Talk:International Nuclear Event Scale

Page move

International Nuclear Events Scale → International Nuclear Event Scale – The official name has "event" not "events". The NRC, IEA and DOE all use "event". -- Kjkolb 04:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support: a no-brainer Rwendland 13:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved 17 Jan 2006 (unambiguous correction). Rd232 ^talk 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there level8?

Looks like an event worse then Chernobyl is possible. Is there a level8 for china syndrome or somethng like a terror attack?

Nope. INES scale goes from 0-7. Chernobyl was right in there with China Syndrome. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/ines.pdf Kgrr (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly states that, "Each increasing level represents an accident ten times more severe than the previous level." It also states that, "There are 7 levels on the INES scale." Anybody with a high-school education should be able to see that those two statements can not both be true, at least, not in the sense of "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If an accident were to occur that was ten times worse, or a hundred times worse than the Chernobyl disaster, what would you call it? If not level 8 or level 9, why not? The only reason to call such an accident a level 7 would be to hide the truth.141.158.89.71 (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No what this means is each level is ten times worse, similarly to the Richter scale etc, a effectively limited number of levels is allowed. It may seem weird because there is an absolute limit and integers tend to be used in this scale. This is because it is one of the more subjective of scales. Eg example of such as scale :level 1:1, level 2:10, level 3:100... limited at 7 because it is not very useful beyond it. Also, I think we should just clarify that the 'China Syndrome' is fictional and impossible. Protectthehuman (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I also find it odd that Chernobyl is listed as an example of the most serious kind of nuclear accident, and additionally, none of the military accidents are ranked in this regard, such as the nuclear tests in the Pacific where the wind shifted etc. There are plenty of valid scenarios for far worse accidents then Chernobyl, in some cases, with factors of impact thousands of times worse and there are plenty of other comparable examples that are not less then 1/10th the scale of Chernobyl.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been decided that INES levels 8, 9 and 10 will only be created for fusion and anti-matter facilities, but large-scale sustained fusion power is always 50 years away from now, as the old saying goes and anti-matter is even further. However, with fusion a powerplant could theoretically become a megaton-class explosion and anti-matter has a potential for L9 or planetoclasm (i.e. planet Earth in past tense). Further, large accelarator rings like CERN LHC could be classified as L10 (solar system nixed) candidates if there is any reality to the fringe theoretical risk of mini black hole creation that gradually swallows Earth and other planets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.131.75 (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? Or your word "planetoclasm"? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the proper response to his post was "oh, you!" As for planetoclasm. Here's what I found: [1] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... a scifi novel. There certainly are weird words in those things. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that there should be a level 8. If an HEU fuelled reactor when meltdown, it may be possible for a nuclear explosion to occur. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point, although a level 8 is unlikely, it would be perfect for describing an event where the meltdown is completely uncontrollabe or an event where there has been a nuclear explosion (both having extremely lethal radiation levels of course) the limit (7) shouldnt just be the worst SO FAR, because worse could come —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.206.75 (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Examples"

Is Chernobyl really an "example"? I suspect that there have been few enough 5 6 and 7 events that we could just list all of them in each of those sections. — Omegatron 07:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Chernobyl reactor 4 is a good example for INES 7. Kyshtym and Mayak are good examples of an INES 6 accident. The Windscale fire and TMI-2 are both good examples for INES 5. Tokai-Mura is an example of an INES 4. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/ines.pdf http://annual-report.asn.fr/INES-scale.html Kgrr (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not unusual to have only a few examples, or only one example, or maybe even just a hypothetical example at the highest level(s) of an example-based scale like the INES.141.158.89.71 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

level 7 bhopal comparison.

"An example of a non nuclear accident of roughly the same magnitude would be the Bhopal disaster which resulted in thousands of off-site deaths."

I was wondering what the meaning of the the sentence above is. It does not seem to be true that a disaster with about 50-70 causalities (can find references) is equated to an incident at Bhopal resulting in more immediate and more overall deaths. I have not altered this yet as there may be some official link between scales I am not aware of. Alternatively it may refer to conventional accidents and nuclear accidents in the context of the typical severity in each sector (giving one of the most severe conventional accident against the most deadly nuclear has to offer(which is less deadly)). Perhaps it is compared on the damage that was done to the public image of the two industries. All three of these seem to me to be misleading. Perhaps it is better to compare the accident to the coal explosion at Donbass, Ukraine in 1998, with a similar death toll, although other similar events would do (but it is hard to find statistics that include conventional accidents of as fewer deaths as Chernobyl).

