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.

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.

Thanks John, but I feel I am receiving conflicting information from you and Sandpiper. You are requesting we reduce the information in the table, but Sandpiper is requesting more information to substantiate what solutions are effective or at least partially effective. Over time, I added more reports and citations to substantiate what was working and what was not (and what was only considered or suggested but never implemented). I think the table is great and informative. I don't think it has too much information. However, the SFP area is getting longer but each SFP has many issues regarding the effectiveness of the spraying to that SFP. I'm not sure how to improve it, but I would appreciate constructive criticism.Peace01234 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, it is unclear if you or Sandpiper believe this table serves any purpose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it seems appropriate to create a record of solutions instead of only discussing the problems. When this nuclear crisis began there was a lot of concern that TEPCO was not doing anything, or that they were not being creative, or that they were initiating solutions like helicopter water drops that were inappropriate. This table of solutions would probably be useful for future understanding, discussion, debate, planning and crisis management of nuclear accidents.Peace01234 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I respond to Sandpiper's specific comments below.Peace01234 (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

I appreciate the constructive criticism about the "solutions considered or attempted" and I attempt to respond politely and specifically below.Peace01234 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The effectiveness of each solution is based on specific reports and citations included in the "General Effectiveness" column for each solution.

That is the problem. I will look at what you have listed in the table, but thus far I have read nothing analysing how effective measures were rather than how effective they were intended to be.Sandpiper (talk)

As stated in the "Solution" and "General Effectiveness" columns, the batteries worked until they ran out. That was their designed purpose; so, if they worked for the 8 hours they were designed for, then that seems to be effective.

Exactly. You yourself just said 'if they worked 8 hours'. They were designed to work 8 hours, but did they? There is a ref in the article which also says they were designed to work 8 hours but does not say that they did. The tepco reports say that they declared a state of emergency very shortly after the tsunami because they had no working instrumentation for reactors 1 and 3. They could not tell what was happening to the reactors. Batteries failed to maintain the instrumentation.The extent of this is not clear in any report I have read. Even now there are reports of repairs to important instrumentation as the main power is restored which gives little confidence the temporoary measures worked.Sandpiper (talk)

There are 3 reports with citations about the generators working temporarily and then some of them being restored to power later. This is partially effective.

There are numerous reports saying the generators failed totally after the tsunami hit. 100% failure rate. 1/6 of them are now working after 1 weeks intensive repair work.Sandpiper (talk)

There are multiple reports with citations about mobile power units being delivered and working at least temporarily. Some mobile power units continue to power some of the control functions. This is partially effective.

I have seen no evidence that any mobile power equipment has powered any of the plants main cooling functions. Have you? I have seen reports about the intention to deliver generators, but no reports of what was delivered. What was needed were MW generators which I would guess are considerably bigger than the sort you see at fairgrounds. lorry size? Then there is the associated switch gear to connect them to the plant. Where do you get such things in the middle of a disaster? How deliver them? I have seen reports people were unable to connect generators and this is born out by the fact they have built a new power distribution system so as to bring in mains power. The equipment on site to connect to was destroyed or full of of water. Sandpiper (talk)

There are many reports and citations about the power being restored. Some pumps may not work, some gauges may not work, but power has been restored. That is effective repair or power lines.

Restoring power by repairing lines might have worked had it been done in time. It was not done in time, therefore it failed. Ask a Japanese if he considers there has been any effective solution to the problems at the power plant. Restoring power has failed to prevent major plant damage such as to render several billion yens worth of plant worthless and dangerous. Not to mention the radiation leaks and the near misses so far. Repairing lines is wholly ineffective as an emergency measure, which was recognised by the plant designers and is why they installed batteris and generators.Sandpiper (talk)

The same is true for the other solutions. Please read the text before making comments.

Also, overall your tone comes off as belittling regarding the efforts made by rescue workers risking their lives to prevent a nuclear meltdown; as when you say electricity after a week is "A bit meaningless to discuss its effectiveness because it takes so long." But if electricity within a week helps prevent a nuclear meltdown, that is not meaningless.

There is not a row for heroic sacrifice by plant workers. This one might get some greens but even the best efforts by people cannot make up for equipment which does not work, which is what is listed in the table. The row which comes closest to covering this is injection of sea water into the reactor core, which actually seems to have saved the plant (but no greens in table). If the plant is now safe it will be because the workers there have done extremely dangerous things to make this happen. Yet still I have seen no evidence (I am not disputing this is what happened and it did work, but stating the authorities have not confirmed this or released details of exactly what has been done). My guess is they brought in pumps (not generators) and used these to pump in water. Possibly just fire brigade pumps. While exploding radioactive buildings were going on about them. One man received 100mS radiation and was taken to hospital just before unit 1 blew up. What was he doing such that he received this radiation? Sandpiper (talk)

The 4th pillar of Wikipedia is to be civil. I am trying to be polite and let you know that some of your comments come off as belittling and use extra emphasis in a negative way. This feels especially true when you say you never saw evidence for things that are reported and cited in the table

I am sorry you think me not polite and I agree I can sometimes be blunt. To be blunt, and what I regard as the ultimate impoliteness, wikipedia articles only contain information which can be supported by evidence from somewhere. If material cannot be supported then it does not get included. I have not seen evidence for these things and am asking that you provide some. I have seen considerable evidence for the failure of many things.Sandpiper (talk)

I am trying to help in as polite a way as possible. (I am also trying to help by acknowledging the efforts attempted by rescuers who are risking their lives. I'm also trying to help concerned citizens rest a little more easily knowing that many solutions are being attempted and some are realistically effective at reducing the temperature of the water. I am also attempting to create a record of solutions instead of problems. This may be useful for future planning or crisis management of nuclear accidents.) I hope you take these comments in a spirit of good faith because I believe you are well intentioned as well.Peace01234 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I also consider the question of not scaring people. From this perspective it might be better to say the batteries worked perfectly, but that will not help next time this happens. Japan is expecting an even bigger earthquake? I am prepared to soften the truth, but not to have false claims. I really am sorry at upsetting you about this because I am sure you are trying to improve the article. Unfortunately this table has gone on for days now with statements which can not be supported. I cant really leave this matter any longer, because it is a matter of importance and international concern. Sandpiper (talk)

I think the table is incredibly useful. Rather than having to try to sort through voluminuous articles trying to determine what has been done and what worked/didn't work, anyone can look at a concise chart and see get a fast understanding of the different interventions. The only negative criticism (at the moment) I offer is the inclusion of the liquid metal (tin) cooling. Unless they've tried it, or the Japanese offered specific comment on it, I don't think it should be on the list. In some ways it's like the "What would you do at Fukushima?" with speculators offering opinions without being present.MartinezMD (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The table is a very useful and necessary summary. And liquid metal cooling is not only tried, but used for decades in practice. Some links, even interwiki, are given. If you read it, you see that water has disadvantages. Sexandlove (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

so what exactly is this table? It is extremely speculative. What is meant by general effectiveness? is that general effectiveness in fixing this problem or as applied worldwide? Why does this column contain long general discussions rather than yes/no? Is that general effectiveness at preventing problems after the tsunami or six months down the line? Has liquid metal cooling succeeded or failed in this emergency? Sandpiper (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm uncomfortable with the entire tin/sarcophagos entry, as it is incredibly premature, and seems to be based on chernobyl, rather then the current circumstances. I would suggest removing it, as until we know more about the conditions in/around the reactors, any talk of tin/sarcophagos is putting the horse before the cart. MWadwell (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

incredibly premature?? Does not seem you read and understood it. Sexandlove (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

