Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

TEPCO President is Hospitalized

Just heard on the news, TEPCO President is hospitalized for dizziness and something else. Vote for a small entry in the timeline? roger (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Approve. Seems notable, if the one person expected to have greatest knowledge and responsibility is incapacitated at this time, or anything else of that kind. Indeed being widely reported: [1], [2]. Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"air may be leaking" ???? Joke or what?

[Source] Government Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters: News Release (-3/30 19:00), Press conference NISA: News Release (-3/30 15:30), Press conference TEPCO: Press Release (-3/30 16:00), Press Conference

"On 30 March, NISA said that air may be leaking from the Reactor Pressure Vessels of Units 2 and 3 because some of their data show the pressure in the vessels is low, but there is no indication of large cracks or holes in the vessels."

"Air is the name given to atmosphere used in breathing and photosynthesis. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%. While air content and atmospheric pressure varies at different layers, air suitable for the survival of terrestrial plants and terrestrial animals is currently known only to be found in Earth's troposphere and artificial atmospheres." - Wikipedia

Air is not found in Reactor Pressure Vessels. Any gas escaping will be mainly Xenon hopefully 131 from decayed Iodine-131.

Jina 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that this is a mistranslation of the original Japanese word for "Gas". SteveBaker (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Jina is correct - but failure of the torus (or "suppression pool") may draw in air which can be drawn up into the RPV under abnormal pressure conditions. There is also the issue of stuck or damaged pressure relief values on the torus. There still isn't much definitive evidence about the RPVs, though it is clear beyond doubt that Unit 2's was damaged severely enough to pass large amounts of several fission-product isotopes including iodine. Hence the extremely high radiation levels in turbine building 2 and in the "trench" (tunnel) for the #2 seawater pumps. Ucbuffalo81 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_March_28#File:2011-03-12_1800_NHK_S.C5.8Dg.C5.8D_channel_news_program_screen_shot.jpg

All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

central spent fuel pool

This reference to a central spent fuel pool in the introductory paragraph seems to have been added on 2 April. Nothing else about a central spent fuel pool is mentioned in the article. In the separate article "Fukushima 1 nuclear accidents", the central fuel storage pool is mentioned, but that article indicates everything was OK there on 28 March. Everything I have read and viewed about the power plant, and GE boiling water reactors in general, indicates that each reactor has its own spent fuel pond high up in the reactor building. These individual pools are where all the problems I have read about are happening. If the central pool is also having a problem this needs clarification.

Very good article otherwise, and one of the best sources of info on the Web.

Brownbagbill (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The central pool had problems because its cooling pumps run on electric motors. The amount of heat is low enough that a problems have been limited, but it is an area of concern. From today's IAEA log:

Common Spent Fuel Storage Facility: The Common Spent Fuel Pool temperature is stable. TEPCO tested an “anti-scattering” agent (2000 l) on 500 m2 area around the Common Spent Fuel Storage facility on 1st April. The purpose of spraying is to prevent radioactive particles from being dispersed from the plant by winds and rain.

So maybe the lead mention should be expanded in the article. -Colfer2 (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

why call it the 'Central Spent Fuel Pool' when all references to it by tepco and the iaea use the term 'Common Spent Fuel Pool'? There are references to the area on the IAEA's daily summaries for 18th, 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th and 25th March along with rising temperature readings - in addition Tepco's report of the 23 march mentions 2 workers injured at the common spent fuel pool on 22nd at 10pm and 23rd at 1am. As the common spent fuel pool holds the vast majority of the fuel rods stored at Fukushima Daiichi it may become an issue that gains increasing importance as events unfold. 81.111.39.70 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

if the split is Daini vs Daiichi, the titles should say that: "I" and "II" is little-known jargon at best, cryptic to impenetrable to most readers

If the split is Daini vs Daiichi, the titles should say

Fukushima nuclear accident (Daini site)

Fukushima nuclear accident (Daiichi site)

the Daiichi or Daini naming should replace "I" and "II" which are uninformative; little-known jargon at best, and cryptic to impenetrable to most readers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

