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.

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)

incredibly premature?? Does not seem you read and understood it. Sexandlove (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

When they're still trying to stabilise the core/spent fuel temperature/pressure/water level today, talking about what you are going to do in a month (or more) time meets my definition of "incredibly premature". Anyone else like to comment? MWadwell (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Incredibly brainless" is it to use water-cooling even if it failed for 2 weeks and wasted the core in the environment, causing deaths. Again, it does not seem you read and understood a thing. Try not to waste my time. Sexandlove (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Try to keep it civil. A bad attitude doesn't help the discussion.MartinezMD (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Can those of us who are shift managers of a nuclear reactor please put up their hand - other then me I mean..... I mean, if you have experience working in a nuclear reactor, I'd love to hear about it! Seriously though, your statements are both inflamatory, and inaccurate. You state that water cooling has failed. We are talking about systems that lack power and are damaged (which is why water cooling has been "less then optimal" to be polite) - and now you are talking about trying to use a different cooling material that the plant was not designed for! Similarly you state that it is causing deaths - care to quote a source on that, as aside from the people who were dosed up (with a non-lethal dose I will point out) no one else has (yet!) been injured (and I hope that it stays that way!). And finally, if you don't want me to waste your time, the simple answer is to ignore me... <VBG> MWadwell (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is a bit the situation we are in. It's grave, systems are coming up (because of electricity repairs etc), en systems will be going down (unknown earthquake damage, pitting corrosion due to chloride, none-designed-for conditions). And water seems to have saved us from worse (but not enough). It makes it for me impossible to decide what would work and what not. I am not the engineer on site and have my info only from the media. With that in mind, I think it is good that we report what worked and what not and I therefore like the table in principle.

I do have however also my problems with tin-cooling. I am not saying it shouldn't be tried, I am just saying we are not the ones to be able to judge (and I doubt if the Ukranians are). It's a solution with many implications (will it work if the vessel is leaking? will they really get it in as suggested in chips? can they cool the torus with water sufficiently) and has been mentioned by a single source once. Us reporting it now gives it more weight than we can give it without getting into original research. As much as I like such discussions and am open to hear about it (and without valuing whether the solution might work) I think this is not the right forum. L.tak (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the metal cooling entry. It has not been attempted. I also do not see any source saying the Japanese authorities have considered it either.MartinezMD (talk) 00:26, 27 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 wouldn't like the article to be split while the event is still ongoing. It's very convenient to just open one page everyday and see the development. I suggest splitting to be arranged once the situation gets back to normal at least to some extend. At that point we'll have all the data and can set up new articles more effectively.193.93.102.249 (talk) 13:25, 24 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) Correction: Its possible. Sexandlove (talk) 10:20, 23 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)

I believe this is an important part of the ongoing development of the incident, especially the discussions re: restoration of grid power, and the various ECCS equipment.Slo4b (talk) 19:44, 23 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)

This is a GREAT article and should not be split; the length is fine for such an important topic; it is by far the best artcile on the internet I have found because it covers some many topicsPacific813 (talk) 01:03, 26 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)

I also believe this discussion is peripheral to the accident details, and should be moved elsewhere. Slo4b (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this needs to stay as part of the artical it is there saga and the major effects will be to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.180.105 (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This needs to stay the radaion itselft isnt the problem its the effects it has on life and the people around it that is the people of japan--66.189.223.90 (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese reaction to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents now split off with summary left here. Johnfos (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This split requires a bit more work..

A simple head (yes it's not a vote, but there is a good argumet given) count sees only Johnfos and the suggesting IP in favour... Also I think that three out of 5 paragraphs:"2 Evacuations

3 Statements on meltdown possibility 4 Accident rating" don't fall under "Japanese reaction. Shall we turn the split back? Or move accident rating (not specific to Japanese assessment) and the evacuation (more of an action than a reaction) back? Or can we come up with a smarter name for the part moved out now? L.tak (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will move "Accident rating" back, as I think that is clearly now on the wrong page. further commetns welcome! L.tak (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

