Talk:Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Please stop using PRESENT TENSE

Some parts of the article (especially 'Explosion', which I corrected, but may get reverted by someone) were written in the present tense - which as well as being un-encyclopedic, will look stupid by even tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malau (talk • contribs) 11:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Chances are that there are many Japanese attempting to edit, possibly relaying the characteristics of their language into English. -Mardus (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Disappointing

As someone who is at least marginally qualified to interpret information about the design of the plant, I was extremely disappointed with both the tone and content of the wikipedia article about it. The article is full of the latest information, appropriate for keeping on top of things. The problem, paraphrasing Don Knuth, is that it's not wikipedia's job to keep on top of things: this site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which is appropriate for getting to the bottom of things. And it has failed at that. The article uses the acronym BWR, implying a single loop design, gives the date 1966 and mentions GE, which built single loop reactors in that era as opposed to the Westinghouse and B&W double loop designs. But it doesn't really say any of this, nor does it even provide references to other articles that would help. Google news helps me keep on top of things better than wikipedia ever will; if wikipedia wants to keep adding value, it needs to get out of this business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.236.139 (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What would you have us do? --Kizor 07:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And by not fixing and sourcing it, you are part of the problem. StrangeWill (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but editing is hard enough for newcomers. He can hardly be faulted for refusing to participate in an article about an ongoing disaster. It's a valid subject, and makes for a doable article, and "getting out of this business" would mean ridiculously counterproductive strong-arm tactics, but it can make editing feel rather like being on the wrong side of a tumble dryer. --Kizor 10:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remove reference to a cesium rod

There is no such thing as a cesium rod in a BWR. There are fuel rods that are hot from the heat generated by the radioactive decay of the fission products (decay heat). Some of the fission products are isotopes of cesium, but there is also a whole range of chemicals inside the rods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.223.150 (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

it's out now... L.tak (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

removed part

I removed this part (1/2 times now -the first time I think it was wikipedia and a weird sort of edit conflict, but anyway- so I'll stop):

In addition to the reactor cores, the storage pool for highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel is also at risk. The pool cooling water must be continuously circulated. Without circulation, the still thermally hot irradiated nuclear fuel in the storage pools will begin to boil off the cooling water. Within a day or two, the pool’s water could completely boil away. Without cooling water, the irradiated nuclear fuel could spontaneously combust in an exothermic reaction. Since the storage pools are not located within containment, a catastrophic radioactivity release to the environment could occur. Up to 100 percent of the volatile radioactive Cesium-137 content of the pools could go up in flames and smoke, to blow downwind over large distances. Given the large quantity of irradiated nuclear fuel in the pool, the radioactivity release could be worse than the Chernobyl nuclear reactor catastrophe of 25 years ago.

• 1 because it is a very long quotation which is not really useful, but
• secondly because it is a scenario by an anti-nuclear expert.
• 3: I think we should focus here on the facts and immediate risks rather than discuss risks if events don't unfold positively in the next days in worst case (the name given in the article it cites....). Views welcome!

L.tak (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's perfectly reasonable. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your decision "up to 100%." -- 76.115.3.200 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates

The is hour that don't have date with it. For now, we can assume it is march 11 (GMT, march 12 local time). I propose to add date, and to convert all GMT time to local time.

199.89.103.13 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

go ahead, but it might be tricky with so many reversions at the moment... L.tak (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That will also change the date of many press stories, so I don't recommend it, due to the date you put in not matching the date on the site of, say the New York Times or a London paper, making it difficult to verify or find the reference later. Edison (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I converter time to JST in the article, but not in the reference. 199.89.103.13 (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful news resources for today's incident

So far, much of the mainstream media (major newspapers, broadcasters, etc.) coverage of the incident following the earthquake has been garbled and contradictory, perhaps because the reporters don't yet fully understand the technology they're reporting on. World Nuclear News is published by the World Nuclear Association, an international industry trade group; the target audience is the nuclear industry, not the general public. Here's a link to their current coverage:

• "Massive earthquake hits Japan". World Nuclear News. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 11 March 2011.

