Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident

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

USS Ronald Reagan

Not sure if this should be included, even though it is related to the plant http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110314/ts_alt_afp/japanquakenuclearusmilitary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfledrich (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia

Not Wikinews. The entire article looks like a collection of newspaper clippings. How about waiting until qualified investigators have actually had a chance to analyse the problem and write a directly quotable report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.100.14 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously many others disagree and think its a good and appropriate article. Of course there will be many changes and improvements with time. 172.162.139.33 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC) BG

As per WP:EVENT, the subject is notable enough to merit a page in Wikipedia--Frédéric Grosshans (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the only location on the internet I'm aware of that consolidates the facts of this ongoing event in a concise and complete way. News stories from the standard sources are actually a poor way to follow what is happening, because each story is 95% the same content as the previous, with only a few new facts added as events unfold. At this moment this article is on the front page of Google News, and that is out of 16,853 other articles concerning this nuclear accident. So this article is being read by many, many people, and even Google recognizes the value of the information covered here. --Dan East (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

*********************************************

But please someone try to edit ugly scrambled paragraphs at the end. My best guess it's googled from japanese. But still totally not readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.38.147 (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

*********************************************

For a concise and qualified report of what's happening, try the International Atomic Energy Agency's web site. If people had consulted the World Health Organisation as opposed to the media with regards to swine and bird flu, that would have also been a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.235.204 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To an extent I agree with both POVs about the reporting here. Whilst I agree that facts that are relevant to the problem should be reported, it is fairly apparent that there are going to be things that are not notable. For instance the large section about US Navy ship movements. In 5 years time will this be notable? Is it really notable now beyond the fact that its of interest to the families of those aboard? (BTW I wasn't suggesting that the bits about them detecting radiation isn't notable rather that it needs reformatting at least) 82.18.86.179 (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

They have been sending helicopters to do somehting. I wonder what? Sandpiper (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Question on title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background information in laymen's terms

Hi Folks,

I have written an account of the events in laymen's terms, discussing the fundamentals of nuclear physics, the plant design as well as an account of the events. It has gone viral and right now we are Twitter #2. Am an engineer at MIT, so I had it checked out by a number of people. So far, it has been holding up. Please use it in any way you seem fit (including ignoring it ;-) ). It will be relocated in a few hours to an universities website, but this link will point then to the new location: http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/

Best, Josef.

18.101.8.107 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a few points we do not mention. The issue that when new generators arrived, they could not be connected for lack of suitable cables. Typical shut down power output while cooling is 3% of operating. Earthquake was 5x more powerful than plant was designed to withstand. Suggestion that gases might have been deliberately vented inside the building to allow radioactive decay before they escaped to the atmosphere. Anticipated ongoing power shortages in japan due to 20% loss of nuclear capacity for years, and nuclear being 30% of total generating capacity. Sandpiper (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from the text you have written: "The earthquake that hit Japan was 5 times more powerful than the worst earthquake the nuclear power plant was built for [...]" The energy of the quake was spread over a very large area, and over a relatively long time span. At the Fukushima I plant, the peak intensity (ground acceleration) was less than half the quake in Christchurch, and less than a third of the Haiti earthquake. (See the shake maps at USGS.) That was also well below a hypothetical 8.25 quake at the nearest fault line. What the plant could not cope with was the combine effect of the power outage and the tsunami. While we probably don't know at this point, the earthquake itself probably did not cause the problems at the plant.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The earthquake was quote forseeable, as was the tsunami it created. Edison (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

sea water

still not clear about sea water. Dont know where it has been going. I am veering towards the view that sea water has been injected into the reactors for coolant because they have run out of fresh water. That this might be a 'last resort' because the sea water will cause significant damage to the reactors. I noted some references saying the government had ordered them to use sea water, which begs the question why they might not want to. There seems to be a lot of injecting water and venting gas going on, which sounds awfully like boiling a pan of water. Pretty salty inside by the time they have finished doing this? Also some comments saying how thoroughly they have been filtering the vented gas. Which means they are concerned it might contain lumps of something radioactive. Anyone found anything? Sandpiper (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources say that they're injecting seawater into the cores of #1 and #3. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Its an old facility anyway. They are probably doing what they have to although it sounds outrageous. It might be a blessing in disguise, the Japanese can rebuild modern facilities much better and maybe will show the world a better way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.82.165 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

...unless accumulated salt from the sea water completely clutters the reactor, disabling any further cooling by liquid.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because the seawater from the tsunamis overran the freshwater pools? 99.50.126.70 (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Cs32en, a lot of seawater would be boiling, and salt concentration would increase. This would require regular flushing/dilution of the reactor vessel, needing even more water. Awful situation for those poor operators. 172.164.65.71 (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)BG

Fuel rods "exposed to air" is this correct?

The "exposed to air" quote is directly from the source, but I'm not sure if the source has either transtlated this correctly or added the "to air" as a natural error. The term "exposed" to be used in proper context would be synonymous with "above the liquid surface" rather than exposed to "air". There is no air in the reactor vessell unless it ruptures. Venting is a one way process where steam and Hydrogen exit the vessel, but no air goes in. There is a steam and Hydrogen bubble present. The Hydrogen is generated from the simple chemical reaction of metals oxidizing in steam. The danger of "exposure" is that the heat transfer drops dramatically, causing the fuel rod bundles to overheat, deform, and possibly melt. Pmarshal (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)pmarshal

Under normal circumstances that might be true (and it might still be), but for radioactive isotopes to be detectable in the atmosphere means that the system has some type of breach, whether accidental or purposeful ("venting"). For now it should be written as reported with corrections based on future sources.MartinezMD (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, venting is a one-way process. Any radionucliedes escaping the vessel are via the venting. There should not be any significant amount of air entering the vessel (especially as it at extremely high pressure at the present). If they are pumping in sea water, there may be small amounts of dissolved gases which are not normally present in the coolant. However, the amount of Oxygen being introduced is orders of magnitude less destructive than the Chlorine from Sodium and Potassium chlorides present in sea water. Hydrogen will react with small amounts of Oxygen non-explosively in the reactor vessel, so this is not a direct threat in any case. Pmarshal (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)pmarshal

Metals from the shielding of the rods may react with water, releasing hydrogen, and the radiation leads to the dissociation of water into hydrogen and oxygen (small amounts under normal operating conditions, but maybe significantly more if temperatures are higher).  Cs32en Talk to me  01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a large number of sources for the information, and we should avoid those sources that appear to present information in a distorted or misleading way.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This phrase also made me do a double-take. It's not clear from the source whether the official spokesperson actually said this "air" bit, or if it was an embellishment from the writer (since it's not a quote). I think this is probably a careless slip of the tongue (or...er, pen?) by a journalist that didn't think through whether or not the gas above the liquid was really "air". I can find a few other sources that refer to a similar statement, without the "air" bit (like this one which seems a lot more polished). Of course, to be certain, it'd be better to find the primary source before translation...but for now, I'd take out the phrase about the rods being exposed to air. —AySz88\^-^ 05:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Took out "to air" and "to the air" in two locations and left "exposed" which is without dispute. Pmarshal (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)pmarshal

