Talk:Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant/Archives/2012

Hilariously propagandistic Environmental Impact section
The environmental impact section contains only disputed favorable estimates stated as bare fact (discussed elsewhere on this talk page) while completely omitting all well-documented unfavorable info specific to this plant as well as unfavorable info (mainly heat pollution) common to all similar designs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Brattleboro
While I'm sure the activities in Brattleboro are interesting to some people, I don't see how it pertains to this article. The people of Brattleboro, nor any of the other 253 towns (or all other, for that matter) have any slightest jurisdiction in this case. The state legislature has some and the national government quite a bit. The Brattleboro paragraph should be deleted IMO. It's simple "political grandstanding." Okay for a newspaper, I suppose, but certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Balanced article
If someone wants to change the article itself to what has gone on at the plant that would be fine, but putting in pointers to groups that oppose nuclear power on principle does not seem useful. Think about the political arena. What if all the groups that didn't like Bill Clinton were added at the bottom of his article "for balance?" That would make no sense and not contribute a whit to the article. In fact, when you think of it, the pointer is really political spam for the group! Student7 (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I've got this right. You're happy to have a "See also" link for Nuclear power in the United States, but not for Anti-nuclear movement in the United States?  And you're happy for Entergy to have their VY site linked in the "External links", but you don't want a link to a site which opposes the plant?  Johnfos (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just went to Obama's site (bios are different, but let me make a point). There are no Obama hate sites there. And BTW, not everyone loves him. Or any of the other candidates or incumbents. While the anti- organization is spam here, it might not be in an article, I'm sure there is one, about anti-nuclear activities. I guess there is a forum for everyone.


 * And (in the bios) all sorts of pointers to articles enhancing their pov. The plant, per se, is not a political organization. It is simply a factory churning out electricity. The politics need to be directed elsewhere to where decisions are made - the political arena in other words. This is not a political article nor are political decisions made here. Okay to picket there, you need the publicity and where else would you go in Vermont, but please don't confuse what you do politically with encylopedic organization. Student7 (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All activity is political. Driving a car, buying gasoline, using electricity. It is political that multiple government agencies regulate the operations of the plant. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Yellowdesk. We are not writing a technical report here.  This is an article which also covers the non-technical (political, social...) aspects of VY.  Ideally we would have a Controversy section to cover this, as has happened in Indian Point Energy Center, but until then we should add some links which discuss non-technical issues, to give the article some depth and balance. Johnfos (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are talking political, no. Politics are not created here. It is simply a venue for picketing because the picketers don't want to go clear to DC where the decisions are made and get lost in the crowd. That is fine. The article however should be confined to the production (or screwups) in producing electrons which go out the pipe at the other end. This is a 9-5 job for somebody. When they make mistakes in processing atoms and producing electrons, that's when we have a balanced article. A spill or something; cooling tower collapse. Not a link farm for political spam. I was surprised to find that the presidential candidates articles are not link farms for political spam. You'd expect it there. But if not there, not here for sure. Not here anyway though. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Balance article, part 2
Okay. I guess. I would have thought the failures were more substansive. Not exactly three mile island. Kind of like the radiator failing on your car. Not something you want to hear, but no big deal either. Whatever. Big headline. Major blow to company bottom line BTW - plant down. Management does not appear impressive.

Anyway, combined some of the sentences in the last part. The block quote kind of looks nice, right? Couldn't get the reference to kick out. Maybe should go back to carets for the thing? See what you think. Removed Douglas' name from the prior paragraph which seemed redundant.

Not sure that cooling tower is really worth all that much space, but no big deal I guess. The whole story is there I suppose. Student7 (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, looks fine. Thanks for that. Johnfos (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Some possible additions
One of the things I would like to see is the addition of info about the cooling tower that collapsed. How big (or small) was it? Weight?

We don't get much of a feel for the plant as a business. Since some Vermonters pay as much as 14 cents/KWH (with overhead listed as something else), I assume that "wholesale" price is 8-10 cents/KWH or so. Probably not listed "per plant" but at least locally owned utilities should be able to give us some idea.

How many people are employed? Student7 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"400 MW in 2008"?
I'm not clear what the added bit in
 * "It provided Vermont with nearly three-fourths (73%), 400 MW in 2008,[1] of its electrical generating capacity[2] prior to the 2006 uprate ..."

means, and I'm not willing to pay to read the source. Is there a typo in one of the numbers? The DoE's page on Vermont Yankee says the plant averaged 560 MW in 2008. It also says VY applied for a 20% upgrade, which it got in 2006. From 400 to 620 would have been 55%. —WWoods (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The 2008 vs 2006 is a obviously a mish-mosh and will have to be straightened out. Trouble with statistics is they don't always blend. I try to be specific on year for that very reason. I don't know how to resolve it without dropping the figure entirely or (frankly) lying about one year or the other! Maybe the figures can be separated.


 * Some statistics seem confusing at first but relate to Vermont's use of the power and the plant's capacity which is not all sold to Vermont. I think that straightens out that part, at least. All my entries always have reliable quotes, normally from the Burlington Free Press. I could copy them incorrectly, but I think this one is right! :) Student7 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New York Times
The New York Times has a useful perspective on the VY Tritium leak issue here, but my attempt to include a short sourced paragraph about it has met with two reverts. Johnfos (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good place to discuss it - I should have started this talk after my last revert, sorry. I have reverted the addition of the NY Times article (with a paragraph of summary, not just as a reference) because I don't think it added any perspective that doesn't already exist in our article or in existing references; it merely acknowledged the problem on a national-media scale, as others have done: The Boston Globe has a similar article today, for example. Or so it seemed to me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's all the same story - the same leak. Okay to integrate it, I suppose. Or add it as another, or better reference. But a new mention in another newspaper about the same incident should not give editors the idea that they can have a new paragraph for every mention. People appreciate succinctness. Student7 (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
This is a 3rd opinion, an outside opinion meant to help. It should in no way be taken as authoritative and is simply meant to informally help to resolve a dispute that one or more users have requested help with.

