wish. Johnfos (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Subject matter
This article isn't so much subject to point of view or bias as it is slightly misdirected. If the title of the article were, say, nuclear incidents and concerns, for example, the majority of the article as it stands would be perfect. I think some of the information one would expect to find at this title currently exists at the article Nuclear_reactor_safety_systems, which details (from a noted technical perspective), a variety of safety mechanisms and their motivations, with some context of possible or actualized risks (for example, Fukushima and Chernobyl are both mentioned for particular aspects of the failures). When I make comparison to articles like Automobile_safety, with much discussion of safety features in the context of the dangers; it seems it would not be wrong to suggest this as a good direction for the 'Nuclear safety' article, Offering the information a person looking for safety is presumably searching for, without rehashing subject matter from incident articles, 150.35.244.246 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Intro, Paragraph 2
Can anyone get access to the reference for the first statement "The nuclear power industry has improved the safety and performance of reactors, and has proposed new safer (but generally untested) reactor designs but there is no guarantee that the reactors will be designed, built and operated correctly.[1]"? It appears to be "Jacobson, Mark Z. and Delucchi, Mark A. (2010). "Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part I: Technologies, Energy Resources, Quantities and Areas of Infrastructure, and Materials". Energy Policy. p. 6.", but the link in the references section seems to be broken and I can't see the full text through other sites. For our first citation, we surely wanna start things off right; if the paper can't be accessed, a more conservative statement might be better. Darryl from Mars (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * New link added: Johnfos (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lovely. I can see the exact wording was used, although in the context of the source, the author was explaining the dismissal of nuclear. For the sake of its inclusion in the nuclear safety article, how would you feel about reversing the order of the two clauses, such that the relevant information is presented but not immediately negated, e.g. 'Although there is no way to guarantee that any reactor will be designed, built and operated correctly [or perhaps 'safely'], the nuclear power industry has improved the safety and performance of reactors, and has proposed safer (but generally untested) reactor designs.' Perhaps that last parenthetical phrase might be refined as well; obviously testing is done in research environments, but what the sentence is trying to say (which is clearer in the report's context) is that the designs haven't been commercially deployed, correct? A similarly succinct way of making that clear here would be good. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, Darryl, I'd suggest that you make those improvements to the wording so we can see how it looks... Johnfos (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

polyisobutene milk
Appearantly, placing polyisobutene milk on the concrete walls of nuclear reactors make them much safer. See http://www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/chemical-company-from-ghent-achieves-once-in-a-lifetime-success_248602.html Add in article, or any other appropriate article 91.182.5.4 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Beyond Design Basis Events Plagiarism
This section is almost wholly plagiarized from the cited source, so I have replaced it with a (more correct) summary. The current wording also implies that nuclear operators don't consider external events when designing reactors, and this is wholly not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.20.193 (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Good work man, keep it up.

Black Swan Events?
I've never heard the term "Black Swan Event" used in the context of nuclear planning or design. As far as I am aware, the normally used term is a "Beyond Design Basis Event". A simple Google test shows that Beyond Design Basis Event gets more search results than Black Swan Event, and the Beyond Design Basis Event links are more relevant to nuclear safety. Past that, the current wording of the section suggests that there are a host of unforseen events like dams bursting or catastrophic coolant failures that nuclear designers do not anticipate, when in fact the opposite is true.

I propose that this section be merged into "Beyond Design Basis Event" and that section expanded to explain what that is and the renewed focus in BDBEs since the Fukushima disaster. 128.252.20.193 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with your proposals, good work man.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead tags and Sovacool's credentials
Intro is way too long, and should be less than half its current length, summarising main points in article. Intro is unbalanced because it has too much on Japan; needs to be globalised. See WP:Lead. Johnfos (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead should summarize the salient points about civil nuclear power safety. Can you point out specifically where the information in the lead strays from summarizing the main points? Moreover Fukushima was the most serious accident in recent times, therefore it and Chernobyl are obviously mentioned in the lead, with a Chernobyl type disaster(in terms of reactor inventory release) not being possible in the most common worldwide(vis a vis 'globalised') western designed reactors- as unfortunately proven in practice at Fukushima with 4 reactors combined approaching approximately 20% of a chernobyl. Therefore Japan, the reactors that were damaged, and the reactors that shut down safely as designed should obviously get the weight of the lead, as they're the most important from a 'globalised' perspective.