DISAGREE

For MOST people the names Daini and Daiichi mean absolutely nothing, while everywhere in the news the discussion is about Fukushima 1 power plant. Funnily enough outside of Japan these plants are better known by their numbers than their names. 91.152.41.58 (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a tricky situation. Officially, the names are Daiichi and Daini which essentially translate to #1 and #2. However, I have heard both names (Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima I) so I imagine it can be fairly confusing for some. The ideal solution would be to determine which is more prevalent in reports and make that the main name here (possibly with the other name in parenthesis). Just with a rough check on google, I'm getting a huge separation in number of hits. Approximately 4.7 million for 'Fukushima Daiichi', ~7.6 million for 'Fukushima Dai-ichi' or 'Fukushima Dai Ichi', and a whopping ~44 million for 'Fukushima I'. Given that there is a ten-fold increase in hits with the current name, I see no reason to change it. The name 'Dai-ichi' is already specified in the article and it's the first hit regardless of name googled anyway, no chance of missing it. As for the split being 'Daiichi' vs 'Daini', that is a case of the speakers personal preference, for example, I say 'Daiichi' but I mean Fukushima I and would follow that convention. The terms/names in that context are irrelevant. Vindicata (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you double check that, I think you've made a mistake. 4.7 million pages contain Fukishima and Daiichi, but only 3.2 million contain the exact phrase "Fukushima Daiichi". Similarly not 7.6 but 5.1 million contain "Fukushima Dai-Ichi"/"Fukushima Dai Ichi". Compare this to only 1.0 million for "Fukushima I", or 1.5 million for "Fukushima 1". (Every page containing the pronoun I and the word Fukushima is included in your 44 million, which just isn't relevent here.)

Clearly it is the transliteration (dai-ichi) that is significantly more commonly used than the translation (numeral one). Furthermore, a quick glance at the TEPCO English webpage [3] demonstrates that the official name in English is the transliteration and not the translation (and the naming of it is surely their prerogative). A quick look at the current BBC news front page story [4] demonstrates that the transliteration is also currently preferred in mainstream world media. Such convergence! Seems there's no excuse left for using the alternative (and worse, it makes the casual reader more likely to confuse reactor unit 1 with the entire daiichi site); I'm compelled to AGREE that the article should prefer the name daiichi. Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not just include both?

   * Timeline of the Fukushima I (Daiichi) nuclear accidents
   * Timeline of the Fukushima II (Daini) nuclear accidents

24.87.51.64 (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it wouldn't further hide this page from users. I believe it's simply 1 & 2 designations, as in the English language. When you're trying to write something shorthand, or so that it will fit within the alloted space on a piece of equipment, you would use something like "Fukushima 1" or "Fukushima 2". If you have plenty of room, then you would include the "One" (ichi) or "Two" (ni) long term. Hence, just use (@#$@#) parentheses! roger (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We should probably defer to whatever decision is concluded in the main discussion. You might want to forward your alternative suggestion over there, but personally I think it would depart with a very commonly applied WP policy: usually the title picks just one name rather than inventing a hybrid, and then the lead lists all the main alternate names, and the alternate (but not hybrid) titled pages are made to automatically redirect to the article, therefore anyone who searches by any of the common alternates will still find it and no original jargon needs be invented. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just keep the long, most informative page names, but at the same time add things like "Fukushima I", "Fukushima II", "Fukushima 1", "Fukushima 2", "Daiichi" and "Daini", as some kind of tags, that would be redirected to the correct pages? 90.191.78.48 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible Distortions in the Timeline