So, my third opinion is talk amongst yourselves some more. You have both come to the talk page to discuss the issue, which is exactly what is supposed to happen! I have no idea who I agree with because Johnfos has not responded to DavidWBrooks yet. So my third opinion is keep talking and to ask, Johnfos, what do you think? Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I'll just drop it and move on -- after all it is only a small paragraph we are quibbling about. Johnfos (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, comon, this is wikipedia; we're supposed to get irrationally incensed about minor items and debate them furiously until one of us cries "censorship"! I'm sure I read that in the rules somewhere .... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tritium
I hate to say it, but an article on tritium leaks, generally, probably is in order. Leaks are not isolated to Yankee; there are a bunch of them. Rather than go on with a much longer paragraph, it probably ought to link out to that main article. Apparently some designs (?) are prone to this. Having a new article would help to focus the collection of research on the reasons, if forthcoming. Student7 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, but add that it should be a part of a greater article on radioactive leaks and spills. The last paragraph of the section on the tritium leak, which compares the radioactivity of cesium-137 to that of bananas, is interesting, and, if it can be verified, might be included as an example of sources of radiation and their relative danger. I spent about two hours trying to figure this thing out, and believe it is probably true. Potassium-40 is very common, probably by far the most important source of ionizing radiation to which we are exposed (apart from UV light), and it is concentrated in biological systems. Unfortunately the work used as a source for this information seems very obscure - a google search provided three hits, two of which were this article, and one was another article that used it as a source. --ghh 13:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)
 * Look at the article on banana equivalent dose for more information. FellGleaming (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it, and have no trouble believing it. The issue is, where does one find the reference, CDR Handbook on Radiation Measurement and Protection?  When I google it, I find three citations referring to bananas, and nothing else.  It may be a very important book, but should it be used as a reference if a person can't find it?  It is indistinguishable from a fake reference (and I am not suggesting it is), and anti-nuclear activists are likely to believe the search simply confirms fraud.  Wouldn't it be better to refer the paragraph to the Wikipedia article on the banana equivalent dose?  And perhaps wouldn't it be better at the same time to improve that article to note that the potassium in the banana is an essential element in our bodies, and there is simply no getting away from the fact that it is 0.0125% radioactive.
 * Besides, the issue here is not the danger to health, but the implications of a news report that has local people talking. The cesium comes from spent fuel, which is a fact many local people seem to know and talk about.  It almost certainly is present because of a fuel spill, probably from 2001 or earlier, which was reported long ago and has long been known about, it has not migrated appreciably, and it is in tiny quantities, which is why the Department of Health says it is not a health issue (all from the source cited).  I tried to clarify this, but some smart person removed my clarification, saying it was argumentative and did not belong in the article.  I am waiting that person's response before I revert it.  Perhaps my wording was unclear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch on the CDR reference. I'm wondering if its not a type and is meant to refer to the CRC line of reference manuals.  I'm researching the subject now. FellGleaming (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

mercury emissions from coal power plants are far worse than tritium
There is little or nothing in the article about things like : how many coal burning power plants this type of nuclear plant replaces. There is no mention of how many metric tons of mercury vapor are being prevented by using nuclear plants instead of coal plants. Mercury, especially methy-mercury, is far more toxic to the human body than tritium. What we need to be doing in this country is building more nuclear power plants, not shutting down the ones we already have. The article should discuss the risks and dangers of shutting down a nuclear power plant and replacing it with other types of power plants. Shutting this down will just force everyone out of the proverbial frying pan and into the fire.For clarification, look up the mercury cycle in wikipedia, and you will see that coal burning power plants end up contaminating the entire world with mega-toxic mercury compounds. I hope the legislative bodies get educated and come to their senses before this plant is forced to shut down.


 * But that would be off-WP:TOPIC for this article which is about Yankee only. There are probably polemical argument-articles on nuclear vs coal plants somewhere on Wikipedia already. Student7 (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dry Cask Storage: Lowered or dropped?
"Inadvertently lowered...from a height of 4 inches" sound to me like it was dropped. Did the cask 88-ton cask free-fall through 4 inches? Can we get some clarification here as to what happened? If this was a safety incident, it would be good to explicitly describe it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.13.9 (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should not be using that bureaucratic doublespeak euphemism. I also wonder about the "breaking relay". I'm not clear on whether that is supposed to mean the failure of a relay used for braking, or  whether it simply describes an event in which a relay broke. Ah hah!  Here is a source.  "The crane operator had put on the brakes to stop the cask while it was 4 inches above the floor, but the cask sunk slowly to the floor instead."  I'm out of time to edit the article right now, but at least this will serve as a bookmark for me to come back and edit it when I get a chance, or for somebody else to do that.Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake
It would be okay to discuss to what Richter scale this design is at in the general article, but not here. Somewhere it should probably state that earthquakes above 8.1 have not been experienced in the Eastern US in the past millenia. Note that this is 1/256 of the power of the recent Japanese earthquake. Student7 (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The information I added was strictly factual, without any opinion about whether the "same design" should be interpreted as "wow, if the reactors in Japan partially survived a ~9 Earthquake, they should be plenty robust enough for the Eastern US" or "uh oh, the incident in Japan showed just how quickly things can get bad with a power failure, something that could happen for lots of reasons other than an earthquake". If I were to put either of those in, that would be POV and OR.  Is there a way to phrase it that would be even more neutral, that would put in less interpretation? Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since it theoretically affects the design of all of them, it does not belong in each article. Pointing to the main article in one sentence is sufficient. Much further, particularly in this case, would be pov and maybe WP:SOAPBOX.
 * For anyone not in touch, the backup water cooling system failed in Japan. Not above the tsunami high water mark. Tsunamis not an obvious problem in Vermont. Student7 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The material added was:

"Vermont Yankee has the same design as the reactors at the center of the 2011 Japanese Fukushima nuclear emergency, including the same Mark I containment design (ref) (end ref) (ref) (end ref)."

The problem is comparing every single one of the hundreds or thousands of designs to Fukushima is WP:SOAPBOX. It is poor editing. Material should not be repeated.

Saying (for example) that a car owned by X is the same model that Princess Diana crashed in in Paris, might be accurate, but quite beside the point. The chauffeur is not drunk. The occupants are not recklessly fleeing paparazzi, etc.

In this case, 1) Vermont Yankee has a zero chance of being subjected to an earthquake with anywhere near the force of Fukushima. 2) The backup cooling system has zero chance of being swamped by a tsunami. Student7 (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, it is okay to put criticism about the design in the BWR main article. It is not okay and pov to insert it into each article about every "similar" design on earth.
 * The Fukushima experience is unique. 8.9 earthquake? Unheard of! Vermont might get a 7.0 but the design is built to withstand that. And for the record, those that don't understand logarithms. The Fukushima earthquake is not merely 2.9 numbers higher than the hypothetical 7.0, but rather 2 to the 29th power, which is a huge, huge difference.
 * Hurricane Andrew, a category 5 storm, ran over the two Turkey Point plants with never a problem. Flattened everything else in sight. The plants are designed to withstand incredible forces. Just not a 8.9 earthquake. Which would have been okay if the backup cooler had worked.
 * The total deaths from nuclear reactors since 1950 have been less that one day's total on US Highways. Let's give up automobiles? Come on! Anyway, no WP:OR in articles, even if in the original. The original proves itself non-WP:RELY by being OR.
 * It's okay if Gundersen said the plants need to be reviewed though he sounds pretty much like Ralph Nader or anyone of that ilk. Predictable. But not in this article in connection with CY. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was okay with the way this settled out – having the mention of the design similarity removed from the lead and only in the controversy section. However, I think that trying to remove it entirely from the article seems like POV censorship. we should give the reader the full information and let the reader judge whether the implication is scary or reassuring. I agree that the information here should be minimal, and should be consolidated in a central article that discusses the implications of Fukushima on reactors of similar designs. We don't really have the appropriate article yet-- there is a bit of a start at boiling water reactor safety systems. For now, we can include minimal information here, and link to the appropriate central spot when it becomes available.

