Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.144.166.85 (talk) at 08:23, 21 March 2011 (→‎Fukushima I vs II). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Energy portal news

timeline

22:21 3/19 states that radioactive iodine and Cs are found in trace amounts in tap water. I recommend this be removed since radionuclides are almost always present in trace amounts in water. Tom Hubbard (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs BBC Time line report

0832: LONDON TIME The radiation level at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant reached a high of 10 millisievert per hour at one point Wednesday morning, Kyodo reports. Here's a Q&A on the health risks from radiation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

Staff withdrawn from Japan plant

Sorry Zasdcxz (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Sirs ! Would you like PUT MEDIA SOURCE on your date about current radiation level, because your date NOT POSSIBLE VERIFIABLE /my date in commentary- I put

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698 Listen interview,please

You date 3 361 μSv 3 361 microSieivert/hour low as in Press now in hundred, thousand time!!!!!!!! Sorry

600 000- 800 000 microSievert /hour

No illusion Staff withdrawn from Japan plant, because of very very very high level radiation Last time level increase again. Sorry,sorry Zasdcxz (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what the Japanese gov is saying those choppers were dumping water on units 3 & 4. No question about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.158.48 (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference from a scientific source with a timeline. Timeline: The Japanese Nuclear Emergency.

Here is a reference from an official source with a timeline. Sequence of Developments at Nuclear Power Stations Affected by the Earthquake. Obankston (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline articles and writing standards

Timeline resources:

Obankston (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very useful links. SunCountryGuy 01 16:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews

Why are all the wikinews links deleted? 65.95.15.189 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit [1] -- the edit summary says nothing of the sort. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of those second-hand 'news reports' adds anything that isn't already covered by the given article or sister articles. In general terms, the sources cited in our articles are more extensive and up to date than those in WN, and this case is no exception. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Source of news or status for Electrical Power Line status?

Is there any live video coverage of the activities concerning re-hooking of the power lines? NHK World News (English) seems lacking live coverage and rebroadcasting only what they plan to do. Roger.nkata (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 19, 2011, 2:38 AM EDT Workers Miss Deadline to Reconnect Power at Nuclear Plant Roger.nkata (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power status of each reactor?

I just noticed the IAEA website has status for "off-site power" and "diesel generators". Status of reactors with power status Roger.nkata (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOX Fuel with Weapons Grade Plutonium?

Why is nothing in this article about which reactor contains MOX fuel? Hint: It's reactor #3 that has MOX fuel. 98.204.35.80 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not weapons grade plutonium. If it were weapons grade, it would not be MOX fuel. There is not enough Pu to be weapons grade, and there's alot of uranium in there as well. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All Plutonium is weapons grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.166.216 (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely wrong. Weapons grade is a purity of plutonium. If the plutonium is insufficiently pure, it will not detonate. Isotopic makeup is also a concern, since the wrong isotopic mix will result in bad characteristics for a bomb (excessive heat, excessive radioactivity, etc) 184.144.166.85 (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exposed or Exploded ?

Both tables "Status of Fukushima I at 22:00 on 19 March" and "Status of Fukushima I at 16:00 on 20 March" in cell "Unit 4" / "Integerity of fuel in SFP" read:

Hydrogen from SFP exploded ,

whereas the previous version of the table reads Hydrogen from SFP exposed, and there is no mention about that hydrogen explosion in between, so probably it is a typo error... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.161.20 (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure in reactor and containment

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300624909P.pdf

There are such data. Why it's not used in table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.200.245 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think people only care about getting timely current status updates for getting the power and pumps reconnected. (Or when they're going to start burying the effected plants -- although I see some references mentioning burying might still not be an ideal solution.) Neither of these graphs depict "off-site power" status. Only the IAEA Fukushima Daiichi Summary Table - Units 1-6 (20 March 2011, 21:00 UTC) depicts "off-site power" status. Seeing very slow power status updates here. roger (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fukushima I vs II

The present layout makes it difficult to follow events at Fukushima II, is there no way to separate them? Give Fukushima II its own timeline and tables? As it stands, 95% of this page seems relevant to Fukushima I only.--Tallard (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could convert this to cover Fukushima Daiichi only, and move the timeline of Daini to the power station article... This would require renaming the article to Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents or Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_accidents/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_Dai-Ichi_nuclear_accidents, because there were evacuation zones set up for Daini. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of boldface in status tables

What is the intended purpose of the boldface text in some of the cells in the status tables? At first it appeared that it indicated cells that had changed from the immediately preceding table, however that is not the case with the more recent tables. - Dmeranda (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accident&oldid=419938570"