Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident

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

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.

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)

With some dredging, I managed to find a map of the site attached to a forum entry about radiation levels at Fukushima 1. The forum entry mentions "a site map including locations of the measuring points." The 8 "MP"s on the map are all near the inland perimeter of the plant. Incidentally, the MP-x traces on the graph are in light colors that are very hard to distinguish against the white background. It would be a big plus if someone could fix this. Piperh (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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 [1]( does not entirely make clear if only from daiichi) TEPCO reports [2] 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.[3] 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)

I don't think that tsunamis make exceptions for people with certain jobs during landfall, so the question is kinda irrelevant. --Amazeroth (talk) 18:20, 19 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. [4]--Stageivsupporter (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan has long history of east coast tsunamis, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis Some historical wave heights reached 25 and 30 meters, causing widespread damage and deaths. How could this tsunami history not have been addressed both in nuclear construction and general east coast construction? Not even elevated evacuation areas there. Suppose there were NO reactors there, but they only stored spent fuel at the location, or any other dangerous material. There would still be a big problem! Any construction on the east coast of Japan should consider tsunamis. 172.162.224.52 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC) BG

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 (the only type of acceptable source is a press release from an official source) within 10 hours, I'll revert it to level 4. Oskilian (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was on TV channels and is on IAEA website. Good enough? 94.212.148.55 (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

TV channels: not good enough. Hufftington post (or whatever it's called): not good enough, bbc news, not good enough. IAEA website: haven't seen it, but if it's true, then please change the reference. News, including cnn, bbc or al jazeera are NOT, and will NEVER be good sources for encyclopedic content. Oskilian (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Most news media are appropriate sources, see WP:V and WP:RS.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's quoted from a news source, it should then say "BBC reported blah blah blah". If it says "Officials say blah blah blah" then it must be quoted from an official source. In other words, saying something is official and then quote it from news source is not correct. You do know lots of news sources get data from wikipedia, right? In addition, the classification quoted in this page is a joke. According to the IAEA website each reactor has a separate INES rating for different reasons, and they don't seem to give a rating for the entire incident. Oskilian (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In full compliance with WP:RS, thousands of articles make statements cited to The New York Times, Time Magazine, the BBC, CBS News, the Wall Street Journal, and countless other mainstream news sources without qualifying them in the text as just being an opinion the news source. RS says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If the cited source meets that requirement, then we do not need to name the source every time we state something, other than in an inline reference. It clutters the article and tends to make it far less readable. The view that if some agency says something, it is a fact, but if news media say something it is just an opinion is, sadly, not borne out by the long history of officials covering things up and prevaricating, while investigative reporters stated the true case. If an agency head says something, but a reliable news source cites a credible authority who says something else, then to have a neutral point of view, we might report both versions of what is going on, or in a table note it as disputed. Not every crackpot minority theory deserves that level of coverage, however. Something in an editorial would be appropriately noted to be an opinion, as well. Edison (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

While the BBC, the New York Times et.al. usually represent reliable sources, one should keep in mind that this is a "current event", and even those "reliable sources" gave a lot of misinformation, even prompting the IAEA to make additional clarifying statements about news reports. As wikipedia is not wikinews, it can afford not to "report" every "breaking news" in realtime, and wait for official statements from the IAEA or those shown in the Kyodo News. I.e. I recommend behaving like we are operating a nuclear powerplant: Better safe than sorry. --Amazeroth (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We should strive to operate far more better than some power plant operators have recently. Edison (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that this is even possible. So far there have been no reports of human errors or mistakes made by the local operators. Despite the fact that they've been there for a week without electricity, living with the threat of death by radiation contamination, probably stressed by lack of sleep and likely worried whether their families and friends survived the earthquake and tsunami. Of course one has to wait for full assessments in later reports, but as of now, it seems as if these operators have done an incredibly awesome job that is difficult to top. --Amazeroth (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

svg plot of radiation levels

On the german wikipedia page, the following graph is in usage, which arguably gives a better impression of the radiation levels. The same graph is also used on the japanes wikipedia page. The only thing missing is a translation of the lables in the svg file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.227.147.59 (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

These measurements don't look correct because it only measures up to a maximum of about 12mSv/h, whereas readings at the plant were confirmed by IAEA up to at least 400mSv/h...and other media statements report that Edano said that measurements went as high as 1,000 mSv/h. So wondering what's going on here. Seen similar confusion in editing on the radiation levels in various sections of the main article.Big concern, because it's starting to get contradictory to IAEA. It's seems wiki editors have wandered way off the path. John Moss (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

They appear to be correct (assuming, for the moment, that TEPCO is not altering the raw results), the higher reading originate from a different measuring point. That the red line does stop some days ago, and no roughly equivalent measuring point is included for more recent readings somewhat diminishes the usefulness of that chart, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Given different figures from other reliable sources, we certainly know that this is not comprehensive, therefore it's misleading to use it, even if the chart uses TEPCO data (which does have a level of concern). In a similar way, there is another chart in the radiation section that doesn't appear to include the higher figures, although it appears to be using TEPCO raw data. Given that we know that these interpretations of TEPCCO based readings are not comprehensive - i.e. dont include high levels (400mSv/h) cited from reliable sources, like IAEA, can I suggest that we avoid using these as the primary/only source for radiation figures until we have an explanation for the contradiction, because obviously something is not consistent about this data with other radiation info sources. There maybe nothing sinister, it could just be missing data. But given the inconsistency I'm also wondering if we should be considering removing the existing chart in the radiation section? I'm not comfortable with using a graphic like that which is overtly incomplete/contradictory to other reliable sources like IAEA.John Moss (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference most likely are due to different places in which the data have been collected. The data are probably not wrong, but data from two measuring points obviously do not provide a complete picture. However, the data at the main gate have been referred to extensively by reliable source. I therefore think it is appropriate to use them, but the description should tell the reader that they originate from only one (or two, actually) of several measuring points.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It has to be pointed out that the graph is an incmplete representation of he radiation levels at Fukushima I power plant.John Moss (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot of plume spreading across Pacific

Areas which have been overflown by the radioactive plum due to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Area displayed anticipate until March 20th.