 * As for the neutrality tag, agreed, Benjamin K. Sovacool shouldn't, by right, even be in the lead(since when are lawyers nuclear safety experts?) and he should be moved down the page, although the reason why I kept him in the lead, is that the MIT report that he cherry picks from does segue into discussing protection from plane crashes and modern Gen III safety in general, so that's why I kept him in the lead- consistency with the MIT report, in the interest of keeping it - Modern safety, plane crashes, and their expert approval assessment of modern safety technology, all in one place.
 * Anywhere else you can specifically point out where the material in the lead strays from being neutral?
 * Notify me on my talk page if there any responses.
 * Thanks,
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Sovacool is not a lawyer by any forms or means. He has a PhD in Science and Technology Studies from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, and his graduate work was on Electric Power Networks Efficiency and Security Program for the U.S. National Science Foundation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Benjamin K. Sovacool is perfectly entitled to his views, but he is working in the law department of Vermont, and has done a fair degree of legal advocacy against nuclear power/ he is a lawyer - http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Our_Faculty/Faculty_Directory/Benjamin_K_Sovacool.htm?child=x13226 and clearly anti-nuclear at that, having spent his time in India lawyering it up against nuclear power, and writing an anti-nuclear book with many unsubstantiated claims contained within, such as selectively quoting what MIT actually said. Science and Technology Studies is a social science, not a hard science.


 * I take issue with this idea that Sovacool (myself) is an "anti-nuclear advocate." I do not receive money nor do I work for any "anti-nuclear" groups. I produce independent research and scholarship, not tilted advocacy, and have no vested interest or stake in the energy sector. Basically, I call things as I see them. Moreover, while I am balanced and critical of nuclear power, some of my work has argued that nuclear power makes sense as an alternative to coal and fossil fuels, and that it has its own political economy of sorts. These arguments are neither "for" nor "against" nuclear power. See, for a start, these two peer-reviewed books, https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/climate-change-and-global-energy-security, and http://www.anthemenviroexperts.com/?p=423 and http://routledge-ny.com/books/details/9780415688703/ for more. Bksovacool (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought it was time to weigh in. First, BL, I am in no way, nor have ever been, a lawyer.  Get your facts right.  What you are describing is invited expert testimony I have done around the world as an academic, not an attorney.  Also, the Vermont Law School has many research programs and degrees that do NOT involve lawyers.  They involve students getting their Masters of Environmental Law and Policy or Masters of Energy Regulation and Law.  Third, all of the research you describe has been peer-reviewed and fact-checked, and it is often critical of nuclear energy, but that's what the facts tell us.  Fourth, as to my qualifications about nuclear energy specifically, I'm a former Eugene Wigner fellow from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, review articles for the Annals of Nuclear Energy and Science (among others), have written two academic books, and have now spent 6 years researching the topic.  What, exactly, are your qualifications?  You're calling me out publicly, so let's put our cards on the table.  Do you have any professional experience with the nuclear power industry?  Fifth, I think you're cherry-picking the MIT study.  Here are quotes straight from the study: "both the historical and the PRA [probabilistic risk assessment] data show an unacceptable accident frequency" and "“[t]he potential impact on the public from safety or waste management failure . . . make it impossible today to make a credible case for the im¬mediate expanded use of nuclear power." Bksovacool (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, I ask, what are his science qualifications that would lead anyone to assume his opinion matters in respect to the field of Safety engineering? or even nuclear engineering - Safety code (nuclear reactor), that warranted the previous editors pushing him into the lede of a safety article?


