Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident

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

Explosion in reactor 2 building (Confusion of radiation rates with radiation accumulations)

...Kyodo News reported that radiation had risen to 8.2 millisieverts per hour[98] around two hours after the explosion—about four times what one usually is exposed to within a whole year...

The article currently states a rate (8.2 mSv/hour) can be a multiple of (four times) a total accumulation (exposure accumulated after a year, no units given) and then later drop to an accumulation (2.4 mSv). Such is not possible. The statement ought to be either rewritten in terms that make sense or eliminated as being of no value.

Graphs in Radiation Area // Death Toll

Hi everyone, very excellent work I think this article is outstanding and I really liked the timeline chart 1-6 reactors, 1-6 spent fuel ponds. However, I identified two areas for possible improvement. First, in the Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Radiation_levels_and_radioactive_contamination section, the graph labels are MP1, MP2 etc., but I'm unsure what these are, could someone clarify? It's very interesting / helpful, from what I understand is that at 1000 microsiverts they'd be getting the equlivant of a chest x-ray per hour at the gate? Some discussion of these levels maybe of help.

MP is measuring point. They are fixed locations around the plant where there is measuring equimentSandpiper (talk)

With some dredging, I managed to find a map of the site attached to a forum entry about radiation levels at Fukushima 1. The forum entry mentions "a site map including locations of the measuring points." The 8 "MP"s on the map are all near the inland perimeter of the plant. Incidentally, the MP-x traces on the graph are in light colors that are very hard to distinguish against the white background. It would be a big plus if someone could fix this. Piperh (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Second, I think the death toll should be covered explicitly somewhere. This is to contrast it against other nuclear accidents and the death toll from the earthquake and tsunami at large. --ShaunMacPherson (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think 1 person was blown up in an explosion? But yes, we do need to cover this. Sandpiper (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The lack of any confirmed deaths gets in the way of reporting a sourced death toll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats as may be, but we need to start a list here of reported casualties and deaths (as and when) so we have an accurate count.

Nisa reports [1]( does not entirely make clear if only from daiichi) TEPCO reports [2] earthquake:

• 2 slight injuries
• 2 subcontractors (one both legs broken)(confirmed by tepco at daiichi )
• 2 people missing from unit 4 turbine hall (if still missing, one would think now presumed dead?)(tepco says from daiichi)
• 1 stroke
• 1 pain in chest (confirmed 1 reported by tepco at daiichi chest pain could not stand)
• 2 taken ill at control room of Daiini(nisa) Tepco say 2 taken ill at daiichi control room and then taken to daiini.

Unit 1 explosion injuries at daiichi

• 4 sent to hospital

unit 3 explosion injuries. Tepco says all sent to daini initially, then one sent to Fukushima medical university hospital.

• 4 tepco employees
• 3 subcontractors
• 4 SDF (one sent to NIRS presumably the one below but found no internal exposure)

daiichi radiation

• 1 receivd 106 mSv (tepco confirm working inside reactor building at daiichi)
• 6 of 7 people in the unit 3 explosion received radiation exposure, details unspecified.
• 5 SDF working on water supplies were found to be contaminated reading 30,000 cpm before decontamination and 5,000 cpm after. One sent to national institute of radiological science.
• 2 police decontaminated

Note that the two missing are tsunami victims.[3] And the crane operator death occurred at Daini, not Daiichi (and is counted as a earthquake death, I think.) Rmhermen (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Did they die because there was a tsunami or because there was a tsunami and they were working at the plant? Sandpiper (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that tsunamis make exceptions for people with certain jobs during landfall, so the question is kinda irrelevant. --Amazeroth (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

svg plot of radiation levels

On the german wikipedia page, the following graph is in usage, which arguably gives a better impression of the radiation levels. The same graph is also used on the japanes wikipedia page. The only thing missing is a translation of the lables in the svg file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.227.147.59 (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

These measurements don't look correct because it only measures up to a maximum of about 12mSv/h, whereas readings at the plant were confirmed by IAEA up to at least 400mSv/h...and other media statements report that Edano said that measurements went as high as 1,000 mSv/h. So wondering what's going on here. Seen similar confusion in editing on the radiation levels in various sections of the main article.Big concern, because it's starting to get contradictory to IAEA. It's seems wiki editors have wandered way off the path. John Moss (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

They appear to be correct (assuming, for the moment, that TEPCO is not altering the raw results), the higher reading originate from a different measuring point. That the red line does stop some days ago, and no roughly equivalent measuring point is included for more recent readings somewhat diminishes the usefulness of that chart, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Given different figures from other reliable sources, we certainly know that this is not comprehensive, therefore it's misleading to use it, even if the chart uses TEPCO data (which does have a level of concern). In a similar way, there is another chart in the radiation section that doesn't appear to include the higher figures, although it appears to be using TEPCO raw data. Given that we know that these interpretations of TEPCCO based readings are not comprehensive - i.e. dont include high levels (400mSv/h) cited from reliable sources, like IAEA, can I suggest that we avoid using these as the primary/only source for radiation figures until we have an explanation for the contradiction, because obviously something is not consistent about this data with other radiation info sources. There maybe nothing sinister, it could just be missing data. But given the inconsistency I'm also wondering if we should be considering removing the existing chart in the radiation section? I'm not comfortable with using a graphic like that which is overtly incomplete/contradictory to other reliable sources like IAEA.John Moss (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference most likely are due to different places in which the data have been collected. The data are probably not wrong, but data from two measuring points obviously do not provide a complete picture. However, the data at the main gate have been referred to extensively by reliable source. I therefore think it is appropriate to use them, but the description should tell the reader that they originate from only one (or two, actually) of several measuring points.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It has to be pointed out that the graph is an incmplete representation of he radiation levels at Fukushima I power plant.John Moss (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Those highest levels, 1000mSv/h and the subsequent 600-800mSv/h, should be μSv/h. This was corrected in the question and answer session after the press release where they were announced. The current version of the press release lists them as μSv/h. This makes some sense since right after announcing those he mentions that the following morning levels had spiked to mSv/hr levels, referring to the almost 12mSv/h spike at the main gate, causing workers to temporarily seek shelter. The 400mSv/h number is probably pretty reliable since it comes from IAEA and corresponds to a 260mSv/h measurement listed in a TEPCO document. That level was near reactor 3 rather than the main gate. JaseXavier *Edit: Actually the 260mSv/h and 400mSv/h measurements are from different times so scratch that bit but both are from reliable sources. (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot of plume spreading across Pacific

Areas which have been overflown by the radioactive plum due to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Area displayed anticipate until March 20th.