When they're still trying to stabilise the core/spent fuel temperature/pressure/water level today, talking about what you are going to do in a month (or more) time meets my definition of "incredibly premature". Anyone else like to comment? MWadwell (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Incredibly brainless" is it to use water-cooling even if it failed for 2 weeks and wasted the core in the environment, causing deaths. Again, it does not seem you read and understood a thing. Try not to waste my time. Sexandlove (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Try to keep it civil. A bad attitude doesn't help the discussion.MartinezMD (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Can those of us who are shift managers of a nuclear reactor please put up their hand - other then me I mean..... I mean, if you have experience working in a nuclear reactor, I'd love to hear about it! Seriously though, your statements are both inflamatory, and inaccurate. You state that water cooling has failed. We are talking about systems that lack power and are damaged (which is why water cooling has been "less then optimal" to be polite) - and now you are talking about trying to use a different cooling material that the plant was not designed for! Similarly you state that it is causing deaths - care to quote a source on that, as aside from the people who were dosed up (with a non-lethal dose I will point out) no one else has (yet!) been injured (and I hope that it stays that way!). And finally, if you don't want me to waste your time, the simple answer is to ignore me... <VBG> MWadwell (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is a bit the situation we are in. It's grave, systems are coming up (because of electricity repairs etc), en systems will be going down (unknown earthquake damage, pitting corrosion due to chloride, none-designed-for conditions). And water seems to have saved us from worse (but not enough). It makes it for me impossible to decide what would work and what not. I am not the engineer on site and have my info only from the media. With that in mind, I think it is good that we report what worked and what not and I therefore like the table in principle.

I do have however also my problems with tin-cooling. I am not saying it shouldn't be tried, I am just saying we are not the ones to be able to judge (and I doubt if the Ukranians are). It's a solution with many implications (will it work if the vessel is leaking? will they really get it in as suggested in chips? can they cool the torus with water sufficiently) and has been mentioned by a single source once. Us reporting it now gives it more weight than we can give it without getting into original research. As much as I like such discussions and am open to hear about it (and without valuing whether the solution might work) I think this is not the right forum. L.tak (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have, is that wikipedia is then obliged to publish every idea - no matter how ridiculous (such as a suggestion from the Russians about dumping the reactors int he Pacific - similar to what they do off Tsivolki Bay. MWadwell (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the metal cooling entry. It has not been attempted. I also do not see any source saying the Japanese authorities have considered it either.MartinezMD (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The following diagram is oversimplified to the point of being inaccurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bwr-rpv.svg. The downcomer region is mis-identified. It is not below the lower core plate. Rather is is the area outside the core shroud, above the jet pumps, and inside the Reactor Pressure Vessel. This is NOT a minor point. the water level measured is downcomer level. There is no level indication inside the shroud per se. So the water level inside the shroud (where the fuel is!!) is inferred from downcomer level. That is why they are unsure of actual water level. Second error, ADS is not a BWR term per se, these are Safety/Relief Valves. I held a SRO on a BWR 4 Mark I containment in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.155.15 (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

SPLIT DISCUSSION

Imho the article is already very long. Shortening is possible, but very limited; especially because the event develops fast. The question i can´t answer is: how to split it? Sexandlove (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The international reaction split made sense. I'm fresh out of ideas for other splits. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably:"Radiation levels and radioactive contamination" to Fukushima I nuclear accident radiation or whatever? Because:

- Its already quite long

- Its getting longer. Sorry but: Good hope is not realistic. Sexandlove (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Chernobyl disaster actually has quite a large set of articles on it. But I think it might still be a little premature right now. One article I'm almost sure we'll have is one for the long terms effects. But we can't make that now. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

a split has to be done. radiation is imho the best option. Consider a TEMPLATE about radiation including chernobyl and articles with reused text. But it can be even a simple split. Sexandlove (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that radiation could be separated from the rest, and later I am sure there will be more as it gets reported elsewhere, but it is my second choice after the solutions tried table which is distinctly speculative. Not enthusiastic about the title but is there a standard for creating titles for disasters? There is a section above complaining that strictly, it is not radiation which escapes but radioactive material. In the chernobyl article something like the radiation section here is included in the main one. The problem here is that there are six reactors involved, not just one.Sandpiper (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't like the article to be split while the event is still ongoing. It's very convenient to just open one page everyday and see the development. I suggest splitting to be arranged once the situation gets back to normal at least to some extend. At that point we'll have all the data and can set up new articles more effectively.193.93.102.249 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to move "Solutions considered or attempted" to a new article. I duplicates some info in the "Reactor unit __" sections. -Colfer2 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This section is not so big and it would not get much bigger. So it does NOT help. Sexandlove (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Correction: Its possible. Sexandlove (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say it is expendable, and the information in it should already be in the other sections. This would be my first choice to move elsewher, but I dont know where. Sandpiper (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is an important part of the ongoing development of the incident, especially the discussions re: restoration of grid power, and the various ECCS equipment.Slo4b (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• You could always remove the timeline section and replace it with an actual timeline running on the left-hand side of the page, or on the direct effects from earthquake section. It would involve shuffling images, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

iff you mean the daily summary, it contains information not necessarily in other parts of the text. I dont really know what you mean? a rolling box? Sandpiper (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a GREAT article and should not be split; the length is fine for such an important topic; it is by far the best artcile on the internet I have found because it covers some many topicsPacific813 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

SPLIT- Japanese reaction

Article has become too long. The issue is which sections should be split off. Since we have a separate article for International Reaction, it only makes sense to split off Japanese reaction.72.215.160.21 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont like splitting any of it, but I think the reaction section is really something of a 'miscellaneous' section and would not make a very coherent article. I think the radiation section would make a more coherent article by itself with prospects to expand as events unfold, if something has to go.Sandpiper (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that we need to keep this as part of the artical, is it there coutry and there reactions are part of the event. This article is the EVENTS of it not only the tecnical stats.

The section contains both reaction and assessment. Only the (Japanese) reaction/emergency measures should be split.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I also believe this discussion is peripheral to the accident details, and should be moved elsewhere. Slo4b (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this needs to stay as part of the artical it is there saga and the major effects will be to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.180.105 (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This needs to stay the radaion itselft isnt the problem its the effects it has on life and the people around it that is the people of japan--66.189.223.90 (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese reaction to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents now split off with summary left here. Johnfos (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This split requires a bit more work..

