Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


The title should be renamed to Fukushima Daiichi disaster[edit]

This is not a nuclear disaster, it's natural disaster that destroyed among many other things a nuclear powerplant. The disaster wasn't caused by a nuclear reactor or nuclear power in any way. --Dqeswn (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Gonna have to disagree with ya there. Attribution is generally assigned to the context, which isn't necessarily the cause. For example, the Delta flight 191 accident in 1985 is considered an airline disaster, yet it was caused by wind shear, which is a weather event. Additionally, there were deficiencies in the design, construction, and (especially) operation of the power station which played vital roles in the events. Rob (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the references in the article the accident commission decided it was, overall, a man made disaster because it was both reasonably foreseeable and preventable.GliderMaven (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Figure of 1,600 Indirect Deaths[edit]

However, an estimated 1,600 deaths are believed to have occurred due to the resultant evacuation.

This is demonstrably false. That description makes the claim that all of the deaths were a result of the nuclear disaster. However, the actual collected data covers the total body of people in Japan who were displaced at the time. The majority of whom were displaced by the earthquake and/or tsunami. Rob (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of how many people were evacuated in total in Japan, or even how many were evacuated in Fukushima. It's a question of how many people were evacuated due specifically to Fukushima Daiichi. This is a matter of public record it's 154,000, and secondarily, how many excess deaths there were in this group.
Presumably things like evacuating hospitals and moving old and infirm people safely is not easy to do perfectly. GliderMaven (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood my comment. The cited figure of 1,600 deaths is not includes all evacuees in the Fukushima Prefecture. That includes people who were evacuated due to the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, but also those evacuated due to the earthquake and tsunami. Rob (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is very contrary to yours. Even the pro-nuclear World Nuclear Association claims 'over a thousand' deaths are due to the on evacuations due to the nuclear fallout of 'over a hundred thousand' people (our Wiki article gives 154,000 evacuations due to nuclear fallout); compared to the 470,000 evacuated due to the tsunami. GliderMaven (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Cool, I'll update the article to use that source. Rob (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

While it's perfectly proper for me to mention them on the talk page as an attempt to help look for the true number, no, because they 'conveniently' rounded down, rather than to the nearest number, and because they're not, technically, a reliable source anyway. GliderMaven (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm becoming convinced that you lack the neutrality to contribute to this article. Denying the context of a piece of data is one thing, but you're now claiming that an authority on nuclear energy isn't a reliable source. Rob (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Your ignorant personal attack not withstanding, in Wikipedia the views of an association is not a reliable source unless it has been through an editorial process, per WP:RELIABLE. A website like this is not generally considered reliable, unless there is evidence of that happening. GliderMaven (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There's no point to using thread when it's only two people engaged in a linear discussion, so I've removed the indentations.
I don't see any indication that industry trade publications aren't generally considered reliable as long as they're acting as a secondary source, which is exactly what the World Nuclear Association article is. But this is all beside the point.
The presentation of the cited number is verifiably incorrect and unsupported by the cited sources. The first four paragraphs of the cited NBC article:

More people have now died because of the Fukushima evacuation process than were killed in the region by the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami which caused the displacement, a survey said.

Some 300,000 people evacuated their homes in the prefecture after the disaster caused multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, according to Red Cross figures.

A survey by popular Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun said Monday that deaths relating to this displacement – around 1,600 – have surpassed the number killed in the region in the original disaster.

Close to 16,000 people were killed across Japan as a direct result of the earthquake and tsunami in 2011. According to the Mainichi report, 1,599 of these deaths were in the Fukushima Prefecture.

It names the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns as the reasons for evacuations, then compares the number of deaths resulting from the evacuations to the number of deaths due to the original disaster. The following paragraph specifically names the earthquake and tsunami as the cause of the figure with which the subsequent deaths figure was being compared. This is further reinforced by, which would make the statement nonsensical if the other disasters weren't also included.
Additional sources further disprove the language used in the article. One example is a Japan Today article published 5 months later which cites a similar figure of 1,656 deaths while specifically noting that it includes evacuees due to the meltdowns, tsunami, and earthquake. The article also compares that figure to those from other prefectures in the region in order to provide some idea of how the nuclear disaster may have contributed to the higher number of deaths.
At this point there has been over a week for the edit to be defended. As no logical defense has been made, I'm removing the sentence from the main article. If a figure which excludes earthquake and tsunami evacuees can be found, I encourage it to be included. It may be possible to properly present the 1,600 deaths figure elsewhere in the article, though doing so would require sources which present the data more clearly.
Rob (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Despite the reasoning being clearly outlined above, my edit was revered by GliderMaven. To avoid an edit war, I'm initiating the process of requesting a 3rd opinion. Rob (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Rob; there seems to be a concerted effort to maintain false and misleading information in this article. The source, as I've already pointed out, and attempted to make clear in edits, is incorrectly cited, and deliberately misleading. I actually think that this article should be semi-protected, because at this stage, it seems that any attempt to edit even this utterly ridiculous lie results in edit warring from people unwilling to discuss the issue in good faith.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

