Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21


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)

What about splitting off Units 1, 2 and 3 into a separate article? (E.g. the same as what has already occurred for Units 4, 5 and 6.) Comments? MWadwell (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You both reach the sane conclusion, and I agree. I suggest the article should be titled "Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident", which seems to be the term used by both the Japanese Government and the IAEA. Prosopon (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Split article?

Split - Article should be split due to length, starting with "Cascade of Failures". Thoughts???--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is long overdue. The article evolved into its present length because each new development in the disaster's unfolding was added as it happened. It is time to remove most of the chronology and discuss what happened in retrospect. Certainly, the contrast between what we now know, and what was known and revealed as events unfolded is part of the story, and one section of the article could discuss this. Most of the details would be best broken off into subarticles. Since nobody has stated any objections to splitting the article, I'd say you should go for it. Or perhaps you were hoping somebody else would take this on? -- SamuelWantman 21:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that further culling can take place within the main article - for example, despite the fact that there is a seperate article for Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the section in this article is still ~12 KB. Why? If there is a linked separate page, shouldn't this article simply provide a summary of what is on the other page, rather then duplicating it?
Similarly the sections on "Reaction in Japan and evacuation measures" and "Energy policy implications". If these sections were reduced to summaries of the linked pages, the article would be dramatically reduced in size. MWadwell (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that this article is a very valuable source of information. In my opinion, it is fundamentally wrong to split it for whatever reason. The article describes a historic event which will have implications for the next 6 centuries (~20 Cs half-lives) as 400 km^2 of Japan will be inhabitable (a disaster). Scattering the collection of information around in sub-articles will make it subject to erosion, and that is a disservice to mankind. So, point 1: world-event permits exceptional length. point 2: scattered information may disappear. Lothar M. Schmitt 15:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMSchmitt (talkcontribs)

MOX fuel emphasis

I'm a little curious as to the emphasis on MOX fuel in Unit 3 - for the simple reason that all of the units would have plutonium in them - as does all LEU-fueled reactors. (As when U-238 (which makes up a majority of a fuel assembly) captures a neutron, it turns into Pu-239. Most of the Pu-239 is burnt up, but a small percentage of it captures another neutron and is turned into Pu-240.) I was looking at this article Office of Scientific and technical Information (DOE) - Disposal of Spent Fuel - and on the bottom of page 3 it makes reference to a spent BWR fuel assembly containing 1.57 kg of plutonium. Has this point been raised before (and dismissed), or is this the first time this point has been raised? MWadwell (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You have a point as all low enriched uranium fuel will become a mixture of uranium dioxide and plutonium dioxide during its use in a reactor. Much of the energy released in a nuclear reactor fuelled with LEU will come from the fission of plutonium if the fuel is used for a long time. But there are some differences, MOX is a fuel which contained plutonium when it was made. The alpha activity in MOX due to the minor actinides is likely to be higher after it has been used, all used fuel will have transplutonium minor actinides (Am/Cm/Bk/Cf) in it but the MOX gets a "head start" as it already has Pu-239/240 in it. Also a MOX has different properties during reprocessing, it could be very hard to use aqueous methods on MOX as it is much harder to dissolve plutonium dioxide than it is to dissolve uranium dioxide. As a result the plutonium in a MOX might behave differently in the environment after a Chernobyl like accident where fuel particles have been ejected from the reactor, I predict that the Pu in a MOX (which was made from a mixture of PuO2 and UO2) would be slower to leach than the Pu in a uranium dioxide fuel. At Fukushima very little plutonium was released which confirms that the accident was a LOCA in which the fuel was heated up with little mechanical stress on it, so I think for this accident the off site effects of swapping LEU for MOX fuel would be very small.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Article split

Cite errors: Refs has to be copied from History. Important !

I remember there was a bot. Or use something else. Tagremover (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit X Reactor)

Although i support this split, i do NOT like splitting it into many subpages about each reactor !!

  • Proposal: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Reactor Units) integrates the information as this is RELATED between all units. The size as a Subpage is a less problem, its for READERS searching a LOT of DETAILS.
  • The main page SHOULD include a BIGGER SUMMARY, around 1000 words (or 5 kbyte) seems appropriate.

Tagremover (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Split looks ok but we have the horrible list-defined references system here that will have to clean up. Why people like this format is beyond me - non content editors I would guess.Moxy (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please re-review the split pages for this article. Each has an excessive list of external links, and lengthy opening summaries duplicated from the main article that don't appear to have much to do with the specific article(s). Thank. - Salamurai (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I tagged the pages for units 1, 2, and 3, for lead rewrites Aunva6 (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2013 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disasterFukushima Daiichi nuclear accident – Rename the article to a less emotive name, per discussion above. Morg00 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The current name parallels its peers: along with the Chernobyl disaster, this is the only nuclear accident ranked 7 on the INES scale, and even the sole level 6 accident is at Kyshtym disaster. And while you could argue that the direct loss of life due to radiation for Fukushima was less than for the other two, the indirect impact is certainly disastrous, with half a million people (the vast majority of whom were far away from the tsunami zone) forced to evacuate and large swathes of that area rendered uninhabitable for years. Jpatokal (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose how is "disaster" overly emotive? There was more than one (partial) core meltdowns, clearly "disaster" is an descriptive term. If there were no core meltdown, you'd have a point. -- (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It is concerning that the above two editors do not seem to be actually trying to find out what the incident is called in reliable sources, but arbitrarily deciding to call it "disaster" on the basis of their own opinion. The argument presented above was that this was known as "Accident" by both the Japanese government and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Shouldn't this article be titled in accordance with the usage in reliable sources, not according to whether Wikipedians think it is a disaster or an accident or an incident or whatever? Can we please have a discussion on that basis, not on the basis of "I think it's a disaster, so it is one". JoshuSasori (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "accident" 4k gnews hits ; "disaster" 5k gnews hits. -- (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The nature of Google is such that the search for "fukushima accident" turns up pages containing "fukushima disaster". If you add double quotes around the search terms, you can get a clearer picture. E.g. with quotes "fukushima accident" -> 215, "fukushima nuclear accident" -> 51 as opposed to "fukushima disaster" -> 1370, "fukushima nuclear disaster" -> 577. So the indications are that news sources prefer "disaster" over "accident" by a factor of between five and ten. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Google fukushima disaster 10.7M vs. fukushima accident 6.9M, certainly a frequently used description. I also agree that parity with Chernobyl disaster and Kyshtym disaster is appropriate here since these are the only other similar events on the INES scale. Also, in response to the above comment, I don't think either IAEA or the Japanese government are necessarily neutral sources for this decision. IAEA does a lot of good, but one of their explicit goals is also to promote the peaceful use of nuclear power, which would seem to give them an incentive to prefer weaker language. Similarly, the Japanese government would probably prefer to spin things in a way that makes them appear less severe. However, other observers, including many news organizations, have preferred to call the meltdown a disaster which seems an appropriate choice here. Dragons flight (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. I just think the discussion should be based on the sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Sources are only one factor to consider among many: consistency is also one of the five pillars of WP:TITLE. Jpatokal (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Accident is also a car paint damage. Tagremover (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the arguments I presented above (Google news frequency). JoshuSasori (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 to the grid (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. There were some problems at transmission substations. The towers and lines were fine. Tower 27, on the plant site, failed, but this was a small 66 kV circuit - ie not a big deal. Distribution on the plant side, from the plant yard to the units, was compromised. This is not a problem with the grid, but with plant design. (I do have a question as to where the Yonomori line is. We see a photo of it coming into Units 5/6, but where does it originate? The claim I have seen is that it originates at the ShinFukushima transmission substation (near the golf course), but I think it comes from ... Yonomori, near the metro stop. ( Martin | talkcontribs 20:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

By the way, Daiini seems to have been nearly as bad a basket case as Daiichi, with lots of diesels and pumps out of service, and only one connection to the grid being energized. What were the problems at the ShinFukushima substation? ( Martin | talkcontribs 19:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC))

suggestions for sections re Failure of coolant systems / lessons learned

If this thread contains a specific suggestion for improving the article, then please succinctly state the proposal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

To describe the manner in which the failure of the coolant systems occurred correctly, and how the 'RCIC' system worked with battery power opening and closing valves - after the tsunami hit, this worked for about a day. A lessons learned section would also be an improvement to the article. For example did you know that Japan was alone in not fitting passive autocatalytic hydrogen recombiners(turns hydrogen gas back into water) at its power plants? They have now ordered these devices that require no power, but before hand, TEPCO used an active(required power) hydrogen recombiner. They have since learned from this, and retrofitted them into its power plants.
There is also a very descriptive picture on page 2 of this document that captures the tsunami's wall of water just before it hits the power plant, could we get this picture into the article? -
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of the word "disaster" in titles of articles about disasters

This turns out to be interesting. Natural disasters are hardly are called "disasters" in their articles. Hurricane Katrina, the biggest natural disaster so far in the US (in terms of cost), is not named the Katrina disaster as any article title on WP.

For man-made disasters, the terminology is decidedly mixed and it varies by category and it hasn't got a thing to do with number of lives lost. There's a comprehensive list of these by category and magnitude here: [1] and it's very instructive to go down the list of disasters and see how many people died and whether "disaster" occurs in the article title (even if it's clearly called a disaster in the lede). It's almost random.

For air disasters, the worst on record, the Tenerife disaster, is called a diaster, but not the next two worst. Only 20 of 179 air accidents are called disasters, and it's not even close to the top 20 in loss of life. Hindenburg disaster, for example.

For explosians and train disasters, we have the word used in the titles of only 12 of 93 articles-- not all the worst ones.

For industry and mining, disaster occurs in titles for 38 of 132 articles on incidents, again not noticably the worst ones.

At sea I suppose diasters are expected, and only 4 of 148 peacetime shipping losses of life get to be called disasters in their WP titles. Not the four worst.

In space, the two Space Shuttle accidents get to be called disasters on WP, but the difference is 7 people each, vs. a Soviet one that killed 3 (6 total events are listed). 7 People is only a disaster if it's a disaster to your space program-- it's certainly not much of a disaster in total terms of loss of life, if you look at other transportation things this list! All these events killed more people than died on any space shuttle.

The two worst of 17 radiation leaks are called disasters (Fukushima hasn't been added to this list yet). But nuclear power and space exploration are the only categories in which there seems any tendency to call the worst of the worst (in each category) disasters, and not let the term skip over one event which is worse than some other. Hope that's helpful. SBHarris 00:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is quite a piece of work. Congratulations for it.
The immediate cause for the mishap, incident or disaster in Fukushima is sure nature, but all what happened there with the reactors had sure "some" anthropogenic or man-made in it. The investigations by the Japanese Diet revealed, that TEPCO did know, or could have known, that a tsunami might be much higher than TEPCO had prepared for...
So, there are more causes here, and some are just human made.
1947enkidu (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
SBHarris. Have you considering that might be because we have a lot of editors who are anti-nuclear (some blatantly so). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course. Coal mining routinely kills many times more people per unit power than nuke, and has a string of far worse accidents. But even subtracting nuc power, disasters are not named at all uniformly. SBHarris 20:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
IRWolfie, before turning on fellow editors, you need to consider that there are in fact a lot of people in the world who are either anti-nuclear, or who have no opinion on the matter. In fact, I don't know anybody in real life who is really 'into' nuclear power, like some of them are keen on fast cars, motorbikes, gardening etc. The only people who are really 'pro' nuclear reactors seem to be those who make money - directly or indirectly - out of them. Most of the time that goes well for them, but occasionally a bunch of people get killed or contaminated. --Nigelj (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
But usually not. Nobody got killed at this Fukushima Daiichi "disaster." It was a "deathless disaster." Which means to me that somebody needs to take a pill.

By contrast, most of the people who die each year mining coal die in China, where life is cheap. About 5,000 people each and every year. Wrap your mind about that. [2]. Even in the US, the number of coal miners killed per year in the last few decades has averaged about 35/year. [3]. Compare one year of US coal deaths with the worst nuclear disaster on record, Chernobyl, there the number killed (so far) by all causes (explosion, radiation, cleanup) totals just 31. [4]. We can go on and on about how many people WILL die in the future from Chernobyl, but nobody knows. It certainly isn't 5,000 people a year, which is the coal number. And if you like coal-related disasters, there's a list at [5]. Of the 5 worst indistrial disasters on record, 4 are due to coal mining (only Bhopal is worse). The worst coal disaster was 1500 people in China in 1942 and in Europe, 1000 people died in France in 1906. Compare, again, with Chernobyl (where perversely, most of the deaths were caused by a carbon-fire in the reactor moderator, an ancient design. In a broad sense, Chernobyl was a "coal" fire, too). Are there deaths in uranium mining? Yes, but it's difficult to compare then because it takes very little uranium to equal the same energy as in a ton of coal. And uranium mining has gotten drastically safer in the last 50 years along with coal mining. We have 1000 former coal miners die every year in the US from blacklung, but should we count these? Is it anything close to the total number of former uranium miners dying from lung cancer? No, not close.