The map with a plume spreading across the Pacific should have a source given or an explanation of the actual computer model and the entering assumptions. It also does not say what the colors represent. A map like this can lead the general public to panic or do irrational things. The information that goes with the map does not answer any of this - it only says how the graphic was created by adapting a vector graphic of a blank world map. Devangel77b (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I am no expert regarding the ideas behind it, so it's hard to judge. The image itself is sourced with this animated gif and this [this one], which seems not to make it original research, but whether the sources are reliable? L.tak (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a different map, with three levels of wind, going up the Aleutians, then down to California, so we can find other sources for the map, they seem to be computer generated by scientists. Don't have any RS at the moment, though, since I can't remember the site.69.236.143.147 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the map. It shows a broad continuous swath that is quite different from the sort of wobbly and broken up patterns in both the sources that the map claims to be based on. I think it would be would be good to have a map, but I feel this particular user rendering gives a significantly different impression than the source material and so isn't really an acceptable representation. Dragons flight (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

First, the map is well sourced by scientists work (this animated gif) & Zamg.ac.at (ZAMG = Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics). Aeronobie.be now ask to cite and follow the Zamg.ac.at's page (which I use), stating: "The World Meteorological Organisation (fr:Organisation Météorologique Mondiale (OMM)) asked the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (fr:Institut Central pour la Météorologie et la Géodynamique (Autriche)) to support the International Atomic Energy Agency (fr:Agence Internationale de l'Énergie Atomique (fr:AIEA)) by providing the atmospheric plum calculations."

Dragon flight, you can try yourself to put a gif animation into a static image, that's simply not easy. So I represented areas which -according to the source- have been overflied by the cloud. If someone can do a closer gif animation, or get the website authorization to reuse the gif (contact on the website), that would be wonderful to get a such agreement.

Last, I know this graphic representation is not perfect. But remove a such critical information (the cloud is moving, nuclear pollution is international and without border) is not acceptable. Up to now, that's the best representation of a sourced fact, we have to provide this information. If a better media is provided, then replacement will be welcome. Yug (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can't capture it with a static image, then we support animated gifs after all. In general, it would be better to link to or include the sourced images in the articles (invoke Fair Use if one has to). The actual sources are a much better representation of the facts than your image. The map suggests a continuous flux / risk / etc. while the sourced maps are clearly sporadic, variable, and show the importance of weather patterns. Similarly, many news sources and the sourced images indicate an essentially negligible risks in the US, etc. Both images show concentrations become nearly negligible while traveling over the Pacific, with ZAMG using an explicitly logarithmic scale to help capture this. I really can't support keeping your map image. I really think it is worse than no image, as it is misleading. I'm sorry if that seems harsh to you. I know you mean well, but that's how I see it. If you (or someone else) can't figure out something more accurate than we should simply direct readers to the maps created by the professional scientists. Dragons flight (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I then propose using images published by some relevant U.S. government agency, such as the NOAA, because U.S. government images are in the public domain. (I was busy updating and improving a reference inside the disputed image, while I stumbled upon an edit conflict, whereby the image was removed). -Mardus (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your expectations and interpretation are not what I wrote down. The aim is not to display the dust's position, and is not to copy the ZAMG's map with its sporadic display and wind paterns, which can be done only by several snapshot, animated gif, and direct access to their digital data. Say "you didn't do as them so I remove this" is an original new rule. Map making (see Map workshop) IS to look at sources and display data in more accessible ways.

The article map scope is clearly stated, it display "areas which have been overflied", and do fully its claim : display these areas, while also displaying the dispersion, and that concentrations become nearly negligible near the USA. The current image is sourced, state its scope clearly, respect this scope and the source's data (ZAMG) and is so acceptable according to Wikipedia practices and rules. Yug (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your help is welcome to make the image's comment clearer, to recall the dispersion effect, or to suggest improvements. Yug (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A map I saw at "COVER-UP: Censorship Beginning in Japan" showed a dynamic map, whipping across the Pacific back and forth like a snake, going all the way up to Alaska and then down the California coast and then across the U.S. in varying dimensions and massive clumps as time went by. The nuclear cloud is dynamic, depending on weather patterns and is not linear, as the radioactivity "bunches up". So an accurate map for Wiki would somehow have to show all this. Maybe different colors, different densities, arrows...plus the radioactive plume was at different altitudes, the jet stream obviously traveling the fastest. Yeah, it would be a complex task to do a one-off map, alright.69.236.143.147 (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the current map is not a copy of the ZAMG's map. The purpose are different : ZAMG is a dynamic map to display dust as a given T time ; this wiki map is a static map to display areas overflown by the dusts. Different display. Yug (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's something odd: I just stepped outside to view the "supermoon" here in Northern California tonight and I smelled (or sensed or felt or whatever it was) Japan in the cold whipping air with the storm clouds scudding by unusually fast overhead. I was stationed in Japan for a year and a half and I've never felt that "weather sense" before here in the states, only in Japan. And there was a small tornado today--we never have those. The weather is different today. And we've got at least a week of stormy weather coming. Do radioactive clouds cause unusual stormy weather conditions? Anybody studied this? 69.236.143.147 (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Portion of the ZAMG animation with detectable concentrations of 137-Cs