 * Think about the elitism with this statement - only engineers can now discuss nuclear power? What about the public, environmental groups, economists, political leaders, etc.?  That's like saying only cooks should ever talk about food, or soldiers about war, or prostitutes about sex, when in fact we need broader discussions from people from a variety of perspectives to talk about all of those things.  This is all the more so when people within the nuclear industry have such a poor record of openness, transparency, and honesty.  Nuclear is a case where we desperately need people outside of the industry talking about it ... Bksovacool (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I don't mind leaving him in the lede of the article as it stands now, as the selective quoting that he chose to reiterate in his anti-nuclear book naturally segues into what the MIT actually said, and a discussion on safety by actual qualified hard scientists in the field - MIT - who do have a modicum of authority to discuss nuclear safety.
 * I am wondering just how we're supposed to trust BL's numbers and analysis when he is capable of getting simple facts - like my affiliation or training - completely wrong. BL, you even posted a link to my faculty page, so you had the correct information at your fingertips.  What accounts for the error?  Sheer sloppiness?  Or something else? Bksovacool (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The article, IMHO, is more than fair at including the two anti-nuclear advocates statements, who you know, don't have any nuclear engineering qualifications at all.


 * Wrong again, BL. If you knew my history or background you would have known that I have served in research and advisory capacities for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Semiconductor Materials and Equipment International, the Global Environment Facility, the World Bank Group, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. Department of Energy, Union of Concerned Scientists, the International Institute for Applied Systems and Analysis, the Renewable Energy Network for the Twenty-First Century (REN 21), and the International Energy Agency.  You don't think that makes me qualified to talk about energy policy and security issues?  Moreover, my book, which you have tried to critique, has been independently reviewed by experts three times, and every time the reviews were unequivocally positive.  The review in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Policy available here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513000116 said that my book is "highly recommended to all who are interested in future energy options. As a whole it successfully balances the extensive pro-nuclear literature.  It is well organized, well written and, well documented."  Where is your evidence to the contrary?  You seem to have lots of opinions, but very little facts. Bksovacool (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why you think that your personal opinion is relevant? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not very civil. I could easily retort by saying ''I'm wondering why you think your, or Johnfos' personal opinion is relevant?


 * The article needs more ink dedicated to scientific unbiased sources, and their safety analysis and opinions on the matter of nuclear safety. More information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and safety engineers in general wouldn't go amiss. How a repeat of Chernobyl cannot happen again due to western designs being of a wholly different construction, and how the Soviets improved their RMBK reactors after the accident. We should naturally stay away from biased sources - Pro and anti-nuclear. As for the length of the Lede - WP:LEDE, the lede summarizes the salient points about nuclear safety. So correct me if I'm wrong on this, but is that not the point of the Lede in the first place?


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The intro is definitely too long and detailed for an encyclopedia entry.
 * The following material is inappopriate and should be removed:

In terms of proven safety, the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant is a power plant design that has demonstrated it is possible for a properly designed nuclear power plant to safely accommodate one of the most powerful earthquakes and tsunamis ever recorded and to shut down safely as designed without incident. Although the town of Onagawa, were [sic] the power plant is co-located, was largely destroyed by the tsunami[5] and the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant having a closer proximity to the epicenter of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, than the Fukushima I power plant,[6] the more modern Onagawa nuclear power plant stood the test of both the magnitude 9 earthquake and ~14 meter high tsunami without incident, despite it being the closest nuclear power plant to the epicenter of the earthquake and tsunami that devastated much of the east coast of Japan in 2011 and triggered accidents at the older, and further afield, Fukushima I plant.[7] Jack B108 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That information is backed up by the IAEA safety assessment of the plant. “The structural elements of the NPS(nuclear power station) were remarkably undamaged given the magnitude of ground motion experienced and the duration and size of this great earthquake,” Onagawa, facing the Pacific Ocean on Japan's north-east coast, experienced very high levels of ground shaking – among the strongest of any plant affected by the earthquake – and some flooding from the tsunami that followed, but was able to shut down safely., the IAEA said.
 * http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2012/prn201220.html also reported in the following. -
 * http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42664&Cr=iaea&Cr1#.UV5n_crpyJM
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * On the basis of the above discussion, I have removed WP:POV material, WP:Coatrack material, errors, and duplications. See also Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard -- Johnfos (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Page move proposal
This article is quite wide-ranging, covering both technical and non-technical issues, which is as it should be. I think a better title, which reflects the broad coverage, would be Nuclear safety and security, and would welcome comments on this proposed change. Johnfos (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of objections, I have now made the move... Johnfos (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nuclear safety and security
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nuclear safety and security's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ITERorg": From DEMO:  From Climate change mitigation: - Projected fusion power timeline From Nuclear power: - Projected fusion power timeline 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible POV
I am a little troubled by some formulations, most notably that the lede paints an unduly negative picture of nuclear power as unsafe by focusing more on critical voices than on supporting. (And a comparison with coal and oil is missing throughout the article, despite their causing far more damage at current levels of use.)

