Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident

There are discussions related to the nuclear accident both here and at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant

Question on title

It seems to me that the title "...nuclear accidents" isn't really fitting. It doesn't really seem to be an accident (it is obviously not intentional, but the word just does not seem to fit), as that infers human error, but this is all directly or indirectly because of the earthquake and tsunami. Personally, I think the term "incidents" should be used instead, as that leaves it more open to events outside of human control. Because was caused by an act of god rather than an act of man, terming it an accident just doesn't seem correct to me. Just my two cents on the title. Condolences to the victims of the tragic events in Japan. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Accident is the correct word here. As the article says the event has been officially rated as an "accident with local consequences" ... "the Japan Atomic Energy Agency announced that it was rating the Fukushima accidents at 4 (accident with local consequences) on the 0–7 International Nuclear Event Scale (INES)..." Johnfos (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Official sources choose words for their own purposes. We report what actually is. I don't really think this is an 'accident' because there was no conscious action which caused it. 'Incident' is better, it is something which happened naturally and was unforseen but with bad consequences.Sandpiper (talk)

It resulted from numerous human actions in the design, construction and operation of the plant. "Accidents" are not. by definition the result of "conscious action." Thus "accident" is entirely appropriate, and consistent with the terminology used by numerous reliable sources. No one has suggested that it was anyone's intent that the explosions, equipment damage and radiation leaks happen. Yet it was all quite forseeable. Edison (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that's not really fair. It was hit both by a massive quake and a tidal wave. You can only forsee so much. HalfShadow 18:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This article summarises the updated user manual to the International Nuclear Event Scale as:

"Broadly speaking, events with consequences only within the affected facility itself are usually categorised as 'deviations' or 'incidents' and set below-scale or at levels 1, 2 or 3. Events with consequences outside the plant boundary are classified at levels 4, 5, 6 and 7 and are termed 'accidents'."

...so officially it would appear this is regarded as an "accident" and not an "incident".--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with L1A1. While the correct tehnical term is "accident", according to various groups with various acronyms, in general terms this wouldn't really be seen as a "accident". NBC news tonight spoke about the nuclear "disaster". And personally, I think that's the best word for the title. 2 cents. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "Fukushima I nuclear emergency" as a title? "Nuclear accidents" may well be correct, but for some reason or other it just doesn't look right. I'm not entirely sure why, but it doesn't. 82.132.139.33 (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I nuclear incidents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.253.161 (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Incident" and "accident" have specific meanings in terms of nuclear... stuff. This is categorized as an accident because it's more severe than an incident. I'd like to know who came up with that system in the first place, though. Didn't they consider that nuclear issues might happen through circumstances outside of human control? "Accident" very much implies a failure on the part of the squishy humans involved, not natural disasters. "Disaster" might be a good term. Fairly strong, but maybe the situation warrants it. "Emergency" is also a good one. I think I prefer "emergency" over "disaster", but both are good. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Title is wrong. It is not a pure "accident" it is a cross between an accident and a natural "disaster". BTW, wikipedia has a "Disaster" project. But there is an element of human error, corporate culpability,etc. Thus, it seems to be an "incident" in the colloquial sense, but the industry has coopted that. I think the above user 82.xxx.xxx has a good idea with emergency. .Geofferybard (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Emergency I'll back that, I think that is probably the best option at this point. Didn't realize my comment started this big of a debate. I get the thing about what the nuclear industry considers an 'incident' vs an 'accident' though, so probably best to avoid that.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Accident has been pointed out as being the correct term - so why is this discussion ongoing? Unless we intend to move it to a CNN-style "scare screen" title... Rmhermen (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. "Accidents" doesn't seem to fit, IMO. Sounds almost routine. Catastrophe, deluge, holocaust. Accidents are routine.IMO.But I need to get away from all this and sleep.128.111.96.129 (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The human error factor is missing. Incident or Emergency are far better. Marcus Qwertyus 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)"

I did a search on Wikipedia and Google, and compared the names of other nuclear accidents. Almost all INES level 4 and 5 accidents are named "accidents", see for example Goiânia accident or Three Mile Island accident. The Fukushima accidents are comparable with INES level 5. So I think the current name "Fukushima I nuclear accidents" is entirely correct and in line of naming of other nuclear accidents. BTW, the term 'accident' has nothing to do whether a human error factor is missing or present. The only INES level 6 and 7 accidents that existed are the Chernobyl disaster and Kyshtym disaster; those level accident are named 'disaster'. My gut feeling says that the situation of the Fukushima accidents is not yet definitely out of control, there's still hope. But if it reaches level 6 or 7, they can permanently not control it anymore, and with several radiation-related deaths - lets say it becomes "FUBAR" - then I would name it a disaster. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What anyone thinks is correct is irrelevant. The technical term is accident, so Wikipedia will use that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.52.136 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting 61 page results Fukushima emergency and 65 for Fukushima accident. This is by no means a totally accurate search. Google will often mistakenly display multiple versions of one cache for example. If two terms are used equally then the more correct one is used. See WP:Commonname at the end of the section. Marcus Qwertyus 16:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not emergency "Emergency" is something you tend to call an event that's actually taking place. Once the event is over it tends to be called something else. I would suggest "accident" (the official description and per Three Mile Island accident, although the word has connotations of human culpability), or "disaster" (worse than an incident, should probably cause deaths ala Chernobyl disaster), or "crisis" which is my preferred option. However I'd also suggest not changing the name until the event is over and we see what how the scale of it fits into history.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: not incident and not emergency. I initially thought "emergency" would be a good term, but Pontificalibus has a good point about it. I'm slowly coming around to the idea that, unfortunate connotations aside, "accident" is probably the best term simply because it's the most accurate (from a "technically correct" point of view). "Crisis" or "disaster" would also be OK by me, although again the connotations might not be the best--"crisis", like "emergency", does almost imply an ongoing event, and we don't know if the side effects are bad enough to really call it a "disaster". So I think I agree with Pontificalibus that it should be left alone for now, and in a week or whenever things have calmed down, we can consider how bad it is, relatively speaking. "Accident" is at least technically accurate. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Assurance standards for this article

SOURCE: [[1]]

This is a quick checklist of things to look for when systematically assessing articles, especially those for disaster events. If you find deficiencies you don't have time to fix yourself, create a todo list at the top of the article's talk page by adding {{todo}} there. Then you can edit the todo list and add items to it.

• Assign quality and importance according to the definitions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. See the top of the talk page of the article of interest to see if this has already been done.
• Is the article in the correct categories?
• Does the title comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (most common English name) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)?
• Does the first paragraph give a concise explanation of the subject, including alternate names in bold, location, major causes, and major outcomes?
• Does the article use the correct infobox? Is everything in the infobox filled in?
• Is there a concise assessment of the loss to human life?
• Is there a concise assessment of the financial losses? Are figures clearly labeled as to whether they are in (for instance) 1900 dollars or 2007 dollars? Is a modern inflation-adjusted estimate available?
• Does the article cite its sources using footnotes, especially for statistics?
• Does the article have a map showing the area affected?
• Does the article have a photograph illustrating the event?
• Is the article in need of wikification, copy-editing, or other cleanup?
• Major articles should be linked from lists such as List of wars and disasters by death toll, and the statistics presented in lists need to be consistent with those found in articles (which hopefully have references).

Geofferybard (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Working on breaking news? Please follow these suggestions:

Develop an accurate picture of what's going on, and do not be swayed by conflicting advice and rumors from "experts" with their own agendas.

Don't become a conduit for every rumor and accusation.

And once you have an accurate picture, share it with the public so they can make a decision on what to do. http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/134573800/nuclear-information-gap-spreads-doubt-fear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofferybard (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in with a comment below which raises an important point: Please avoid exaggeration and scare-mongering! The media is full of frightening and unsubstantiated rumors, and most people seem to think that plutonium is all over the place, and even that the reactors will blow up in a nuclear explosion. Let's keep it sane and in perspective - so far 1 to 3 people have suffered from radiation sickness, compared to 13000 killed by the quake and flood, and the huge numbers who have lost everything but their life. WP is where a lot of people (including me) go to get accurate and substantiated information. Ketil (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan govt downgraded the level of severity permanently and this article bases on that and moreover, the problem is not over and there's still not enough information from foreign scientists, please keep the article updated as much as possible. thanks. 190.139.223.59 (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that NRC upgraded severity. Note also WP:REFACTOR which is long overdue on this page.Geofferybard (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Error in dose rate in section on Fukushima I no. 2

This is the first time I've contributed and don't really know how to go about it. The following part of the article contains a factual error: "At 21.37 measured radiation levels at the gate to the plant had reached the maximum thus far, 3.13 mSv per hour, which was enough to reach the annual limit for an individual in twenty minutes,[70]" The actual number is 3.13 microsieverts/hour (not millisieverts) as correctly reported by [70] and other sources. However, 3.13 microsieverts/hour reaches the regulatory limit of 1 mSv in 320 hours, not 20 minutes. (If it were 3.13 mSv it would reach the regulatory limit in 20 minutes.) Ref. [70] is correctly quoted; the error is in the source. How is this handled? One easy fix would be to just delete the phrase "which was enough.... in twenty minutes." 151.60.142.38 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says 3.13 millisieverts, are you saying they are wrong, do you have a further source?--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about this source and this quote, right?

Prior to the second full exposure of the rods around 11 p.m. Monday, radiation was detected at 9:37 p.m. at a level twice the maximum seen so far -- 3,130 micro sievert per hour -- near the main gate of the No. 1 plant, according to TEPCO. The radiation amount is equivalent to reach by 20 minutes the permissible level for a person in one year.

--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. See how it says microsieverts/hour (μSv/h)? The original article says mSv, which is millisieverts. There is an obvious error in the source, since 3.13 microsieverts/hour takes 320 hours to get to 1 mSv. The 3.13 μSv/h number was picked up in other sources, like the current NYT frontpage article, which correctly states that this is six times natural background (natural background is 2.4 mSv/year, or 0.3 μSv/h). (This is approximately correct because the natural background level can vary significantly from place to place.) I am looking for a better source, but in the meantime the incorrect comparison could be removed without harm, in my opinion. 151.60.142.38 (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It says "3,130 micro sievert per hour" which is 3.13mSv/hour. I think this is correct. NYT agrees and states "...readings around the plant reached 3,130 micro Sievert, the highest yet detected at the Daiichi facility since the quake and six times the legal limit." --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think you're right. That number is so high that I think I subconciously converted the comma to a decimal point. (I work in Europe, so this is a common source of confusion.) Everything coheres. Sorry to waste your time. 151.60.142.38 (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's good to check these things out.--Pontificalibus (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

According to german newspaper "Der Spiegel" radiation exceeds 8mSv/h by now. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,750817,00.html For comparison: My "Gammascout"-geigercounter shows 0,04 μSv/h right now (Hamburg/Germany, device was calibrated to +/-5% in Mannheim University in 06/2010). So that´s 200.000 times normal radiation level.--89.204.153.232 (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the radiogem I use at work, we have a dose of 2 mSv/h on our primary coolant heat exchangers at the OPAL research reactor. Why I'm not worried? As this is NORMAL values. Stating a radiation value is useless without also stating what the normal values are. Also, I've noticed that the article refers to both contamination and radiation as "radiation". It would be better to have the article specify what the dose is refering to (contamination verse radiation), as contamination is treated by having a shower, whereas sheilding/distance is the only way to protect from radiation.MWadwell (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

2 MILLIsievert? Why don´t i believe you... --89.204.137.241 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you don't work in a Nuclear reactor? <VBG> Seriously though, there are hotter places than that in the building - places that staff are not allowed to enter... MWadwell (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking ´bout ambient radiation, dude... --89.204.153.230 (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As was I... 2 mSv/h is ambient dose from a PCS HX. But that's my point - stating what the radiation is at a particular point in time isn't relevant unless you can state what the normal ambient radiation is... See my point? MWadwell (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I can clearly see your agenda. 2mSv/h is by no way "normal". It´s 50.000times more than ambient (0,04μSv/h), and it would cumulate in a 17,52 SIEVERT per year (17.520.000 μSv/a!)!. Not even a selfproclaimed superhero like you would survive this.--89.204.137.240 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if it's a good idea to intrude on this argument, but we do know that the measured radiation levels at the plant monitoring positions before the accident were around the 0.04 microSv/h mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.200 (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The plant monitoring points are along the fenceline - not amongst the reactors (which is where the highest reported dose rates were recorded). To put these high dose rates into perspective, we need to know what the dose rates were before the accident to understand whether the reported high dose rates are of concern or not. MWadwell (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation unit in Sieverts

The article has a mix of μSv and mSv, one being x1000 the other. This may be confusing to the average reader. Because radiation sickness effects, and this is the concern now, are quoted in millisieverts, I suggest consistent use of the milli-unit. Many measured levels are reported in the μSv, I suggest they be converted to mSv, perhaps in brackets () after the micro unit, if the micro is considered important to keep. We have to indicate scale and magnitude, and limit confusion. 87.60.99.142 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, even if the source says μSv in some cases, we should be consistent. It seems that mSv is the most commonly used unit, with e.g. 0.2mSv being generally preferred in the scientific community to 200μSv. We must be careful, as I saw a source earlier claiming there was 0.8mSv/hr recorded in Tokyo, when the actual figure was 0.8μSv! --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I also like the idea but am concerned about minimizing errors. Conversions should be in square brackets to indicate that it is the work of the editor so that if there is an error it will be clear which is the source and which is the editor. IMO.Geofferybard (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

and I still cant find the micro symbol.Sandpiper (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

below the edit summary, there is a list of symbols. click the drop-down menu and go to "Greek", then follow the alphabet (ABΓ) until you get to "M" - the following letter "μ" is micro. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea per section, with individual references that are beyond 3 zeroes (.0001 mSv, 10,000 mSv) converted with clarification 1 mSv = 1000 μsV. However, we should be able to change the units in each section as we move chronologically from the 1st section to the 2nd to 3rd as the disaster gets worse.

Keep in mind that it makes no sense anymore to compare things to background or yearly dosage - instead we need to compare to some useful guideline, like OSHA limits on 1-time dose (10 mSv for normal occupations), the limit dose to consenting experiment subjects (30 mSv), the dose from an abdominal CT scan (10 mSv), the dose to an astronaut on a space shuttle mission (250 mSv, 1x/yr max, obviously considered reasonably safe long-term), and the dose that begins classification as mild radiation poisoning (1000 mSv, causes nausea and vomiting). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as most of us don't really have an understanding of these measurements is there any way to communicate the seriousness of X number of micro Svierts or w/e they are called? I mean is there anything to compare it to? I always thought radiation was measured in "rads" w/e those are. Otherwise putting the number of mSv's is like when the Israelis talked about 11.000 dunams of forest being destroyed in the Carmel fire. The writer and others might understand it, but everyone else is scratching their head and saying "what the hell is a dunam?" (it's 1.000 m^2 in case you're wondering btw). I think if we're gonna have a WP:COMMONNAME we should also have things the average intelligent reader can understand. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 21:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest using the "Banana equivalent dose"? It makes things simple enough to understand for everyone. 130.102.158.15 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, very funny. :p I am saying it should be understandable enough for maybe 90% of the readership is there any way to do that? My bro knows about radiology but forgot how the measurement system works. At the moment you have radiation levels in this article that might as well be measured in cubits (it's a distance measurement, I know, but it's about as useful to people in this case as the Sv one). Is this really the only way to measure radiation? If so is there any way to explain it to or simplify it for the general readership? It's not good if few people understand what you are talking about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree in particular that the "micro" μ symbol is uncommon for non-scientists. For example, it would not be common for people to know that 1000 μSv = 1 mSv. Perhaps a sidebar which brings in material from the relevant wikipedia article i.e. Sievert would be useful here. I think particularly the ratio between Sv, mSv, and μSv, and then a few dose examples. Perhaps with some green, yellow, and red colours to indicate danger levels.