Yug, the reason your image is misleading is because it is grossly disconnected with the actual data. The image at right is a blow-up of the ZAMG animation from [4], where I have colored yellow every cell that they ever report non-zero concentrations in. In your comments, you identified that you used a slightly older version of this same animation as one of your sources. First off, if you look at the animation, weather effects cause the plume to wiggle north and south much more than you have indicated with your figure (and even bring it to the southwest at one point). Secondly, much of the time the radiation dissipates to undetectable levels before it crosses the international date line, so that only a small swirl of radiation was ever reported in the Eastern Pacific (at concentrations that would be harmless). Thirdly, they have not (yet) reported any radiation reaching the continental US (which is contrary to your figure). Lastly, we need to keep in mind that the original simulation reports concentrations spanning eight orders of magnitude. The reported plume is potentially harmful near its source and generally utterly harmless once it has spread out over great distances. Any map that wants to do a reasonable job of educating the user about the plume needs to convey that. I'm removing the map again, cause it is just grossly wrong, misleading, and not a good representation of the data from which is was supposed to be constructed. I'd suggest someone find a nice way to link / highlight the ZAMG and Aeronomie results directly rather than using inaccurate approximations. Dragons flight (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

can you please provide data to justify how far they become "potentialy harmless"? in case of Three Mile Island and French nuclear tests in Polynesia, high and extremely high cancer rates have been proven at as far as x100 miles (University of North Carolina’s, Steven Wing in 1997) and 1000km away from the source respectively (bellow the Plumes, not only at locations that are away from the source but locations direclty bellow the Plumes). It would be wise to compare with level of emissions at Fukushima, which we don't have. How much have been released? In case of Three Mile Island, 481 Pbq (ref: "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident") have been estimated to plume. What are the Plume volumes in Bq for Fukushima so far? If they are much smaller than Three Mile Island, and levels of plumes are even low in the Kanto region, we could assume they are safer compared with Three mile Island. So far, everybody thinks they are more dangerous, but is this true? Do we have data to support the claim that we think it is safe or are we misguiding the public? We also need to add plumes fallouts levels for Kanto, which needs it far more than Pacific estimates since the region is much closer to the source, though this is another topic we need to address this or misguide the public giving them the impression that Kanto is not subject to plume fallouts while the Pacific region is. This is not correct.[DCha] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCha Tue. 22nd March. I am not editing properly, please forgive, I have only edited few times but this time something is wrong and seems I should make adjustments -thank you for you patience 218.42.154.18 (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I much prefer Dragons flight's image to the initial one because of my own experience with atmospheric dispersion modeling. I would like to see if there's a good way to make the map show the intensity of radiation. One fairly simple approach would be to color according to max radiation from ZAMG. -- ke4roh (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The radiation detectors in California found minuscule ("harmless") amounts of radiation had reached the US as of Friday.69.236.143.147 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a fake map attributed to the Australian Radiation Services making the rounds. [5][6][7] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

NOAA HYSPLIT Graphs

Please post the parameters used for NOAA HYSPLIT simulation(s) here, so they can be verified and corrected, if necessary. Thanks. --84.145.224.201 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

jtmonone2: Basic simulation parameters are shown on the bottom of the image. Extra parameters I used to crate the figure: resolution 120 dpi, zoom 50% (in two different places), 4 distance circles with 50 km separation. I have an updated image, but the article is semi-locked and I can not make an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmonone2 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Add a note about it being among the worst 3 accidents ever?

I didn't want to add this to the intro without getting other's opinions. But it seems extremely relevant and important.

One ref of many: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Japan+nuclear+accident+three+worst+history/4430640/story.html#ixzz1H6zUEDNZ

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One also needs to be careful about how this is presented. Looking at the International Nuclear Event Scale there are 7 accidents rated as high or higher than the Level 5 rating currently assigned to Fukushima. Some of these, such as the Kyshtym disaster (rated 6) and Goiânia accident (rated 5) involved nuclear material at sites other than nuclear power plants, and so might not be counted if you strictly limit it to nuclear power. However, both of those probably involved more impact on human health than Three Mile Island even though they are rarely discussed, and it remains to be seen what Fukushima's ultimate health impact will be. It is probably fair to cite authorities that are calling Fukushima one of the worst accidents, but I would suggest also mentioning its current place on the INES scale and the number of comparably rated events. Dragons flight (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The UK winscale research reactor caught fire and dumped radioactive material over miles. There was even some suggestion at the time of chernobyl that they were picking up legacy radiation from the winscale incident, but I dont know if that is true. It was of course all dowmplayed at the time and people were far less nuclear aware. Didnt anyone notice british people all have tails? Dounreay has been quietly dumping material in the sea for years, caused some mystery deaths and then a number of beaches to be closed because of washed up particles. Sandpiper (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One also needs to be careful with making clear what kind of accidents. Compared to other industrial accidents like the Bhopal disaster even Chernobyl becomes a minor incident. Compared by death tolls, even a local car crash sees more dead on average. So I think a little text with a link to the Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents should be sufficient. There's no need to cover every possible spin of news media. --Amazeroth (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is from March 12th, which was very early on. It seems like that fellow called it that very early with few facts known. I don't know what to make of the Ploughshares Fund guy (written like an ad btw). Is he really an expert or just an anti-nuclear activist they went to consult? Joseph Cirincione - It seems like his expertise is in discussion of nuclear non-proliferation, but that doesn't make him an expert on nuclear power plants. Also, like I said, he was speaking VERY soon after the disaster. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Worst in what way? In the number of ruined large reactors, yes. Certainly its a big mess, but in terms of economic damage so far there has been little damage outside the facility other than greatly scaring people and the loss of electricity. The reactors will have to be basically left alone for a year or two before core removal can start. These were relatively old facilities, so the long term cost is not that great, but the immediate cost will be high. Considering all the circumstances, so far it looks like the Japanese staff handled the damage control situation decently. The ruined reactor facilities represent a significant but small percentage of the total tsunami property damage. The tsunami killed thousands, not the reactors.172.129.244.36 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Like I said, it's an article from eight days ago. The guy appears to have just been going into hyperbole. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was worst in terms of the IAEA scale of disasters. Some have labeled the disaster as a 6 (out of 7) which would make it one of the worst three nuclear disasters ever. But, it's official designation remains a 5.