SPLIT- Radiation

Well, the article is clearly too long now, so something has to be done. What about splitting off "Radiation levels and radioactive contamination" to Radiation levels and radioactive contamination of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents? 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 months. Radiation is now compared to Chernobyl, see my edits. Sexandlove (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be too long. Simply 'Radioactive contamination from the Fukushima... ' would be better. I dont know if this ought to have a more general title such as 'Environmental Contamination from the...'. I am not sure if some pollution problems from this might not be just radioactivity?Sandpiper (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support – At 183 kb the article has become too cumbersome warranting a split of this section. The radiation section has wider regional impacts and will expand considerably in the short and long term future. A short title like Radioactive contamination from Fukushima I nuclear accidents or Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents would be in order. AnAnthro (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling we all see the need of the split. Leaves us only the name. I think Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents is the shortest neutral wording... Will work on it with that working title. Should we decide on anything else, then it is easy to change... L.tak (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

SPLIT- Solutions considered or attempted

Another possibility. Can be done quick and easily. Sexandlove (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC) And is technical stuff which often concerns scientists (like me :-)). Sexandlove (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• 'support . Can indeed be easy and doesn't need to wait for the content discussion above to end, as that can be moved with the page... Title suggestion: List of considered and attempted solution of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. L.tak (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A quite long title. Fukushima I nuclear accidents considered or attempted solutions? Shorter and explains content. And includes the option to write text outside a list. Sexandlove (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

yes. Id go with list. Sandpiper (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disapprove. This section in particular is one of the more informative ones in the article, along with Reactor status summary. IMHO, the page isn't too long to cause worry yet, but if you really must split something, might I suggest the Summarised daily events section? Coolgamer (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disapprove. This part has some of the best real information on the internet in one place i think its facts not things that are beaing spun one way or anouther. --75.147.180.105 (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.180.105 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Injuries

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

The infobox has a note to see the talk page for injury numbers, but a quick glance doesn't seem to show anything but this section. This is important because the ref name is invalid. Maybe someone had put the full name of the reference somehwere and that got deleted?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the missing reference, but it doesn't seem to provide any information. I don't know how one would find this information, but I'm sure it's important.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a new reference for the number of injuries, but its access date is over a week out of date. Surely the inforation is no longer correct.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

First Photos of Plant Damage Released

Just wanted to make a quick post stating they released some first photos of the damage inside the plant along with photos of them working and -- a great comparison photo of road work demonstrating what slow butt people we are when it comes to road construction! Might deserve a new small section informing people with URLS to pages with photos? First pictures emerge of the Fukushima Fifty... roger (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see they will be glad to have the lights back on. Not to mention the air scrubbers. The bbc has been running an interview with a fireman or such like, who said how horrified they were when they got there to see how much damage there was. I dont know if this can be done, but perhaps there should be some mention of the difficulties faced by workers. Sandpiper (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure we're bound to see a PBS documentary at some point. Maybe Japan will make daily/weekly photos available online on their website, similar to their PDF status reports. roger (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

incidents of refusal of aid

hi, I've seen some sources indicating some (possible)refusal/rejection of early-stage critical help from the US, by the Japanese Govt. or TEPCO. Perhaps this may be a noteworthy subject to include in the article, after some evaluation.

Govt 'rejected U.S. offer to help cool damaged reactors' The Yomiuri_Shimbun

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110318005145.htm

Governor Hideaki_Omura of Aichi_Prefecture criticized the prime minister "of refusing the United States to offer coolant" Chunichi_Shimbun

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chunichi.co.jp%2Farticle%2Faichi%2F20110320%2FCK2011032002000127.html&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/11/japan-quake-nuclear-coolant-idUSN1125270120110311

another one regarding generators

http://www.newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/japan-nuclear-fallout-us/2011/03/13/id/389295