In all, if you want to compare energy sources, the number of deaths per terrawatt-hour is worse for coal than anything else. It is 100 to 170 deaths per terrawatt-hour of energy, where as nuclear is about 0.04 deaths per terawatt-hour. [6]. Solar energy from root-top panels is 100 times more dangerous than nuclear per TWH, because you have to count the deaths from people making the panels and from installers falling off roofs! There is no free lunch.

As for radiation, the average nuclear plant releases less radiation into the environment than the average coal fired plant, which emits radiation from naturally-occuring radioisotopes in the coal, which go into the air. EVEN if you take averages of radiation emitted in occasional nuclear "disasters," that remains true: coal is STILL far worse as a radiation polluter.

In summary, while I know of few people who really are fuzzy-hearted fans of nuclear, many reasonable people wish that instead of coal supplying 20% of the world's energy and nuclear 6%, it was the other way around. Not only would it be far safer for people and the immediate environment, but it may well keep the globe's icecaps from melting in the next century, which will cause billions of deaths in starvation, and flood most major coastal cities. Find me a nuclear disaster that has anything like that potential. SBHarris 22:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Had the reactors stayed on, would there have been an accident?

The reason why the reactors shut down(SCRAMed) following the earthquake is that this is the law of the land- a safety regulation/law. Now, had the reactors instead kept running after the earthquake and broke the law, then the power plant would still have been generating its own power, and therefore would not have needed to rely on back up power supplies to deal with cooling the reactors.

Right? Boundarylayer (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the buildings were damage quite severely too, the connections between the buildings suffered too. The cooling of the spent fuel pools was out of order too. Backup-power was lost at all. Please keep your POV from this pages.
1947enkidu (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
First off,it's not my POV, it is a nuclear engineers point of view that sounds plausible. Here is where I heard the engineer say this very thing in passing, it's only 10 seconds, beginning here 1:19:00 -
Secondly, what you suggest is just not entirely true enkidu, backup power was not lost at the power plant until hours to days after the tsunami had long since passed. A full 'station black out' did not happen immediately after the tsunami arrived which was ~40 minutes after the earthquake, for example focusing only on the reactors that had accidents[units 1-4 but not 5-6] station housed battery actuated cooling systems were operational in Units 1-4 for many hours after the tsunami and it was only after these batteries eventually were depleted(went flat) after a day - March 12th, that a complete station blackout occurred. The cooling systems were still undamaged and in quite a capable condition to cool the reactors following the tsunami, they just needed a tiny amount of power to continue to operate after the batteries went flat a day later, and in this case, the emergency cooling system just needed the tiny amount of power, to take over the job of the batteries, which was to power a(/actuate a) simple valve.
I'm just enquiring if the reactors had remained operational and not automatically SCRAMed, and they continued to produce power themselves,(the turbine buildings from pictures I've seen appear relatively undamaged, where the turbines damaged? If they were damaged, that's ok, a simple no-moving parts flat panel thermoelectric generator would be more than sufficient to operate the motor attached to the handle of a valve, as its not having to power a heavy load, like a water pump) would they therefore not have been able to deliver electricity to power the valves that were clearly still operational,as the batteries had just been running them hours before they went flat? You see the reactors steam is used used to power a Emergency Core Cooling System(ECCS) this is a non-electric steam driven pump^ however it does require that valves be opened and closed to work. This ECCS system is more descriptively termed the RCIS(reactor core isolation cooling) and it appears to only need a tiny amount of electricity to open and close valves to work to allow the system to operate. With the obvious caveat, that like all heat engines the RCIS must have somewhere to preform a heat exchange.
The situation at Unit 3 followed closely that of Unit 2, except that the RCIC system ran for only 20+ hours. However, the DC power supply for the HPCI system was not damaged, so the HPCI system started up and was run for an additional 15 hours.
Unit 3 - After the earthquake and tsunami, both high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) and RCIC were available for injection. Initially, RCIC was placed in service and remained in service until the following day, when the system unexpectedly shut down. One hour after the loss of RCIC injection, HPCI automatically initiated on low-low reactor water level. This is probably the most informative document I've found produced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. - This is by the Union of Concerned Scientists and includes the control room computer print outs of how each cooling system was still working, but seemingly just lacked power to continue to work, and possibly also a cold body of water etc. to continue the functioning of the heat engines ^The RCIS, an example of a ECCS, is a steam driven pump. This is particularly good as it has pictures of the diesel generator room being flooded.
Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since this entire section is speculative in its present form, it should be immediately archived or collapsed as WP:FORUM per WP:TALK. But I'll leave it up to another editor's judgment rather than doing it myself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not speculative, its based off of what PhD in nuclear engineering said in passing, and therefore deserves attention. Would the loss of coolant accident have happened if the power plant was still producing power? He is of the opinion that it would not have happened. beginning here 1:19:00 - Now we could verify this to some extent if anyone had actually written about the condition of the main steam turbines etc, but as you can imagine most search results turn up information on the reactor building and not the turbine building. All I have found is that the basement of the turbine building was flooded with pictures of the back up diesel generators, but sadly no mention in that link of the condition of the steam turbines positioned on the higher up 1st floor of the building.
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently Palestine-Israel conflict needs a non-speculative section on how things would be different if no one had shot Rabin, because lots of PhD's have wondered that, in passing. This thread is WP:FORUM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It's all speculation, I do not understand, why here a link to some guy, who promotes thorium-reactors ? Are those that safe, and don't they produce no radioactive waste ?
The suggestion, that the reactors could have been saved, when... is by the way absolute nonsense: A nuclear reactor needs cooling, the efficiency of nuclear power is not that big... a lot of heat needs to be dumped into the water next to the reactor. But after the tsunami, the sea-water pumps on the shore were damaged, and could not be used. these pumps were needed for the flooded diesel-generators, but these pumps would be also essential, when the reactors would been active....
best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the gist, but your first comment is a personal attack (stay WP:CIVIL and WP:FOC) and your second comment is just as much of a WP:SOAPBOX as the remarks you are complaining about. You could ask an uninvolved admin to strike this thread, or else you could just archive it yourself. If the OP doesn't like that, they can use WP:DR to say so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
After the tsunami did hit the plant, all electric power-lines to the plant were lost. The back-up lines were damaged too. The plant was completely isolated from the mainland. If the reactors would have stayed active, it would have been impossible to transport all the electricity. Because these reactors do produce a lot more than only needed to cool the reactors.
Another reason why the proposal of Boundarylayer is completely besides any feeling of reality and is showing a complete lack of understanding of what happened there.
1947enkidu (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

radiation release grid

I think we should put in a grid of estimate releases by isotope much like we see in

we could list it by date, --Patbahn (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea but the table on that page is incorrect in relation to Fukushima, particularly in relation to Cesium-137.
In principle however I agree with a comparison table. Feel up to making one?
Boundarylayer (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

WHO study

The WHO study probably needs to be treated with some skepticism (see [7]).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? Are they not WP:RS? Student7 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a load of conspiratorial nonsense. There is a reason it's in the comment section of the website. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
One (or the same?) WHO study says the kids are riddled with thyroid growth. Another {the same} says the future affects are negligible. The Japanese government could be counted on to rush potassium iodide tablets to the area. Did this not happen. Or did it not do any good?
There is also a source from Al Jazeera, which I think we can probably do without for this study. We have sufficient WP:RS material without them. Student7 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Overuse of word "disaster"

The article was prematurely named "disaster." It is, however, labeled an "event" by the industry, which, considering the results, is more reasonable. The media is quick to label everything a "disaster. News at 11." to get you to watch their report (and improve their ratings which improve their bottom line). Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. We shouldn't be copying the media. It may be okay to copy neutral WP:RS.

Let's be encyclopedic and rename it "Fukushima Daiichi nuclear event." Student7 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This "event" is the first time that multiple cores melted down, a huge area has become inhabitable, up to the streets of Tokyo the radioactive fallout has come down, the costs of cleaning it all are enormous, (if it can be done at all) It is a disaster for sure.
No, No, No, 1947enkidu (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The fallout gave them a jar at the time, but the WHO reports covers that pretty well.
"Coast is uninhabitable." Well I'm finding that people are building permanent facilities within 30 miles (48 km) of plant.
So it comes down to relocation of 60,000 people and the very expensive loss of the plants themselves to term it a "disaster"? Student7 (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
What concerns me about using media words that are merely designed to get attention and not really to inform but to "persuade" or get you to listen, is that they are subjective. There seems no reason not to use "event" as do the nuclear WP:RS that report such activities. We need to be encyclopedic. The media needs to be inflammatory. We need to constrast with the media, not (in the case of pov) copy them. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the nuclear industry has far more at stake to want to downplay this to being a routine 'incident', compared to the worldwide media and commentators' assessment that it is in fact a 'disaster'. --Nigelj (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Look at the more recent sources. Long term risks are negligible. So yes, there was an overreaction. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that. There simply are no objective criteria for labeling something a "disaster" as opposed to something else less dramatic.
The media is professional at getting attention. That is their job. Not WP:RS in the use of adjectives/nouns. Student7 (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
If it comes to downplay... just look at: [8], where TEPCO just hopes that we would take for granted all TEPCO wants us to believe. In the mean time on 18 March 2013 a huge power loss did hamper some nine facilities at the plant. Including the cooling system of the spent fuel pool of reactor 4, where almost 7000 fuel bundles are stored OUTSIDE any containment. The cause would be a makeshift control board, in haste installed, but two years after the "incident" still in action. Can you assure us that this "incident" is all under control? 1947enkidu (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like you rather involved on these issues. Perhaps it would be better if you tried to approach things neutrally and calmly, without rhetoric, cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • We had a failed RM just a couple of months ago. I suggest leaving it longer before making another request. Any such request should be referenced to sources, rather than users' subjective opinions on how serious it was. --John (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Side stepping the whole argument of, is it more apt to call it a disaster or event? Why don't we be descriptive and describe what happened without inflaming both sides of the argument. Something like - Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdowns
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
"Meltdown" has the advantage of being objective, if accurate. Student7 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks I always try to go for objective descriptions, as they are always best, however as you rightly mentioned about the accuracy of the meltdown title, from what I read up to now, meltdowns full or partial happened in Units 1-3 but not 4, so it might not be all that accurate a title, so another title I thought of everyone might agree with is Fukushima Daiichi reactor loss of coolant accidents
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
If the cause had been internal to the overall design system I might go along with "meltdown". If you don't like the multiple-RS expression "disaster" how does Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Destruction and Nuclear Release) look? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate your input, but that's not an accurate title News, as units 5 and 6 of the power plant were not destroyed, and did not release any appreciable radioactive material, moreover unit 2 was not destroyed. So loss of coolant accident is the most accurate title I can think of. Although it might be a bit too long of a title however, so calling it Fukushima Daiichi reactor accidents might be better, with the first line of the article describing that the accidents were loss of coolant accidents which caused meltdowns in Units 1, 2 & 3, and low cooling water levels in the spent fuel pool of Unit 4, while units 5 and 6 shut down without incident etc.
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
If the roof blew off, no one would really care. The only reason the average person cares (I think) is due to the release of radiation and radionucleotides. I dislike "accident" or "meltdown" for the same reason you dislike "disaster". But if you agree that most people mostly care about "nuclear release", what do you think about Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant (2011 Meltdowns and Nuclear Release)? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia discourages "and" titles. Can you select one that is most representative of the issue? Student7 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Fukushima disaster gets 26,800,000 results on Google. I'm not going to start listing them here. Of course 'the industry' wants to style it an "incident", but we are not industry spokespeople. Here is the top image from my Google search. 'Incident involving some loss of coolant', does not really do that justice, IMHO. We need to use the most common name (including use by the public, news organisations etc) not what nuclear industry PR orgs would rather everyone call it. --Nigelj (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)\
I'm not sure that the decision on whether it is a disaster is whether or not it has more google searches on one term or another, that should be pretty irrelevant. I also agree that I'm not sure this qualifies as a disaster, the tsunami was a disaster but this was more of an incident then a disaster. I think the page should be renamed Ottawakismet (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This whole discussion is way over the top and "POV". Can anybody name any event, disaster or incident, that caused more costs, estimations cannot be made at all, because the work to contain it, might not be ended long after all of us lie in a grave. The real pollution of nuclear materials is unknown, the evacuation of the land around the plant might take a lot more time, the decontamination of this land... who could possibly tell...
you all might take a look at [9].
1947enkidu (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Nigelj please tell us what industry are trying to label it a 'incident'? Show us some evidence for your claims. Secondly you demonstrate why no one should rely on 'google' nor on you for that matter, as the picture you just included in this discussion Here isn't of a nuclear power plant it is of an entirely separate Japanese event, a fire and giant explosion at the Ichihara Oil refinery, a story covered in video by even the dubious TV outlet CNN which you can see was an oil refinery blaze that was later eventually put out a day later in picture 10 in this picture list, if the oil refinery interests you so much you can read about the event in this NDTV link. Many anti-nuclear advocates, such as yourself, have consistently tried to claim this oil refinery fire is somehow linked to a nuclear power plant in Japan, which is evidently a complete and obvious fabrication, these sorts of disinformation fabrications and wild exaggerations by those with axes to grind are part of the cancer that makes wikipedia such a bad encyclopedia.
Having dispelled that - 'Fukushima magically turned into an oil refinery OMG!' lie for the millionth time, to return to the topic at hand: The Fukushima accident is not classifiable as a disaster as no one died from the loss of coolant accident, and it was not an 'incident' as just about everything could be described as an 'incident', moreover 'incident' underplays the magnitude of the industrial accident. It was a nuclear power plant Loss of coolant accident therefore - an accident, I don't see why there is such opposition to being descriptive and encyclopedic with the title. Now I understand where NewsAndEventsGuy is coming from, and he's right that something like 'Fukushima Daiichi radiation release' is more geared towards what readers are probably interested in, however Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties already exists for what most people might wonder about.
1947enkidu I thought we already discussed Arnold Gundersen's WP:FRINGE pseudoscience website? However to answer your question about other accidents with higher human costs, and pollution damage well they are almost too numerous to list, but here's a few serious contenders on the pollution and human death toll fronts, the Banqiao Dam failure which resulted in 170,000 deaths and millions left homeless, the 2000 Baia Mare cyanide spill, the Bhopal disaster and as you're evidentially Japanese, you should be familiar with Minamata disease which was caused by Japanese Mercury pollution, a disease that has resulted in 1,784+ deaths, many more neurological issues and extensive clean up efforts. You could also look into Coal fly ash storage pond failures resulting in massive pollution events. Natural and man made events like - Coal seam fires which emit 40 tons of mercury into the atmosphere annually, and three percent of the world's annual CO2 emissions. The 20+ deaths from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill and natural gas explosion that killed everyone on the oil drilling platform and caused one of the largest oil spills in history, the somewhat natural 1997 Southeast Asian haze which has caused an incalculable number of premature lung related deaths etc. One good thing about hazardous radiation is that it decays away, whereas Global Mercury pollution(which primarily comes from Coal burning) pretty much remains toxic forever.
It is also noteworthy to see how the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article is titled in a descriptive manner, as an oil spill is part of what makes the event article worthy, devoid of tabloid titles like Deepwater Horizon disaster or Deepwater Horizon incident. As an oil spill is an accident event much like a nuclear loss of coolant accident.
In sum the official description of the event is a loss of coolant accident, note the word accident and not disaster see here -
Boundarylayer (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact that user Boundarylayer does not like the views of Arnie G. does not alter the fact, that this man perfectly points to the design-flaws that formed the basis of this disaster. American engineers did set up this plant in the first place, they broke down the cliff, they did not built a tsunami-wall high enough, and long enough. The decisions General Electric made to keep the costs down, did proof to be very expensive.
May I ask Boundarylayer to provide a better analysis of it all ?
1947enkidu (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Article too long