I'm glad I posted here before putting up the change.  :-) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, if you look at the events that have registered on Level 5, you see there are others on that level, so it still doesn't make sense. Also, like I said, the guy made the point on 12 March with very little info to go on at the time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The standard they are using is "Impact on people and environment", meaning sickness, deaths, and outside contamination. So far external radiation contamination to land is minimal, so a 6 rating is illogical at this time. On the other hand, if they are washing radioactive material out to sea, the outside contamination would be less harmful to humans, and also difficult to measure. 172.163.166.229 (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)BG

Removal of references by IP users

I've noticed that some IP users have recently been eager to remove references, because one was "invalid", two others were "unofficial", when actually they were statements by relevant official agencies. Should the page be edit-protected for registered users only? -Mardus (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea Mardus. I've also noticed some strange edits from IP users.John Moss (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all ip users are bad or are to be moved this a current event we might know things that others members dont know yet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.180.105 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Seawater used for cooling

Hi! I think this section could be a little more informative. I couldn't find any article in Wikipedia that explains how the reactor vessel is cooled by seawater. Is there a system called fire extinguisher system? Is the pressure and temperature of the reactor as in normal conditions (about 70 bar and 285 Celsius) and they still use fire engines to get water into it? How is the resulting steam let out?

"NISA reported that injection of seawater into the Reactor Pressure Vessel through the fire extinguisher system commenced at 11:55 on 13 March.[108] At 01:10 on 14 March injection of seawater was halted because all available water in the plant pools had run out (similarly, feed to unit 3 was halted). Water supply was restored at 03:20.[108]" Concatinate (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

thats all we know - I dont think the designers intended using the fire extinguishr system for main cooling, but also we do not really know what the very minimal press releases mean. The point about seawater is simply that they have no fresh water so have used sea water. Seawater is not good for any kind of equipment and if you think about it, apparently tonnes of it have been added to the reactors and by now the water inside must be very salty indeed. Sandpiper (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just note that NPPs have special emergency procedures (severe accident management guidelines) which analyse all possibilities of electricity, water and other sources on-site and how to use them for accident mitigation. So may be, the seawater injection was a designed possibility from the beginning, not just act of despair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.111.73.141 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Seawater is a "last resort" water usage - as the disolved ions in the sea water dramatically increases the rate of corrosion (especially on the hard to repair items such as fuel assemblies). Normally de-ionised water is produced locally at the plant - but only a small amount is normally needed, as the steam is condensed back to reuse (and so only the only water make up requirement is to replace steam/water leaks). However, if you vent, all of the steam condenses in the torus, and without a working pump, there is no way to get it back into the reactor vessel. Another problem, is that when the water in the torus heats up (as it had with the loss of the cooling pumps), it loses the ability to condense the steam, result in radioactive steam being vented with the radioactive noble gases. MWadwell (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Article in big need of clean-up

This article really needs cleaning up, including putting some sections into separate articles, like the graphic section "Solutions attempted or suggested"; reducing the amount of information into a more succinct form. Just about all sections are suffering from this problem. At the same time, this article is probably the best compilation of information on the Fukushima nuclear plant accident available on the net.

A few points:

• Judging by the number of hits, this probably includes visits by people seeking information that could be of high importance to their welfare i.e. English speaking ppl in Japan.
• Wikipedia plays a vital service, as it did in the Haiti earthquake. Although its not specifically Wiki's role, its a good service for the Wiki community to be providing.
• Although of interest, some sections contain excessive amounts of information that's not going to be read by most people, and congests the flow of the article i.e. "Solutions attempted or suggested" graphic.

Thanks John, but I feel I am receiving conflicting information from you and Sandpiper. You are requesting we reduce the information in the table, but Sandpiper is requesting more information to substantiate what solutions are effective or at least partially effective. Over time, I added more reports and citations to substantiate what was working and what was not (and what was only considered or suggested but never implemented). I think the table is great and informative. I don't think it has too much information. However, the SFP area is getting longer but each SFP has many issues regarding the effectiveness of the spraying to that SFP. I'm not sure how to improve it, but I would appreciate constructive criticism.Peace01234 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, it is unclear if you or Sandpiper believe this table serves any purpose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it seems appropriate to create a record of solutions instead of only discussing the problems. When this nuclear crisis began there was a lot of concern that TEPCO was not doing anything, or that they were not being creative, or that they were initiating solutions like helicopter water drops that were inappropriate. This table of solutions would probably be useful for future understanding, discussion, debate, planning and crisis management of nuclear accidents.Peace01234 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I respond to Sandpiper's specific comments below.Peace01234 (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• All sections are in need of revision.
• Some sections are excessively technical, and while good on some levels, wont be useful to most people.
• It's important to keep core information that people are seeking within this primary article. For example, if people are chasing radiation information, if it's put into a separate article, there's a good chance they wont find the link.
• There is contradictory information coming from multiple source referencing, and we need to recognize this and try and reconcile it by quoting specific sources.

But with all this said, ...great article! John Moss (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

well, while all articles are supposed to help a reader, this isnt a survival guide for people living nearby. I agree with you that any section moved away is liable to be neglected, but the dangers from radiation are not the central issue of this article. Thus far, happily, radiation danger to the public has been minimal. I have already posted that i am unhappy about the 'solutions attempted' table which is somewhat arbitrary. But as far as trying to explain what is happening, I think the article does better than many. There is a brief introduction and then a lengthy summary of the main events to date. Then we expand on the events at different locations in more detail. I think the section about radiation is useful and for choice I would not separate it, but nor would I cut technical detail of the events which is the molten core of this article. I agree it is not very polished, but under the circumstances I feel it more important that effort has been concentrated on obtaining information than on polishing it. Yes, there are problems of contradictory sources, not really surprising under the circumstances. The refs list is unmanageably big but enormous effort is needed to try to reattribute referencing sensibly. Of late the official press release have become rather better, though still not really saying anything in detail. Sandpiper (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of interpretation of wiki's role. It is a community net-based encyclopedia, and we do have a previous record of providing helpful and relevant information during exceptional disastrous events. Let's keep that going. Wiki can define itself - we dont have to be a clone of anybody else. Any comments....???