So far as heat transfer to cooling water versus the much smaller heat transfer to gas, it makes little difference whether it is air, steam or steam plus hydrogen. If the reactor vessel or any of the pipes fractured, then air could easily be present. That has not been established yet. Fuel rods will overheat and melt in any of the three gasses or mixtures, whereas they would remain intact if covered by water. If you consider ignition of the gas or oxidation of the zirconium cladding, then the makeup of the gas matters a great deal. Edison (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing to note about this (although its not in the source) is that there is "air" dissolved in the water. Under normal conditions, they use deionized water to minimize this, however sea water will have quite a bit of dissolved nitrogen and other particles in it, so whilst it is true that atmospheric air will not be able to enter a system under a positive pressure differential, it doesn't mean that there isn't oxygen, and nitrogen inside the pressure vessel by other means. 82.18.86.179 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Content added by Special:Contributions/198.145.74.6 and removed by User:MartinezMD

Although the unregistered User likely meant well, I agree that the content added by Special:Contributions/198.145.74.6 was not very well written, and I understand why User:MartinezMD removed it and basically agree it is better removed. The emphasis the zirconium is highly volatile is misleading and basically downright wrong. The removed content also implies that zirconium is highly reactive. In fact, zirconium and zircalloy are solid metals which can indefinitely withstand the high normal operating temperatures of a nuclear reactor core cladding and is corrosion-resistant under these severe operating conditions. It is only when the zirconium alloy reaches much higher temperature that it reacts with water to produce hydrogen, a situation not seen anywhere near normal operating temperatures. H Padleckas (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The information added by the IP editor was basically correct, but it was not written in encyclopedic style. In addition, it was taken directly from a copyrighted text. See also the text mentioned in the section above.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This source says hydrogen gas is highly volatile, not that zirconium is highly volatile. Anyway, the fact that zirconium reacted with water to form hydrogen gas is likely correct, although likely still speculation. Maybe we should wait until a reference source specifically states that before adding such information to the article. H Padleckas (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your observation is correct. From the text that was added to the article (zirconium as an alternative for stainless steel), it is evident, however, that "highly volatile" means "highly reactive" in that context.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It was copied word-for-word from an article on CommonDreams.org by Karl Grossman. -Colfer2 (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be widely accepted that hydrogn caused explosions, that hydrogen came from somewhere, and the only explanation put forward is from exposed fuel rods reacting with water. Sandpiper (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Detonation?

Just saw the second explosion on the BBC! Excuse me but(!!) that looked a lot like a nuclear tactical field weapon going off! It had the "White Flash", the pillar, and the freaking MUSHROOM!! I am sorry, but that looked like a nuclear detonation.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No way, period, unless someone brought a nuclear weapon to the site and detonated it. Original research and error on your part. Edison (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no conceivable failure mode of a BWR reactor which would result in a nuclear detonation. Please provide a link to more detailed information.
Sbergman27 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Link provided at external links of the above mentioned "explosion" I know the text-books say thereis no conceivable failure mode of a BWR reactor. Just like the Russians were saying way back when about their reactors.....--Oracleofottawa (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Youtube search on "tactical nuclear explosion" and see if you find anything as puny as this: Video of Unit3 explosion. The danger is not atomic detonation but breaking out of the inner vessel, touching air and exploding in fire. That would be bad enough. That's what happened at Chernobyl. -Colfer2 (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have something to propose to add to the article, you can discuss it here. Otherwise, there is no source/references out there to suggest there was a nuclear detonation. This isn't a forum.192.77.126.50 (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Russian RMBK didn't explode in a "nuclear" fashion. It was a product of the steam explosion plus the graphite moderator, wich ignited in contact with air. It's downright impossible for a modern nuclear reactor (whether it's a PWR, BWR, CANDU or whatever) to explode in a "nuclear" way. They just don't compress nuclear fuel like weapons do (ie, don't reach supercritical mass), and don't use the 90% enriched Uranium of atomic weapons. They will ALWAYS melt, they never would explode (unless steam is present, as in Chernobyl).--190.189.11.201 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a possibility that fissile material reaches criticality if enough mass is concentrated in a single spot. In that case, the material rapidly expands, and the nuclear chain reaction is aborted. Criticality can even be reached in a vessel without the vessel necessarily being destroyed, if the expansion of the material finishes off the nuclear reaction quickly enough. But enough nuclear material in a close enough space can lead to a (not necessarily large) nuclear explosion, it does not have to be assembled for the purpose of achieving a nuclear detonation. The mushroom cloud, however, only indicates that hot gases rose upwards after the explosion. A different composition of hydrogen and oxygen at the time of the explosion may explain this. It's also possible that additional steam was exiting from the reactor at the time of the explosion.

Do not confuse a criticality accident with a nuclear explosion. The two things are 'not' necessarily synonymous. A Nuclear explosion requires extremely precise alignment of the materials to make a chain reaction runaway to the point of explosion. Whilst it is true that it is theoretically possible for corium to orient itself in a manner that allows fission to recommence, there is no mechanism to allow it to go super-critical and explode (of course there is a theoretical possibility of it happening, but equally there is a theoretical possibility that infinite monkeys can type the works of Shakespear). 82.18.86.179 (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, just about all explosions generate a mushroom cloud. I've personally seen a mushroom cloud formed from the fire department setting a gallon of gasoline on fire in a fire extinguisher demonstration. rdfox 76 (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Article should merge back to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant

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

The problem is that the articles are getting out of step, they're highly related, and the articles aren't too large to do that. If we merge now we won't have to keep editing all three. It's bad enough keeping the intros straight. Otherwise we have 3 articles on the go, the earthquake, the plant, and the accidents at the plant.Rememberway (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The plant article should just summarize this article, for their accident section. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There should also be a summary of the evacuations in the Fukushima Prefecture article. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just not working, we end up needing 6 summaries of what's happening, in the original earthquake article, in the plant article and here; for each in the body as well as the introduction. It's too much work, nobody is doing it, and the plant article has nothing in it anyway. This is all stuff that should be there, it's all about the plant. We can always split it again later if the article gets too big; it's much easier to do it that way.Rememberway (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree and opposed splitting. There isnt really much technical information in the powerplant article, which was barely a start article before this happened. What information ther is, is basic and directly relevant to understanding the accident. This article needs a good deal more technical information about the plant than it now has to explain what is going on. That information will inevitably be in the article eventually. Incidentally, I see this article has had a name change. Hardly a stable choice. Sandpiper (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. It looks better this way at the moment anyway.Rememberway (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please CEASE ALL SPLITTING and MOVING of this page! For the second time, just today, the page was relocated again! Moving and splitting hinders people trying to attain accurate safety & health information. (It also gives the appearance people trying to silence or divert info for their own political gain.) It could be very likely aide organizations might be using this info for organizing current or future efforts -- as it more accurate and filter compared to all other sources I've seen so far! If you need to split, wait until this situation resolves. People have already requested not to split/move this in the past days -- as it causes people posting info to lose the page! Roger.nkata (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Too Fast

For stability reasons, I opposed a split yesterday, which was performed later on based on a consensus. Now it is done I feel at least a decent discussion needs to be performed before it can be undone. A discussion of 1 hour between 3 editors; without informing or reflecting on the outcome of the previous discussion seems very premature. I strongly suggest to move it back, then have the discussion and not move on a 3 editor "consensus"!!! L.tak (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been done now, but the last thing we need is a split-war. Everyone: Please don't change the article split again before discussions have taken place - for a while we ended up with two copies of the information, which would have gotten ugly quickly as they diverged. I've for now reverted the accident to a redirect, but that is not an endorsement that that is the proper way - I have no opinion on what the proper split should be, but form a stable consensus before changing it back again.