The following is particularly unfortunate, even should it be supported in the given reference (which I have not investigated):

"To date, there have been five serious accidents (core damage) in the world since 1970 (one at Three Mile Island in 1979; one at Chernobyl in 1986; and three at Fukushima-Daiichi in 2011), corresponding to the beginning of the operation of generation II reactors. This leads to on average one serious accident happening every eight years worldwide."

In fact, the conclusion is so tendentious as to disqualify the source (should it be contained there). For instance, it would be more reasonable (if still simplistic) to note the time difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima and conclude that we could expect one serious accident every 25 years. At a minimum, even if several reactors where involved in Fukushima, it is unreasonable to speak of more than three accidents for the purposes of such calculations. This even without considering developments in safety over the years, as well as the increased awareness of the danger. (Notably, Chernobyl was caused by a combination of gross human failure and an unsecure design, which is a) rarer today, b) where still existing reactors have been considerably approved. While human failure will always be a danger, the very fact of Chernobyl has reduced the risk for similarly gross versions.)

Such issues are of great importance considering how misinformed the public tends to be on the issue of nuclear power, how the reactions tend to be mostly emotional/irrational, and how often criticism of nuclear power is used for cheap vote fishing. It is very important that this page, and the lede in particular, approaches the subject neutrally and gives a fair and unbiased evaluation. (Even discounting the standard NPOV prescription for Wikipedia articles.) 80.226.24.6 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Since I have seen no objects, I have edited the lede (the rest of the article remains untouched) to reduce POV and to make the lede more focused.80.226.24.4 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * i agree here, nuclear power has been represented with some serious bias against it. 86.137.162.139 (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Article lacks facts and clear comparisons
This article is very disappointing and does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards (or even any encyclopedia). It lacks clear factual comparisons, in stead it gets lost in vague allegations about how complex a nuclear plant is. TMI is mentioned but it is not stated clearly that there were zero fatalities and zero land contamination from TMI. The writing style is rather hyperbolic and the content does not provide sufficient knowledge to the reader about the subject of actual nuclear safety and risks.

The content of entire sections does not even discuss the header title. For instance health impact, there have been no deaths or injuries from radiation from Fukushima and TMI. Why is this not explained in a section that is actually called health impacts?? In stead the whole section explains the health and social impact of the Fukushima evacuation, which was forced due to regulations, not due to actual radiation levels vs. known risk. These were not radiation impacts, they are artificial impacts from nervous government officials refusing to let people go back to their lives.

Then there are the quotes. A journalist, Stephanie Cooke, is heavily quoted, even though she has no credentials in risk analysis, engineering, or nuclear science of any type, and she does not make coherent or verifiable arguments. Her quotes are factually incorrect, for example the contamination levels around Fukushima of max. 2 mSv/day are not proven to be a risk to health at all and the half life of the contaminant, Cs-137 is 30 years so it is not "forever" contaminated. She is clearly an anti nuclear writer that uses vague allegations and criticisms. For instance she claims that death rate is not important and does not make sense. Tell that to the thousands of coal miners that die each year, or the millions of people that die prematurely due to fossil fuel produced air pollution. The article and quotes lack perspective and lack authoritative references and quotes.

One reference for example is the late professor Cohen, who was an authority and established nuclear scientist.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

This article needs a major overhaul.