--Makesdark (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty with this is we do not know the tepco side of the argument. I believe that considerable damage was done to the equipment within the power stations by the tsunami, not just to the generators. Right now they seem to have onsite power but still cannot run equipment. I do not know whether they had their own generators which they were able to take to the plant, but it was impossible to connect them to anything which worked. So tepco would be justified in refusing offers of generators, which could not be connected to anything. Similarly, the issue of 'coolant' is not clear. Boron is used to damp down a nuclear fission reaction, but there has been no suggestion that the reactor was not properly shut down, so adding extra boron would be largely redundant. The problem was residual heat coming from the fuel which starts at about 7% of full power and decreases over a few weeks, but not to zero. The only coolant needed to deal with this was water, but it had to be got into the reactors. Again my guess, though there are refs talking about this, is that they added boron in case matters became much worse, and in the event of a meltdown it would be inside the reactor cooling water and help to limit any possible fission reaction starting up again. So far that hasn't happened. Whether Japan already had sufficient stocks for this purpose I cannot say, but you do not need to keep adding it because it should stay in the water inside the reactor once added. It is water which is boiling off, plus hydrogen gas made inside by overheated fuel reacting with water. Tepco have said very little about the real damage, I imagine for the usual reasons they do not want to cause panic (which even if justified would make matters worse) and do not want to admit to what has happened to a plant in which they had full confidence. Sandpiper (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest this ought to be mentioned in the 'international reaction to Fukushima nuclear accidents' artcle where it would be perfectly proper to point out the US offered aid which was declined. Also aid which it seems was accepted. That article seems to be a bit neglected at the moment. Sandpiper (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Afaik there are several more rejections of international aid related to the entire catastrophe of the earthquakes and tsunami. A big problem seemed to be that Japanese officials are not able to coordinate lots of outside help while trying to coordinate their own national relief efforts. For example, the European Union was asked to coordinate any help offered by its member states in order to avoid single offers from many countries. Reports from firefighters/search&rescue teams from the US west coast indicate the same thing. As such it might useful to put this into the "international reactions" article, but it doesn't seem necessary (or important enough) to put it into this article. --Amazeroth (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There was mention here of reports going to japan to report and then having to scrounge food, etc from locals. Sandpiper (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactor 3 containment breach?

CNN reported about ten minutes ago that A) Japanese emergency management now believes that the reactor pressure vessel on Reactor 3 has been breached, based on yesterday's incident with the radioactive water, and B) all workers have now been evacuated from at least Reactor 3, if not the entire complex. I haven't found confirmation of this yet, but if someone else has, should it be added, or is CNN just fearmongering with incomplete reporting? rdfox 76 (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's "officially suspected" but not confirmed by direct observation. [2] [3] --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I keep hearing about this. Every online newspaper seemed to have it and now I wish I had copied the article from one of them, but I thought surely someone would add this. It was also on the radio on ABC News. I don't like to go to most web siotes at home, so I'll just wait and see if someone has added this to the article tomorrow. If not, I'm sure I'll have better information to add, but it's unbelivable this hasn't gotten in yet.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It is suspected that the reactor pressure vessel in block 3 is damaged and probably leaking. However, the workers were contaminated by radioactive water in a buiding adjacent to the reactor building, and one theory is that a filter that removed cobalt and other radioactive elements from the primary cooling cycle is damaged and has released the radioactive material into the water.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

'Weapons-grade Plutonium-239'

Is it correct to describe MOX fuel in reactor 3 as containing weapons-grade plutonium-239? Sure, plutonium-239 is used in nuclear weapons, but the concentration of the isotope in fuel rods is probably no more than a few percent.

From Plutonium-239 article:

Plutonium is classified according to the percentage of the contaminant plutonium-240 that it contains:

• Supergrade 2-3%
• Weapons grade less than 7%
• Fuel grade 7-18%
• Reactor grade 18% or more.

Also, is it not misleading to put stress on reactor 3, when plutonium-239 is an indirect product of nuclear fission of uranium-238, and as such is present in some quantity in all fuel rods within the facility?

Mchl (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Although some of the info appearing today in the lead may need a place elsewhere, it certainly didn't fit at such a prominent place, so I have removed it. A bit of emphasis on MOX is good, as one of the cited articles say, Plutonium at the end of Uranium-rod is about 0.8%, whereas the MOX fuel starts at 5% or so. However reactor 3 only contains 5-10% MOX (see our own table), which would -L.tak's original research ;-)- would render the Pu at the beginning of the lifecyce below that at the end of the life cycle of a Uranium rod, which places things into context. As for the weapons grade: that is a bit weird as we are speaking about a Plutonium concentration, not a 239/240 plutonium ratio. It could be true, but also in the previous versions I did not see sources for that. L.tak (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I did provide a citation but put it later in the sentence since it covered both the weapons grade aspect and the threat to human health. For reference, according to Forbes writer Osha Gray Davidson:

:::"The MOX facility will blend surplus weapon-grade plutonium with depleted uranium oxide to make mixed oxide fuel for use in existing nuclear power plants. Once the MOX fuel assemblies have been irradiated in commercial power reactors, the plutonium can no longer be readily used for nuclear weapons. It will take approximately 15 years for the MOX facility to process the 34 MT of plutonium."