A simple head (yes it's not a vote, but there is a good argumet given) count sees only Johnfos and the suggesting IP in favour... Also I think that three out of 5 paragraphs:"2 Evacuations

3 Statements on meltdown possibility 4 Accident rating" don't fall under "Japanese reaction. Shall we turn the split back? Or move accident rating (not specific to Japanese assessment) and the evacuation (more of an action than a reaction) back? Or can we come up with a smarter name for the part moved out now? L.tak (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will move "Accident rating" back, as I think that is clearly now on the wrong page. further commetns welcome! L.tak (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

SPLIT- Radiation

Well, the article is clearly too long now, so something has to be done. What about splitting off "Radiation levels and radioactive contamination" to Radiation levels and radioactive contamination of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents? That seems to be a coherent part... L.tak (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Radiation levels and radioactive contamination" is bigger and grows MUCH faster, imho for weeks, and continues to grow fast for minimum months. Radiation is now compared to Chernobyl, see my edits. Sexandlove (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be too long. Simply 'Radioactive contamination from the Fukushima... ' would be better. I dont know if this ought to have a more general title such as 'Environmental Contamination from the...'. I am not sure if some pollution problems from this might not be just radioactivity?Sandpiper (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support – At 183 kb the article has become too cumbersome warranting a split of this section. The radiation section has wider regional impacts and will expand considerably in the short and long term future. A short title like Radioactive contamination from Fukushima I nuclear accidents or Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents would be in order. AnAnthro (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling we all see the need of the split. Leaves us only the name. I think Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents is the shortest neutral wording... Will work on it with that working title. Should we decide on anything else, then it is easy to change... L.tak (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

SPLIT- Solutions considered or attempted

Another possibility. Can be done quick and easily. Sexandlove (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC) And is technical stuff which often concerns scientists (like me :-)). Sexandlove (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• 'support . Can indeed be easy and doesn't need to wait for the content discussion above to end, as that can be moved with the page... Title suggestion: List of considered and attempted solution of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. L.tak (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A quite long title. Fukushima I nuclear accidents considered or attempted solutions? Shorter and explains content. And includes the option to write text outside a list. Sexandlove (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

yes. Id go with list. Sandpiper (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disapprove. This section in particular is one of the more informative ones in the article, along with Reactor status summary. IMHO, the page isn't too long to cause worry yet, but if you really must split something, might I suggest the Summarised daily events section? Coolgamer (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disapprove. This part has some of the best real information on the internet in one place i think its facts not things that are beaing spun one way or anouther. --75.147.180.105 (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.180.105 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

'Weapons-grade Plutonium-239'

Is it correct to describe MOX fuel in reactor 3 as containing weapons-grade plutonium-239? Sure, plutonium-239 is used in nuclear weapons, but the concentration of the isotope in fuel rods is probably no more than a few percent.

From Plutonium-239 article:

Plutonium is classified according to the percentage of the contaminant plutonium-240 that it contains:

• Supergrade 2-3%
• Weapons grade less than 7%
• Fuel grade 7-18%
• Reactor grade 18% or more.

Also, is it not misleading to put stress on reactor 3, when plutonium-239 is an indirect product of nuclear fission of uranium-238, and as such is present in some quantity in all fuel rods within the facility?

Mchl (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Although some of the info appearing today in the lead may need a place elsewhere, it certainly didn't fit at such a prominent place, so I have removed it. A bit of emphasis on MOX is good, as one of the cited articles say, Plutonium at the end of Uranium-rod is about 0.8%, whereas the MOX fuel starts at 5% or so. However reactor 3 only contains 5-10% MOX (see our own table), which would -L.tak's original research ;-)- would render the Pu at the beginning of the lifecyce below that at the end of the life cycle of a Uranium rod, which places things into context. As for the weapons grade: that is a bit weird as we are speaking about a Plutonium concentration, not a 239/240 plutonium ratio. It could be true, but also in the previous versions I did not see sources for that. L.tak (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I did provide a citation but put it later in the sentence since it covered both the weapons grade aspect and the threat to human health. For reference, according to Forbes writer Osha Gray Davidson:

:::"The MOX facility will blend surplus weapon-grade plutonium with depleted uranium oxide to make mixed oxide fuel for use in existing nuclear power plants. Once the MOX fuel assemblies have been irradiated in commercial power reactors, the plutonium can no longer be readily used for nuclear weapons. It will take approximately 15 years for the MOX facility to process the 34 MT of plutonium."

I thought it was relevant to emphasize the severity of the situation. As I explained to L.tak earlier, I'm new to Wikipedia and still getting the hang of things. Did I err here? Any guidance or insight is appreciated.

Found another source here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-15/mox-the-toxic-fuel-inside-japans-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant/#

:::The Daily Beast spoke with half a dozen nuclear scientists about the peculiarities of MOX fuel, a mixture of uranium and plutonium—reprocessed from spent uranium and sometimes from the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium. :: HopelessGleek (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I just looked into this further and see that I was wrong. It would be correct to say that MOX is partially derived from weapons-grade plutonium, but only under a very specific and unlikely circumstance could the plutonium content actually become weapons-grade itself. HopelessGleek (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, this is a heavily edited site; which also means things are caught and discussed rel. fast. You may want to consider however if you have relevant info including it in the rel. paragraph (e.g. daily events) and only add it to the lead when it is absolutely necessary. The lead should at maximum be 3-4 paragraphs long and is already out of hand, and I therefore prefer only the main facts or extremely relevant possibilities (like the possible breach of the reactor vessel)... L.tak (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