The map with a plume spreading across the Pacific should have a source given or an explanation of the actual computer model and the entering assumptions. It also does not say what the colors represent. A map like this can lead the general public to panic or do irrational things. The information that goes with the map does not answer any of this - it only says how the graphic was created by adapting a vector graphic of a blank world map. Devangel77b (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I am no expert regarding the ideas behind it, so it's hard to judge. The image itself is sourced with this animated gif and this [this one], which seems not to make it original research, but whether the sources are reliable? L.tak (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a different map, with three levels of wind, going up the Aleutians, then down to California, so we can find other sources for the map, they seem to be computer generated by scientists. Don't have any RS at the moment, though, since I can't remember the site.69.236.143.147 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the map. It shows a broad continuous swath that is quite different from the sort of wobbly and broken up patterns in both the sources that the map claims to be based on. I think it would be would be good to have a map, but I feel this particular user rendering gives a significantly different impression than the source material and so isn't really an acceptable representation. Dragons flight (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

First, the map is well sourced by scientists work (this animated gif) & Zamg.ac.at (ZAMG = Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics). Aeronobie.be now ask to cite and follow the Zamg.ac.at's page (which I use), stating: "The World Meteorological Organisation (fr:Organisation Météorologique Mondiale (OMM)) asked the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (fr:Institut Central pour la Météorologie et la Géodynamique (Autriche)) to support the International Atomic Energy Agency (fr:Agence Internationale de l'Énergie Atomique (fr:AIEA)) by providing the atmospheric plum calculations."

Dragon flight, you can try yourself to put a gif animation into a static image, that's simply not easy. So I represented areas which -according to the source- have been overflied by the cloud. If someone can do a closer gif animation, or get the website authorization to reuse the gif (contact on the website), that would be wonderful to get a such agreement.

Last, I know this graphic representation is not perfect. But remove a such critical information (the cloud is moving, nuclear pollution is international and without border) is not acceptable. Up to now, that's the best representation of a sourced fact, we have to provide this information. If a better media is provided, then replacement will be welcome. Yug (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can't capture it with a static image, then we support animated gifs after all. In general, it would be better to link to or include the sourced images in the articles (invoke Fair Use if one has to). The actual sources are a much better representation of the facts than your image. The map suggests a continuous flux / risk / etc. while the sourced maps are clearly sporadic, variable, and show the importance of weather patterns. Similarly, many news sources and the sourced images indicate an essentially negligible risks in the US, etc. Both images show concentrations become nearly negligible while traveling over the Pacific, with ZAMG using an explicitly logarithmic scale to help capture this. I really can't support keeping your map image. I really think it is worse than no image, as it is misleading. I'm sorry if that seems harsh to you. I know you mean well, but that's how I see it. If you (or someone else) can't figure out something more accurate than we should simply direct readers to the maps created by the professional scientists. Dragons flight (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I then propose using images published by some relevant U.S. government agency, such as the NOAA, because U.S. government images are in the public domain. (I was busy updating and improving a reference inside the disputed image, while I stumbled upon an edit conflict, whereby the image was removed). -Mardus (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your expectations and interpretation are not what I wrote down. The aim is not to display the dust's position, and is not to copy the ZAMG's map with its sporadic display and wind paterns, which can be done only by several snapshot, animated gif, and direct access to their digital data. Say "you didn't do as them so I remove this" is an original new rule. Map making (see Map workshop) IS to look at sources and display data in more accessible ways.

The article map scope is clearly stated, it display "areas which have been overflied", and do fully its claim : display these areas, while also displaying the dispersion, and that concentrations become nearly negligible near the USA. The current image is sourced, state its scope clearly, respect this scope and the source's data (ZAMG) and is so acceptable according to Wikipedia practices and rules. Yug (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your help is welcome to make the image's comment clearer, to recall the dispersion effect, or to suggest improvements. Yug (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A map I saw at "COVER-UP: Censorship Beginning in Japan" showed a dynamic map, whipping across the Pacific back and forth like a snake, going all the way up to Alaska and then down the California coast and then across the U.S. in varying dimensions and massive clumps as time went by. The nuclear cloud is dynamic, depending on weather patterns and is not linear, as the radioactivity "bunches up". So an accurate map for Wiki would somehow have to show all this. Maybe different colors, different densities, arrows...plus the radioactive plume was at different altitudes, the jet stream obviously traveling the fastest. Yeah, it would be a complex task to do a one-off map, alright.69.236.143.147 (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the current map is not a copy of the ZAMG's map. The purpose are different : ZAMG is a dynamic map to display dust as a given T time ; this wiki map is a static map to display areas overflown by the dusts. Different display. Yug (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's something odd: I just stepped outside to view the "supermoon" here in Northern California tonight and I smelled (or sensed or felt or whatever it was) Japan in the cold whipping air with the storm clouds scudding by unusually fast overhead. I was stationed in Japan for a year and a half and I've never felt that "weather sense" before here in the states, only in Japan. And there was a small tornado today--we never have those. The weather is different today. And we've got at least a week of stormy weather coming. Do radioactive clouds cause unusual stormy weather conditions? Anybody studied this? 69.236.143.147 (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Portion of the ZAMG animation with detectable concentrations of 137-Cs

Yug, the reason your image is misleading is because it is grossly disconnected with the actual data. The image at right is a blow-up of the ZAMG animation from [5], where I have colored yellow every cell that they ever report non-zero concentrations in. In your comments, you identified that you used a slightly older version of this same animation as one of your sources. First off, if you look at the animation, weather effects cause the plume to wiggle north and south much more than you have indicated with your figure (and even bring it to the southwest at one point). Secondly, much of the time the radiation dissipates to undetectable levels before it crosses the international date line, so that only a small swirl of radiation was ever reported in the Eastern Pacific (at concentrations that would be harmless). Thirdly, they have not (yet) reported any radiation reaching the continental US (which is contrary to your figure). Lastly, we need to keep in mind that the original simulation reports concentrations spanning eight orders of magnitude. The reported plume is potentially harmful near its source and generally utterly harmless once it has spread out over great distances. Any map that wants to do a reasonable job of educating the user about the plume needs to convey that. I'm removing the map again, cause it is just grossly wrong, misleading, and not a good representation of the data from which is was supposed to be constructed. I'd suggest someone find a nice way to link / highlight the ZAMG and Aeronomie results directly rather than using inaccurate approximations. Dragons flight (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I much prefer Dragons flight's image to the initial one because of my own experience with atmospheric dispersion modeling. I would like to see if there's a good way to make the map show the intensity of radiation. One fairly simple approach would be to color according to max radiation from ZAMG. -- ke4roh (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The radiation detectors in California found minuscule ("harmless") amounts of radiation had reached the US as of Friday.69.236.143.147 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Coca Cola Vending Machines Still Running