Well I at least recognise micron, but yeah, only if you paid attention at certain points in chem would you remember that I guess. The examples with the colour codes would work quite well in my opinion. Great idea. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and smoothed over the units. Standardized the presentation of equivalent dose units within radiation rates, starting with millisievert and continuing with mSv in most cases. Linked early appearances of prefixes such as µ. Parenthetically added conversions in rem (again, usually mrem) and linked early appearances of such units per section. Squared up the associated language. Hth. – RVJ (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good job on getting the use of mSv consistent. However we shouldn't be giving rem conversions at all. We need to keep it is as simple as possible, and rem are old non-SI units that aren't really used outside the US and even "Continued use of...is strongly discouraged by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology". These units wouldn't be useful to the lay-person reading the article, only being of use to retired engineers or those working industries that still use the units, and those kind of people are capable of reading the Sieverts article and converting for themselves. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed all mention of rems from the article as I think dealing with the standard SI units of becquerels, sieverts and graysis enough for the average person without mentioning obsolete units that aren't even used in Japan or in the sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand you are editing from Britain, but please return the U.S. customary units (rem) to the article. The unit conversions which are provided only parenthetically as per WP:UNIT make the article comprehensible to Americans (a significant audience on English Wikipedia). The units are not obsolete, but are industry standard in the United States. Also, including customary units eases the comparison of this accident to the severity of previous nuclear accidents. – RVJ (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not about where I am editing from. the vast majority of the people reading this article will be unfamiliar with both rems and sieverts. Using both will confuse them only further. The rem article clearly states "Continued use of the rem is strongly discouraged by the style guide of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology for authors of its publications." It is a deprecated unit only of use to those familiar with working with radiation units in the US - these people are capable of reading the wikilinked Sievert article and converting the units themsleves. The conversion is hardly onerous as it's a simply factor of 100 difference, but including this extra unit in the article is going to cause confusion with those unfamiliar with the subject.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't care, as I've become familiar enough with the SI units, despite having only used the customary units in the U.S. nuclear power industry. I provided the units in response to multiple requests. As for the NIST style guide, that is a recommendation for NIST authors and is not binding on the American public or industry. Similarly, the United States went metric in 1964. ;) You seem to care more about eliminating U.S. units on Wikipedia than I care about providing them per WP:UNITS, and you're an administrator, so I'll leave it at that. – RVJ (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What units are the Japanese reporting in? If they are using Sieverts/Grays, then I would recommend that it stays that way to avoid unnecessary conversion errors.

It doesn't matter who is an admin or not, what matters is the integrity of the reporting and what is good for the reading audience. What is good for the reading audience might include either (a) learning a new metrics or (b) learning to be conversant in both. My shoot from the hip sense is that the international dialogue is in terms of sieverts. Geofferybard (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

MWadwell (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC) If I can raise another issue, we now have a very confusing situation surrounding the conversions we have supplied from micro- to milli Sv. Most obvious in the transcription of the jaif report, in which a wrong understanding of the decimal point would lead a reader to misunderstand what the table should read by a factor of 1000. Since there is no common understanding of the decimal point IMO, I strongly suggest that we either keep to the source's original use of micro and milli, OR convert into a instinctively understandable number; as an example, the jaif report should then be translated into 'just below 3 milliSv/hour'. 92.254.124.97 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan, Sendai

There seems to be a problem with the city 'Sendai'. I see it happening on more websites (other than wikipedia too). Sendai is up north, near Fukushima, and where the earthquake+tsunami hit hardest.

However, on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents there is a map with a nuclear plants in Japan and Sendai is on the bottom (as south as you can get). There is a Sendai-river there but not Sendai (or maybe a small other village with the same name?) near 'Isa', and that's it. Please check where Sendai is? Bit stupid otherwise in light of developments.... Frans 94.212.148.55 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I see now: someone is confused with the 'old' Sendai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satsumasendai,_Kagoshima Still, it looks silly, especially because another map on a related page shows Sendai on the right spot. Kick or edit the faulty map?

PS I see that wikipedia can/could use a lot of fulltime editors; too bad I can't live of it (otherwise I would apply), so I want to express high respects for all the (non-paid) editors for wikipedia's content. 94.212.148.55 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the pay's not very good. I got so far as to find an atlas. Does anyone know if the map has other mistakes? Sandpiper (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that the sendai reactor is located at satsumasendai in kagoshima prefecture, which is where it is marked on the map.[2] The map shows power stations, not cities. Sandpiper (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

When I google 'sendai reactor', I indeed get an article about a reactor down south named 'Sendai', however this cannot be near the city Sendai, which is up north.

So, if help is flown in, do they get dropped of at the planned site for the Sendai-reactor down south OR do they go to Sendai up north, for the Fukushima Plant(-s).

Who named all this stuff? Every other map shows Sendai up north. Well, if all Fukushima-I reactors blow and take Sendai with them, then there is only 1 Sendai left... Let's ALL hope this does not happen; expensive way to fix a map... 94.212.148.55 (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's no different than how there's a Springfield in just about every US state. To make sure you're talking about the right one, with Japan, you have to use both the city name and the prefecture name, just like with most US cities. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"pressure suppression room"

I can't see one of those on the diagrams, and one is not mentioned in the main article on the plant or the BWR AFAICS. It has the form of something which has been translated and come out odd. Midgley (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the torus shaped structure around the bottom of reactor. See 'wet well' on the diagram. Mchl (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times now refers to the torus and I would approve of changing the language to torus.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea the briefings referred to 'pressure suppression room' and it might be correct jargon but i do prefer torus. But I am not clear whether in fact the torus might be the steel ring rather than the concrete room surrounding the steel torus.which might be the pressure suppression...hell, i dont know! But there are some nice articles here telling you how they work if you have time. I stuck 'torus' into the diagram captionSandpiper (talk)

Here's how it's described in BWR article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor_safety_systems#Automatic_Depressurization_System_.28ADS.29 Mchl (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't read Japanese, and the original isn't to hand AFAICS, but is it possible that "room" is a translation of something that would better be rendered as "pool"? Midgley (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pressure suppression room" means "pressure suppression chamber". "Toroidal pressure suppression chamber" woud be the best description. Robertmclean2 (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Total exposure if constantly standing outside Fukushima I Nuclear Plant since beginning of accident

I have estimated the total radiation exposure that an individual would receive if standing outside the Fukushima I Nuclear Plant to be approximately 15 mSv. Some have deleted this because they say that it is wrong. Well, I think you'd find that it is quite a reasonable estimate.

The maximum measured radiation was 400 mSv per hour of course that must have only persisted for a very short time otherwise we would be hearing reports of radiation burns. At all other times the measurement was below 0.5 mSv.

I would also like to comment on the fact that all of these news agencies are utterly incompetent and irresponsible for providing inaccurate, inconsistent, and clearly wrong (impossible) numbers and units. 130.56.95.17 (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless an outside source gives this estimate, we can't use it in the article; it's considered original research. Sorry, but that's simply the rules. 155.138.3.21 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The following sources may provide what you're looking for then. A lot less panic and misrepresented measures, and a lot more accurate information 130.102.158.15 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/ http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html http://mitnse.com/

Such aggregations are original research, and probably rather meaningless, as there are probably large variations between different places at the plant.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

400mSv/hr was recorded near a reactor. OP estimated exposure of an individual at the perimeter of the NPS. Fortunately, TEPCO has been releasing those figures quite reliably here:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110316e.pdf

I don't feel like doing the math, but there's your source.

You can't use that data to calculate exposure to a hypothetical individual standing at the gate because these are point readings, not cumulative readings. For example 8mSv at 00:40 and 2mSv at 00:50. How long would exposure to 8mSv been...30 seconds, 10 minutes? To achieve a total exposure figure you need data from a continuous monitor.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You couldn't get an exact number, but a good approximation could be had by plotting these data points and solving for the area under the curve. Again, I don't care to do the math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.169.114 (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And as it has been said it would be for naught as that goes against WP:SYNTH. Sorry! =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes and that wouldn't work either, if there are spikes of radiation, you can't draw a smooth curve through the points of data you have - you don't know what spikes or troughs you aren't capturing - you need continuous cumulative monitoring.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Explosion in reactor 2 building (Confusion of radiation rates with radiation accumulations)

...Kyodo News reported that radiation had risen to 8.2 millisieverts per hour[98] around two hours after the explosion—about four times what one usually is exposed to within a whole year...

The article currently states a rate (8.2 mSv/hour) can be a multiple of (four times) a total accumulation (exposure accumulated after a year, no units given) and then later drop to an accumulation (2.4 mSv). Such is not possible. The statement ought to be either rewritten in terms that make sense or eliminated as being of no value.

Thank you to all editors

a thank you to all editors foryourwork. I've found this article to be one of the few sources of detailed and concise information that I have available to me. The real time updating is much appreciated. Many than to all, keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.45.71 (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No thank yous are necessary, but a cash donation to each editor would be greatly appreciated. ;) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sure what he meant was that any donations ought to be directed to the wiki foundation who raise money to pay for this. (I dont think he was serious, but perhaps I am) Sandpiper (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Errr, yeah, Wiki Foundation, right.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Two missing workers

We need to mention the two missing workers at Reactor 4. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, they should indeed be mentioned. Here is a source [3] and here is another [4]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they were lost in the tsunami, not the reactor fire.[5]. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I also saw a reference somewhere to a death due to a crane accident. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the crane operator at Unit 2 of Fukushima 2 (Dai-ni), not Fukushima 1 (Dai-ichi). Poor guy. 216.239.45.130 (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's odd to focus on two deaths when there are at least tens of thousands dead. 74.197.54.204 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Those tens of thousands of deaths (I haven't seen a source putting it that high) while related to the larger disaster are not specifically related to this aspect of the disaster, by which I mean the Nuke plant. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Fukushima I 14 March 2011 satellite image by DigitalGlobe.jpg

Hello, Fukushima nuclear accident. You have new messages at File talk:Fukushima I 14 March 2011 satellite image by DigitalGlobe.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What the...? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There's actually a newer satellite picture now: http://twitpic.com/49zxz2/full --92.194.11.9 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Complete plant evacuation?

Both CNN and Fox News are now reporting that the latest government press conference said that the last 50 workers at Daiichi have been evacuated due to radiation dangers. Anyone who speaks Japanese well enough to have understood the conference directly know if that's true? rdfox 76 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Shit Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether any confusion is necessarily a translation problem. It's unclear whether this is a permanent or long-distance evacuation or whether work has temporarily been suspended, but the employees remain in the vicinity of the plant.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, American news gave a simplified version of what actually took place. Cla68 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, lol, for a second I thought this was the end of Japan as we know it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You can follow the Japanese press conference simultaneously translated to English at [6] (Windows Media Player needed, choice of bandwidths) and the Japanese radio news in English at [7] (choice of Windows Media or MP3). (they just recapped about the recent medium quake near Chiba: "intensity 423" and showing "M6.0") -84user (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC) By the way, the evacuation order was lifted an hour later they just said. -84user (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't take it out the article without a reliable source; all our reliable sources are saying that the evacuation is still happening. Does anyone have a reliable source??Rememberway (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed by http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv the alleged evacuation that has supposedly occurred recently leaving the reactors to melt down and all of us to die was a single mistranslation that spread far and wide.

During the recent press conference Yukio Edano was describing events that happened earlier in the day when he said that workers had to be evacuated due to a spike in radiation but they returned shortly after.

(Of course, nhk didn't say anything about a mistranslation because they aren't even aware of what the US media are saying, what they did is during an update, show how Yukio was on earlier and said workers had been evacuated temporarily and returned)

The systematic and total failure of the media time after time after time after time on this is probably a much bigger news story than the events at the reactors. I would suggest editors here be much much more skeptical about their "reliable" sources as Forbes, BBC, AP, Reuters, Al-Jazeera ALL failed to report correctly in this case

From the same news conference several news sources are reporting that Edano reported radiation levels of something like 8000 milli-sieverts, but I was listening live to the English translation of the conference and after he said that he spent literally like 10 seconds correcting himself saying "sorry, sorry I meant 8000 micro sieverts ie 8 milli-sieverts" Yet somehow only the error was reported by a nontrivial part of western media 98.222.61.16 (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible for editors following this, and aware of what errors are being propagated, to contribute at WP:ERRORS to make sure that the blurb about these incidents that is currently on Wikipedia's main page is reasonably correct and updated? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC just said the plant had been evacuated though now people were back.Sandpiper (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC) At this minute the wiki main page says ' A spike in radiation levels at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Ōkuma, Japan, forces the evacuation of staff working to prevent a meltdown.' which seems to me to be correct, even if it is based on the evacuation of most of the staff reported 12 hours ago.Sandpiper (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"temporarily relocated" would probably be better than evacuated, according to this: http://joiito.tumblr.com/post/3895389108/main-stream-media-echo-chamber-sounding-false-alarmOsakadave (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't use dramatic laguage!

Lets refrain from using dramatic language in the article, an editor called ionizing radiation "DNA-destroying energy"[8]. I've changed it to "ionizing radiation". This is an encyclopedia article not a tabloid newspaper. --Diamonddavej (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I cited and reworded parts of this section to be more neutral and to flow better. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In the context of this article, radiation always means ionizing radiation. I suggest to simply write "radiation", in order to avoid confusing readers who don't know what "ionizing" means.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a problem of lay language versus professional/scientific language. I'm not particularly attached to the use of that term, but in regards to human health, what describes the situation for most readers, "ionizing radiation" or "DNA-destroying". Most readers wont understand the significance of "ionizing radiation" from a health point-of-view, whereas "DNA-destroying" is descriptive of the health impact. Emotion is only in the interpretation. We must remember, we are not writing scientific papers here, we are writing for a lay audience.John Moss (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

zircaloy

We should improve the zircaloy article, with all that is being mentioned about the failure modes of the fuel rod cladding. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an article about Nuclear fuel and Fuel element failure.Sandpiper (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactor status summary

The time stated in the top first cell needs a timezone. JST? Didn't see anything in the source and don't wanna guess. Styxnsoon (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

update that seemed to be important.

Don't know if anyone else consider so, therefore I will ask here. I saw in the news about the water level of reactor 5 was lowered by 40 cm, but still 201 cm above the fuel rods, and Japan is planning to use the diesel power generator of reactor 6 to fill back the water of reactor 5.([9]) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cancellation of water drop just now on reactor 3 by helicopter - radiation levels ? too high

There is a report on NHK World news just now, that the SDF have 'aborted an operation to spray water on the no 3 reactor at (fukushima 1) plant, as plumes of white smoke are seen and SDF ground force unit dispatched a CH47 helicopter from (nearby). The SDF planned the helicopter to make many passes, they had dispatched another helicopter to monitor radiation levels; they have decided they cannot safely continue to fly over the reactor.' (near word for word transcript above) Landspeed (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

sky news was showing footage of a helicopter with a water scoop and carried the same story but Im not certain if it was live or stock footage. The article has a platitudinous comment about plans to use fire hoses. Last I heard that plan wasnt doing very well. The TEPCO report of a fire in unit 4 at 0600 also says on further investigation no fire was found, but it also says the person who discovered it was taking batteries into the building. Clearly there is still major electrical failure throughout the plant. Sandpiper (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why can't an unmanned aerial vehicle like the MQ-9 be used to drop water if the radiation is too high for a human helicopter pilot?Taylor qwerty (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the mighy MQ-9 Reaper is a fixed-wing aircraft that cannot hover and the UAVs we have that do hover are tiny. You need a set of big helis for this job. Find a source talking about the possibility of UAVs in case I am wrong. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The NHK video at At 12:47 Japan time http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/17_18.html shows a ch-47 ~400 ft above the plant moving fast, dropping water as if it were spraying a forest fire. The caption says "spraying water". So not really a drop on Unit 3 unless the aim is to cool and condense the Unit 3 steam. If the MIT numbers on decay heat are correct http://mitnse.com/2011/03/16/what-is-decay-heat/ a serious cooling problem will last for months. The courageous Japanese human effort may fail and no government in this situation can prepare to admit defeat and plan for failure. I hope someone (U.S.? On our own dollar a slapped together Sasebo gift?) is preparing the remote control, unmanned, 100 foot barge with a 10,000 HP diesel sea water pump and a remote control 200 ft+ crane with a Red Adair-style self-cooling delivery head on it, so that in five days, if time runs out and Japanese courage is not enough, the first crude prototype can be run directly up against the seawall and start delivering real volumes of borated water directly into specific Units and storage pools. Off topic, I know; but where else? DaveFromAustin (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Create new sub-articles do to length?