I agree that deaths from automobiles are much worse than from nuclear reactors. But unless you want to make the case that we should not care about nuclear safety, a position that would be ridiculous given recent events, the facts about automobile deaths don't really have any relevance here. The articles cited address the relevant comparisons to general vulnerabilities in the design and containment system, and do not do silly things like worry about earthquakes in Vermont.

If hydrogen explosions and partial meltdowns in nuclear reactors were as common as automobile accidents, your comment about automobile designs would be relevant. But they are, in fact, rare. So any one failure is notable. Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, if Princess Diana gets killed in a Daimler, and the brakes are "suspected", then we should go into every single article on a Daimler and insert the "brakes may be faulty Experts are checking?" This does not make sense. This is why we have high level articles.
 * The only reason to change this article, it seems to me, is WP:SOAPBOX. To make a political statement. If the name of this reactor were "Fukushima" there would be a darn good reason. But not for any other. There is a general design to hold that.
 * And what if it turns out that the brakes were not faulty in the Daimler? Now we have to go back to each copy of Daimler and remove that "observation?" This is why we don't do it in the first place. There is a place for design comments about a general design. We're not talking politics here. We are supposed to be talking general editing and common sense in editing. Political observations should be made in other venues. Not here. We have structure here that allow for all opinion. But repeating it mindlessly, over and over, can only be construed as SOAPBOX. Nothing wrong with soapboxing. Just not in Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor cut me off on the edit summary. There is always one guy for each reactor that will say this, or anything else that will reflect badly on the presence of the reactor. But inserting it is merely pov. The statement needs to be made by competent authority not merely somebody carrying a sign with supposed "credentials." Student7 (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I replied directly to the Princess Diana argument before. The problem with that argument is that automobile accidents are quite common whereas nuclear power plant accidents are extremely rare. So that is not a good analogy to use. A better analogy is the articles on RMS Olympic and HMHS Britannic.  Both of those articles mention the sister ship Titanic in the lead.


 * The other component of your argument I agree with. We don't need to include every rant ever uttered about VY in the controversy section.  But that only applies to statements about the implications of the design similarity.  It does not preclude documenting the design similarity in the article--that is not a fact that is in question. But it doesn't really belong in the controversy section.  Your objection to having it in the lead is reasonable, even if you don't consistently apply your policy there.  So perhaps a solution is to have a section titled something like "technical design and function" that could also solve the problem of there being other info in the lead not in the body elsewhere.


 * At some point, the controversy about the design similarity may become notable, and belong in the controversy section.  I don't think it has reached that point yet.Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So if the earthquake knocked down some building with type Q construction, and there were four hundred buildings in the world with articles with "type Q" construction, we should amend each one to say that "it is possible that the design of "type Q" construction is somehow flawed. The "authorities" are looking into this." When, in fact, the earthquake was very nearly the worst on record; Japan alone might be subject to future earthquakes of that magnitude, and a building in Florida will never be subject to an earthquake even 1/10,000 of that magnitude. But it "should" be there anyway?
 * This is WP:POV. It is not reasonable to insert WP:SOAPBOX in a design implementation about a suspected flaw, which, historically, will never be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainants, because they do not accept that sort of argument ever.
 * The only proper place for a general design "suspicion" which will remain "forever" is in the article on the design itself. Which is, apparently, BWR, in this case. Student7 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble relating your response to my proposal. Maybe I should go ahead and implement it and let you respond to the actuality of it rather than a description that might give you the wrong impression. Also, perhaps the title of this section on the talk page is giving the wrong impression. I'm not proposing discussing earthquakes, and I'm not proposing discussing design flaws. I'm not sure if you looked at the examples of the Titanic sister ships, but they are not discussions of design flaws and that's not what I'm proposing. So no, I don't think we should follow the building type Q scenario that you described above. Sorry to have gotten you worked up to the point of so many bolded words over a misunderstanding of what I was proposing. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

POV tag
For as long as I can remember it has been difficult to get anything that looked liked criticism of VY on this page. And recently a lot of material has been removed that has left the article unbalanced. See, for example,. Citations have been removed with the comment that "leads are not supposed to have footnotes in them". Yet some of WPs best (FA) articles have citations in the lead, eg., Alzheimer's disease and Water fluoridation. WP policy is that: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited", see Manual of Style (lead section). Johnfos (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me answer the simple one first. No footnotes in the lead. All the lead is supposed to do is summarize the article. So we need to make sure the material is copied from the lead into the article.


 * The material is not footnoted in the lead for stylistic reasons. (I just learned that BTW and I have been around a while). We don't want to confuse people new to the article. Any article. Are their articles I edit with footnotes in the lead? Yes! Are they supposed to be there? No! Nothing is perfect and we can take them out a few at a time.


 * Forget the other articles. They are irrelevant to this article and wrong. Just like we are wrong! We will solve our problem. Let them solve theirs.


 * Yes. It must be verifiable. So the lead, which honestly summarizes the article, must have a citation in the text. I know. It's hard to remember sometimes. I've just started to myself.


 * As far as criticizing CY, I think that everything that CY has ever done, including trivia, is pretty much in here. As far as criticizing some other installation, installed somewhere else, that is another matter.


 * We have to remember that we are "prodded" by the media with screwy "information" passing as "facts." The media does not really care as long as you stay tuned in. That part is crucial. But it doesn't mean that everything they say, or is said on the show, is truthful or useful. Correlation is not causation. But that is what the media is all about. Jumping to conclusions based on "correlation." We must not use this false information in the encyclopedia. This is the difference between them and us. If there is no difference, we can just "take their feed" and not bother to edit at all! Student7 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clear that you want to develop this article in your own way, without regard to WP policy. I think we will get into all sorts of problems if we try to write the lead without citations. And I can assure you that there is much reliable criticism that doesn't appear here. In the circumstances the best thing is to keep the POV tag in place. Johnfos (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Try to follow me through here. I don't invent policy.
 * 1) The material in the lead is supposed to summarize the article.
 * 2) This material in the lead is therefore in the article, perhaps a bit more wordy.
 * 3) It has a footnote in the body of the article.
 * 4) The footnote (therefore) is not needed in the lead.
 * 5) The object of a lead is to get the reader interested. We fight out editor wars, and have references in the body of the article.
 * 6) The main question for the lead is "Does the lead truly summarize the article."
 * 7) The question we don't need to ask about the lead is "Is the lead presenting reliable material." We were supposed to be doing that in the article. Okay?
 * 8) This procedure also helps with new material when someone comes in and tries to stick something in the lead without inserting it in the article. It should be reverted. Since it isn't in the article, the lead would not then summarize the article, the only question that should be asked. Student7 (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If that is your real agenda, why did you delete that one section and set of references and leave in the lead lots of other references and material that does not appear elsewhere? Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, the "no citations in the lead" is in WP:LEADCITE.
 * The article was written by a lot of people. Like most people, I edit what interests me. Sometimes I move stuff when convenient. Student7 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, I agree that it's a good idea to avoid citations and lead. However:
 * 1. "no citations in the lead" is not a honest summary of WP:LEADCITE. some quotes: "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material," and "...less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads."
 * 2. Of course, no editor has time to fix every example of something he doesn't like in every section of every article. But if you are trying to convince people that your edits don't represent POV, and are motivated only by following that policy, well, count me as unconvinced.
 * Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. I was misinformed about LEADCITE which I heard indirectly from another editor (when BTW I put a cite into the lead of his article) . Like all policies, it says whatever the reader wants to read into it. I think you will agree that it seems to try to discourage cites in the lead, and does not encourage them. Student7 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and yes, I agree, with the seems/try/discourage qualifiers.Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Avoided emissions figures don't seem right
The avoided emissions figures don't seem right. All fossil power plants, even coal, generate far more CO2 than NOx or SOx. Figures in the article "Fossil fuel power station" give, for hard coal, 94.6 kg/GJ CO2, 765 g/GJ SO2, 292 g/GJ NOx and 89.1 g/GJ CO. For Vermont Yankee's annual generation of 4703 GWh, that works out to 1,601,654 tonnes CO2 but only 12,952 tonnes SO2, 4,944 tonnes NOx and 1,509 tonnes CO. Karn (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. The figures are plain wrong.153.97.109.2 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

