Jump to content

Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident cleanup

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fruitmince (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 5 November 2016 (→‎Edit proposal: new section "Controversy"?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


Messy and biased article

This article is full of bias, as if written by anti-nuclear activists. Many citations are needed, and many incorrect conclusions are drawn. Mentions of terms such as high radiation levels are misused, when describing low levels of radiation. 10 mSv are not high radiation levels. Rational context is needed to bring this article into a NPOV, and explain clearly what is actually happening. Undisputably, this article has become a rambling mess, with a total loss of focus. I believe some sections should be consolidated, and many eliminated. It is hard to understand at all what has happened, or what cleanup is going on. Ottawakismet (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a statement for someone that is not very involved with wikipedia in the first place. Where and what are your contributions ? And what quality did they have after all ?
I suspect you are just a member of the pro-nuclear-lobby
It is quite a mess in Japan, with at the moment a few (may be three) big containers with radioactive waste water leaking. Only the cesium was removed...
Why don't you include that ? see:
Questions arise over whether poor workmanship or design led to leak of radioactive water
Gov't starts pre-survey on candidate site for contaminated soil storage in Fukushima
TEPCO suspects water leak at another storage tank at Fukushima plant
Why all that critics on anti-nuclear activist ? Is there very much positive in that fukushima disaster ?
1947enkidu (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im not a member of any lobby, I'm a historian. The article was undoubtedly messy, including duplicated information, information that had been proven to be discredited later by further information. Every shred of speculation had been included in the article, any statement by anyone was included, and it was not necessarily true. I am rather involved in wikipedia, I've done like a thousand edits, and the majority with history. Your articles are valid, but they do not contradict any of the changes I made. Apparently, you are keen to attack my character, when you should be discussing the article. The article was lengthy, unorganized and closer to a NPOV issue. Ottawakismet (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC) The Fukushima disaster was messy, and unfortunate but lets not distort the facts. In many ways, it is not a huge disaster in the context of a tsunami that killed 17 000 people and devastated the Tohoku coast. If anything was positive about the Fukushima disaster, its that no one was hurt, and the damage is not as severe as flooded areas. It is lucky as well that the soil contamination was not serious, if it was, the cleanup would be drastically worse. Disposal of radioactive water is not as difficult as managing extensive cleanup of soil. There is a still issue with cleanup, so lets discuss what those issues are. I would invite you to edit the section on the radioactive water with your articles, but be cautious about including speculation, since sometimes those do not come true, and some are later discredited. Wikipedia should be dealing with the facts, and less what is feared to be fact. Ottawakismet (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
do not blame me,
You did start, talking about anti-nuclear activists... And so you place yourself at the other side...
What's more is all the arguments above, that try to minimize the seriousness of this whole event-incident-disaster.
No deaths ? Nobody has taken his or her life, because they did not see any light anymore ? No farmers that cannot sell their crop anymore, no fishermen that cannot fish anymore, how much land can be reclaimed ? How much money will be needed to compensate all refugees? How much money will be needed to clean up this mess (would it be possible at all ? Who can tell ?) When will the leaking be stopped, where do they put all that waste-water ?
Can You answer that ?
1947enkidu (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the article is biased, possibly in more than one way, and with statements that bare no sources. Part of it reads like a TEPCO employee wrote it, greatly underestimating human health risks. G90025 (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup outside the reactors

This material was moved from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. It's natural that the focus has been on the power plant. However there is a significant cleanup effort in the surrounding area which deserves attention to, and has been reported on extensively. To get the ball rolling I'll create a section for the broader cleanup effort. "Cleanup of neighboring areas". Please improve and expand.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unskilled workforce systematically misused on Japanese nuclear powerplants

Unskilled workforce systematically misused on Japanese nuclear powerplants....

this section was erased from the wiki, because to someone's opinion "it was unrelated to the subject"