Seen as the article is apparently too long, one area that might be trimmed without much controversy is the earlier estimates on the amount of radioisotopes released, and the earlier speculation of the accident in general. For example, estimates are generally between 10% to 30% of a 'Chernobyl'- a bit of a dubious comparison, but good for laymen I suppose - So I can imagine we could trim all the times these estimates are mentioned and sum them all up with - The estimates have varied since 2011 to the present(2013), from 10-30%, with the most authoritative recent estimate being X% . We should naturally keep all the reliable references, but cut down on the number of repetitive sentences. What do you all think? If there are any replies, notify me please on my talk page. Much obliged! Boundarylayer (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to estimations of the radiation-releases, you might look into: [10] this video gives some extra details, that are surely not seen here. Only some numbers are cited at wikipedia, but not the assumptions behind them... at 13.12m there are some details how those numbers were fabricated. Was there still water inside reactor nr.3 at this temperature. Where is all that cesium gone ?
The Japanese "authorities" (and many elsewhere) might have a "need" to minimize the extent of this "incident" (or "disaster" ?)
On Friday 5 March the cooling system of spent-pool nr. 3 broke down, see: [11]. The problems are far from resolved even far from "contained". Greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC) serious? Arnold Gundersen, why don't you just send me links to the much debunked Helen Caldicott while you're at it? Here, have a look at this, even this guy with an arts degree was able to spot Arnie as a scaremongering nobody - Arnie is a person who has been making money off of being a pseudoscience anti-nuclear scaremonger for years. He gets paid for coming on TV to give people a good bed time scare story. He has become a very wealthy man because of this. I had my first encounter with this person years ago when I heard him on the tube in 2007, he was pushing the idea of, what I now know to be, the much debunked Hot particle hypothesis, which in case you're not familiar with it, has not been borne out in reality, as according to the hypothesis a lot of people who are still healthily kicking around should be well stone dead years ago, But that hasn't stopped Gundersen from continuing to push that pseudoscience and ladle out the nonsense, oh no in fact his well oiled machine has just been suckering more people in it seems, I honestly sympathize with you, I swallowed his nonsense hook line and sinker when I was in my early years too.
To be fair to you, as much as I like to see folks being skeptical of officialdom, all we have to go on is the authoritative estimates by various agencies, some of them well outside Japan without an interest to, as you put it - minimize the extent of this incident. Moreover you seemingly have jumped onto the hype bandwagon with the non-event of march 5th, this non-event has been blown out of proportion as, sadly, the understanding of how much cooling these pools actually need after 1 year is clearly not common knowledge. You see, depending on the length of time the fuel bundles have been out of the reactor, the fuel bundles don't even need much cooling at all. decay heat would be a good place for you to start to familiarize yourself with the cooling requirements, and looking at the amount of heat being produced per tonne of spent fuel after 1 year. In sum, due to the fuel in the pools being all at least a year old, the cooling system could actually have remained off for well over a week before it would even be considered news worthy in my book. In fact your source - [12] even acknowledges that. Not to mention had the spent fuel become entirely uncovered from evaporating the water after ~3 weeks of no topping up with water, it wouldn't be all that big deal either. As most of the really nasty fission products are not contained in spent fuel of this age(1 year old). For example Iodine-131 is completely absent in the spent fuel of this age due to its short 8 day half life. My best advice for you is to pick up a book instead of getting all your info from the media and in general people making money off of scaring you, go forth and educate yourself, oh and pick up a Geiger counter too, it'll help you no end.
Boundarylayer (talk)
Who are you, part of the "atomic priesthood" ? calling names like "the much debunked" "pseudoscience anti-nuclear scaremonger", why do you need this kind of words ?
I think you are a fraud yourself.
Besides I do not need to read some more books, worked for years with isotopes in a lab. Why do you need to intimidate me ?
Two tanks with radioactive water were confirmed leaking this week, who knows how long already. Now the Japanese government is tired of this kind of misfortunes.
see: Contaminated water likely leaked from second Fukushima tank
see: Fukushima reservoir tank may have leaked contaminated water
see: TEPCO ordered to address radioactive water leaks at Fukushima plant
This "incident" is far from "contained"
see: Ex-head of Diet panel probe say nuclear disaster still not under control
1947enkidu (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree you're right, 1947enkidu. Boundarylayer is a real big pronukeindustry POV-troublemaker here since too long... --Trofobi (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
@Boundarylayer: strong no Disagree to your cuttings + keep the discussion here, don't try to bait users to your talk page: what you "agree" there is irrelevant for this article, your dubious changes have to be disussed here. --Trofobi (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
(1) I didn't bait users to go anywhere, where's your evidence for this allegation? (2) Moreover where is your evidence that I'm pronukeindustry and POV-troublemaker (3)What in the world is the atomic priesthood? (4)Gundersen is a fringe scientists, not peer reviewed, not mainstream therefore he pushes psuedoscience, I use those words because that is the fact of the matter. (5) You attack me with saying I think you are a fraud, I ask, what 'fraud' have I committed for you to insult me? (6) Fukushima reservoir tank may have leaked contaminated water, but this water doesn't contain Cesium-137 and obviously not any short lived isotopes due to the age of the water, like the very dangerous Iodine 131, so why are you hyping this up?
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a lot more at hand while three underground storage-tanks of radioactive water are leaking. In Japanese newspapers this is quite an issue. But here you mention " not any short lived isotopes due to the age of the water" ? I cannot comprehend, what you mean by this. What do you think TEPCO should do with that water ? Dump it, because there are no short lived isotopes ?
1947enkidu (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It's only a big deal in the Japanese newspapers because like all media organizations they make money by putting eyes to print, with people buying papers, this is easily done when you fill people full of dread and fear, people have to find out then, and will buy the paper. Now of course the leaks are a bad thing, and they should be stopped, but honestly no one is going to die if in the worst case scenario, all the tanks leaked, so why the hype? To sell newspapers that's why. To answer your question on what to do with the water, well I'm sure if you ask anyone working there you'll probably get an answer on what they intend to do with the water in the reservoir tanks. If I were to give a guess, they probably plan to purify it with the equipment Russia and France have provided - (using the run of the mill ion exchange decontamination systems), but personally, I think this is over-kill. That is, personally, they should just do what the Natural Gas industry has been doing with their radioactive waste for decades now with no one batting and eye, and just inject the mildly radioactive water deep underground into non porous rock structures. The gas industry, according to the EPA, generally inject into deep wells or, in the case of offshore production facilities, discharge into non-potable coastal waters.
So I recommend they don't just dump the radioactive water as the gas industry is permitted to do, but to inject it deep underground away from life.
However, I'm sure your newspapers would have a field day if TEPCO was even given approval to do this injection process that the gas industry does on a routine basis, so because of that, they'll have to go above and beyond and purify the water instead.
what the gas industry do with their radioactive waste.
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As for the original idea of trimming initial estimates, I think the various estimates over time is one of the main reasons this subject is important and should be a focal point. 99% of the readers here don't really care about wrecked industrial equipment/buildings - they care about the estimates of radiation. Telling that unfolding story should remain a key part of the article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't really improve on what Boundarylayer has said. Will reiterate that "leak" and "disaster" or even "important" in many cases, is not always true with nuclear reactors. Metal containers leak. That is, alas, normal for all industrial work. I'm not inviting applause for nuclear management. But neither should others automatically sound the klaxon. Student7 (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe this article is not too long. This article contains most of the information about the disaster. All I think we should do is for the longer sections, we should use more of a timeline like interface , and bold the times that the event happened. This will allow most of us to read the article comfortably. This removes 1 problem. About the introduction problem, I think there is no problem since the article is quite long and that is a good summary. Mattsung (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

New photo?

The photo in the infobox is really blurry and small. Any chance a new photo can be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


The article states that reactor 1 "was designed for a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s2)" but then a few lines later that "The earthquake design basis for all units ranged from 0.42 g (4.12 m/s2) to 0.46 g (4.52 m/s2).". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Converting all Becquerel units to TBq (or PBq)

As I was reading through this article I noticed that the way the radiation numbers are presented made it more difficult for my brain to compare numbers and process the information. Specifically, radiation given in becquerels is given in two different formats: TBq (terabecquerels) and scientific notation, ex. 1.3 × 1017 Bq. Scientific notation in this instance tends to hide the difference in numbers from the casual reader, I believe. Take the following text from the article:

On 24 August 2011, the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) of Japan published the results of the recalculation of the total amount of radioactive materials released into the air during the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The total amounts released between 11 March and 5 April were revised downwards to 1.3 × 1017 Bq for iodine-131 and 1.1 × 1016 Bq for caesium-137, which is about 11% of Chernobyl emissions. Earlier estimations were 1.5 × 1017 Bq and 1.2 × 1016 Bq.[1][2]
On 8 September 2011 a group of Japanese scientists working for the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, the Kyoto University and other institutes, published the results of a recalculation of the total amount of radioactive material released into the ocean: between late March through April they found a total of 15,000 TBq for the combined amount of iodine-131 and caesium-137. This was more than triple the figure of 4,720 TBq estimated by the plant-owner. TEPCO made only a calculation about the releases from the plant in April and May into the sea. The new calculations were needed because a large portion of the airborne radioactive substances would enter the seawater when it came down as rain.[3]

In these two back-to-back paragraphs, both formats are used and it makes it harder to compare numbers for the casual reader. I believe that "1.3 × 1017 Bq for iodine-131 and 1.1 × 1016 Bq for caesium-137" would be easier to read if it were written as "130,000 TBq for iodine-131 and 11,000 TBq for caesium-137". Would anyone be opposed to me changing the numbers in this article to all use TBq?