Please use this section to discuss: Talk:Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant#accident_merged_back_here, rather than fragmenting the discussion as well. henrik•talk 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merging, with 45KB, this article will survive on it own. We should develop this article further. Not going backwards. Having to have an introduction section on many place isn't an issue. You can copy and paste and cordinate such things here in talk. --Kslotte (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merging. Was proper consideration given to the fact that both articles were top news item on the WP Main Page? I think the merge was terrible while featured on the main page. None of the mergers even sorted out the duplicate images on the remerged page. Rwendland (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

obviously both articles wer top item because everyone interested in reading one of them also read the other. This is a reason for having both together. I agree there might be an enire articles worth of info in the accident article, but the reactor article was a stub before all this happened and no one has added to it as regards general info. Which, anyway, is mostly stuff people reading the accident article want to know anyway. Sandpiper (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Merging as of right now there are enough WP:RS to keep both articles separate. When events die down I believe we should write a small section in the main article that gives a brief explanation of the events and links to this article, but otherwise we will have the problem of overwhelming the other article.Coffeepusher (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Merging The nuclear plant has a history going back over 40 years, and the main article should concentrate on this, with all the various reactors. The Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents article should concentrate on the current crisis. I don't see how it would be better to force all of this into a single article. - Robin Robin Whittle (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose however, I believe the plant article should have a very limited scope on the incident, instead referring to this article for full details. Otherwise, as mentioned in other areas, we would be doubling all the required work.MartinezMD (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How would that work? The problem is that the accident is on the site, involves the the site intimately, and the topic here is everything relating to the site. Subarticles are a great idea when things are stable, or when articles get very unwieldy, but if you don't have to split you shouldn't. We don't have to split right now. It simply creates more work and scope for duplication and contradiction. People were talking the talk, but weren't walking the walk of actually keeping everything in step.Rememberway (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Response to request for independent opinion I have been asked for an opinion on this discussion. I have not hitherto taken any part in this, and indeed was unaware of the existence of these articles, let alone of the discussions concerning them, until I received the request, so I come here as a completely uninvolved administrator.
• I see that there was extensive discussion of the possibility of a split at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on 12 and 13 March, with input from over twenty editors. There was a consensus for splitting. This was followed by a discussion on this page lasting a little over an hour, with three participants, on the basis of which the change resulting from the consensus in the earlier discussion was reverted.
• Further discussion on this page has produced a consensus to reinstate the result of the consensus in the original discussion.
• I have no view whatsoever on the rights and wrongs of the split proposal myself, but it is clear that there is consensus for the split, and those who have repeatedly redirected this page are acting against that consensus. The split should be restored and remain until consensus changes, if it ever does.
• I have given my assessment in response to a request to do so, but I am not making the relevant change myself, as I prefer to remain uninvolved. I hope the issue can be resolved by all editors accepting consensus, whether or not they personally agree with the consensus, and that administrative action will not be necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merging. The accident deserves its own article and the plant's article should be about the plant itself. The accident article should be shortly summarized in the plant's article. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merging back. There are other nuke plants in trouble. May want to create one page for all of the nuke issues due to earthquake. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose splitting. The merged article is not even close to the size limits, all of the accident is at the plant, or directly associated with the plant, and in practice we were getting too much duplication; people were simply not updating all three articles. Each article said something different. Splitting should be avoided as much as possible, since it always creates more work and scope for errors.Rememberway (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

In light of the hasty discussion that turned this article into a redirect without the proper time to hold a discussion, should this article be merged into Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant or not? Take a look at the arguments above and then note whether you Support or Oppose redirecting Fukushima I nuclear accidents to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. --John KB (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

More evidence of conensus against the merge is at Talk:Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant#accident_merged_back_here. --hydrox (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

This thread seems to have been closed messily, given there's an active RFC in it. There appears to be general consensus above opposing the merge - is the RFC still necessary? If yes, move the RFC tag to a new section outside the closed discussion tags. If not, please remove the tag from inside the 'closed' section above. As it is, I'm not clear on whether you still need outside comment or not. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

NYT article about longer-term dangers

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html

This also discusses the process of pumping in water and letting it evaporate to cool the reactor, thereby carrying off fuel-contaminated water vapour to the atmosphere. There are further details regarding the flooded basement and how this prevents them doing things.

BTW, I support this article continuing separately from the article about the plant itself. - Robin Robin Whittle (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's causing very big problems, the references to this article are saying very different things than the article are. If somebody reads the Wikipedia they will get very out of date, and often completely incorrect information. It's a BAD idea to have have to everything 6 times (in the intro as well as in the body of 3 different articles).Rememberway (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The redirect hardly did anything good to the duplication at least. --hydrox (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The summary article format was completely out of date and wrong, and the plant introduction was also very significantly wrong. Having had an extra article it doesn't seem to have worked out well at all. People just weren't keeping them in step.Rememberway (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wider-ranging discussion forum: groups.google.com/group/wp-japan-nuclear-crisis

I have established a Google Group to discuss these nuclear reactor crises: http://groups.google.com/group/wp-japan-nuclear-crisis

I intend this forum support more speculative discussion than is appropriate in the WP talk pages, or in the WP articles themselves. I hope this forum will relieve the pressure on this and any similar talk pages, and that discussion of the WP articles themselves will remain on the talk pages.

Anyone can join, though you will need a Google account. Please see the first message for a more detailed description of the forum. Please join and discuss your theories, point to new information sources etc.

I reposted this because due to edit conflicts I couldn't revert VQuakr's deletion. I request that this short announcement intact, rather then deleting or debating it. I am trying to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of this talk page. I reposted this again because Rememberway deleted it with the comment "not a discussion forum". Exactly - I am trying to help this talk page avoid being a general discussion forum.