agreed. I deleted the section and added a link to the Environmental impact of nuclear power in the see also section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrekur (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Demographics"
This is not a normal part of a business article. Okay to say that a utility serves n number of people or names the area they serve. In this context it was pure WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Citing a fact, the population near the nuclear power plant, a plant which by the way has an evacuation zone, is not SOAPBOX. Nor is this OR. If you have a strong opinion on nuclear power, as evidenced by your edits, and a fact makes you uncomfortable, that doesn't turn the fact into an expression of a point of view.Extremely hot (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea that the population near a nuclear power plant is a relevant thing to talk about is not extremely hot's original research. Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. But you haven't said why? That is the key point here. Why? How does that relate to a WP:TOPIC about a business? Are you doing this for General Motors? Microsoft? Why not? Student7 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See above: "evacuation zone." You ask what the relevance would be. As stated previously, nuclear power plants have evacuation zones and emergency plans. How many people live near the plant is relevant. Is it a lot or a little? The new census data answer that question. Do all businesses have evacuation zones? No. Do Microsoft or General Motors have evacuation plans? No. Stating the population, citing a news article which calculated the population using GIS analysis from the new census data, is not an attack on nuclear power, as you seem to be perceiving it. It's not a defense of nuclear power. It's not trying to make a political point. It gives a relevant fact.Extremely hot (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Student7: You know full well why people are more interested in population near nuclear power plant than the population near Microsoft.   It is true that people are often unreasonably fearful of nuclear power plants.  Withholding information is not a solution to that problem, nor is withholding information the purpose of Wikipedia. If in fact well-informed people are not concerned about populations living near nuclear power plants, we should provide information that would help people become well enough informed to reach that opinion.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've worked on other articles where people had povs. This was resolved by putting in objective language in an objective manner. This could be solved if you guys would drop your "no prisoners" attitude = "my way or the highway."
 * There would be nothing wrong with having a separate article which describes all threats to an area in context. This does not satisfy the "no nukes" lobby, and "no negotiation" to reach a actual consensus on npov content. The threat to the area is tiny and lengthy discussion is WP:UNDUE. If material inserted has to be there for implicit reasons and explicit reasons cannot be discussed, it seems to me that it is pov. Why else would it have to be a stealth entry?
 * Heat dissipation has rules and plans as well. As we discovered with Fukushima, heat dissipation is vital. But we don't cover the article with that! As are hundreds of other tiny plans which may not jump out casually because the media hasn't made a big deal about them. Can't get people to watch = advertiser money, by discussing the rules for processing tritium.
 * I am willing to be objective, but can't even talk to you guys because fairness/objectivity is not on the agenda. You guys seem to be saying "it's wrong and I don't want to hear otherwise. (fingers in the ears). La la la la." So far, no one has even tried to discover (or report if they did discover) what the threat is in numerical terms. The reason is that it is so small as to be laughable. Nevertheless, this could be discussed. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that we will make more progress if we aim for objective language and avoid a "no prisoners" attitude = "my way or the highway."  Towards that objective, I would ask that rather than deleting whole paragraphs that you have some objection to, you edit them to use more objective language, or write on the talk page your suggestions for how the content could be modified.


 * I would welcome quantitative information on assessment of threat. I don't see why you think we are unwilling to hear information from you.  If you have additional information that you think is relevant to the article, please add it.Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Design comments
These are mostly out of place in this article since it is a standard design. The presumed faults or attributes could be discussed there. Each article is not a WP:FORUM/WP:SOAPBOX for those opposing nuclear facilities. Student7 (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that discussion of presumed faults does not belong here. Your edit comment upon deletion of the content is the only place that I found discussion of presumed faults.  The content deleted did not contain any of the content that you are objecting to. Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment on delayed license
A new statement "Issuance of the license was delayed for 10 days due to the March 11 commencement of the crisis at Fukushima Daiichi power station, as NRC staff were preoccupied providing technical assistance to Japan."

This is germane only if the license were needed withing the 10 day delay period. Otherwise, it's like going to the drivers license office with a valid drivers license from another state and being told to "come back next week." Not really reportable, per se. But if they needed it, maybe interesting. But right now, seems like another WP:COATRACK statement: just a lame excuse to mention Fukushima, which is not germane to Yankee. Student7 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that, more than a month after that 10 day delay, it does not seem like a notable delay. I disagree with the use of WP:COATRACK to support that position. WP:COATRACK argues against having a long discussion of George Washington in article XYZ, introduced by a statement that George Washington slept at XYZ. I do not see in WP:COATRACK an argument that it is wrong to mention that George Washington slept that XYZ.  If I missed where it says that in WP:COATRACK, please let me know what section I should reread. Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Fukushima reference in the process of another edit. In any case, although I did not add this as an edit, it seems highly likely that the actual date of issuance was determined by the (informal?) deadline of "one year before licence expiry", which the NRC had dilly-dallied themselves up to. Joffan (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
There is an informal mediation process at User_talk:Feezo, in response to the village pump request made by Student7, Village_pump_(miscellaneous). Topic is whether Extremely hot's insertion of population data is POV. Ccrrccrr (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hilariously propagandistic Environmental Impact section
The environmental impact section contains only disputed favorable estimates stated as bare fact (discussed elsewhere on this talk page) while completely omitting all well-documented unfavorable info specific to this plant as well as unfavorable info (mainly heat pollution) common to all similar designs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Brattleboro
While I'm sure the activities in Brattleboro are interesting to some people, I don't see how it pertains to this article. The people of Brattleboro, nor any of the other 253 towns (or all other, for that matter) have any slightest jurisdiction in this case. The state legislature has some and the national government quite a bit. The Brattleboro paragraph should be deleted IMO. It's simple "political grandstanding." Okay for a newspaper, I suppose, but certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Balanced article
If someone wants to change the article itself to what has gone on at the plant that would be fine, but putting in pointers to groups that oppose nuclear power on principle does not seem useful. Think about the political arena. What if all the groups that didn't like Bill Clinton were added at the bottom of his article "for balance?" That would make no sense and not contribute a whit to the article. In fact, when you think of it, the pointer is really political spam for the group! Student7 (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I've got this right. You're happy to have a "See also" link for Nuclear power in the United States, but not for Anti-nuclear movement in the United States?  And you're happy for Entergy to have their VY site linked in the "External links", but you don't want a link to a site which opposes the plant?  Johnfos (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just went to Obama's site (bios are different, but let me make a point). There are no Obama hate sites there. And BTW, not everyone loves him. Or any of the other candidates or incumbents. While the anti- organization is spam here, it might not be in an article, I'm sure there is one, about anti-nuclear activities. I guess there is a forum for everyone.