L.tak, thanks for editing this; I was just getting ready to do it myself. Of particular concern to me were that the sources on the dangers of MOX were (if I'm not mistaken) two anti-nuclear sites, one anti-proliferation journal, and two blogs hosted on news sites. None of the four that are online mentioned the presence of plutonium in spent or partially-burned LEU fuel. I propose that if that information goes in anywhere, it should be in the MOX article, and this article should contain nothing more than "potentially more dangerous MOX fuel" or something similar. I'd also suggest a more reliable source, particularly for the "2 million times" quote. It seems like something that striking should have a source in a peer-reviewed journal, or better, from the NRC, IAEA, or some other neutral source (more accurately, a source whose goal is neither to support nuclear power nor oppose it, but rather to ensure its safety). Vykk (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ive reorganised the lead somewhat and moved a bit down to the radiation section. I tidied that a bit too, but I dont know if it really represents the separate radiation article. Sandpiper (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the section is ok. Still feel a bit uncomfortable with the Chernobyl comparisons (although factually they might be correct, we might be comparing apples and oranges, as there are different failing systems, but I am not competent in that field...), but it looks good! My expectation is that we will here a bit more about sea-discharge in the next days, but let's wait and see if it gets notable before adding it here... L.tak (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The caesium and iodine must be decay products of the fuel, which in turn means the metal cladding on the fuel has melted to let them out. I am not clear on why other decay products are not being talked about. Some of it may because they are less biologically dangerous, and perhaps some were not soluble in water so do not get into the escaping steam. I think the water isnt contributing to the radioactivity, its coming from the fuel, and the fuel was the same at chernobyl. Chernobyl was made of graphite, which itself burns very nicely so the overheating reactor was essentially flammable....did not help matters. I think all this water being sprayed about the plant must be escaping to sea - what else could they do with it - and will be radioactive. Dont know what they will do with the radioactive water flooding the basement. Dumping it at sea might be the only option. On the bright side, they seem to be trying to stop venting gases, though I dont quite understand how you can add water without venting something to make room for it. Maybe that is why the reactor water levels have stayed below the fuel rods, they reckon it better to leave them be than vent more gas. If the rods are half submerged they will be getting cooling by conduction along the metal but I dont know how effective. Which perhaps was not what you meant. It is unclear exactly how much radioactive material is escaping, all we have are some point measurements on the ground and most will just be going up into the air. Whether people whose business it is to measure such things on the wind can make good estimates, I dont know. Sandpiper (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I just added a rider to the lead explaining this evidence only relates to certain elements escaping being comparable to chernobyl. Some get out easier than others and chernobyl had become an open bonfire spewing out everything. Sandpiper (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Talking MOX is a waste of time, a logical non sequitur. ALL light water reactors breed plutonium from U 238. A typical light water reactor loaded with no MOX fuel generates 40% of its power from U-238 to Pu-239 then fission. Pu in MOX is recovered from Light Water Reactor spent fuel...all light water reactor fuel becomes MOX during its cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.155.15 (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

JAIF Table

Is there a consensus on how to update the JAIF table (under the heading "Reactor status summary") near the end of the article?

I have seen some users have updated the table before the JAIF updates the table (based on breaking news). I have changed those back to the most current official JAIF table (http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/), but left the two "from all sources" lines updated to the most current information being released by the media at large.

This seems logical because the table is a source of its own, but I wanted to ask if there was an objection to this view. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection, provided there is a way for users to update the color of cells in the "from all sources" rows to reflect breaking news of a major change in status. Is this possible? HopelessGleek (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is possible. The chart currently appears to show Red/Yellow/Green depending on the "seriousness" of the data. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I assume it is possible, but I'm not sure how to do it. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

JAIF says it is a private organisation run by the nuclear power industry with the purpose of promoting nuclear power development. Under the circumstances, that might suggest alternative sources for the information would be desireable and other sources are listed. The table information did not all come from JAIF and should not be restricted to their view alone. If I added the accurate rider to the introduction of that section that the information comes form an organisation whose purpose is to promote nuclear power, exactly how credible would any of it look? I have reduced this back yo a footnote. Sandpiper (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if we use alternative sources, we should endeavour to cite each individual box instead of citing the JAIF at the top of the box. Each of the boxes represents a pretty technical, but subjective, decision, which, I think, needs citation. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand these concerns, but I think their assessment has been pretty even-handed thus far, and to my knowledge appears to be an accurate summary of the situation. I do not believe that they have hesitated to upgrade the severity level of any cell to date, and they have reflected all major status changes accurately with each update. In my view, they have demonstrated a history of objective and timely reporting, which I think should be fairly taken into account.

My only concern is the ability of users to independently change the color-coded severity level in the "from all sources" row, as we will likely be able to update it sooner in response to breaking news reports of major changes in status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopelessgleek (talk • contribs) 08:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing the color is easy if you understand the edit syntax. no=red; partial=yellow; yes=green. Simply change the word, either no, partial or yes to achieve the desired result. Perhaps there is an easier way, but I have not discovered it. This is easy enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatmonk (talk • contribs) 06:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Plutonium Testing

Bloomberg just reported that Plutonium tests have been ordered for the soil near the plant'. This would imply that no one has been testing for plutonium since the incident began, despite an explosion and numerous releases of steam and/or smoke from reactor 3. This seems like like a pretty major development, but I'm not sure where or how to include it. As a new Wikipedian, I would appreciate it if someone can clarify the policy on material that can be clearly inferred from a source, but is not explicitly stated therein.

As a general answer: inferring can only be done if it's dead-clear. You might want to read the reliable sources and the area outside that: original research. In this particular case I think there are several plausibe other indications: i) they order always after a big event (maybe also after the blasts), ii) they order only after finding uranium (which is reasonable, but would make this event less important. I would however comment on it if a WP:secondary source would comment on the "oddity" that only plutonium tests is mentioned.... Rgds! L.tak (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be directly stated before we add it to the article. I recently saw a report that TEPCO is requesting international technical assistance to measure plutonium levels because it is incapable of making these measurements. The source was not citable, but I think it means that this aspect of the story will be reported in English news sources soon. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

TEPCO now state it is seeking second opinions on the existence of plutonium. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_21.html Stating that it has been testing. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

ABC reports plutonium in the soil at five locations--Nowa (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also Bloomberg pointing out that samples were taken one week ago I dont know how they are doing for equipment with which to test anything, given the wrecked state of the plant, but I would think in general they would be considered remiss if they did not test for anything which might have happened. So given there has been a major accident, testing for possible consequences is not unreasonable and ought not in itself mean they suspect something bad. I am still unclear on exactly how dangerous plutonium is as compared to uranium so that it would be worth testing for separately. I would expect that if there is uranium which has escaped from the plant, then it would inevitably be accompanied by a certain amount of plutonium. Types and amounts depending on exactly where it came from, which might in itself be a useful fact for the plant operators.Sandpiper (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Biological half-life#Metals/ Plutonium#Toxicity, Plutonium in the bones has a biological half-life of 100-200 years. Unit 3 has Mixed oxide fuel (contains plutonium).--Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Liquid metal containment

I thought it was interesting to see liquid metal mentioned, even if it belongs somewhere other than the chart, such as in a separate section of 'proposed solutions' - 67.161..

interesting it is certainly. But we have not enough reliable sources to indicate it was actively considered or that it would be feasible here. See the discussion above on: "Article in need of big cleanup" for info... L.tak (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In principle I have no objection to any credible plan being in the article, but there needs to be a relevant link and it has to be kept in perspective.MartinezMD (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If Japan authorities were informed by Chernobyl specialists via Embassy (adn we have a ref. for this fact!), then we can admit that this option was CONSIDERED. If one claims that this option was not considered AT ALL in the present situation, than he assumes complete irresponsibility of Japanese government, NISA, TEPCO, etc. So let's assume that this option was CONSIDERED but REJECTED by them for some reasons.

From my point of view, this rejection was a big error: given they accepted it 2 weeks ago, the nuclear reaction would be stopped by now (as it was stopped within 2 weeks in Chernobyl in much worse situation (worse damage to fuel rods + higher total mass of fuel (per one reactor)). Instead, they are still spraying water which produces radiactive aerosols (with vapour) and drives radiactive waste into the ground (to the see), needless to mention new hydrogen explosion danger!

