Talk:China syndrome (nuclear meltdown)

Intro Description

I'm not too thrilled with the second sentence of this article which states "The origin of the phrase is the fact that molten material from an American reactor..." Later in the article, this sentence appears: "The China syndrome becomes fictional in the hypothesis of it boring a hole from the United States to China..." The article itself makes it clear to a reader that it is not a 'fact' that a core could melt through the core to China, and the first paragraph should reflect this. Fact should be changed to "Conjecture", or something that does not imply truth. Cythro (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It was the result of vandalism and is now reverted. Pichpich (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Untitled talk

I was watching the parrot channel yesterday and they said that china syndrome was not the reactor melting, but the result, which is molten hot nuclear material burrowing into the earth and causing radioactive steam to shoot up out of the surrounding area. I attempted to find a website that mentioned this with no luck. I found several sites that mentioned. In my searches though I did find china syndrome as a common phrase that seemed to mean, "bad thing". For example these articles [1] [2]. I'm not certain enough to change the disambig page without seeing the show again but I'd really appreciate some source for the current claim. Vicarious 12:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Perhaps the page name should be “China Syndrome (hypothesis).”--aceslead 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub

Not that it matters much, but why was the stub category changed from technology to science fiction? It's not a science fiction topic. I've reverted the change. Neil916 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Science fiction seems to be a more appropriate stub name. Sense there currently are no scientific sources.--aceslead 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Myth Buster's

It is my belief that the so-called “China Syndrome,” which is a hypothesis NOT a theory as far a I understand. Not credibly scientist actually considers this hypothesis as a real danger from a nuclear power plant. The so-called “China Syndrome” hypothesis appears to first originate in Hollywood, though I can’t verify this.aceslead 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• According to an anonymous contributor on Talk:Nuclear meltdown China syndrome was a known term before the film. Irregardless I'm not really sure what you're asking. I think it's pretty clearly stated at all points that this is not a feasible or scientifically accurate idea. Vicarious 06:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The title was used for the film because the term was in common use before it. No one thought for a minute that the material would melt its way through the earth's core and emerge on the other side of the world. They believed correctly that in a severe fuel damage accident, the fuel could melt its way through the reactor vessel and the concrete below it, and continue until it encountered ground water, resulting in steam release bearing dangerous amounts of radiation. The article has a very POV, condescending and non-encyclopedic tone, and is badly in need of revision. Edison 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

According to nuclear physicist and author of "Atomic Awakening", Dr. James Mahaffey, the "China Syndrome" was an inside joke in nuke circles, started during the cleanup of the Fermi I meltdown in Michigan, 1967. It pertains only to fast breeder reactors and is mythical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.226.61.96 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, while fast breeder reactors are considered more susceptible to an accelerating meltdown after a loss of coolant accident, they are certainly not the only ones to which this can happen. The key is the design of the reactor and whether or not the coolant is also used as a neutron moderator in such a way that its loss leaves the fuel in a state where its temperature increases beyond its melting point, even after the fission reaction has been stopped.

The so-called China Syndrome—while unlikely—is hardly mythical; statements to the contrary are unscientific or, at worst, irresponsible. Let's not go there, please. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 09:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe relevance of the film is overstated. It may have led to a wider awareness of the term, but not a wider understanding. And in fact the film didn't really raise awareness, as it did not feature anything like a China Syndrome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Corium

I've removed the following content which was recently added by an anonymous user: "The phrase arouse from the material corium produced in a meltdown: a mix of uranium oxide, aluminium, steel and other metals and metallic oxides which resembles china (the material)." If someone can find a source I'll recant but this doesn't make sense to me. China is a type of porcelain, the photos I can find of corium [3] don't look anything like porcelain. At best corium looks like the crude slag of china, but certainly not comparable enough to be named such. Vicarious 06:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Last sentence

I have twice reverted a change of the last sentence in the article to the following:

Fortunately, no evidence of this occurring has yet been observed. Although there have been several meltdowns of both civilian and military reactors none have resulted in a "China Syndrome" fictionalized or otherwise.