 * And (in the bios) all sorts of pointers to articles enhancing their pov. The plant, per se, is not a political organization. It is simply a factory churning out electricity. The politics need to be directed elsewhere to where decisions are made - the political arena in other words. This is not a political article nor are political decisions made here. Okay to picket there, you need the publicity and where else would you go in Vermont, but please don't confuse what you do politically with encylopedic organization. Student7 (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All activity is political. Driving a car, buying gasoline, using electricity. It is political that multiple government agencies regulate the operations of the plant. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Yellowdesk. We are not writing a technical report here.  This is an article which also covers the non-technical (political, social...) aspects of VY.  Ideally we would have a Controversy section to cover this, as has happened in Indian Point Energy Center, but until then we should add some links which discuss non-technical issues, to give the article some depth and balance. Johnfos (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are talking political, no. Politics are not created here. It is simply a venue for picketing because the picketers don't want to go clear to DC where the decisions are made and get lost in the crowd. That is fine. The article however should be confined to the production (or screwups) in producing electrons which go out the pipe at the other end. This is a 9-5 job for somebody. When they make mistakes in processing atoms and producing electrons, that's when we have a balanced article. A spill or something; cooling tower collapse. Not a link farm for political spam. I was surprised to find that the presidential candidates articles are not link farms for political spam. You'd expect it there. But if not there, not here for sure. Not here anyway though. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Balance article, part 2
Okay. I guess. I would have thought the failures were more substansive. Not exactly three mile island. Kind of like the radiator failing on your car. Not something you want to hear, but no big deal either. Whatever. Big headline. Major blow to company bottom line BTW - plant down. Management does not appear impressive.

Anyway, combined some of the sentences in the last part. The block quote kind of looks nice, right? Couldn't get the reference to kick out. Maybe should go back to carets for the thing? See what you think. Removed Douglas' name from the prior paragraph which seemed redundant.

Not sure that cooling tower is really worth all that much space, but no big deal I guess. The whole story is there I suppose. Student7 (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, looks fine. Thanks for that. Johnfos (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Some possible additions
One of the things I would like to see is the addition of info about the cooling tower that collapsed. How big (or small) was it? Weight?

We don't get much of a feel for the plant as a business. Since some Vermonters pay as much as 14 cents/KWH (with overhead listed as something else), I assume that "wholesale" price is 8-10 cents/KWH or so. Probably not listed "per plant" but at least locally owned utilities should be able to give us some idea.

How many people are employed? Student7 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"400 MW in 2008"?
I'm not clear what the added bit in
 * "It provided Vermont with nearly three-fourths (73%), 400 MW in 2008,[1] of its electrical generating capacity[2] prior to the 2006 uprate ..."

means, and I'm not willing to pay to read the source. Is there a typo in one of the numbers? The DoE's page on Vermont Yankee says the plant averaged 560 MW in 2008. It also says VY applied for a 20% upgrade, which it got in 2006. From 400 to 620 would have been 55%. —WWoods (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The 2008 vs 2006 is a obviously a mish-mosh and will have to be straightened out. Trouble with statistics is they don't always blend. I try to be specific on year for that very reason. I don't know how to resolve it without dropping the figure entirely or (frankly) lying about one year or the other! Maybe the figures can be separated.


 * Some statistics seem confusing at first but relate to Vermont's use of the power and the plant's capacity which is not all sold to Vermont. I think that straightens out that part, at least. All my entries always have reliable quotes, normally from the Burlington Free Press. I could copy them incorrectly, but I think this one is right! :) Student7 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New York Times
The New York Times has a useful perspective on the VY Tritium leak issue here, but my attempt to include a short sourced paragraph about it has met with two reverts. Johnfos (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good place to discuss it - I should have started this talk after my last revert, sorry. I have reverted the addition of the NY Times article (with a paragraph of summary, not just as a reference) because I don't think it added any perspective that doesn't already exist in our article or in existing references; it merely acknowledged the problem on a national-media scale, as others have done: The Boston Globe has a similar article today, for example. Or so it seemed to me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's all the same story - the same leak. Okay to integrate it, I suppose. Or add it as another, or better reference. But a new mention in another newspaper about the same incident should not give editors the idea that they can have a new paragraph for every mention. People appreciate succinctness. Student7 (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
This is a 3rd opinion, an outside opinion meant to help. It should in no way be taken as authoritative and is simply meant to informally help to resolve a dispute that one or more users have requested help with.

So, my third opinion is talk amongst yourselves some more. You have both come to the talk page to discuss the issue, which is exactly what is supposed to happen! I have no idea who I agree with because Johnfos has not responded to DavidWBrooks yet. So my third opinion is keep talking and to ask, Johnfos, what do you think? Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I'll just drop it and move on -- after all it is only a small paragraph we are quibbling about. Johnfos (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, comon, this is wikipedia; we're supposed to get irrationally incensed about minor items and debate them furiously until one of us cries "censorship"! I'm sure I read that in the rules somewhere .... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tritium
I hate to say it, but an article on tritium leaks, generally, probably is in order. Leaks are not isolated to Yankee; there are a bunch of them. Rather than go on with a much longer paragraph, it probably ought to link out to that main article. Apparently some designs (?) are prone to this. Having a new article would help to focus the collection of research on the reasons, if forthcoming. Student7 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, but add that it should be a part of a greater article on radioactive leaks and spills. The last paragraph of the section on the tritium leak, which compares the radioactivity of cesium-137 to that of bananas, is interesting, and, if it can be verified, might be included as an example of sources of radiation and their relative danger. I spent about two hours trying to figure this thing out, and believe it is probably true. Potassium-40 is very common, probably by far the most important source of ionizing radiation to which we are exposed (apart from UV light), and it is concentrated in biological systems. Unfortunately the work used as a source for this information seems very obscure - a google search provided three hits, two of which were this article, and one was another article that used it as a source. --ghh 13:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)
 * Look at the article on banana equivalent dose for more information. FellGleaming (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it, and have no trouble believing it. The issue is, where does one find the reference, CDR Handbook on Radiation Measurement and Protection?  When I google it, I find three citations referring to bananas, and nothing else.  It may be a very important book, but should it be used as a reference if a person can't find it?  It is indistinguishable from a fake reference (and I am not suggesting it is), and anti-nuclear activists are likely to believe the search simply confirms fraud.  Wouldn't it be better to refer the paragraph to the Wikipedia article on the banana equivalent dose?  And perhaps wouldn't it be better at the same time to improve that article to note that the potassium in the banana is an essential element in our bodies, and there is simply no getting away from the fact that it is 0.0125% radioactive.
 * Besides, the issue here is not the danger to health, but the implications of a news report that has local people talking. The cesium comes from spent fuel, which is a fact many local people seem to know and talk about.  It almost certainly is present because of a fuel spill, probably from 2001 or earlier, which was reported long ago and has long been known about, it has not migrated appreciably, and it is in tiny quantities, which is why the Department of Health says it is not a health issue (all from the source cited).  I tried to clarify this, but some smart person removed my clarification, saying it was argumentative and did not belong in the article.  I am waiting that person's response before I revert it.  Perhaps my wording was unclear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch on the CDR reference. I'm wondering if its not a type and is meant to refer to the CRC line of reference manuals.  I'm researching the subject now. FellGleaming (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