The timeline entry for Thursday, 31 March states: "Plans begin to implement Chernobyl's concrete sarcophagus solution to Fukushima plant." The citation is inadequate but leads/links to an article in the Augusta Chronicle where Jerry Ashmore of Ashmore Concrete Contractors is quoted: "Our understanding is, they are preparing to go to next phase and it will require a lot of concrete." The use of very large concrete pumps from the same manufacturer (Putzmeister) back in 1986 at Chernobyl is mentioned, but nowhere in this article is any mention of a sarcophagus solution being planned by TEPCO. The article does seem confusing and immediately mentioning Chernobyl is somewhat sensationalistic. Neither TEPCO nor the Japanese regulators JAIF have made any announcements or statements suggesting they plan to implement a sarcophagus solution. TEPCO has been focused on restoring plant electrical systems for the last two weeks. Per the IAEA accident timeline on IAEA's site, power to the control room indicators and control equipment for units 3 and 4 (combined control room) was restored on or about April 6th. The lighting circuits had been repaired earlier for both this and the other control room serving units 1 and 2. Point being, TEPCO is doing a lot of electrical work so they can restore closed-loop cooling. That's not anything like Chernobyl, which was entombed while still hot. And why would they be trying to restore normal plant functions in a facility they intend to entomb? I can see large amounts of concrete being used as extra biological sheilding, but nothing like a complete sacrophagus. See IAEA and TEPCO websites. Secondary source: Atomic Power Review A lot of data, especially data about any improvements in plant condition, has not been covered by media in the US. TEPCO is using diesel and electric pumps with backup diesel generators for most of the cooling work. TEPCO is not "struggling" to keep the reactors wet, but they are working very hard to start closed-loop cooling which will greatly improve radiation control. Ucbuffalo81 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem correct concerning the media coverage in the US covering the Fukushima incident.  Not much heard here, and I'm in Alaska.  From my knowledge and based on hearsay, they do not intend to entomb the plants as the concrete will deteriorate quickly over time and will prevent cooling, putting ground water at further risk. (per Chernobyl disaster?) The past day's notes [5] iterate this.  However, seems international support has been commencing according to past day's notes [6] concerning pumps transfered from Atlanta via Russian assistance - which is extremely reassuring.  And since you mentioned, I can see them using concrete barriers or ground loop cooling coils, etc, in a partial entombment.  (I've been wondering why dump the water, and just recycle it.  Recool it using nitrogen or something, but maybe it was seawater.)  We'll probably be seeing more distortions as containment on this scale is one big experiment.  roger (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

TEPCO currently plans to avoid a Chernobyl-like strategy. TEPCO does not project entombing the radioactive material in concrete -- see "TEPCO won't take Chernobyl approach to resolving nuclear power plant crisis," Mainichi Shimbun (Japan). 8 April 2011. If circumstances were to change, the remote-controlled Putzmeister boom pumps could be retrofitted to deliver concrete as was done at Chernobyl. --Tenmei (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Overblown daily diary

This article is basically an overblown daily diary and is not encyclopedic. It has become a dumping ground for any little snippet of information that seems to be associated with the topic. The long and sprawling tables are confusing to readers and reduce readability and neatness. Use of dot points interrupts the flow of the text and makes it difficult to read. Johnfos (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this not reasonable in the context of creating an article about an on-going event?

Yes, we can anticipate that some detail will be consolidated or perhaps removed in the ultimate editing process, but not now. The criteria for overly aggressive conventional editing have not yet evolved.

IMO, the question for editors at this stage of the article becomes: Is a new detail likely to be helpful or unhelpful to those who might consult this article during the course of an unfolding narrative? --Tenmei (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that some detail can be consolidated and summarised as time goes on. And some info can be shifted to other articles where it might be more appropriate. But as for documenting an "unfolding narrative" I don't think that is the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnfos (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Consider History of Western civilization. The first half of the article covers roughly 500 BC to 1800, and the second half covers the remaining 211 years. I would expect something similar from this article - that is, more detail for the most recent items, and less detail for the older items with the perspective granted by hindsight helping to determine which items to keep or drop. The cascade of events shortly after the earthquake leading to the failure of the cooling systems is particularly important to this article, as is the most recent few days of updates, because people will read this article to find out exactly how things came unraveled and to learn the present situation. The content in between can be pruned as it becomes clear that it's not significant to the situation's development. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)