Presumably the mainstream media will improve their coverage in the next day or two as they come to better understand the technical issues, but for now, this is the most reliable article I've found. It appears to be updated every several hours.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to Tokyo Electric Power Company's news release page, which is issuing more or less hourly updates. Most of the coverage in the mainstream media appears to be based on these releases; as well, the statements by the Japanese government pretty much reflect the same information. Realistically, there are not going to be any other, independent primary sources of information at this point that are not based on information coming from the engineers on site.

• "TEPCO News". Tokyo Electric Power Company. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
  

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission's English language site; as of this point, they are not posting anything on the incident in English:

• http://www.nsc.go.jp/NSCenglish/index.htm
  • I have no idea what they're posting in Japanese:
    • http://www.nsc.go.jp/index.htm

This is the Japanese Prime Minister's web site in English:

• "Prime minister of Japan and His Cabinet (main page)". Office of the Prime Minister of Japan. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
  • There is a page on that site with links to the Prime Minister's statements on the 11 March earthquake, including the problems with TEPCO's reactors:
    • "Countermeasures for 2011 Tohoku district - off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake". Prime Minister of Japan. Retrieved 12 March 2011.

As of now (00:30, 12 March 2011), that site's English releases do not yet reflect the most recent events (such as evacuation orders).

My sense is that TEPCO and the government have been slow and cautious in releasing information on what's going on.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The TEPCO 7 AM press update says their "monitoring car" detected elevated levels of radioactive material "Iodine etc." Would there normally be detectable levels of radioactive Iodine? An "elevated level" could be .01% above normal background. A China Syndrome could also produce "elevated radioactive Iodine levels" much higher, so they become a health hazard. Is "elevated" a term of art in nuclear safety, meaning a significantly above normal level? We should restrain anyone's going beyond official statements and reliable press coverage, in the article text. Edison (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The English language version of that news release is a little ambiguous -- it refers to monitoring of radiation (Iodine, etc). That could mean radioactive iodine levels have gone up or that radiation levels in general have gone up. The presence of radioactive iodine does not indicate a China syndrome is imminent -- just that the zircalloy cladding somewhere on a fuel element has been damaged, exposing the uranium fuel underneath. Radioactive iodine is a fission product entrapped in the uranium fuel and is released into the coolant when this happens. See our Nuclear fission product article for a good write-up on fission products. Any radioactive iodine would still not reach the environment unless either the reactor piping was breached, inadvertently releasing steam or liquid coolant (water), or (more likely), some steam was deliberately vented to reduce pressure. So the presence of radioactive iodine could indicate anything from a small defect to a big problem.

I think the ambiguities here are typical of the early hours of a nuclear incident in a foreign country being reported by a non-technical press corps. The fact that this is going on during a major disaster makes it that much more difficult for the press to focus in on getting themselves up to speed on the problem and asking the right questions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing updates on the International Atomic Energy Agency site:

• "IAEA Alert Log". International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 12 March 2011.

The IAEA's updates are based on information from the Japanese safety agency. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we have an actual radiation measurement added to this article please? My back-of-the-envelope calculation is that "1000x background" is approximately 0.5 REM per hour, about 10% of the lifetime dosage acceptable for nuclear power plant workers (5 REM) in the USA but well below immediately dangerous levels (i.e. 70 to 100 REM). 71.198.27.62 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You raise a good question but so far the English sources that I have seen are only ambiguously reporting "1000 times" with no elaboration as to what the actual does is. Are they reporting gamma radiation coming through the shielding? Or airborne contamination levels? And what's the "normal" they're comparing this to? It's unclear at this point. I'm not sure the press really understands the technical details of what they're reporting. Likewise, I'm not sure TEPCO's translators understand the technical details of what they're posting in English. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A new news article worth reading:

• "Battle to stabilise earthquake reactors". World Nuclear News. 12 March 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2011.

I'm going offline now and I think L.tak is also -- it would be helpful to get some other editors watching and updating this article as events unfold.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of the English-language media are quoting Kyodo News agency's reports; you can find English versions of them at:

• http://english.kyodonews.jp/

They appear to basically be rehashing the TEPCO and IAEA information cited above.