In an article like this, each editor often covers particular sub headings, while trying to keep the context/overall article in mind. Radiation and radioactive materials is mostly what I've been covering. What I can say, having reviewed a lot of ref material, is that it does come across that there's been a downplaying of the health risk by government authorities....and of course this has been publicly suggested. One thing I've observed, is that there seems to be manipulation using generalizations on the radiation risk, whereby authorities are saying that there is no health risk from radiation (i.e. radiation sickness), but not pointing out the long term well-defined risk from ingesting or inhaling radioisotopes i.e. increased cancer risk, and given that there's now radioactive iodine and cesium in food, water and dust - beyond the evacuation zone - it's a big issue for millions of ppl, including greater Tokyo. Fortunately, some independent experts are not adverse to pointing out this increased cancer risk. Wiki is one of the few objective sources of information. That's what ppl want when they come to this article. Obviously we have to tighten it up, and after the event we will have plenty of opportunity to do that without constantly changing details, but we also need to do that tightening/review process as events unfold. Succinctness is attractive, and the German edition article is a contrasting inspiration for that, but i still like our English version for all it's prob's with too much info and chunky tables...:)John Moss (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Im still not happy about the solutions considered table. Having looked at the 'effectiveness' columns, most of them have no information and the rest are highly subjective. I have seen no clear statemtn about how effective backup batteries were. There is no reason necessarily to think they did not get just as waterlogged as the generators. Similarly, mobile generators do not sem to have been effective, but I have no idea even whether they managed to get suitable generators to the plant, which would be massive things not something you take camping. Is repairing the power lines effective? obviously, yes, if they can do it, but to date a week later it hasnt been completed - so not at all effective so far yet we have partially effective. A bit meaningless to discuss its effectiveness because it takes so long. Emergency cooling - I have read no account of what worked and what didnt. Emergency cooling, well it didnt work. But it could not work without electricicty, so is that its fault or is the answer mixed up with the answer for how effective the electricty supply was? spraying water effective? dont know. maybe? Boron? your guess is as good as mine!Sandpiper (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC) The one thing which does seem to have worked is emergency brought in pumps flushing salt water directly through the reactor cores and then allowing it to boil away. Even this must be self-limiting. What happens when the reactors are solid with precipitated salt? Sandpiper (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive criticism about the "solutions considered or attempted" and I attempt to respond politely and specifically below.Peace01234 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The effectiveness of each solution is based on specific reports and citations included in the "General Effectiveness" column for each solution.

That is the problem. I will look at what you have listed in the table, but thus far I have read nothing analysing how effective measures were rather than how effective they were intended to be.Sandpiper (talk)

As stated in the "Solution" and "General Effectiveness" columns, the batteries worked until they ran out. That was their designed purpose; so, if they worked for the 8 hours they were designed for, then that seems to be effective.

Exactly. You yourself just said 'if they worked 8 hours'. They were designed to work 8 hours, but did they? There is a ref in the article which also says they were designed to work 8 hours but does not say that they did. The tepco reports say that they declared a state of emergency very shortly after the tsunami because they had no working instrumentation for reactors 1 and 3. They could not tell what was happening to the reactors. Batteries failed to maintain the instrumentation.The extent of this is not clear in any report I have read. Even now there are reports of repairs to important instrumentation as the main power is restored which gives little confidence the temporoary measures worked.Sandpiper (talk)

There are 3 reports with citations about the generators working temporarily and then some of them being restored to power later. This is partially effective.

There are numerous reports saying the generators failed totally after the tsunami hit. 100% failure rate. 1/6 of them are now working after 1 weeks intensive repair work.Sandpiper (talk)

There are multiple reports with citations about mobile power units being delivered and working at least temporarily. Some mobile power units continue to power some of the control functions. This is partially effective.

I have seen no evidence that any mobile power equipment has powered any of the plants main cooling functions. Have you? I have seen reports about the intention to deliver generators, but no reports of what was delivered. What was needed were MW generators which I would guess are considerably bigger than the sort you see at fairgrounds. lorry size? Then there is the associated switch gear to connect them to the plant. Where do you get such things in the middle of a disaster? How deliver them? I have seen reports people were unable to connect generators and this is born out by the fact they have built a new power distribution system so as to bring in mains power. The equipment on site to connect to was destroyed or full of of water. Sandpiper (talk)

There are many reports and citations about the power being restored. Some pumps may not work, some gauges may not work, but power has been restored. That is effective repair or power lines.

Restoring power by repairing lines might have worked had it been done in time. It was not done in time, therefore it failed. Ask a Japanese if he considers there has been any effective solution to the problems at the power plant. Restoring power has failed to prevent major plant damage such as to render several billion yens worth of plant worthless and dangerous. Not to mention the radiation leaks and the near misses so far. Repairing lines is wholly ineffective as an emergency measure, which was recognised by the plant designers and is why they installed batteris and generators.Sandpiper (talk)

The same is true for the other solutions. Please read the text before making comments.

Also, overall your tone comes off as belittling regarding the efforts made by rescue workers risking their lives to prevent a nuclear meltdown; as when you say electricity after a week is "A bit meaningless to discuss its effectiveness because it takes so long." But if electricity within a week helps prevent a nuclear meltdown, that is not meaningless.

There is not a row for heroic sacrifice by plant workers. This one might get some greens but even the best efforts by people cannot make up for equipment which does not work, which is what is listed in the table. The row which comes closest to covering this is injection of sea water into the reactor core, which actually seems to have saved the plant (but no greens in table). If the plant is now safe it will be because the workers there have done extremely dangerous things to make this happen. Yet still I have seen no evidence (I am not disputing this is what happened and it did work, but stating the authorities have not confirmed this or released details of exactly what has been done). My guess is they brought in pumps (not generators) and used these to pump in water. Possibly just fire brigade pumps. While exploding radioactive buildings were going on about them. One man received 100mS radiation and was taken to hospital just before unit 1 blew up. What was he doing such that he received this radiation? Sandpiper (talk)

The 4th pillar of Wikipedia is to be civil. I am trying to be polite and let you know that some of your comments come off as belittling and use extra emphasis in a negative way. This feels especially true when you say you never saw evidence for things that are reported and cited in the table

I am sorry you think me not polite and I agree I can sometimes be blunt. To be blunt, and what I regard as the ultimate impoliteness, wikipedia articles only contain information which can be supported by evidence from somewhere. If material cannot be supported then it does not get included. I have not seen evidence for these things and am asking that you provide some. I have seen considerable evidence for the failure of many things.Sandpiper (talk)