- Robin Robin Whittle (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with this as long as we keep all other non-article discussions off this talk page. MartinezMD (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MartinezMD, this is my intention. I am glad this separate "accident" article exists again. Robin Whittle (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents"

A new article has appeared, Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring over the redirect

It's disruptive. This article was linked from the Main Page, until I changed it a few minutes ago thanks to the redirect. Now it was reverted. Cut it out, please. Given the ongoing nature of this event, we can't really protect this page. So, we're going to have to rely on you all to not fight over the redirect. So, please stop. -- tariqabjotu 14:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "fight", calm down. Consensus appears to be for this article not to be a redirect. The now-more-up-to-date parent article just needs to be re-split properly. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

how so more up to date? But I am also quite pissed at all this incomplete shifting all day. The article should not have been split in the first place.Sandpiper (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

BWR Image clearly not government work

I would like a good image of a Mark I containment myself, but I've seen this case time and time again - we could use images from national labs and the NRC, but companies basically have a monopoly on images of their design, and GE most clearly has rights to the posted image File:BWR Mark I Containment, cutaway.jpg unless otherwise granted. Go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong, and I've followed the source. I know it comes from a Sandia publication. My point is the the Sandia publication was not the origin of the image. I don't doubt that Sandia used it with proper permission, but that does not give us proper permission. This should be deleted because it is not consistent with the standard that all other images are held to. Someone interested should upload it specific to English Wikipedia and write a detailed fair use rationale that is exclusive to this article and this article only. I've seen these cases time and time again and it can not stay. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed 84user took the time to create a drawing himself and gave it a PD license, Wiki policy is unambiguous in this case, we will use his

Intro is very bad right now

It's supposed to be 4 sections, it's too detailed about injuries and the cause of the explosion, it doesn't cover the radioactive emissions. It needs to consider what the reader really needs to know about this topic.Rememberway (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The injuries are listed in the box as 15, and 3 from radiation sickness. There seems to be some confusion about this, and the intro cites an article stating only 1 confirmed radiation sickness case. The references used in the box are not ideal - one off-line document, and one "breaking news" stream, with a multitude of injury reports making it unclear which refer to the same event. Ketil (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting source

Given the multitude of sensationalistic, misguided or just plain wrong reporting by ordinary journalists in the daily press with a poor to non-existent understanding of reactor physics, I suggest any claims of what happened in the reactor or how the power plant system is connected be fact checked against sources such as this very nice 360 page document from the Nuclear Energy Agency with the title "Nuclear Fuel Behaviour in Loss-of-coolant Accident (LOCA) Conditions". It gives, for example, descriptions of BWR reactor systems, under which conditions hydrogen can form in high temperature steam environments, LOCA design assumptions, etc. henrik•talk 20:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Containment breach confirmed/reported

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/japan-earthquake-deaths_n_835651.html#288_container-of-nuclear-reactor-damaged

Links/sources in there. ABC News reporting. Merrill Stubing (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Time given in the official press conference on NHK for the "breach" was 6:14 JST. Pressure reading in this containment structure went from three to one bar. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see anything of substance confirming any containment breach. I see hearsay from forum posters. I have, however, seen this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/us-japan-quake-idUSTRE72A0SS20110314?pageNumber=1

This appears to be another hydrogen explosion, like in #1 and #3. They'd already said that there might be one, despite the venting of the building. No increase in radiation. No evidence of a breach. I would recommend being conservative. Remember, every time there has been a bang, there have been jump-the-gun hysterical reports immediately following. Sbergman27 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No it's not just another hydrogen explosion. I am being conservative here, this is just what the managers and government officials have said at the press conference a little while ago. Watch yourself [1]. Also, there has been an increase in radiation, unneeded staff has been evacuated. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a link for that video at [2] that does not require Microsoft? It displays an invitation to install Silverlight. -84user (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a video, it's live TV NHK World in english. Try on [3], right side - does that one require silverlight, too? Btw, they are now also talking about some kind of smoke/fume from the roof of reactor #3. Sorry, this is all very new information and has not yet been turned into news articles. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

NHK also streams to ustream: [4] that's flash afaik.--91.32.99.67 (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. The press conference is good. What I get out of it is that:

1. There was (the sound of?) an explosion at #2.

2. Radiation increased. But not to acutely unsafe levels.

3. Radiation then decreased.

4. Pressure measurements within the containment structure are lower than before the explosion.

5. Signs point to a possible, as yet unknown, problem in the torus section.

6. Unessential staff have been evacuated as a precautionary measure.

7. What has actually happened is currently uncertain and will require further study.

BTW. Neither of your original links work in Moonlight. The NHK link is fine, here.

Sbergman27 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@1, yes, a "strange" sound, like an explosion. @2 Radiation currently is measured at 8127 µSv/h, which isn't exactly healthy. "Acute danger" usually just implies people will die after exposure. So, "no acute danger" is often an euphemism. @3 the decrease was around 1/9, so not much of a decrease if I heard correctly. The pressure apparently lowered from three bar to 1 bar. Additionally, the water leven and other parameters remained the same. This was a few hours ago and could have changed by now. But yeah, the press conference gave quite a lot of details. New press conference comming up. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post has been shamelessly scaremongering for days now and should not be used as a source for the extent of hazards to the public as they will almost certainly be inflated.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

They're just citing what has been said on NHK by officials, like it or not. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Does "8127 µSv/h" imply lifetime allowable dose for a nuclear worker in 3 hours, radiation sickness in 12 hours and a lethal radiation dose in 63 hours? Rems and rads are more familiar units to some readers. Edison (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect quotation of citation #79

citation 79 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Japan-Quake-And-Tsunami-Plea-For-US-Help-After-Third-Explosion-At-Nuclear-Plant/Article/201103215951706?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_15951706_Video_Japan_Quake_And_Tsunami%3A_Plea_For_US_Help_After_Third_Explosion_At_Nuclear_Plant)

The quote accompanying the citation reads:

"The appeal for help comes as the the Japanese government confirmed that part of the container housing the troubled nuclear reactor appears to be damaged. Damage to the hermetically-sealed reactor container dramatically increases the risk of serious radiation leaks."

However, when you load the page, it does not say that. In fact, the article says, "There was no immediate word on exact damage from the third blast, which tore through the unit 2 structure. The latest blast occurred after cooling water dropped repeatedly in unit 2, with the nuclear fuel rods partially exposed - risking an overheat of up to a temperature of 2,200 degrees Celsius. Damage to the hermetically-sealed reactor container dramatically increases the risk of serious radiation leaks." 70.225.190.27 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This source wasn't necessary as there were already two sources supporting the statement, so I removed it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

World Council for Renewable Energy's call to outlaw nuclear power

We presently devote a paragraph^[5] to this anti-nuclear organization's call to outlaw nuclear power around the world. I suspect the organization is probably notable by our standards but not by a lot (it gets <900 unique Google hits). Our article on the WCRE is 2 sentences long. Do we want to give their statement so much attention here? I mean, what about the Liechtenstein foreign ministry? The American Nuclear Society? The Edison Electric Institute? Seems sort of POV-ish and distracting. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. One of the organization's goals is to abolish nuclear power, how's their call to outlaw nuclear power anything noteworthy? It has been their position before, hasn't it.--91.32.99.67 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Also agree. This should be removed.98.225.106.150 (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation not supporting the information in the sentence

Under the section regarding Reactor #2, the following sentence is not supported by the citations:

Due to a defect of the valve (caused by the explosion of the unit 3 building) this could not be done and additional water could not be added.

