Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident

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

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The high iodine-134 measurement has been retracted.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)

This is not simply a question of whether they are a reliable source. They are at the centre of this and as the entity most involved, anything they say is relevant whether it is accurate or not. If they report inaccurately, that in itself is part of the story. So a simple report without comment that they have said something may be how to present it.Sandpiper (talk) 08:44, 29 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. We know there was a fission reaction-its a nuclear power plant, thats how it works. The important part would be what is the link between this specific isotope and something dangerous, which is presumably to do with how I134 is created, but I do not see an explanation of this.

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)

Don't forget to reconsider your stance after it's all over. TEPCO has already been more accurate than the NRC. --85.78.197.19 (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to find something explaining the significance of I134, which is the point here, surely. The wiki article says virtually nothing about it. The news article says it was found. wow. and the significance is? Sandpiper (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandpiper. The term "monoisotopic" means that only one form (I-127) of nucleid-composition is found within this element in natural surroundings. The finding of I-134 implies either the leakage of fuel or the massive irradiation of seawater (don`t know which, sorry). Also iodine is a micronutritient and therefore its radioactive isotopes are regarded as very dangerous when entering the body/food-chain. Regarding the mentioning of fission, i do not fully understand the question. Radioactive emission is a product of fission/fusion, therefore it is save to say that there is fission in progress within the core and unfortunately outside of its supposed containment. People may ask whether the emission comes from indirectly irradiated seawater which gives of small amounts of aquired radiation rapidly and "becomes clean" again somehow or whether the actual highly radioactive, long lasting substances in the cores have found their way out. This is just how i understand it of course. For a quotable form one would need a library and search for environmental analytics or such. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your post is wrong on such a basic level that I have to correct it. I'm going to assume you actually meant [ionizing] radiation by "radioactive emanation", but either way, it's wrong. Radioactive decay and fission are NOT the same thing. The presence of large amounts of I-134 (which, as has already been pointed out, was never actually detected), would indeed have meant continuing fission, due to two things: 1) I-134 has a very short half-life - meaning that it has to be continually produced to be present in any major amount - and 2) it's not a daughter nuclide in any decay chain - meaning that it has to be produced through some other means than plain radioactive decay: i.e. fission and neutron irradiation. -- Kolbasz (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kolbasz for your valueable correction. Let me try to save some dignity here: My physics professor (don`t start laughing now, i am a marine biologist, not an physics authority) got fired for claiming the find of radioactive isotopes near a nuclear power plant, so what national news agencies claim doesn`t mean much to me. But i do not care to propagate the (for me) obvious. So lets just rewrite the points i seem to have messed up: 1. Detectable radiation is a product of fission/fusion/radioactive decay... 2. I-134 is a known product of fission of heavy, fissible materials 3. induced fission is taking place in the core, spontaneous fission would be possible outside the core if particulate fuel would leak 4. Taking point 2 into regard, there is no need for my speculative "irradiated seawater hypothesis" (sorry :) If you would care to edit the page "Isotopes of iodine" in regard of I-134 i am sure it would help. Thanks again

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 

As an industry expert, I say with extreme confidence that there is no significant fission (i.e. criticality) underway at any of the Fukushima units. There would be the expected very low-level residual/natural decay which would release neutrons (this would be the same level that would be there under normal shutdown conditions--i.e. source range neutron counts). I don't need or care about TEPCO press releases, or news articles to know this. A brief list of reasons:

1. The reactor trips were successful. This means that the control rods were fully inserted 3 seconds after the operators hit the manual reactor trip button. The control rods add so much negative reactivity, that even if the reactor coolant was pure water it wouldn't go critical.
2. Once the fuel rods began to melt, the control rods would melt along with them. They would bow, deform, and eventually form a solid mass (if left uncovered long enough). The control rod materials would be embedded within the damaged fuel. If you want a great analog of what the final state of the damaged reactor internals will be see: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tmi/video/
3. The water being used to fill the reactor coolant system is saturated with boric acid. This adds even more negative reactivity. If there ever was at a time when they were using just straight seawater (which is possible for the early days of the accident), they have surely since saturated the water with boron. If not, they would be scrambling to do so, and it would be all over the news.
4. If the fuel has melted into a solid mass, there is no water within it to moderate the reaction. By design, it is impossible to have criticality in an LWR without the moderator. As for water surrounding the solid mass--any neutrons would be traveling outwards, so it would not serve to moderate the reaction (once the neutron leaves the boundary of the outermost fuel assembly, it is "lost").
5. Fission would produce neutron flux which would be detectable by the Nuclear Instrumentation System (NIS). The NIS is Qualified to the IEEE 1E radiation harsh environment standard (I don't know the number off the top of my head). That's the highest pedigree of plant I&C equipment. Without getting into the details of I&C Equipment Qualification, that instrumentation has been TESTED and VERIFIED to be able to withstand the harshest post-accident conditions (which is what they are in now), and a "design basis earthquake" immediately under the equipment (I read somewhere that the design basis was 6.7 for this plant. I'd be interested to hear a geologist's take as to what the magnitude of shaking would be immediately under the plant for this earthquake.). As long as electrical power has been restored to the safety I&C system (which is the first thing they would do), the NIS is up and running. Guaranteed. If they were getting neutron flux readings outside of the normal source range, it would be THE news story, and they would be scrambling to stop it. There is no way they could keep quiet about this. The plant workers would be scared shitless and leak the information.
6. The way they determine which isotopes are causing contamination and at what concentration is a lot less scientific than you would expect. Basically, they're making educated guesses based on counts per second for the most part. You'd have to put samples into a mass spectrometer to get a better idea. I'm sure they have one in the rad chem lab at each unit, but they're specially set up in enclosures to protect the chem engineers. You probably wouldn't be able to get a sample of water from "outside" into the spectrometer. Also, the water we're talking about is so highly contaminated that you would literally have to handle the sample with a 50 ft. pole. I don't expect they have done detailed mass spec. analysis on more than a handful of samples.