Here's an interesting sidenote, John Harris, a Canadian speechwriter living in Japan, reported that Japan's 5.5 million vending machines are still on. This is significant because each vending machine uses as much electricity as a household per day. (5.5 million houses constitutes a major city!) And Coca-Cola vending machines are the biggest electricity hogs of them all. This at a time when the Japanese are being told to conserve electricity. This would certainly make an interesting historical note for an encyclopedia. 69.236.143.147 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You could make that argument about a lot of things that use electricity (video games, store lighting, etc). The Talk page is for the article and it's already on it's 3rd archive due to size. Let's stick to the topic please. MartinezMD (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I am wandering off topic (see below about figure skating) but these ancillary news reports keep coming in. Anyway, nuclear reactors only last 30 to 40 years, and I've heard that Fukushima was scheduled to be shut down anyway in just a few weeks (it's 41 years old). Anybody got any info on this? And here in the U.S. half of the U.S. reactors are over 30 years old. And 23 of those are Mk I boiling water reactors like at Fukushima. GE--"Better living through electricity".69.236.143.147 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

An earlier news article said that Fukushima#1 had already been extended another ten years.--Stageivsupporter (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In Japan, these vending machines and video games are littered throughout the area in a magnitude not seen elsewhere. And, add a penny here and a penny there, it adds up very quickly, especially if you've studied your electrical bill. I think, although this is a minor issue, likely in the future maybe they'll place non-essential vending machines on a separate circuit. Therefore, support this mention and think Japan Government might be interested too in the later future. I don't think you're wandering off-topic, think it's completely relevant. Elsewhere where vending machines are far and few, well, then I'd say you would be off-topic. Roger.nkata (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How is this related to Fukushima I nuclear accidents? Rmhermen (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here. Try 2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami#Electricity, if you have a source. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the article that the output of Fukushima equaled the amount of electricity used by the vending machines, to give some idea of how much electricity the plant put out and how much the Japanese use in just one sector of their economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.143.147 (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about Coca Cola, but I can say firsthand that other companies have shut off at least some of their vending machines. Power outages have been canceled, at least for the weekend, as well. Many department stores and large retail businesses have been closing significantly earlier on a daily basis. I think it's safe to say, again based only on firsthand knowledge, that many, if not most, businesses in Japan are chipping in to conserve electricity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.242.117 (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation Protection

I'd like to see in the article (or perhaps in the Fukushima-50 article) details about the workers' protective equipment and proximity to dose exposure. Are they wearing simple rubberized gowns and particulate filter masks or are there leaded suits and leaded-glass eyewear (to prevent cataracats), etc. Do other responders have similar or lesser equipment? etc. This will become increasingly more relevant as the amount of exposure time and limits is increased, etc. If the situation becomes crucial, do some sacrifice themselves as in Chernobyl to save their city and countrymen? Anyone have a good source or two on that? MartinezMD (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

When I was in the military, we had NBC suits I think they were called--Nuclear-Biological-Chemical. So they might have something of that nature. There's also Hazmat suits. I think some suits are pressurized also to keep out toxic materials if there's a leak. They might be limited in the amount of time they can work in them out of simple exhaustion, since it might be like working in a giant, heavy, rubber envelope, moisture building up, etc. So aside from radiation exposure these parameters could also limit their time inside the plant. Anybody recognize what kind of suits they are? Maybe we can find similar suits on e-Bay for comparison.69.236.143.147 (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

An article from an American news source that I don't remember right now read that the suits they wear are not sufficient to block radiation. Several workers have been exposed bodily to radiation above recommended government limits at the site but no one seems to have been exposed to a life threatening degree yet. France has apparently sent hazmat suits to the site, although I don't know if they have arrived yet or, if not, when. As in the Chernobyl incident, workers appear to be working in shifts and rotating regularly to limit exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.242.117 (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Map of the plant area?

I've been trying to find a source for this "layout map" of the plant area with explanations or names of the various buildings in English, which would be very helpful in pointing out various activities and dose rate measurements etc. It's clear that this is a map of the correct plant (Dai-ichi), since the layout and markings match an info map at the main gate of the plant.

With the help of building locations from this layout, it would be possible to quickly identify them from recent satellite imagery (such as from DigitalGlobe) or even Google, and provide versions of such images with accurate markings. There is currently one such highly outdated (70's with reactor 6 still under construction) picture that shows only the location of the 6 reactors.

Would someone be able to translate the Japanese markings from the first picture or do we need a higher resolution version? --85.156.224.62 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Responding to my own request, it appears this work has already been done here. --85.156.224.62 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for finding thatSandpiper (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Radioactive Iodine found in Tokyo Tap Water; & Radiated Milk and Spinach Found

Japan officials: radioactive iodine in Tokyo water (AP 35 minutes ago) Wow, now that's fast! But with my experience with ground water, understandably fast. Roger.nkata (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This should probably go within "12 Radiation levels and radioactive contamination" as "12.6". My guess, some fresh water springs/streams were contaminated leading to underground aquifers. But this newly found radioactive iodine contamination is probably to early to conclude it's from Fukushima reactors. Roger.nkata (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This should go in a "Food and water contamination" heading under the "Radiation Levels and radioactive contamination". There's also been contamination found in milk and spinach.John Moss (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The radioactive food was found as far away as 90 miles. Since around 7,000 cases of cancer were caused by drinking radioactive milk after Chernobyl, more than any other cause, should the radioactive food menace become a highlighted, major part of this Wiki article at this time to help save people from getting cancer? I'm sure Japanese people are referencing this article. I think we should be humane and not academically callous. 69.236.143.147 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