I thought it was relevant to emphasize the severity of the situation. As I explained to L.tak earlier, I'm new to Wikipedia and still getting the hang of things. Did I err here? Any guidance or insight is appreciated.

Found another source here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-15/mox-the-toxic-fuel-inside-japans-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant/#

:::The Daily Beast spoke with half a dozen nuclear scientists about the peculiarities of MOX fuel, a mixture of uranium and plutonium—reprocessed from spent uranium and sometimes from the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium. :: HopelessGleek (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I just looked into this further and see that I was wrong. It would be correct to say that MOX is partially derived from weapons-grade plutonium, but only under a very specific and unlikely circumstance could the plutonium content actually become weapons-grade itself. HopelessGleek (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, this is a heavily edited site; which also means things are caught and discussed rel. fast. You may want to consider however if you have relevant info including it in the rel. paragraph (e.g. daily events) and only add it to the lead when it is absolutely necessary. The lead should at maximum be 3-4 paragraphs long and is already out of hand, and I therefore prefer only the main facts or extremely relevant possibilities (like the possible breach of the reactor vessel)... L.tak (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

L.tak, thanks for editing this; I was just getting ready to do it myself. Of particular concern to me were that the sources on the dangers of MOX were (if I'm not mistaken) two anti-nuclear sites, one anti-proliferation journal, and two blogs hosted on news sites. None of the four that are online mentioned the presence of plutonium in spent or partially-burned LEU fuel. I propose that if that information goes in anywhere, it should be in the MOX article, and this article should contain nothing more than "potentially more dangerous MOX fuel" or something similar. I'd also suggest a more reliable source, particularly for the "2 million times" quote. It seems like something that striking should have a source in a peer-reviewed journal, or better, from the NRC, IAEA, or some other neutral source (more accurately, a source whose goal is neither to support nuclear power nor oppose it, but rather to ensure its safety). Vykk (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ive reorganised the lead somewhat and moved a bit down to the radiation section. I tidied that a bit too, but I dont know if it really represents the separate radiation article. Sandpiper (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the section is ok. Still feel a bit uncomfortable with the Chernobyl comparisons (although factually they might be correct, we might be comparing apples and oranges, as there are different failing systems, but I am not competent in that field...), but it looks good! My expectation is that we will here a bit more about sea-discharge in the next days, but let's wait and see if it gets notable before adding it here... L.tak (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The caesium and iodine must be decay products of the fuel, which in turn means the metal cladding on the fuel has melted to let them out. I am not clear on why other decay products are not being talked about. Some of it may because they are less biologically dangerous, and perhaps some were not soluble in water so do not get into the escaping steam. I think the water isnt contributing to the radioactivity, its coming from the fuel, and the fuel was the same at chernobyl. Chernobyl was made of graphite, which itself burns very nicely so the overheating reactor was essentially flammable....did not help matters. I think all this water being sprayed about the plant must be escaping to sea - what else could they do with it - and will be radioactive. Dont know what they will do with the radioactive water flooding the basement. Dumping it at sea might be the only option. On the bright side, they seem to be trying to stop venting gases, though I dont quite understand how you can add water without venting something to make room for it. Maybe that is why the reactor water levels have stayed below the fuel rods, they reckon it better to leave them be than vent more gas. If the rods are half submerged they will be getting cooling by conduction along the metal but I dont know how effective. Which perhaps was not what you meant. It is unclear exactly how much radioactive material is escaping, all we have are some point measurements on the ground and most will just be going up into the air. Whether people whose business it is to measure such things on the wind can make good estimates, I dont know. Sandpiper (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I just added a rider to the lead explaining this evidence only relates to certain elements escaping being comparable to chernobyl. Some get out easier than others and chernobyl had become an open bonfire spewing out everything. Sandpiper (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Talking MOX is a waste of time. ALL light water reactors breed plutonium from U 238. A typical light water reactor loaded with no MOX fuel generates 40% of its power from U-238 to Pu-239 then fission.

JAIF Table

Is there a consensus on how to update the JAIF table (under the heading "Reactor status summary") near the end of the article?