The article seems to be expanding quickly and soon become unwieldy, perhaps it would be good to start new sub-articles on Unit Reactors 1, 2, 3, and 4 or the International reaction section, for example. The article would become much more powerful and concise if these sections for example were shortened, coupled with a interwiki link to a sub topic article that provides more in-depth happenings of the various aspects of this accident. Naming might be difficult. 184.195.79.101 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

no. my stock answer is to resist all suggestions to split until it is unavoidable. a reader needs to see all the information as a whole because unit 1 did not fail without affecting unit 2, and so on. There would be enormous repetition and no one could maintain any of the articles properly. The bit which is most separate from the rest is international reaction to the incident and general commentary from other parties, which is going to grow and grow. Sandpiper (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No. The article is still acceptable in length, and these things should really be seen together. Furthermore, as long as things are unfolding rapidly, any move (merge, split) is advised against. This situation is clearly different from the split between the reactor article and the accidents article as in that case the title did not cover anymore the main point of the article, which many people felt was inappropriate. In this case that is not the case. L.tak (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

tepco report of strange noises

tepco reported [10]

"At approximately 6:00 today, an abnormal noise began emanating from nearby the pressure suppression chamber of Fukushima Dai-ichi Power Station. Given that the pressure within this chamber had decreased, it was believed that this was an indication that an abnormality had arisen. From this point on, while water injection operations are still underway, the temporary transfer to a safe place of TEPCO employees and workers from other companies not directly involved with this work has begun. Currently, at Fukushima Dai-ichi Power Station, the remaining workers are doing their best to secure the safety and security of the site.

The parameters for Unit 2's nuclear containment vessel and the containment vessel show no significant change."

problem is it does not say which reactor they are describing as making strange noises. I also just heard a news story that evacuation was caused by a mistaken radiation reading. That does not seem consistent with this official press release. Sandpiper (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Generator Location

I was talking with a physics professor who seemed well informed. He stated that it was standard practice to position diesel generators at a non-trivial distance from the reactors, so that they would still be accessible in case of a problem with the reactors. And he said that in the case of Fukushima I, that the backup generator building happened to be placed at a relatively low lying position that made it more vulnerable to the tsunami, while the reactor buildings themselves were somewhat elevated and received essentially no damage from the tsunami. This seems like an interesting detail, if correct. Has anyone seen reports discussing the location of the generators on the site, and whether they might have been relatively more vulnerable? Were the reactor buildings hit by the tsunami, or were they high enough to avoid a direct hit (it's hard to tell from the satellite photos whether there is a slope there or not)? Dragons flight (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

have not seen any information on plant layout, which I agree would be interesting if anyone finds some. I have seen a comment the sea wall was designed to keep out 6.5m waves, so you would have to assume the water was at least this deep. The water is capable of running up hill as a body maintaining its depth, particularly since this is right on the coast. Ask someone who was on the top of a reactor watching for waves what he saw. Sandpiper (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The dieselgenerators are usually placed in a ground level buildings with an underground fuel tank. Thats because of the seismic resistance. The higher floor, the more serious seismic damage.

NHK report gens being underground in NE corner of each turbine/ancillary hall. Underground possibly due to typhoons being considered greater threat than tsunamis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.74.56 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've found a generic site plan for a BWR - [BWR Building location graphic] - but this doesn't make any allowances for changes made to match local conditions. MWadwell (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

units

Should there be an article relating rad, rem, roentgen, curie, gray, sievert, rutherford, becquerel ? We don't seem to have an overarching article to cover the differences between these units. As older disasters did not use sieverts (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl) in news broadcasts from that period, people looking up resources on those events may end up needing some sort of guide on the issue. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

People would simply click sievert to find out. Matthew_hk tc 12:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a short sub-section at Radioactivity would be appropriate for this.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest Cabinet Report (17:00 local time)

• http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/kikikanri/jisin/20110311miyagi/201103161700genpatsu.pdf My Japanese is not good but some item were readable, such as the level of radiation surrounding and in Tokyo. Instead of using how many time than normal (nature envir.), actual measurement should be used. And TEPCO on-site meter also show the radiation remain stable in 1mSv/h (P.S. third column is location 正門 = main gate 正門付近 = near maingate, fifth is neutron, 6th column is wind direction 東南西北= East, South, West, North, last column is wind speed) Matthew_hk tc 12:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Recriticality" discussions ought to be restrained as rather fanciful, not that Wiki's responsible for whatever alarming conjectures USA Today dredges out of its sources but Wiki should avoid adding murk. Yes, "spent" fuel actually still has a goodly remaining proportion of un-split Uranium atoms. (Engineering tries to bring that percentage as low as possible but nature resists and much of the Uranium remains un-split when the core is no longer serviceable.) And Water is a moderator..., yes, and (for the benefit of other readers) a moderator is a substance that slows (moderates) fast (fission-emitted) neutrons. And critical (permit me, please to touch on the basics) means a chain reaction is in effect with neutron counts per unit time holding steady. ("Subcritical/supercritical" describe chain reactions with counts falling/rising.) When discussing chain reactions and criticality, GEOMETRY of the fuel and surrounding moderators is of absolute importance to what happens next. If moderation *does* change, there are actually two ways criticality becomes more likely: 1) Moderation intensifies and neutrons may be retained near fissionable fuel, or 2) Moderation diminishes and neutrons that would have been unable to reach fissile Uranium atoms can now do so. It's all a question of geometry. (Steam bubbles, for example, moderate less than liquid water because their molecules are spread apart.) Because the used fuel stockpile is arranged for storage and not as a potential reactor core, any notion the stored fuel could arrange itself (through diminshed moderation or reforming/distorting/melting) is a crap shoot... a total unknown. There's just enough truth in "recriticality" talk to not dispense with it entirely. I believe what happens at Fukushima is news. Whatever USA Today (or whoever) prints is not news, per se, but can be carefully sifted for appropriate references, so we have to be careful. [No one asked me but I'd *guess* criticality amongst the stored fuel is almost absurdly unlikely. It's too hard to randomly engineer the appropriate geometries in the heap. OTOH, those with close knowledge of the facility could speak to the (it's gotta be more likely) chance of bits of a deformed, steaming mass leaving their tank and releasing fission fragments. "Re-criticality" is not required to have a bad (worse) situation. (Sources here are personal knowledge as a former reactor operator.)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertSegal (talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Milli or Micro

I find that the prefixes for milli and micro are being used interchangeably when describing the amount of radiation being leaked. Contributors continue to indicate microseiverts when the, I believe, intend to use milliseiverts. There's a big difference between the two. Can contributors please ensure they are using the correct metric prefixes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.52.3 (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well according to the Sieverts article, all I see used there is mSv which is much more relevant in terms of dosage and radiation sickness. But also at the same time most values used on the page are relatively low and best (in my opinion) expressed as μSv. Though think we need to make some consensus as to this issue. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As discussed here I think millisieverts is preferred, but the most important thing is not to make a 1000-order-of-difference mistake! --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

MIT chart and figures on decay heat energy for these reactors

MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering has a number of posts regarding the crisis. This one: http://mitnse.com/2011/03/16/what-is-decay-heat/ has a graph and calculated figures, in megawatts, for the heat production of the cores of unit 1 and of units 2 and 3. There are figures for the past, today and for future days and months, going out to 11 March 2012. According to this it will be early July before the heat production is half what it is today.

There's also http://mitnse.com/2011/03/15/explanation-of-hydrogen-explosions-at-units-1-and-3/ with some details / speculation about steam with hydrogen from the secondary containment area being vented inside the top of the building of units 1 and 3. In http://mitnse.com/2011/03/15/unit-2-explosion-and-unit-4-spent-fuel-pool-fire/ they say that unit 3's explosion was inside the secondary containment.

I think this WP article is really good. My page http://www.firstpr.com.au/jncrisis/ is an attempt to link to relevant sites and to have images and info which are not possible in WP, including a Google Group for wider-ranging discussions than are possible on WP talk pages. - Robin Robin Whittle (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you like the article, but I would suggest anyone really concerned about specific points to also look at the refs and other news sources for themselves. Probably information about events a couple of days old is more reliable, as there seems to be considerable coyness at the moment in explaining clearly what is happening. Information I have heard did suggest that fuel rods would cool somewhat faster than you suggest (ie significantly within 10 days) but I havnt gone into it. Sandpiper (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I Robin. Just a quick note about your page: "Particles such as electrons are emitted during radioactive decay and travel through the water at a velocity faster than the speed of light in water. " is quite untrue...Don't mix up phase velocity of light and speed of light... --MarmotteiNoZ 10:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada and USA

should we add the hysteria in west coast US and western Canada, which have people clearing out pharmacies of potassium iodide? Several US and Canadian news channels have been reporting on it. The Canadian Prime Minister seems to have commented that people should not be administering it to themselves. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen a couple of experts saying iodine pretty pointless except for children. The article ought to discuss world hysteria but I would not want to go over the top on this. Just above someone discussed splitting the article, and the one point I would perhaps support would be a separate article on world reaction to the accident, as distinct from the facts of the accident here. But I still wouldnt split until there was a large body of text already. It is very hard to say how this matter will resolve eventually and what will then be a sensible article arrangement. Sandpiper (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

digitalglobe.com has images of the damaged reactors

http://www.digitalglobe.com/index.php/27/Sample+Imagery+Gallery has an image taken today (2011-03-16) showing all four reactor buildings in considerable detail. I don't know enough about WP copyright policies to be sure whether these images could be used by WP. The terms of use http://www.digitalglobe.com/index.php/128/Usage look quite generous. Robin Whittle (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's compatible. Usually fair-use images on Wikipedia have to be reduced resolution. The terms of use bans that kind of modification. Keeping the photo credit attached to the image is also difficult if it can't be burned in as a watermark (no modification allowed), since anyone can edit wikipedia, and thus remove the credit. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The terms of use are generally irrelevant when it comes to NFCC. Fair use depends on US law which allows us to use copyrighted content regardless of what the copyright holder wants under some specific circumstances. Our policies limit when we can use content further then required by US law but what the copyright holder wants generally still isn't relevant. However I'm not sure if those images would qualify under NFCC for other reasons. In particularly they probably need to be viewed in large size so aren't really necessary to be shown in the article. I would suggest instead an external link to them may be worth considering. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuelrods-Fire

Concerning fire, it might be useful to know, especially for the Spend-Fuel-Pools, to know (if even possible) if the fire is from just 'stuff' there OR that the fuelrods themselves are on fire.

If fuelrods melt, it's about 2000 degr.C; when they burn it is much more AND then we have a metal-fire which cannot be put out with some water (unless you can divert a river).

IF there IS a metal-fire in the SFP, then it's game-over for that part.... 94.212.148.55 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's below 2700C (I think?) water should still be able to cool the flames, and extinguish them, provided you dumped them in the cooling pond. Above 2700C, water will dissociate, so it might fan the flames by feeding them oxygen. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I heard or read something which suggested the problem of fire was hydrogen gas again. If the rods get hot they react with water to make hydrogen. This would be more difficult in a cooling pond because presumably the water would all have boiled away before the rods could get that hot but ... It is unclear (at least to the public) where exactly radiation is coming from, though we know the steam being vented from reactors to cool them is now contaminated. Sandpiper (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The reports I've seen said that the portions of rods above the water would get hot enough to do that, so that when you added more water, it would react and give off hydrogen. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Likelihood of a metal fire is unlikely because as far as I know the metal in fuel rods is already oxidised, having a higher melting point and cannot burn because it has already oxidised. However it is very possible that the exposed fuel rods get hot enough to strip hydrogen from water as we believe to have happened inside the reactors. Not an expert but 2000-2700C... are you sure? AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The reactors contain superheated steam under pressure and water is continually being added (in theory), so conditions are not quite the same. Sandpiper (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If hydrogen is formed and ignited it will just explode, it does NOT burn like a piece of wood. Operators are very concerned so it cannot really be just 'stuff' surrounding the SFP; then, most likely, all or most of the water is gone and fuelrods are melting causing a lot of smoke and radiation, that's why the controlroom has radiation levels. When the fuelrods are melting, then it does not matter anymore is they were oxidised and when they are reactive enough (hot/just used rods from unit 4) they will burn: metal fire.

You cannot use water to put that out. Hopefully, it will not form a critical mass...

Personally, I would, because of rising temp. on SFP on unit 5+6, take them out (only unit 5+6) and dump them in that small harbor/port (ocean) just before the plant. Before they get too hot as well. Not nice for environment? This is the FINAL countdown! Fukushima will not be like Chernobyl? No. It's worse. Unless they can get some equipment (pumps) going, we face maybe a triple reactor-core meltdown and a quad SFP-meltdown.

And someone noticed that the vessel (RPV) will be OK, even if the core melts....no way: the molten core will just go through it.

Also: we're talking about tens of tons of metal; it takes a LOT of cooling capacity to cool that down, you can run a city (like with 250 000 citizens) with that heat.

Remember the scale of these reactors: you can live in a RPV or SFP (spacewise). A RPV cooling/circulation pump takes (about) 3-6 MW.

Yes, I am scared what could happen there. 94.212.148.55 (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Has any reliable source stated how much fuel is in the pool for each reactor? That belongs in the article. Has any nuclear expert really stated what could happen if the storage pool fractured and the water leaked out, or if it boiled away? Would there be enough heat for the uncooled fuel rods to melt down and form a pool at the bottom? In some US reactors, all the fuel rods they ever used are stored in a pool onsite, or perhaps in dry casks after many years, since there is not national waste repository or reprocessing center. So some of these reactors could have 40 years of fuel stored. Doesn't recently used fuel run hotter than unused fuel, due to the breakdown products from the operation? Edison (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I read a discussion, somewhere, that said that only pool 4 contained recently used fuel. They had planned to unload reactors 5 and 6 as well, but they hadn't gotten to it before the quake. So the fuel in the other pools is considerably older and cooler. Dragons flight (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall something suggesting the Japanese did regularly remove it (don't remember what regularly was) although this may have been before anything happened to it and the site was suggesting there was nothing to worry at all (i.e. don't know if I would trust them). BTW wouldn't only some/most of the fuel in 5 and 6 be older and cooler but there still be about an equivalent amount of newer hot fuel (presuming each reactor got about the same amount of use)? Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm suggesting that the newer / hot fuel from 5 and 6 is still in their respective reactor cores and hadn't been moved to a spent fuel pool. Presumably the total amounts of hot fuel are similar, but the locations are different (at least according to what I recall reading). Dragons flight (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks for the clarification, you're right I misunderstood what you were saying. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

hat-region/ ([11]) supports the idea they had removed all the fuel from reactor 4 but not 5 and 6 where only 1/3 had been removed. For some reason the main NEI site is behind [12] ([13]). This now removed (i.e. perhaps some details are wrong) factsheet [14] ([15]) suggests all the fuel is stored on site but not all in the individual reactor storage ponds (most of it is in a shared pool with a small amount in dry storage) Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting fact sheet. I like the bit which says radiation monitors in the building would warn of increasing radiation if the water level fell and the bit about just adding some extra water with a fire hose is good too. The fact sheet is very positive but says it should take days or weeks for water to get dangerously low. Pool 4 had an entire reactor load of fuel in it - potentially plus spares due to refuelling? so it might perhaps have been loaded to capacity and so be a worst case evaporation situation?Sandpiper (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The fuel itself cannot be on fire, they would just melt as any metal would. The fire (or better to say explosion) was probably caused by hydrogen which is normally a product of radiolysis of the water. In case the fuel was not cooled properly, the hydrogen would form from reaction of water and zirkonium. This happens on large scale when the fuel cladding reaches temperature of 1200 degrees celsius.

Very hot metal usually oxidizes on the outside and then cools down sufficiently, so that it does not "burn". Radioactive metal, however, does not cool down, and therefore would burn, likely breaking up any oxide skin that may occur, if the oxide does not evaporate (sublimate) readily into the atmosphere due to the heat.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The fuelrods are normally not oxidised, when they are, then they give off or have given off hydrogen = problem.