That's my expert analysis of the situation. I'm not interested enough to dig up freely available public sources to support this (for some of it they may be hard/impossible to find). You can either take me at my word, or research it for yourself. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"The way they determine which isotopes are causing contamination and at what concentration is a lot less scientific than you would expect. Basically, they're making educated guesses based on counts per second for the most part."

On-site, I would assume they were using gamma spectroscopy to get a basic idea of what they're dealing with. -- Kolbasz (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Lwnf360. Since the existence of spontaneous fission is described, i felt save to say that there has to be fission, taking further into account the high readings in the cores. Regarding the situation at hand, my selfish argumentation seems misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unit 2 core melt?

Should this information be included?

"The indications we have, from the reactor to radiation readings and the materials they are seeing, suggest that the core has melted through the bottom of the pressure vessel in unit two, and at least some of it is down on the floor of the drywell," Lahey said. "I hope I am wrong, but that is certainly what the evidence is pointing towards." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-lost-race-save-nuclear-reactor Gandydancer (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like very interesting information but a read through the article reveals that it seems to be pure speculation, I will add it if no one opposes, but will clearly indicate it is speculation. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I'm just going to go ahead and add it. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tough call as it is a single person observation from outside and it is quite a strong opinion; but from a reliable it seems. I have rephrased a bit, but -unless it is contested by other scientists or proven incorrect by inspection later- it should indeed be in... L.tak (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

They appear to have found someone respectable to talk about it, but I am not clear how fuel is supposed to have melted through the pressure vessel. It is difficult to see how this would be possible while it still contains water. They seem to be adding water to all 3 reactors at 1oo-200 l/min, 150 m3/day without the water levels rising. Sandpiper (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is the quantity of water being pumped and the LACK of any rise in the water level. Is the water evaporating? Vessel pressure? Is the water leaking somewhere, there seems to be quite a few "radioactive puddles" around in the basement and turbine halls. While this is more speculation, a breach is possible and would explain a lot. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The water is ending up in the condensor. As it is boiled off, it is being condensed in the condensor - which is why when they wanted to transfer the water in the trench to the condenser, they found the condensor full. MWadwell (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Core protection in all the reactors could probably have been accomplished by depressurizing/filling the system and letting it boil. See: [1] 172.129.60.133 (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Thats what they tried to do. A reactor pump is the size of a car, Japan was just flooded, there was no power, no diesel, no spare pumps, the buildings were flooded, no fresh water. They used mobile pumps, which might mean fire engines, to pump as much water as they could by some emergency pipework not intended for adding water. They could not pump enough. On the night after the tsunami they had no idea what was happening inside the reactors. Sandpiper (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant very soon after the earthquake, see the reference. After shutdown the depressurized water requirements per reactor would have been reasonable. Hindsight is 20/20 of course. Cores melted the first few days; that's what caused the hydrogen explosions. Also see this article about unpreparedness: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576232961004646464.html 172.129.19.240 (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BG

I cant say what was in the mind of the operators at the time. They were concerned to organise evacuations before any radioactive releases took place. As soon as reactors were depressurised a lot of water would boil off. They were at well above 100C and the pressure stops water boiling. All that water would have to be replaced. No working pumps made this difficult so what they did was try to keep as much water inside for as long as possible. The cited article talks about the half an hour or so before the tsunami struck, when they still had control of the normal systems of the plant. Clearly, at that point they did not take desperate measures because they believed they had just survived the earthquake. Standard procedures would forbid venting steam because it would be mildly radioactive. Very mild compared to what has happened now, but by ordinary standards that would have constituted a forbidden release of radioactive material. Similarly, had they known that a disaster was about to happen then they might have added more water while they still could, but of course they did not know. Reactor emergency plans are supposed to think of the worst possible disaster and plan how to deal with it. The size of the actual tsunami was greater than the worst possible tsunami, so the plans failed. I have to say, this is not the first time this has happened. In britain we do not have tsunamis (ahem) but in recent years there have been a couple of cases of towns being flooded by impossibly high rainfall and flash floods. Just couldnt happen. Sandpiper (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, cooling the cores by relatively rapidly depressurizing & filling the system might be more easily accomplished if the steam dryers were a few meters higher than in the existing design. That way water getting into the turbines would be less of a problem. 172.129.52.161 (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC) BG

The nuclear industry would universally agree that they can build safer reactors nowadays and argue their new designs would have survived what happened here. Plus there has been a suggestion that some relatively simple alterations to protect equipment from flooding might have made matters much better. 5&6 survived better than 1-4 and from the pictures seem to be built on higher ground.Sandpiper (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Change article's name to Fukushima Nuclear Disaster