3rd Opinion[edit]

Tyler Yates (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

After reading through this, I find that GliderMaven is correct here. The articles posted support his/her evidence, and I think we are done. If you wish to counter Rob, find an offical news source that has a counter point to this current argument.

I feel that I outlined the my position quite logically, demonstrating specifically how the articles don't support his position. Further, I've already provided an additional source which supports my position. To sum up: The Wikipedia article states that 1,600 people have died while displaced due to the meltdowns. All of the cited sources, however, state that the 1,600 figure represents people were evacuated due to the meltdowns as well as the earthquake and tsunami. These are vastly different figures, which at least one source demonstrates by comparing the figure from Fukushima with the equivalent number from other prefectures. Notably, none of which had any evacuations due to the meltdowns. I urge you to review my statements and reconsider. Rob (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly how would you compare different prefectures of different sizes? Fukushima has unusually high rates of evacuation due to the meltdown. Also, the numerous sources (and I have found a whole bunch more that aren't in the article) specifically mention the death rate in context of the meltdowns. There's no OR in any of this, not from my end anyway.GliderMaven (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Why are you asking hypothetical questions about methodology when the mere existence of the comparison in your cited source contradicts your argument?

As of the end of August this year, such aftermath-related deaths totaled 869 in Miyagi Prefecture and 413 in Iwate Prefecture.

I've also gone to the trouble of locating the official data. This document contains the most recent revision of the data, which it describes as the "Death toll associated with the Great East Japan Earthquake". Its figures as of September 2013 closely match the above: Fukushima (1,731), Miyagi (911), and Iwate (452).
Rob (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I did exactly the same thing as user Rob, and found the original source of this information. I asked for it to be discussed, but instead it has been repeated re-added, without discussion. Glad to see people discussing it here, but utterly dumbfounded to see people still misinterpreting what is there in plain English. It does not state that these deaths occurred wholly due to the evacuation of the containment zone. The source is misattributed by NBC, misquoted in the Wikipedia article, and not even particularly clear in the Mainichi article. FURTHER, and this is critical. Those numbers are NOT attributed to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japanese language sources, except those that refer only to the NBC article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of radiation levels with Chernobyl[edit]

We have a fair bit of comparison of total activity released and area contaminated compared with Chernobyl. Have there been any sources that have compared peak radiation levels inside of the primary containment to analogous areas in Chernobyl? Radiation levels of ~650 Sv/hr have been detected, probably more or less on top of the corium puddle under the RPV. There have been some recent edits comparing peak readings of 300 Sv/hr at Chernobyl 4, but as near as I can tell those were taken from the roof ~25m above the remains of the pressure vessel. VQuakr (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to prove my point established on my talk page that comparing A to B is not original synthesis as VQuakr says it is, heres a little logic exercise.
Read this title. Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents Note the word comparison.
On that page now scroll down to 'Maximum level of radiation detected' box. Read values.
Note the comparison between these two disasters. A to B. Note there is no conclusion made like this. A + B = C. In original synthesis C is a conclusion from A + B that is not mentioned by either of the sources.
Why this point? Here is VQuakr's edit note justifying removal of a comparison ' (→‎top: rmv unsourced WP:SYNTH violation; take to talk page.) Here is the text removed by VQuakr for being in his words a 'WP:SYNTH violation'.
By comparison the Chernobyl disaster vented 300 sieverts per hour at its peak.
This is not a good standard of editing behaviour. See my talk page for full discussion. I think we may need an admin to get past this. SaintAviator lets talk 22:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Comparison to other articles is a poor way to assess policy compliance, for the general reasons outlined at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Since this is the parent article, it makes more sense to me to discuss the question here, on the more heavily trafficked talk page. Comparison of radiation levels is fundamentally different than comparisons of years in operation, number of people evacuated, etc. The latter examples are quantitative numbers or assessments, while radiation readings vary significantly by location. It is also worth noting that that comparison article does cite this (paywalled) source that performs the analysis for comparison of activity released. The equivalent location to the Fukushima 2 readings (below the RPV, inside containment) never existed at Chernobyl and the analogous location (more or less on top of the corium pool) is inaccessible, buried beneath thousands of tonnes of improvised containment dumped in prior to construction of the sarcophagus. That's just a long way of saying that comparison of radiation readings is a non-trivial assessment, and to juxtapose the two readings we need a reliable source that has done the analysis.
This has been on the talk page for less than a day; I think a call for administrative intervention is premature. WP:3O seems like a good option if no one chimes in after a week or so. VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Your silence on synth validates my point. BTW Heres the other thing, radiation continues to be released into the Pacific via groundwater. No one know how much or where its from, exactly. There is no sea at Chernobyl that radiation has leaked into. No comparison. So Fukushimas problems are ongoing. None of this implies confidence. Chernobyl vented huge amounts of radiation, but they sealed it. Fukushima is also still vulnerable to another earthquake. SaintAviator lets talk 07:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The entire first paragraph of my previous post provided more detail on my concerns regarding WP:SYNTH. Nothing after your first sentence appears germane to the topic of this thread. VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I knew you would take the path of 'off topic', as a way to escape the heat directed to you due to your posts on my talk page ( and carried on here.) especially where you think A compared to B = Synth. It does not. The above is not off topic course. Its all related. Can you tell me how much radiation has leaked into the ocean? I may be wrong but you seem to have the view Fukushima is all safe and sealed like Chernobyl. But its not. [1] [2] SaintAviator lets talk 23:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
As already noted, it depends what "A and B" are being compared. I have already explained why comparison of radiation intensities must be performed by a reliable source. The oceanic and other environmental contamination has been characterized and quantified by numerous reliable sources (and is summarized in the article), but I am still unclear as to why you believe that to be relevant. VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