Various Western media outlets are also calling in technical pundits and academics to fill in the blanks in their coverage; their comments are ranging in style from "there's no real problem" to "this is the Apocalypse". It's all nothing but speculation for now, regardless of the pundits' supposed expertise; we should avoid adding this stuff until further hard information comes out of the Fukushima plants. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

unit 4?

was in maintenance we thought... But still cooling problems seem to have occurred? http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031214-e.html Would that make sense? L.tak (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

hm, that was Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant (daini).... L.tak (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely Conflicting Information

collapsing discussion focussing more and more on the incident (but not on the wikipedia coverage

TEPCO press releases indicate core cooling initially occurring with RCIC (Reactor Core Isolation Cooling) and then using the makeup system (non-emergency system). This would be 'normal' following a reactor scram. The indication also is that suppression pool temperature went over 100 degrees, probably indicative of relief valve operation, also somewhat 'normal' in a scram situation of this type. The high suppression pool temperature seems to indicate that the suppression pool cooling mode of Low-Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) has not been able to be entered for some reason. Nothing indicative of truly 'major' damage or malfunction. At most a hint of a possible small steam leak inside primary containment. The radiation detected is a mystery. TEPCO press releases indicate no stack or effluent monitoring detection. There is no mention of abnormal containment radiation monitoring system detections. One monitoring station detecting something could be a fluke. Earthquakes have been known to release naturally-occuring radiation, such as radon gas. If there is no abnormal radiation in containment, where would this detected radiation be coming from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.68.140 (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC) What exactly is the "makeup system" (referred to in the TEPCO English PR as "Make-up Water Condensate System", which doesn't appear to be a standardized term referring to GE BWR designs)? Where does it take its water from? The suppression pool or from outside the containment? Where can it take pump power from? Also, it appears TEPCO acknowledges (as of March 12th 10 AM JST) release of radioactive gases (or particle contaminats in vented air) and that two different monitoring systems detect elevated radiation levels outside the Daiichi (Fukushima I) plant as follows: Measurement of radioactive material (Iodine, etc.) by monitoring car indicates increasing value compared to normal level. One of the monitoring posts is also indicating higher than normal level. We will continue monitoring discharge of radioactive material from exhaust stack and discharge canal, etc. Considering the increasing pressure with in the reactor containment vessel of Unit 1, the national government has instructed us to implement measures to reduce the pressure of the reactor containment vessel (partial discharge of air containing radioactive materials) in order to fully secure safety. I was under the impression that the suppression pool design (Mark II? for Daiichi/Fukushima I Unit #1) was intended to prevent any need to vent readioactive steam to the outside air. What kind of "containment" is it, if they need to vent outside of it when just 100°C is exceeded? I also thought that the suppression pool had air scrubbers to remove airborne contaminants from the atmosphere inside that structure. Do these need outside power to operate? All considered, these reports are indeed very conflicting, because by IAEA standards any intentional release of radioactive substances from a triple redundant containment is an extremely serious situation, indeed an accident (INES Level 4 at this stage) 85.156.224.62 (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Aiui, the pressure chamber is designed to prevent water boil to 148C, and is a closed system. That would be an atmospheric pressure of 66 psi/4.6 bar. If the pressure had risen to 1.5x the normal inside the chamber as reported, 99 psi/6.9 bar, it might increase the risk of a catastrophic failure of the pressure chamber if the temperature continued to climb and achieved a boiling point—164C (at which point the pressure would presumably increase rapidly.) - Amgine (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC) "...the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency announced that part of a cesium rod appeared to have melted,..." Since cesium melts at 28C (i.e., in your hand) the quality of both information and reporting seems to be really poor. 68.110.169.4 (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Obviously there are no such things as "cesium rods" inside the reactor, so I don't see the point in replicating such an error in reporting in the article. What is really meant, is that the detected caesium-137 levels indicate that at least one fuel rod has melted, which is pretty cautious statement. If melting tempertures have been achieved, it would stand to reason that several fuel rods have melted already, at least partially. It's also interesting that only IAEA used to claim that any venting from Daiichi #1 was to be filtered with radioactive elements being retained in containment, while TEPCO never made such a claim. Also, the latest IAEA alert no longer makes this filtration claim. This clarifies the situation somewhat, because unfiltered release of primary containment steam would explain the onsite detections of radiation release. Just to recap, latest TEPCO reports state that Daiichi #1 has released such vapor and Daiichi #2 and Daiichi #3 are preparing for the capability to release. Also, Daini (Fukushima II plant some 10 km south of Daiichi) reactors #2 and #4 have finished preparations for release, while #1 is still preparing and #3 achieved "cold shutdown". 85.156.224.62 (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Given the reported explosion and massive cloud of "white smoke" (steam?) surrounding Daiichi #1 that are now filtering in, I expect that we're looking at a meltdown somewhere in the INES Level 5 or Level 6 range at this point. I won't put that into the article, because it would be OR, but in short, things just went to shit. rdfox 76 (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Agreed, things really took a turn for the worse. It might be interesting to look at the 5 day weather forecast for wind directions. Nuclear safety regulator pundits are already speculating with the possible fallout scenarios. 85.156.224.62 (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC) From BBC: Japan's NHK TV showing before and after pictures of the Fukushima-Daiichi plant. It appears to show that the outer structure of one of four buildings at the plant is no longer there. Ouch! I'll try to verify that, but it's unlikely it could be some other building, such as the turbine hall... 85.156.224.62 (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC) If it's a reactor building, like I suspect, then this is at least INES Level 6. The only positive is that it's on the downwind side of the land mass, so most of the fallout will be over open ocean... rdfox 76 (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC) And Reuters is now saying that NHK is reporting the entire outer structure has been blown off the containment building for reactor #1. Holy shit. rdfox 76 (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Yep, it's Chernobyl II, after seeing a video of the actual explosion and how high pieces of thigh concrete structure went up in the air, I now believe only a steam explosion inside the RPV could have caused that. Failure of the torus/pressure suppression pool should not have been able to release that much energy. 1 Sv per hour measured externally so soon after the explosion also confirms that most of the core is dispersed already. Earlier TEPCO reported that one plant operator had dosimetered 100 mSv, but I would expect there to be deaths from direct prompt radiation poisoning after this event.85.156.224.62 (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC) It appears there was a "dot error" in that radiation measurement, now they report 1,015 (one thousand fifteen) microsieverts per hour, in other words 1 mSv, which is the ICRP yearly limit of exposure. This level of radiation is not that significant and doesn not indicate that the core is exposed (but doesn't rule it out either, since we don't know how close that measurement is from). 85.156.224.62 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC) It's really sad to see this happen again and with the energy/climate change politics situation today, this could have very unfortunate long term effects for people all over the world. One thing is sure though, the Japanese are very good at organizing response to things like this and should avoid the errors made by Ukraine in 1986. Ofcourse, they have a lot of things to worry about in the aftermath of the quake and tsunami, but this reactor accident will surely dominate following days and weeks of disaster recovery. Hopefully the other reactors will hold long enough to be cooled down properly. Daiichi #1 was the oldest (1971) and probably with the weakest containment and emergency system design. 85.156.224.62 (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC) RT has decent live coverage, with attention to Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands; given the Soviet experience with Chernobyl, it's well informed. --Nachthexen (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Formatting