The anonymous editor (129.174.177.126) who made these changes states that 'your version [current] is clearly biased, mine is clearly objective'. I do not see any overt bias in either one, but I have serious problems with their version. What does 'no evidence of this occurring has yet been observed' mean? If a reactor were to melt down in this fashion, it would be rather blatantly obvious to anyone within a very large radius. It is possible that the editor contests the possibility of such a meltdown happening. In that case, I ask the editor to remember physics: if the reactor gets too hot, it will weaken the containment container and the bottom will break. Fortunately, the most common reactor designs are self-limiting, but some are not. With respect to the last clause, 'none have resulted in a China Syndrome fictionalized or otherwise': if a real reactor melts down, it can't produce a fictionalized China Syndrome. Michaelbusch 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag that User:Rmgmu added to the article. This is not a question about the neutrality of the article (note that the two versions say exactly the same thing, merely in different words). It is simply a matter of clarity and grammar. Michaelbusch 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Bias...

I am the "anonymous" editor. I stand behind MY EDIT, and for sake of clairity will show both versions of the last sentence here:

Wiki edit: Fortunately, such an extreme meltdown has never occured, although there have been several meltdowns of both civilan and military reactors.

My Edit: Fortunately, no evidence of this occurring has yet been observed. Although there have been several meltdowns of both civilian and military reactors none have resulted in a "China Syndrome" fictionalized or otherwise.

Now, I know a few nuclear engineers and physicists myself as I'm at a university. The consensus amongst them seems to be that YES a meltdown that results in the fuel melting through the reactor vessel onto the concrete floor is possible. And that it is also possible it could melt through the upper layers of that concrete. HOWEVER, Chernobyl, and to a lesser extent Three Mile Island show that the molten fissile material SPREAD when they hit a spacious flat surface that is relatively heat resistant (ie. a concrete floor beneath a containment building) and become non-critical: that is the reaction causing the meltdown stops. Now, suggesting an "extreme" meltdown has yet to occur is stupid as a meltdown is of course what results (a molten mass of radioactive fuel), once it occurs it is only a matter of whether it breaches the reactor vessel or reactor building (in the case of shoddily built russian plants) and in all cases thus far after breaching the vessel the molten fuel has spread such that it lost its critical nature and thus seems to suggest the molten ball of fuel that a "china syndrome" suggests is nearly impossible.

Thus, I believe it dishonest and incorrect to suggest that some how a "more extreme" meltdown could occur and cause anything remotely like a "china syndrome" (not just the melt to china, but rather melt into the water table) can occur.

Oh, and my version has good grammar and perfect spelling, in his "occured" is a misspelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmgmu (talk • contribs)

In which case, your edit does not at all address your concerns (see my statement above). I also know something of reactor engineering, and note that your assertion that an extreme meltdown is nearly impossible is true given present reactor designs (like the TRIGA, which cannot meltdown). But I still do not understand where there is bias in the article or why your proposed version would help. Following policy, the article will remain as it is until there is consensus from other editors (although I have edited the occurred). Everyone: What say you? Michaelbusch 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The bias is that you are giving validity to an argument that says "an extreme meltdown could occur and molten fuel could burn through the ground to the water table, and thank god it hasn't" when no evidence or event supports the idea of this actually occuring. We need to separate (pardon me for borrowing words) Science from Pseudo-science. Rmgmu

I did not read this implication in the article, but if you did, the article definitly requires clarification. However, I don't think your proposed edits fix the problem (because they say nothing about the unlikelihood of an extreme meltdown). I will consider proper wording. Michaelbusch 21:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added an additional sentence to the current version, clarifying that the designs of current reactors prevent the China syndrome from occuring. Does this address your concerns, Rmgmu? Michaelbusch 23:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I like your edits, it's important to note (though not necessarily in the Wikipedia article) that no operational nuclear power plants in the U.S. employ a reactor design susceptible to China syndrome. I'll withdraw my POV dispute. Thanks. Rmgmu

Why "China"

I still do not understand why it was name "China Syndrome". Why not India, Thailand, Vietnam, Spain, Italy, Canada, Mexico, Paraguay, Argentina, Japan, Russia, or Brazil? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.39.172.254 (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