Given the information that this disaster is far worse than Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster) and according to various internet sources: http://rt.com/news/japan-alert-maximum-plutonium/, http://rt.com/news/japan-fukushima-tsunami-earthquake/, http://www.innovationsinnewspapers.com/index.php/2011/03/12/first-pictures-from-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/, http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/nuclear/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/. In chernobyl one reactor had a meltdown and radiation leak and it did not include plutonium as fuel. Regarding the events in fukushima I, four reactors are confirmed leaking nuclear waste and one of them contains plutonium as fuel, which has a half-life of 24100 years. I think this is a clear reason to rename the article as Fukushima Nuclear Disaster or Fukushima Disaster. Barbarbaron (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the name change. However, Chernobyl is still far worse than this.--RaptorHunter (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember one TV newsmagazine years later. No one was in Chernobyl. The visitors had a Geiger counter which was chattering away. Hopefully that won't be true in Japan.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the name change and concur that Chernobyl (at the current moment) is a far worse event. Barbarbaron, you should read a little more about the Chernobyl disaster, the acute deaths and long-term deaths, to get a better perspsective. And other than the non-neutral Greenpeace source, do any of your references say Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl? MartinezMD (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"do any of your references say Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl?" This source does: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1120218/1/.html Barbarbaron (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the follow up, but the expert giving the opinion is somewhat biased ("a leading anti-nuclear activist") and speculative: "likely", "could be even higher" etc.MartinezMD (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MartinezMD. If Fukushima is really as bad as Chernobyl, we should be able to find a source that is non-biased and backs up the claim with sensible numbers: compare the amount of material released, at the very least. Whether the half-life of the isotope is 30 or 24000 years is irrelevant. The number of reactors is irrelevant. The amount of radiation exposure to humans is the important thing. Spiel496 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Following the same pattern as Chernobyl disaster, I suggest Fukushima nuclear disaster

Keep as Fukushima I nuclear accidents, this hasn't reached the point of Chernobyl. V7-sport (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because it's not quite at chernobyl yet, doesn't mean it's not a disaster. They have detected 3.7 million bequerels of cesium-137 per square meter over 40KM away from the plant (the standard at chernobyl for evacuation was 1.48 million becquerels). This means that the land will be uninhabitable for at least a century. [2] --RaptorHunter (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Move The land will be uninhabitable for over a century. Nuclear plants costing billions have been destroyed. They will cost billions more just to clean up. 25% of Japan's power generation has been knocked out which means the rolling blackouts will continue for over a year. Crops from several prefectures have been banned from sale and will end up being destroyed. That's a disaster.--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, one reactor meltdown in chernobyl costed around 300 bln dollars to fix (humanitarian, ecological and the cost of sarcophagus). The total impact of this disaster to the japanese economy and environment will be much bigger: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1120218/1/.html Barbarbaron (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Baloney. 172.163.104.223 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)BG

Thank you for your insightful opinion. --RaptorHunter (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep: by changing the article name now, we will once again lose all the statistics of the accesses to this page. But I agree, it is a true nuclear disaster. The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) now proposes a level 7 on the INES scale for the whole Fukushima site. I suggest to still wait a little bit to change the page name. Shinkolobwe (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Much of the long term damage from Chernobyl was preventable. One can find interviews of cleanup workers who were outright lied to concerning their radiation exposure and the dangers thereof. That will not happen in Japan, which is being continually monitored by the entire world. Furthermore, the majority of radioactive cesium was released in the first hours of the accident, and went out to sea. The hot spots outside the evacuation zone are long term problems, but can be cleaned using proven techniques. It is inconceivable that Japan would allow people to continue living there for years without taking action, as happened int he Soviet Union. Furthermore, the majority of the cleanup costs associated with Chernobyl were due to the construction of the sarcophagus, which will not be needed in this case since their containment systems are largely intact (though probably damaged and leaking). In Chernobyl they had to use remote controlled bulldozers and helicopters to approach the building. In Fukushima the workers are able to walk around the site freely, though only for short periods of time. This really cannot be called a disaster until either more people have died/been injured, or until reputable organizations predict severe large long term effects. Neither has happened yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.227.67 (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose did you forget about the tsunami and earthquake that hit Fukushima that started the nuclear mess??? That's also a disaster, and different from the nuclear disaster. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Note when I lodged this opinion, the target requested was "Fukushima disaster". 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment since the press is referring to it as Fukushima Daiichi, why would you call it just "Fukushima"? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Note when I lodged this comment, the target requested was "Fukushima disaster". 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as Fukushima I nuclear accidents. So far, it's still an accident, not a disaster. This reminds me however, that the article may need to soon include a section on how anti-nuclear activist organizations like Greenpeace are trying to mine this accident to further their anti-nuclear power campaign. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see this vote won't pass, but in a few months after even more radiation has leaked out and a few hundred square kilometers of japan are declared a permanent exclusion zone and the town of Iitate becomes a ghost town like pripyat. Then this "accident" will finally be called a disaster.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support: My four main reasons to call this a disaster: 1) The 1331 highly radioactive spent fuel rods in reactor No.4 are fully exposed to air as the pool water that they were kept in has boiled and non-existent at the moment. The fuel rods are not kept in a steel containment vessel as in other reactors (they should be) and there's virtually no way to keep these rods cool now, a meltdown of these fuel rods cannot be prevented from now on and possibly has started. There have been various explosions and fires in the reactor No. 4 and the only containment vessel that can prevent a radiation leak (the concrete wall) has been breached. 2) It is known that one or more of the other reactors that have containment vessels are either known or suspected to have cracks that leak high doses of radiation to the atmosphere and the environment. One of the blown off reactors (reactor No.3) contains plutonium fuel and the containment vessel has been breached. 3) Considering the above information, economic and environment impact of this disaster will be far worse than chernobyl or any other nuclear disaster. The economic outcome is considered to be catastrophic to japanese people and economic crisis kills people too as radioactive contamination does. It is clear now that a wide area around the plant will be uninhabitable for a very long time considering the plutonium leak from reactor No. 3 4) Comparing the fukushima disaster to Chernobyl disaster in terms of governments' reaction to the events is misleading, the two events can't be compared according to this only according to the scale of the damage (both economy and environment) and fukushima disaster is clearly the biggest nuclear catastrophe in human history. One known fact is that whatever the situation is, these kind of problems in a nuclear power plant should not happen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWlDtqTU-tE&feature=fvst Barbarbaron (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Barbarbaron, you state "It is clear now that a wide area around the plant will be uninhabitable for a very long time". Presently, there is nothing in the article to back up this remark. If you have new information from a reliable source, you should add it to the article, or discuss it in a separate section on the talk page. This move-request is not a forum for your views on the situation. Spiel496 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time Why not wait a month or two? If it turns out to be the disaster that some of the above predict then go ahead and rename it. Disaster normally implies large loss of life (as in Titanic). Hasn't happened here yet. But it is a big big accident(s) and a frightful mess. These were old reactors near the end of their useful life, but the very high cleanup costs will nullify that. To put it in perspective, the economic damage related to the nuclear facilities is a small fraction of the other economic damage caused by the tsunami, and trivial compared to the US savings and loan bailout "disaster" a few years ago. Wait and see what has to be evacuated and abandoned. 172.129.52.161 (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC) BG
• Oppose at this time Why not wait a month or two. The earthquake and tsunami would qualify. The dimensions of the event will be getting clearer. Maybe the discussion should be what are the criteria for calling something a "disaster", as we will be revisiting this shortly.We have one death so far, the suicide of the spinach farmer.( Martin | talk • contribs 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

