Talk:Sodium Reactor Experiment

POV Check tag
This important and recent source, http://www.miller-mccune.com/science_environment/50-years-after-nuclear-meltdown-1438 has been removed from the article, see, and generally the article downplays the whole accident. Johnfos (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In particular, I find the 'comparison to other nuclear accidents' section problematic. The IAEA has not issued a INES value for the SRE partial meltdown, and it is inappropriate for a speculative value of 3 to be listed, especially as it seems downplay the severity. The advisory panel of scientists created in 2001 spent 5 years researching the incident and concluded that it likely released 459 times as many curies of radiation as the Three Mile Island disaster and resulted in 260 cases of cancer in the surrounding population, see http://www.ssflpanel.org/.

I am removing the invented value of a Level 3 INES classification.--IBrow1000 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Article reads like a power company press release on valium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.52.75 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

More sources tag
Many more references are needed in this article. Six paragraphs have no citations and many other points are unreferenced. The lead needs references too, see WP:LEAD. Also, there is too much reliance on the Jarett interim report. A wider range of sources would be good. Johnfos (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Arco, Idaho was the first city powered by a nuclear reactor
According to the article on BORAX-III, Arco, Idaho was powered for one hour on July 17, 1955. Little info is available. I am not sure if that was continued for more experiments, or whether the power grid was used, or what. In either case, this is way before SRE was even fueled. On another note, I think there is a Soviet claim to this, also, which predates Arco. I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This Wiki article Intentionally Diminishes the Hazards of Multiple "Incidents"
Author(s) evince a thinly-veiled (easily pierced) Bias towards Nuclear power -Deferring to naive 50'd Standards over Current Knowledge.

In one paragraph Author(s) conflate 'No Data' with 'Non-Occurrence' - which reappear later: "The document states that only radioactive xenon-133 and krypton-85 were found in the cover gas. Attempts to detect radioactive iodine-131 were unsuccessful; this was not explained by Atomics International at the time."

Next para, cite Non-Public '60s docs to portray Now- Verboten dumping of "Hot" gasses to air

"Internal Atomics International memoranda show the gases were removed from the reactor following the incident and stored in tanks, where they were allowed to decay and then slowly released into the atmosphere."

As a last example, author(s) dryly allege that " "A contrasting viewpoint, based on the technical analysis prepared for Boeing, was not presented at the hearing."

...implying (sans foot-notes) that the only possible explanation was that Boeing had been unfairly deprived of its opportunity to present 'exonerating evidence'. 172.250.69.244 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)