Siphon06 (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I've just looked at this article and it's appalling. The anti-nuclear movement is essentially a denialism movement with features that parrallel climate change denial, flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracists and creationists. And those groups wouldn't be allowed to write a one-sided analysis of their views like the anti-nuclear movement has here. The features of a denialist movement. Aside from the cherry-picking and false experts, denialists are always big on the Conspiracy Theory. Sovacool is a conspiracy theorist (he alleges cover-up after cover-up) who says wacky things (like trying to deny the low carbon nature of nuclear energy) Helen Caldicott says "The World Health Organization is now part of the conspiracy and the cover-up, the greatest conspiratorial cover-up in the history of medicine." "In 1959 the World Health Organisation entered into an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency which gave the unequivocally pro-nuclear IAEA a veto over WHO research into the effects of radiation." She's full of bullshit and so's SovacoolGraemem56 (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a reference to 10,000 tons of "high level waste per year". It's from an anti-nuclear pamphlet and it's impossible. I would need 10,000 tonnes of fuel to generate 10,000 tonnes of waste, it would still only be 92% Uranium and would cost at ~$40/lb a billion $. More bullshit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to restore a balance and in particular clarified the issue about highly radioactive versus long-lived waste. The previous author has added "Technetium-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and Iodine-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent nuclear fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years" - The reference has disappeared, but the statement is not really correct. There are 7 long-lived fission products although it's true that 129I and 99Tc are more lkely to enter the biosphere.Graemem56 (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"According to Zia Mian and Alexander Glaser, the "past six decades have shown that nuclear technology does not tolerate error". Nuclear power is perhaps the primary example of what are called ‘high-risk technologies’ with ‘catastrophic potential’, because “no matter how effective conventional safety devices are, there is a form of accident that is inevitable, and such accidents are a ‘normal’ consequence of the system.” In short, there is no escape from system failures.[82]

Whatever position one takes in the nuclear power debate, the possibility of catastrophic accidents and consequent economic costs must be considered when nuclear policy and regulations are being framed.[83]" I think this is bullshit and i think Amory Lovins is a crackpot. Why is he quoted?Graemem56 (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nuclear safety and security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110608222345/http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-nuclear-report-20110608,0,7481490.story?track=rss to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-nuclear-report-20110608,0,7481490.story?track=rss

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Nuclear safety and security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920024704/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5792&title=climate-change-disasters-electricity-generation to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5792&title=climate-change-disasters-electricity-generation
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527021840/http://www.asn.fr/index.php/S-informer/Actualites/1999/COMMUNIQUE-N-7-INCIDENT-SUR-LE-SITE-DU-BLAYAIS to http://www.asn.fr/index.php/S-informer/Actualites/1999/COMMUNIQUE-N-7-INCIDENT-SUR-LE-SITE-DU-BLAYAIS
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121041307/http://www.stoller-eser.com/Quarterlies/iodine.htm to http://www.stoller-eser.com/Quarterlies/iodine.htm
 * Added tag to https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Thorium%20Resources%20in%20%20Rare%20Earth%20Elements.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121132914/http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/nuclear-energy-different-other-energy-sources to http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/nuclear-energy-different-other-energy-sources
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121132914/http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/nuclear-energy-different-other-energy-sources to http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/nuclear-energy-different-other-energy-sources
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/HanfordOverview
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515064305/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-04/fukushima-crisis-worse-for-atomic-power-than-chernobyl-ubs-says.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-04/fukushima-crisis-worse-for-atomic-power-than-chernobyl-ubs-says.html
 * Added tag to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Nuclear+safety+world+problem/4513146/story.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/18th_Congress/downloads/ds/ds6/ds6_5.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.efda.org/about_efda/downloads/EFDAoverview.ppt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Nuclear safety and security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103000923/http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/index.cfm to http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/index.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110110238/http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisweek/2003_6_13_terr.html to http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisweek/2003_6_13_terr.html
 * Added tag to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-17/japan-nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-reports-accidents.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/routineradioactivereleases.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/04/20/areva-says-fukushima-huge-wake-nuclear-industry/
 * Added tag to http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LZF0E16JTSEY01-3P322MREJS02KO2666B7QSBOV9
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606023005/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/the-lessons-of-fukushima to http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/the-lessons-of-fukushima
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128195939/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/in-wake-of-fukushima-disaster.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/in-wake-of-fukushima-disaster.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130195907/http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120130p2a00m0na009000c.html to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120130p2a00m0na009000c.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607150719/http://students.law.umich.edu/mjil/article-pdfs/v28n2-kittrie.pdf to http://students.law.umich.edu/mjil/article-pdfs/v28n2-kittrie.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)