Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accident

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

Template:Energy portal news

Proposed split

I've added a tag as this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably, and slow to load. Please consider splitting content per WP:SS, into two separate articles: Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents and Timeline of the Fukushima II nuclear accidents. No need to have information about two separate plants in one article. Johnfos (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [Talk Name] and [Talk Fukushima Daiichi]. I agree it does take awhile to load with all the status tables, but think an archive function (similar to what used on the discussions page) might be a more sensible option. (This user has the wiki award for wanting to see everybody in the world in a group hug. But also realizes it might not be a good idea.) roger (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could also use a lighter browser such as Dillo or KMelon for reading. roger (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some fundamental concerns (news-like, recentism) about the article as a whole, then it may be best to start a new section on this Talk page and try to articlulate those concerns and open up discussion. Johnfos (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support it. Two different plants, with completely different circumstances. Kolbasz (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support: Recentism is not a huge risk here. WP:RECENT is a defense against some random Internet meme getting too much coverage because it'll all be forgotten and largely irrelevant ten years from now. Smaller than Chernobyl and bigger than Three Mile Island, this is likely to be the second most serious nuclear disaster in history to date. People will look back at this with at least as much interest as either of those two existing subjects - so we should aim to ultimately have comparable amounts of article space devoted to this event as we do to each of the other examples of major nuclear disasters.
So how much article is appropriate for that? Well, there are at least four articles relating to Three Mile Island (not counting articles about the movies and books relating to it and articles relating to the island itself that make only passing reference to the disaster that happened there). Just a quick glance suggests that there are at least seven articles relating to Chernobyl's nuclear accident...again, not including information about the former city, etc.
That suggests that even 10 years from now, there will be plenty of room here for two timeline articles if size is becoming an issue - or if it makes organizing the material easier. I agree that we might want to boil this large pile of data down somewhat when we have some more historical perspective - and after that, maybe we'll even decide to merge the two timeline articles back together. But right now, we need to allow our editors to accumulate the information while we have editor-interest and easy access to reliable sources. It's a lot easier to simplify when we have historical perspective than it is to dig out information from ancient news feeds ten years after the event when we find the true importance of this event. Wikipedia has plenty of disk space - and our readers are plenty interested enough to read this much material.
SteveBaker (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Let things simmer-out. Might be months from what they say. With that said, I've thought of another idea. As the status tables are quite cumbersome, it might be best to only display the most recent status table while posting a link to find the archive of status tables. And, archive some of the already posted tables to secondary pages of this article, similar to the archive function for Talk/Discussion? (... just a few ideas.) roger (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving bits of article-space stuff is not something I've ever seen done. Simply deleting the older status tables and replacing them with a briefer summary would be "more conventional" for Wikipedia pages - but it's difficult to know what information in those tables will eventually seem important. We hear so many "such-and-such problem was found in so-and-so place" reports - many of which seem unimportant at the time - but may eventually turn out to be the key moment at which some major issue started out. With the benefit of hindsight, we'll know which of those things to keep and which to flush - but right now we don't. SteveBaker (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose a split. Wikipedia articles should be complete and "in Depth". Lazy or superficially interested people should skip reading and go anywhere else. Serious people that fully appreciate in-depth information always welcome full, informative articles. I am against only showing the latest table, since by only pushing "Control-End" anybody can instantly skip to the end of the article; but sacrificing the possibility of comparing a changing situation is not in the best interest of serious readers. amclaussen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.20 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, ditto as IP preceding me. When looking for information on the situation at Daini, I ended up going to its article anyway as it was too difficult (short of using 'find') to locate the info and view it in a concise manner here. Inclusion of Daini in this article may also cause misunderstanding of the situation, especially among those who are less familiar with Japanese and confuse the names. Finally, the events at Daini pale in significance to those at Daiichi, which should have an article (this one) dedicated to it. The best option would be as IP said before, move whatever information on Daini to its main article (if it not already there) and rename this one to Timeline of the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accident. Vindicata (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg

File:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meltdown

The reactor core has melted down through the bottom of the containment vessel and escaped onto the concrete floor? Guardian newspaper "race lost" Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the above is based on an assumption from evidence. Site the following sentences, "The radioactive core in a reactor at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant appears to have melted through the bottom" and Lahey said, "I hope I am wrong, but that is certainly what the evidence is pointing towards." However, Lahey was supposedly head of GE's Saftey Research when the GE reactors were installed at Fukushima. On the lighter side of things, maybe it just leaked through. But from what I'm thinking, 'dem rods hit the ceiling during the explosions. roger (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the following article From Far Labs, a Vivid Picture Emerges of Japan Crisis stating, "70 percent of the core of one reactor had been damaged, and that another reactor had undergone a 33 percent meltdown — came from forensic modeling". roger (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TEPCO President is Hospitalized

Just heard on the news, TEPCO President is hospitalized for dizziness and something else. Vote for a small entry in the timeline? roger (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approve. Seems notable, if the one person expected to have greatest knowledge and responsibility is incapacitated at this time, or anything else of that kind. Indeed being widely reported: [1], [2]. Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"air may be leaking" ???? Joke or what?

[Source] Government Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters: News Release (-3/30 19:00), Press conference NISA: News Release (-3/30 15:30), Press conference TEPCO: Press Release (-3/30 16:00), Press Conference

"On 30 March, NISA said that air may be leaking from the Reactor Pressure Vessels of Units 2 and 3 because some of their data show the pressure in the vessels is low, but there is no indication of large cracks or holes in the vessels."