I had reworded the sentence earlier, and added a citation...now it's been reverted back. Perhaps a report somewhere did say this, but it's not in the reference. What the reference says is :

"Air pressure inside the reactor rose suddenly when the air flow gauge was accidentally turned off, blocking the flow of water and leading to full exposure of the rods, operator TEPCO said."

Nowhere does it say that the problem was caused by the explosion of reactor #3, or from a defect. I'm going to reword the sentence once again. If I'm wrong - sorry, but it just doesn't seem to fit the given info. Nihola (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the two sources cited, fully: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/77959.html and http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/15/3163913.htm Example for your claim "Nowhere does it say that the problem was caused by the explosion of reactor #3, or from a defect." to be false: the first source clearly says: "The utility said a hydrogen explosion at the nearby No. 3 reactor that occurred Monday morning may have caused a glitch in the cooling system of the No. 2 reactor." --rtc (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I now see the problem. Will see how I can phrase it. --rtc (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, you could allow others to phrase it too.....Nihola (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I restored parts of your edit[6] If you see the necessity of further phrasing changes, go ahead. --rtc (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it seems fine, at least given the citations we have at this time. Nihola (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Level 4 applies to reactors 1 and 3

Japan's nuclear safety agency has rated the situation at Units 1 and 3 as Level 4 accidents, but the situation at Unit 2 has not yet been rated. The formatting of the infobox etc may have to anticipate different outcomes for different reactors.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

True. What's happening at Unit 2 right now should exceed Level 4 by at least one or two. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

More precise link on French nuclear agency rating the accident to Level 6 Reuter. --KrebMarkt (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Article structure

I realise the event is ongoing, but the order of sections is confusing at the moment. The reactors are listed in order, but the order in which they went up was 1 -> 3 -> 2. That the timestamps are inconsistently formatted and incomplete, and have to be dug out of the text, only makes this worse. 188.220.41.189 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents is for. 220.100.86.153 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Japanese second explosion.png

There's a big problem with one of the Fukushima I images. File:Japanese second explosion.png is on commons, claims to have been screencap'd off CTV Winnipeg, a commercial TV station, but also claims to be GFDL. This is clearly impossible. The screenshot itself has a credit for NTV Japan, annother commercial TV station.

I suggest this be uploaded to Wikipedia with the copyright status corrected, and fair-use rationales created for the pages on which it would appear. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation level

AP is reporting "11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast" - more than the highest number we report. See [7]. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What is their source? Been watching the official press conferences for the last hours, haven't heard that number yet. Although, just now, I hear about 300-400mSv. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

400 mSv is 400,000 microSv!!! Nergaal (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Background radiation is roughly 3.6 mSv. Nergaal (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, background radiation right now in Hamburg/Germany is 0,04 μSv/h, that´s 9000 times less.--89.204.153.232 (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Read below. He's talking about avg. dosage per year, which seems alright. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking 400mSv/h. 3.6mSv background should be per year. People within 30km of the reactor have been asked to stay indoors and close doors, windows and turn off their air conditioning. They assume this high radiation level is caused by a fire in reactor #4 (offline at the moment), but the is spent fuel in the water tank. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So if we take 0.04 microSv/h as the normal background radiation, then 400 mSv/h is 10 million times above normal. What a terrible, nightmarish situation this is becoming. 82.132.248.87 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, getting the SI prefixes right is difficult. :-/

Background radiation differs hugely depending on where you are. You're taking this a little out of context, it doesn't just work like that. Also, this is close to the reactor. Between #2 and #3 the level of radiation is a lot lower. Health effects depend on the type of radiation, the intensity and the time of exposition. It will also reduce when it spreads out. Please, read Radiation_poisoning --91.32.99.67 (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources speak of radiation *at* the site - presumably this is outside the plant? Any source confirming this? Ketil (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out the TEPCO data sheets; the normal backround radiation in the region would appear to be around 0.04 microSv/h, which would make the reported reading of 400 mSv/h 10 million times above normal. Obviously it will reduce as it spreads out, but remember that there are also people working at the site. I was simply clarifying the units, not trying to predict the health effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.204 (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to teach me about radiation or what is this about? Abstract comparisons which don't tell anything about the health effect don't clarify a thing. Yes, the radiation is higher than "normal", but unless you know what that means, it's an abstract and thus irrelevant comparison. Anyway, it seems to have been a very localized hotspot around #4, related to the fire which has been put out. The radiation went down quite a bit later. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Many readers are more familiar with Rems and Rads. Does "11,900 microsieverts" imply only an 8.4 hour exposure to cause radiation sickness, and death from acute radiation sickness after 42 hours exposure? Is it that much radiation per hour? Edison (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See [8]. The fuel rods in the reactors are perhaps the least of our worries. How much spent fuel is in the storage pools at each of the exploded reactor buildings, and how sure are we that their storage pools are adequately filled and cooled, if the power is off and workers are trying to avoid further blasts and radiation leaks? The article says the cooling of the spent fuel is out of service, and that in a week it could boil off enough water that the spent fuel would burn and release a huge radiation cloud, depending on the age of the spent fuel. Edison (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that I'm trying to teach you about anything; I apologise if you got that impression. I just think that many ordinary readers of the article will not instinctively appreciate that 400mSv/h is in fact an extraordinarily high radiation reading. The problem with a "milli"-anything is that it *sounds* small. The fact of the matter is that this particular measurement really was 10 million times higher than a normal background reading. I don't think it is meaningless to explain the figure in these terms, any more than it was meaningless for Kyodo news and the BBC to describe it as having been 400 times the annual legal exposure limit (for members of the public). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.159 (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional Information on Failure of Generators

This article from brave new climate appears to have new information on the generator failures and the reason the backup generators trucked in didn't kick in (wrong plugs), as well as a generally authoritative discussion of the possible sequence of events. Can someone take a look and include what's relevent (sorry, I'm very inexperienced at wikipedia editing, so I don't feel qualified to touch such a fast-moving topic).

The New York Times quotes the manager of an American plant of the same design as saying the problem was not the wrong plugs but that the hookup was in a basement area that remains flooded. Given this sort of contradiction we have to go with the Times. Also, while this source is more or less authoritative, it is "bloggish" and other posts by this source seem to indicate an agenda of wanting to minimizing the hazards. It is an agenda I personally agree with because of so much irrational fear in the general public, but still raises something of a question mark. The source does not seem to have anticipated how the situation has been aggravated by the hydrogen explosions (ie EXTERNAL damage to containment as opposed to core materials eating INTO it; explosion at #3 affecting valve(s) at #2; explosion at #4 starting a fire that may have released radiation, etc)--Brian Dell (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactor 4 Fire

The source cited for this sentence:

A fire broke out at Unit 4 but was put out by mid-day.[22]

does not (or at least currently does not) support the assertion that the fire has been extinguished. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed by eg. this @ BBC. --hydrox (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This BBC article has various errors and inaccuracies in it. Seems like they have missunderstood many things at the last press conferences. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fire extinguished confirmed here too: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2_1503111.html 66.65.191.165 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is a good article. NHK didn't show all of the press conference, so the announcement about the fire being extinguished could have come later. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Japan has told the U.N. nuclear watchdog a spent fuel storage pond was on fire at an earthquake-stricken reactor and radioactivity was being released "directly" into the atmosphere, the Vienna-based agency said." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/japan-nuclear-iaea-idUSLDE72E04G20110315

The article currently states the "structure" had burned (correctly, based on previously reported information). This is a significant difference, as it likely explains the substantial jump in radiation during the fire. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

IAEA reports cold shutdown status at reactors 1-3

IAEA page

Japan Earthquake Update (15 March 2011, 03:35 CET)

Japanese authorities yesterday reported to the IAEA at 21:05 CET that the reactors Units 1, 2 and 3 of the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant are in cold shutdown status. This means that the pressure of the water coolant is at around atmospheric level and the temperature is below 100 degrees Celsius. Under these conditions, the reactors are considered to be safely under control.