I have seen some users have updated the table before the JAIF updates the table (based on breaking news). I have changed those back to the most current official JAIF table (http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/), but left the two "from all sources" lines updated to the most current information being released by the media at large.

This seems logical because the table is a source of its own, but I wanted to ask if there was an objection to this view. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection, provided there is a way for users to update the color of cells in the "from all sources" rows to reflect breaking news of a major change in status. Is this possible? HopelessGleek (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is possible. The chart currently appears to show Red/Yellow/Green depending on the "seriousness" of the data. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I assume it is possible, but I'm not sure how to do it. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

JAIF says it is a private organisation run by the nuclear power industry with the purpose of promoting nuclear power development. Under the circumstances, that might suggest alternative sources for the information would be desireable and other sources are listed. The table information did not all come from JAIF and should not be restricted to their view alone. If I added the accurate rider to the introduction of that section that the information comes form an organisation whose purpose is to promote nuclear power, exactly how credible would any of it look? I have reduced this back yo a footnote. Sandpiper (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if we use alternative sources, we should endeavour to cite each individual box instead of citing the JAIF at the top of the box. Each of the boxes represents a pretty technical, but subjective, decision, which, I think, needs citation. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand these concerns, but I think their assessment has been pretty even-handed thus far, and to my knowledge appears to be an accurate summary of the situation. I do not believe that they have hesitated to upgrade the severity level of any cell to date, and they have reflected all major status changes accurately with each update. In my view, they have demonstrated a history of objective and timely reporting, which I think should be fairly taken into account.

My only concern is the ability of users to independently change the color-coded severity level in the "from all sources" row, as we will likely be able to update it sooner in response to breaking news reports of major changes in status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopelessgleek (talk • contribs) 08:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing the color is easy if you understand the edit syntax. no=red; partial=yellow; yes=green. Simply change the word, either no, partial or yes to achieve the desired result. Perhaps there is an easier way, but I have not discovered it. This is easy enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatmonk (talk • contribs) 06:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Plutonium Testing

Bloomberg just reported that Plutonium tests have been ordered for the soil near the plant'. This would imply that no one has been testing for plutonium since the incident began, despite an explosion and numerous releases of steam and/or smoke from reactor 3. This seems like like a pretty major development, but I'm not sure where or how to include it. As a new Wikipedian, I would appreciate it if someone can clarify the policy on material that can be clearly inferred from a source, but is not explicitly stated therein.

As a general answer: inferring can only be done if it's dead-clear. You might want to read the reliable sources and the area outside that: original research. In this particular case I think there are several plausibe other indications: i) they order always after a big event (maybe also after the blasts), ii) they order only after finding uranium (which is reasonable, but would make this event less important. I would however comment on it if a WP:secondary source would comment on the "oddity" that only plutonium tests is mentioned.... Rgds! L.tak (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be directly stated before we add it to the article. I recently saw a report that TEPCO is requesting international technical assistance to measure plutonium levels because it is incapable of making these measurements. The source was not citable, but I think it means that this aspect of the story will be reported in English news sources soon. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

TEPCO now state it is seeking second opinions on the existence of plutonium. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_21.html Stating that it has been testing. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

2-6 Sieverts Radiation Detected in Water

Japan Times just updated an article from yesterday with the following:

Tests revealed that while the two received 170 to 180 millisieverts of radiation, within the maximum allowable dose of 250 millisieverts for a nuclear plant worker, their feet were exposed to between '2 and 6 sieverts. One sievert is equivalent to 1,000 millisieverts.

This is in reference to the radiation detected in water yesterday at unit 3. Everyone's going nuts over reports of sievert at reactor 2, but this dwarfs that number considerably. To my thinking, if we're going to include today's 1000 mSv/h figure in the lead then this should also be included. I've added it for this reason, but please revert and discuss if anyone takes issue with this.HopelessGleek (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The IAEA officially reported the 2-6 Sv/h figure and American media is now picking up on it. Added refs to IAEA and NY Times. HopelessGleek (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Colfer2 please explain why you deleted this. Your edit summary said the numbers were not supported, but two credible sources (IAEA and Japan Times) have been provided.HopelessGleek (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you restored it. Thanks.HopelessGleek (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the 25 March sentence was after the 27 March sentence and I misread it. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The announcement was made on 27 March regarding the incident on 25 March. Corrected the sentence to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopelessgleek (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it: the dosimeters gave 170 mSv, but burns on the skin around the ankles indicated an exposure of 2-6 Sv (not Sv/h). But there are no dosimeters around the ankles, so therefore the long range. See the radiation article for sources of my interpretation of the events...