The idea is that the reactor would melt through the ground, through the core of the earth, and eventually emerge on the other side of the world. China is regarded as "the other side of the world" to most Americans, although I do not know if this is technically true. I do not believe that it is possible for a reactor to melt its way to the core of the earth. And of course, if this were possible, gravity would prevent it from emerging on the other side. --70.81.251.32 13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article states: The impossibility of the material actually reaching China is due to the fact that the molten fissile material would have to go both with gravity and then against gravity and a line drawn from the United States through the center of the Earth would emerge in the south Indian Ocean and not China. (JosephASpadaro 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Many years (perhaps decades) ago, it used to be said (jokingly, usually to children), that if you dig a hole in the ground and keep digging deep enough, you'll end up in China. (Geometric/geographic impossibility notwithstanding.) As User:70.81.251.32 pointed out, "China" was (whether true or not) regarded as being on the other side of the world. 24.6.66.193 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The antipodes for the "lower 48" United States lie west of Australia, in the Indian Ocean. The extremely northern part of Montana does lie opposite to the French Southern & Antarctic Lands, however, and there are probably small inhabited islands in that region. China is opposite only to Argentina and Chile, interestingly. Alaska lands far south of Africa, just bordering on Antarctica; Hawaii is in Botswana and Namibia. Most realistically, this could only be called a Botswana Syndrome. 65.96.201.130 (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the term China Syndrome is completely misleading. If it is intended to imply that molten material could reach the other side of the earth, the concept is so ridiciulous as to be off the planet. If it is intended to imply the possible breach of containment, then that is a legitimate theory - but needs a new name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course! Like many other colloquial sayings ("head in the clouds"; "clean his clock", etc.) it's technically wrong. However, our job here is to maintain an encyclopedia, not change the English language. Let's keep our eyes on the ball. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Why "Citation needed"?

"Despite several meltdowns in both civilian and military reactors, such an extreme meltdown has never taken place.[citation needed]"

Why is this marked as "citation needed"? How do you prove that something has not happened? --J-Star (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, why is a citation needed here?

"If radioactive slag reached the water table beneath the reactor building, the resulting steam could throw radioactive material into the air, producing fallout.[citation needed] "

Is there any doubt that hot radioactive material hitting water would create radioactive steam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.56.26 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually there is doubt. Uranium has poor water soluability to begin with, and the same goes for most of the dangerous fallout products. Second we don't know anything about the thermodynamics what takes place when the molten magma reaches the water table... if the water will cool it enough to form a protectve crust or what exactly happens. So yes, there is definatly "citation needed" here. --J-Star (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

etymology

Some hater be stressin, the claims I be pressin, bout the origin of dat' syndrome, being a conundrum, but I refrenced that sheet, and be prepping my street, to verify da claims, you thow in my game, dat my set and reliable, it aint even be contrivable, you betta check websta, you funky ass jesta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.93.86 (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your skill with rhymes is unfortunately misplaced. This is the wrong context for it. Say again in plain english please?--J-Star (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

China Syndrome comment

Responding to the Wiki China Syndrome article and the comments below, and looking up Wiki article on the "Earth's inner core" I note the comment that "the Inner core may be hotter than the sun's surface". Taking that into consideration, gravity and where China is at any given point is the least of our worries!! I don't mean to cause a panic, but if it is possible for reactor material to reach the core of the earth, we're all in BIG trouble!!

---

The idea is that the reactor would melt through the ground, through the core of the earth, and eventually emerge on the other side of the world. China is regarded as "the other side of the world" to most Americans, although I do not know if this is technically true. I do not believe that it is possible for a reactor to melt its way to the core of the earth. And of course, if this were possible, gravity would prevent it from emerging on the other side. --70.81.251.32 13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, the article states: The impossibility of the material actually reaching China is due to the fact that the molten fissile material would have to go both with gravity and then against gravity and a line drawn from the United States through the center of the Earth would emerge in the south Indian Ocean and not China.