Japanese authorities have also informed the IAEA that teams of experts from Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the plant´s operator, are working to restore cooling in the reactor Unit 4 and bring it to cold shutdown.

The IAEA continues to liaise with the Japanese authorities and is monitoring the situation as it evolves.

--joe decker^{talk to me} 04:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

yep, this is daini (Japanese: 2), not daiichi (Japanese: 1) and reported here. Thanks for the info!L.tak (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

oops, sorry, I'll strike to avoid confusion. --joe decker^{talk to me} 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

explosion reactor 4

[9] Japan’s Stricken Nuclear Power Plant Rocked by Blasts, Fire March 15, 2011, 1:34 AM EDT By Tsuyoshi Inajima, Michio Nakayama and Shigeru Sato March 15 (Bloomberg) -- Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s stricken nuclear power plant was today rocked by two further explosions and a fire as workers struggled to avert the risk of a meltdown. A hydrogen blast hit the Fuushima Dai-Ichi plant’s No. 4 reactor, where Tokyo Electric earlier reported a blaze, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said at a briefing. Four of the complex’s six reactors have been damaged by explosions. Redhanker (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to put it in the page with proper reference... IAEA at http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html reports that the fuel storage pond for unit four is on fire. Sounds dumb, but they are the experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.130.148 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this fire has since been extinguished, but the information is only now (2 hours ago) being posted on the IAEA website. However, this fire is currently noted as a structure fire (not a fuel pond fire) in the article, so it should be updated. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At present, the article says that Daiichi 4 is being prepped for cold shutdown, and cites the IAEA update. But Daiichi 4 was already in cold shutdown when the crisis started. According to me, the IAEA update (03:35 CET) says Daini 4 is being prepped for cold shutdown. Does someone else want to confirm my understanding?151.60.142.38 (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Daini (Japanese for the number 2) 4 is being prepped for cold shutdown, not daiichi (Japanese: 1) 4, which was shutdown for maintenance at the time of the earthquake. See the section above. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So, as best I understand, this is incorrect as daiichi unit 4 is not being prepped for cold shutdown, and the article should be reverted.

I am relying on this article http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2_1503111.html to determine that the unit 4 fuel pond fire is extinguished. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "is being prepped for cold shutdown" because of the confusion above. Also, I added the above site for the fire being out.151.60.142.38 (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This WNN article: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2_1503111.html and this CTV article http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20110315/japan-nuclear-reactors-radiation-110315/ state that the fire is now out. Of course, it could have restarted, or been incorrectly reported, but since it was decided (by others) earlier to report it as out -- I left it as "reported out." 66.65.191.165 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide Efforts to Assist?

Maybe a new section should be added documenting "Worldwide Efforts to Assist." Currently, this information is somewhat mixed in with "International reaction" but, overall, "International reaction" seems to be tracking the political response in countries other than Japan (with some "efforts to assist" mixed into this section).

__US Response__

"Asahi newspaper reports that according to TEPCO, the operator of the troubled nuclear power plants in Japan, US military personnel were involved in fighting the fire in Reactor Number 4 of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant."

"The United States nuclear regulatory commission has sent eight additional experts and managers to Japan to help respond to its damaged nuclear power plants."

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/japan-quake-live-report-20110315-1bvqc.html

__French Response__

"French experts will be reaching the Japanese sites shortly to measure radioactivity levels"

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110314-711220.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.191.165 (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The international reaction is strange anyway. Obama's comments don't seem to be releated to the nuclear accidents (difficult to be certain without a cite) nor does the US Navy stuff Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I am not sure what more they can really do to help out any more than these experts. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 07:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Er what does that have to do with anything? Nil Einne (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You called the reaction strange so I assumed you meant the experts mainly, not just Obama's comments. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 07:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As the proposer of the section: my intent was more to do with experts, money, and materials. The Obama comments / Navy info currently in the article were not added by me. However, the amount of content currently being added is part of the reason I think separating the sections is valuable.

As to what it has to do with the accident -- it is typically part of the reporting of an international incident to document international response. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#International_response and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Queensland_floods#Response as examples that this information is normally reported on Wikipedia. Also note, that in the Queensland flood article, remarks by US President Obama, Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key, and the Mayor of Auckland Len Brown are included. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not the best place for it

I know this is against the whole forum thing, but what do you call it when A, a secondary story (the reactors) almost eclipses the original story (the tsunami), and B, when you are watching a potential (even larger) manmade/natural disaster (these three reactors inching toward meltdown) slowly unfold before you and there is really nothing anyone can do to actually prevent it as seems to be the case here. Do we have terms for such things? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 07:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon Stewart would no doubt suggest "catastrofuck". ("Uh, what's it called when a hell-hole hits a cataclysm? A, uh... catastrofuck.") - Dravecky (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I call it par for the course. Law of unforseen consequences. I havnt read the latest bad news yet, but this is a much better design than the unfortunate difficulties in russia. As a linguistics question I am sure there must be a word for it, but I am certainly not a language expert. Sandpiper (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: International Reaction

Shouldn't this section be limited to either "official" or extremely remarkable reactions?

The New York Times editorialized that "the unfolding Japanese tragedy also should prompt Americans to closely study our own plans for coping with natural disasters and with potential nuclear plant accidents to make sure they are, indeed, strong enough. We've already seen how poor defences left New Orleans vulnerable to Hurricane Katrina and how industrial folly and hubris led to a devastating blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico".

While it does not officially speak on behalf of the US, the New York Times can arguably be considered the de-facto national newspaper, but the first part of this statement is vague and generic stating: "something bad happened, we should try and make sure it doesn't happen here/again" is obvious if not obligatory after any disaster . The second part mentioning Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill are irrelevant to the scope of this wikipedia article in the context it is presented.

Mark Hibbs, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Policy Program, reiterated the theme that "[T]his was a wake-up call for anyone who believed that, after 50 years of nuclear power in this world, we have figured it out and can go back to business as usual."

