Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fukushima nuclear accident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fukushima I nuclear accidents, the safety of nuclear power, or the future of existing facilities. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fukushima I nuclear accidents, the safety of nuclear power, or the future of existing facilities at the Reference desk. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A news item involving Fukushima nuclear accident was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on Error: Invalid time.. |
Template:Energy portal news Template:Copied multi
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fukushima nuclear accident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
very long article
This is not a long article but a short book. Even Tolstoi would have written something shorter. --Ciroa (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Error in File:Power Grid of Japan.svg
In the image of the 50Hz/60Hz power grid in the section "After the tsunami", the ledgend shows the green area as "Chubu" and the light blue area as "Kanto".
These need to be swapped: the green area is the Kanto region, and the light blue area is the Chubu region.
See any description of the regions of Japan for confirmation, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_Japan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.81.120 (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Misnomer!
I think calling it a "nuclear disaster" is a huge misnomer something like incident would be far more appropriate. The disaster was caused by the tsunami, which destroyed many things besides the power plant. The only nuclear part was some radioactive material released and "2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns". Histeria killed more people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqeswn (talk • contribs) 12:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think your reasoning is seriously flawed, and "some radioactive material released" does not describe the severity of the situation (either initial or ongoing). Having said that, I agree that titling the article with "disaster" is perhaps not appropriate - not because the situation is not a disaster, but simply because it's such an emotive term.
Forgot Canada
" Increased anti-nuclear sentiment has been evident in India, Italy, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States." they should add Canada - Thomas Lavoie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.18.170 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The grid
While it is good to see the loss of connection to the power grid is mentioned so early in the article, all the focus on the various plant failures hides the fact that down the coast, the Fukushima 2 units, which did not lose a connection to the grid, were shut down without incident. Where, why, and how these many connections (four sets of towers, and twice as many circuits) were useless has been overlooked. This is a factor that I suspect that some work has been done on, but I have not run across it. Anyone else? ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC))
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- Top-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- B-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles
- High-importance WikiProject Earthquakes articles
- WikiProject Earthquakes articles
- B-Class energy articles
- Top-importance energy articles
- B-Class Oceans articles
- Unknown-importance Oceans articles
- WikiProject Oceans articles
- B-Class Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- Wikipedia In the news articles