"Air is the name given to atmosphere used in breathing and photosynthesis. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%. While air content and atmospheric pressure varies at different layers, air suitable for the survival of terrestrial plants and terrestrial animals is currently known only to be found in Earth's troposphere and artificial atmospheres." - Wikipedia

Air is not found in Reactor Pressure Vessels. Any gas escaping will be mainly Xenon hopefully 131 from decayed Iodine-131.

Jina 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that this is a mistranslation of the original Japanese word for "Gas". SteveBaker (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_March_28#File:2011-03-12_1800_NHK_S.C5.8Dg.C5.8D_channel_news_program_screen_shot.jpg

All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 19:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

central spent fuel pool

This reference to a central spent fuel pool in the introductory paragraph seems to have been added on 2 April. Nothing else about a central spent fuel pool is mentioned in the article. In the separate article "Fukushima 1 nuclear accidents", the central fuel storage pool is mentioned, but that article indicates everything was OK there on 28 March. Everything I have read and viewed about the power plant, and GE boiling water reactors in general, indicates that each reactor has its own spent fuel pond high up in the reactor building. These individual pools are where all the problems I have read about are happening. If the central pool is also having a problem this needs clarification.

Very good article otherwise, and one of the best sources of info on the Web.

Brownbagbill (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The central pool had problems because its cooling pumps run on electric motors. The amount of heat is low enough that a problems have been limited, but it is an area of concern. From today's IAEA log:

Common Spent Fuel Storage Facility: The Common Spent Fuel Pool temperature is stable. TEPCO tested an “anti-scattering” agent (2000 l) on 500 m2 area around the Common Spent Fuel Storage facility on 1st April. The purpose of spraying is to prevent radioactive particles from being dispersed from the plant by winds and rain.

So maybe the lead mention should be expanded in the article. -Colfer2 (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why call it the 'Central Spent Fuel Pool' when all references to it by tepco and the iaea use the term 'Common Spent Fuel Pool'? There are references to the area on the IAEA's daily summaries for 18th, 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th and 25th March along with rising temperature readings - in addition Tepco's report of the 23 march mentions 2 workers injured at the common spent fuel pool on 22nd at 10pm and 23rd at 1am. As the common spent fuel pool holds the vast majority of the fuel rods stored at Fukushima Daiichi it may become an issue that gains increasing importance as events unfold. 81.111.39.70 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if the split is Daini vs Daiichi, the titles should say that: "I" and "II" is little-known jargon at best, cryptic to impenetrable to most readers

If the split is Daini vs Daiichi, the titles should say

Fukushima nuclear accident (Daini site)

Fukushima nuclear accident (Daiichi site)

the Daiichi or Daini naming should replace "I" and "II" which are uninformative; little-known jargon at best, and cryptic to impenetrable to most readers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE
For MOST people the names Daini and Daiichi mean absolutely nothing, while everywhere in the news the discussion is about Fukushima 1 power plant. Funnily enough outside of Japan these plants are better known by their numbers than their names. 91.152.41.58 (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a tricky situation. Officially, the names are Daiichi and Daini which essentially translate to #1 and #2. However, I have heard both names (Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima I) so I imagine it can be fairly confusing for some. The ideal solution would be to determine which is more prevalent in reports and make that the main name here (possibly with the other name in parenthesis). Just with a rough check on google, I'm getting a huge separation in number of hits. Approximately 4.7 million for 'Fukushima Daiichi', ~7.6 million for 'Fukushima Dai-ichi' or 'Fukushima Dai Ichi', and a whopping ~44 million for 'Fukushima I'. Given that there is a ten-fold increase in hits with the current name, I see no reason to change it. The name 'Dai-ichi' is already specified in the article and it's the first hit regardless of name googled anyway, no chance of missing it. As for the split being 'Daiichi' vs 'Daini', that is a case of the speakers personal preference, for example, I say 'Daiichi' but I mean Fukushima I and would follow that convention. The terms/names in that context are irrelevant. Vindicata (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you double check that, I think you've made a mistake. 4.7 million pages contain Fukishima and Daiichi, but only 3.2 million contain the exact phrase "Fukushima Daiichi". Similarly not 7.6 but 5.1 million contain "Fukushima Dai-Ichi"/"Fukushima Dai Ichi". Compare this to only 1.0 million for "Fukushima I", or 1.5 million for "Fukushima 1". (Every page containing the pronoun I and the word Fukushima is included in your 44 million, which just isn't relevent here.)
Clearly it is the transliteration (dai-ichi) that is significantly more commonly used than the translation (numeral one). Furthermore, a quick glance at the TEPCO English webpage [3] demonstrates that the official name in English is the transliteration and not the translation (and the naming of it is surely their prerogative). A quick look at the current BBC news front page story [4] demonstrates that the transliteration is also currently preferred in mainstream world media. Such convergence! Seems there's no excuse left for using the alternative (and worse, it makes the casual reader more likely to confuse reactor unit 1 with the entire daiichi site); I'm compelled to AGREE that the article should prefer the name daiichi. Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just include both?
   * Timeline of the Fukushima I (Daiichi) nuclear accidents
   * Timeline of the Fukushima II (Daini) nuclear accidents

24.87.51.64 (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accident&oldid=422655520"