@OP: Your guesses need sources I'm afraid, we can't go based original research. @69: we gotta have sources. If this is true about food contamination, you can bet some source is going to be reporting it soon. We can't put it in without sources, otherwise it is just a rumor. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, lots of nice sources. [6] [7] [8] and [9] and [10] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work, Sir Petrie. You deserve recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.143.147 (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw in, that as of 20 March, Japanese health authorities are urging that vegetation and tapwater outside of the exclusion zone is not contaminated above Japanese governmental health standards. Although the New York Times reported that the Japanese standard is more lenient than the USDA standard. It was unclear if they were talking about the tap water, or the milk/spinach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.242.117 (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

water cannon (bringing to talk after being removed

reposting after archiving, as still not resolved apparently

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)

But still we have no source on whether it were these units. Only that these units exist in Japan. As the info that this truck was "similar" to the ones used on site was added again, I have re-added a citation request. Please add a reference or discuss here why such a reference would be not needed... L.tak (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the truck

The source is here. And its G translation. This is NHK news and the translation. We have an image of the truck. See the license number in the Asahi article. Oda Mari (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I read the translation correctly, they are actually converted fire trucks that have been painted blue, unlike the first picture that shows a vehicle designed for police use? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's how it seems indeed (although google translate is not great...). Anyway, I have changed the image and used the link provided. tnx! L.tak (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi I'm the editor who kept removing the cite tag. I thought you wanted a cite on whether they were in use at fukushima, not a cite for the type of water cannon truck being used. Obviously I don't live in Japan or know anything about which riot trucks are used where- this was just the only one on the Japanese police wp- I appreciate the other editors doing the extra legwork and figuring out the proper model and find a pic for that. I feel its a better way of handling things than just deleting like with the first fire truck pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Many red trucks" image

I have also removed this image from the article twice now. As there is no indication that these fire engines were involved with Fukushima. (There is also the problem that English Wikipedia and Google Earth have no entry for the town the image was supposed to have been taken in.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems to be a general disaster relief picture (looking at the commons description)... L.tak (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See the news videos too. [11] and [12] As for the red trucks, the description in ja says the image was taken in a town called 漉磯/Sukuiso, 岩手/Iwate prefecture. Oda Mari (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia has no entry for 漉磯, either. This may be another mistake in the U.S. military descriptions. We already have an issue with pictures said to be from Wakuya on the main earthquake article. Rmhermen (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

better than no pictures, surely?Sandpiper (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we have a source that shows it's used, yes; but as far as I've seennow, we haven't. (if proof it was used on the nuclear accidents is not needed, I propose this image ;-) . L.tak (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think youre getting a bit over the top there. Doesnt have to be the exact same vehicle to demonstrate what kind was used. Did someone bring in polar bears because it is cold there now? I'll go for it if bears were used for some reason. Sandpiper (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed that it isin general not required to have the exact same vehicle. But we need an indication they are with a ref that are similar and indicate it clearly in the caption. If that's the case, we could consider it... [this German polar bear actually died today and amounted to my own very very very fringe theory that he must have died because of the radiation; end of comment ;-)]. L.tak (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont think we need a ref about anything. As below, there are not enough images here to break up the text and these are at least disaster images.Sandpiper (talk)

Why would a picture of lots of fire trucks outwith Fukushima be of use here. We may as well have a picture of some water with the description "Water in a reservior in Scotland, water similar to this was used in an attempt to cool the reactors."--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The japanese might appreciate a picture of a nice calm water scene.Sandpiper (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sukuiso is not a name of a town. It's a part of Yamada, Iwate. It's a mistake. Sukuiso looked like these. [13] and [14] The image has nothing to do with Fukushima. Oda Mari (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) hello I'm the editor who has been working on the pics. about the only person working on pics it seems. Obviously I come down on the side of "better a pic than none at all." I am the first person to admit this pic was not from Fukushima- however I disagree that we should not have any images of fire dept response to fukushima, when at least the last two entire DAYS in the accident timeline section revolve around Tokyo FD! Looking at a massive 20 paragraph block of text with no graphs or images or ANYTHING, is just as bad as looking at a picture that is only 75% related to the text at hand.

And please don't intentionally diminish this picture by referring to it as a pic of "many red trucks" uggg OBVIOUSLY IT IS A PICTURE OF JAPANESE FIRE ENGINES IN THE TSUNAMI ZONE!! You all know that, and it is only this rampant wp deletionist impulse that even allows POV talk page posts like that to go unchallenged.

More to the point- THERE IS AN EVACUATION ZONE AROUND FUKUSHIMA. The idea that we will suddenly find a trove of candid Free-Rights-Usage accident pictures from the actual Fukushima power station, is ludicrous. If we hold ourselves to standard of only using images taken inside fukushima, or created graphs and cgi- this page will very quickly get very boring! This page has every potential to be a great page with pictures that illustrate the text, thanks to the dozens and dozens of Public Domain pictures, being uploaded every day concerning the disaster. But if we force the page to only use pictures taken within a 5 /10 km piece of property, we are tying our hands behind our backs. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

　:: I understand your point of trying to pretty up the article a bit. But, to be honest, this site is supposed to be informative first and attractive second. For people like myself, who live within relatively close proximity of the exclusion zone, this article is one of the more informative and up to date sources on the reactor situation, and we will take the time to read the article thoroughly, pictures or no. To be honest, seeing all this emotion and speculation in the talk section is disconcerting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.242.117 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Making articles pretty also makes them more welcoming to a reader and easier to read. The firetrucks picture is not irrelevant because it shows the current disaster. Helps split up the text into mnageable portions. Dealing with the nuclear problem would be much easier if vast areas had not been flattened with rescue services being needed elsewhere. How would three mile island have been in the US if half the state had been wrecked around the plant? Sandpiper (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NOAA HYSPLIT Graphs

Please post the parameters used for NOAA HYSPLIT simulation(s) here, so they can be verified and corrected, if necessary. Thanks. --84.145.224.201 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

jtmonone2: Basic simulation parameters are shown on the bottom of the image. Extra parameters I used to crate the figure: resolution 120 dpi, zoom 50% (in two different places), 4 distance circles with 50 km separation. I have an updated image, but the article is semi-locked and I can not make an edit.

plant damage

Just been reading about BWRs. It would seem a BWR has some major diesel driven pumps. Has anyone any information what might have happened to them, or even how they might be laid out in the plant?