Going a step further, what if all numbers were converted to PBq (petabecquerels)? The numbers in this article range from 4,720 TBq as the smallest to 900,000 TBq as the highest, with most numbers having three trailing zeros. If we did this then you would have numbers like 4.7 PBq, 11 PBq, 15 PBq, 130 PBq, and 900 PBq. —Megiddo1013 15:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are certainly right about scientific notation throwing off comparisons.
As to what it should be converted to, it would depend on the threshold of what is dangerous for humans. If we can absorb a million petbecquerels annually without ill effect, petabs seems too grainy, the numbers "too large." But then you might be forced to us .000001 millibecquerels, which is nearly as annoying as the scientific notation.
The unit chosen should not appear to exaggerate the danger by its "grainyness" IMO. That would seem WP:POV. Student7 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Yea, I think part of the reason I was hesitant to use PBq is that I was afraid it would make the numbers look smaller, whereas TBq would keep an extra three zeros making the numbers look scarier. But like you said, for WP:NPOV PBq is probably better simply because it makes the numbers easier to digest. After all even as someone who has done several hours of reading on the subject, I still don't have much of a "feel" for the real-world difference between 1 PBq and 1 TBq. For that reason, its better to use the simpler numbers in my opinion. I'll go ahead and change everything to PBq. —Megiddo1013 19:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Reported Steam Sighting Report on Wikipedia

  1. Japan begins a renewed effort to halt the leak of radioactive material from the tsunami-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. (BBC) 07/26/13 16:17 -0400 Friday, July 26, 2013, 04:17:06 PM EDT. article cites visuals of steam rising from damaged rector(s).

Heat can come from trapped fuel rods parts or run-off from these, maybe. Also from any compromised (steam brearing) lines connected to other parts of the plant (plant routings are complicated), or even electrical problem heat, or more remotely possible, chemical heat.

Why does the article imply the steam may be fission related while also saying the source of steam is unkown? Is the source of steam really a mystery to plant operators? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerns over re-criticality

The section on concerns over re-criticality was moved along with the rest of the Unit 2 reactor material to a sub-article. I am now seeing claims of ongoing fission in the alternate media. I came here to look for confirmation or rebuttal of the claims but found nothing in this article. Only after Googling for "Fukushima & fission" a week later did I find out that the the original concerns were related to Unit 2. There is nothing wrong with the section and rebuttal there, but the issue would need to be covered also in this main article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be in this main article. There has been far too much deliberate cover-up and denial in the mainstream press about Fukushima; please don't let Wikipedia collude in the cover-up. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the Safety History Section

There are a few problems with the Safety History section of the Causes section namely the following sub-sections:

2006: Court order opposed and 2008: Tsunami study ignored

The piece on the Court Order has no relevance at all, as on following the link referred to it is revealed that the case does not concern the Fukushima plant or even TEPCO: it concerns the Hokuriku Electric Power Company's Shika Nuclear Power Plant, which resides in a different area of Japan. As it is of no relevance to the article I think it should be cut.

The piece on the Tsunami study does not provide any scientific background to the study, or the general scientific understanding of what kind of earthquakes and tsunamis were possible in the area. There are a few scientific pieces on the failure to predict the tsunami, and a clarification piece from TEPCO that I think should be summarised and added to this section.

If there are no objections, I hope to make the changes laid out in the next few weeks.--Starviking (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The first court-order showed, the unwillingness to follow the conclusions of that court. The whole nuclear industry in Japan did not like or want the implications of these court-orders at all.
As far as the study on tsunami's... this plant was built on certain place. It happened that there were some 40 meter high cliffs. The American company that built the plant, they took away the cliff, until it was 10 meters high, and the plant was built there. The disaster was Made in American. Those Americans did not comprehend in no way the risk's that tsunami's incorporate in them. If you would like to know some more about this, you might study the website of Gunderson, let there be faire-winds on earth.
I'm opposed all you would like to do.
Best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the issue raised by Starviking are a good reason to remove those sections. Especially in the way it is now mentioned in the article there is not enough supported by the sources to keep that text in the article 'Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster'. - Robotje (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Given the feedback I intend to remove the Court Order sub-section, and expand the Tsunami sub-section to include academic and TEPCO reports. I hope this will give a more balanced feel to the sub-section.
1947enkidu, the Fukushima Dai-ichi Plant was built by TEPCO and its contractors to a US design. It was not built by Americans. The Tsunami threat to the Pacific coastline of Tohoku was first studied in the early 2000s, but concerned the Jogan Tsunami of 869AD which struck a different area of Tohoku. See the wiki page for more information.Starviking (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Wo were those contractors ? Practically ALL design is of American origin, no way that TEPCO had the expertise to built a nuclear power plant. MARK-I containments (like that of nr.1) are quite abundant in the USA, your statement is only in some juridical way correct. 1947enkidu (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Come on, 1947enkidu, on 28 June 2013 you wrote on this page [13]
and that is simply not true. The plant was built by Kajima Corporation, which is a Japanese company. What source you have that an American company took away the cliff, until it was 10 meters high? - Robotje (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Since mister Robotje obviously has taken it to his task to make anything especially hard for me on this site, and to imply (?)... I leave it here. The reactors were all designed by General Electric, Ebasco another American firm was involved too. How to deny this ? 1947enkidu (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of GE boiling water reactors. There is nothing wrong with the design, nor is there any implied by the disaster. The problem was placement. The cooler was placed too low, as we can now see clearly from hindsight.
A second "problem," to arise, is following procedure which is to shut down the reactor when an accident of this nature occurs. Following that procedure resulted in more problems (excess polluted water) than would have occurred otherwise. Again, more easily seen in hindsight. Student7 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the design ? The cooler would not have worked at all, because even when it had been situated at the fifth floor, that diesel-engine could not be cooled, because the water-pumps for cooling the diesel were damaged by the tsunami.....
there was a lot more wrong with the design...
greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting information. ".. even when it had been situated at the fifth floor, that diesel-engine could not be cooled, because the water-pumps for cooling the diesel were damaged by the tsunami....." Where can I read more about the problem at Fukushima Daiichi for cooling the diesel? - Robotje (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The placement of the diesel... would it have been high up... that discussion is highly speculative. I rather follow the reality. And some discussions like this have been done in the years gone by, so please look into the archives before you restart this pure nonsense.
It has also nothing to do with the question this discussion started...
1947enkidu (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I've read quite a lot about this disaster, but never read something like ".. The American company that built the plant, they took away the cliff, until it was 10 meters high, and the plant was built there. The disaster was Made in American. " and now ".. even when it had been situated at the fifth floor, that diesel-engine could not be cooled, because the water-pumps for cooling the diesel were damaged by the tsunami....." so I'm surprised about those things. For the first issue I already asked you for some source, but so far nothing. For the second issue, same. Only the suggestion to read the archives, without specifying what archives. So once again I ask you, where can I read more about the problem at Fukushima Daiichi for cooling the diesel? - Robotje (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not paid for this, there's no index on the archives... and I have better things to do. je kan me de bout haggelen 1947enkidu (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not paid either and I think others in this discussion also not. If you come up in this discussion with totaly new 'facts' you can not or are not willing to give a source for, then it seems to it is now about time to end the discussion and do the changes Starviking proposed. Oh, and please do realise, this is a talk page linked to an article on the English Wikipedia, so please only write in English on this page. I don't know what the last part of your edit means, but it is clearly not English. - Robotje (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It's all hypothetical, that important can't it be. litle robot. But if you would like to, you might look around at Arnie is pretty good in his explanations, I do not have time for you. 1947enkidu (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
On the site you recommend I couldn't find anything about that mysterious American company that built the plant, took away the cliff, until it was 10 meters high, and built the plant there. Also about the cooling problem of the diesel/diesel-engine I could not find anything at that site. If you don't have time, that is OK with me, but making fun of the (user)name of your colleague (as you did here) doesn't help to convince others in a discussion. - Robotje (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but I'm now going to remove the section on the court order. When I have time to compile the information on the Tsunami I will edit that section too.Starviking (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Contaminated water leaking into ocean

Today's news reports highly radioactive stored water is leaking from the site into the ocean. Perhaps this should be added to the article. Storing large volumes of contaminated water on the site is not practical. The best solution always has been to filter 99.9% of the radioactivity out of the highly contaminated water, and pipe the filtered water a mile or two offshore and accept that. The contaminated filtered material should be stored at a different site that is not so messed up. Cleaning up the site is a miserable enough job without having large amounts of radioactive water around. (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)BG

The whole problem with contaminated groundwater and all water stored, is that TEPCO all the time ignored the existing leakages. Dumping it would not be accepted by the local fishing industry. And all tryouts with filtering all radioactive isotopes (except Tritium, because too expensive) has been a failure up to now. You might think it could be done... but TEPCO and ARIVA have failed in this plan up till this day.
Best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Then the site is headed towards another crisis. Long term storage of radioactive water is not an answer. Just storing highly radioactive water delays dealing with the radioactive water and makes the basic other problems on the site much harder to deal with. This site needs room to work with and the radioactive water tanks will at a minimum get in the way. Eventually the highly radioactive water will have to be dealt with and delay makes things worse. Filtering out and removing the radioactive isotopes is doable and necessary. Coarse filtration followed by finer filtration. The hundreds of tons of filtered material produced should probably be stored off site as should other solid highly radioactive material that needs attending, either trucked or barged away. The site could be used for long term storage of the large amounts of less radioactive solid debris. Unless they are willing to dump a small percentage of the water radioactivity into the ocean in a controlled way there will eventually be uncontrolled releases of much higher radioactivity. Ground water running into the ocean will be the least of their problems and yet now they are making a big deal of this.

Nonsense is going on. Building a seawall to stop radioactive ground water going into the sea by using a steel wall, freezing the ground, or by chemical methods is no solution but just another temporary delay. The ground water will eventually go somewhere. Its a waste of resources and time. At least the ground provides some degree of filtration. There surely are places offshore where currents would take filtered water away from the coast and disperse it in the ocean. Some more radioactivity in the ocean is not a big deal. If they don't accept ocean dumping then cleanup of the site is going nowhere and a site crisis is eventually coming when they have to ocean dump, whether it takes 2 months or 2 years. At this point I would accept ocean dumping even of partially filtered water. Water storage on the site makes the site worse. (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)BG

Maybe. The radioactive water leaking problems on the site might be much worse than that article indicates. (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)BG

The storage of the contaminated water has been kind of sloppy, cheap tanks, nor welded, reused tanks, tanks placed on a concrete floor, but nor re-enforced, than those concrete floors do crack under the weight of the stored water... no adequate control of the water levels in the tanks, rust forming on tanks and pipes, might cause later leakages... Its all there, TEPCO hoped to filter all that water, and dump it with all the tritium in it. Than again, the filters of ARIVA proofed to be a pain in the ass. In the mean time the severity of the accident is raised to level 3.
It's all to be found at The Asahi Shimbun and the Mainichi Shimbun and more inside info on: The Fukushima Diary
Shielding off the reactors and freezing all soil around them, would stop the flow of contaminated water to and from the reactors. That would help to minimize the increase of contaminated water.
Cold shutdown ? That's a big lie, they do not know where the molten blobs fuel has gone to, so they pour water into the reaactors in the hope it will reach all fuel and keep it cool. But when rainwater reach the reactor vessel of nr.3, they see steam, so here there are some parts that can produce steam, what temperature do you need for that ? We do not get all information for sure. In the mean time it is obvious, that the situation is far from "under control"
Best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"But when rainwater reached the reactor vessel of nr.3, they see steam.... what temperature do you need for that ?" Yikes! You would think that the high temperature places would have been identified by some method, perhaps with infrared cameras on small cheap drone helicopters or booms. These places would need water spray, and probably much less water spray would be needed in other places.