A Broader Background view[edit]

Looks like another logic lesson is required. Fukushima is still leaking radioactive contamination into the Pacific.

Elevated levels found off the coast of Japan show that the situation is not yet under control, and that the facility is still leaking radiation. [3]

This is a problem. Ongoing radiation contamination after about six years is a key feature of this disaster and is unlike Chernobyl in this respect. Its very note worthy. Its NOT in the Lede. So this key feature after all this time is not in the Lede. Was this your doing? I ask because when I put in the 650 s/v figures you made up all sorts of confused reasons to revert it from the Lede.

Then theres this. As Japan prepares to mark the fifth anniversary of the 2011 tsunami and nuclear disaster, the problems at stricken power plant are far from over, with contaminated water problems unlikely to be fixed before 2020

Its another key point that should be in the Lede. [4]

The article is not up to speed and is not highlighting all the important things in the Lede. I could be wrong but you seem trapped in a viewpoint. Ive seen this before on Wikipedia. Its usually solved by Rfc, lots of chatter and time later. Sometimes the party in your position attempts to get the edge by starting the Rfc themselves worded badly of course. That just delays things. So I have to ask: Why are you gatekeeping this article? SaintAviator lets talk 21:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What does anything in your previous post have to do with the topic of this thread, Comparison of radiation levels with Chernobyl? VQuakr (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
A lot. I subtitled the above background section to assist you to comprehend the coming inclusion of comparison data. SaintAviator lets talk 21:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I still don't see the connection between the two, but the currently chronologically-organized "contamination" section certainly could do with updating and possibly reorganization. We should also establish a clearer parent-child relationship with Fukushima disaster cleanup, which itself badly needs cleanup as well as updating. The lede summarizes the body so changes to the lede should be after (or concurrent) with updates to the body. VQuakr (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes body then Lede. SaintAviator lets talk 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tokyo related[edit]

Anyone know if it's safe to travel to Tokyo? Gooballsam (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gooballsam: Hi, while this is a talk page about the Fukushima article, it isn't designed for general chat or questions such as yours. The talk pages for articles are for talking about what to put in the article. Wikipedia isn't a forum for general chat, though you can chat to other editors on their User Talk pages - feel free to talk further about Wikipedia on mine here. BW |→ Spaully ~talk~  14:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gooballsam: for general questions such as this you also can go to the reference desk. VQuakr (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Unarchiving[edit]

There is a number of important discussions getting archived here. As it is now impossible to undo, I am going to have to manually revert at some point. This is just a notice that there are outstanding, major discussions on this article, that need addressing that can be found in the history.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

3 months with no replies seems a pretty generous amount of time to allow a discussion to die down. I suggest starting a new thread and linking to the archive instead of copying a bunch of old stuff back over to the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)