I thought 4 Sv was considered lethal dose? There's been a lot of confusing information circulating today (March 27), are we sure this is correct? 81.191.253.209 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, everything above 1 Sv in a few hours is enourmous. However, I can imagine it hurts much less around the ankels, than it would do at the heart/lungs etc, where only 170 mSv was taken... L.tak (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Liquid metal containment

I thought it was interesting to see liquid metal mentioned, even if it belongs somewhere other than the chart, such as in a separate section of 'proposed solutions' - 67.161..

interesting it is certainly. But we have not enough reliable sources to indicate it was actively considered or that it would be feasible here. See the discussion above on: "Article in need of big cleanup" for info... L.tak (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In principle I have no objection to any credible plan being in the article, but there needs to be a relevant link and it has to be kept in perspective.MartinezMD (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead/Lede

Just a short point of order regarding the lead... In these alrge articles it reflects what is in the article; and then only if it is very very important. Now it seems much info is first added to the lede, then expanded there, and only then info is added to timeline and relevant section. I propose to do this the other way around and only add things to the lead once we have a good indication that it is relevant in the context of the accidents as a whole... L.tak (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks L.tak. I'm admittedly a part of the problem here, but my rationale has been that major breaking news should go where it's most visible. Developments such as 1 Sv/h radiation levels at unit 2 (AP), 2-6 Sv/h radiation levels at unit 3 (IAEA), and confirmation of a fission reaction in unit 2 (NISA) are all "relevant in the context of the accidents as a whole," which is why I put them in the lead first. Also, in the case of the TEPCO retraction, I thought it was important to make clear the fact that TEPCO only retracted the 1 Sv/h figure for the water at pump 2, but acknowledged in the same AP wire that airbornelevels still 1 Sv/h. The media and public are treating the situation as if it were a false alarm, when in fact nothing has changed. When TEPCO blatantly manipulates its own press like this, and reliable sources are available to refute it, I feel that we should make that information as visible as possible, since Wikipedia is one of the first places users will turn to sort out conflicting/confusion information. As I've said, I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't mean to overstep. Does where I'm coming from make sense here? If not, can you explain how the examples above fall short of relevancy "in the context of the accidents as a whole?" I'm not trying to be combative here, but simply to better understand where I'm misstepping in my thought process so I can correct it in the future. Your patience and insight are appreciated.HopelessGleek (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the main point is here that we are not a news source (see this policy), we just describe the situation as a whole and are not in the race to have the first details as visible as possible (NB:wikinews is). And we have the time to do so, so it's no problem if we are a few hours late. It often takes some time for things to be fully clear and IMO at that moment things are not clear enough it is not lede-worthy and it is better to be on the safe side. If the values of 1 Sv/h were confirmed, I would put it in a 1-line thing in the lead after making an entry of several lines at Unit 1, and a comment in the timeline (where it would fit still if it were a bit speculative...) -note taht the lead is a summary of the article, so it requires a basis elswhere-. And although hard, it may be good to resist editing based on the assumption that "TEPCO blatantly manipulates its own press release". That having said, no harm was done, you're doing fine, and it was just my ideas on what was happening in the past days, and not only specifically pointing to day.. L.tak (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fission underway in Unit 2

In the day-by-day events we write (sourced) that there is proof that fission is underway. This must be because of the high (retracted?) levels iodine-134 (half life 50 minutes,not -131 we are talking about normally). We also know that within the reactor activity is about 30 Sv/h (see here, much higher than the 1 mSv/h. My question: does the news of 1 Sv/h indicate i) fission is underway within the cooling water, or ii) fission is underway in the reactor. I read "ii" in our text, but find it a bit of a weird conclusion as I would expect we'd know based on the 30 Sv/h whether fission is taking place or not within the reactor (and we know for a week now) and that the 1 Sv/h gives not much info on fission-status of the reactor... L.tak (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The high iodine-134 measurement has been retracted. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_24.html 199.106.103.249 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course we know, and yes it has been obvious for some time now. But today was the first official confirmation (NISA), so whereas in the past it has been necessary to use qualifiers, we can now state it directly. HopelessGleek (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, you might be right... If we have reliable sources discussing this, I think we can make a point of this... L.tak (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