The fact that Japanese do not use Chernobyl experience is ridiculous and smells badly. Even if they were not contacted by Ukranian scientists, they were obliged to look for the help from Chernobyl specialists. Chernobyl experience is paid by the lifes of scientists who developed "lead-boron carbide-dolomite mixtures" on the reactor cite. It is foolish not to use it now. Especially in the situation when Japanese themselves funky run away from radiation levels hundred times lower than in Chernobyl.

Whatever are the reasons for it, the very fact of this ignorance should be published and made known to everybody who questions the effectivity of what Japanese are doing now in Fukushima. This knowledge can prompt people (who are in a position to decide smth) to press authorities to proper direction and hopefully to reverse this very bad current situation.Nyra1963 (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The only source is the KyiPost article. That's not enough for an already long article. The solution proposed is not notable if there is only one news story. So I will remove it for now. -Colfer2 (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For Nyra and any others. Despite, or maybe because of, this article's importance, it remains an encyclopedia article and must be treated that way. You must avoid introducing bias (your comments about their foolishness etc) and must maintain a neutral point of view. Furthermore, you can't make assumptions. Information has to come from credible/reliable sources and you cannot draw your own conclusion.

In this specific example, we don't know what the Japanese authorities (any of them, not just TEPCO) have thought about this approach. Until they make a public statement, you can't draw a conclusion. By adding this modality to the chart, you could be could be introducing undue weight to it. Have more than one credible sources brought it up? Have the original proponents gone to the public media saying the Japanese are making a serious error to not consider it? Well, unless the answer is yes, it would seem it's just a point of view held by some editors at Wikipedia. I think it can be mentioned but does not merit prominence on the chart unless there are more sources suggesting its use. MartinezMD (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I heard it on NPR today: [1]--RaptorHunter (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a caller phoning in, not a journalist, so not close to a reliable source. But good news. I found liquid metal was already in the Sarcophagus paragraph. I have reorganized that section, and now "liquid metal" is part of the new title Sarcophagus and liquid metal. The paragraph generally agrees with what the expert said in responding to the caller: liquid metal may be part of the later construction project, but for now they are still trying to stabilize the work environment. Another caller had suggested just putting it in a sarcophagus now. -Colfer2 (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad news, I later deleted "liquid metal", see below. -Colfer2 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The NPR source was a caller asking about the Ukrainian suggestion. The expert makes no comment at all on the method. It's the same source again (which I don't see referenced anymore, unless I missed it). There was also an error in the sarcophagus reference's URL so I just corrected that. Not sure if that was an error here or a change at Reuters. On the Chernobyl report, here is what it said:

"Lead was included as a radiation absorber, as well as sand and clay which it was hoped would prevent the release of particulates. While it was later discovered that many of these compounds were not actually dropped on the target, they may have acted as thermal insulators and precipitated an increase in the temperature of the damaged core leading to a further release of radionuclides a week later."

So I'm still not thrilled with the way the article comments on metal cooling, and it sounds a bit like synthesis to me - taking two different sources and trying to attribute them to a third outcome. In the Chernobyl source it isn't discussed as a coolant (it may have even made it worse if anything - see quote above), and in the Japanese source it isn't mentioned at all. I'll see what other editors say. And again none of this is from the Japanese. So let's not put original research into the article.MartinezMD (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I have found no source for this story of metal coolants used in the sarcophagus at Chernobyl. I will edit the article. -Colfer2 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Fission underway in Unit 2

In the day-by-day events we write (sourced) that there is proof that fission is underway. This must be because of the high (retracted?) levels iodine-134 (half life 50 minutes,not -131 we are talking about normally). We also know that within the reactor activity is about 30 Sv/h (see here, much higher than the 1 mSv/h. My question: does the news of 1 Sv/h indicate i) fission is underway within the cooling water, or ii) fission is underway in the reactor. I read "ii" in our text, but find it a bit of a weird conclusion as I would expect we'd know based on the 30 Sv/h whether fission is taking place or not within the reactor (and we know for a week now) and that the 1 Sv/h gives not much info on fission-status of the reactor... L.tak (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The high iodine-134 measurement has been retracted. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_24.html 199.106.103.249 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course we know, and yes it has been obvious for some time now. But today was the first official confirmation (NISA), so whereas in the past it has been necessary to use qualifiers, we can now state it directly. HopelessGleek (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, you might be right... If we have reliable sources discussing this, I think we can make a point of this... L.tak (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

At what point do we stop considering TEPCO a reliable source? The fact that they accidentally reported iodine-134 readings when they now supposedly haven't even tested for it is yet another example of criminal fraud or profound incompetence. I know that we're not supposed to bring personal biases into our edits, but I think it can be stated pretty objectively that TEPCO is full of crap. A nuclear power company doesn't "accidentally" announce measurements for a specific radioisotope that implicitly confirms the presence of a fission reaction. That's something even TEPCO would double check. They've obviously decided to change their story (for whatever unfathomable reason) after the fact. As NHK reports, "The company said on Sunday evening that the data for iodine-134 announced earlier in the day was actually for another substance that has a longer half-life." To quote Sigourney Weaver, "They're pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain." They don't even bother to identify the other substance they were supposedly looking for. And on the off chance that another iodine-134 report was a genuine mixup, is it any less damaging to their credibility? We have been continually hampered from stating obvious facts apparent to anyone with even a high school level understanding of physics and nuclear energy. TEPCO has either withheld information or changed its story time and again. Should they not be held to the same standards of credibility required of any other source on Wikipedia? Obviously we cannot ignore them, but at what point can we call BS when they're obviously lying? ..END OF TIRADE. HopelessGleek (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer is simple (though not satifying maybe): when reuters, cnn, washington post, bbc etc are; it is not up to us! Until then, we have the (frustrating?) task to wait and assume the same level of faith they do. I must say that except for the fission story (which I simply don't understand, see my specific paragraph), I don't see them much obvious BS in this crisis however (but that may well be naive...)... L.tak (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not simply a question of whether they are a reliable source. They are at the centre of this and as the entity most involved, anything they say is relevant whether it is accurate or not. If they report inaccurately, that in itself is part of the story. So a simple report without comment that they have said something may be how to present it.Sandpiper (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the facts are not being reliably reported. Obviously they (TEPCO and various governments) are trying to avoid a massive panic and the costs and problems that it would involve. For example: everyone trying to leave Tokyo at once would be really bad for the economy they are trying to stabilize through showing that everything is fine. There are competing interests at play here: economic, disaster recovery, nuclear, global financial markets etc... It does not help these other fronts if the true magnitude of the nuclear situation was revealed. We know there was a fission reaction-its a nuclear power plant, thats how it works. The important part would be what is the link between this specific isotope and something dangerous, which is presumably to do with how I134 is created, but I do not see an explanation of this.