How much fuel? Well, just read that Daiici-4 was completely defueled on 30nov2010, so that gives 94 tons of hot-rods in the SFP. And assume the SFP was not empty.

If about 15% of fuel is replaced every year, then that would be 10 tons for unit-1 and 14 tons each for unit 2 - 5 and 20 tons for unit-6.

Total hot-rods Fukushima-Daiichi = 180 ton

Just great. 94.212.148.55 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If there would at one point of time emerge a situation in which there are 2.500 °C hot uranium fuel rods in plain air, then hydrogen will be a comparatively minor problem. Radiation will very likely make any work near the site impossible in this case, with or without any additional hydrogen explosions. The total heat emission from the fuel rods is probably about 30 to 40 MW, so without a continuous supply of cooling water, the fuel rods will probably not stop heating until they have evaporated into the air.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look into status updates by JAIF [16] (not the 16:00/march 17 as they removed information about fires at building 4) they suggest that the fire that started morning 15th has not been extinguished as stated in the article, but has burned out on itself. The same is applicable for the second fire on the 16th which burned for less than an hour. This suggests that the rods were not themselves on fire, as one cant expect them to burn out in a couple of hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.239.106 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuel quantities in each pool are listed here. The fist column is the total storage capacity, the second column is the spent fuel, the final column is the unused fuel.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I had recently modified the data in the line "Estimated spent fuel assemblies" of the section Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Reactor_status_summary, using a recent French source coherent with these new data, but which ignored the presence of unused fuel (except for reactor 4 where they had a footnote telling they had modified their data due to an information received from AIEA). Since your source is more first-hand (Japan) your new data should be inserted in the article. (I don't do it myself, since it is not reasonable to use a source in Japanese when I do not read this language). French Tourist (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

neutronic effects of plutonium

Anyone know what the relevant neutronic effects of plutonium are re reactor 3 or is this just nonsense? Sandpiper (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Plutonium produces more neutrons per fission on average than U-235, and hence has a significantly smaller critical mass. However MOX fuel generally contains a significant amount of non-fissile depleted uranium in addition to the plutonium in order to make MOX behave overall more like uranium fuel rods. So an intact MOX rod should be very similar to an intact U-235 rod. Maybe there is some significant difference with respect to meltdown, but I'm not sure what it would be. I do know that plutonium is much more toxic than uranium, so it would be appreciably worse in an environmental release, but that's not due to it's "neutronic effects". Dragons flight (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

so you view would be the 'neutronic' effect is nil? That was kind of what I had thought trying to look into it. Sandpiper (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The uranium fuel rods also would contain plutonium as a result of neutron capture in U-238 once they have been in the reactor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testpattern75 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticality in a spent fuel pool (GUardian report, ref 162 at present), and flowing water...

Water is a moderator. If the level of that in the pool drops fission gets less likely, not more likely. There might be an alarming and dangerous situation , the used rods might melt or catch fire, but in the context of a nuclear power article "critical" is a very precise term for something else. I'd be very surprised if the spent fuel rods were in a critical assembly only prevented from runaway fission by (something in the) cooling water, whereas keeping them cool seems uncontroversial. Also around there, the rods are said to need runing water for up to 3 years. I think they just sit in a pool, and convect - if they do get stored in running water, ithere isn't a place for it shown on the diagrams. Midgley (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the spent fuel pool contains not only used rods, but also fresh ones. In contrast to unit 5 and 6, they were brought there from the reactor core to make the core available for inspection. They were tightly packed in the pool. If they melt, there is a probability that criticality is reached. That is how I understood it. Some sources say the pool or all pools together contain up to 400 tons of radioactive fuel. --rtc (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC and USA Today have similar quotes about the threat of "recriticality" in spent fuel pool 4, so I'm going to assume they really did express such a fear. The only thing I can imagine is that they worry about the rods melting and forming into a molten puddle that happens to be "critical". Dragons flight (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I havnt seen a ref on this yet. I did see one ref which mentioned recriticality, but since the situation it was talking about was a pond which had not been critical before, clearly some sort of misunderstanding was going on. If the water is lost the rods will melt. They are presumably in substantial concrete tanks so I dont know how much this might be capable of conducting away heat into the body of the building. I doubt whether the fact they are new or old would make a great difference to the outcome. I dont know the sums but without a moderator it requires much more material to become critical and they seem to be trying to add boron to damp down a reaction even if the worst happened. Then the question is how well any container would disperse or concentrate the melt. There would be serious radiation escape from this bowl of soup without any need to go critical. Reactor 3 uses plutonium, which is very poisonous entirely apart from being radioactive. Sandpiper (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

by "recriticality" they mean the fresh fuel that is temporarily stored in the pool during inspection. Since it is not used up, it could in principle easily achieve criticality if sufficiently close to each other. Authorities say there is a small possibility that the explosion might have moved or kicked or damaged the fresh fuel in the pool and brought them close enough together for criticality to be possible. It's not a big threat, but it's a possibility different from zero, as they say. PS: Not the pond has been critical before, but the fuel -- before it was taken out of the reactor. Hope that clarifies the situation. --rtc (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am very sceptical, refs? Saying fuel is used up is not really true, since there was enough fissile material still in the rods before they were removed for the reactor to operate. Its not quite like running out of petrol. Sandpiper (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Saying fuel is used up is not really true". Did I say fuel is used up? I said the opposite, acutally: "Since it is not used up" Some of the fuel in the pool is spent fuel, some is fresh fuel removed merely for inspection and to be put back later. --rtc (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is one ref where the guardian reports tepco as saying rods might reach recriticality supporting a claim in the article that stored rods might go critical. I am sceptical about the claim. This is important because we are implying to a reader it might blow up. It will not blow up. Nothing more than we have seen already anyway. This should not be in the article without better substantiation than this.Sandpiper (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... Fuel rods are at criticality during normal operation of a nuclear power plant. Do these plants thus blow up during normal operation? obviously not. This is not the same as a nuclear bomb; a nuclear bomb consists of entirely different kind of radioactive matter, much more pure... If criticality is reached, lots of energy will be released, just as it is during normal operation of the plant. It might actually blow up, like a big steam explosion, and it might spread radioactive contamination, but it would certainly not be anything comparable to when a nuclear bomb blows up. Also, the probability is small, as I already said. It is a possibility if fuel containers have been pushed, moved, kicked or damaged by the hydrogen explosions, thus getting near to each other --rtc (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

so we have to make that clear. we do not. a reader who does not understand will think this a bomb. It cannot remain as it is. But my initial point is whether there is an actual clear ref about this. Nothing wrong with the guardian but they are reporting what someone else has said and it is simply not a clear quote of what was originally said. Sandpiper (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"a reader who does not understand will think this a bomb" A reader can misunderstand almost anything you write. You cannot avoid these misunderstandings, they are inherent. Let's not make conjectures about what the reader might or might not misunderstand and just focus on reporting the information that we have -- and that includes the fact that there is a possibility, different from 0, that criticality might be reached, and that thus attempts are made to cool the pool. Feel free to look for further sources on the topic and add them if you find something (amke sure you avoid WP:SYNTH however), but I do not think we need to remove anything. --rtc (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of wading into a controversial topic. I added a link from BBC that explains the criticality issue. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12762608 Its description seems consistent with the article text:

"So why is it that the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) has warned: "The possibility of re-criticality is not zero"? If you are in any doubt as to what this means, it is that in the company's view, it is possible that enough fissile uranium is present in enough density to form a critical mass in the cooling pond - meaning that a nuclear fission reaction could start in the building, outside the containment shield that surrounds the actual reactor. If it happened, this would lead to the enhanced and sustained release of radioactive materials - though not a nuclear explosion." 66.65.191.165 (talk)

Yes, that is completely correct, and just what I said above. It is obvious from basic physics and common sense. --rtc (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you show me a statement directly from tepco (or other sources quoting what they have said, in context) I will accept it. I suspect a mistake has been made.Sandpiper (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No mistake has been made, the statement is completely meaningful and logical. The source given ([17]) already contains a literal quotation from Tepco spokesman: "The No 4 reactor is an increasing cause for concern. Tepco believes that the storage pool may be boiling, raising the possibility that exposed rods will reach criticality. "The possibility of re-criticality is not zero," a Tepco spokesman said" Other sources report the same. There's nothing that would make it implausible. Please let's not be over-skeptical. Read above that criticality may pose further serious problems, but certainly no nuclear-bomb-like scenario. --rtc (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I read the bbc. they agree the quote. But as I just suggested I see they also explain the situation and say "if it happened, this would lead to the enhanced and sustained release of radioactive materials - though not a nuclear explosion." I note they also suggest that maybe someone stole the water from the cooling pond for some other purpose. Probably to top up the the reactor because there was no other clean water left and they did not want to have to scrap another one? Sandpiper (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the BBC comment to the article for clarification. --rtc (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

yes thanks. I give in. The entire section on that reactor appears to be all about an ongoing fuel pond incident. The best thing to do about criticality is to raise it so as to explain it. Sandpiper (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

EU energy minister just said a critical event is possible within the next few hours (though I dont think he meant technically critical?)Sandpiper (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oettinger didn't mean "critical" in a technical sense, if he used that word. Oettinger's speaker quickly added that Oettingers statements about possible further catastrophic developments are not to be understood as being based on some new information not publicly available yet. It's a general statement of fear, not new information and there is no threat of something specific. --rtc (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

[This was written as other posts were accumulating.] Proper use of the word "critical" is not irresponsible provided Wiki educates the reader on the meaning of the word. The extent to which the audience is getting what you mean is the extent to which communication has succeeded. Communication is the responsibility of the one with something to say. In any event, "recriticality" discussions ought to be restrained as rather fanciful, not that Wiki's responsible for whatever alarming conjectures USA Today dredges out of its sources but Wiki should avoid adding murk. Yes, "spent" fuel actually still has a goodly remaining proportion of un-split Uranium atoms. (Engineering tries to bring that percentage as low as possible but nature resists and much of the Uranium remains un-split when the core is no longer serviceable.) And Water is a moderator..., yes, and (for the benefit of other readers) a moderator is a substance that slows (moderates) fast (fission-emitted) neutrons. And critical (permit me, please to touch on the basics) means a chain reaction is in effect with neutron counts per unit time holding steady. ("Subcritical/supercritical" describe chain reactions with counts falling/rising.) When discussing chain reactions and criticality, GEOMETRY of the fuel and surrounding moderators is of absolute importance to what happens next. If moderation *does* change, there are actually two ways criticality becomes more likely: 1)Moderation intensifies and neutrons may be retained near fissionable fuel, or 2)moderation diminishes and neutrons that would have been unable to reach fissile Uranium atoms can now do so. It's all a question of geometry. (Steam bubbles, for example, moderate less than liquid water because their molecules are spread apart.) Because the used fuel stockpile is arranged for storage and not as a potential reactor core, any notion the stored fuel could arrange itself (through diminshed moderation or reforming/distorting/melting) is a crap shoot... a total unknown. There's just enough truth in "recriticality" talk to not dispense with it entirely. I believe what happens at Fukushima is news. Whatever USA Today (or whoever) prints is not news, per se, but can be carefully sifted for appropriate references, so we have to be careful. [No one asked me but I'd *guess* criticality amongst the stored fuel is almost absurdly unlikely. It's too hard to randomly engineer the appropriate geometries in the heap. OTOH, those with close knowledge of the facility could speak to the (it's gotta be more likely) chance of bits of a deformed, steaming mass leaving their tank and releasing fission fragments. "Re-criticality" is not required to have a bad (worse) situation. (Sources here are personal knowledge as a former reactor operator.)]RobertSegal (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My inclination is it wont be critical but I agree it has been reported that it could be, so it is legitimate to report that fact. But it has to be explained properly. I donot like the alarmist title about criticality. the section ought to also take in the para above which is about the same events and I will merge them. then you can complain about whatever title I dream up? Sandpiper (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Originally, I included the "risk is not zero" quote with the paragraph above. That's why it doesn't start with the date. I'm not sure who/when it was moved to its own section. However, I agree that given the information we currently know, it should be merged with above. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

we are falling over each other. I just agreed to leave it. I think if the issue is being reported and discussed then we follow that. the whole section on that reactor is really about the same thing. If there is a criticality heading it needs to have a balanced content explaining this is not what it may sound like. Sandpiper (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

ANyone any ideas wher the quoted times came from so we could tidy that up?Sandpiper (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The fuel does not contain any moderator by itself. Without moderator the fuel can not reach criticality. The fuel pools use water which is a pretty good moderator, for cooling. In order to keep the fuel subcritical, the water and sometimes, when the fuel is stored in a dense matrix (in cells), also the material of the cells contains boron (H3BO3 in the water and B4C in the steel). The problem with recriticality might occur if the amount of boron in the water decreased. In case the fuel would melt, the mass could not get critical (as the fuel construction - distances between fuel rods, i.e. the ratio of water and fuel, makes the criticality possible). Not even melted MOX fuel would get critical.

Fuel can get critical without a moderator, if there is enough fuel in a contiguous space. The fuel itself would act as a moderator (although the hydrogen contained in water is much more efficient). What is necessary is that enough neutrons originating from spontaneous fission slow down suffiently to cause additional fission events, instead of leaving the fuel mass. In a large mass of fuel, neutrons have a much higher chance to slow down rather than escape, but I don't know if there is enough fuel in the pond, so that a critical mass could be formed without the existence of a moderator. Borate may evaporate, too, so it may be of little help if there is a full-blown meltdown.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about high grade uranium or plutonium. We are talking about up to 5 % enriched (fresh) and about 2 % enriched (spent) fuel. It contains very little fissile material and a lot of absorbers (fission products). In a melted mass, the escape from the fuel would lower however the absorption would increase much more (few orders). The neutron moderator is defined - decrease of neutron energy per one scattering (logarithmic reduction of neutron energy per collision) times probability of the scattering (macroscopic cross section for scattering) divided by probability of absorption (macroscopic cross section for absorption) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator. The decrease of energy per scattering in fact says you how fast the neutron will lose energy (will get thermal), when you multiply it by the probability of that number of scattering, you get (again bluntly) the required distance the neutron has to venture to get thermal, when divided by probability of absorption you get the real knowledge whether the neutron will get thermal or absorbed on the way. The best moderators are light nuclei. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.111.77.140 (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure it is not enriched uranium. That means a larger mass is necessary to achieve criticality. That is not useful for a bomb, because (a) the larger mass must be transported by the rocket or airplane (b) if the exponential growth of neutron production is not quick enough (although still positive), the mass will explode due to the heat when only a small fraction of the fissionable material will have actually produced neutrons. Criticality therefore does not necessarily mean nuclear explosion, but even if "only" a large amount of thermal energy is being produced, or people in the vicinity will simply die on the spot due to the short, but massive emission of neutrons, the consequences would probably be significant.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Amount and geometry play role. Not just amount. The Oklo natural reactor in Gabon required water flowing throught the uranium mass in order to get critical. The same would be necessary for the melted mass. However, the mass won't have any gaps where water could flow. Thats why it can not get critical (IMO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.111.77.141 (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactor status summary table

The Reactor status summary section and table was recently deleted, by a well-intentioned editor. I have restored it per WP:BRD. Let's discuss it here.