"Kyshtym Disaster" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster) didn't have huge economic and human health consequences, but its not called an accident. Only because a large area is still uninhabitable after the event. In fukushima we clearly have orders of magnitude more damage than this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWlDtqTU-tE&feature=fvst Barbarbaron (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

More baloney. At Fukushima we clearly have orders of magnitude less radioactive material released than Kyshtym. 172.163.104.223 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC) BG

Its only a matter of time before Fukushima Nuclear Disaster becomes the biggest nuclear catasthrope known to our beloved free world. A very large part of japan will be uninhabitable. Ghost towns and cities will emerge like mushrooms. Then we can make documentaries about the disaster and put some old teddybears on long abandoned beds, some rusty metal amusement park scenes, a sad music on the background and say "you see... everything began when TEPCO energy company and the japanese government didn't close a nuclear plant in its scheduled date". Barbarbaron (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment this requested move appears invalid, the suggested target title changed between the initial request and currently, without notice. See this DIFF that shows that RaptorHunter (talk · contribs) changed the target from Fukushima disaster to Fukushima nuclear disaster without anything indicating such a change occurred. 65.93.12.101 (talk)

This is an open discussion not a binding vote. I read your comment above and agreed with you that Fukushima nuclear disaster made more sense than Fukushima disaster. Therefore, I modified my proposal.--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Since there's a tsunami and earthquake disaster in the area too and since corpses lay on the radioactive ground that couldn't be taken from the evacuation zone, I too insist on the name "Fukushima Nuclear Disaster". Barbarbaron (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Without indicating a change, one who previously commented may not notice that the request has changed. Further, the person who closes this will not necessarily understand the meaning of the comments present (such as mine). when they do not match the state of the request. It should be indicated when a request is changed so that previous opinions may be revised to the current state of the request, if necessary. Without making a statement saying the request has changed, it can make the course of opinions seem inchoate, thus making the closer ignore substanced and nuanced opinions as they no longer match the facts of the request. Whereas the people who lodged those opinions may wish to adjust their position to match the current state of affairs. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move. It doesnt really matter what it is called for now and we can decided after its under control one way or another what it really is. For the present we have already had several page moves as people argued over what to call it and this should cease. See past discussions. This is not yet a national disaster. I dont know if it is one for tepco, but if they are insured maybe not even for them. I think we are still on a deaths score of Tsunami 25,000 reactor nil. Sandpiper (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Weakly Oppose. Both sides make good arguments. I'd say it is presently a disaster, and from everything I've seen and read (the opinions of scientists that I tend to trust) I fully expect it to get only worse. Perhaps just an emotional reaction on my part, but "accident" seems more of an on-going word, which it is, and "disaster" seems more final. Gandydancer (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose While the situation is still not under control, there has yet been no massive radioactive damage to the general population. That still could happen, but for the time being the real disaster is the tsunami and earthquake. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. --Tenmei (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. The current title on Japanese Wikipedia is "Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident". —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Move accidents is an understatement. What is happening is already a nuclear disaster because of the huge amount of radiation leaks and billions of destroyed material. Correjon (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time "Disaster" is a strongly value-laden term. It is not Wikipedia's job to make an assessment, but rather to describe and explain. Frankly, I would lean towards using "accident" for Chernobyl and Bhopal, too, even though those are clearly disasters. That's only a leaning because do see the argument that using a milder term might be interpreted as downplaying the severity, but we should at least wait for society's judgment on this one.Mark Foskey (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Milk in Spokane, Washington

Although it was far below unhealthy levels and the newspaper article mentioned we get radiation from many sources, in the Spokane, Washington area there was Iodine-131 in milk.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You could give it a brief mention maybe, but you don't want to be causing a panic among milk-drinkers (though I buy mine from local New York farms, Organic Valley ftw). One or two sentences, but that's it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Which section?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

crack length vs width

Our article is describing the crack causing the leak to the ocean as a 20cm long crack. I know that description has been in many articles, but I fear it surely must be a poor translation from Japanese. I believe it is more likely a 20cm wide crack. They couldn't possibly be having so much trouble with a little 20cm long crack.