I've been following the Fukushima I nuclear disaster pretty closely, and if one reads enough reports you become able to read between the lines and discover what is actually going on. The truth is hidden in the details but most don't have time to discover it. This is perhaps the most complicated disaster ever, with multiple fronts and global interests at play. Since TEPCO, not the Japanese government, is calling the shots here we must recognize that their vested interest is to make things look as good as possible to the public. I suspect what is actually happening on the ground is much worse than reported. TEPCO or Japan does not benefit from releasing the true nature of the situation and only benefit from keeping it vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatmonk (talk • contribs) 02:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to reconsider your stance after it's all over. TEPCO has already been more accurate than the NRC. --85.78.197.19 (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to find something explaining the significance of I134, which is the point here, surely. The wiki article says virtually nothing about it. The news article says it was found. wow. and the significance is? Sandpiper (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandpiper. The term "monoisotopic" means that only one form (I-127) of nucleid-composition is found within this element in natural surroundings. The finding of I-134 implies either the leakage of fuel or the massive irradiation of seawater (don`t know which, sorry). Also iodine is a micronutritient and therefore its radioactive isotopes are regarded as very dangerous when entering the body/food-chain. Regarding the mentioning of fission, i do not fully understand the question. Radioactive emission is a product of fission/fusion, therefore it is save to say that there is fission in progress within the core and unfortunately outside of its supposed containment. People may ask whether the emission comes from indirectly irradiated seawater which gives of small amounts of aquired radiation rapidly and "becomes clean" again somehow or whether the actual highly radioactive, long lasting substances in the cores have found their way out. This is just how i understand it of course. For a quotable form one would need a library and search for environmental analytics or such. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your post is wrong on such a basic level that I have to correct it. I'm going to assume you actually meant [ionizing] radiation by "radioactive emanation", but either way, it's wrong. Radioactive decay and fission are NOT the same thing. The presence of large amounts of I-134 (which, as has already been pointed out, was never actually detected), would indeed have meant continuing fission, due to two things: 1) I-134 has a very short half-life - meaning that it has to be continually produced to be present in any major amount - and 2) it's not a daughter nuclide in any decay chain - meaning that it has to be produced through some other means than plain radioactive decay: i.e. fission and neutron irradiation. -- Kolbasz (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kolbasz for your valueable correction. Let me try to save some dignity here: My physics professor (don`t start laughing now, i am a marine biologist, not an physics authority) got fired for claiming the find of radioactive isotopes near a nuclear power plant, so what national news agencies claim doesn`t mean much to me. But i do not care to propagate the (for me) obvious. So lets just rewrite the points i seem to have messed up: 1. Detectable radiation is a product of fission/fusion/radioactive decay... 2. I-134 is a product of fission of heavy fissible materials and seems not to be synthesisable by irradiation 3. The irradiated iodine from seawater hypothesis is bonk (sorry :). Thanks again

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 

Injured workers radiation exposure does not match reported radiation...

It was reported that the workers whos ankles were exposed received 2 to 6 sv of exposure in 45-50 minutes. But TEPCO is reporting "in excess of 1Sv/hr. Is it not more accurate that radiation levels are more like 1.6 to 7.5sv to receive that much radiation during those 45 minutes?

I have also observed reported fact on one day is pretty much a snow job when we find out what was actually happening on that day a week later. And now we hear there "might" be fission happening. Previous nuclear accidents true severity were only revealed much latter (US and Russia)... as it appears, this incident is following the same trajectory; especially given Japanese culture. Would really like to know the truth...

the burns at the ankles occured at unit 1, for which we have no radioactivity data for friday. They also worked for several hours I believe the source said, so it is possible... However the 2-6 comes from IAEA (amongst others). L.tak (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed something about high radiation levels within the water. I don't know enough to be clear what is happening but radiation can be very short range so that if you were standing beside the water you might be ok (relatively), but actually in it, not. Sandpiper (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Radioactivity is emission, Sievert is absorbed Joule per kg biological tissue. The measuring instrument is doing assumptions, which ones I don't know. Caesium-137, Caesium-134, Iodine-131 and Chlorine-38 have a beta decay with beta particles and gamma rays. It might be that the shoe pair got the exposure, and the ankle got a lot less from the contaminated water inside the shoes, maybe I'm just thinking too much.--Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Two of the workers apparently were exposed to beta radiation in the water for about two hours. Their dosimeters may not have registered the full amount of the beta radiation, because of its limited range. They either did not bother to check the water for beta radiation, or were told not to do so, or they continued working although they knew they were exposed to the radiation, as their dosimeters would not register it. I've added some details to Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Kaiwo Maru II

Should this article mention that the Kaiwo Maru II is being used to house workers? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem if this is sourced. Brandmeister t 12:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Like the one found in the article "Kaiwo Maru II" ? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

6 deaths

Although I would not be surprised if it were true, I removed the recently added mention of six military deaths in one of the explosions. This should be headline news (as the only deaths of the accident so far) - not buried in a one-line mention at the end of a paragraph near the end of an foreign newspaper article (which is all our source gives). With the high amount of misreporting concerning this entire event, I would like to see some independent confirmation of this before we return it. TEPCO, IAEA, Japanese media don't seem to have this story. I wonder if this was one off-duty fireman reporting a rumor to a reporter who took it for truth without checking it. See source: [2] Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Interview includes worker discussing the six dead soldiers. http://english.cntv.cn/20110328/102896_2.shtml FX (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A 16 March Fox News report (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/16/fukushima-50-stay-prevent-nuclear-meltdown/) mentions 2 missing workers (unclear if firefighters / military / nuclear workers) immediately after the second explosion on 15 March. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.191.165 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the workers who were "missing after explosion" are in fact the workers who have been gone since the tsunami. --85.78.197.19 (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work Rmhermen. I put the info in but have now found contradiction. "Six troops had just arrived at the scene, ready to operate two pump trucks and a 4WD vehicle. Only 20m away from the building that exploded, all three vehicles took a direct hit from concrete slabs blasted from the building's outer wall. The troops crawled out of their vehicles to safety. Four men sustained injuries ...." source. Nurg (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The reporting of this event has certainly been anything but journalism's shining hour. Now that most of the media attention has switched to Libya, I worry about what stories we are missing from Japan. Rmhermen (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything in the Japanese media about this. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Greenpeace and INES Level 7

Green Peace's is a very anti-nuclear biased source and considering it INES Level 7 seems to be very extreme, seeming that most consider it a Level 5 and POSSIBLY a Level 6. We can included but it should be worded as such, a potentially bias source. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, information from activist sources should definitely be attributed. Cla68 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If they are calling it a 7, what would they call it if it fully melted down and spread isotopes all over Japan? It's clear they have an agenda and a POV that isn't neutral. MartinezMD (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Changed it to reflect bias, sounds right to me, but might be a slight grammatical error. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The accident has to be rated worse than Three Mile Island. Not only were there multiple core meltdowns but apparently also pressure vessel containment has been breached. Thats not counting the massive hydrogen explosions of course. There are no direct human deaths yet. If radioactive material was flushed in the ocean, thats hard to rate.172.163.114.42 (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC) BG