In my view, the table was a very useful "big picture" summary of several classes of information: the design and specifications of the various reactors, as well as their status at the time of the earthquake/tsunami, and it also included their relatively more recent status in the past few days. The table is sourced. Even if some of the more recent claims in the table ought to be modified, or better sourced, or removed entirely, this would not justify deletion of the entire table. What do others think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

keep it. Obviously after this is over it will become redundant.Sandpiper (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the table because it is original research. We cannot say anything specific about what the overall status of the plant is. The table mixes information from various points in time and composes them into a conjecture about the overall current status. That is synthesis. Also, it is by no means completely sourced: The claims about this or that being okay (the green entries) seem to be made by default if there is no evidence of the contrary; but such an assumption is original research. It would be okay if the table itself had been published in a reliable source. I agree that it might be a "useful" table in one way or another, but that is not sufficient for Wikipedia standards. --rtc (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure that is right. synthesis is about the combination of "material from multiple sources to advance a position". This is from a single source. And it meets WP:V. I don't think the original research guidelines have anything at all to say about research done by folks (and published) outside of the Wikipedia project. So perhaps the introductory prose in the section ought to clarify that this table is merely the view of only one outfit, the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, and that, as in any dynamic situation, some claims (e.g., current status) will change over time, and that other analysts may have other positions. I think that table ought to stay, but the section be improved. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My only concern would be that it might be a WP:COPYVIO, being directly copied from a single source?--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I see. I had assumed the table has been compiled by Wikipedians. I do not see a copyright problem, because there is no creativity involved. It's below threshold of originality. --rtc (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In the row entitled "Containment pressure," I can match "D/W" with the reactor drawing legend ("Dry Well") earlier in the article, but I cannot find a reference to "S/P" anywhere, therefore I have no idea what "S/P" means. Wholeflaffer (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple juxtaposition of information is not original research or synthesis. We can also combine material from different sources, as long as we do not draw conclusions from it, explicitly or implicitly. Presenting material in a biased way may amount to implicitly drawing conclusions, to be sure.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Table gives a great overview. Keep and improve! NuclearEnergy (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research, editorial commentary by Wikipedians

In "Cooling problems at Unit 3, the following unreferenced analysis and commentary by a Wikipedia editor appears: "(It is noted that the reference article states that the top three meters of MOX fuel rods were exposed to AIR. This is not possible without having a major breach of the reactor vessel. The correct statement should have been that the the top three meters of the rods were exposed to steam - not air. In either case the important thing is that a portion of the rods were NOT covered with water which has a much greater convective capacity to remove heat from the rod.)" The editor may be right, with the uncovered rods surrounded by water vapor or steam mixed with hydrogen, rather than air, but it is unencyclopedic for us to add our own lengthy editorial comments and observations to the article, since this is not a blog but an encyclopedia. Also authorities are not certain that no pipes are broken after the numerous explosions and fires, let alone the earthquake, and any penetration could allow air in. I see 2 alternatives: 1) Remove the commentary or 2)Find a reference from a reliable source. Edison (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

or the person who took the section from whence it came could put it back into context. But which facts in it do you dispute? It is normal to state which facts you are challenging as it is not required to source anything unless it is controversial. Sandpiper (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It does appear to be WP:OR, and therefore would be fairly removable. N2e (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a commentary on the wording of the source. I have reworded the article to clarify this and retained but hidden the commentary for the information of other editors.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry, my apologies. I didnt find the bit complained of because the ed (or someone) had removed it and I was looking at the wrong thing. He is right. it wanted sorting.Sandpiper (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Monitoring station readings

I have uploaded and added the following images to the article:

• Image:FukushimaI rad long term prequake.PNG - Radiation readings from the TEPCO website for 3 months until the earthquake[18]
• Image:Fukushima I accident radiation monitoring.PNG - Radiation readings from TEPCO during the accident

The first image is fair-use and I ask any willing users to check the rationale I've written and bring up any issues with expediency. The second image is self created from released data but probably not the ideal kind of quality or format for what we want. Time is of the essence so I'm putting out what I have there, but ideally this would be done in Python or GNU Plot or something that isn't terrible. I'll be willing to share the data with anyone who will help me get an appropriate template (cut and paste into a script would be nice). I don't know of any other sources other than the TEPCO reports, and I found those fairly difficult to extract numbers from. There are other distanced radiation readings out there on the internet that are relevant to the reports of elevated levels in different places in Japan.

I'll jump on the soap box here. News articles might have once-upon-a-time been a good source, but these days, any major media article is an incredibly sub-standard source of information, particularly, for events like these. If a spike in radiation reading of a certain amount was reported you can not know how thoroughly cherry-picked it was or even it if was reliable in the first place, and I have seen no data to substantiate some radiation claims regarding the Tokyo area, for one. I would encourage other users to recognize the importance that this information has on the unfolding of events and encourage that real data is sought. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The first image is not copyrighted, nor is the second one. You do not get copyright merely because you made something. There is no "sweat of the brow" doctrine, intuitive as it may be, that gives you copyright merely because you put some skill and effort into things. --rtc (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

actually, I would disagree. The first image is a graphical representation of data, and although the data would not be copyright, I would say the representation is. It would be copyright to whoever made it. Similarly, the second image you made yourself would be copyright to you so you can declare it public domain (pd-own) or gfdl as you choose. Sandpiper (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, these pictures are clearly not copyrighted and there is no discussion possible about that. You cannot get a copyright on something by making a "graphical representation". You only get copyright on originality and creativity. You could perhaps get a design patent on the style of a graphical representation, though. --rtc (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying that something doesn't have any claim to copyright because it's not original in your opinion seem extremely fishy to me and I pretty much think that's wrong. But since it's not going to impede the use of the images it's not bothering me. I'm only worried about a more experienced user coming along and deleting it all because of the tag. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the "MP" monitoring point locations taken from here (Google translate):

MP-1 Kashiwazaki Shiiya MP-2 Kariwa Tanimura Taki MP-3 Kashiwazaki Nishiyama Tamati Ban MP-4 Kariwa Village MP-5 great-city of Kashiwazaki area MP-6 Oonuma Kariwa Village MP-7 Kashiwazaki MP-8 Kashiwazaki Kamihara

MP-9 Matsunami, Kashiwazaki City

-Pontificalibus (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is likely to be wrong. See [19] -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the info I found is not applicable here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

These are also monitoring posts, but it appears these are MPs covering a major part of Fukushima Prefecture itself. Those are helpful and I think the data from those have been making the press in many cases. I've only done things with data from the MPs located on the edge of the power plant grounds. These sets are both important, but none of them are streaming through their normal connection. This seems reasonable considering the difficulty in attaining power for just the reactor safety systems. A correct historical picture of the accident should include the plant site MPs, area MPs, and nation-wide MPs. True there are readings from things like US aircraft carriers, but they don't have a reporting protocol. See the page here [20] for some data from the area MPs, and [21] for national MPs. Curating this data makes a big project, but it's clearly of historical value. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I made a couple new graphs from the TEPCO Japanese reports. Feel free to use them if you like; I may update them as new reports come out:

wikimedia:File:FukushimaRadiationPlot-Log-Mar16-15h50.png

wikimedia:File:FukushimaRadiationPlot-Linear-Mar16-15h50.png

-- Xerxes (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice - do we have any data to make a graph for Tokyo?--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. As far as I can tell, Tokyo peaked somewhere near 300nSv/h, which is around the space between the MP-4 and MP-8 labels on the log plot and invisibly negligible on the linear plot. Of course, we'd like to be able to perform the integral over this strongly peaked function, but we only know the maximum value of one peak. Somebody must be measuring; we should poke around Japanese university webpages. -- Xerxes (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, this isn't Tokyo, but there are some measurements from outside the 20km exclusion zone here: [22] (Japanese Excel file) -- Xerxes (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And here's a plot: wikimedia:File:FukushimaOutlyingRadiationPlot-Log-Mar17-00h00.png. No linear plot, since these would all be invisibly small at that scale. -- Xerxes (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the graph. All pictures on a page are a bit small but it makes its point clearly.Sandpiper (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I found data in English. See these. [23] and past data [24]. And this page might be helpful. [25] This is a data of Tokyo, in ja though. [26]. Newspaper articles are these. [27] and [28] Oda Mari (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese city readings

see [29]. I think some Wikipedians could go to town on that. Plus, people keep saying nonsense like "we don't have Tokyo readings", yes we do. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

bold assertion

the lead says:"To date, the radiation leaks beyond the plant's boundaries have not reached a level high enough to constitute any significant detriment to public health.."

There have certainly been times when radiation beyond the plant boundaries has been distinctly dangerous. Lucky everyone had been evacuated. Sandpiper (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed it, we can't verify it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The precondition for that assertion was the successful evacuation of public from the area with radius of 20 km. In that case most of the measured radiation would be caused by noble gases and other short lived radionuclides which would not get beyond 20 km. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.224.25 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Still requires a source to say that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Source: http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110316e.pdf

Regular measurements of radiation levels at the plant's perimeter. Yeah, they're higher than background, but not dangerously so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.169.114 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

some of the irregular ones are very unhealthy. There seems to be some suggestion that highly radioactive debris from explosions in 4 is scattered about the plant. I just read one report which suggested the high reading between 3 and 4 was from this debris. Then there was a comment firefighters cannot operate because of debris in the way. so shift it? no? Some of it is probably scattered outside the plant. I think we are already past the point where dangerous material is purely contained within the buildings. Sandpiper (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed but it is still on plant property. I believe Wikipedia is doing a public service by noting that the off-plant threat has so far been minimal because, as many radiation health experts have noted, there is a strong inclination in the general public to panic when it comes to radiation. The UN report on Chernobyl concluded that, without minimizing the many individual tragic outcomes, the biggest damage to human health on a broad basis ended up being psychological.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties?

Nowhere in the article I can find info about casualties of this accident, at least direct casualties. Maybe someone should insert there a special box for that? Thanks 83.9.169.151 (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where the casualty box went, I saw one here a few days ago and now there's nothing? I think we should add it, I know at least a few people had radiation poisoning and some 15 people were injured from the explosions themselves.... someone even died from working on a tower during an explosion (if I remember right). I don't know why these were removed, I see nothing in this talk page discussing it unless they figured these hydrogen explosions weren't related to the 'nuclear incident' at hand and removed them. Teafico (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties have been quite light so far, especially compared to the natural disaster numbers, and also a bit difficult to track down. BUt there will be quite a few radiation victims before this over, especially amongst plant workers. Hope they get a medal. Sandpiper (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There was the guy that was killed in the crane, but that was during the earthquake not the explosion. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The dead worker on the crane was at Fukushima II, and it was related to the quake effects. --91.32.45.178 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Me mentioning tower was the crane, and then I simply just remembered Fukushima... didn't know it was the earthquake! Yeah, I expect radiation injuries, so... if that pops up. The reactor-housing explosions don't count for injuries I suppose, then. Teafico (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html has the injuries categorized and such if you guys think the information is helpful. It lists poisonings, contaminations, and injuries from the explosions themselves. Teafico (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

New reliable source: M. Ragheb

This new chapter published today maybe a reliable academic source:

In M. Ragheb (2011). NUCLEAR, PLASMA AND RADIATION SCIENCE – Inventing the future. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• Part IX Nuclear Safety: 3. Fukushima Earthquake and Tsunami Station Blackout Accident

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems a nice report, good read! 94.212.148.55 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Report of Rupture in Containment Chamber Housing of units 2 and 3

Voice of America reports of officials confirming that the containment chamber housings of units 2 and 3 have "ruptured". Since this is an important distinction, can anyone corroborate?--Nowa (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It is merely repeating old news (as it admits) using its own notions. --rtc (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Best Information Avaialble

I have worked in the nuclear industry for 46 years both military & civilian and the information you are providing is the best I have found. Far superior to the TV & cable news services. GOOD JOB 97.96.0.112 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

on behalf of all editors, you are welcome.--173.2.23.126 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Requests for help" section - is this relevant?

"Even at the highest level, Elisabeth Byrs, of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), stated that "Japan has requested international search and rescue teams, but only a handful." Nevertheless, search and rescue teams have been dispatched on an ad hoc basis, based upon their own assessment and ability to operate."

Was this pasted in from a general article on the earthquake/tsunami? It doesn't seem terribly relevant to Fukushima I. --144.53.226.17 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That provides a foundation and a context for the special case of the dearth of information and lack of specification of need with respect to the Fukushima situation. Note that immediately after that cited quote is the following:

The Japanese government has asked the United States to provide cooling equipment to the Dai-ichi plant to help resolve the crisis. As of 15 March 2011, the United States had provided Japan with 3,265 kg (7,200 lb) of special equipment to help monitor and assess the situation at the plant.[224][225]

There is a lot of action coming from the US NRC and other agencies and one of the emergent crisis management issues is the failure of Japanese authorities to accurately communicate their needs. Thus, it seems that for the time being it might be appropriate to allow this content to remain as is. Later, as the overall article becomes unweildy, we can migrate it to a separate page proposed on US Government Non-governmental response. Geofferybard (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Did unit 2 explode?

Did unit 2 explode? If so, why the March 16th satellite photo show Unit 2 still intact?

Mentioned in the table summary is that the building is not as damaged as the other buildings, possibly why it is not 'visibly' damaged in the sattelite photograph. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the explosion was in the basement or anyway further down, where it is potentially much more serious. The top of the building was designed to blow off. Sandpiper (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

SFP unit-1+2

I see that the "Integrity of Fuel in SFP" for unit 1+2 shows "no-data".

Might it not be better to state it as "(presumed) compromised", in yellow?

As of now (17mar2011, 0100hr, gmt+1), that seems obvious to me. 94.212.148.55 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

When the original from TEPCO says no data we are compelled to just report that instead of speculate ourselves. An extremely relevant bit of info would be the number of rods in the pools... the problem in 4, for example, is much more serious than in 5 or 6 because 5 and 6 only have as third as many rods.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed SPLIT: International Response to Fukushima nuclear accidents

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's gonna get bigger.Even that page needs to split or be very well organized into type of response. (1) emergency responder assistance to Japan (2) reactive modifications of countries' own internal nuclear policies. Those pages/that page needs careful, organized distinction between

(3) type of responders: (a) government (military and nonmilitary)Note there is already as site for US Operation Tomodachi (b) NGO.

Geofferybard (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• I agree.--ColdCase (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - It can be like the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising page. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The section will likely expand faster than the others, and clutter the quality of the article. Moreover, the article is now 125 kb+, far to large for some slow internet users and cell phone users that might truncate the page, whilst the international response is probably not the most sought after information on this topic. AnAnthro (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support wanted to propose that earlier the day myself. NuclearEnergy (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support this article is too long --Reference Desker (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Split done, using a title along the lines of the above Libya example: International reaction to Fukushima I nuclear accidents NuclearEnergy (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Started on it and then had what I was working on get blanked and redirected halfway through, so I'm tweaking the new one. Next time please do not just blank, maybe try merging the info and then blanking? @Nuclear Energy I sense you're not going to be welcome around here for much longer, mate ;) (Joke on your name -- just in case) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources talking about consequences?

One must of course always avoid violating WP:CRYSTALBALL, but as things keep getting worse people will want to know what happens as a worst-case scenario to Japan (I read the Russians were saying that the worst case scenario appears to be unfolding.). Do we have qualified experts in reliable sources making predictions of what the wider consequences of say a full meltdown of the four offending reactors might be (or six in the worst of worse cases)? My mother read about the Zone of Alienation, and suggested the Japanese would have to move to China (not realising there is deep hatred left over from WWII, and that there are 125 million People in Japan, 25 mil in Tokyo). This is a bit extreme and it is the opinion of a worrisome Jewish mother with no background in this area. So what have others said about it? Or to put it mildly how bad are things going to be for our comrades in Japan? Surely someone qualified has written about it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Notable commentary reported in reliable sources, as well as notable [!] speculation about future developments may be added to the article. Any assessment or speculation does not become notable just because the source of the comment is a notable person or institution, so there are rather strict conditions that must be met before adding anything that amounts to information about speculative comments about possible future developments.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Notable persons speculation needs to also...(please elaborate).Geofferybard (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. I was just stating that I think somone should be rustling up some of that info and putting it here for review. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What COULD happen is almost unlimited and therefore a COMPLETE overview could be almost unlimited in size. Wikipedia is a fundamentally backward looking entity... we can't really do anything until other (sources) have done so first. We get firmly behind a story instead of getting out in front of it.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what I was saying? Looking at what actual experts from reliable sources are talking about etc? It doesn't have to be complete of course, just the crap they, in their undoubtedly expert opinions (sarcasm left over from the experts saying Mubarak would not fall) think will probably happen. They usually put forward some scenarios. Hey, I know how it works. =p Normally I'm the one throwing the wikirules at people after all *puts self on pedistal* Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I already see the sentence "The gravity of the catastrophe is such that international leaders have expressed concerns that the crisis may become a disaster on the scale of the Chernobyl reactor fire of 1986" prominently featured. I would think that would do, without adding, "and some other people have expressed concern that everyone in Japan will have to move to China" or whatever the speculation is. It is going to be disputed whether or what to include and it would be difficult to resolve the dispute because it can't be objectively settled like what has happened in the past.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

... Re-read what I said.... I said that was my mother speculating that after reading about the Zone of Alienation. My mother isn't exactly in line with WP:RS I would think. I put that to illustrate the lack of knowledge of the lay person and also just for fun. Please be sure to read carefully in the future so that you don't look like you're taking a joke seriously (especially as I said it was the musings of a worrisome Jewish mother). =p When I said experts understand I am talking about possible speculations either by people with Nobel Prizes in this field who have been quoted in something like the New York Times or speculation from some high up member of the IAEA. Understand my meaning now? =p And yeah I guess the Chernobyl thing will do for now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the large amount of commentary on the events, only comments (possibly including speculation) that has been widely discussed (as reported by reliable sources) would meet the threshold of WP:DUE for this article. The situation may be different for sub-articles that may be created in the future.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of IAEA?