Here's an article which uses wide ... http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9d7b6070-5d40-11e0-a008-00144feab49a.html#axzz1IUXLVagP 199.106.103.249 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The link no longer uses wide, but rather is very generic. Here is an actual picture of the crack: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/03_22.html But, I'm not sure I could say it is 20cm wide vs. long from this photo. I assume the problem with stopping the leak has more to do with the amount of "force" behind the crack, rather than its size, as some reports indicate as much as 500 m^3 of water an hour was exiting the crack. This number seems uncreditable to me because (even before the latest pumping reduction) the numbers seem to indicate only 400m^3 a day of "makeup" water being pumped into unit 2. Since the leaking pit is above the trenches that connect to units 1 and 3, this doesn't seem possible. I have been waiting for more accurate reporting. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The FT article indeed still uses the word "wide". It says "Staff discovered the 20cm-wide crack in a shaft storing supply cables close to reactor No 2." 199.106.103.249 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the photo you link is more likely water entering the pit, rather than water leaving the pit via "the crack". Misleading.199.106.103.249 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I only get this: "Tokyo Electric Power is struggling to block a crack in a pit that is leaking highly radioactive water into the ocean at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The utility also said it had found the bodies of two employees at the stricken facility" when I click on the FT link. But I don't have an FT account. I surmised the NHK photo is the exit (the "pit") crack based on this illustration from the Asahi newspaper: http://www.asahi.com/photonews/gallery/infographics3/images/0403_pit.jpg (but I haven't watched the NHK video) and because this image shows the effort to "fix" the crack http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/bodies-found-as-nuclear-plant-leak-poisons-ocean/story-e6frg6so-1226032895940 But I don't think it is possible to certain of this right now. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Long Term Health Effects

At the moment, the section on long term health effects relies soley on Chris Busby. He has been discredited by the Journal of Radiological Protection personally and I have updated his biographical entry and cited the Journal's report on this. It categorically states:

"Chris Busby ... is apparently quite prepared to self-publish reports containing glaring errors in data and/or analyses; nonetheless, the findings are duly given publicity in the media, presumably a principal objective. Efforts should be made to enable journalists, in particular, to distinguish between the reliability to be placed upon the results given in self-published documents and those appearing in scientific journals"

and...

"Chris Busby is essentially an aspiring politician who happens to have scientific qualifications – he is the Green Party’s spokesperson on science and technology and has stood for election to the European Parliament – and, in my view, his actions must be seen in this light. It would be asking too much of him to make substantial concessions on the very issue that has brought the media publicity that provides the fuel to drive a political career."

These are pretty damning statements from a Journal. He cannot and should not be relied upon as any sort of meaningful source for a neutral and accurate assessment of the situation.

MatthewFP (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Busby's paper is self-published, so I removed the section in its entirety. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did in this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty funny: http://www.theonion.com/articles/actual-expert-too-boring-for-tv,1764/ Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, i wish to comment on the assumtion that Dr. C. Busby cannot be relied upon and that Dr. Richard Wakeford (the cited author) can be. Please take a look at Dr. C. Busby`s cv here (http://www.llrc.org/misc/subtopic/cvbusby.pdf). Then please note the form of Dr. Richard Wakeford`s cited article, it is clearly not a scientific paper but a call to arms in form of an editorial. Dr. Richard Wakeford identifies himself as a member of the "nuclear industry" in it. A further search identifies him as the "Editor-in-Chief" of the publishing Journal. Which allows to question the "neutrality" of both Dr. Richard Wakeford and the Journal of Radiological Protection. In science, one usually has only to look for the money source to find bias. Therefore "Peer-reviewed" doesn`t necessary mean neutral. Also, Editorials of the editor in chief are, to the best of my knowledge, not peer-reviewed. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Boy it didn't take you long to show up. Self published work that makes factual claims with little to no evidence or proof to back up those claims doesn't get to stay in an article like this. Sorry about your luck. Also, bringing up the fact that someone who discredited you is also self published doesn't mean that YOU weren't doing it in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.246.144 (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

TEPCO low-level radioactive will release into the ocean tomorrow.

2011.04.04 TEPCO low-level radioactive contaminated water is now even saved (total groundwater Sabudorenpitto Unit 5 Unit 6 million tons of approximately 1 Wed. piled up residence in a central waste treatment facility to 1,500 tons) Announced that the release into the ocean tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.99.230.241 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

so the saucepans have indeed run out. The attempts to plug the leak seem reminiscent of the attempts to stop the gulf oil well leak with chopped up car tyres and golfballs. More seriously, I remain confused about the exact nature of this leak and its size/ extent.Sandpiper (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a big deal. See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/04/us-japan-nuclear-water-idUSTRE7336L720110404 172.129.7.208 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC) BG

If water must be added, it must be dealt with. The initial release of the 10,000 tons of water added radioactivity in the overall ocean that was trivial and can not even be measured. Now the waste-water should be removed quickly, to allow for more flushing, or hopefully servicing. The barges could work. A pipe to a nearby radioactive waste water treatment facility could work. Sand filters might help. This may not be the place for it, but another option could be running a drain pipe a mile off shore or where ever the shore line drops off precipitously, hosing down all the contaminated structures, and letting all the contaminated drain-off run into the sea. Probably most radioactive material could be removed by setting up an on-site precipitator followed by a filter. Even with barges the water should probably be pre-filtered. In the beginning the filters would need frequent changing, and could be stored in pools, possibly off-site. Effluent directly vented from the reactors or damaged fuel rod storage pools should go to separate filtering devices. This would go a long way to decontaminating the facilities, would allow much easier servicing, and might help the accident from getting worse. Some people will protest, but in the 1950's large amounts of radioactive material were routinely dumped in the ocean. Most people's concern is not about ocean life, only that eating ocean life might be dangerous for them. Let them go vegetarian for a while. 172.162.3.206 (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC) BG172.130.101.122 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC) BG 172.129.158.80 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)BG172.129.181.52 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)BG70.107.99.10 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)BG172.129.113.160 (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)BG172.162.162.65 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)BG

Fukushima primary victims, as this activity and healthy! Their stress and Tokyo University School of Medicine!