I think the current section is adequately covered. The ranges are all included and the reader can decide who's expert opinion to believe. This is not a locked rating and subject to change if conditions or later assessment alters the findings.MartinezMD (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine, report the range of views. Sandpiper (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

why we shouldn't label images with USA constantly

its quite true most of the PD pics we can find about this event are from the US military. However I'm trying to use one that aren't obvious from any nation when possible, to avoid petty POV local conflicts, and so this encyclopedia maintains a neutral appearance. Also anyone who worked on the Haiti earthquake page will know this policy was consensus on that page. Anyways I have noticed someone keeps identifying images with "US" or "American" etc without making any other edits. I have been reverting when I notice it but I would appreciate help from other editors. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with openly identifying the content of a photo. If the photo is of a US Air Force plane, then there's nothing wrong with saying so. The photo of the US Navy barge should definitely be labeled as such, because it is explained in the text that US Navy barges are being used to supply fresh water to the reactor. Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't edit the Hati article, so I am not sure what conclusions were made during that edit. However, labeling this caption as being a US barge seems to be logical -- otherwise, I would assume it was a Japanese SDF barge. While a lot of references to one particular country (either because of national pride or the easy availability of the photos/information) could be construed as a POV issue, consciously omitting facts could verge on being a POV issue as well. I think these have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, adjusting for the tone of the entire article. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

this is exactly the point, you seem to be clueless to the fact JSDF is towing the barge as reported by media... presenting this a multinational effort is the only npov solution when we don't have all the facts and many nations are involved. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's true that the Japanese military doesn't have much heavy airlift (including large helicopters) or sealift capability, so the fact that the US is providing significant assistance in that regard shouldn't be a POV concern. It's the reality. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I did a lot of editing on the Haiti article and the situation was quite different than what we have here. If I remember correctly, there was a suggestion that the aid agencies be treated equally rather than give too much copy, or photos, to US aid. At any rate, it never was a big problem.Gandydancer (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

thats probably why every time I identified a helicopter type it was reverted. I think you need to check the archives a bit 66.220.113.98 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

also I would like to point out that the attempts to over-nationalize the picture captions led to some serious errors... the pumps being prepared for fukushima were not provided by the US, but by the Aussies, as a basic reading of the cite will show you. So again this is why we don't allow hyper-nationalism on all the disaster pages. I understand the motivations and I was originally one of the main jingoistic US-uploaders on the haiti page, but the more I worked on it, the more I saw these same type of decisions made incorrectly, and making that wp less accurate or less appealing, so I started to change my mind. The focus on the US will lead to a US centered page which long term will not work, regardless of how passionate we may feel now, about the vastness of the seventh fleet and the appeal of benevolent militarism. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think an error should definitely be corrected, but captioning it with correct details improves story. I'm not sure of the details of this particular pump photo, but 'US military delivers Australian-donated pumps' gives jumping off details for further research on the type of pump and shows an international-effort by *example* rather than stating 'it is an international-effort'. In comparison, 'International workers prepare a pump' is stripped of information. That said, adding 'United States Navy donated' and 'United States Air force dontated' to every sentence about a donation does NOT add a lot of additional information or details and is not neutral. Photos of significant nature should be picked (see my comment below). In my mind: (1) boron from South Korea; (2) robots from France; (3) water-barge from the US; (4) fire fighting equipment during the (assumed) unit 4 SFP fire are each items that were critical donations (as opposed to photos of dogs arriving in Tokyo). 165.230.93.100 (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse other editors who add information to image labels you disagree with of being "jinoistic nationalists", then I think you should step away from this article, as you're taking it way to personally. No one else here agrees with your removals of the country-identifying information from the picture labels, so I think your should stop revert warring over it. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In an ideal world, we would have an indefinate choice of pictures to choose from, and we would all be arguing for a balanced inclusion of pictures from different countries. Unfortunately we only have a few to choose from, whic makes us not care where they come from. It makes however sence to describe what is in it in enough detail (so that's why I agree with addition of the US things...) and there is not much we can do about that. The consequence of that is that countries who have a good/open media policy get a bit more coverage in pictures than others. I understand the concern of the IP, that we are falling a bit for that, but I think there is not much we can do about it, nor is it something that is extremely important in the context of this article (we are clearly not reporting US-POV if the dog/boat happens to be from the US-military....). ....And now I am going to look up jingoistic in wikipedia.... L.tak (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Having accumulated several hundred edits classify photos from this disaster on Wikicommons, I can say that free pictures relating to Fukushima are rather rare. We already have hundreds of earthquake/tsunami damage and humanitarian relief pictures, virtually all of which are from the U.S. military but many of which are generic enough not to need to mention it. But only a few pictures relate to Fukushima. Even the U.S. has not released any of its overflight images. Rmhermen (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

While making the page overly US-centric is a valid concern, picking photos to avoid US-centric content could be a disservice. Picking the most interesting and telling photos and managing the captions makes more sense to me. 165.230.93.100 (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If they are providing pictures and no one else is, we use them. It is not necessary to credit them here. If anyone from the Japanese government reads this and is upset there is us bias on the article because there are no pictures of Japanese workers trying to help, they know what they need to do. Sandpiper (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg

File:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be replaced with a more current photo of reactor #3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatmonk (talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Unit 2 core melt?

Should this information be included?

"The indications we have, from the reactor to radiation readings and the materials they are seeing, suggest that the core has melted through the bottom of the pressure vessel in unit two, and at least some of it is down on the floor of the drywell," Lahey said. "I hope I am wrong, but that is certainly what the evidence is pointing towards." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-lost-race-save-nuclear-reactor Gandydancer (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like very interesting information but a read through the article reveals that it seems to be pure speculation, I will add it if no one opposes, but will clearly indicate it is speculation. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I'm just going to go ahead and add it. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tough call as it is a single person observation from outside and it is quite a strong opinion; but from a reliable it seems. I have rephrased a bit, but -unless it is contested by other scientists or proven incorrect by inspection later- it should indeed be in... L.tak (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

They appear to have found someone respectable to talk about it, but I am not clear how fuel is supposed to have melted through the pressure vessel. It is difficult to see how this would be possible while it still contains water. They seem to be adding water to all 3 reactors at 1oo-200 l/min, 150 m3/day without the water levels rising. Sandpiper (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is the quantity of water being pumped and the LACK of any rise in the water level. Is the water evaporating? Vessel pressure? Is the water leaking somewhere, there seems to be quite a few "radioactive puddles" around in the basement and turbine halls. While this is more speculation, a breach is possible and would explain a lot. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Core protection in all the reactors could probably have been accomplished by depressurizing/filling the system and letting it boil. See: [3] 172.129.60.133 (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Thats what they tried to do. A reactor pump is the size of a car, Japan was just flooded, there was no power, no diesel, no spare pumps, the buildings were flooded, no fresh water. They used mobile pumps, which might mean fire engines, to pump as much water as they could by some emergency pipework not intended for adding water. They could not pump enough. On the night after the tsunami they had no idea what was happening inside the reactors. Sandpiper (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant very soon after the earthquake, see the reference. After shutdown the depressurized water requirements per reactor would have been reasonable. Hindsight is 20/20 of course. Cores melted the first few days; that's what caused the hydrogen explosions. Also see this article about unpreparedness: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576232961004646464.html 172.129.19.240 (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BG