Should a section be added regarding this?

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-chernobyl-clean-up-expert-slams-japan-idUSTRE72E7AL20110315

Quote from Iouli Andreev, former director of the Soviet Spetsatom clean-up agency responsible for cleaning up after the Chernobyl accident:

"The IAEA should share blame for standards, he said, arguing it was too close to corporations building and running plants. And he dismissed an emergency incident team set up by the Vienna-based agency as "only a think-tank not a working force":

"This is only a fake organization because every organization which depends on the nuclear industry - and the IAEA depends on the nuclear industry - cannot perform properly.

"It always will try to hide the reality.

"The IAEA ... is not interested in the concentration of attention on a possible accident in the nuclear industry. They are totally not interested in all the emergency organizations." Dshields51 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate for the IAEA article. Criticisms presumably apply apart from Fukushima so not appropriate here.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link IAEA. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, IAEA has been working on new safety standards for some time. Drafts can be seen on its pages. The thing is, IAEA has no jurisdiction, every state has its own nuclear regulator. IAEA was founded as an agency which should secure non-proliferation of nuclear material. Of course, they also perform safety audits but only when asked to do so. So if you want to blame someone, it has to be the japanese nuclear regulator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.224.25 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to blame them, you need a source doing so. It's kind of like the UN though, lol, when you want it to do something it doesn't have the power to and when it does do something, you complain about it interfering. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline should be more concise since there is a separate article

Geofferybard (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We all wish fewer things happened on those days, but they did not. Arguably what you mean is that the timeline in the timeline article should be more detailed. I didnt create the section, but I think it works well. Sandpiper (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I just added the update regarding NHK showing footage of steam rising over reactors 2,3 & 4, the only reference would be the NHK World webfeed, do you want me to use this as a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.27.243 (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please create a user account. If using TV [pls state time of broadcast. Geofferybard (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactor status summary color coding

It is my opinion that most of the green cells under the Unit 4 column should not be green, but should be gray. The reason is they are totally irrelevant because that reactor is defueled. For example, "Pressure vessel, water level" shows "Safe". It should either show "Not necessary" or "Not applicable" and be gray. My reasoning is that the spent fuel (IE the danger / risk) for reactor 4 is in a storage area, thus nothing is "safe" (ie green colored) about that reactor at all. The danger (red) lies in the spent fuel, not in any of the core / containment systems, thus coloring green gives a false impression of safety. I'll be making the changes now, and if anyone has a problem then please revert them and discuss it here. --Dan East (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern here is you are not only changine the colour which perhaps could be justified but replacing the wording with your own despite the fact you have no source Nil Einne (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with not following TEPCO's chart exactly. It is not sacred and can potentially be improved (if the IAEA continues to provide temperature data for the pools, for example, that could be added). But there should be a reference for the claims supporting the deviation, specifically, a footnote for "Core Defueled Spent fuel stored in SFP"--Brian Dell (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If the wording is changed back to "Not necessary" and "Not damaged", but the new coloring applied, then the table will seem inconsistent because in some cases cells with those phrases will be green, and in others white. Perhaps if it were to read "Not necessary (defueled)" (instead of "Not applicable") and is colored white, then it will be clear why that cell is not green like the others. Again, I think they are using color coding in that table to paint a rosy picture, and simply indicate more green than red. Reactor 4 was a major source of radioactivity at one point, yet using their criteria it is and will always be mostly green because all those cells will always read "Not necessary" because the fuel isn't in the core. --Dan East (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's be sure all is in line with WP:SYNTH of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The source of the chart is JAIF, not TEPCO. I think it is problematic if changes are made without making it clear that the Wikipedia version of the chart differs from the version produced by the named source. It's OK to vary the chart but I feel that readers should be made aware of the fact that it differs from the original. 82.132.248.93 (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Carefully Read your Source

I've noticed that there are several areas where something is said to be certain (eg. There were deadly levels of radiation) when in fact the reference indicates that what is written is uncertain (eg. It is Believed that there were deadly levels of radiation).

"Believed" and "is" mean very different things. Anything with "believed" that is not a direct quote from a reputable source (being the Japanese Government or TEPCO) should not be used as a reference as the majority seem to be 'experts' opinion on what is going on, rather than concrete evidence from radiation sensors on the ground. Just because some Nuclear expert in America or France "Believes" that radiation levels are deadly does not mean it is so if there have been no readings from that area of the plant.

As an example, there is currently no data on the state of the spent fuel rod pool in Reactor 2. If an expert says they 'believe' that the Pool is empty, it should not be written as "The Pool is empty" as there is no data to support this.

PookeyMaster (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no "is," unless you are omniscient. It is all "believed," with varying margins of error. It is quite appropriate, for instance, to say the the head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency believes that there is no water in the fuel storage pool of one of the damaged reactors, since he is a reliable source and has agents at the site who are not as bound to lie as local officials or company spokesmen might feel called upon to do.The power company and the Japanese government are just two among many sources of information. Especially when they have a track record of lies and coverups. Rather than asserting "truth," the artice shoud source statements to the reliable source, indicating where there are disagreements or disputes. Edison (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

NHK TV: Tsunami height & destruction of generator fuel tanks (veracity?)

At http://www.firstpr.com.au/jncrisis/#videos I have archived most of a ~1 hour NKH program which probably went to air in the evening of 2011-03-16 JST. I can't find the program on their site, but maybe there is a YouTube copy. This has an English translated soundtrack.

3:20 Graph of tsunami depth taken 45km north of the power plant. The water dropped and then went to 7.3 metres higher than normal.

4:00 The white cylindrical objects next to the waterline were swept away by the tsunami. These were the fuel tanks for the deisel generators. "The fuel oil tanks and other facilities along the coastline were all washed away. Tsunami waves reached as much as 300 metres from the coastline. The tsunami waves inundated parts of the facilities of the nuclear plant. Electrical equipment was soaked in water and this is believed to be the cause of the emergency core cooling device failure."

I will add any other highlights to my page. Robin Whittle (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. Do you think we can use this as fair use in our article? And whose idea was it to put the fuel tanks next to the waterline in a place known to have tsunamis? F (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking now at the before and after photos, the white vertical cylinders are still there: http://www.digitalglobe.com/downloads/DG_Analysis_Japan_Daiichi_Reactor_March2011.pdf So this may be a false report. I should have checked more carefully before mentioning it. AFAIK any statement on a TV program such as this can be reported if it is relevant, but it would be best to report the statement as a statement, rather than repeat the statement as if it was a fact. I think this and the related articles are excellent. Robin Whittle (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooops - sorry, I need some sleep. The .pdf page 3 shows before the tsunami, and the big white cylinders are still there after the tsunami. If this report is true, then the fuel tanks for the generators must have been some of the other structures closer to the waterfront which were swept away. Tanks are normally cylindrical, but I don't see any missing cylindrical objects. I think it would be best to get a more authoritative confirmation of this reported damage before mentioning it in the article. The article at present has "washing away fuel tanks" in the third sentence, but there is no citation of the source of this report. Googling, I see a few mentions of it, but nothing authoritative. I am concerned that this may be people repeating what they read in the article. However, this page http://journalrecord.com/2011/03/16/additional-thoughts-on-nuclear/ predates my mention of tanks being washed away, and uses the words: "washing away their fuel storage tanks". Since these words "washing away fuel tanks" have no reference, and the only ones I know for this report are not primary sources, I have deleted them from the article. I have not edited the article before this. I will start a new section about this change below, and I suggest we discuss it there. Robin Whittle (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Boiling water reactor

Boiling water reactor article describes the type of reactor used, but there is very little on how this type of reactor was involved in this disaster. Redhanker (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. If you mean, what exactly went wrong, frankly we dont know. Wont know until someone investigates probably but anyway until the crisis is over and people stop to discuss it. 08:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with References

I'm not sure how to correct the formatting error on this one. The last two references in the Reactor Status Summary (currently #180 and 181) have a problem. Maybe someone can make the appropriate correction. MartinezMD (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

i have put back the original refs but dont have time to check them. they had been name linked and the full versions elsewhere in the article had been deleted without realising they were refd elsewhere. Probably. Sandpiper (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that one, but now there is another. Perhaps the editors should not use an abbreviation and instead use the entire annotation? Because if there are more deletions, we will lose any duplicate listings . When the article is somewhat stable, we can go back and collate repeated sources. MartinezMD (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bold removal of fear-mogering data

Hi, an IP-based editor added a statement by the renowned physicist and science popularist Michio Kaku about how the Japanese military should build a chernobyl-like sarcophagus over the plant. I'm sure this was well intentioned, but the statement was unsourced and imho unworthy of inclusion in the lead of the article. I would not be surprised that Dr. Kaku would say this sort of thing given his anti-nuclear stance. I believe that his statement would be a fringe viewpoint in this article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I found what I think was the IP editor's source, but it's all conjecture on Kaku's part - if's, maybes. etc. He's just a talking head and isn't involved to give a credible opinion, so I agree with the removal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlZhUi1nhtE

MartinezMD (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about that removal but remember WMF is for general users and they are all familiar with Kaku. I actually used a sourced remark of his suggesting a TMI type deal possible which someone removed as "fear mongering" on Kaku's part, claiming that no one was worried about Meltdown despite that every talking head in the galaxy had that M word on their lips. IMO his idea of a "sarcophagus" is noteworthy in that it is so ludicrous. Like, how could they do that will hot rads all over to the point they can't even drop a bucket of water from a chopper. Geofferybard (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"700 rods" in SFP of unit 4

It appears the 700 rods of spent fuel in the pool of unit 4 come from Foxnews Live television. Can we remove that "fact" ?

Henk Poley (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also a mention of this on the TIME website, apparently the original source is "one report from Sankei news": http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/15/a-new-threat-in-japan-radioactive-spent-fuel/ . 82.132.136.200 (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

how many rods are in a full reactor? at least this number are supposed to be in the pool after being removed from the reactor according to IAEA.Sandpiper (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A more direct source: http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/6-1_powerpoint.pdf . This SFP inspection (march 2010) report mentions the entire plant (unit 1-6) produces 700 fuel rods (spent fuel assemblies) in one year. It also states that there are 3450 rods in the SFP in all reactor buildings together. Henk Poley (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Regularly a 3 year rotation is observed, so the total amount of rods in the reactor containments should be 3x that amount. You can approx. split that up per each reactor power generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk Poley (talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick spreadsheet calculation gives me: unit 1 200 rods, units 2-5: 350 rods, unit 6: 500 rods Henk Poley (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful stuff. 82.132.136.200 (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The reactors are different sizes, as a complication. I think 1 is smaller. its listed on the powerplant article if not here. Something suggested all rods are replaced at once, but this might not be true, but also they likely last more then 1 year. potentially if 4's rods were removed to replace them, then the brand new ones might have been sitting in the pool waiting to be inserted too. Sandpiper (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

These numbers are already factored over the peak power generation of each unit. Also, only unit 4's containment was fully unloaded into the SFP at the time of the earthquake. The report I linked states that the common pool is basically filled (549 places left) Henk Poley (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I notice a problem in my calculation. Sheet 9 of the presentation I linked says 15,558 fuel containers = ~450% of the total amount of fuel rods in the 6 reactors. Meaning the total is about 3500 (5 years x 700 per year)), and not 2100 (3 years x 700 per year). I'll redo my spreadsheet. Henk Poley (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"about 3500" rods is mightily similar to the 3450 rods in storage in the SFP. I suspect that in March 2010, each SFP had a full core (5 years worth). Henk Poley (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Also 1 year later you can assume 700 rods were added. And those can't fit in the 549 places left in the 'common pool'.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk Poley (talk • contribs) 09:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, estimated spent fuel assemblies in SFPs: unit 1: 340, unit 2,3,5: 575 , unit 4: 925 := 575 (storage) + 350 (fresh old core), unit 6: 810 Henk Poley (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone earlier suggested [30]. It mentions that there is a separate storage pond away from the reactor ponds which contains 2/3 of the total stored on site. I dont recall if it that link or somewhere else I read discussing the issue of how exactly the rods were stacked, whether they were loosely spaced or densely stacked, and whether there might be more of them than the original design envisaged (impacting cooling, especially if cooling was lost). The issue of Boron racking to soak up neutrons perhaps implies tighter filling than would be possible without, which again impacts on fail-safeness.Sandpiper (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, from the presentation I linked: 3450 / (6291 + 3450) ~= 34% (from your nei.org PDF). Henk Poley (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The french have made estimates when they expect the rods to become uncovered if not given more water. [31] They estimated pool 4 was good for 4 days (from date of accident ie 11th). Sandpiper (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Related Links: Spent Fuel

Since we are listing Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in the related links section underneath due to the relevance of nuclear meltdown, now with the danger of the spent fuel could we not add the Kyshtym_disaster to the list as an INES Level 6 since it is relevant as a spent fuel/nuclear waste disaster due to lack of cooling. Or is it not relevant to the situation? AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a reasonable relation imho. Thanks for the link, that was informative. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Source suggestion (in French) : IRSN

I point the following information note (in French) published yesterday evening (March 16th) GMT by the experts of Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire. I think it could be used to double-checked the current state of things, and when it disagrees with them to also give this analysis. It is synthetic and precise, and authored by a reliable organization. French Tourist (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source is in another language and I'm sure if you were to look back on the discussion page we have had numerous sources that were mistranslated. Until the source is reliably translated it cannot be used on the page. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I can read it welll enough in french and much more easily using google to translate. it says they estimat pool 4 would take 4 days to become dangerously dry if not attended, but longer for the others. Sandpiper (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2011 (U

Thanks for providing the link; it's a very clear and helpful account. 82.132.139.159 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well since you can actually understand french and your not relying purely on google translate *shiver* then IMHO its an acceptable source until we have an english source. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to edit the article, since loads of competent editors are presently doing it, but if somebody requires a translation of any specific section of this document, I shall be glad to help and give a non-professional translation on this discussion page (I check regularly my watchlist). BTW, the attitude of my country towards English language is a shame, these documents are obviously of interest outside French-speaking world and should be translated on the website. Note the document is regularly updated, here is the last version (this morning GMT) : [32]. French Tourist (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

allegation of early failures in cooling pond 2

We currently have a section alleging problems with cooling pond 2 right from the start. As with the debate yesterday over criticality, this one has only one ref on a very significant allegation. Can anyone produce anything to confirm this? If not, I do not think it should be a section by itself as this puts undue weight on one report.Sandpiper (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

article says now "Initial instability in unit 2 spent fuel storage pool

According to a report in the New York Times, "[A]t the start of the crisis Friday, immediately after the shattering earthquake, Fukushima plant officials focused their attention on a damaged storage pool for spent nuclear fuel at the No. 2 reactor at Daiichi, said a nuclear executive who requested anonymity.... The damage prompted the plant’s management to divert much of the attention and pumping capacity to that pool, the executive added. The shutdown of the other reactors then proceeded badly, and problems began to cascade." [97]" Sandpiper (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

no responses all day so I have rewritten the comment to downplay it and cut the separate section. Sandpiper (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

US spy drones taking images

Could be an informative addition to the article if we can get them. F (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

US government images are PD? The navy has also been taking pictures. some good satellite pics would be nice, especially at higher resolutions than is possible if we are using fair use images belonging to others. Sandpiper (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are able to see them, it means that the gov has put them into the PD. =p So yeah you can use them. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Radiation leak"

This article and news outlets use the phrase "radiation leak". To me that's an ambiguous term at best: either the plant is "leaking radioactive material" or it is radiating (emitting radiation, presumably ionizing and presumably traveling in a straight line), or both. As I things, if it is radiating, that's bad, but isn't a long-term problem in as much as once the radiation is stopped, the damage is done, so if you weren't hit by it it, you are OK. On the other hand, leaking radioactive material can be a colossal mess, depending on the half life. To the best of public knowledge, which is it?