In the first section, "Reactors on site", a graphic called "Aerial view of the plant" obscures the table listing the reactors. MichaelAaronson (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

that often depends on resolution etc; is it better now? L.tak (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Normal operating pressure

The article currently states "At 2:00 JST, the pressure inside the reactor was reported to be 600kPa (6 bar or 87 psi), 200 kPa (2 bar or 29 psi) higher than under normal conditions." Can that be right? Boiling water reactor states that the cooling water of a BWR is normally kept at about 75 bar. 4 bar steam doesn't sound very useful for driving a H.P. turbine. -- 119.31.121.88 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

the big question of course is: where in the system are those pressures taken? However it comes from WNN, which look knowledgeble to me... L.tak (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The source speaks of the "pressure inside the containment of unit 1", so the pressures are almost certainly of the containment building and not the reactor vessel itself, as currently implied in the article. -- 119.31.121.88 (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change all GMTs to JST (for consistency). 220.100.15.15 (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source for the Meltdown being confirmed (German) http://www.tagesschau.de/nachrichtenticker/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serazahr (talk • contribs) 11:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to get anal here but if you're going to add the material to the english wikipedia could you try and find an english source? If we cite the info without one I fear all we will do is set off an international panic. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It may have just blown up

This appears to be a video of it blowing up, released 15 mins ago: http://www.twitvid.com/LICNU Any news of this on English-language media yet? Buckethed (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