But ARIVA at least had the guts to try in the beginning when everybody else was afraid. More simple conventional filters should work to a large degree. Continuing to store water is not an answer; there should have been a filtering solution long ago. But my point should be obvious that building a seawall to stop radioactive ground water going into the sea is nonsense. If this seawall actually stops the water, the ground water level on the site will either eventually rise and flood the site (a fiasco!), or the water will go to adjacent property and thence to the sea, or the water will go under the seawall, all nonsense. The site water should be partially filtered and dumped in the ocean. There is no other answer unless the water is pumped or barged off the site and filtered elsewhere. But it looks like to avoid offending the fishing industry the net health and radioactivity problems will eventually be made worse and cleanup on the site will be severely hindered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to cause an uproar by suggesting something unpopular, and haven't done the math, but perhaps all the unfiltered radioactive water stored on the site could be directly piped or barged far enough offshore so currents would disperse it in the ocean so as to not to cause significant human health effects. A long time ago radioactive waste was just dumped in the ocean, nothing to be proud of. With some Fukushima waste the fish could be much better off with a few more cancers if people out of an excess of caution would eat far less of them. But eating 1,000,000 fish is politically correct and having 10 fish with a tumor is politically incorrect. Fishing populations would rebound but it would be politically incorrect. I really think that radioactive water needs to get off the site. If people would be more vegetarian thats another plus.

BTW, all this could have been avoided if what I've advocated for 30 years was in place. For both pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors there should be a backup emergency procedure to depressurize the reactor as quickly as possible (avoiding stress cracking) and keeping the core covered with water and allowing depressurized boiling by venting from the top of the reactor vessel. Its easy and cheap to have a reliable unpressurized water source. This could prevent future meltdowns. Three Mile Island taught me and some others (that were ignored) that the only thing that is really important is core integrity. (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)BG

Many news sources have just reported (this quote is from "Japanese nuclear regulators have raised the safety alert level of a radioactive water leak at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, saying it is now a serious incident. Operators of the crippled power plant said last week that 300 tons of contaminated water leaked out of a storage tank and that some may have reached the nearby ocean." As if far worse leaks haven't already happened. It looks like both Tepco and the Japanese government are BS artists. In this kind of environment responsible engineering decisions will be difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Our job, as editors, is to report reliable sources as to what has happened, not to "fix" what is likely to be an "unfixable" problem. Predicting what will happen without very WP:RS sources is WP:OR. And discussing future possibilities at length does not contribute to improving the article. We need to confine ourselves to understanding and reporting the past. We will report the future events when they arrive. This is an encyclopedia not the nuclear equivalent of the Farmer's Almanac. Nor is the discussion page a blog. There are other, willing venues for people with the gift of prophecy. Student7 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Health effects

"An increase in infertility has also been reported." Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but in the quoted article I don't find any reference to the fact that an increase in infertility has been detected in the area. Instead I find concerns about a possible increase in infertility in the years to come (just like concerns about increases in the incidence of other diseases), which is very different.

And this sentence "As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture alone and nuclear experts warn that this pattern may also occur in other areas of Japan." leads to believe that these cancers are due to radiaton exposure, while in the article it is clearly stated that Japanese doctors believe it is likely that the children had developed cancer prior to the incident, possibly as far back as 2006. Regardless of whether it is true or not, I believe it should be highlighted in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It is confusing and there are big contradictions. The source states "In the case of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, instances of thyroid cancer cases began soaring four to five years after the event." So the Fukushima health effects situation will become much clearer in a few more years, and maybe the article should say this. In the meantime family picnics near the Fukushima plant should be avoided and the radioactive water kept on the site should be dealt with to minimize future health effects and facilitate site clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right but I'm not questioning whether the effects will show up or not. What I point out is that the sources provided do not clearly state that these effects have already been detected (and my opinion is that they have not been detected, but that's not important), while the articles is confusing and unclear and leads to believe the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful with the source of this information, Chris Busby. In the article he states that a recent peer-reviewed report stated that thyroid cancer rates per 100,000 in japan were 0.0 per 100,000. The only report this could be is: Cancer Incidence and Incidence Rates in Japan in 2005: Based on Data from 12 Population-based Cancer Registries in the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) Project. The problem is that this report states a male rate of 0.5 per 100,000 and a female one of 0.7 per 100,000. As you can see, this puts a big question mark over the trustworthyness of the article.Starviking (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thyroid cancer Incidence in children and adolescents from Belarus, the most contaminated country from the Chernobyl accident. Yellow: Adults (19–34), blue: Adolescents (15–18), red: Children (0–14). Note how thyroid cancer only begins to increase after 3+ years have passed, the rate of Thyroid cancer in Belarus was similarly just around 0.5 to 0.7 per 100,000 before and directly after the accident, and only begins to increase from this rate 3-5 years after the accident. Click on this picture for the medical study reference.
Christopher Busby is about as fringe as you can get, and as Starviking just pointed out, he is a misleading charlatan. He's been making money off of his scaremongering campaign, with the sale of his laughable "anti-radiation" pills.(see Christopher Busby).
Secondly the mass Screening (medicine) of thousands of people will lead to the "screening effect" or overdiagnosis. - "Screening may identify abnormalities that would never cause a problem in a person's lifetime. An example of this is prostate cancer screening; it has been said that "more men die with prostate cancer than of it" However medical professionals are not going to be taking any chances, even if they're turning up large numbers of benign thyroid abnormalites, they will overdiagnose. The WHO study released earlier in the year predicted such a "screening effect" and it is mentioned in this Fukushima article. (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The tsunami strike was caught on camera, please insert picture.

In the upper left hand corner on page 2 of the document below a picture of the tsunami just before it crashes against the power station can be seen.

I would like for someone to edit the introduction of the wiki article to something of the effect - "However, the tsunami, which was photographed[insert reference] impacting the power station some 50 minutes after the initial earthquake, quickly flooded the low-lying rooms..."

The reference would also be a good addition to the article's overly simplistic picture opposite.

Fukushima I Powerplant (Tsunami hight).PNG

Thanks. (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 08:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting edits - help needed

Editor ArialMoonlinght has made a series of changes that, according to me, were not consistent with the sources. I made changes to align the text with the sources and ArialMoolight reverted them. Since I don't want to engage in an editing war, I would like other editors to step in, take a look, and edit the text appropriately.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have also noted their WP:OR edits, and with that, I have made a number of reverting edits just moments ago, I then thought it wise to come in here to explain them, to post a note about this AritaMoonLight81 user's propensity to insert WP:OR and mis characterize what the references actually state.
Keep up the vigilance against misinformation my friend. (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
User AritaMoolight has again edited the text in way that conflict clearly with the sources. For example, in the edit [14] the source is cited as "Future cancer deaths from accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be elevated" whereas what the source says is "People in the area worst affected by Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident two years ago have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers, the World Health Organization said on Thursday". The source is [15]. Could other editors please step in and take appropriate action.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • User talk:Gautier lebon they also said following September 11th, 2001 that is was safe to go downtown in New York City near the site of the World Trade Center. How has that worked out for

The Reuters article that you are speaking of, however, to be precise Higher cancer risk after Fukushima nuclear disaster – WHO (Reuters) – Feb 28, 2013

Interview "Diplomat: We are facing global catastrophe over next 40-100 years because of Fukushima"

"Nathaniel White-Joyal, Host: It’s clear that the west coast of the United States will be affected by the radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

"Akio Matsumura, Diplomat: Let me clarify. We are facing global disaster — catastrophe — occurring. From that perspective, over 40 years, 50 years, or maybe 100 years. We cannot escape from this fact. For that we have to keep in mind. […] This radioactive material, or contaminated water, any cases, reach out to your west coast as well. If you are counting on Japan, I can assure you now they do not take serious action."

Seems here you have a TV interviewer and a Diplomat at some level who are attempting to top each other with scaremongering. Suppose the plant gets decommissioned in 40 years - where does that leave the diplomat's position? What if it takes 100 years? 100 years means the reduction of the chief radiation component, Cs137, by a factor of 9. Does he have some inside knowledge that we don't? He's voicing a pessimistic position that he can't back up with any science. This isn't evidence; this is just hysteria. SkoreKeep (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, until time allows me, I leave it to other editors to listen and evaluate (the first of the above two) I do know that the chief engineer at does have significant expertise and background, being a former nuclear power industry executive (see Arnold Gundersen) Harel (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It suffices to read any of the reliable reports referenced in the Wikipedia article under "casualties" to see that the above citations are based on a serious misunderstanding of the effects of highly diluted radioactive material. As far as scientists can tell, there won't be any serious effects due to radioactivity, as opposed to the massive damage caused by the tsunami itself.Gautier lebon (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Gautier. Furthermore, the article documents with WP:RS that even nearby Japanese themselves will experience little long-term damage. The initial media response agreed with the torrid remarks above, largely forgotten today, the media having moved along to other "catastrophes," real or imagined. Student7 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Matsumura is not alone; a financial executive (a category of individuals sometimes forced to be candid with risks in ways politicians commonly are not) in an interview ( ) observed this two days ago, which strikes me as worth consideration - Chris Rodgers (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The entire area is weakened and there is a great risk of an aftershock. Now this pool contains something on the order of 400.000 kg of hot plutonium. So, the thing that people should be aware of is that TEPCO is going to begin attempting to remove these rods from this pool to some other type of storage. This has never been done with plutonium rods that have been out of a core for such a short period of time.
There is a great danger of a thermonuclear reaction if these rods become exposed to the air and the cooling pool itself is just barely containing the temperature levels of the core as it is.
...The media coverage of the situation has been almost non-existent. The public must become engaged and the governments must become engaged because this is a global threat. They say that one microgram of plutonium could theoretically kill a person.
This is perhaps the greatest threat humanity has ever faced. And I think you would acknowledge there has been far too little attention given to this at this point and the measures that the Japanese government is discussing at this point are not sufficient, I believe. Other governments must become engaged in this.
I don't know if I'm reading something out of context here, but there is absolutely nothing - nothing - you can do to fuel rods - new, used to yesterday, used 30 years ago, or used in Christ's time to cause a thermonuclear reaction. You might get some more heat out of them, even a great amount of heat, enough to melt them and set the fuel on fire, and more, if you stacked them closely in the air; you'll not get a fission/fusion explosion out. After that bon mot, the rest is opinion. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
So, what's the point here? You want someone to edit this into the page for you? Are you trying to scare us? Oh, and the "they" he refers to in his microgram comment is Ralph Nader, a lawyer, debunked 37 years ago. SkoreKeep (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you only mean that nuclear rods can't create nuclear fusion? That much is undisputed. The issue is surely a nuclear fission chain reaction, which I think is possible. I see nothing in Behavior of nuclear fuel during a reactor accident that addresses this issue, which is a bit annoying. Podiaebba (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
1.) The word "thermonuclear" refers specifically to hydrogen fusion explosions, AFAIK. 2.) Sure, they can fission if thrown together in a bundle, which will heat them (and throw off radiation, of course) as I mentioned, but they will nor explode (i.e., become an atomic bomb). If they could the US could have saved a huge amount of time and trouble in the middle of WWII by just bombing Germany/Japan with raw uranium dust. It must be enriched to 90%; accept no substitute. 3.) You can't find anything because there is nothing that rods together can do to make thingd worse. Read what it says about corium, and contemplate the Elephant's Foot at Chernobyl. How many rods might be contained in that? SkoreKeep (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
1) yes, "thermonuclear" means fusion, but in common parlance is easily misused. Anyone who knows that it means fusion specifically wouldn't use it for nuclear rod incidents which obviously can't involve fusion. 2) just because you don't get a fission explosion doesn't mean a fission chain reaction isn't an issue. 3) the sort of interpretation you're suggesting is no substitute for the Behavior of nuclear fuel during a reactor accident article being clear about rod issues even to an uninformed layman, which is after all what Wikipedia is for. Currently it's a bit of a mess overall, and not clear about rods. As you appear to both know and care about this, might I suggest you consider spending some time on improving that article? Podiaebba (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
That works for me. Place this data as was apparently originally intended in the article and I'll improve the article for sure. There is apparently some context here that I'm missing; is this all about the original accident, or about some ramification of it? A date for the interview would help as well. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Denialist "weasel words"

This article is dotted with crazy denialist sentiment, such as:

"however whether these growths can be attributed to exposure to nuclear radiation has not yet been proven."

Perhaps the difference in Thyroid growth can be attributed to the fact that a bonobo monkey escaped from the Tokyo Zoo as a result of the Tsunami, with the escape of these monkeys came a zoonotic virus that infected the children's thyroid glands causing these abnormal growths amongst the population around Fukushima!

So, there's two theories:

1) A bonobo monkey with a zoonotic virus escaped from a zoo and caused a 30% increase in thyroid abnormalities, or 2) THE NUCLEAR RADIATION FALL OUT CAUSED IT.