Clearly it is leaking radiation due to the elevated readings across Japan and in the Pacific. It might also be radiating gamma radiation, but I haven't seen any sources for that. I think the term "radiation leak" encompasses both possibilities.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I right that the radiation of concern travels in straight lines with minimal diffraction (due to high energy)? If so, wouldn't elevated radiation readings over the horizon from the plant imply radioactive material is leaking? "Leak" just doesn't seem like the right word for radiation alone (although I suppose "light leak" is common parlance in photography). —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

virtually all the radiation people are talking about is from some radioactive material which has blown out of the plant and then emits radioactivity where it ends up. I have seen some misleading news reports suggesting radioactivity falls off with an inverse square power law as it spreads wider, This is not true. The particles are blown by the wind so it is possible for a dense cloud to travel quite a distance as a 'lump' without dispersing much. How fast the radioactivity declines then depends on the 'half life' of the material. This is the time it takes for half of it to disappear by turning into radiation plus a different generally safer lump of something. The radioactive material coming from the plant may be very fine dust or some of it is naturally radioactive gases.Sandpiper (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Better free images requested

I have made a request at Commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#illustration of damage to Fukushima I reactors. Please could any artistic editors consider creating similar images that could be used for these articles. This would save us from having to use copyrighted images. I have tried to create one using POV-Ray but I just do not have the skills. -84user (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Robotic fire suppression for high-radiation zones?

A concrete boom truck could be repurposed for water delivery up into the destroyed buildings.

Japan is one of the most high-tech societies with lots of interest in robots. Yet it seems odd that they have nothing like this available for handling nuclear power plant emergencies.

A large remote-controlled 4-wheel drive front-end loader equipped with a water suppression boom would seem ideal for this situation, since high radiation apparently would not affect shielded electronics on such a vehicle.

Straight off, I know a liquid concrete boom truck like from Putzmeister is already engineered for high/long distance liquid delivery with a hydraulically steerable boom, and would be ideal if retrofitted for water delivery.

Similarly rather than trying to drop water from a helicopter, they should be boring or blasting a hole through the side of the building into the affected areas to directly inject water from a remote-controlled water injection boom on such a device.

Does anything like this exist, anywhere in the world? Apparently not if they are unable to do anything more than send in human firefighters and helicopter pilots to do the water spraying directly. DMahalko (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. =( Though you could find a source talking about the possibility of using robots to deal with this mess. You are right that there should at least be something about it as Japan has quite a few robotic helpers. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A European country (France, I think) offered to send some robots to Japan but I don't think they accepted. Might be able to find a source on that but I don't know if it is article-worthy unless they actually use them. Rmhermen (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed the words "washing away fuel tanks"

As noted in the thread above "NHK TV: Tsunami height & destruction of generator fuel tanks (veracity?)", I deleted the words "washing away fuel tanks" from the third sentence.

I don't know of a primary source for this, and I am very keen to avoid spreading a false report - since the possibility that the tanks were situated where they could be washed away would be the sort of thing people (myself included) might accept as a fact without checking and then rant and rave about. Those words had no citation. If someone can find a reliable source for this "washing away", then we *might* state it as if it were a fact, with a proper citation. If the generator fuel tanks were in fact situated on the waterfront and so were washed away, this would be so crucial to the question of "what went wrong here" that I think we should not report any such thing as if it were an uncontroversial fact. If there is a good source for this report, I think we should state it as "XXX reported that the tsunami washed away the . . ." - and then give whatever arguments the source advanced as to why this was the case.

I don't consider the NHK TV report to be sufficiently authoritative to quote as if it were factual. Some details, perhaps including this one, were obviously made up by non-experts - such as steam floating through the top of the reactor vessel and the secondary containment out to the atmosphere. Likewise, the second-hand copies of a supposed J. P. Morgan report, which itself gives no references. Maybe its true, but maybe its just a rumour which we should be careful not to lend credibility to.

However ... there's another angle. Irrespective of whether the tanks were washed away or not, the fact is that a prominent NHK program - which would have been watched and perhaps generally believed by millions of people in Japan - reported that the tanks were were washed away. This is part of the social history of this event, and so we might mention the NHK statement as such: as a statement they made, without indicating whether it is factual or not. Robin Whittle (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

does anyone have a plan of the plant before the accident which might shed some light on where things were?Sandpiper (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"How would you solve Fukushima?"

I have removed this again; but mentioned it here; I do not know why it was reinstated. "-

The Guardian newspaper is soliciting readers to [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/17/how-would-you-solve-fukushima post suggested solutions here].<ref>{{cite web|title=How would you solve Fukushima?|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/17/how-would-you-solve-fukushima|publisher=The Guardian|accessdate=17 March 2011}}</ref>

This is an unneccesary external link, its encouraging wikipedia as a lead in to a forum, and it is treating a serious accident like a spectator sport. Wiki's job should be to collate and orgainse information. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thing the Guardian did. But indeed, no reason at all to keep it here. L.tak (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And I removed it once myself. Wikpedia Reference Desk has some suggestions and is just as improper as a entry. Rmhermen (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

shouldnt be there.Sandpiper (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't it meet the WP:EL criteria? 99.50.126.70 (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well for starters it falls into WP:ELNO being primarily a blog and it only offers conjecture from unverified sources. We could go from there. MartinezMD (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Section: Isotopes of possible concern

I would recommend culling large part of this section, and keeping only the relevant isotopes that currently have been measured.

Example, plutonium is nasty.. but it's not a gas nor very water soluble so it's not coming out in any measure of concern.

But keep the link to Fission_products#Countermeasures_against_the_worst_fission_products_found_in_accident_fallout Henk Poley (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

it is undeniably an isotope of especial concern and I have seen this commented on. Why do you want to remove it?

Because plutonium (or strontium) has not been released at the site. Plus: the common fallout products (that may be released at a future date) are already discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. No need to reproduce that here. We could rename the section to the more relevant "Health effects of currently released isotopes" Henk Poley (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is splitting hairs to discuss elements which have been released but not elements which are threatened to be released. People will be concerned about this and it makes sense to report it. I dont believe in hiding worrying information but i do believe in reporting it in a balanced way. I regard the risk of a plutonium release as of grave concern, because of its long term dangers and thus is an important matter to mention. Perfectly fair to be clear that it has not happened yet. (and I add the yet deliberately)Sandpiper (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fission_products#Countermeasures_against_the_worst_fission_products_found_in_accident_fallout deals well with iodine and caesium, and we need to keep a summary of those in this article as they have been measured. However that article doesn't explain the risks of plutonium-containing fuel, and I like the paragrpah we have, although it could better qualify the risks. The only bit I think that should go is the strontium paragraph, as I don't see any sources linking strontium with this accident. We might however have some information on radioactive noble gases, as I believe they are typically the principal radioactive product released to the environment as per Three_Mile_Island_accident#Radioactive material release.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In the intro para on that sub section its stated that iodine and cesium are the only two acknowledged isotopes. But of course its assumed that other isotopes are being released, and where they have been discussed in association with Fukushima by experts, i think its ok to cover them, especially where they are important to public health and providing there's adequate referencing. They wouldnt be getting publically discussed if they werent relevant - even if only reassure the public. Strontium has been cited as an issue by an expert in regards to Fukushima, assume for good reason. Plutonium has also been cited, primarily in regards to reassurance - however, if you look at the scientific reference material you will see that there's a bigger risk in the event of an explosion. If this doesnt eventuate with the MOX reactor then maybe consider dropping plutonium, but leave it in its qualified form while the situation is still in a state of flux.John Moss (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The strontium reference is in The Australian newspaper article, March 16, "Stealthy , silent destroyer of DNA" and not online as far as I know (?), and quotes Tillman Ruff, physician from The Melbourne University Noosal Institute for Global Health. But I will get an online ref as well for strontium cited by authority in regards to Fukushima I. cheers.John Moss (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually plutonium might be more in play as an a contaminant than officials acknowledge. I saw an expert who's being widely viewed on TV News as saying that contamination from plutonium is an issue. Also engineer in first ref on plutonium section cites toxicity as issue (as well as reactiveness). Would imagine effects of plutonium to be most significant to on-site workers.John Moss (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the last sentence. Atomic Pu is 'heavy', but it's extremely friable and is known for it's ability to travel long distances on very light air currents. The reference given is weak. Pre1mjr (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone put it back apparently, but I can't verify their sources, maybe it should be removed again. 207.96.202.114 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed this text:

"Plutonium is one of the heaviest known substances with very low vapor pressures and under no circumstances can be carried up in air plumes as aerosolized material. Even in the worst case scenario of it becoming airborne, plutonium would 'sink' back and precipitate within the confines of the reactor building."

It was affecting to come from the reference after it, but that reference only supports the preceding sentence. Left the text here so it can be added back in wih a reference, if one can be found. The bit that needs to be referenced is that it cannot be carried up in plumes, the rest is not disputed.Pre1mjr (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removal of that section as it's too absolute. The expert reference does support movement of plutonium in the atmosphere in the event of an explosion, and given that hydrogen explosion has already occurred, the possibility cant be ruled out.John Moss (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

thoughts on the viability of taking all radiation measurements and radioactive spread, etc, and putting it in a separate article?Sandpiper (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

suggest doing this later, but not as this event is still unfolding, because we probably need to keep the essential information in one article. Many will come to the wiki article via the links to chase radioactive info specifically, and probably best to keep in this main article for that reason until the crisis has resolved...comment?John Moss (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

radiation on US ships

The subsection Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#U.S._military is a section in Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Radiation levels and radioactive contamination, but it feels a bit long for just the measurements of a single country on a few ships. I propose to remove it. Any thoughts? L.tak (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

see below, my thought is that if something has to go, then the entire section on radiation from the acident could be put into a separte article. This could then grow happily to chat about american ship measurements or anyone elses. Sandpiper (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

no problem splitting an article out on radiation (although with care as I wonder how many articles on this we'll need in 6 months from now, but I have the feeling we all agree there). But we do not need to report every radiation report available and for me this would be not enough for inclusion. A close call however, and I therefore would also settle for a strong rephrase... L.tak (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

yes I agree this will all shrink in the future when it becomes clear what is important. This is one reason I do not like to split but there seems to be pressure to do this. At the moment it is all important. I think anything which gets split off will then get neglected and people will recreate the stuff here. (like, seen any growth in the reactor stub?)Sandpiper (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This has some importance in the conflict between the happy-happy Japanese announcements versus the "go-slow" cautious U.S. approach. The presence of independent radiation monitors has been an issue with the public distrust of the utility as well. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The value of this independent response was especially important for understanding the situation. Perhaps still worth leaving in reduced size. Japanese Government and company possibly still manipulating radiation level data. Seems to be some gaps in info, but that could also be because they are dealing with multiple crisis.John Moss (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

water cannon (bringing to talk after being removed

Japanese police water cannon similar to the one used in Fukushima

Not the most important item, but for the sake of clarity. The figure caption here stated that the unit used at Fukushima one was similar to this one. Now I am no expert in firefighting (or nuclear reactors, or japan), so I'd like to see a short justification why we think this type was used (who knows whether they have many different types?). If it has been on tv, that's also ok, but we need to have some more indication then this... L.tak (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The water cannon on the right doesn't really look like the ones that are actually being used.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Those red vehicle are the airport fire engines they brought in after the police water cannon couldn't get close enough. Rmhermen (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Found Site Plan Assessment - public doses after a LOCA

I've found an old (1971) technical report (~12 MB in size) compiled by the IAEA, and one article (starting page 521) details the site assessment of the different reactor sites - including Fukushima I. As mentioned, this report is very old (as it was written when reactors #2-5 were being built), but in the LOCA accident scenario listed on page 537 (for the (at the time) unfinished Fukushima #2), it includes a calculated worse case dose for public located on the boundary. I just thought it might be useful as a source when refering to public doses.... Here is the link (be warned - the file is ~12MB in size) [Bid Evaluation and Implimentation of Nuclear Power Projects]. MWadwell (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation increase

CNN's Anderson Cooper reported about an hour ago (around 11:30AM JST) that Tepco announced that the radiation levels around the plant has reached a high at 20 mSv/h around a building where workers were using to try and restore power.[33] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSDGFCTCT9 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper isn't the most realiable source for these matters since he is not a scientist and has a tendancy to play for the camera. Besides, print journalism is much easier to cite and tends to be somewhat more reliable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

He also sustained multiple head injuries recently which may impair his ability to bullshit effectively. [34] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope his peers on tv news formed a queue.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Improvement needed: Solutions attempted chart

This chart is really difficult to read since it is far too long. It could be improved or prose-ified. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

what do people think about this chart generally? with regard to Kyaa's comment, the chart is already meant to be a graphical summary of the prose above it. It is questionable how much it is adding to information. I also have some issues with items in it,

"The backup batteries kept coolant flowing for 8 hours after the generators failed.". Backup batteries only powered some control electronics. I dont personally know to what extent they actually did keep coolant flowing?

"Effective, until they ran out. The operators failed to connect portable generators before the 8 hours ran out, thereby dooming #3 to overheat and nearly melt down." ditto, were they? Batteries seem to have arrived at the plant along with generators and it is possible batteries did not run out even though generators could not be connected.

"Due to the power loss after the earthquake, mobile power units were installed to provide power to pump wate". were they? Is there any evidence that reactor pumps have been re-started. Water injection keeps referring to using the fire fighting system, and this may just mean connecting an external fire truck. "Mobile power units were generally successful particularly at unit 2. "it was?