While the New York Times is notable, "The Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Policy Program" at least requires some description and justification for being considered as a significant example of US reaction. Also "Mark Hibbs", the person quoted is not described as a spokesperson for his affiliated organization, but as a "senior associate" an arbitrary term that with out explanation or contrast does not describe his position with in his group. Hibbs' clichéd "This is a wake-up call... ...can't go back to business as usual" response to any disaster or tragedy would be worth being mentioned in this section if it was stated by the President, Secretary of State or US ambassador to Japan would fit the criteria of being mentioned.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Moi

Shouldn't this section be limited to either "official" [probably no reason to limit to "official" responses; some of the most notable will be NGO's.] or extremely remarkable reactions? [Hm...I think you mean notable, not necc "extremely" notable. But the gist maybe there should be a split to a separate entry of International Reaction to Fukushima Disaster] [I am OK with that but for now let's let the page take shape as it will...I was involved in preparing the split which led to this page]

The New York Times editorialized that "the unfolding Japanese tragedy also should prompt Americans to closely study our own plans for coping with natural disasters and with potential nuclear plant accidents to make sure they are, indeed, strong enough. We've already seen how poor defences left New Orleans vulnerable to Hurricane Katrina and how industrial folly and hubris led to a devastating blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico".

While it does not officially speak on behalf of the US, the New York Times can arguably be considered the de-facto national newspaper,[right] but the first part of this statement is vague and generic stating: "something bad happened, we should try and make sure it doesn't happen here/again" is obvious if not obligatory after any disaster . [Yeah I take your point...eventually something more substantive would be better to use here ] The second part mentioning Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill are irrelevant to the scope of this wikipedia article in the context it is presented.[well I think irrelevant is a tad strong maybe some editing is appropriate though]

Mark Hibbs, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Policy Program, reiterated the theme that "[T]his was a wake-up call for anyone who believed that, after 50 years of nuclear power in this world, we have figured it out and can go back to business as usual."

While the New York Times is notable,[yes] "The Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Policy Program" at least requires some description and justification for being considered as a significant example [I think it is significant but arguably not the main central view] of US reaction. Also "Mark Hibbs", the person quoted is not described as a spokesperson for his affiliated organization, but as a "senior associate" an arbitrary term that with out explanation or contrast does not describe his position with in his group. Hibbs' clichéd "This is a wake-up call... ...can't go back to business as usual" response to any disaster or tragedy would be worth being mentioned in this section if it was stated by the President, Secretary of State or US ambassador to Japan would fit the criteria of being mentioned.

[well yes and no. I think NGO response is important maybe should be placed in separate section though how about maybe putting in some quotes from Greenpeace, etc?]Geofferybard (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is far too much information in the international reaction section that has nothing to due with the nuclear accidents. Anything not directly connected to these, such as general statements of aid or assistance or condolences, should be removed as they are not relevant to this page and other pages exist if the information is notable. Ravendrop 08:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Above, I proposed a section that focuses more on international aid, as was done in the case of Hurricane Katrina ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#International_response ). 66.65.191.165 (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

Maybe we should designate between "response" and "reaction".

This section seems more like "US response/reaction" than "international.

There is a strong possibility this topic is creeping away from the subject and into the scope of the "Nuclear power debate". It seems focus is shifting from the event to opinions on nuclear power. This may escalate due to the popularity of wikipedia, as citable opponents and proponents of nuclear power release citable statements that while may be notable are more relevant to the debate over the subjective costs and benefits of specific and general policies in across the globe.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Moi

Reaction to this disaster will be very great around the world and it will be entirely appropriate to report it as a consequence of the disaster. It hasn't happened yet, but I would be surprised if this does not have the same international effect as three mile island and chernobyl, causing a major shift in attitude towards nuclear power. This will very likely have major consequences for the world economy for decades ahead as energy shortages get worse globally. No one has ever built a nuclear power station which they believed to be unsafe, but every time something like this happens it demonstrates that there is always something else unforseen and in a purely scientific way demonstrates the errors in assumptions which have been made about safety. Sandpiper (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I vote for "Official Responses". Every country, except the USA, has a quote from credible sources which is very good. Another section labeled "Media Responses", or something like that would also be very nice.

Sorting out nuclear leakage and radiation

It's a bit difficult to get an overview over leakages and radiation. Would it be useful to make a table listing this for the various reactors, with leaked isotopes and radiation levels inside and outside the plants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We currently have a section "Radioactive contamination" in which we state:

Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yukio Edano, said that radiation levels at 10.22am (local time) 15 March 2011, were 30 mSv/h between the No. 2 and the No. 3 reactors, 400 mSv/h near No. 3 and 100 mSv/h near No. 4. "There is no doubt that unlike in the past, the figures are the level at which human health can be affected," Edano said.

I'm not sure that putting this data in a table is likely to be useful?--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it is possible to link particular rises in radiation to specific events, eg explosion or venting, but in general the measurements are a mixture from all the reactors. They are getting readings from considerable distances now. Sandpiper (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible tangent: In the hope that it would be helpful, I added a citation to the radiation contamination section. The cite is for table 13.6 on page 421 in "Atoms, Radiation, and Radiation Protection" (Turner, 2007). I'm noting it here for editors far more familiar with the topic than I am. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perspectice

This article contains nearly as much prose as our article on Japan (an FA), which is supposed to document the entire history of the country! I understand that this is an alarming event and it's leading the news, but, at some point, this is going to need to be boiled down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Most likely some content will be split off just like the Chernobyl disaster article (this has also happened to the Japan article). This of course shouldn't happen until there is proper discussion and consensus - there is no hurry, the article isn't yet too long to read and navigate comfortably.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's fine for now. This article is about an event that has importance beyond the borders of Japan. It is one of the most significant nuclear events in history. I see no problem giving it as much space as the Chernobyl Accident, for example. Perhaps even more, as it is such a complex situation with potentially far-reaching consequences. To put it bluntly, we do not yet know if this will be one of the biggest nuclear disasters in history, or the biggest nuclear disaster in history. 173.53.174.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps it's not that this article is too long, but that the Japan article is too short. Come on, first an earthquake followed by a tsunami, creating a nuclear disaster with 3 explosions - this is significant event in history.MartinezMD (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, its not long yet. I would anticipate this getting significantly longer before it is finished and I would not anticipate any more article splits until this was absolutely necessary. Whats with the idea that knowledge has to be compressed into an arbitrary space allocation? wiki is not paper.Sandpiper (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection level of this article

Hello. Sorry about the meta/WP:FORUM comment, but I'd just like to say that I am proud of our job here. This article (well, the original power plant article) was initially semiprotected, then downgraded to PC, which incidentally I thought worked very well in this case, and then the vandalism pretty much disappeared or anyway nobody saw the need to protect or PC this new article. I think this is just great. Thank you everyone. 220.100.86.153 (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin request

This article uses Japan Standard Time (JST) for events taking place in Japan. Before adding the time of an event to the article, ensure that it is a JST time and use the format "23:59 JST".