You really have to question the motive behind people who have the gaul to edit an article to cast doubt on the harmful effects of the Nuclear radiation. Are they employees of the company responsible for running or constructing the power plant? Have they list business because other customers have woken up to the potential side effects of their technology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm, that's "gall". All Gaul was divided into three parts well before nukes. To be serious, perhaps they are telling the truth, at least as they know it. Sometimes, gall is what it takes. For example, what re your thoughts on hormesis?SkoreKeep (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


I'm going to grind on this for a bit. Feedback encouraged! Comments (updated as I go):

  • The article is way too long. There are already a host of child articles. Most of the material in this epic belongs in the kids instead.
  • The intro is way too long. In particular, it doesn't need to (albeit partially) recap the history of the event. The intro should rather define it, summarize its implications and encourage the reader to dig in to the rest of the piece.
  • The point about the shutdown of the Japanese nuclear power industry does belong in the summary.
  • I see someone removed the toclimit I added. I don't do wars, but I also don't see a reason for so much detail in the toc.
  • OK, that's a wrap for me. Back to your regularly scheduled editing. Happy New Year!

Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reapplied the TOC limit as I agree that it seemed too detailed. Mikenorton (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Be careful. The intro is indeed too long, but the rest of the article contains information not found on WP anywhere else. We do not have a "kid's article" section of Wikipedia. We do have a WP:SS policy which requires that if you hive off overly detailed content, it go into a subarticle with a title like the heading of a section here that is too long. Then the article becomes the main article for the subheading, which is rewritten to summarize it. You can see that has been done to many sections already, but not all. For example "Energy policy implications" is ripe for creation of a subarticle to shorten this section. But move the information first and do not delete detailed information. Wikipedia does not have a space limitation, and "too long" does not mean "delete" here. It only means "create subarticles for the detailed content". SBHarris 03:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Please let me know if you find anything missing. i have a couple of minor points that I pulled out of the "wrong" section and haven't put back yet. Down a couple of thousand words of fluff so far. Still grinding. Some of the sections that have subarticles are still way too long. Lfstevens (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for this, it was long overdue and the article now looks much better. I wonder about the section "Chernobyl comparison". Apart from footnote 182 [16], the cited sources don't compare Fukushima with Chernobyl, and the source at footnote 182 doesn't really say what is said in the section. So it seems to me that this section is WP:SYN and should be suppressed, after integrating elsewhere the info from the source at footnote 182. Comments?--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I'm still grinding on the article, and there is significant reorg to come. I'll look at the section again before I finish. I was feeling that the article has too much Chernobyl in it, scattered about. Lfstevens (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Ummm, there already is a separate article for a Fukushima/Chernobyl comparison: "Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents". SkoreKeep (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Good point. So maybe the best way forward it to move material as appropriate from the "Chernobyl comparison" section in this article to Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents and to add a pointer to that article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Impact on the environment

I would expect a section dedicated to the impact on the environment, especially since some radioactive water leaked into the Pacific. Would it make sense to add such a section to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, especially as there is some controversy over whether the Pacific is really being harmed or not. (eg Snopes intra alia denies it)--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

explosions on Dec. 31

Can anyone find any other source confirming underground explosions at Fukushima on Dec 31? Or explain what it means? I tried a link to the eutimes net but Wiki doesn't accept it. That's partly what makes me suspicious. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please check -- NRC OPA (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks! --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


>> Japan: The next wave>> Debunking Fukushima's radiation myths (Lihaas (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)).

Help: I cannot do this alone

As anybody can see by checking the sources, user AritaMoonlight has once again changed the text so that it does not say what is in the sources. I've alinged the text with the sources several times, and each time Arita changes it back so it does not match the source. Can somebody else please help out and restore the text so that it matches the sources?--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

AritaMoonlight has made another series of edits. At [17] it is claimed that the edit matches the source. The source is [18]. It seems to me that the original text matches exactly what is in the source, wherease Arita's revision does not. Similarly, the edit at [19] does not correspond to what the source says, the source being [20]. The next edit by Arita is at [21]. Arita states that the source does not say "extremely low to none". This is true, the source says "the doses are very low, and very few cancers would be expected as a result", see [22]. But this is the say as saying "very low to none", which is the wording used in other sources and is consistent with page 8 of the WHO report at [23]. In any case, Arita's text does not seem to me to correspond to the source. In the edit at [24] Arita has removed text that faithfully reflects what was in the source at [25] and replaced with text that, as far as I can tell, does not match what is in the source. I would appreciate it if a third party would look at this and let us know what they think.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I requested a Wikipedia:3O but was informed (see User_talk:Gautier_lebon#Third_Opinion_requests) that it was premature because there hadn't yet been a direct discussion between me and Arita. So I've now asked Arita to post comments on this talk page, see User_talk:AritaMoonlight81#Fukushima_edits.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Since Arita appears to be ignoring you Gautier, I think it best to revert the text back again, but just be wary not to delete interim edits, such as my own today. Another thing that might help stop Arita is if you incorporated the reference to the rate of thyroid cancer before the accident, which user Starviking named above. " Cancer Incidence and Incidence Rates in Japan in 2005: Based on Data from 12 Population-based Cancer Registries in the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) Project. The problem is that this report states a male rate of 0.5 per 100,000 and a female one of 0.7 per 100,000."
That would probably help a great deal, right? (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that this is a good approach. I will take care of it in 1-2 days from now.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that Arita has just made another change to the lead, at [26]. This edit deletes information from the WHO report and justifies the deletion on the grounds that the same information already appears in the same section. But this is not correct, that information does not appear elsewhere in the lead. The lead would be unbalanced without that information. I will restore it when I realign the text with the sources.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I aligned the text with the sources, but AritaMoonlight has again made changes without discussing on this talk page. I see that CoffeePusher has reverted Arita's changes see [27]. Perhaps the time has come to ask an administrator to intervene. Comments?--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I was not even aware of this page until I checked my messages today. However there seems to be a lot of misinterpretation of the sources in the Fukushima nuclear disaster page. I will explain these misinterpretations, source-by-source if required. AritaMoonlight81 —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do go through each of the edits mentioned above carefully, and compare my text, your text, and what the source says, so that we can come to agreement on how to summarize the source correctly in the article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, this paragraph here:

"There have been no fatalities linked to short term overexposure to radiation reported due to the Fukushima accident, while approximately 18,500 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami. People in the area worst affected by Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers."

The source specifies the type of cancers that these people have a higher risk of developing. Therefore I have changed it to this:

Future cancer deaths from accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be elevated for certain types of cancers such as leukemia, solid cancers, thyroid cancer and breast cancer.

In addition this paragraph:

"A screening program found that more than a third (36%) of children in Fukushima Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, but these are not attributed to the effects of radiation."

is biased because nowhere in the source does it mention that these are NOT attributed to the effects of radiation. Unlikely, yes, but the new source from November 2013 suggests that these recent increases in thyroid cancer rates around Fukushima may be attributed to the effects of radiation. Hence why I suggest this paragraph:

"A screening program found that more than a third (36%) of children in Fukushima Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, however whether these growths can be attributed to exposure to nuclear radiation has not yet been proven."

Furthermore this paragraph is not verified by any sources:

"The government says the recent cases are unlikely to be connected with the Fukushima releases as it generally takes several years after radiation exposure for thyroid cancer to develop and similar patterns occurred before the accident in 2006 in Japan, with 1 in 100,000 children per year developing thyroid cancer in that year, that is, this is not higher than the pre-accident rate.[4][5]"

Hence why I changed it to this paragraph which provides the correct information according to the source(s) provided:

"According to the Tenth Report of the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey released in February 2013, more than 40% of children screened around Fukushima prefecture were diagnosed with thyroid abnormalities and that 10 of 186 eligible are suspected of having thyroid cancer as a result of the exposed radiation. [6] As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole. However whether these incidences of cancer are due to exposure to nuclear radiation is unknown at this stage. Data from the Chernobyl accident showed that there was a steady then sharp increase in thyroid cancer rates following the disaster in 1986, however whether this data can be directly compared to the Fukushima nuclear disaster is unknown.[4][5] In November 2013, another report from the Fukushima Prefectural Government revealed that more children have been diagnosed with confirmed or suspected thyroid cancer. The number of children diagnosed with thyroid cancer was 59. Furthermore, the report claims that in Fukushima prefecture, 12 people per 100,000 who were aged 18 or younger at the time of the accident developed thyroid cancer. This figure is contrasted by a 2007 figure where 1.7 people per 100,000 in the general population between the ages of 15 and 19 contracted the cancer according to statistics taken in four prefectures, including nearby Miyagi. However whether these cancers are due to radiation exposure from the Fukushima nuclear disaster is still yet to be determined. [7]"

The report from the Tenth Report of the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey was released in February 2013 and seems to suggest that the people suspected to have or diagnosed with thyroid cancer was due to the effects of radiation.

It also doesn't hurt to compare the Fukushima nuclear disaster to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, especially since they are rated as a Level 7 nuclear incident on the INES scale.

After the Chernobyl disaster, the number of cancer cases for populations living in towns near Chernobyl were not statistically detectable. This is a very similar finding from Fukushima. However, this does not mean that either nuclear disaster did not cause cancers. This is a limitation of statistical analyses.

See this link for an explanation as to why cancer deaths from the Chernobyl disaster were statistically undetectable:

You can click on the links to see the sources. AritaMoonlight81 (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Quick skimming over this reveals you are cherry picking, for example you write - " the report claims that in Fukushima prefecture, 12 people per 100,000 who were aged 18 or younger at the time of the accident developed thyroid cancer. This figure is contrasted by a 2007 figure where 1.7 people per 100,000 in the general population between the ages of 15 and 19 contracted the cancer"
You're not comparing like with like, apples and oranges comparison here Arita: of ALL those under 18 being compared with those JUST between the age of 15 and 19.
Quite clearly you are not qualified to be editing this page not least because you quite clearly have an agenda to push. (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with If you read all of each source, you will see that it does support the text that I proposed. It seems to me that you are picking specific bits from the sources, out of context, and that your version does not faithfully reflect the source. And yes, I have clicked on the links and read all the sources carefully. While it may be legitimate to compare Fukushima to Chernobyl, to do so is Original Research or Synthesis, unless a source does so. And I don't see you citing sources that do that. Nor do I see sources that say "may not be statistically detectable, as in the Chernobyl accident", which is text that you keep adding. But maybe I missed something: if so, please point to it. But please do not change the page again until we have reached agreement on this talk page.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that an IP user made changes very similar to those made by AritaMoonlight, see [28] and [29]. Some of the inaccuracies in these changes were corrected by subsequent edits from other editors, and I have now corrected two further inaccuracies.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that AritaMoonlight has been at it again, for example at [30]; that edit was reverted by a citation bot, see [31]. I will revert other non-agreed changes, see for example [32] which I reverted at [33]. I also removed various additions to the lead, since it was agreed to shorten the lead. But can somebody else please step in? And should we ask for an administrator to look at the situation?--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There was no agreement to shorten the lead, at least not in this page. Furthermore, the large size of the lead of this large Wikipedia page is warranted since readers ought to know the human impact of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. A short lead does not accomplish this.

Furthermore, it seems like Gautier lebon's edits are to downplay the Fukushima nuclear disaster as something that will cause little changes to health to the people of Japan. He disregards many of the evidences sourced from credible news sites such as Reuters, RT (previously known as Russia Times) and only reports the less negative aspects of the WHO summaries.