mercury emissions from coal power plants are far worse than tritium
There is little or nothing in the article about things like : how many coal burning power plants this type of nuclear plant replaces. There is no mention of how many metric tons of mercury vapor are being prevented by using nuclear plants instead of coal plants. Mercury, especially methy-mercury, is far more toxic to the human body than tritium. What we need to be doing in this country is building more nuclear power plants, not shutting down the ones we already have. The article should discuss the risks and dangers of shutting down a nuclear power plant and replacing it with other types of power plants. Shutting this down will just force everyone out of the proverbial frying pan and into the fire.For clarification, look up the mercury cycle in wikipedia, and you will see that coal burning power plants end up contaminating the entire world with mega-toxic mercury compounds. I hope the legislative bodies get educated and come to their senses before this plant is forced to shut down.


 * But that would be off-WP:TOPIC for this article which is about Yankee only. There are probably polemical argument-articles on nuclear vs coal plants somewhere on Wikipedia already. Student7 (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dry Cask Storage: Lowered or dropped?
"Inadvertently lowered...from a height of 4 inches" sound to me like it was dropped. Did the cask 88-ton cask free-fall through 4 inches? Can we get some clarification here as to what happened? If this was a safety incident, it would be good to explicitly describe it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.13.9 (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should not be using that bureaucratic doublespeak euphemism. I also wonder about the "breaking relay". I'm not clear on whether that is supposed to mean the failure of a relay used for braking, or  whether it simply describes an event in which a relay broke. Ah hah!  Here is a source.  "The crane operator had put on the brakes to stop the cask while it was 4 inches above the floor, but the cask sunk slowly to the floor instead."  I'm out of time to edit the article right now, but at least this will serve as a bookmark for me to come back and edit it when I get a chance, or for somebody else to do that.Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake
It would be okay to discuss to what Richter scale this design is at in the general article, but not here. Somewhere it should probably state that earthquakes above 8.1 have not been experienced in the Eastern US in the past millenia. Note that this is 1/256 of the power of the recent Japanese earthquake. Student7 (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The information I added was strictly factual, without any opinion about whether the "same design" should be interpreted as "wow, if the reactors in Japan partially survived a ~9 Earthquake, they should be plenty robust enough for the Eastern US" or "uh oh, the incident in Japan showed just how quickly things can get bad with a power failure, something that could happen for lots of reasons other than an earthquake". If I were to put either of those in, that would be POV and OR.  Is there a way to phrase it that would be even more neutral, that would put in less interpretation? Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since it theoretically affects the design of all of them, it does not belong in each article. Pointing to the main article in one sentence is sufficient. Much further, particularly in this case, would be pov and maybe WP:SOAPBOX.
 * For anyone not in touch, the backup water cooling system failed in Japan. Not above the tsunami high water mark. Tsunamis not an obvious problem in Vermont. Student7 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The material added was:

"Vermont Yankee has the same design as the reactors at the center of the 2011 Japanese Fukushima nuclear emergency, including the same Mark I containment design (ref) (end ref) (ref) (end ref)."

The problem is comparing every single one of the hundreds or thousands of designs to Fukushima is WP:SOAPBOX. It is poor editing. Material should not be repeated.

Saying (for example) that a car owned by X is the same model that Princess Diana crashed in in Paris, might be accurate, but quite beside the point. The chauffeur is not drunk. The occupants are not recklessly fleeing paparazzi, etc.

In this case, 1) Vermont Yankee has a zero chance of being subjected to an earthquake with anywhere near the force of Fukushima. 2) The backup cooling system has zero chance of being swamped by a tsunami. Student7 (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, it is okay to put criticism about the design in the BWR main article. It is not okay and pov to insert it into each article about every "similar" design on earth.
 * The Fukushima experience is unique. 8.9 earthquake? Unheard of! Vermont might get a 7.0 but the design is built to withstand that. And for the record, those that don't understand logarithms. The Fukushima earthquake is not merely 2.9 numbers higher than the hypothetical 7.0, but rather 2 to the 29th power, which is a huge, huge difference.
 * Hurricane Andrew, a category 5 storm, ran over the two Turkey Point plants with never a problem. Flattened everything else in sight. The plants are designed to withstand incredible forces. Just not a 8.9 earthquake. Which would have been okay if the backup cooler had worked.
 * The total deaths from nuclear reactors since 1950 have been less that one day's total on US Highways. Let's give up automobiles? Come on! Anyway, no WP:OR in articles, even if in the original. The original proves itself non-WP:RELY by being OR.
 * It's okay if Gundersen said the plants need to be reviewed though he sounds pretty much like Ralph Nader or anyone of that ilk. Predictable. But not in this article in connection with CY. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was okay with the way this settled out – having the mention of the design similarity removed from the lead and only in the controversy section. However, I think that trying to remove it entirely from the article seems like POV censorship. we should give the reader the full information and let the reader judge whether the implication is scary or reassuring. I agree that the information here should be minimal, and should be consolidated in a central article that discusses the implications of Fukushima on reactors of similar designs. We don't really have the appropriate article yet-- there is a bit of a start at boiling water reactor safety systems. For now, we can include minimal information here, and link to the appropriate central spot when it becomes available.

I agree that deaths from automobiles are much worse than from nuclear reactors. But unless you want to make the case that we should not care about nuclear safety, a position that would be ridiculous given recent events, the facts about automobile deaths don't really have any relevance here. The articles cited address the relevant comparisons to general vulnerabilities in the design and containment system, and do not do silly things like worry about earthquakes in Vermont.