I note there is a report that at dainin at least one diesel pump failed in the emergency, but I do not know why. was Daini flooded?

I saw a comment somewhere here about whether diesel fuel tanks were located on the dock, and were swept away. Do we know if this is true?

The diesel generators for unit 6 seem to have survived rather better than others. Any information about where they are in the plant and why this might be so?

It would seem quite a lot of water is stored somewhere for cooling and to act as heat exchanger for temporary cooling. Steam from plants has been attributed to water in the spent fuel pools, but it would seem there are heat exchanger systems from the reactors which can heat aforsaid tanks of water, which given the reactors are not being cooled adequately, might be expected to boil. Anyone know anything?

The plant used cooling sea water to pump through heat exchangers. Any information on how this worked and whether it might have pump houses or whatever which have been flooded or otherwise damaged - so there might be a specific weakness that even if a reactor building is restored perfectly it could still not get cooling water? Sandpiper (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For me this article helped a lot (used it on the II article). It says at least regarding II clearly that Diesel engines were flooded because of the tsunami, that the diesel's functioned for cooling the last cooling loop with seawater. For I, it's less clear, but they speculate it was worse as it was lower lying; and that emergency diesels were lost. No info on layout however! L.tak (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

TEPCO is saying that the generators "were not directly exposed to the wave, some electrical support equipment was outside." [15] Seems like they could have fixed it faster if that was the case though. Rmhermen (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is this business of fuel tanks being washed away if it is true....There was a comment in one of the emergencies about a pump being allowed to run out of fuel. That sounded like carelessness, but perhaps it was because there was no fuel. But you might think fuel could have been supplied by now. And which generators. The trouble is all these comments are very delphic. How to interpret 'not directly exposed to the waves'. Within the 1m too low sea wall? Obviously some switch gear would have to be outside, but they did not install new switchgear for the new power supply for fun. There is a mess inside the buildings and it surely cant be anything except flooding? The latest nisa numbers on reactor 6 says core water level is up 1m, 5 as it was but they all look low at around 2m compared to daini at around 10. Daini water level in reactor 1 went dowm 2 m and temp up 10C in 6 hours. daiichi pool 5 went down 15C which the article says was due to re-filling. There are no temperature reading for the 5 and 6 reactors. therefore control electronics is not functioning? Understandable in 1-3 where there has been gross overheating, but what happened in 5&6? Unit 6 reactor looks to have cooled because pressure has fallen. 5 pressure has gone up. 5&6 have been prepared for venting by removing roof panels. Conclusion, there is no cooling water supply from the sea and this may well not be an electrical supply issue. I am puzzled about these fire trucks. I can understand rotating crews to reduce radiation exposure but they seem to be rotating trucks too. Are they having to drive away and refill with water from somewhere else? Sandpiper (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I expect they are rotating trucks to refuel them and rest the pumps. No truck could hold several hours worth of water. I was puzzled by the venting of the buildings around reactors 5 and 6[16] - what is the source of this possible hydrogen? There have been no high temperature events at these reactors. Are there other source/different reactions yielding hydrogen than at reactors 1 and 3? Or is this just an excess of caution move? Rmhermen (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Some water is continuously being split up into oxygen and hydrogen due to radiation, also during normal operation or simply cooling of an idle reactor or spent fuel. There should be facilities at the buidings to eliminate that hydrogen, but may they are not working.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think equipmet failure seems likely. However, my guess is they are worried the reactors are heating up (which the published figures say they are) and may have to vent steam, if they have not done so already. The water levels are very low which must mean it has gone somewhere?Sandpiper (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Add a note about it being among the worst 3 accidents ever?

I didn't want to add this to the intro without getting other's opinions. But it seems extremely relevant and important.

One ref of many: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Japan+nuclear+accident+three+worst+history/4430640/story.html#ixzz1H6zUEDNZ

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One also needs to be careful about how this is presented. Looking at the International Nuclear Event Scale there are 7 accidents rated as high or higher than the Level 5 rating currently assigned to Fukushima. Some of these, such as the Kyshtym disaster (rated 6) and Goiânia accident (rated 5) involved nuclear material at sites other than nuclear power plants, and so might not be counted if you strictly limit it to nuclear power. However, both of those probably involved more impact on human health than Three Mile Island even though they are rarely discussed, and it remains to be seen what Fukushima's ultimate health impact will be. It is probably fair to cite authorities that are calling Fukushima one of the worst accidents, but I would suggest also mentioning its current place on the INES scale and the number of comparably rated events. Dragons flight (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The UK winscale research reactor caught fire and dumped radioactive material over miles. There was even some suggestion at the time of chernobyl that they were picking up legacy radiation from the winscale incident, but I dont know if that is true. It was of course all dowmplayed at the time and people were far less nuclear aware. Didnt anyone notice british people all have tails? Dounreay has been quietly dumping material in the sea for years, caused some mystery deaths and then a number of beaches to be closed because of washed up particles. Sandpiper (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One also needs to be careful with making clear what kind of accidents. Compared to other industrial accidents like the Bhopal disaster even Chernobyl becomes a minor incident. Compared by death tolls, even a local car crash sees more dead on average. So I think a little text with a link to the Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents should be sufficient. There's no need to cover every possible spin of news media. --Amazeroth (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is from March 12th, which was very early on. It seems like that fellow called it that very early with few facts known. I don't know what to make of the Ploughshares Fund guy (written like an ad btw). Is he really an expert or just an anti-nuclear activist they went to consult? Joseph Cirincione - It seems like his expertise is in discussion of nuclear non-proliferation, but that doesn't make him an expert on nuclear power plants. Also, like I said, he was speaking VERY soon after the disaster. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Worst in what way? In the number of ruined large reactors, yes. Certainly its a big mess, but in terms of economic damage so far there has been little damage outside the facility other than greatly scaring people and the loss of electricity. The reactors will have to be basically left alone for a year or two before core removal can start. These were relatively old facilities, so the long term cost is not that great, but the immediate cost will be high. Considering all the circumstances, so far it looks like the Japanese staff handled the damage control situation decently. The ruined reactor facilities represent a significant but small percentage of the total tsunami property damage. The tsunami killed thousands, not the reactors.172.129.244.36 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Like I said, it's an article from eight days ago. The guy appears to have just been going into hyperbole. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was worst in terms of the IAEA scale of disasters. Some have labeled the disaster as a 6 (out of 7) which would make it one of the worst three nuclear disasters ever. But, it's official designation remains a 5.