Fukushima primary victims, as this activity and healthy! Their stress and Tokyo University School of Medicine! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQcgw9CDYO8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.99.230.241 (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

sorry, this is in japanese. anyone know what it is about?Sandpiper (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

New source, from talk by a US DOE official

I don't see this source already mentioned in the article: DOE's Brinkman: It could be a year before Japan's reactors are fully under control. It might be helpful for improving the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Key grafs:

"it's probably not going to be over for six months to a year before things really settle down in a way in which we're absolutely sure that nothing is going to happen"

"he emphasized there still are many unknowns and great uncertainties regarding the conditions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. ... Asked about his comment that it could take up to a year to get the reactors fully under control, Brinkman added, 'And then it's going to be five or 10 years before you can really do anything. They're going to just let them sit there for the next five or 10 years and let them cook themselves out. You have no choice. The pools are very hot. The reactor vessel's hot. Man, the radiation inside there is enormous. So, it's a mess. There's clearly been a meltdown in at least three, the three reactors, and they're talking about 70 percent of the fuel rods having melted down. That's a lot. So it's just a mess -- a very radioactive mess.'"

The local transmission grid, owned by Tomoku Power

It seems possibly that the grid at Fukushima Dai-ichi has been energized for some time, and possibly went down, if at all, only briefly. Therefore, please be careful not to state without reference that the grid was down, or that the diesel generators were the only potential sources of power, and that the failure of the generators due to the tsunami caused the failure of the pumps which caused the heat to accumulate. The Dai-ini plant, 7 miles away, was taking power from the same grid on March 12th. [3] Thanks. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

More - Were there photos of pylons knocked over or wires down? There are 6 circuits into Dai-ichi. The connection to units 1&2 is high on a berm, and the wires are connected, even after the explosions. The grid connection is in the left half of the lower right quadrant. You can also see the the berm, with bushes planted along it. [4] ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

Not really. We know that outside (grid) power wasn't restored to the site until March 18 after they ran a kilometer of new line and the temporary water pumps for the reactors were only switched to grid power on April 3. The reactor pumps have not been restarted yet at the 4 damaged units. Rmhermen (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"We know"? Do you have a reference for that? That is the story we think we hear, but I can't find a citation.

1. A kilometer is not enough to get off the plant property. But that's quibbling.
2. There are 6 circuits into and out of Dai-ichi (cant post link to Google maps) . Were all six down? Did towers (pylons) fall down? A fallen tower would be a front page photo.
3. I have looked and I have found nothing, except men working on site - probably behind units 1&2. I will go find the best citation I can. I am not talking about pumps however, only the electricity, the power, and I don't see anything that says the grid was down, especially at the plant boundary. Did you look at the photo referred to above? Link 2? BRB ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Here is an article that shows that the plant's connection to the grid was down. ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

I think I saw a photo of men working on one of the pylons at the power station and it seemd to have cables strung. I agree 1 km of cable is not much, especially if it is being laid in several parallel pieces. I have seen nothing explaining exactly what happened. Power was connected first to 5&6 via the transmission line behind that block, tepco reported connecting to the line by name. They probably said via its existing transformers. I do not know where the switching equipment would be and how it is operated or whether damaged. Before this, tepco reported working on connecting to the transformers sited behind 2 but this was not completed until after 5&6 got power. Logically this was from the transmission line coming to that unit, which incidentally is lower voltage than that to 5&6. Possibly the laying of cable was to repair the pylon line. Or possibly laying a ground cable from another switch point at a distance. Or possibly they meant cables inside the plant to connect from the transformer station. It appears they did have to do this. Somehow the transformers still functioned but had to have new cables connected taking power to a new distribution point in an office nearby. Perhaps the connection down from the pylon to the transformer was damaged. It is clear electrical distribution equipment inside the plants was trashed. It seems highly probable equipment was in the basement and was flooded and therefore made useless. It might be that the transformers were totally unharmed, but the existing low voltage cables were underwater within the reactor building, so had to be disconnected at the transformer end and new cables run to a new distribution point. I agree it looks in the photo as though the transformers are relatively high up. It might be the case that the plant was not set up to take power from the pylon line behind it, only to transmit power from its main generators. Some connections might be at lower voltage and underground, connecting to the local town supply, etc.

It was stated that diesels started and were running after the earthquake, and I think it was stated that some external power had been lost. This is not clear, because I dont know how many possible external links there are. Even if there are 6 circuits, they may not all be connectable to run the plant. The official line seems to be that the failure of the diesels (they did all fail, but I saw one suggestion this was because fuel tanks were washed away) caused the loss of power. However, it seems probable the company did manage to bring further portable generators to the plant which could not be connected for some reason. Most likely, because the basement where they might be connected was full of water. It seems that only the generators on 5&6 have been repaired, which was completed before grid power was restored and they started running cooling from these first. I do not know where the generators are located, whether they are in separate buildings or again in basements. At a different plant one generator was 'in the open' and washed away, whereas another had recently had protective walls built around it and thus survived. Building work was ongoing to improve the plant.

Connecting power to the plant is spoken of loosely. I also have seen nothing which definitely says the grid failed totally, but it is not unreasonable that it would. This might have been relatively temporary with overload equipment cutting power, which could be switched back on once faults were cleared, which again might simply be to switch out shorted connections. Though getting through acres of flooded wreckage to do this might be tricky. The company is being more forthcoming now about details of what is currently happening, but I havnt seen a retrospective burst of information. I understand Japan has secrecy laws to prevent information release in emergency situations, and I read they were invoked. Generally information has not been of the quality one might have expected. Sandpiper (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The IAEA refers to Units 5 & 6 running on "emergency diesel generator" while 1, 2 and 3 were on "temporary mobile power supply". Even the unexploded or unburned Units 5 and 6 didn't get these emergency generators working until March 17 and 19 and didn't get grid power until March 21 (at which point 240,000 other customers still didn't have power, but down from 5.5 million immediately after the quake). Oshima Island didn't get power back until March 27 after the US Marines used landing craft to bring power company trucks to the island. Rmhermen (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandpiper - not all that is relevant to the transmission lines, but thanks. any references?