NHK World English service has reported the explosion and is showing live video which clearly shows that Daiichi #1 outer containment building has partially collapsed, with only remains of one wall remaining and that 1,050 mSv of radiation level has been measured (per hour?, no mention of time interval). 85.156.224.62 (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the news agencies covering live are saying that the plant is possibly undergoing a meltdown. Should this be reported? 198.96.35.248 (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably not yet. While the damage is self evident and it's difficult to explain it without a steam explosion resulting from a full meltdown, that's something we need "expert confirmation" for. 85.156.224.62 (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a viable source, but looking at this more detailed video, it's clear that a major steam explosion destroyed the reactor building, and may well have ruptured the containment vessel. rdfox 76 (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Caution advised. One cannot view a video and make aconclusion. Remember "wp:No Original Research" - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 09:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I can speculate a bit here; I'm not going to use this in the article without a reliable source. rdfox 76 (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Concur. Indeed something has exploded on a violent fashion. But was it the "reactor building". We can't assume. That said, viewres pay attention at 00:47 where they replay a zoomed in view. Worrying. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 09:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant; as this isn't article space, a *little* speculation is acceptable. (I was basing the identification of the reactor building on the before-and-after shots shown by NHK, and reports by other sources.) Since I need sleep, we'll hopefully have a better handle on this in the morning. It's definitely safe to say that the shit has hit the fan... rdfox 76 (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We just have too keep in mind that there are many causes of 'explosions'. I don't know what volatile chemicals may be used in a Nuclear facility. Adding my own own observation, (OR!) TV news in Sydney showed the structure after the smoke had cleared. It appeared to show the buildings internal frame left after the explosion. Does not seem consistent with a reactor 'containment building'. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

GE Mark I BWRs don't have an actual reinforced outer containment building, they have a "reactor hall" of the same type of construction as RBMK (Chernobyl type), so it's not really that strong. But even real outer containment buildings could leave such internal reinforcement structures remaining after a large overpressure event. IOW, the only thing you can determine from the video of the actual explosion with the pieces flying wide and far, and the remains now standing, that a very high energy event occurred, whether that was a hydrogen or steam explosion, major damage has been caused and that the integrity of the RPV is in very serious doubt. 85.156.224.62 (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC now has the explosion video and some commentary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12721498 ... Also, here is the jet stream path to North America: http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=npac_250 ... Here is the Google Maps image of the (previously intact) reactor: http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&q=37.421389,141.0325&ie=UTF8&ll=37.42135,141.032417&spn=0.005871,0.008948&z=17 --Radical Mallard (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Well, based on the aerial photo on this page (position of antennas, mostly) & the video at BBC, i can asume containment building at reactor number one is gone. I just hope the pressure vessel is intact, if the radioactive material exploded, we may be looking at 21st century's Chernobyl. I won't make any edit per WP:NOR, but just wanted to comment this --190.189.11.201 (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Live up to date newscasting from BBC can be watched here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12710020 --Radical Mallard (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional info on the explosion can be found in the last few paragraphs here (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Fukushima-Nuclear-Fallout-How-Bad-Could-It-Get/Article/201103215950994?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15950994_Video%3A_Fukushima_Nuclear_Fallout%3A_How_Bad_Could_It_Get) Somebody find something useful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serazahr (talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Article now only says "Unit 1 has blown up", no citations...?

I was just monitoring the article & Talk page (among other places) to see what was going on re: the explosion, and noticed that the article now consists of a photo of a huge black smoke plume along with the note that Unit 1 has "blown up" - no article references or citations. Could someone that knows jack about the article topic please do...fix...er, whatever phrase would be relevant? Thanks... --☥ Xyzzy Avatar ☥ 09:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzzyavatar (talk • contribs)

which sentence exactly was not sourced? L.tak (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"After the March 11, 2011, earthquake, unit 1 has blown up." -- Wait, no, I just refreshed the article again, and it appears to be restored. That one sentence was pretty much all that was appearing. ☥ Xyzzy Avatar ☥ 09:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzzyavatar (talk • contribs)

Fair use photo?