I am trying to help in as polite a way as possible. (I am also trying to help by acknowledging the efforts attempted by rescuers who are risking their lives. I'm also trying to help concerned citizens rest a little more easily knowing that many solutions are being attempted and some are realistically effective at reducing the temperature of the water. I am also attempting to create a record of solutions instead of problems. This may be useful for future planning or crisis management of nuclear accidents.) I hope you take these comments in a spirit of good faith because I believe you are well intentioned as well.Peace01234 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I also consider the question of not scaring people. From this perspective it might be better to say the batteries worked perfectly, but that will not help next time this happens. Japan is expecting an even bigger earthquake? I am prepared to soften the truth, but not to have false claims. I really am sorry at upsetting you about this because I am sure you are trying to improve the article. Unfortunately this table has gone on for days now with statements which can not be supported. I cant really leave this matter any longer, because it is a matter of importance and international concern. Sandpiper (talk)

I think the table is incredibly useful. Rather than having to try to sort through voluminuous articles trying to determine what has been done and what worked/didn't work, anyone can look at a concise chart and see get a fast understanding of the different interventions. The only negative criticism (at the moment) I offer is the inclusion of the liquid metal (tin) cooling. Unless they've tried it, or the Japanese offered specific comment on it, I don't think it should be on the list. In some ways it's like the "What would you do at Fukushima?" with speculators offering opinions without being present.MartinezMD (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The table is a very useful and necessary summary. And liquid metal cooling is not only tried, but used for decades in practice. Some links, even interwiki, are given. If you read it, you see that water has disadvantages. Sexandlove (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

so what exactly is this table? It is extremely speculative. What is meant by general effectiveness? is that general effectiveness in fixing this problem or as applied worldwide? Why does this column contain long general discussions rather than yes/no? Is that general effectiveness at preventing problems after the tsunami or six months down the line? Has liquid metal cooling succeeded or failed in this emergency? Sandpiper (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm uncomfortable with the entire tin/sarcophagos entry, as it is incredibly premature, and seems to be based on chernobyl, rather then the current circumstances. I would suggest removing it, as until we know more about the conditions in/around the reactors, any talk of tin/sarcophagos is putting the horse before the cart. MWadwell (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cooling requirements: decay heat vs. boiloff

The formula used by IP 62.117.6.126 in revising the paragraph about how much water could be boiled away by decay heat uses an incorrect assumption. What is relevant here is not the energy needed to heat water to the boiling point (4.18 MJ/tonne/K) but rather the enthalpy of vaporization of water at the boiling point (2.257 GJ/tonne, see WP:enthalpy of vaporization). If the power were 10 MW, then as much as 360 tonnes of water might be boiled away per day (ignoring other heat losses which would undoubtedly be present). A more realistic value for decay heat a few days after shutdown in a Fukushima reactor would be 0.3% of 784 MW (see WP:decay heat) or about 2.4 MW. Doing a simple division, the boiloff could be as much as 90 tonnes per day. Energy that might be needed to bring cold feedwater to the boiling point is a separate matter, as is the mass flow of circulating water from an external source that would be needed to carry away a heat flux of this magnitude. Piperh (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well put, but maybe the initial power was higher. Heat losses other than boiling, like air cooling, will be significant. 172.129.244.36 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Oops ... I've made a rather obvious blunder of my own. Calculation should be based on thermal power, not electrical power rating. A reactor rated at 784 MW_e (Fukushima units 2, 3, 4, and 5) would have a thermal heat production of around 3x the electrical rating or about 2350 MW_t at full power. Completing the same calculation with the correct thermal power (0.3% of 2350 MW_t times 86400 sec divided by 2.257 GJ/tonne), the theoretical boiloff rate (ignoring other heat losses, which could be substantial) would be about 270 tonnes/day a few days after shutdown from full power. Piperh (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this really correct? My guess would be that is 1/( Cp*DeltaT+DeltaH_vap). Then, which boiling point do we take (at which pressure do we work?), and (didn't check) how strongly is DeltaH_vap and Cp temperature dependent.... L.tak (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thinking again: you mean boil off of a reactor already at boiling point when there is addition of water anymore; then this should hold. I checked pressure dependence of DeltaHvap, which is still 2.07 GJ/ton at 8 bar (170C), so reasonably this is ok... L.tak (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what calculation you are making: injected water is very likely at 0C given the weather in japan so to boil it, it must be heated 100C, plus evaporation energy. The reactor might be under pressure so in fact what is escaping is super heated steam which will have more energy than plain 100C steam. Sandpiper (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is exactly what compicates the case; I fully agree. The only calculation which can be easily made (and for which I concede that the numbers seem correct at the used pressure and temp) is the water that would boil off (if it were already at boiling temperature in the reactor!). Whether that is a relevant point to add and whether such a calc constitutes WP:OR is another question... L.tak (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be making heavy weather of it, but something which can straightforwardly be calculated is not OR. I think this was a standard question at school and likely I would have solved it much more easily then.Sandpiper (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not saying it should be out; I was just thinking about what it would do and mean and making sure we did not make errors. We can do i) boiling off (simulating a boil off of what already was there at boiling point), or ii) heating from 10C to boiling and then boiling off (simulating the effect of adding cool water). No heavy weather, we can do both easily, but we have to make a choice and add in a note what we did... And I indicated that the DeltaHvap and Cp are not only ok under highschoolstudent-situations (Cp of 25C, DeltaHvap at 1 bar), but also under real reactor occasions, which I felt was appropriate to add. L.tak (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

All Piperh is saying is the cooling requirements 10 days after shutdown are not large and non-pressurized boiling is practical. Just removing the insulation would help a lot. 172.129.101.192 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)BG

Do we have it confirmed that decay heating should have fallen by that amount in this time? I have seen conflicting accounts of how long the decay of heat takes. I think the example is good in the article to just give an idea of what is involved, so it doesnt have to be perfect.Sandpiper (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Made both calculations now. Both assuming 2.257 GJ/kg heat of evaporation (getting 270 ton as piper suggested), as well as taking into account a 100C temp increase as well (but no superheating of the steam), which produces 2.2+100*0.042=2.68 GJ/kg, which results in 227 tonnes. I think we're most safe saying 200-300 tonnes/day and have changed to that effect; feel free to adjust if needed... L.tak (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You only seem to be considering the decay heat within the reactor pressure vessel. The spent nuclear fuel pond in Unit 4 contains about 2.7 reactor loads worth of fuel, and as it is not within any containment now is rather important. I estimate this generates around 3 MWt of heat (2381 * 2.7 * 0.0005 = 3.2), but I have not yet found a WP:RS that calculates this. Rwendland (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please get the language right!