Quickcomment (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Technical Reference

This article should have a scientific explanation. The continuous removal of this information by Johnfos makes the presented information bias, as is shown by his interest in 'anti-nuclear movement' on his profile. The technical information provided is accurate, cited, and an uneducated man should not be using Wikipedia as a source of social propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsougia2 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The information being repeatedly added has only one source, which mentions the China Syndrome, but doesn't seem to support what is being said in the text. All material on WP needs reliable published sources. No personal original research is allowed. This is why I have put a warning on your Talk page. Johnfos (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC).

Here to offer a third opinion. I think this sentence, now being reverted and replaced, "This concept and reference however is a phrase limited to the popular understanding of nuclear power and has no technical or scientific bearing whatsoever," should remain where it is, perhaps with a tweak or two, to balance the lead. Without it, the "China Syndrome" might seem a scientific theory. RomaC (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material doesn't belong here, plain and simple. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead a bit. The Lapp hypothesis as defined by the article only says that the fissile material could reach the soil underneath the containment. Given this, it seemed undue weight to pile on the "incorrect" and "impossible" in the lead - of course the stuff reaching China is impossible, but that is not intended to be a serious part of the hypothesis. If you want to state Lapp's suggestion is impossible as a whole - particularly if you want to do so in the name of science - find a source that says that. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Errors in Science Section

An error in the science section of this article. "...by convection throughout the mantle, which is in any case kept liquid by natural nuclear decay. " The mantle is not liquid (not even the asthenosphere), it is solid-plastic. This sentence should be changed to be,"...kept hot by natural nuclear decay." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgressett (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing

The last parts of the text look like they were edited by a 2-year old. Please fix that.2.80.211.205 (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You can fix it yourself; please feel free to do so! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to remove hyperbole, weasel-words and POV

Some comments on the anonymous, uncited edits I'm reverting:

1) It's made pretty clear by the lede that the scenario is hypothetical. We don't need to add "fictional" and "fictitious" to a bunch of subsequent sentences.

2) Fuel melting may occur when part, or all, of the fuel produces more heat than is being removed--this is simple physics. Whether or not the control rods are uncovered is irrelevant. In fact, in many reactor designs, the coolant is also the moderator, loss of which will stop the fission reaction.

3) There is no such thing as a "solid molten mass".

4) If the molten material stops within the containment vessel or building, is is not a "China syndrome" event, and thus outside of the scope of this article. You may reference the WP article on "meltdown" but this one is not such.

5) Please don't add empty sections ("== Scientific explanation of why this is not possible ==").

Let's remember, please, that this entire article is about a sort-of-silly figure of speech coined years ago by a reporter. Let's not let it grow out of proportion to its purpose.

Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Amen! (particularly the last sentence) -- SFFrog (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not very scientific

Looks to me like the headings 'scientific explanation' and 'scientific explanation of why this is not possible' were added by someone who thought there should be such an explanation rather than someone able to give one. I removed the second heading which had no text and retitled the first to make it more neutral. In general sections that have to describe themselves as scientific are probably not. The section itself is a mess, lots of unsourced heresay.

The real point being made in the term is rhetorical. Once the reactor vessel is breached, there is nothing to stop a catastrophe. It is a question of what the catastrophe will be, not whether. If the reactor did actually melt down it would probably burn a hole in the bottom of the vessel and then the pressurized steam built up would explode out the bottom sending the containment vessel upwards like a rocket. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.39.121 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assertions regarding the article's headings--and your subsequent edits--but I gotta point out that, considering the pressure-to-weight ratio of the structures involved, the containment vessel would not shoot upward "like a rocket". Aside from that, though, you're spot-on! Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima

The section of the article pertaining to the hydrogen explosions at this site by no means hold any relevance to "china syndrom". It is simply hyperbole that is disingenous at best. I am deleting this section; as this kind of topic does not need a "concern" section relating to every nuclear reactor. In short: there is no evidence of any nuclear explosion or meltdown at Fukushima and thus no grounds for "concern" relating to a hypothetical analogy from the 1970s.119.161.71.12 (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)M0F0