I'm glad I posted here before putting up the change.  :-) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, if you look at the events that have registered on Level 5, you see there are others on that level, so it still doesn't make sense. Also, like I said, the guy made the point on 12 March with very little info to go on at the time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The standard they are using is "Impact on people and environment", meaning sickness, deaths, and outside contamination. So far external radiation contamination is minimal. A 6 rating is illogical at this time. 172.163.166.229 (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)BG

Page size

It is at 165kb now and I am sure more stuff will be added. How about deciding on another split? Nergaal (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The only possible split I can see is the Japanese reaction... is there another split available? 184.144.166.85 (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese reaction (or, by some measures, the slowness of it), should stay, because the Japanese society is more structured around following a hierarchy and a hierarchical consensus, which, while in non-crisis situations may work fine, then in high-crisis situations may become an impediment.

One place that could be curbed is the listed stuff at section Accident rating, because the "131l" measure is not expanded upon, much of the INES scale is cited (and sourced), yet it's been given comparisons to with material that is not sourced and this suggests original research to me. — Unless IAEA and/or relevant industry publications release similar information related to the INES scale and ways it could in the future be determined wrt the accidents, given that it has not been resolved yet. (The accidents' historical significance cannot be underestimated, though.)

-Mardus (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The two sections which could be separated if necessary are all the stuff on radiation and reaction in Japan. International reaction was split off previosuly but I think Japanese reaction should have gone with it, turn it into simply 'reaction to'. Alternatively have two reaction articles. The table of solutions attempted is somewhat questionable as it repeats the text, and frankly continues to contain uncorrected erors.The core stuff which needs to be kept is the events at the plant and also technical detial required to explain what is happening.08:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NHK Links

I live in Tokyo and speak Japanese fluently and, out of my own obvious interest in this article, have begun trying to update it. It looks like the NHK English website lags behind the Japanese website by perhaps an hour or more. But it looks like the Japanese website deletes articles if conflicting information arises, so if you stumble across a broken NHK link, please check the English website and other sources before deleting anything in the article. This happened when TEPCO announced they would vent reactor 3, then backpedaled and said they would not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.242.117 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of references by IP users

I've noticed that some IP users have recently been eager to remove references, because one was "invalid", two others were "unofficial", when actually they were statements by relevant official agencies. Should the page be edit-protected for registered users only? -Mardus (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea Mardus. I've also noticed some strange edits from IP users.John Moss (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"The gravity of the disaster is such that many international leaders have expressed concerns."

I understand needing to stick to WP:NOR, but this sentence lacks all substance. Can't we say anything substantive about the international response, like "many countries scrambled to reevaluate their policies on nuclear energy"? It would be nice to have examples, but it's no worse than "many international leaders".

Jer ome (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

it is a one sentence summary of what has happened. Do you dispute that international leaders have given press conferences expressing concern? Sandpiper (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should stay in as well. But the word gravity could be left out to avoid POV-discussions. We could say "The accidents at the site have prompted many interantional leaders to express their concern and has resulted in the announcement of reevaluation of several programs." L.tak (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I resd it through last night and at that time I wondered about the word 'disaster'. I'd say it was a grave situation, but thus far, maybe only by a miracle but all the same, it is not a disaster. I would be content with just 'Many international leaders have expressed concerns', or maybe if that is a little too soft replace 'disaster' with 'situation'Sandpiper (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not incorrect to say that they expressed concerns, but looks vague and a bit weasely to me. World leaders might express concern about a number of subjects milder than this one. If it's a statement about the number of world leader who have responded, then maybe it should be in those terms. This is a pretty important article and I feel people are looking for something more definitive here. But I won't change it if people are attached to the current language. Jer ome (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this the same sentence that links to an entire article showing what their concerns are? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

missing technical description of cooling

The subsection of the power plant section detailing cooling etc seems to have disappeared. Moreover all trace of it seems to have disappeared in past versions of the article for the last week or so. What the hell happened?Sandpiper (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It was this edit. I also think it should stay, although it should be sourced better and we could think about shortening it here, while improving the see also article. I will place it back for now, because the way the article is now, it's quite crucial for understanding... L.tak (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

well thats fascinating. The diff you give produces the old page, but if i click the link in the article history [17] what I get is a header telling me it is the same revision, but actually displaying the current page. Seems to do the same with both firefox and explorer. Sandpiper (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But with regard to length, my comments just above still apply. Do we choose to keep getting longer or do we hive off some of the later bits (radiation, japanese reaction or actions taken table are most removable in my view) Sandpiper (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Seawater used for cooling

Hi! I think this section could be a little more informative. I couldn't find any article in Wikipedia that explains how the reactor vessel is cooled by seawater. Is there a system called fire extinguisher system? Is the pressure and temperature of the reactor as in normal conditions (about 70 bar and 285 Celsius) and they still use fire engines to get water into it? How is the resulting steam let out?

"NISA reported that injection of seawater into the Reactor Pressure Vessel through the fire extinguisher system commenced at 11:55 on 13 March.[108] At 01:10 on 14 March injection of seawater was halted because all available water in the plant pools had run out (similarly, feed to unit 3 was halted). Water supply was restored at 03:20.[108]" Concatinate (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

thats all we know - I dont think the designers intended using the fire extinguishr system for main cooling, but also we do not really know what the very minimal press releases mean. The point about seawater is simply that they have no fresh water so have used sea water. Seawater is not good for any kind of equipment and if you think about it, apparently tonnes of it have been added to the reactors and by now the water inside must be very salty indeed. Sandpiper (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Article in big need of clean-up

This article really needs cleaning up, including putting some sections into separate articles, like the graphic section "Solutions attempted or suggested"; reducing the amount of information into a more succinct form. Just about all sections are suffering from this problem. At the same time, this article is probably the best compilation of information on the Fukushima nuclear plant accident available on the net.