There's a fair-use image File:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg of before-and-after explosion, captured from Japanese television. I think this is able to be used here on this article. A new FUR needs to be written on the file description page to allow this. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The image has been nominated for speedy deletion. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a photo on Panarama. Unit 1 is on the left. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/46503912 It is the 3rd oldest and 3rd smallest unit in the country. Here are exact coordinates of unit 1: 37°25'23" N 141°01'58" E

Ywaz (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an "(C) All rights reserved" photo, so would also need a Fair-Use-Rationale, and a copyright notice. If you upload it, make sure it is tagged properly, and associate it with this article on the FUR. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

20kms

{{edit semi-protected}}
Reuters is reporting that the evacuation zone has been updated to 20kms, please add. Reuters link  Done L.tak (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

International Nuclear Event Scale

Does anyone know what this event's current rating is on the International Nuclear Event Scale? Its listed in the see also section, but I see no indication of where this event currently ranks on their scale. Some input here would be nice - assuming that anyone in authority at the INES monitoring group has issued a statement for this as of now. 75.31.185.120 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

INES doesn't work like that. They review events afterwards. Sorry, no ticker-bar, no blinking lights. What you're asking for is speculation anyway. We don't know much. However, it'll be at least a 5, likely a 6, maybe a 7. --91.32.100.122 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

INES tracks how much the mess affects its environment, not the severity of the mess in and of itself. (A case of nuclear material falling into squatters' hands has scored higher than some meltdowns.) It seems doubtful that a rating would be announced before things have settled down. Once it is, expect it to be ridiculously easy to find. --Kizor 10:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Ok: this is sort of like the Fujita Scale they use in the United States for Tornado strength measurements. Its issued after the tornado, not during the tornado itself. So I guess now we play the waiting game... 75.31.185.120 (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds just like it, yeah. --Kizor 11:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Add NISA as source please

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/ to the external links. That is the website of the Japanese authority concerned with reactor safety and they currently release frequent updates on the state of affairs. 80.216.29.79 (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Where do I go to get that nifty green mark that is usually used with fulfilled edit requests? --Kizor 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done, like this? ;-) L.tak (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

New Wikinews

There's a new article being written on Wikinews, wikinews:Explosion at earthquake damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Move of Nuclear Incident Material

In light of little tour around the site which seems to suggest that nuclear power plants and nuclear incidents should be treated separately, I'm proposing that the bulk of the material in the quake section be broken out into a separate article, something like Fukishima I Nuclear Incident. This will allow for better coverage of what by all rights is at the point a nuclear incident and will allow for a more accurate title of the event. To provide an example, the Chernobyl incident has its own article independent of the power plant, as does the Three Mile Island incident, which has an article separately maintained from the plant article. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly a long-term or even middle-term obvious editorial decision. I am not sure this is a good short-term bet : the article about the power plant is not too long, and while the situation evolves very quickly, it is easier to have only one article to watch and make evolve. To say it in a short way, my opinion is not a strident "no", but a "please wait a week or two". French Tourist (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

More like a "Wait and see", that seems to sum up the general position on events like this. I'm not proposing that we make such a move right this exact second, but perhaps in another two or three days. Its going to happen eventually, since there will be a rather extensive review of this incident at nearly all levels of the government and nuclear control bodies, and that alone will push us to the brink of what can be comfortably accommodated here. At the moment I am more interested in gaining consensus for a move when the time is judged to be right for such a move, though I concede that at the moment this is somewhat in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That will happen, but it should wait until things settle down. Splitting an article takes some time, care, and a good grasp on the subject. Articles on large ongoing events are chaotic enough that a split is prone to causing a loud and pointless edit war. In fact a split was attempted earlier today, and promptly undone. Best to wait, the need isn't pressing. This article is adequate for our current needs, and settling on a title could open a whole new can of worms. --Kizor 11:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove unsourced material

{{editsemiprotect}} Remove this stuff ASAP. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

done, see discussions below

Radiation level before explosion

From recorded video feed of NHK World: "Fukushima Prefecture says a radiation level of 1,015 mircrosieverts [sic] per hour has been measured near the Fukushima Number 1 nuclear power station. One hour of exposure to this amount of radiation is equivalent to the permissible amount of radiation an ordinary person receives in one year" 80.248.244.32 (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

An english link: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_51.html 80.248.244.32 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that this was observed *before* the explosion, not after (see that link above) 80.248.244.32 (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

population

Please notate population in/round the town of okona (sp) and the county/prefecture, etc.--how many people live in the evactuated 20-mile around zone? 149.6.120.130 (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

done L.tak (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Meltdown

Japanese authorities have officially confirmed a nuclear meltdown.