The language "release of radiation" is used in this article and in the daily news. This is wrong. What is meant is "release of radioactive material". It would be a good idea to get this language right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.85.26 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been reworded in the lead, which is the only place in the article where it was an issue. Piperh (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

well it says 'release of radioactivity', which isnt really right either. Thats a bit like saying there was a release of wetness from a cloud. Sandpiper (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

While you can argue about the theoretical semantics of "release of radioactivity", it is in fact well established jargon. Example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Aiaea.org+"release+of+radioactivity"&btnG=Google+Search -- Kolbasz (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How to delete from blacklist important international tool focused on Fukushima and add it's link to all appropriate Tohoku 2011 pages?

An international team of organizations and individuals: AšLietuvai Lithuanian think tank and national ideas capaign, UserVoice ideas engine, Sahana Software Foundation - Free and Open Source Disaster Management System, translators to Japanese and already many other individuals hardly work for full start of a new ideas campaing tool Unexpected global ideas for Fukushima, Tohoku, Sendai, Japan 2011 which is first of all focused to Fukushima nuclear accidents decision making wisdom of crowds.

While this acute Japan crisis is fast evolving and this tool is recently started, fresh and new.

All material about this tool is here

The advanced engine used for this tool UserVoice is blacklisted.

Why?

How to delete from balcklist this important tool and insert this link to all appropriate Tohoku 2011 Wikipedia pages?

Thanks sincerely fivetrees (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that is nto what wikipedia is for... The tool might be great (my latvian is not that good), but this site (however cynical it may sound) is not to help out on the accidents, just to describe it as a wikipedia article. If it is useful and notable for the article, and ahs been referred to by reliable sources then I'd be happy to help in getting it delisted. But that seems not the case at the moment. Nevertheless, good luck with the tool off wikipedia! L.tak (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

second earthquake

Tepco seem to say that the explosion of unit 1 followed an earthquake at 3:36 on 12 March. Can anyone confirm this or is it a persistent mistranslation of some kind in their press releases? Sandpiper (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They didn't say "earthquake", but "quake". The original ja word is 揺れ/yure. See [8] and [9]. So it seems they used the word quake as simple "shake" or "shock" or "rock". Besides, there was no earthquake at that time. [10] Earthquake is 地震. Oda Mari (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

not shock as in aftershock? I came across a reference for another power station which also stated it suffered a quake at about the same time, though it didnt say much else. (i have enough trouble learning nuclear power plant design without having to learn japanese)

"Today at approximately 3:36PM, a big quake occurred and there was a big sound around the Unit 1 and white smoke."[11]

"Unit 1(Shut down)- Reactor has been shut down. However, the unit is under inspection due to the explosive sound and white smoke that was confirmed after the big quake occurred at 3:36PM. 4 workers were injured due to this incident and they were transported to the hospital. "[12]

The second one seems to be clear that an explosion happened after a quake. Sandpiper (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. You mean this earthquale, don't you? It was Shindo 2 when, probably at 15:19: or 15:20, it reached Fukushima. It is impossible the Iwate earthquake at 15:19 could be "The big quake occurred on 14:36". As I wrote before, TEPCO choose a wrong word when they translated the press release. Oda Mari (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

New developments?

I see smoke and steam reported here: "Workers pulled at Japan plant as smoke rises" http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-21-japan-earthquake_N.htm and here: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80015.html Just wondering if it has been added to the article? Ottawahitech (talk)

In case anyone(?) is still updating this article there is more new information from the International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html Ottawahitech (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

More equipment for cooling with water (remote)

Not sure where this goes in the article

Stephen Smith MP Minister for Defence (Australia) Sent at 13:02 (GMT+11:00) Operation PACIFIC ASSIST – Two additional RAAF C-17s deployed

Last night and early this morning, at the request of Japan and the United States, two Royal Australian Air Force C-17 aircraft departed RAAF Pearce near Perth for Yokota Air Base west of Tokyo, carrying equipment to assist Japan’s efforts at the Fukushima No 1 Nuclear Power Plant.

One of the aircraft landed at the Yokota Air Base this morning. The second will arrive later today.

The C-17s are transporting a remotely operated water cannon system, supplied by the Bechtel Corporation at the request of the United States.

The water cannon system is a series of pumps and trailers that can be remotely manoeuvred into location.

The two C-17s providing this support are in addition to the RAAF C-17 already in Japan. The two C-17s are required due to the size of the water canon system.

One of the C-17s will return equipment used in Japan by Australia's Urban Search and Rescue Team in Japan to Australia.

Last night I spoke to Japanese Defense Minister Kitazawa to underline Australia’s continuing commitment to the humanitarian assistance and disaster relief response in Japan, including through the provision of RAAF C-17s.

Mr Kitazawa expressed Japan’s appreciation for Australia’s friendship.

The Chief of Defence Force and I will continue to review Australia’s Operation PACIFIC ASSIST commitment in close consultation with our Japanese and US partners.

Mr Smith’s Office: (02) 6277 7800 Department: (02) 6127 1999

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-delivers-water-cannon-to-japan/story-fn3dxity-1226026064515

Please note that it seems to me this is not really a "water cannon" because I think its actually used to supress dust in mining operations, so its more like a mist/fog cannon than a larger version of the riot equivalent. Maybe somone with more engineering knowledge can contribute KoakhtzvigadMobile (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Potassium iodide

With the increased acquisition and prophylactic consumption of the pills, it would be good to increase the potassium iodide article on the effects of overdosing on it. The news channels keep saying something about thyroid damage. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Iodine-131 was measured by TEPCO near the seawater coolant outlet to be 30 times the allowed dosage on March 22nd.

Let's Clarify Plutonium Statements

I read this in the article:

• "Plutonium is also present in the MOX fuel of the Unit 3 reactor and in spent fuel rods,[310] "

There are problems with this. The glaring problem is that Pu is present in normal reactor fuel, as it builds up as it's burned. MOX fuel uses Pu that came from burnt regular fuel, so obviously it's uninformed to point out that MOX has Pu. Yes, some MOX uses Pu from weapons programs. Not Japan, they are using Pu from power reactor fuels. The reference is mainstream news, which isn't surprising. It should be pointed out that the Pu composition of MOX fuel is significantly different from the Uranium Oxide fuel, and this does have a greater radiological danger.