A few points:

• Judging by the number of hits, this probably includes visits by people seeking information that could be of high importance to their welfare i.e. English speaking ppl in Japan.
• Wikipedia plays a vital service, as it did in the Haiti earthquake. Although its not specifically Wiki's role, its a good service for the Wiki community to be providing.
• Although of interest, some sections contain excessive amounts of information that's not going to be read by most people, and congests the flow of the article i.e. "Solutions attempted or suggested" graphic.
• All sections are in need of revision.
• Some sections are excessively technical, and while good on some levels, wont be useful to most people.
• It's important to keep core information that people are seeking within this primary article. For example, if people are chasing radiation information, if it's put into a separate article, there's a good chance they wont find the link.
• There is contradictory information coming from multiple source referencing, and we need to recognize this and try and reconcile it by quoting specific sources.

But with all this said, ...great article! John Moss (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

well, while all articles are supposed to help a reader, this isnt a survival guide for people living nearby. I agree with you that any section moved away is liable to be neglected, but the dangers from radiation are not the central issue of this article. Thus far, happily, radiation danger to the public has been minimal. I have already posted that i am unhappy about the 'solutions attempted' table which is somewhat arbitrary. But as far as trying to explain what is happening, I think the article does better than many. There is a brief introduction and then a lengthy summary of the main events to date. Then we expand on the events at different locations in more detail. I think the section about radiation is useful and for choice I would not separate it, but nor would I cut technical detail of the events which is the molten core of this article. I agree it is not very polished, but under the circumstances I feel it more important that effort has been concentrated on obtaining information than on polishing it. Yes, there are problems of contradictory sources, not really surprising under the circumstances. The refs list is unmanageably big but enormous effort is needed to try to reattribute referencing sensibly. Of late the official press release have become rather better, though still not really saying anything in detail. Sandpiper (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of interpretation of wiki's role. It is a community net-based encyclopedia, and we do have a previous record of providing helpful and relevant information during exceptional disastrous events. Let's keep that going. Wiki can define itself - we dont have to be a clone of anybody else. Any comments....???

In an article like this, each editor often covers particular sub headings, while trying to keep the context/overall article in mind. Radiation and radioactive materials is mostly what I've been covering. What I can say, having reviewed a lot of ref material, is that it does come across that there's been a downplaying of the health risk by government authorities....and of course this has been publicly suggested. One thing I've observed, is that there seems to be manipulation using generalizations on the radiation risk, whereby authorities are saying that there is no health risk from radiation (i.e. radiation sickness), but not pointing out the long term well-defined risk from ingesting or inhaling radioisotopes i.e. increased cancer risk, and given that there's now radioactive iodine and cesium in food, water and dust - beyond the evacuation zone - it's a big issue for millions of ppl, including greater Tokyo. Fortunately, some independent experts are not adverse to pointing out this increased cancer risk. Wiki is one of the few objective sources of information. That's what ppl want when they come to this article. Obviously we have to tighten it up, and after the event we will have plenty of opportunity to do that without constantly changing details, but we also need to do that tightening/review process as events unfold. Succinctness is attractive, and the German edition article is a contrasting inspiration for that, but i still like our English version for all it's prob's with too much info and chunky tables...:)John Moss (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Im still not happy about the solutions considered table. Having looked at the 'effectiveness' columns, most of them have no information and the rest are highly subjective. I have seen no clear statemtn about how effective backup batteries were. There is no reason necessarily to think they did not get just as waterlogged as the generators. Similarly, mobile generators do not sem to have been effective, but I have no idea even whether they managed to get suitable generators to the plant, which would be massive things not something you take camping. Is repairing the power lines effective? obviously, yes, if they can do it, but to date a week later it hasnt been completed - so not at all effective so far yet we have partially effective. A bit meaningless to discuss its effectiveness because it takes so long. Emergency cooling - I have read no account of what worked and what didnt. Emergency cooling, well it didnt work. But it could not work without electricicty, so is that its fault or is the answer mixed up with the answer for how effective the electricty supply was? spraying water effective? dont know. maybe? Boron? your guess is as good as mine!Sandpiper (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC) The one thing which does seem to have worked is emergency brought in pumps flushing salt water directly through the reactor cores and then allowing it to boil away. Even this must be self-limiting. What happens when the reactors are solid with precipitated salt? Sandpiper (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactivity of zirconium with water steam at high temperature: hydrogen production

The tragedy of Fukushima and the explosion of hydrogen gas above the containment buildings of nuclear reactors pose the delicate question of the reactivity of zirconium and zirconium alloys with water steam at high temperature in a damaged nuclear reactor core. The page about zircaloy should deserve a special attention and the contribution of critical reviewers. See also the talk page for questions and useful references: Talk:Zirconium alloy. Any help would be appreciated. Discussions also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Date

Wouldn't it be more accurate to write that the date would be March 11, 2011-ongoing? I mean, considering the events did not all happen on March 11, and the more important ones didn't happen on that date either. SSDGFCTCT9 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. So added. NW (Talk) 21:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Chart comparing radiation emissions, good resource for figuring out what, exactly, a μSv or mSv is

I doubt this is something we can put in the article, but I came across this chart by Randall Munroe comparing the various radiation emissions of different things, including some measurements from Fukushima and Chernobyl, and thought it might be a nice resource for editors (like myself) who see "μSv" and "mSv" and don't really know how to put those measurements into perspective. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cooling requirements: decay heat vs. boiloff