If hydrogen explosions and partial meltdowns in nuclear reactors were as common as automobile accidents, your comment about automobile designs would be relevant. But they are, in fact, rare. So any one failure is notable. Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, if Princess Diana gets killed in a Daimler, and the brakes are "suspected", then we should go into every single article on a Daimler and insert the "brakes may be faulty Experts are checking?" This does not make sense. This is why we have high level articles.
 * The only reason to change this article, it seems to me, is WP:SOAPBOX. To make a political statement. If the name of this reactor were "Fukushima" there would be a darn good reason. But not for any other. There is a general design to hold that.
 * And what if it turns out that the brakes were not faulty in the Daimler? Now we have to go back to each copy of Daimler and remove that "observation?" This is why we don't do it in the first place. There is a place for design comments about a general design. We're not talking politics here. We are supposed to be talking general editing and common sense in editing. Political observations should be made in other venues. Not here. We have structure here that allow for all opinion. But repeating it mindlessly, over and over, can only be construed as SOAPBOX. Nothing wrong with soapboxing. Just not in Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor cut me off on the edit summary. There is always one guy for each reactor that will say this, or anything else that will reflect badly on the presence of the reactor. But inserting it is merely pov. The statement needs to be made by competent authority not merely somebody carrying a sign with supposed "credentials." Student7 (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I replied directly to the Princess Diana argument before. The problem with that argument is that automobile accidents are quite common whereas nuclear power plant accidents are extremely rare. So that is not a good analogy to use. A better analogy is the articles on RMS Olympic and HMHS Britannic.  Both of those articles mention the sister ship Titanic in the lead.


 * The other component of your argument I agree with. We don't need to include every rant ever uttered about VY in the controversy section.  But that only applies to statements about the implications of the design similarity.  It does not preclude documenting the design similarity in the article--that is not a fact that is in question. But it doesn't really belong in the controversy section.  Your objection to having it in the lead is reasonable, even if you don't consistently apply your policy there.  So perhaps a solution is to have a section titled something like "technical design and function" that could also solve the problem of there being other info in the lead not in the body elsewhere.


 * At some point, the controversy about the design similarity may become notable, and belong in the controversy section.  I don't think it has reached that point yet.Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So if the earthquake knocked down some building with type Q construction, and there were four hundred buildings in the world with articles with "type Q" construction, we should amend each one to say that "it is possible that the design of "type Q" construction is somehow flawed. The "authorities" are looking into this." When, in fact, the earthquake was very nearly the worst on record; Japan alone might be subject to future earthquakes of that magnitude, and a building in Florida will never be subject to an earthquake even 1/10,000 of that magnitude. But it "should" be there anyway?
 * This is WP:POV. It is not reasonable to insert WP:SOAPBOX in a design implementation about a suspected flaw, which, historically, will never be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainants, because they do not accept that sort of argument ever.
 * The only proper place for a general design "suspicion" which will remain "forever" is in the article on the design itself. Which is, apparently, BWR, in this case. Student7 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble relating your response to my proposal. Maybe I should go ahead and implement it and let you respond to the actuality of it rather than a description that might give you the wrong impression. Also, perhaps the title of this section on the talk page is giving the wrong impression. I'm not proposing discussing earthquakes, and I'm not proposing discussing design flaws. I'm not sure if you looked at the examples of the Titanic sister ships, but they are not discussions of design flaws and that's not what I'm proposing. So no, I don't think we should follow the building type Q scenario that you described above. Sorry to have gotten you worked up to the point of so many bolded words over a misunderstanding of what I was proposing. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

POV tag
For as long as I can remember it has been difficult to get anything that looked liked criticism of VY on this page. And recently a lot of material has been removed that has left the article unbalanced. See, for example,. Citations have been removed with the comment that "leads are not supposed to have footnotes in them". Yet some of WPs best (FA) articles have citations in the lead, eg., Alzheimer's disease and Water fluoridation. WP policy is that: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited", see Manual of Style (lead section). Johnfos (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me answer the simple one first. No footnotes in the lead. All the lead is supposed to do is summarize the article. So we need to make sure the material is copied from the lead into the article.


 * The material is not footnoted in the lead for stylistic reasons. (I just learned that BTW and I have been around a while). We don't want to confuse people new to the article. Any article. Are their articles I edit with footnotes in the lead? Yes! Are they supposed to be there? No! Nothing is perfect and we can take them out a few at a time.


 * Forget the other articles. They are irrelevant to this article and wrong. Just like we are wrong! We will solve our problem. Let them solve theirs.


 * Yes. It must be verifiable. So the lead, which honestly summarizes the article, must have a citation in the text. I know. It's hard to remember sometimes. I've just started to myself.


 * As far as criticizing CY, I think that everything that CY has ever done, including trivia, is pretty much in here. As far as criticizing some other installation, installed somewhere else, that is another matter.


 * We have to remember that we are "prodded" by the media with screwy "information" passing as "facts." The media does not really care as long as you stay tuned in. That part is crucial. But it doesn't mean that everything they say, or is said on the show, is truthful or useful. Correlation is not causation. But that is what the media is all about. Jumping to conclusions based on "correlation." We must not use this false information in the encyclopedia. This is the difference between them and us. If there is no difference, we can just "take their feed" and not bother to edit at all! Student7 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clear that you want to develop this article in your own way, without regard to WP policy. I think we will get into all sorts of problems if we try to write the lead without citations. And I can assure you that there is much reliable criticism that doesn't appear here. In the circumstances the best thing is to keep the POV tag in place. Johnfos (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Try to follow me through here. I don't invent policy.
 * 1) The material in the lead is supposed to summarize the article.
 * 2) This material in the lead is therefore in the article, perhaps a bit more wordy.
 * 3) It has a footnote in the body of the article.
 * 4) The footnote (therefore) is not needed in the lead.
 * 5) The object of a lead is to get the reader interested. We fight out editor wars, and have references in the body of the article.
 * 6) The main question for the lead is "Does the lead truly summarize the article."
 * 7) The question we don't need to ask about the lead is "Is the lead presenting reliable material." We were supposed to be doing that in the article. Okay?
 * 8) This procedure also helps with new material when someone comes in and tries to stick something in the lead without inserting it in the article. It should be reverted. Since it isn't in the article, the lead would not then summarize the article, the only question that should be asked. Student7 (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If that is your real agenda, why did you delete that one section and set of references and leave in the lead lots of other references and material that does not appear elsewhere? Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, the "no citations in the lead" is in WP:LEADCITE.
 * The article was written by a lot of people. Like most people, I edit what interests me. Sometimes I move stuff when convenient. Student7 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, I agree that it's a good idea to avoid citations and lead. However:
 * 1. "no citations in the lead" is not a honest summary of WP:LEADCITE. some quotes: "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material," and "...less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads."
 * 2. Of course, no editor has time to fix every example of something he doesn't like in every section of every article. But if you are trying to convince people that your edits don't represent POV, and are motivated only by following that policy, well, count me as unconvinced.
 * Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. I was misinformed about LEADCITE which I heard indirectly from another editor (when BTW I put a cite into the lead of his article) . Like all policies, it says whatever the reader wants to read into it. I think you will agree that it seems to try to discourage cites in the lead, and does not encourage them. Student7 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and yes, I agree, with the seems/try/discourage qualifiers.Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Avoided emissions figures don't seem right
The avoided emissions figures don't seem right. All fossil power plants, even coal, generate far more CO2 than NOx or SOx. Figures in the article "Fossil fuel power station" give, for hard coal, 94.6 kg/GJ CO2, 765 g/GJ SO2, 292 g/GJ NOx and 89.1 g/GJ CO. For Vermont Yankee's annual generation of 4703 GWh, that works out to 1,601,654 tonnes CO2 but only 12,952 tonnes SO2, 4,944 tonnes NOx and 1,509 tonnes CO. Karn (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. The figures are plain wrong.153.97.109.2 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