Can an admin create an editnotice to remind people to use only JST times in the article as previously agreed. I've noticed some UTC times/dates again which will take some time verifying. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! Could that edit notice also contain the info that JST is 9 hours ahead of GMT and 14 hours ahead of EDT. With those references it should be easy to do the math (I always have to look it up)... L.tak (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Daylight Time is actually GMT -0400, so wouldn't JST be 13 hours ahead of EDT? Also note that the US was on standard time until early March 13, when it switched to Daylight time. 70.225.190.27 (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

14 hours ahead? How can one zone be more than 12 hours ahead? Don't you mean 24-14=10 hours behind? 213.112.133.229 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is going to change soon/has already changed with DST, so I'd avoid hard-coded offsets from an arbitrary set of time zones. 220.100.86.153 (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See this is why I always have to look it up;-) . Maybe good to leave it out then; it's about time we get a uniform date for changing to daylight savings (but that's beyond the scope of this article)... L.tak (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Other country's daylight saving times is yet another reason to keep all times in JST. Not to mention possible confusions with the date as well. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was just suggesting (and than retracting that suggestion) to add it to an editing notice . For me, in the article whatever is chosen is ok, as long as we are consistent. And we are quite consistently at JST for some time now, so let's keep it there... L.tak (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just use JST, with a UTC conversion in brackets, taking account of any DST for JST. There's no need for EDT or any other time zone to be mentioned. LemonMonday Talk 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't give UTC in brackets every time, it was tried before and looked ridiculous. Have you seen how many times are in the article? We have the JST wikilink and UTC conversion in the infobox, I think that's enough.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. Maybe we just put a conversion for the absolutely key events (and UTC, not GMT). LemonMonday Talk 17:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me confess that I am one of the users frequently using non-JST timestamps. I generally take the timestamp as it is from the source. It's okay if someone changes it to JST, but I hope it's okay too if I refrain from converting it myself before I add it. --rtc (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really, there's broad agreement to use only JST in the article, so if you could go with that it would save other editors the trouble of altering your contributions. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading injury figures

after looking through sources 2 and 3, there is no indication that anyone has any symptoms of radiation sickness. The source quotes 3 people as having between 18000-40000 cpm readings after being evacuated. A cpm is a very poorly defined unit for one thing and there is no guarentee there will be any lasting damage from a short time at around 40000 cpm, recommend the radiation sickness injuries be removed until further information is available - very misleading to general public who wont differentiate exposure from sickness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this, I removed it temporarily - let's get some up-to-date sources for the total number and nature of injuries.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember The First Grade...

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Get it? That's counting. I just going to make a point that the article should go "Reactor Unit 1, Reactor Unit 2, Reactor Unit 3". Definitely not Unit 1, Unit 3, Unit 2.John Holmes II (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the sections are ordered the way they are in order to present the three failures in chronological order. Kaini (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Strictly, there is a complete chronology for each reactor separately, or should be. They did not take it in turns to have failures.Sandpiper (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. This article is not a Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents. One, two, three. 220.100.86.153 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ASN now updated the accident as a 6 (out of 7)

Today ASN (Autorité française de sûreté nucléaire) has updated the accident as a 6 (out of seven; it was clasified as a 4 untill today).

I think we should update that in the section "Reactions of nuclear authorities" since it isn't up to date anymore and 6 compared to 4 is a biggy.

Source: http://www.lemonde.fr/japon/article/2011/03/15/l-asn-classe-l-accident-nucleaire-de-fukushima-au-niveau-6_1493498_1492975.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.230.155.23 (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a private opinion of the ASN. The ASN is not the responsible authority for Japan. --rtc (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Until such as time the Japanese authorities determine it to the be a 6, it remains a 4. 41.241.35.248 (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And, not to generalize on the French, but they do tend to overrate other countries' irresponsibilities, even (sometimes especially) the experts. In fairness, it's a Western Europe thing, not just a French thing. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, I thought that the official classification according to the INES scale of nuclear incidents was the jurisdiction of ASN, didn't jknow it was just a reference scale without an official meaning on an international basis. --editor

JST/UTC

I noticed much of the information here seems to be split between UTC times and JST times, though JST seems to be the most prevelant. Since it is a Japanese event these times should all be changed to JST. Am I correct? 41.241.35.248 (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes all time should be only in JST, this has ben discussed here and also just above in "Admin reqest".--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, JST. And Japan does not have daylight time, so it's easy. Just add 9 hours, and use 24-hour time. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

An MIT's professor's opinion

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2011/mar/14/meltdown-japan

I have no idea whether it is correct or not. The guy's an MIT dude though. Tony (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like he's being reasonable, but being from MIT or being a professor of science and engineering is not a credential for commenting on a situation for which one does not have complete information, or even information that may be completely reliable, nor does it help if one hasn't done specific work on those types of reactors or safety implementations. Michio Kaku went on ABC News Saturday and said "we're looking at another Chernobyl" in an excited hand-waving exclamation, commenting entirely on a subject with which he is completely unfamiliar (particle physicists do nothing with reactor fission, or fission in general, and especially not engineering) and irresponsibly fear-mongering at the same time. Basically, if they're sensationalizing, then shut them out.

Oh, and I have a suspicion that ABC News wanted him because he looks as if he's of Japanese origin. Except he was born and raised and educated 100% in America. (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

News blogs as reliable sources

Can we not simply wait a few moments until details are published in reliable sources, rather than adding minute-by-minute updates sourced to breaking new blogs? These blogs are not suitable references as they are not subject to the same degree of fact-checking that properly published articles are. By adding these details rather than waiting, we raise the potential for inaccuracies in the article and create problems when these statements need to be resourced to proper articles. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just now matters seem to be deteriorating quite fast. Must admit I am getting a little confused trying to track sources and it is easier to wait, but the information is there. Sky news has covered everything here pretty much on tv. I agree though, it is not clear if major radiation is coming from burning fuel rods in pond at 4 or leaks from 2. people are being withdrawn which sounds awfully like they are getting close to abandoning ground crews trying to restore cooling. Sky had a report the russians claim all 6 reactors are at risk. Sandpiper (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd suggest just a fair bit of due caution with breaking news sources, not having dug through the most recent changes, with a "please be careful." I have a few words of reminder that I've been putting together on the subject. Between the very early and incorrect (then) meltdown reports, and the mistaken BBC report yesterday.... --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation unit in Sieverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

On-site radiation level

TEPCO announced some raw measurement of gamma ray radiation (Here), It show after the explosion of plant 2, the radiation increased obviously. And here is the map of the site. Does it worth to add to the article, despite some data missing for 2 hours? Matthew_hk tc 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thx, can you make some diagrams that English speakers can understand. BTW, the first link gives me a PDF that uses a Font that seems to be specific to Japan... None of the readers I tried could display anything else than an empty table, or a table with black dots in it. --rtc (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is worth it to add, from what I remember of my Astronomy and Chemistry courses, gamma ray radiation is pretty serious business (takes a mile long length of lead to stop one particle, hypothetically speaking). The font isn't the problem it must be in a different encoding, like UTF-8 and ANSCI, I'm no expert on those sorts of things though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I had thought PDFs relied on fonts carried within the documents, strange. Reads okay here on my Mac/Chrome/OSX. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)