I cant say what was in the mind of the operators at the time. They were concerned to organise evacuations before any radioactive releases took place. As soon as reactors were depressurised a lot of water would boil off. They were at well above 100C and the pressure stops water boiling. All that water would have to be replaced. No working pumps made this difficult so what they did was try to keep as much water inside for as long as possible. The cited article talks about the half an hour or so before the tsunami struck, when they still had control of the normal systems of the plant. Clearly, at that point they did not take desperate measures because they believed they had just survived the earthquake. Standard procedures would forbid venting steam because it would be mildly radioactive. Very mild compared to what has happened now, but by ordinary standards that would have constituted a forbidden release of radioactive material. Similarly, had they known that a disaster was about to happen then they might have added more water while they still could, but of course they did not know. Reactor emergency plans are supposed to think of the worst possible disaster and plan how to deal with it. The size of the actual tsunami was greater than the worst possible tsunami, so the plans failed. I have to say, this is not the first time this has happened. In britain we do not have tsunamis (ahem) but in recent years there have been a couple of cases of towns being flooded by impossibly high rainfall and flash floods. Just couldnt happen. Sandpiper (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Which sources are reputable? Is the hype intended?

It's well known by this point that almost all media outlets are over-hyping this situation, with all sorts of exaggerations. The current article reads somewhat the same way, with focus on the most shocking figures (big spikes that last a couple of minutes or focusing on areas were noone would be exposed). Just because news paper X assumes that 100x background radiation is enough to cause mass deaths, I don't think this article should reflect that. Also maybe sticking to a single measurement scale would do the article some good, instead of switching constantly. Although 'Readings peaked at 10850 μSv/hour' feels like its just placed to scare people.

I'd suggest someone with some time compare some of the less hyped stories and see what they can come up with.

Some articles from the register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/fukushima_scaremongering_debunk/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/tokyo_tapwater_fukushima/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/22/fukushima_tuesday_2/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/21/fukushima_after_weekend_2/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/

Maybe we need a section on the media response to the situation. --KHobbits ^(T|C) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Number 1 talks about radiation leaks and workers getting sunburn. Radiation from contaminated water sufficient to burn is not sunburn. The issue of radiation for workers might not be worse than a bad day on the beach, but generally people who have a bad day on the beach stay indoors the next. If all TEPCOs engineers have a bad day on the beach and stay home, who exactly is going to fix the plant? There is a real risk that as contamination around the plant worsens - as it is doing - no one will be able to work there to fix it. At the moment they are wondering what to do with large quantities of radioactive water. When the run out of saucepans they will dump it in the sea, because that is better than leaving it where it is. Radioactive iodine in Tokyo tapwater is relatively minor. Except Tokyo is 100 miles away and matters are not yet under control. We do not know how bad the damage is, but I personally do not fancy wading through radioactive water to fix it. It is not fixed yet, merely contained. If radioactive water is escaping from failed reactor containment that is not an imminent danger but it is an ongoing release of radiaoctivity. Cooling systems have not been repaired which might allow cooling other than by keep adding water. Which will keep getting out. I see the articles are eternally optimistic about restoring power to the plant too. Having rewired the outdoors supply, all they have to do is rewire all the buildings. Easy. I read a report which said the reactor pumps take 12 hours to start under ordinary conditions. Im not holding my breath. Sandpiper (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"When they run out of saucepans they will dump it in the sea, because that is better than leaving it where it is." Thank you for having the courage to state this. 172.129.60.133 (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BG

I do hope it will not come to this. At the moment they seem to be trying to pump the water into storage tanks in the reactor buildings. It just might be possible to pump it back into the reactors. But as a last resort they could not allow access to the plant to become impossible. This may not sound very nice but the sea is very big. There is already sea contamination and I am not clear what the exact cause is. Either this is airborne material which has dropped into the sea-better than it dropping on land-or it is already from contaminated water escapes. Sandpiper (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Sea dumping is not that bad, particularly if they run a pipe >100 meters from the shore and take account of currents. Many fish are actually better off, not being fished. I doubt that the quantity could be airborne. 172.129.19.240 (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Images (and a new section) that would improve the article

I've contributed a fair amount of text, but I don't know much about the restrictions / usage / processes of using images. However, I think these images (all originally from a Japanese newspaper) would really help the understanding of the "trenches and tunnels" text.

This: http://www.asahicom.jp/national/update/0329/images/TKY201103280598.jpg shows the arrangement of the PRV, the turbine, and the tunnels, and how water (likely) leaks from unit 2 turbine (and maybe unit 2 PRV and unit 1 turbine ) into the tunnels, then overflows into the sea.

This: http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0329/images/TKY201103290240.jpg shows the (unmodified plan) of pumping water to the condensate storage tanks, to empty the water from the tunnels.

And this:http://www.asahi.com/photonews/gallery/infographics/images/110330_kakusantaisaku.jpg shows a currently proposed plant to pump the water into a tanker ship, and cover the buildings with (expensive) tarps to reduce environmental contamination.

If someone has the knowledge and time, I think adding an modified or interpretive image similar to these would describe the situation better than a lot of text.

The fastest way might be to ask at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop, although you'll have to be a bit more specific (just say you want an image based on the info in the images above, which shows a, b, c etc). If the process is too complicated, just let me know! L.tak (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted over there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Fukushima_I_nuclear_accident_image). I'm not entirely sure the request is done entirely correctly, but I presume that won't deter someone who wants to create the image. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Finally, if someone does so -- I think it makes sense to add it to a new section "Connecting tunnels" above the "Central fuel storage areas" section because these tunnels are all interconnected, and the information doesn't really belong in the sections for each reactor. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Evacuation zone

Should this information be included?

"The UN nuclear watchdog has suggested Japan consider widening an evacuation zone around a tsunami-damaged nuclear plant as radiation continues to leak into seawater near the plant.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Thursday radiation measured at the village of Iitate, 40km from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, exceeded a criterion for evacuation." http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/03/201133144337292491.html Gandydancer (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This information has been added. Gandydancer (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

New aerial pictures from 20th/24th

There's been a leak [4] of previously unpublished pictures at cryptome.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.112.253 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

nisa63

"As the malfunction of temporary motor-driven pump injecting to the Spent Fuel Pool of Unit 2 was confirmed to be in a bad condition, the injection pump was switched to the Fire Pump Truck. However, because cracks were confirmed in the hose (12:47 and 13:10 March 30th), the injection was currently being suspended."

You cant help think conditions are ever so slightly desperate. Sandpiper (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)