Is it not important to know, which people are performing the biggest part of the cleaning ? All those day-contractors were taken away from the plant just after the disaster, but brought in again as soon as all the cleaning started. They are not well informed, no special skills and knowledge, and at some time NISA needed to order TEPCO to give protective clothing to ALL workers.... 89% of all workmen at TEPCO are people like this. In many countries this kind of practice is impossible because the laws forbid it. These people might take in three months a lot of radiation, and are sent away without insurance or check-ups, they just have to vanish... I think this is very relevant, this practice reflects also the quite doubtful safety-culture there at the plants of TEPCO. 1947enkidu (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That link does not say that. There is no evidence that this accusation is widely supported or related to the topic of the cleanup of Fukushima. Rmhermen (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an accusation, just a plain fact, in many countries all people working in nuclear power-plants are highly trained and educated, here in Japan the practise is just completely different: 80% (and at TEPCO 89% of all workers are low-educated, low payed, and not well informed about the dangers they are in. And when they have taken their year-amount of radiation they are put aside.
Only in this way it can be comprehend, that two workers in the first weeks after the disaster, are sent into a place under the reactors, find water there, end step in the water, no boots, the water goes into their shoes, later is found that they suffered a lot af alpha- and betha- radiation on their feet, no burns, but it is not known how much radiation they took... That's how the leaking water is found there. I leave aside that this place was not explored before these workers were sent into this... and that the dangers there were not fully known...
The fact that we are not informed completely, is not a reason for us to stop thinking. A well informed highly trained man, should have thought ten times before he would have stepped into this water. Besides this, he would have had boots, and other protective clothing. Later the Japanese government ORDERED Tepco to provide protective clothing to ALL workers. The conclusion can only be, that this was not done at all.
I do not provide you all links to this, just look through the articles it is all there. The fact that the majority of workers are unskilled uninformed people in this cleaning up, has huge implications for the whole process. 1947enkidu (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the word "misused" into "employed", I think you were taking this WORD misused as an accusation. In fact it is not, but never mind... I do not want want at all an edit-war on this.
I have worked long enough as a safety-watch and fire-man at Dow-Chemicals and other factories, to know from own experience that the employment of unskilled and untrained people contitutes a huge risk in itself. The possibility that these people find themselves in a more than dangerous situation, you can wait for it. Besides this, those compagnies are cutting there wages down, through underpaiment, these men are gathered somewehre in the morning, in places you could really describe as "slave-markets", after three months they are sacked again, no insurance, no control, as the nuclear powerplants are not concerned anymore about them: they have to vanish... I think this is very near my definition of misuse, I wonder how you might think of all this "habits" 1947enkidu (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to add **k*z* is involved in providing unskilled worker with debt-owning or likewise unfortunate folks, and taking middlemen's cut. A very brave freelance journalist have claimed for now, but not sure if this brave soul is going to get whacked for speaking up, like other Japanese journalist before him. "Roughly ten percent of plant workers there were brought in through the mediation of the **k*z*," said , who has written a book based on his experience at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. "The **k*z* are very much involved in this industry but they are not involved as people working on site," told reporters. "They are in charge of collecting people, finding people and dispatching workers to the site." randomnobody (talk)

undercover story at Fukushima plant

You all might look at this last newspaper-article in The Mainichi Daily News of 16 December 2011 [ http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111216p2a00m0na002000c.html] Absolutely no progress being made' at Fukushima nuke plant, undercover reporter says

greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New definition of the no-entry-zones introduced

The rating the radiation limit for the no-enty zones as low in the closing paragraph of the chapter is partially based on an metric prefix misunderstanding. It is said that living in a concrete building will lead to an annual exposure of 70 mSv. This value can't be true of course, because it would mean, that living in concrete buildings would be prohibited. The original source for the value is not available any more but i found another source at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp149-c6.pdf saying 70 µSv instead of 70 mSv, just one per mille of the value assumed in this Wikipedia article. Also the exposure from the consumption of potassium is on a completely different scale. My source says 200 µSv while this article says 370 mSv. An annual exposure of 50 mSv is definitely much more than a person is exposed to under normal circumstance. In the long term such a high exposure will raise the chance of health affection significantly. Already an exposure of 100 mSv is connected with a significant increase of cancer cases and brain damages in foetuses: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs371/en/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.171.191 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Storage tanks leaking contaminated water

I am wondering if this section does not need to be broken away and now have a section heading of its own. Right now it is jumbled and hard to follow, as happens when background information is slowly discovered and released. It could possibly lead with the "On 28 August 2013, the NRA decided to raise the severity of the incident with the leakage [of...etc.] to INES-level 3 and to report this to the IAEA" copy, and then fill in the background information. I note that there is a sudden jump in hits to this article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a huge number of references possible, I just picked a few. If you want I can give you a whole list... But when you look at the site of the Fukushima-diary... You can find a lot more on this subject and other items... This site gives alot of back-ground, but his links they all presume a certain knowledge of the Japanese language. I do not have the time to add every day what I find, but I just make a mirror for myself of all texts I find on the Asahi Shimbun and the Mainichi Shimbun. The Asahi Shimbun hides its content after you have been there a few times, but when you log in along a site to hide your IP-address, there's no problem. Hidemyass.com works perfectly.
All the background, TEPCO is slow in this, because they have a lot to explain. They made a mess of it all, and did not think about the influx of groundwater at all. Now there are plans to freeze all soil around the reactors. Kind of expensive, but I think this might be the fastest solution. Now there are "experts" that advise to dump it all, may be diluted, but this would not minimize the total content of radiation. I think this would be the end of all fishing in the Pacific ocean... I do not think the Japanese fishermen will like this idea.
best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rigmarole