The sentence lacks citations and, more than that, is obviously in error. I would appreciate feedback on this.

Protectthehuman (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bhopal is an example of lack of vigilance towards non-nuclear pollution. Bhopal has resulted in severe genetic mutations, ground water pollution that is continuing to spread, thousands of immediate deaths and thousands more in related cancer deaths. 100,000-200,000 people are affected (based on their medical and cognitive tests, not simply detecting poison in their water) and that number will only grow. Yet, there is no "exclusion zone". There is even little monitoring in place.

There is no nuclear incident that is comparable in damage, short of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings. Adam Majer (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Problematic comparrison.

In this article, I see an, in my eye, very problematic comparrison. But since I am just a regular school teacher and english isn't my maiden language, I don't feel that I am the right one to review this article.

The thing I found problematic is this.

"There are many examples of non nuclear accidents of roughly the same magnitude. Depending on the measure used for the damage done by Chernobyl, in the coal industry alone this includes either the 2006 coal mine methane explosion in the Donbass area (at most the fourth severest accident this area during the last 30 years), which left 36 dead; or severities up to the level of the 2000 accident in the same area, with 80 immediate fatalities."

by comparring Chernobyl with coal mine accidents simply based on the number of casualties, is in my view like comparring the running cababilities of a cheetah, with the running cababilities of a sloth only by counting the number of legs they have.

Some of the reasons for this is.

-It doesn't take into account the number of long terms healt effects on Pripyat and Kiev. -It doesn't take into account how close the Chernobyl was to have a massive moore casualties if draining of the water pool bellow the reactor wasn't done.

I urge someone with a suitable backgroud to edit this article.

Best Regards

Ballefras (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That was one of my edits to this article. Perhaps it was a bit of a crass comparison.

But it was a vast improvement on the one it replaced (see above talk thread). While the health effects did occur (Which I believe is the case), the articles about the coal mining accidents stick to the facts rather than speculating about health effects. We should really do the same. In fact, to make such a comparison, you would need to consider the health effects of coal from extraction to use (which is not very pleasant).

On your second point - it is not in the mandate of this article to speculate on the draining of the water pool. Furthermore, we could equally speculate on Donbass accidents.

And would you please show how this analogy is true (as analogy is not evidence): "by comparing Chernobyl with coal mine accidents simply based on the number of casualties, is in my view like comparing the running capabilities of a cheetah, with the running capabilities of a sloth only by counting the number of legs they have." What is special about nuclear accident causalities and conventional casualties. It seems to me your view that the less of the former is the same as much much more of the latter. What is this implied difference?

Protectthehuman (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Chernobyl deaths

The Chernobyl disaster article cites the WHO estimate of the death toll at 56 direct deaths plus 4,000 extra cancer deaths from the 600000 most severley exposed people. Shouldn't the information here be similarly inclusive. After all, the off-site impact of a nuclear event is likely to be dominated by longer term radiation effects. -- Phil Barker 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be referenced here if the numbers from another article are used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.25.124 (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

IAEA wording

I used exact IAEA definitions to describe event levels. -- eiland (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As shown by this BBC article apparently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12754404. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I unsuitable as Example

Just lately, the incident at the Fukushima Daishi nuclear power plant in the aftermath of the quake/tsumani disasters in Japan, March 11, 2011 was added as an example of a level 4 incident. It is quite unsuitable to do so for the following reasons:

• It is an ongoing event. The outcome of the incident is being re-evaluated constantly.
• There are no independent accounts of the severity of the incident. It is based solely on a statement by Japan's nuclear safety agency issued about 2 hours ago.