The formula used by IP 62.117.6.126 in revising the paragraph about how much water could be boiled away by decay heat uses an incorrect assumption. What is relevant here is not the energy needed to heat water to the boiling point (4.18 MJ/tonne/K) but rather the enthalpy of vaporization of water at the boiling point (2.257 GJ/tonne, see WP:enthalpy of vaporization). If the power were 10 MW, then as much as 360 tonnes of water might be boiled away per day (ignoring other heat losses which would undoubtedly be present). A more realistic value for decay heat a few days after shutdown in a Fukushima reactor would be 0.3% of 784 MW (see WP:decay heat) or about 2.4 MW. Doing a simple division, the boiloff could be as much as 90 tonnes per day. Energy that might be needed to bring cold feedwater to the boiling point is a separate matter, as is the mass flow of circulating water from an external source that would be needed to carry away a heat flux of this magnitude. Piperh (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well put, but maybe the initial power was higher. Heat losses other than boiling, like air cooling, will be significant. 172.129.244.36 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Oops ... I've made a rather obvious blunder of my own. Calculation should be based on thermal power, not electrical power rating. A reactor rated at 784 MW_e (Fukushima units 2, 3, 4, and 5) would have a thermal heat production of around 3x the electrical rating or about 2350 MW_t at full power. Completing the same calculation with the correct thermal power (0.3% of 2350 MW_t times 86400 sec divided by 2.257 GJ/tonne), the theoretical boiloff rate (ignoring other heat losses, which could be substantial) would be about 270 tonnes/day a few days after shutdown from full power. Piperh (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this really correct? My guess would be that is 1/( Cp*DeltaT+DeltaH_vap). Then, which boiling point do we take (at which pressure do we work?), and (didn't check) how strongly is DeltaH_vap and Cp temperature dependent.... L.tak (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thinking again: you mean boil off of a reactor already at boiling point when there is addition of water anymore; then this should hold. I checked pressure dependence of DeltaHvap, which is still 2.07 GJ/ton at 8 bar (170C), so reasonably this is ok... L.tak (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what calculation you are making: injected water is very likely at 0C given the weather in japan so to boil it, it must be heated 100C, plus evaporation energy. The reactor might be under pressure so in fact what is escaping is super heated steam which will have more energy than plain 100C steam. Sandpiper (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is exactly what compicates the case; I fully agree. The only calculation which can be easily made (and for which I concede that the numbers seem correct at the used pressure and temp) is the water that would boil off (if it were already at boiling temperature in the reactor!). Whether that is a relevant point to add and whether such a calc constitutes WP:OR is another question... L.tak (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be making heavy weather of it, but something which can straightforwardly be calculated is not OR. I think this was a standard question at school and likely I would have solved it much more easily then.Sandpiper (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not saying it should be out; I was just thinking about what it would do and mean and making sure we did not make errors. We can do i) boiling off (simulating a boil off of what already was there at boiling point), or ii) heating from 10C to boiling and then boiling off (simulating the effect of adding cool water). No heavy weather, we can do both easily, but we have to make a choice and add in a note what we did... And I indicated that the DeltaHvap and Cp are not only ok under highschoolstudent-situations (Cp of 25C, DeltaHvap at 1 bar), but also under real reactor occasions, which I felt was appropriate to add. L.tak (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

All Piperh is saying is the cooling requirements 10 days after shutdown are not large and non-pressurized boiling is practical. Just removing the insulation would help a lot. 172.129.101.192 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)BG

Do we have it confirmed that decay heating should have fallen by that amount in this time? I have seen conflicting accounts of how long the decay of heat takes. I think the example is good in the article to just give an idea of what is involved, so it doesnt have to be perfect.Sandpiper (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Made both calculations now. Both assuming 2.257 GJ/kg heat of evaporation (getting 270 ton as piper suggested), as well as taking into account a 100C temp increase as well (but no superheating of the steam), which produces 2.2+100*0.042=2.68 GJ/kg, which results in 227 tonnes. I think we're most safe saying 200-300 tonnes/day and have changed to that effect; feel free to adjust if needed... L.tak (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please get the language right!

The language "release of radiation" is used in this article and in the daily news. This is wrong. What is meant is "release of radioactive material". It would be a good idea to get this language right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.85.26 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been reworded in the lead, which is the only place in the article where it was an issue. Piperh (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

well it says 'release of radioactivity', which isnt really right either. Thats a bit like saying there was a release of wetness from a cloud. Sandpiper (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How to delete from blacklist important international tool focused on Fukushima and add it's link to all appropriate Tohoku 2011 pages?

An international team of organizations and individuals: AšLietuvai Lithuanian think tank and national ideas capaign, UserVoice ideas engine, Sahana Software Foundation - Free and Open Source Disaster Management System, translators to Japanese and already many other individuals hardly work for full start of a new ideas campaing tool Unexpected global ideas for Fukushima, Tohoku, Sendai, Japan 2011 which is first of all focused to Fukushima nuclear accidents decision making wisdom of crowds.

While this acute Japan crisis is fast evolving and this tool is recently started, fresh and new.

All material about this tool is here

The advanced engine used for this tool UserVoice is blacklisted.

Why?

How to delete from balcklist this important tool and insert this link to all appropriate Tohoku 2011 Wikipedia pages?

Thanks sincerely fivetrees (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that is nto what wikipedia is for... The tool might be great (my latvian is not that good), but this site (however cynical it may sound) is not to help out on the accidents, just to describe it as a wikipedia article. If it is useful and notable for the article, and ahs been referred to by reliable sources then I'd be happy to help in getting it delisted. But that seems not the case at the moment. Nevertheless, good luck with the tool off wikipedia! L.tak (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

second earthquake

Tepco seem to say that the explosion of unit 1 followed an earthquake at 3:36 on 12 March. Can anyone confirm this or is it a persistent mistranslation of some kind in their press releases? Sandpiper (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They didn't say "earthquake", but "quake". The original ja word is 揺れ/yure. See [18] and [19]. So it seems they used the word quake as simple "shake" or "shock" or "rock". Besides, there was no earthquake at that time. [20] Earthquake is 地震. Oda Mari (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

not shock as in aftershock? I came across a reference for another power station which also stated it suffered a quake at about the same time, though it didnt say much else. (i have enough trouble learning nuclear power plant design without having to learn japanese)

"Today at approximately 3:36PM, a big quake occurred and there was a big sound around the Unit 1 and white smoke."[21]

"Unit 1(Shut down)- Reactor has been shut down. However, the unit is under inspection due to the explosive sound and white smoke that was confirmed after the big quake occurred at 3:36PM. 4 workers were injured due to this incident and they were transported to the hospital. "[22]

The second one seems to be clear that an explosion happened after a quake. Sandpiper (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New developments?

I see smoke and steam reported here: "Workers pulled at Japan plant as smoke rises" http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-21-japan-earthquake_N.htm and here: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80015.html Just wondering if it has been added to the article? Ottawahitech (talk)this