I'm not against having this material in the article, but could we at least source it to an English page? Being that its in a foreign language and that this kind of information could/will set off a panic of some sort I;d prefer the people be able to read it in English to confirm the report with their own eyes. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree. I can also imagine many temp-related things being translatable (incorrectly) as meltdown, so we should be careful... L.tak (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The top of the page says:

Eilmeldung

Kernschmelze in japanischem AKW bestätigt

Die japanischen Behörden haben offiziell bestätigt, dass es im AKW Fukushima eine Kernschmelze gegeben hat. Das berichtet ARD-Korrespondent Hetkämper.

meaning: breaking news. nuclear meltdown in japanese nuclear plant confirmed. The janapenes authorities have confirmed that there has been a nuclear meltdown in the Fukushima nuclear plant. This was reported by ARD correspondent Hetkämper.

It now only readable at http://www.tagesschau.de/nachrichtenticker/ since the main article was updated to reflect the fact of a nuclear meltdown: "Explosion und Kernschmelze in AKW" (explosion and nuclear meltdown in nuclear plant), from before "Explosion in AKW - Kernschmelze befürchtet" (explosion in nuclear plant -- fear of nuclear meltdown) the breaking news box was removed form the top of the page accordingly.

See ARD (broadcaster). This is a reliable source. I am sure other sources will turn up, also English ones. --rtc (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This would be as to say we have to remove japanese sources because you cannot read them. Please reinclude the meltdown happening. 92.194.3.196 (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be a bad move. Wait until you have at least one good, reliable, English source, then the material can go back in. Until then, hold your horses. All of you. We do not need to blamed for an international panic from this nuclear incident. Wait and see is the best approach to be had here, and its also the one least likely to get users blocked (hint hint to all...) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You won't be able to censor the information for very long anyway; international media are catching up quickly with the German ones just as we discuss. If the news will cause a panic, it won't be avoidable anymore, anyway if Wikipedia censors it. Poeple will read it on other websites. --rtc (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not moving that the info be censored, only that the it be sourced to an English source before it goes up here. This si going to be big news -obviously- so I feel its only right that we wait and site with English sources so folks will be able to read it in their native language. Be patient, if its true then your info should be validated soon, probably within the hour, and then we can in good faith put it up for all to read. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the requirement of a source in English that the requirement of several concurring sources. Robert Hetkämpfer is probably an excellent journalist, but he can have misunderstood something. I approve waiting something like an hour. If there is really something coming from the Japanese authorities, it will be on AP or Reuters or the BBC in less than thirty minutes from now. French Tourist (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

New confirming meltdown??

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.n-tv.de%2Fpanorama%2FARD-Kernschmelze-bestaetigt-article2810866.html&act=url

Is this really happening? 149.6.120.130 (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not confirming a meltdown, it is speculating that there may be a meltdown, and those are two radically different things. Until the national Japanese nuclear agencies issues an official release that there has been a meltdown all we have is speculation, and that fails WP:RS. As to whether the nuclear reactor is in trouble: that part is true, but at this point the disaster is shaping up more to the Three Mile Island incident than a Chernobyl Incident. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it is clearly saying that japanese authorities have officially confirmed that there was a nuclear meltdown. --rtc (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I just saw it on TV (on ABC News 24 that it's confirmed to be a meltdown, but nothing in writing that we can link to yet. Lets hold off until we have that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

*A* confirmed leak

The article seems to say only that the vented deliberate radiation was leaked. Sky News UK live on air is reporting that per Japan officials there is a confirmed unintended "leak" of nuclear material. 149.6.120.130 (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cause for Explosion

"The explosion at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant was not caused by the nuclear reactor but by "water vapor that was part of the cooling process," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Saturday. He said no harmful gases had been emitted by the explosion." http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/12/japan-earthquake-live-blog-death-toll-rises-amid-widespread-destruction/?hpt=T1 Can somebody add this please. It seems reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serazahr (talk • contribs) 12:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)