Therefore, the entry should be deleted again until the situation has stabilized, the incident has been researched by the IAEA, and the scientific discussion reached an objective level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.79.187 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remove Fukushima Daishi nuclear power plant from the example list 138.232.86.17 (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Give it's nature, however, it is a guarantee that cannot be disputed that the INES will give a rating of some sort to the incident (though the question is whether only the one plant will receive the rating or the entire post-earthquake/tsunami Japanese nuclear incident). Therefore I think it's fair and correct to reference the incident now, but not under a specific scale. I suggest starting a separate section with a link to the article on the event, and indicate that as of "whatever date March" an official ranking hadn't been issued. This would, in theory, prevent discourage the good faith addition of the event to one of the scale listings prematurely. If we don't do this, someone will have to continually be policing the article because someone will see it as an omission and add it. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone already added a section describing the ongoing Fukushima I incident further down on the page, including the debate as to what INES level it should be classified; as such I removed the listing under Level 5. 161.6.242.218 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Fukushima I nuclear accidents are officially rated as a INES level 5 accident, recognized by the IAEA. The fact that this accident is still ongoing doesn't matter. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything from the IAEA saying as such. If you can provide a source for that, then you're correct and this discussion is moot - feel free to add it back in. 161.6.242.218 (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, if this is the case (I really would like to see your source for this; I can't find anything from IAEA regarding the rating beyond quoting Japanese officials, and they make it clear that it's the Japanese officials estimation of the rating, not theirs), then should you remove "There has been no official rating from the IAEA." from the in-depth paragraph farther down on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.242.218 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You read this article right? The IAEA relies on the local nuclear authority to determine the INES level (in the lede), check the articles about the level 5 rating, they will probably tell you the same (that way you also avoid WP:SYNTH). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I missed that they rely on the local authority for the rating; that was my confusion. My apologies! 161.6.240.110 (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sellafield

Sellafield 1957 was INES 5 and Sellafield 2005 was INES 3. So INES 4 is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.191.199 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Reactor No.1. explosion forever remains, by definition, a Level4 incident. L4 is a local event and since Japan is an island country, all of its nuclear troubles are localized, per geography, even if that location is rather large.

At least that's he best excuse I can make up for the japanese official who went on TV to announce that F1 was just an L4 event, while the LCD screen behind him showed the upper 1/3rd or so of the F1 reactor building spectacularly achieve low earth orbit...

Sorrowfully I think that official knew very well that the incident will be graded L6 in retro-spective, even before he went on TV and that he decided to lie to save the japanese nation's face. The mandatory desire to save the Emperor from humiliation forces the japanese to lie in such matters, even if it leads to their own personal destruction. 82.131.131.75 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The source of the level 4 assignment here is a reliable one. While the level assigned this incident may change as the situation evolves (as you note) or after the Japanese government and IAEA investigates, this article can be updated to reflect that. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it can be updated. Wikipedia is also not perfect, we dont need to eliminate information that we are worried may not be perfect. As long as there are reliable sources, the information can stay.--RadioFan (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ASN already rated it to level 5, according to the BBC, so we have two contradicting reliable sources, so Im removing it as an example, as it is highly confusing, and inadequate. Work on List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents if you want to rate Japan. -- eiland (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we get some clarity on the current Japanese rating? The Japanese are saying level 4, the French are saying its level 6. It's currently listed under both categories. What's the consensus? 165.228.6.89 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well who is more reliable? Maybe best to wait until this is over. Though the FRench have no interest in making Japan look bad with a high level nuclear disaster, and the Japanese might be trying to downplay what's happening. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be clarified that Japan's nuclear safety agency has rated the situation at Units 1 and 3 as Level 4 and the situation at Unit 2 has not yet been rated.--Brian Dell (talk)

At this stage, the level is not clear not indicated by the authority as one of the current levels. Even if we know the rules we are not the people that should apply the rules. As this is an ongoing event it would be simple if the main page says so; this is, remove any associated level, add a link to the discussion page (this page) and apoints the reasons why Fukushima is still not assosiated with any specific level, even, add links to the different agencies prematurely rating the event to specific levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.205.25 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted an addition ascribing level 6 to the incident 'according to the IAEA' (This edit) which misrepresents the source given, here. I haven't added a correct summary of the source, because I think we should wait (quite literally) until the dust settles, and not try to update the article's coverage of the Fukushima incident on an hour-by-hour basis. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I just removed Fukushima as an example from the level 6 section. This is still very much in dispute. With the Japanese saying level 4 and the French saying level 5 or 6, it shouldn't be listed as an example of anything until this is all settled and the IAEA makes an official determination. We should keep a discussion of the disputed level at the bottom as it's certainly relevant to the article since INES levels are now very much being discussed, but until there's a definite answer it's not a concrete example of anything. 24.154.70.132 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Three Mile Island?