It is rather odd why someone would try to downplay the Fukushima nuclear disaster, a level 7 nuclear incident on the INES scale; a label which it shares with Chernobyl. I will re-add the information that was deleted by Gautier lebon in order to make this Wikipedia article more objective. AritaMoonlight81 (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent changes as I can see no evidence of a consensus to return the article to its previous state. Mikenorton (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I see that AritaMoonlight has made some ad-hominem remarks, which is against Wikipedia etiquette. For the record, I am involved in the nuclear debate only as an ordinary citizen. Since I'm a statistician by training, I think that it is important to provide the best available data, so that people can draw their own conclusions. And I think that this is what my edits are doing. Turning to the specifics, it is my contention that my text faithfully reflects the sources, whereas the text from Arita either does not faithfully reflect the source, or is cherry-picking, or is SYN (for example the comparisons to Chernobyl). The best available source is clearly the WHO reports and the news articles that summarize those reports (including the RT article). The WHO reports, and the news summaries of those reports, clearly state that measured radiation levels are so low that few, if any, health effects are expected. The expected risks of increased cancers are given and no comparisons to Chernobyl are given. So that is what, in my view, the Wikipedia article should reflect.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Instead of accusing me without backing it up, please direct me to the specific areas in which I have made edits to that do not "faithfully reflect the source" or is a reflection of "cherry-picking". The lead section of this article after you have edited it leaves an impression that there will be no health effects from the Fukushima nuclear disaster which is false. In addition, you have clearly cherry-picked information and avoided the increased cancer risks of the populations living near Fukushima nuclear power plant in the lead. This would cause bias in the article and cause readers to think that the Fukushima nuclear disaster will have no impact on human health which is certainly not the case according to multiple studies conducted and released by the WHO and some government and independent Fukushima prefecture-level studies. For example, you argue that the doses of radiation received by the populations living near the Fukushima nuclear power plant are very low and that this will lead to little to no health risks. However this is also cherry-picking which you have accused me of. The lead that you have provided is unbalanced and this gives a skewed view of the health effects of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The reason why I made comparisons to Chernobyl is to give context to the reader so that the reader can better understand the relative scale of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in comparison to the other INES scale 7 disaster. I have reverted Mikenorton's edit since there was no consensus to revert my previous edits done on the 30th of December, 2013. AritaMoonlight81 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear Arita, I am not accusing you, I am challenging the edits that you have made. There is ample backup in the discussion above that shows that, in my view, your changes are not consistent with the cited sources. You say that the lead, without your edits, leaves the impression that there will be no health effects, but that this is incorrect. Actually, the lead without your edits says that the health effects are expected to be minimal, and this is exactly what the sources say. Please remember that Wikipedia must reflect what the sources say, not what the editors think. If you have sources that say that there might be significant health effects, then please cite them: there is nothing wrong with having an article that says "ABC says X but DEF says Y". My version is not cherry picking because it reflects the summaries given in the sources themselves. Your version is, in my view, cherry picking because you are ignoring the source's own summary and picking out individual bits of the source. Regarding comparisons to Chernobyl, you have to find sources that make that comparison, you cannot introduce it on your own, that would be WP:SYN which is not allowed. The history of this article is that it was stable for a long time until you started introducing changes. There has been no support to date for your changes and several editors have reverted your changes. I will now revert them again, and ask that you do not introduce your changes again until we have reached consensus on this talk page. That's how Wikipedia works: anybody can introduce a change, but if it is reverted then the matter should be discussed on the talk page before the changes are introduced again.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Gautier lebon, I am challenging the edits you have made too. Firstly, I believe the lead should be unbiased and the health consequences on the Japanese populations living near Fukushima should be reported in an unbiased manner including increased risks of specific types of cancers. This is because the lead is what most people read and it is unfair on the reader to be exposed to biased information as they will not likely read the other parts of the article. Furthermore, I used this article as a source for some sentences: . The main idea of this article is that there is a "Higher cancer risk after Fukushima nuclear disaster: WHO". However, you are saying that it is cherry-picking to include a large part of the article that highlights the specific types of cancers and their increased risks rates for the Japanese population? In my opinion, you are:
a) not reading the sources I have provided correctly and/or
b) avoiding the scientific data that are represented by the sources I have linked
Furthermore, I don't see how any consensus was reached for the bulk of the other changes made to the article. Therefore I don't see why I should be exclusively limited to editing until a "consensus" has been reached. AritaMoonlight81 (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear Arita, the first source you cite above, the Reuters article, starts with the following: "People in the area worst affected by Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident two years ago have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers, the World Health Organization said on Thursday." And that is indeed a fair summary of the rest of the article. So the Wikipedia text corresponding to that article has to be summarized in the same way, namely by saying "People in the area worst affected by Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident two years ago have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers". The detail regarding which types of cancers are increased can be given in the body of the Wikipedia article, not in the lead. Of, if you want to put in in the lead, then the text should be "People in the area worst affected by Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident two years ago have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers. In the most contaminated area, it was estimated that there was a 70 percent higher risk of females exposed as infants developing thyroid cancer over their lifetime. But experts said the overall risk was small. The radiation exposure means about 1.25 out of every 100 girls in the area could develop thyroid cancer over their lifetime, instead of the natural rate of about 0.75 percent." This would be an accurate summary of the article. Emphasizing only the 70% increase, as your text does, is not, in my view, an accurate summary of the article. So (a) I think that I have correctly read the sources and (b) I am not avoiding the scientific data. Regarding consensus, as I have already said, this part of the article had been stable for quite some time until you started editing it. There is nothing wrong with that, but your edits have been challenged, not just by me, but by 2 other editors. So, as I understand Wikipedia rules, your changes should be reverted until there is agreement on the talk page regarding how to proceed. I notice that you have once again inserted your changes even though this discussion is still open. Please revert your changes and let's continue the discussion here. When we are agreed, then we will make changes.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Outdent. Can other editors please comment on this situation? I would prefer not to have to again revert Arita's changes. If nobody else comments, I will do so and then ask for a third opinion, or for an admistrator to review.--Gautier lebon (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right Gautier, the edits that suggest the recent thyroid cancers are possibly caused by Fukushima is nonsense, similarly Arita's own personal interpretation of the Chernobyl thyroid cancer incidence as - "there was a steady then sharp rise in thyroid cancer" as presented in the article is nonsense and WP:OR. For reliable references that corroborate the government's statement, that it takes a minimum of 4 years for thyroid cancer to be seen. See this peer reviewed paper ( "...the expected minimum latent period among those exposed in early childhood is about 4 years". By the way, I'm the same IP user as earlier.
Yet another reference, this one backed up by experimental data in the Czech Republic, rather than mention in passing in the above reference - The Czech even has a normal dietary iodine deficiency and therefore kids there had a higher Chernobyl related radio-iodine thyroid dose via dietary uptake, their data says the same thing - "The estimated minimum latency period for the population as a whole is 4 years."
If I'm not mistaken Japan has a diet high in seaweed, therefore I'd be surprised if any Japanese region likewise has a dietary deficiency in iodine.
As an aside, here is the data supporting my above statement that Czechoslovakia had a normal dietary iodine deficiency and therefore had the highest Chernobyl radio-iodine uptake.
"The Czech Republic has a mild deficiency of iodine; thus the population suffers from a mild iodine deficiency. This undoubtedly contributed to the fact that Czech citizens suffered the greatest contamination of their thyroid glands by I-131 of all 22 European countries after the Chernobyl accident."!po=28.1250
So not a single thyroid cancer now, not even 4 years after the Fukushima accident, is conceivably related to the accident.
We'll only possibly start seeing them later this year(three years after) and next year(four years after 2015).
Lastly, news articles such as Arita's prized Reuters and RT are not, by themselves, WP:RSMED, therefore the WHO and science.time article should be referenced and not Reuters. (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Image of evacuation zones

There is an error in the Wikimedia image showing evacuation zones. Specifically, the entire municipality of Kawamata is shaded in the image, whereas in reality only the southern end is under evacuation. See page 7 of the Japanese government PDF Designating and Rearranging the Areas of Evacuation for a more accurate map. (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I included your recommendations, thank you comrade. (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why Is the "Extinction Level Event" article linked in the see also section?

While this was a disaster, to link to that article in this one seems a tad...excessive...doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. The time is t+2.8 years, no one has died of radiation sickness yet, and the problems are largely under remediation, though that's going to take a long while to complete, and we are no doubt not out of the woods with it yet. Someone is just being a big gloom. SkoreKeep (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have deleted that reference.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Extinction Level Event Extinction_event is possible if enough radiation like Strontium_90 is released. They stopped above ground nuke testing for the effects on human children. See the Baby_Tooth_Survey. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That is gross hyperbole. You have no concept of the sort of power required to produce a classic paleontological extinction event, and technological mankind as a class is very, very far from the capability. Extinction of the human race does not qualify as an extinction event except in a very parochial way; wiping out of 80% of all species is more like it. The amount of strontium-90 (or, more to the point, cobalt-60 or cesium-137) needed would vastly exceed what has been produced by all human efforts in the last century. They stopped above ground testing because of the effects on all mankind, especially children, but not because of a fear of extinction of life on the planet. It is much more likely that global warming will produce such an event from climate than nuclear weapons will from radiation.
So, no, the reference is not anything beyond a fanciful wish-fulfillment. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
"It is much more likely that global warming" you can't say which is worse, excessive radiation VS global warming. If mammals can not reach the age of sexual maturity due to various cancers from radioactive fallout, then that is the end of mammals on the planet earth. writes of Strontium-90 at the disaster area. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Steven Starr talking at the New York Academy of Medicine on the radiation levels.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I think it is very possible to make a case that global warming is much worse a problem than any radiation disaster. Just consider the amount of energy backing the two effects; global warming involves orders of magnitude more energy. Consider the track record: study the largest mass extinction on record, the Permian-Triassic, 250 million years ago, and the likely involvement of global climate in its development. Could you, for example, make an estimate about the necessary uniform level of radiation which would result in "mammals [not reaching] the age of sexual maturity due to various cancers from radioactive fallout", and what that would require from our current technology? Do you have anything from Chernobyl that such has happened or is even possible?
I listened to Dr. Starr's presentation; he mentions no evidence for all of the assertions he made (I could detect none, anyway), and therefore most of it is his opinion. Does he have any papers written which back up his assertions, or is this just a position piece?
Although SkoreKeep is right that neither the Chernobyl nor Fukushima accident comes anywhere near a human extinction level event, Steven Starr doesn't even claim as much, at least I don't recall him claiming so in his lecture. StoreKeep is incorrect to say that Starr's youtube video is entirely a "position piece", as Starr's lecture, as he states near the end of his lecture, is based on the work of the now imprisoned Yury Bandazhevsky. The veracity of who's work, I have yet to see falsified or corroborated. (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, Dr. Starr bases his objections on the research of Dr. Bandazhevsky. Pray tell, what research of Dr. B's can I access? His wiki page only cites two items, one an interview and the other his paper on Cs-137 metabolism in children. Again I ask, where is the beef? What research backs up Dr. Starr's claims, and how does that back up the claim of the possibility of mass (not just human) extinction?
I'm aware that this is not the proper venue to be arguing this. My last words are that claims of Mass extinction on this page are inappropriate, and I've seen nothing to persuade me that I could possibly be wrong about that. I'm willing to debate this in another venue with the nameless, if they wish to continue. Bring your math. SkoreKeep (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you are confusing my position with that of Mark v1.0's. I have said already that I'm skeptical of an extinction possibility, and having listening to the entire lecture, I don't think Steven Starr even mentions extinction possibilities. Perhaps Mark could point us to where exactly in the lecture Starr supports the hypothesis?
12:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Decent tour of the site Produced by tepco it seems, but nevertheless the video gives a decent insight into the clean up operation. Including zeolite filters and the "ALPS" radio-nuclide ion exchange plant that cleans the cooling water before re-use or discharge. (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

anti nuclear weasel words

"was an energy accident at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, initiated primarily by the tsunami of the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011"

The energy accident was SOLELY initiated by the tsunami and earthquake not "primarily". Equipment failure did not INITIATE the accident.

Also this sentence needs clarified... "(diminishing amounts of this decay heat continue to be released for years, but with time it is not enough to cause fuel rod melting)." "but with time is not enough to cause fuel rod melting"? Some please delete this or word it better. Thanks (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yet another paid by TEPCO liar, I take it? It's quite obvious that this plant should not even have been built. Even the required isotopes for it to function have been imported into Japan illegally! Greenpeace rightfully tried to fight that back in the 90s already.
Oh and "anti nuclear" is nothing more or less than the only logical thing to be. "Pro nuclear" is clearly the same as pro human extinction, it should be fined, you should be jailed for criminal insanity. The fact that you have no idea what happens to the nuclear waste is a sign of your short-sightedness. You'll probably think you'll be dead when we have to deal with all the waste, correct? Try live with a microgram of Caesium 137 for 70 days, then come back and tell us if we as innocent humans should have to endure these isotopes in our environment. You should be ashamed to look in the mirror and not be disgusted with what you see. (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • User:, I'm sorry your education system failed you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • User:, I am really uncertain why you so egregiously seem to misinterpret what User: says above, but it is very clear you did not process a single word in succession. The first commenter (User: is not promoting the use of nuclear power plants or nuclear energy at all, but simply suggesting semantical corrections to the article text. If anything, it appears that they are anti-nuclear as well, so your nastiness directed at them appears to be totally misplaced and unwarranted... If anything you should apologize on their talkpage... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

All reactors were NOT built by GE.

Hi. It astonishes me that years after the disaster under discussion here, an uncited statement like "The plant comprised six separate boiling water reactors originally designed by General Electric (GE)" can still be in this article! Why, just a simple Google will come up with quotes like the following: "The four reactors all began operation in the 1970s. Units 1, 3 and 4 were built by GE, Toshiba and Hitachi, respectively, while Unit 2 was a joint GE-Toshiba project. GE and Hitachi later established GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy." This clearly proves that GE was not, as alleged in this article, the sole company involved.