This article is currently a disjointed swamp of technical readings and jargon (meaningless or meaningful). It is full of cut-paste ramblings and needs to be cut down, with a good summary. Buddhasmom (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. This article is about an ongoing emergency and it would be expected to read similar to the way it does. When the situation becomes less emergency-to-emergency it can be cut back with a good summary. Of course it can eventually be improved, but it may seem disjointed because there are actually several dangerous situations going on at the same time. As for "cut-paste ramblings", what portions did you have in mind? Gandydancer (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Aftermath"

I'm not sure if the last section, "Aftermath" is a suitable heading there. TEPCO, the Japanese government, the nation's people, and the rest of the world are FAR from seeing a conclusion to this disaster. Optimistic estimates hope to have the stations contained in thirty years. That's three decades just to hope to contain the radiation and minimize leakage. Point being, maybe we should come up with a more suitable name for that last section of the article as the true "aftermath" of the disaster won't really begin until at least sometime in the 2040s. The process of cleanup, containment, and such has really just only begun. G90025 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated

I notice in several places the phrase by the end of 2011. Andrewa (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole wiki is outdated.
When newspapers have lost their interest in the matter, soon most players on this site will lay their eyes on other subjects.
That's also the reason why you did not receive any answer on your call. If you want to update the wiki, you sure will need to do it on your own.
The story goes on, the pollution of the pacific goes on, the epidemic of thyroid-desease and cancer is raising, but some japanese doctors say that you can have thyroid-cancer from "stress" alone, but no japanese politician want to admit, that the radioactive outburst of iodine might have something to do with it. Admitting this would cause some finantial problems for sure. The spentfuel-pool nr 4 is almost emptied, that is the only "better" news of the last days. [1].But in whole Japan the people try to put Fukushima out of their thoughts, as much as possible.
Do your best 1947enkidu (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Fukushima disaster cleanup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Fukushima disaster cleanup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fukushima disaster cleanup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead rewrite, news release maintenance tags

This article contains good information, and it is not spam. But neither is it an encyclopedia article. The lead section does not introduce and summarize the content; it provides a narrative account. The existence of a "Overview" section is troubling, given that the lead should provide an overview of a concept. (This section appears to give a summary of activities completed March–December 2011). I added the tags to request that editors organize the content in line with Wikipedia policies and WP:MOS. Cnilep (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fukushima disaster cleanup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit proposal: new section "Controversy"?

Essential point I'm trying to get across:

There is myth portraying Namie - and several other towns in Fukushima - as ghost towns with no rebuilding efforts. They're also portrayed to have higher radiation levels than in reality - impression they're part of "red zone" or "no-go" area. This hoax widely reported as genuine story, as you can see below:

Only one person is trying to prove this wrong: http://www.podniesinski.pl/portal/attention-seeking-kid-keow-wee-loong/ ATTENTION SEEKING KID – KEOW WEE LOONG Arkadiusz Podniesiński ..and it hasn't been very successful:

Also

From http://www.podniesinski.pl/portal/about-me/ for Arkadiusz Podniesiński

  • two documentary films Baltic Wrecks [Wraki Bałtyku] and Technical Diving [Nurkowania techniczne].
  • photographic project “Lost Souls – the hidden world of animism”. This six-month study trip resulted in photographic portraits of African tribes that can still be seen in museums and galleries in many countries.
  • He is the author of numerous articles and photographs in the print and online media (including Nature, Der Spiegel, FOCUS Historia, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Stern, CKM, Voyage, Days Japan, Greenpeace Magazine)
  • two documentary films entitled Alone in the Zone (2011, 2013)

His problem with Keow Wee Loong is that Loong deliberately omits details people being present, creating propaganda. "But there was no-one else present in all the photos, just Loong in his gas mask, sandals, and shorts, and 2 colleagues in white masks and long pants."