agreed. I deleted the section and added a link to the Environmental impact of nuclear power in the see also section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrekur (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Demographics"
This is not a normal part of a business article. Okay to say that a utility serves n number of people or names the area they serve. In this context it was pure WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Citing a fact, the population near the nuclear power plant, a plant which by the way has an evacuation zone, is not SOAPBOX. Nor is this OR. If you have a strong opinion on nuclear power, as evidenced by your edits, and a fact makes you uncomfortable, that doesn't turn the fact into an expression of a point of view.Extremely hot (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea that the population near a nuclear power plant is a relevant thing to talk about is not extremely hot's original research. Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. But you haven't said why? That is the key point here. Why? How does that relate to a WP:TOPIC about a business? Are you doing this for General Motors? Microsoft? Why not? Student7 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See above: "evacuation zone." You ask what the relevance would be. As stated previously, nuclear power plants have evacuation zones and emergency plans. How many people live near the plant is relevant. Is it a lot or a little? The new census data answer that question. Do all businesses have evacuation zones? No. Do Microsoft or General Motors have evacuation plans? No. Stating the population, citing a news article which calculated the population using GIS analysis from the new census data, is not an attack on nuclear power, as you seem to be perceiving it. It's not a defense of nuclear power. It's not trying to make a political point. It gives a relevant fact.Extremely hot (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Student7: You know full well why people are more interested in population near nuclear power plant than the population near Microsoft.   It is true that people are often unreasonably fearful of nuclear power plants.  Withholding information is not a solution to that problem, nor is withholding information the purpose of Wikipedia. If in fact well-informed people are not concerned about populations living near nuclear power plants, we should provide information that would help people become well enough informed to reach that opinion.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've worked on other articles where people had povs. This was resolved by putting in objective language in an objective manner. This could be solved if you guys would drop your "no prisoners" attitude = "my way or the highway."
 * There would be nothing wrong with having a separate article which describes all threats to an area in context. This does not satisfy the "no nukes" lobby, and "no negotiation" to reach a actual consensus on npov content. The threat to the area is tiny and lengthy discussion is WP:UNDUE. If material inserted has to be there for implicit reasons and explicit reasons cannot be discussed, it seems to me that it is pov. Why else would it have to be a stealth entry?
 * Heat dissipation has rules and plans as well. As we discovered with Fukushima, heat dissipation is vital. But we don't cover the article with that! As are hundreds of other tiny plans which may not jump out casually because the media hasn't made a big deal about them. Can't get people to watch = advertiser money, by discussing the rules for processing tritium.
 * I am willing to be objective, but can't even talk to you guys because fairness/objectivity is not on the agenda. You guys seem to be saying "it's wrong and I don't want to hear otherwise. (fingers in the ears). La la la la." So far, no one has even tried to discover (or report if they did discover) what the threat is in numerical terms. The reason is that it is so small as to be laughable. Nevertheless, this could be discussed. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that we will make more progress if we aim for objective language and avoid a "no prisoners" attitude = "my way or the highway."  Towards that objective, I would ask that rather than deleting whole paragraphs that you have some objection to, you edit them to use more objective language, or write on the talk page your suggestions for how the content could be modified.


 * I would welcome quantitative information on assessment of threat. I don't see why you think we are unwilling to hear information from you.  If you have additional information that you think is relevant to the article, please add it.Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Design comments
These are mostly out of place in this article since it is a standard design. The presumed faults or attributes could be discussed there. Each article is not a WP:FORUM/WP:SOAPBOX for those opposing nuclear facilities. Student7 (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that discussion of presumed faults does not belong here. Your edit comment upon deletion of the content is the only place that I found discussion of presumed faults.  The content deleted did not contain any of the content that you are objecting to. Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment on delayed license
A new statement "Issuance of the license was delayed for 10 days due to the March 11 commencement of the crisis at Fukushima Daiichi power station, as NRC staff were preoccupied providing technical assistance to Japan."

This is germane only if the license were needed withing the 10 day delay period. Otherwise, it's like going to the drivers license office with a valid drivers license from another state and being told to "come back next week." Not really reportable, per se. But if they needed it, maybe interesting. But right now, seems like another WP:COATRACK statement: just a lame excuse to mention Fukushima, which is not germane to Yankee. Student7 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that, more than a month after that 10 day delay, it does not seem like a notable delay. I disagree with the use of WP:COATRACK to support that position. WP:COATRACK argues against having a long discussion of George Washington in article XYZ, introduced by a statement that George Washington slept at XYZ. I do not see in WP:COATRACK an argument that it is wrong to mention that George Washington slept that XYZ.  If I missed where it says that in WP:COATRACK, please let me know what section I should reread. Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Fukushima reference in the process of another edit. In any case, although I did not add this as an edit, it seems highly likely that the actual date of issuance was determined by the (informal?) deadline of "one year before licence expiry", which the NRC had dilly-dallied themselves up to. Joffan (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
There is an informal mediation process at User_talk:Feezo, in response to the village pump request made by Student7, Village_pump_(miscellaneous). Topic is whether Extremely hot's insertion of population data is POV. Ccrrccrr (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hold up of approval
We can rant all we want to. The holdup today is Yankee's failure to negotiate power agreements with Vermont's utilities. Once that is done to the utilities satisfaction, approval is a slam dunk. No matter how many holes in the cooling towers or collapsing of same. Can't sneeze at 8 cts a kwh. This is FOB BTW. Getting it to your house is costly. Anyway, no mention here of the contract problem which is the only holdup. Student7 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, gotta say Student7, "can't sneeze at 8 cts a kwh" doesn't exactly sound like a neutral statement. I think neutrality in this venue, as with many others where a singular "authority" takes the place of the "collectivism" that defines wiki, neutrality means a dependence on the "official record." the official record, by nature of american journalism and capital resources, favors the pro-nuclear stance. to compare the politics of a nuclear power plant -- which have social, economic, environmental, etc implications -- to the politics of a politician is a narrow, polarized view that does not help anyone. the reality of vermont yankee -- more so than other plants, which operate in a much less contest environment than western new england -- is a complex one. that should be reflected in *some* way on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.51.106 (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering when the Ct of Appeals decision will show up in the article. The article discusses the lawsuit, but doesn't mention the Ct of Appeals decision. Here are two links. http://environmentalappealscourt.blogspot.com/2012/06/state-of-vt-dept-of-pub-serv-v-nuclear.html. http://www.courthousenews.com%2Fhome%2FOpenAppellateOpinion.aspx%3FOpinionStatusID%3D40133&ei=PnoNUKSfIJKq8ASc0JDbCg&usg=AFQjCNHE5TI-fR89e3pUMCI9WcctiKjsVw&sig2=6eXvjN870y3piOiWuaxikw. Please delete this comment when it has become moot. 24.74.64.135 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)