"Regardless of partial power from mobile units, without full power, all of the cooling systems are less effective which led the water to overheat and water levels dropped below safe levels. Eventually, additional sea water had to be added along with the release of a buildup of radioactive steam". I have seen a report a generator on 6 is working, otherwise no reports to suggest generated power is significant enough to drive any plant pumps. Reactors have been cooled like a pan of boiling water, by letting out the steam and then adding more water.(by fire system)

"A power line was laid to reconnect power to unit Number 2 and attempts to restart water pumps are scheduled to begin on 18 March 2011."My best understanding is that they intend using the existing grid transmission line which presumably survived the disaster, but the control and distribution gear in the basement at the plant was flooded and is inoperable. So they are trying to rewire the plant. Sandpiper (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Really? But what about Chernobyl disaster? That's not called 1986 Chernobyl disaster, and that was an "event" too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you responding to? 65.95.13.139 (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question. The page was just moved from Fukushima I nuclear accidents to 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be that there have been other accidents at this station. If so, we could just rename it Fukushima I nuclear disaster instead (to make it separate from the precipitating tsunami disaster) or Fukushima I disaster, since any preceding nuclear incidents or accidents were clearly not disastrous. Naming by comparison with Chernobyl. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There was an inspection after an earthquake but I am onlu aware of a mention in the reactor article. Are we planning a 2012 Fukushima nuclear disaster....?Sandpiper (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been moved back as it should be. I am going to ask for move protection as we shouldn't be moving it without consensus at a discussion here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I moved it back, per WP:PRECISION. --Kslotte (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, all nuclear accidents and incidents are named without the year in front of it, see International Nuclear Event Scale. Instead, pages about an earthquake and tsunami disaster are named with the year in front of it. I do not now why this is done with the latter one. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Eartguakes are that many that you usually need year to distinguish them from each other. Nuclear accident are that rare that we don't need a year per WP:PRECISION. --Kslotte (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant section

Since there is a related wikilink, I think it's better to trim or delete the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant section to make room for arriving info. Technically detailed plant's description is a side info here, not directly related one. Brandmeister t 21:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you cant. It is necessary to describe and explain what had the accident. Even if you 'main articled' it, it would still have to have a summary which would still have to say the information essential for the rest of this article to make sense. In other words, exactly what is there now. I personally think that the sections on the tail of this article will have to go. Last night someone took off 'international reaction'. I would have taken away all reaction to the accident, so also sent with it the section on Japanese government reaction. I further think the radiation section would be the next best to go. I can see there will be something more to add to this if radiation gets worse and there are casualties, but in general it could be expanded to gibve more detail of how the radiation storey went. Sandpiper (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mind you, much of the technical description was originally dispersed through the other text to explain issues as they came up. Arguably this made more sense, but then someone decided to make it into a section. Sandpiper (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting would not be appropriate, but I think it can be trimmed by ca 50% by leaving out. The main part to be left out would be the info on who built it. Furhermore, the reevaluation after the earthquake 30 years ago is important, but is best left in the powerplant article itself, so we can just leave the seismic design values here. In a normal encyclopedia, I might object, but this is an electronic encyclopedia, so people can click for more information if needed, so not all background would be needed... L.tak (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Im not quite sure what you mean, the same considerations apply here to making a narrative which a reader can follow in a linear manner as in a conventional encyclopedia, except we have the luxury of more space. This article needs to make sense as if someone has not read anything else about this story. So it needs some more geography (notably relation to tokyo!), needs to outline 6 reactors and their different sizes, TEPCO, and then we really need some explanation of the essential parts of a reactor which are involved in the incidents and the issues about cooling, fuel fires and so on. Any fact needed to understand the story needs to be introduced somewhere. As I said, some of this could probably be dispersed into the text, but I presume the reasoning was that if someone gets lost, then a specific explanatory section is easy to refer to. Really we need more info on plant layout, the business of how the generators got flooded, issues of fuel tanks allegedly on the docks, fuel stores.Sandpiper (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, this luxury of more space means we can make more articles, make longer articles, but also makes it possible to link easier to other things (much faster than on paper). It is always impossible to make the perfect article. 1 that is not too long for the casual reason, not too detailed for the reader with much knowledge, and 1 that is detailed enough for the beginner. that means that in my opinion we should not try to make an article that gives all the background info needed, as that will always depend on the specific situation of the reader. Then specifically:

• I would add only the info directly needed for context and thus remove at least the info on the manufacurers (but keep the info on the form of the reactor, the earthquake design)
• If we have a layout of where the locations were where things were flooded: that's specific info and should be added, preferably with pictures/schemes!
• as for interspersing in the main text: the reason why I think it leads to in-text duplication is that many of the general items addressed would have to be placed 3-5 times as it applies to all 6 reactors and we have 5 reactor specific sections.

(but all that all said, I think we're doing quite well in keeping an article navigatable and consistent!) L.tak (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

erm, yes, bloody miracle. Bit hectic here. yes, manufacturers is dispensable, and the data about previous earthquake is confused and needs revising (but someone needs to find this out), but it seems relevant it withstood a previous one ok, and how big it was etc. I dont like having this big chunk of background here because it is an immediate obstacle for a reader to get through, that is why I would mention the technical stuff one time, the first time it comes up, but it is necessary to have a crash course on reactor design to understand what is happening. The sections about different reactors also have this same problem, that stuff repeats and I have been taking the same line, mention something in reactor 1 writeup, then assume in 2 writeup that someone read 1 first, and so on. I think the level of detail thing works quite well because we now have in effect a three tier article, intro, timeline section and then detailed. The timeline isnt really a timeline because it works quite well to address the story as a daily overview and then the individual dramas.Sandpiper (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Three paragraphs doesn't seem like too much to me, especially when it touches on many contextually important issues (the age of the plants, the fuel, the type of plant (BWR) and the general design (the troubled GE Mark I)). 70.76.166.245 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I have removed the supplier part (and also the info on shut dwon end of this months; that's placed into context at the otehr article). Feel free to readd if I went too far..

Perhaps we need a new article General Electric Mark I Boiling Water Reactor ? 65.95.13.139 (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

cooling requirements section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

conclusion was that this section provides no good basis for a split and that it might be reduced a bit

---

A move request has been placed at the '2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents#'cooling requirements section to make it its own article, to which I added the link to this section (I did not make the request however...). I wonder -before I can weigh in- what exactly the title and scope are going to be (cooling of nuclear reactors after scram? or a more specific section?). L.tak (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ditto comments already stated aboveSandpiper (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There are already general articles about reactor emergencies. The reason this info is here is because a reader must understand it before understanding events at the station. It is not supposed to be a complete explanation, just enough for purposes here. (but I expect it could be sorted a bit, seems to be growing)Sandpiper (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is general information about how nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel can be cooled, including the difficulties involved, then Nuclear reactor technology#Cooling could be expanded, possibly including a sub-article on, for example, Nuclear fuel cooling technology.  Cs32en Talk to me  08:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the cooling requirements of PWR, BWR, HWR, LWR reactor types different? 65.95.13.139 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That they need cooling and why they need cooling is pretty universal. How plants achieve cooling does differ somewhat, but that fits better in articles on design. Sangrolu (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That section of the article already referred to a pretty thorough section of the decay heat article. I think it would be best to trim the section down to a short summary and keep the reference to the decay heat article, perhaps keeping any (sourced) statements that pertain to this particular accident. Sangrolu (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling we agree on that this could be expanded in general paragraphs like Decay heat#Power reactors in shutdown]] (specifically the decay heat after scram) and the more general Nuclear reactor technology#Cooling. If one of those sections becomes too long, it might be worthwile splitting to an article based on those sections. Our section here seems not to be a good basis to split from, so I will remove the request. Furthermore, there have been some comments that the section could be shorter here (but keeping in the info needed to understand this article). That could be done, but I'll leave it to someone else... 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

restoring power

The tepco, nisa and iaea press releases are somewhat cryptic. I think they are saying that one of the diesel generators belonging to reactor 6 has been repaired and is providing power to reactors 5 and 6, but not enough. The press release might just mean they have brought in a generator which is doing this.

The release says 'cable installation to receive electricity from the transmission line of TEPCO. Schedule to be connected to unit 2 after the completion of discharge work' (discharge work=water canon spraying 3 - I said they are cryptic). I can quite undertsand they are trying to connect power. But the specificity of the statement makes me wonder if what they are doing is trying to repair connections to the transmission grid, involving transformer equipment and switchgear at the plant which was flooded. Anyone have any information? Sandpiper (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The next release [35] says "<recovery of power> The contents of operations for recovery of external power supply to units 1 to 4 (Power supply from electric transmission grid of Tohoku Electric Power Co., and from the route via transformer sub-station of TEPCO) being confirmed. (As of 06:30 March 18th)"

Does anyone understand Japanese who could find the japanese version of this release and see if it makes more sense in Japanese? I think I would interpret the bit in brackets as saying there is power at the low voltage side of the transmission transformer but not yet into the buildings.Sandpiper (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Can there be a new section on recovery efforts

Clearing roads is important. Were equipment operators mobilized to clear roads? Evacuation of flooded areas? Hotels mobilized? 172.130.234.176 (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC) BG

um. Tricky. I think this article is currently quite big and so it would be hard to add a useful section here. My inclination is that this could be covered in the article about the overall damage from the tsunami and earthquake. If there is enough material specifically about recovery effort for the nuclear incident, then maybe it would need its own article. But so far, the evacuation and radioactive worries are the main consequence of the nuclear accident, and we do mention this.Sandpiper (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides the complaints from the mayor of Fukushima that his people are not being provided for, I haven't really heard much related to the details of the reactor-related evacuation. Rmhermen (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima 50

don't forget them, this people risk they life for shutdown or prevent nuclear disaster, this unit are 50 skeleton staff compose from 180 people and work in the shift between 15 menit periode, as i know japan labor and health minister rise the limit of the radiation acceptable to let them able to work. i hope they sacrifice are worth Daimond (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We have an article Fukushima 50. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

hmm, in the main artikel there no mention about them, but there USA operation are mention under usa military this fukushima 50 are suposed under tepco (japan reaction ) maybe.Daimond (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

if you have more information, please consider doing some work on the fukushima 50 article. Im afraid there isnt space to have a section about them here, and at this moment we dont know much. Sandpiper (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Graphs in Radiation Area // Death Toll

Hi everyone, very excellent work I think this article is outstanding and I really liked the timeline chart 1-6 reactors, 1-6 spent fuel ponds. However, I identified two areas for possible improvement. First, in the Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Radiation_levels_and_radioactive_contamination section, the graph labels are MP1, MP2 etc., but I'm unsure what these are, could someone clarify? It's very interesting / helpful, from what I understand is that at 1000 microsiverts they'd be getting the equlivant of a chest x-ray per hour at the gate? Some discussion of these levels maybe of help.

MP is measuring point. They are fixed locations around the plant where there is measuring equimentSandpiper (talk)

Second, I think the death toll should be covered explicitly somewhere. This is to contrast it against other nuclear accidents and the death toll from the earthquake and tsunami at large. --ShaunMacPherson (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think 1 person was blown up in an explosion? But yes, we do need to cover this. Sandpiper (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The lack of any confirmed deaths gets in the way of reporting a sourced death toll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats as may be, but we need to start a list here of reported casualties and deaths (as and when) so we have an accurate count.

Nisa reports [36]( does not entirely make clear if only from daiichi) TEPCO reports [37] earthquake:

• 2 slight injuries
• 2 subcontractors (one both legs broken)(confirmed by tepco at daiichi )
• 2 people missing from unit 4 turbine hall (if still missing, one would think now presumed dead?)(tepco says from daiichi)
• 1 stroke
• 1 pain in chest (confirmed 1 reported by tepco at daiichi chest pain could not stand)
• 2 taken ill at control room of Daiini(nisa) Tepco say 2 taken ill at daiichi control room and then taken to daiini.

Unit 1 explosion injuries at daiichi

• 4 sent to hospital

unit 3 explosion injuries. Tepco says all sent to daini initially, then one sent to Fukushima medical university hospital.

• 4 tepco employees
• 3 subcontractors
• 4 SDF (one sent to NIRS presumably the one below but found no internal exposure)

daiichi radiation

• 1 receivd 106 mSv (tepco confirm working inside reactor building at daiichi)
• 6 of 7 people in the unit 3 explosion received radiation exposure, details unspecified.
• 5 SDF working on water supplies were found to be contaminated reading 30,000 cpm before decontamination and 5,000 cpm after. One sent to national institute of radiological science.
• 2 police decontaminated

Note that the two missing are tsunami victims.[38] And the crane operator death occurred at Daini, not Daiichi (and is counted as a earthquake death, I think.) Rmhermen (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Did they die because there was a tsunami or because there was a tsunami and they were working at the plant? Sandpiper (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

sentence excised from lead

I took the following from the lead, because i didnt think it was worth noting, not in the lead and i dont see where else it might belong.Sandpiper (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"It is worth noting than a 2009 OECD report about Japan's risk management policies stated that "Industries that can trigger special harm in case of flood accidents, such as chemical and nuclear industries, should be required by law to move to safer areas”. As of Friday 18 March 2011, the accident is deemed at least as serious as the Three Mile Island accident of 1979."

International Scale Upgraded

It is now officially a Level 7: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-edano-20110319,0,6723770.story ElMeroEse (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Japan upgraded it to a Level 5 (from a Level 4). Others have suggested it should be rated a 6. Dragons flight (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, checking what is presently in the article, I noticed the mention of the opinion of the US-based Institute for Science and International Security on this accident level. Does it really pass the relevance tests ? The French nuclar authorities and the US energy secretary obviously do, but why this think-tank among myriads of organizations ? Should it not be removed ? French Tourist (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS, Quoted a by a secondary source, a major news organization.--Stageivsupporter (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cited source text clearly says, "on a scale of seven" and later cites Chernobyl as the only 7.--Stageivsupporter (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Root causes?

Put the backup generators and switch gear in the basement, below prior "high tide" marks, as well as a seawall below the 100 (or 500) yr event. Tokyo Electric ignored warnings about the tsunami risks that caused the crisis at Fukushima, Tatsuya Ito, who represented Fukushima prefecture in the national parliament from 1991 to 2003, said in a March 16 telephone interview.

The Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant was only designed to withstand a 5.7-meter tsunami, not the 7-meter wall of water generated by last week’s earthquake or the 6.4-meter tsunami that struck neighboring Miyagi prefecture after the Valdiva earthquake in 1960, Ito said. [39]--Stageivsupporter (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Fukushima I" or "Fukushima Daiichi"

My impression is that international press is mostly referring to this plant as "Fukushima Daiichi" (or occasionally "Dai-Ichi"). As I understand it, "Daiichi" simply means "Number 1" in Japanese, so calling it "Fukushima 1" is also entirely appropriate. However, if most sources in English are referring to the plant as "Daiichi", then we should probably move the page to "Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accidents" per WP:COMMONNAME. What do other people think? Dragons flight (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME should not be our only consideration. Neither does it matter what the majority of sources call it. We don't change the name every time a Google search reveals a simple majority of sources calling it something else. Calling it Fukushima 1 helps to avoid confusion with Fukushima Daini for people unfamilar with the subject, a large number of sources call it this, and a name change would not be useful.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think people unfamiliar with the topic tend to confuse Fukushima I with Fukushima Daiichi reactor 1 (rather than the whole site), which would be another reason to support a move. Google certainly isn't everything, but "Fukushima Daiichi" [40] is running 2.8:1 relative to "Fukushima I" [41] in my searches. Shrug. It's not a big deal, but personally I think that Daiichi is a better name. Dragons flight (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I - because Daiichi doesn't mean anything to me as a non-Japanese speaker, and I had to compare letter-by-letter early on to understand which plant they were talking about. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Factual content

I hate to bring it, but the Fukushima article (-s) become more and more like newspaper articles.

That means: it is becoming 'overall' with a lot of bla-bla, less useful or factual.

Some: - SFP injection of water: there is no injection, just spraying from 10m away (a joke really)

- Injection into RPV: with what? what capacity is availble? external pumps? magic?

- powerlines are being restored/hooked-up: what kind? just a small 220V/20A line? or air-line 10-100kV, 50-200MW?

- pumps are flown in: a pond pump? or 5-10MW ones? Where to put them? How to hook-up at all? Original pumps are massive. so is this useful at all (while with high radiation figures)?

- mobile generators on site: what kind? quite hard to find the good ones: 6-10 or 100kV, 10-200MW. and how to hook them up? can industrial electricians get there with equipment? just not easy.

- unit 5+6 seem all OK in chart: OK? no damage? no cracks? piping OK? Then why don't they start 5 or 6 to get the much needed power? Only logical. So, what's up there?

Status chart of Fukushima-plant and last of -timelime should be in sync.

There is a 'Status at earthquake', it might be useful to put row in with 'Status now' with could say 70% operable, or 'piping cracked', that would give an idea about unit 5+6 which seems like they could be start-up.

And the reference list is sooo long now, it is 1/3 of the article, move and link to it?

The more info, the more devil in the details, unfortunately.

It should not just be informative overall, but be useful. If someone later looks at it to see what has been done, then they read that water is injected, while it is not.

I KNOW that data is hard to come by, but I see things on TV now which are not in the article. And Wikipedia should be better.

Only saying this to help, not meant negatively. Article is OK, but one needs to read it all, twice, to work with it. I'd like the article to be GOOD/OUTSTANDING.

I could edit it, but have to proof first I could, again... And ok, I will not 'bash' again, don't WANT to.

94.212.148.55 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Level 5?

The article claims the event has been recategoirized as a level 5 event, and the only source is a webpage from a news source (wasn't this disallowed?) which isn't even working (at least for me, I get an http 500 error). If the source is not changed to a serious and working source within 10 hours, I'll revert it to level 4. Oskilian (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)