Another is true, serious photographer while another _claims_ to be one. And this hoax is even harder to dispel since it has been portrayed as genuine story. ※〶 22:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exact hoax are you trying to tell us about? Can you find a reliable source that describes it as a hoax? Dbfirs 15:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read this: http://time.com/4403093/fukushima-exclusion-zone-japan-photos/
Also, there is deliberate trend for not portraying people being present nor cleanup in progress(Fukushima bias?), even Arkadiusz Podniesiński has photographed them several times:

As compared to press:

Thus, this perpetuates social media's myth of Fukushima is "area that government of Japan forgot".... People are boring? ※〶 15:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see what controversy or hoax you are worried about. Dbfirs 16:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://time.com/4403093/fukushima-exclusion-zone-japan-photos/ Keow Wee Loong deliberately didn't pictured people or vehicles.
Daily Mail and Mirror fail to include pictures of people rebuilding their lives, including only brief mentions. Their reporting is heavily tilted towards all damage that isn't yet cleaned up, affecting already overall impression of prefecture(social media thinks whole prefecture is full of harmful radiation and uses it as insult) - and at worst, global tourism.

Social media shares articles for sake of photos, not for text sandwiched between them.

Is Podniesiński's photojournal TL:DR?※〶 17:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So your argument is with the papers and social media, not with Wikipedia? Dbfirs 19:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, papers and social media. (almost typoed that as 'medusa', but what difference there is?)
I contacted this photographer and he said he can't do nothing - its journalistic responsibility to write good articles.
Is it "responsible" to portray still-recovering areas from limited scope, so they get this Pripyat-like look?
.... Is it responsible to not use Google, fail to find page by Arkadiusz Podniesiński(as I said, articles listed above use his photos, so that gives him some merit?) that condemns behaviour of Keow Wee Loong because it may have backlash against foreigners? (Not on top 3, thanks for social media, but on first page.)
Time's shoddy effort to correct its blunders was doomed to obscurity because it was mere update instead new article. (The photos itself aren't problem but, most important, _how_ Loong obtained them - if building door wasn't locked, he simply walked in. This is against Japanese cultural norms and their media reacted appropiately - I feel ashamed for missing whole issue, since I browse Japanese NHK now and then.)
As someone who has followed Fukushima's recovery(both affected and non-affected areas) via web cameras, I find this highly disturbing. (Also, I'm worried someone impressed by Loong's exploits may do same for fame and try enter actual red zone illegally, risking life in progress. Loong falsely portrayed safe areas from Namie and Tomioka as "red zone".)
He also made some interesting comments on his Facebook account (specifically,https://www.facebook.com/uglykiwi/media_set?set=a.1108392955906984.1073741934.100002088711813&type=3) that made me hard to write this from neutral view because I often watch prefecture's web cameras and Tomioka town has one. *:s is mine and ---consist removed part about eating chocolate.
"Never seen before photo of the fukushima exclusion zone. When i enter the red zone, i can feel a burning sensation in my eyes and thick chemical smell in the air.* before i went ::there the authority told me that i need a special permit to visit this town and it take 3-4 weeks to get the approval from the local council,, well too much bureaucracy bullshit ::for me..so i just sneak in the forest to avoid cops on the road ...AND IT WAS AMAZING !!!!!, I still remember what is like to only have a GPS and google map walking in the wood at ::2am in the morning to get into the town of tomioka, okuma,futaba and namie.
Have you ever wonder what is like in fukushima exclusion zone now ??? . to feel what is like to be the only person walking in the town when you have 100% full access to every shop ::and explore??. ---"
everything is exactly where it is after the earthquake struck this town . the reident started to evacuate the town when tsunami warning came in ....hours later the fukushima daichi ::power plant exploded that lead to harmful radiation leaked.
The radiation level is still very high in the red zone. not many people seen this town for the last 5 years...is like it vanished ... i can find food,money,gold,laptop and other ::valuable in the red zone....I'm amaze that nobody looted this town clean. unlike chernobyl the entire town is been looted clean. this is the difference between chernobyl disaster ::and the fukushima disaster
Well this is the devastating effects of using nuclear energy. resident lives in fukushima will never be the same again... the radiation leak at red zone by the fukushima daichi ::power plant is damaging the environment and marine life🐙🐋🐟 in the pacific ocean , say no to nuclear energy today.
[SHARE THIS PHOTO OUT TO SPREAD THE AWARENESS OF THE DANGER IN USING NUCLEAR ENERGY]
Went in the town with Koji and special thans to Sherena Ng for all her research, could not have navigated in this town without all the route and map she provided ..
  1. fukushima #japan #Exclusionzone #urbex #Urbanexploring
For licensing queries please contact licensing@barcroftmedia.com"
  • I didn't knew radiation smells.

※〶 20:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fukushima_nuclear_accident_cleanup&oldid=748023564"