Rmhermen - Yes some generation was lost. Yes local distribution may have failed. Yes the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant was a mess. The question is - what about the Tohoku transmission system? It is being implicated, and I'd like a Reference.( Martin | talk • contribs 17:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

read the tepco and nisa press releases one by one. They tend to say things as they happen and then quietly drop the details. Sandpiper (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of reading. I didn't see anything that was conclusive. Maybe you could post what convinced you (that the grid was down, rather than the plant's connection to the grid)? Just the reference, please. ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

Here is a citation - Scietific American article, paragraph 3 written on the 12th that flatly says "station blackout" ( Martin | talk • contribs 21:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

This link shows a map of the transmission lines in the fukushima area. There is a substation that is shared with Dai-ni. Dai-ni took power from the grid on the 12th? Why didn't Dai-ichi? There is only one line to Da-ini and it was up. There are 3 lines to Da-ichi. Were all three down on the 12th? I say "let's see a reference". Especially since "we know" that there was a lot of work on site, stinging connections, behind units 3&4. So if the connection from the plant to the grid was washed out, isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the grid would also be down? ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

"Fukushima has a tummy ache" viral video

I understand that this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUzBvxdnCFM viral video, made by a Japanese TV celebrity, is a big hit in Japan, getting 1.5 million hits on You Tube alone. Are there Japanese sources to use to add a small section on it to this article? Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw it a couple of days ago, maby it could be mentionned in the reactions? But the info contained was either already outdated or mixed with lies to make everything seem safe and okay. Correjon (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The err..."adult version" is more...err... I enjoyed it! (Uploaded by ConfusionDistortion) Gandydancer (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it really notable enough to be included in the article? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

At best it's pop culture. I don't see it having a place in the article.MartinezMD (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It was mentioned quite a bit in Japanese media. Every Japanese person I've mentioned it to has heard about it or watched it. If it fades from memory, which seems possible, then mention of it in this article probably won't be necessary. For those of us trying to learn Japanese, the video is an entertaining and helpful study aid. Cla68 (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but outside of Japan how many people have heard of it and how many RSs talk about it? Also, how do we know they won't stop talking about it in a week or so like Flea Market Montgomery? I mean we all remember it, but who still talks about it? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

nhk news poorly broadcasted on other channels

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/05_38.html

Plant radiation monitor says levels immeasurable

A radiation monitor at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says workers there are exposed to immeasurable levels of radiation.

The monitor told NHK that no one can enter the plant's No. 1 through 3 reactor buildings because radiation levels are so high that monitoring devices have been rendered useless. He said even levels outside the buildings exceed 100 millisieverts in some places.

Pools and streams of water contaminated by high-level radiation are being found throughout the facility.

The monitor said he takes measurements as soon as he finds water, because he can't determine whether it's contaminated just by looking at it. He said he's very worried about the safety of workers there.

Contaminated water and efforts to remove it have been hampering much-needed work to cool the reactors.

The monitor expressed frustration, likening the situation to looking up a mountain that one has to climb, without having taken a step up.

Tuesday, April 05, 2011 19:51 +0900 (JST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.82.187.225 (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Unit 2 leak

Please see this video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42440388/ns/world_news-asia-pacific/

It seems we have been discussing the escaping radioactive water as coming from a crack that they have attempted to seal. However, this video states that the water is "bubbling up from gravel that was underneath that pit" and suggests that the "crack" is not at all sealed and that the escaping water "is still going to keep coming so it still gotta go somewhere". So, is there actually a visible crack or not? Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything about it in Japanese media yet, but will keep an eye out. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, it does seem odd to me. It has been discribed as both a "crack in the sidewall of the pit", and "a crack under reactor 2", and there is the discussion above on this page. Then too, I have read the amount of water escaping from the crack, and it was a substantial amount - I would assume it to be squirting out with some force due to the high amount of pressure. All things considered, I am wondering how they would go about measuring such a crack. Somehow they must have a photo of it?, but if it is actually under the the reactor, how would they do that? Furthermore, there is the Reuters report where Rep Markey said that the core has melted (which has since been pulled). Ed Markey is a straight-shooter and has been one of the few to tell the truth about another disaster of a few months ago (I am thinking of his remarks about another leak-the oil leak in the BP Gulf oil disaster). Gandydancer (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Error in diagram

Unit 2 leak drawing: "It had beed stopped by injection of Sodium silicate, but somewhere the water swirling in the buildings." No one sees the grammar error here? What is the editor trying to say? It doesn't make sense to me. MartinezMD (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If no one can help me out here, I will remove the fragment of a sentence in the second line of the diagram, and it can be replaced later if necessary.MartinezMD (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Reactor status summary

Pressure vessel, pressure: Would somebody check the figures in this section - they don't make a lot of sense (e.,g 0.456 MPa (0.836 MPa absolute)????). Also changing the scale to kPa would make things easier to read. 223.205.204.221 (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)mja

I believe that they are confusing the two different readings (from different instruments) to absolute/relative pressure. If you have a look at this reference http://www.iaea.org/press/?p=1968 it states "Instrumentation ‘B’ for Reactor Pressure indicates that the pressure in the RPV is increasing and instrumentation ‘A’ indicates that it has stabilized. NISA has indicated that some instruments in the reactor vessel may not be working properly" - indicating that there are at least two independant instrument trains. Unfortunately, people are reading these values wrong. MWadwell (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The reactor status summary table is missing from the displayed page, but the bulk of the content still exists in the edit view. Did the display code get messed up somehow? I'm going to try to figure it out, but I'm not good with table formating. Leopd (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see the show/hide links now. Leopd (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevance?