Where is Three Mile Island on this thing? This is the English Wikipedia and most of the people on this wiki are either Yanks or Brits. It doesn't make sense to not have Three Mile Island here as that was the most serious nuclear-related incident in the US to this date and would help to give the many American readers more perspective. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is in the article:-) INES Level 5 Gunnar Larsson (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, bloody hell, you're absolutely right, lol. I was only looking at the other examples rather than the examples. Silly me. :p Need to look closer next time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Defence-in-depth

The phrase 'defence in depth' is linked twice, once at the top of the 'details' section, and (as Defence-in-Depth) in the level 3 incident section. The first leads to an article primarily about military strategy, and the second is (as you can see) red.

In the military article there is a subsection Defence_in_depth#Non-military_defence_in_depth which mentions engineering safety (nuclear) Defence-in-depth, but I think this ought to be a separate article; however, I'm not competent to write it. Anyone up to the job of splitting out the engineering bit from the military article and making a start on it?

There's also an existing disambig page Defence in depth (disambiguation) which would need updating. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Nuclear Reactors

The incident for the reactors at Fukushima in 2011 needs to be changed - it has been upgraded to a six, evidence: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/japan-earthquake-new-explosion-rocks-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant/story-fn7zkbgs-1226021415043 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.228.180 (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

They do not say who rates it as such in that article. It seems like they came to that conclusion themselves. It ain't a six unless the IAEA says it's a six. In fact I am seriously wondering if they didn't check Wiki for that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you not read? If you had been devouring any media over the last three days you would have also heard it is a six. Here's another one: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/japan-quake-nuclear-france-idUSLDE72E2M920110315. And you know, Reuters is far from verifiable, you know, being run by high schoolers and hipster bloggers. Well, they have more cred than third year biblical archaeology students I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.228.180 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem attacks there, please see: WP:NPA, maybe also review this helpful pyramid? Let me get the little nugget of relevant material out and talk about that. What the French and other groups said about it does not in fact matter. It is what the IAEA says. This has been mentioned ad nauseum in related talk pages. Please look at [www.iaea.org] for more. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If what the French said about it doesn't matter, then why would what the Japanese said about it matter, if it is needed to be categorised by the IAEA? There is no distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.228.180 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is this stuff even on this page? Shouldn't we just remove this section entirely? Sewebster (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a discussion page. Shouldn't a PhD student know that? Discussion? Not an encyclopedic page. Discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.228.180 (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I did forget to include the Japanese, but the part about the opinion of the French in this matter should be obvious. It is specifically the job of the IAEA to do so, as well as the Japanese: "

"Commonly, the organisation where the nuclear incident occurs assigns a first provisional INES rating to an incident, after it is being reviewed and possibly revised by the designated national radiation authority." Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC) (sign with four tildes btw) (edit conflict)

It is important to illustrate why we are treating it the way we are. It's also a good example for future 'essays' on trolling such as this. See: WP:SPADE if you disagree. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the Fukushima section on the article page. Sewebster (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, a lot of people are interested in it and are coming here to find out where it ranks, so it should have special status at least for now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not suggesting we change the ranking yet (need Japan and/or the IAEA to rerank it), but I think this is interesting/terrifyingly horrible: [2] They have evacuated the fifty workers.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese have asked the IAEA to assess the situation, so we'll have our bona fide official INES consensus rating before too long. kencf0618 (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought there head was heading there early 16 March. He is Japanese for Jesus' sakes, can't he show some patriotism and get his ass there sooner to help his country? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Now the Japanese Nuclear Agency has increased its INES rating to 7, as referenced in a recent addition to the article. So I think we could now move Fukushima up in the list as well. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll need a source for that to happen. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's your source: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.htmlSqlman (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Someone cite it and add it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And here's another: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84756.htmlSqlman (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I also got a CNN News alert telling me as much, so that pretty much clinches it. There is also this from the IAEA site, but it should not be cited until tomorrow when the 12th will have its own unique link (don't want to have linkrot): [3]. If it is on the IAEA's website, no one can question it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

First Chalk River Accident

I cannot find info on the IAEA's site about the rating for this, and I am not sure about looking at other sources as they may very well have put its rating at five based on this Wiki article. Can anyone find it on IAEA's site? Have I missed something? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Level 5 Examples