Wikipedia has a higher standard to adhere to than the abhorrent international press. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

um.

A similar mention of plutonioum appears at the start of the unit 3 section. I have never been very happy about it but it was fairly reported and I havnt found anything authoritative which talks about the different dangers of fuel using plutonium and that using just uranium. I notice uranium is not in this list of radioactive materials but presumably is highly dangerous and quite a lot of it is in these reactors. Also, of course, a long half life.Sandpiper (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there are some science-oriented blogs (written by known experts!) or even scientific articles published in newspapers that clarify this issue.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SPLIT DISCUSSION

Imho the article is already very long. Shortening is possible, but very limited; especially because the event develops fast. The question i can´t answer is: how to split it? Sexandlove (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The international reaction split made sense. I'm fresh out of ideas for other splits. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably:"Radiation levels and radioactive contamination" to Fukushima I nuclear accident radiation or whatever? Because:

- Its already quite long

- Its getting longer. Sorry but: Good hope is not realistic. Sexandlove (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Chernobyl disaster actually has quite a large set of articles on it. But I think it might still be a little premature right now. One article I'm almost sure we'll have is one for the long terms effects. But we can't make that now. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

a split has to be done. radiation is imho the best option. Consider a TEMPLATE about radiation including chernobyl and articles with reused text. But it can be even a simple split. Sexandlove (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that radiation could be separated from the rest, and later I am sure there will be more as it gets reported elsewhere, but it is my second choice after the solutions tried table which is distinctly speculative. Not enthusiastic about the title but is there a standard for creating titles for disasters? There is a section above complaining that strictly, it is not radiation which escapes but radioactive material. In the chernobyl article something like the radiation section here is included in the main one. The problem here is that there are six reactors involved, not just one.Sandpiper (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to move "Solutions considered or attempted" to a new article. I duplicates some info in the "Reactor unit __" sections. -Colfer2 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This section is not so big and it would not get much bigger. So it does NOT help. Sexandlove (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say it is expendable, and the information in it should already be in the other sections. This would be my first choice to move elsewher, but I dont know where. Sandpiper (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• You could always remove the timeline section and replace it with an actual timeline running on the left-hand side of the page, or on the direct effects from earthquake section. It would involve shuffling images, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

iff you mean the daily summary, it contains information not necessarily in other parts of the text. I dont really know what you mean? a rolling box? Sandpiper (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Explosions at #3 and #4

The article says "At approximately 06:00 JST on 15 March, an explosion—thought to have been caused by hydrogen accumulating near the spent fuel pond—damaged the 4th floor rooftop area of the Unit 4 reactor as well as part of the adjacent Unit 3." But the photos of #4 show that the wall of #4 that faces towards #3 has its concrete panels pushed INWARDS, and the same seems to hold for the roof of #4. Only the adjacent sea-facing wall of #4 seems to have suffered from explosion, since it has its panels blown outwards.
So it would seem that the statement above is incorrect: The explosion at #3 damaged #4, not the other way around. Indeed, the explosion at #4 does not seem to have been filmed. Could it be that there was no explosion in |#4; rather, the explosion of #3 caused a vacuum on the sea-facing wall of #4 that plucked the panels out? --143.106.24.25 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

fuel rods in storage pools

IAEA is posting some numbers of fuel rods in the reactor pools and they do not agree with ours. 1: 292 used +100 new, 2: 587 used+28 new. 3: 514 used+52 new. 4: 1331 used +204 new. 5:946 used+48 new. 6:876+64new. [13] figures supposedly supplied by japanese ministry of economy, trade and industry. I dont know if whoever has been working on the table has views on this? Sandpiper (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I do, see at the bottom of Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents/Archive_5#Fuelrods-Fire. The figures you give were already known on the talk page, from a source (in Japanese) on meti website, since March 17th. This source, and the new one you give, are clearly more authoritative than the New York Times article presently used as source in the article (somebody inserted these figures on March 18th, Japan time, as far as I remember and I decided not to care - still other figures were to be found on other locations, it was too tricky to sort everything). I support the inclusion of your "new" figures in the table. French Tourist (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SPLIT- Japanese reaction

Article has become too long. The issue is which sections should be split off. Since we have a separate article for International Reaction, it only makes sense to split off Japanese reaction.72.215.160.21 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont like splitting any of it, but I think the reaction section is really something of a 'miscellaneous' section and would not make a very coherent article. I think the radiation section would make a more coherent article by itself with prospects to expand as events unfold, if something has to go.Sandpiper (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that we need to keep this as part of the artical, is it there coutry and there reactions are part of the event. This article is the EVENTS of it not only the tecnical stats.

The section contains both reaction and assessment. Only the (Japanese) reaction/emergency measures should be split.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article is clearly too long now, so something has to be done. What about splittin of "Radiation levels and radioactive contamination"? That seems to be a coherent part... L.tak (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Radiation levels and radioactive contamination" is bigger and grows MUCH faster, imho for weeks, and continues to grow fast for minimum month. Radiation is now compared to Chernobyl, see my edits. Sexandlove (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Source for radiation numbers?

Can someone tell me where the source for these numbers is coming from?

10 millisieverts per hour at the gate is a pretty high number. That would give you your annual limit in just 10 hours and the radiation level would be even higher closer to the reactor. Also, Where is the MP-1, MP-2... measured at???

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RaptorHunter (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any information on the chart with regard to Fukushima that I would not have seen elsewhere in reliable sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You can find the numbers in the official Japanese press releases. The editor who made this graph probably got them from somewhere else or just copied straight from the TEPCO document. Go to the TEPCO web page and you can find the press releases, and to get data this far back you'll have to go back a long ways. Not an easy thing to do, but many people have and this is the same data found in other graphs. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Type 74 Tanks to the scence?

So, where do I put this blurb? Or this one concerning the use of Type 74 Nana-yon tanks as bulldozers?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Injuries

New less than clear statement about two injured at reactor 1: [14] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)