At what point do we stop considering TEPCO a reliable source? The fact that they accidentally reported iodine-134 readings when they now supposedly haven't even tested for it is yet another example of criminal fraud or profound incompetence. I know that we're not supposed to bring personal biases into our edits, but I think it can be stated pretty objectively that TEPCO is full of crap. A nuclear power company doesn't "accidentally" announce measurements for a specific radioisotope that implicitly confirms the presence of a fission reaction. That's something even TEPCO would double check. They've obviously decided to change their story (for whatever unfathomable reason) after the fact. As NHK reports, "The company said on Sunday evening that the data for iodine-134 announced earlier in the day was actually for another substance that has a longer half-life." To quote Sigourney Weaver, "They're pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain." They don't even bother to identify the other substance they were supposedly looking for. And on the off chance that another iodine-134 report was a genuine mixup, is it any less damaging to their credibility? We have been continually hampered from stating obvious facts apparent to anyone with even a high school level understanding of physics and nuclear energy. TEPCO has either withheld information or changed its story time and again. Should they not be held to the same standards of credibility required of any other source on Wikipedia? Obviously we cannot ignore them, but at what point can we call BS when they're obviously lying? ..END OF TIRADE. HopelessGleek (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer is simple (though not satifying maybe): when reuters, cnn, washington post, bbc etc are; it is not up to us! Until then, we have the (frustrating?) task to wait and assume the same level of faith they do. I must say that except for the fission story (which I simply don't understand, see my specific paragraph), I don't see them much obvious BS in this crisis however (but that may well be naive...)... L.tak (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the facts are not being reliably reported. Obviously they (TEPCO and various governments) are trying to avoid a massive panic and the costs and problems that it would involve. For example: everyone trying to leave Tokyo at once would be really bad for the economy they are trying to stabilize through showing that everything is fine. There are competing interests at play here: economic, disaster recovery, nuclear, global financial markets etc... It does not help these other fronts if the true magnitude of the nuclear situation was revealed.

I've been following the Fukushima I nuclear disaster pretty closely, and if one reads enough reports you become able to read between the lines and discover what is actually going on. The truth is hidden in the details but most don't have time to discover it. This is perhaps the most complicated disaster ever, with multiple fronts and global interests at play. Since TEPCO, not the Japanese government, is calling the shots here we must recognize that their vested interest is to make things look as good as possible to the public. I suspect what is actually happening on the ground is much worse than reported. TEPCO or Japan does not benefit from releasing the true nature of the situation and only benefit from keeping it vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatmonk (talk • contribs) 02:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Injured workers radiation exposure does not match reported radiation...

It was reported that the workers whos ankles were exposed received 2 to 6 sv of exposure in 45-50 minutes. But TEPCO is reporting "in excess of 1Sv/hr. Is it not more accurate that radiation levels are more like 1.6 to 7.5sv to receive that much radiation during those 45 minutes?

I have also observed reported fact on one day is pretty much a snow job when we find out what was actually happening on that day a week later. And now we hear there "might" be fission happening. Previous nuclear accidents true severity were only revealed much latter (US and Russia)... as it appears, this incident is following the same trajectory; especially given Japanese culture. Would really like to know the truth...

the burns at the ankles occured at unit 1, for which we have no radioactivity data for friday. They also worked for several hours I believe the source said, so it is possible... However the 2-6 comes from IAEA (amongst others). L.tak (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Kaiwo Maru II

Should this article mention that the Kaiwo Maru II is being used to house workers? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem if this is sourced. Brandmeister t 12:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

6 deaths

Although I would not be surprised if it were true, I removed the recently added mention of six military deaths in one of the explosions. This should be headline news (as the only deaths of the accident so far) - not buried in a one-line mention at the end of a paragraph near the end of an foreign newspaper article (which is all our source gives). With the high amount of misreporting concerning this entire event, I would like to see some independent confirmation of this before we return it. TEPCO, IAEA, Japanese media don't seem to have this story. I wonder if this was one off-duty fireman reporting a rumor to a reporter who took it for truth without checking it. See source: [4] Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)