Three of the level 5 example had no casualties: Windscale, Chalk River#1 and TMI. Since the level 5 criteria is at least one fatality, these are not appropriate examples.There is only one reference and the link is non-functional. Who decided these were level 5's?Rgbutler (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Windscale at least is specifically identified as one in this handy dandy pdf brochure of theirs. [4] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Level 6

There is one example of 'Level 6: Serious accident', Kyshtym disaster at Mayak. But, has there been any other level 6 accidents? According to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/world/asia/13accidents.html there has not. I think it should be mentioned. 82.141.116.222 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean like it says for Level 7? Could work. I think the Level 7 one says that for dramatic purposes to some extent. Also according to the IAEA [5] that's the only one. So you can put that as well. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Disaster

Level 6 and 7 accidents are named "disaster". Is this deliberate done, instead of naming them "accident"? If yes, would this imply that if the INES level of the Fukushima accident is increased from 5 to 6, it would be renamed to "Fukushima disaster"? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? That they are named disaster? They are still labelled as accidents. See here [6] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose Mr. D. E. Mophon meant that these accidents are called "disasters" in this article ("Chernobyl disaster" etc.), which indeed they are. Maybe this should be changed to keep NPOV. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well in other articles it should go by WP:COMMONNAME, to apply disaster to the name there based on the classification scale would be against WP:SYNTH. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Complete list?

Are there references out there with a complete list of accidents, at least for those of 4 and 4+? Nergaal (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There are now listed 5 cases with level 5, when the Fukushima accident was upgraded to level 5 and added to this list. But, it would be nice to know how many level 5 accidents have happened in total. 82.141.64.83 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Looked for the info and I can't find it. Maybe someone could email the IAEA and ask where such info can be found? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See http://climatesceptics.org/ines-level/4, scraped from http://www-news.iaea.org/ since the early 1990ies. -- eiland (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[7] is very skimpy also. Nergaal (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would really only trust it straight from the IAEA. Anything else could have been gotten from Wikipedia-from this article. Let's be honest, most news people use this site for fact-checking. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then, are the listed ones only level 5 accidents, or have there been more? 'First Chalk River Accident' is the only one not in the IAEA PDF presentation of the scale. And probably therefore it is tagged as [citation needed].
And I found that one level 4 accident which is on the PDF is not listed here (Fleurus, Belgium 2006), not sure if it should be. 85.217.22.66 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem. I can't find any others on the IAEA site. =/ Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Other "Events" from 2011 Japan 9.0 quake

Of earthquake related 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, 3 other Nuclear facilities reported damage due to quake, but not see listed. Is it due to Japan not reporting the level, or not translated?

• Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant reported "Japanese authorities have also informed the IAEA that the first (i.e., lowest) state of emergency at the Onagawa nuclear power plant has been reported by Tohoku Electric Power Company. " suggests a Level 1, but I could not find a #.
  
• Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant reported loss of power, loss of cooling water, raising temperatures, but now under control (Level 1?)
  
• Tōkai Nuclear Power Plant reported a broken pump, but everything under control (Level 0?)
  

Flightsoffancy (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Helmut Hirsh

The reference to "Helmut Hirsh" should definitely state "Helmut Hirsh Of Greanpeace" to indicate POV. The reference is rife with error, with among other things, repeated references to "J-131" (when it should be "I-131"). Further, Kyshtym released up to 2,000,000 TBq and was rated a level 6, so demanding a rating for Fukushima at 7 on the grounds that Fukushima has released hundreds of thousands of TBq is simply ill-informed. At any rate, the statement should at-least be updated for POV, though I strongly suggest it be removed outright. No account, can't change from here. 07/04/11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Japan to raise Fukushima to INES 7 on Tuesday

Japan is raising the Fukushima crisis to Level 7 (http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html); I haven't the time to change the page, however (sorry to dump and run).Sqlman (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Which proves the uselessness of the scale, since none of Japans reactors exploded and sent radioactive material flaming into the nights sky. If a bunch of leaky BWRs is a 7, then Chernobyl should be a 35... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.246.37 (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter how it happened? The fact is it happened, and it is referenced against the scale provided. 143.238.76.106 (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget, to date, Fukushima has already released about 10% of the total radiation released 25 years ago in Chernobyl [8] --Alexanderpas (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And now the media is building hysteria by mentioning Chernobyl every time they mention Fukushima. I haven't heard of any contaminated milk or destroyed crops because of this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.246.37 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)