"Plutonium contamination has been detected in the soil at two sites in the plant." How is this relevant? Does it show anything about the danger levels involved to workers at the plant that cannot be found elsewhere in the opening summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.1.60 (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition information can be added, but since Pu can have a half-life of thousands or millions of years (depending on the isotope), its relevance is at the very least long-term contamination beyond that of the other isotopes released (cesium, iodine) and that it wasn't one-location event.MartinezMD (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima 1 served by same substation that served Fukushima 2

Regarding my notation of in the text:

Location of the Transmission lines and the substation that serves the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants

Fukushima 2 (Daini) was taking power from the substation for cooling pumps by midnight of the 11th.
Fukushima 1 (Daiichi) is served by the same substation, by three tower chains, each with two circuits. However Daiichi was not taking power from the substation for well over a week.

Although it has often been repeated that the grid was down at Daiichi, there has been no evidence released to support that assertion, and the implication that this was one of the factors in the nuclear accident. A few towers were washed away, farther north, by the tsunami. But the towers serving Daiichi are back from the coast and up a cliff. There were no reports of towers being re-constructed near Daiichi, whereas there were reports and pictures of line work being done on the plant property itself. Line work on the plant site does not constitute a grid failure or what is normally called station blackout. That is, this type of failure, that requires on-site line work, would be a failure of the plant, not of the grid. ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC))

Do you mean 'earthquake caused major damage to the power grid'? There were reports of power suppply disruption caused by the disaster, you found a ref saying daini had grid power by midnight? If so, then it did not have grid power before midnight? It is not necessary to physically destroy the towers for power to fail, because something has to generate that power and something uses it. If the load becomes too great then circuits will disconnect automatically. I cannot say what happened her, but buildings being washed away sound like potentially shorted supplies increasing load and a lot of power stations shut down reducing supply. Power therefore failed, but I have no information on exactly what and whether critical routes or grids would be protected. Logically an area normally supplied by both daini and daiichi, both of which shut down, would be badly hit as regards maintaining any supply. My guess is that everything switched off automatically and then engineers had to come back and switch it back on where it was undamaged. This might be easier said than done in the middle of a disaster.

I agree that power is spoken of very loosely in reports without explaining exactly what happened. It seems probable that the company did manage to get emergency generators to the plant fast - and could have obtained more with greater capacity - but that these could not be used once they were on site. Virtually nothing of the original equipment in 1-4 seems to be operating even now. It should be noted that 5 and 6 were already shut down before the accident and had been for some time, so most of the residual heating had stopped, but they still nearly got out of control when power failed. 5 and 6 seem to be built on higher ground and so fared better and some equipment is now operating, but this is just judging from the aerial photos. They started operating again on their own generators, not on external grid power, which must still have been faulty for some reason. You may be correct that the grid supply to 1-4 was undamaged and power lines still ran into the buildings, but that the switch rooms they arrived in were under water. The transformers seem to be on high ground again, so might not have been flooded. I am uncertain about this though because the water seems to have been pretty high and arriving on shore with full force would possibly tend to run up embankments and be forced higher running between them.

As to the period between earthquake and tsunami specifically, the emergency generators started up and this would have been in response to a power failure, but I dont know how much of a power failure would be needed to do this. They might start up on partial loss of one supply, and simply shutting down on site generation might have been enough. Your map shows there is a single point where grid supplies come together and where it is presumably possible to switch supplies. Apart from overload, was this damaged? I think the red lines are higher voltage than the orange, so not immediately inter-operable without transformer connections. Sandpiper (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the question of obtaining a power supply was probably mostly irrelevant after the tsunami because there was nothing functional to power. Operators had no idea even what was happening to the reactors, which turned out to be not quite so bad as it might. Some things not needing electricity did work. What we need is some eye witness reports from those who were on duty. I expect they have been told to say nothing? Clearly Japanese officials by now know exactly what happened. It is possible that had the magnitude of the future problem been known immediately, then some action might have been taken even just after the tsunami which would have made matters better now, but we cant know that without a clear knowledge of what did happen. It seems possible there were no plans of just what to do in a situation this bad, because a situation this bad could not happen. Sandpiper (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Article is way too big - let's remove "Summarised daily events"

This article is 220Kb, which is too big. The "Summarised daily events" events section is far too long, and consists of excessive detail already covered in even more detail in the timeline article. It needs to be removed and/or merged with Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Peak Ground Acceleration of Tohoku Earthquake?

The Wikipedia article titled "2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami" shows the peak ground acceleration of the March 11 quake at 2.99 g on the right sidebar and has the statement "Japan's National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED) calculated a peak ground acceleration of 2.99 g (29.33 m/s²)." under the heading "Energy". The Wikipedia article titled "Fukushima I nuclear accidents" has the statement "The 9.0 MW Tōhoku earthquake at 14:46 JST on Friday, 11 March 2011 resulted in maximum ground accelerations of 0.56, 0.52, 0.56 g (5.50, 5.07 and 5.48 m/s2) at units 2, 3 and 5 respectively," under the heading "Direct effect of the earthquake and tsunami". Is this because the ground acceleration at units 2, 3, and 5 is a local ground accelration at the reactors while the 2.99 g mentioned in the Tohoku Eartqauke article was measured at the epicenter? The information indicated for peak ground acceleration between the two articles is somewhat confusing.Splice in Place (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)