Talk:Fukushima Prefecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan / Politics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 21:30, August 11, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Prefectures task force.
 
Note icon
Photographs for this location (or item located) in Fukushima Prefecture have been requested to improve the article's quality.

About the expansion of Fukushima City[edit]

Will the towns of Iizaka, Kawamata and Iino from Date District be annexed by the city of Fukushima on July 1, 2008? Just a suggestion. jlog3000 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yamato Province?[edit]

The following sentence appears very suspect:

In the 4th century, Fukushima was incorporated into the Yamato Province, Japan's first unified nation.

The article for Yamato Province does not mention Fukushima and a claim about the fourth century is very difficult to support as writing had not yet come to Japan (at least in any meaningful way). Wakablogger2 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fukushima map[edit]

A map has appeared: File:FukushimaGrid.JPG. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

weasel words[edit]

This "The disaster was upgraded to level 7" the same as chernobyl thing is even sourced with an article which explains this doesnt mean it is as bad as chernobyl. You get the anti-nuclear nuts going on with the chernobyl comparisons a lot, it really is weasel words there, needs clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.58.161 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear info and reorganization of history section[edit]

I've modified the page's history section to give both a broader and more concise summary of the the March 11th quake and the events that followed. I noticed that the section on concerning the ongoing nuclear plant problem was getting quite a bit bloated, so I trimmed quite a bit of the fat and also added information about the earthquake/tsunami and its effects within the prefecture itself. I trust that people can go to the respective dedicated articles if they wish to learn more about the earthquake/tsunami or the power plant. -- purplepumpkins (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster[edit]

User:Purplepumpkins you removed [1] content with the argument that it belongs in other sections/articles and/or is irrelevant to this article. Please give your suggestion where this would be also suitable in your opinion. In my opinion this is very relevant here since the page is read by many interested of this historical catastrophe.

quotation: The earthquake and tsunami left ca 19,000 people dead or missing and displaced over 300,000 persons. In 2013 the area remains abandoned. Also outside the nuclear disaster exclusion zone, area is too contaminated by radiation for residents to return for more than short visits. The radiation released has been estimated as 18-40% of the Chernobyl disaster in Chernobyl (city) in 1986. The full cost of the Fukushima disaster is estimated at US$250bn. Greenpeace called a real nuclear liability system, one that makes both nuclear operators and their suppliers pay all the costs of their failures, not taxpayers.

.
Inside Fukushima's abandoned towns, two years on – in pictures
Fukushima disaster: holding the nuclear industry liable The Guardian Kumi Naidoo Greenpeace, March 11, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watti Renew (talkcontribs)

Hello Watti Renew. Here's a quick line-by-line rundown of why I removed the content you added.
The earthquake and tsunami left ca 19,000 people dead or missing and displaced over 300,000 persons.
The earthquake and tsunami are already covered in the previous Earthquake and tsunami section. Furthermore, those numbers are relevant for the disaster as a whole, not for Fukushima Prefecture specifically.
In 2013 the area remains abandoned.
What area?
Also outside the nuclear disaster exclusion zone, area is too contaminated by radiation for residents to return for more than short visits.
Aside from the clunky grammar, what area outside the exclusion zone? The entire prefecture?
The radiation released has been estimated as 18-40% of the Chernobyl disaster in Chernobyl (city) in 1986.
A similarly-worded statement has already previously been removed from the article per the talk page.
The full cost of the Fukushima disaster is estimated at US$250bn.
I see this as being more relevant to the article on the disaster itself.
Greenpeace called a real nuclear liability system, one that makes both nuclear operators and their suppliers pay all the costs of their failures, not taxpayers.
This also feels like it needs to be discussed on the article for the disaster itself. --purplepumpkins (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Statistic correction suggested[edit]

The number listed here: "Over three months after the earthquake, 1,929 residents of Fukushima Prefecture had either been confirmed dead or were missing as a result of the earthquake and tsunami.[10]" contradicts the number 1,817 found in a more recent version of the same document. That more recent version is cited in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami article (source #5 ). I'm not an experienced editor or I'd just correct this myself. Mfrphoto (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I updated it. --purplepumpkins (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)