Either provide citations for this claim or else update it to show a group of companies directly involved in the development of the plant. Thanks114.162.170.83 (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The title above this item is also completely INCORRECT, GE had a at least a very large part in it, as another American company did too. At that time Japanese company's had no expertise or knowledge to built any nuclear power plant single handed. They were only involved to try to learn as much as possible for their "future".....
May be at the moment GE would like to minimize their involvement in this project, because THEIR American engineers made a lot of design failures that made this disaster likely to happen 1947enkidu (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Not having a dog in this fight, unless GE's engineers know a lot more about seismic engineering than I believe they do, the statement is rather odd. Engineers don't make design failures; they may make errors, which then are shown to lead to failures under expected stress, but to "engineer failure"s under higher stress than expected, no. I do agree with your precis about GE's major involvement, but your attempts to make everyone associated with atomic power out to be culpable for the disaster, I find disingenuous. Adding a supported statement about company involvement in the building is always welcome.
The uncited statement "The plant comprised six separate boiling water reactors originally designed by General Electric (GE)" would seem to follow if the first was designed by GE; if GE designed one then GE designed them all. It is neither "astonishing" nor particularly surprising. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
One very important design-FAILURE was the decision to take away the cliffs at the site, and built the reactors low enough to be spilled and flooded in a tsunami.
It was known before they were built, that the "containments" could not hold the pressure they had to indure. That the lid on top, would lift. 1947enkidu (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Four years after, all the wiki's around Fukushima have become a labyrinth... Where can I find a place to mention something about the concrete basis of the tanks where the radioactive water is stored ? Where is something to be found about the APL-system that should detox the radioactive water (and still after all that time is not functioning properly) ? 1947enkidu (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The US Sailors and TEPCO

I see the latest hysteria has made it into the debate. Honest to God, these people hit shore and the lawyers and all the sudden, almost two years after the fact, TEPCO lied to the sailors about everything from their gynecological problems to their lower back pain, and asthma. Since as yet there are no substantive arguments going on, I guess the sleeze will just have to get along for a while. Johnfos, I might suggest that this little piece of air-headedness could use some careful looking into before standing up too close to it. I might even suggest a listen to for a scientist's opinion.

These people have a long, long way to go to make a case, were it not for our screwed up legal system. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed SkoreKeep, however it would be nice to have some Geiger counter readings from the USS Ronald Reagan, and radiation dose reconstruction calculations based off them. However I'm sure we'll only ever get to see those readings until after the lawsuit, for legal reasons. An aircraft carrier would be one of the safest places to be after a radiation release that occurred somewhere else, they've wash down spray systems that were tested (and seen in many declassified videos) to reduce fallout by ~95% if memory serves me. Plus going below decks/ Shelter in place so that thousands of tons of steel is between personnel and outside contamination is going to cut ones external dose to practically negligible levels. (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Under "Effects on Aid Workers," the two sentences are combined into a single paragraph suggesting that the Japanese government study about the incidence of thyroid cancer among the populace is supportive of the lawsuit's claims. I would delete or move the study reference as a non sequitur. Also, the lawsuit was dismissed Nov. 26, 2013: Jeffronicus (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for having looked at this. Actually neither citation supports the referring to the Japanese government study on the incidence of tyroid cancer. Since that topic is covered in some detail in other sections, and since the law suit in question has been dismissed, I've deleted the whole section.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Operation Tomodachi dose estimates here, pg 40 onwards: I think it is worth including? Doses in the 0-4 mSv range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

More reports have come in, eg, [[34]] on top of reliable sources we already have: [[35]], [[36]]. No matter what our personal view is, I think the issue is notable and deserves a paragraph in this article. Johnfos (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

An interesting article, short on evidence and long on bias and inuendo. There is a difference in kind between what happened to the Regan and what happened to the ships in the Baker test. Note the snow storm has not been shown to have accelerated the contamination of the Regan. Particles are dust; why should the Regan not use detergent and water? There is a vast quantitative difference between mooring 400 yards from an atomic blast and being under a plume; and they can't think of a reason beyond guilt to have the decks washed down, like, say, keeping sailors busy, liability for not showing due concern, perhaps even just cleaning the deck? (BTW, cleaning the decks on the Prinz Eugin reduced the radiation by a factor of four. That wasn't enough then.) The article's last sentence says it all: convinced the Regan was massively contaminated, he waits to see if other media will drink his KoolAid as well.
But, after all, no further facts in the case. You get to tell us what its relevance is in this article.
Anyway, I didn't edit out anything in the article despite my arguments here. So, I practiced the "deserving a paragraph" before you ask me to do so. Let's see this article used as evidence in an argument; I dare you. :) SkoreKeep (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Updating Contamination section


There are a number of substantial and rigorous older studies that have been recently translated or published, concerning initial, ongoing and cumulative radiation release. The current section is becoming very cluttered and difficult to compare and contrast. It is hard to see patterns in the ongoing radiation release, cumulative total and contamination numbers. Would it be worth re-editing the Contamination section with a table comparing current best estimates for all three, by study and isotope? It might be worth looking at splitting the section into "Radiation Release" and "Contamination" just to keep everything tidy.

Any objections? Thoughts? Brukner (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


I have to wonder about the additions made today by, with the comment "+Balance, with cites; one obvious recent fatality claim, plus relevant questioning by experienced journalist". It's balance of a sort; I suppose that word counts would show that, but the first reference is to a 59 minutes YT video of explicitly "anti-nuclear power" news, researched/published/read by a single individual with no credentials I could identify, sourced apparently from a lawyer deeply involved in the law suit, and it's buried in there somewhere, I suppose, but I'm not sitting through that). If there's been a death, surely this first radiation fatality from the Fukushima should have some unbiased coverage, with reasons why it is thought that the death earns the status claimed; the claim on its face is ludicrous from a science standpoint. The second cite is an AP reporter - about 200 words of out of context bullet points. Whether the person is an "experienced journalist" or has any science credentials, is not mentioned. If wikipedia were into scathing sarcasm, I'd pass over this without mention and allow it to speak for itself. SkoreKeep (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." With this source I think only the "published" part is applicable, and all other parts are (wildly) violated. Furthermore the author has clearly no idea what he/she is talking about as pointed out by the lack of understanding the difference between deterministic effects and stochastic effect of radiation (proven by the adding of " initially (see below for later claims)" when talking about deterministic effects while the thing he refers to is a clear example of stochastic effects). I think it is clear that this part needs to be removed or have better sources. Wannesvdh (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No robots

I noted the "Background" section had the following sentence:

A national program to develop robots for use in nuclear emergencies was terminated in midstream[when?] as a way of implying that they were unneeded. Japan had none to send into Fukushima when the crisis began.

Trying to find an ref for the 'when' tag, I came across this NY Times op-ed by [37] from 11 March 2012:

A national program to develop robots for use in nuclear emergencies was terminated in midstream because it smacked too much of underlying danger. Japan, supposedly a major power in robotics, had none to send in to Fukushima at the critical hour.

So, this should at minimum be attributed,

Ah, it looks like it may have been- that article was referenced in a later sentence; perhaps an additional ref was inserted in between? -- Limulus (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

but is it just an assertion? (Why even begin the process if it 'smacked too much of underlying danger'? Were there technical problems? Short-sighted budget cuts?) Also, still doesn't answer the 'when' question :/ -- Limulus (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking into this a bit more, the MEISTeR (Robot) article references CNET talking about older robots, like RaBot; a press release from 12 December 2012:

The MEISTeR was developed based on the RaBOT (Radiation-proof Robot) delivered by MHI to the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute at that time) as one of several nuclear hazard response robots developed in the wake of the criticality accident at the nuclear fuel processing facility in Tokai-mura, Ibaraki, in 1999. MHI incorporated further improvements into the MARS-D, the RaBOT's sister robot, leveraging technology cultivated in the development of inspection and information gathering robots for the nuclear power facility. The MEISTeR was developed to be capable for undertaking work at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Stations operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company. The MEISTeR provides enhanced radiation protection, including anti-contamination measures, as well as improved remote control capability.

-- Limulus (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I note [38] on the JAEA site: "Robot for the nuclear energy disaster; Development of a radiation-proof robot" dated 2003/10. -- Limulus (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Good article from Asahi Shimbun, "Japanese robots long gone before Fukushima accident":

  • Interest in radiation-resistant robots after Tokaimura_nuclear_accident#In_1999
    • other countries (notably Germany and France) already had robots available in case of nuclear accidents.
  • "under a government budget of 3 billion yen ($38 million) to deal with possible accidents at nuclear power plants" several companies produced prototypes in 2001. "Much of the government budget was used for testing to confirm the robots' durability under high radiation levels. Robotics experts gave high marks to the completed robots, saying that they sufficiently met international standards."
  • "when the manufacturers suggested to electric power companies that the robots be placed at their nuclear power plants, employees at the utilities showed much uneasiness and started asking questions. One asked, 'Will accidents take place at nuclear power plants? What kinds of accidents? When?'"
  • "A task force consisting of five members, including executives of Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), Kansai Electric Power Co. and a government-affiliated organization on nuclear power development, considered whether to use the robots." December 2002: "the group concluded that there would be few cases in which the robots would be utilized."
    • "the robots could be used to check and monitor sites while enduring high levels of radiation compared to humans, [but] they would walk much slower and their range would be limited"
    • "They also thought humans would still be able to work in a disaster-hit nuclear plant." Discounted possibility of Chernobyl-scale accidents.
  • "the robots became expendable in March 2006 when their storage periods ran out."

That should be more than sufficient to improve our article; I'll update it in a min or two. -- Limulus (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Great source of Fukushima info

There's a blog which I've found is a great source of information about the reactor and the accident. It's the Ex-SKF blog. The blogger is a real Fukushima sleuth, always seems to have the latest info, posts raw documents and images or links to them, and provides good analysis. And appears to be bilingual, occasionally translating excerpts or summarizing them. The blog itself perhaps doesn't rise to the level of WP:RS, but as the original news media or other sources are always provided, you can find those sources through the blog and quote them directly. Mathglot (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Lot of crap

I edited this recently and I'm looking at it again today. Some of it seemed to have been written as slogans by an anti-nuclear crackpot, it's a political statement. I edited out the claim that 40% of children had thyroid abnormalities, it wasn't true, and put appropriate links in. I'm going to take out the claim that implies nuclear issues affected the French election. I followed the election closely and I never heard it once. Most of the nuclear roll-out occurred in the 1980's under Mitterand, and to imply that Gaullist = nuclear Socialist=anti-nuclear is absurd

Events at Fukushima "cast doubt on the idea that even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety".[289] Following the disaster, the IAEA halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.[290]" - I don't agree and the reference doesn't say that. The reduction by half comes from a newspaper article and I can't find it on website. This would be utterly catastrophic for the fight against global warming. I try and tell the precise truth, so maybe I will change it to paperx says

Starting at the top, I changed massive to significant and added "Nonetheless, to keep the matter in perspective, the entire release of radioactivity into the sea will add less than 0.01% to the background radiation."

"However, when it was suggested that they (robots) be placed at actual reactor sites, there was "much uneasiness" from employees there who worried that adding these robots implied risk of serious radiological accidents previously not admitted." No reference is given for this and I do not think we should imply that events were covered up without evidence. Only link no mention of robots

A June 2011 Asahi Shimbun poll of 1,980 respondents found that 74% answered "yes" to whether Japan should gradually decommission all 54 reactors and become nuclear-free.[8] edited out, the reference doesn't say this

Highly successful edited out of German RE program, this is controversial 7,847.80 kWh Three paragraphs beginning with "Many energy policy analysts" are a political endorsement for renewables. There should be more balance. I'll change Many energy policy analysts because I'm not convinced, may political activists will be better, I'll also add counter arguments and extend David McKays analysis to Japan

Japan pop=127300000 Area=377944km2 ave use=7,847.80 kWh Japan requires 1000 billion kWh. A wind turbine at 2.5 watts/m2, active 30% of the time = 20watthours/m2 = 50 trillion m2 of wind farms required for Japan to replace both Carbon and nuclear = 500000km2, greater than area of Japan.

Many countries advised their nationals to leave Tokyo.[9] Events at Fukushima "cast doubt on the idea that even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety". Edited out, the reference doesn't say this

Following the disaster, the IAEA halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.[10] This was an article in the Economist and I can't find an attribution to the IAEA so I qualified it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talkcontribs) 09:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In May 2012, TEPCO released their estimate of cumulative radiation releases. An estimated 538.1 PBq of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 was released. 520 PBq was released into the atmosphere between 12–31 March 2011 and 18.1 PBq into the ocean from 26 March – 30 September 2011. A total of 511 PBq of iodine-131 was released into both the atmosphere and the ocean, 13.5 PBq of caesium-134 and 13.6 PBq of caesium-137.[154] TEPCO reported that at least 900 PBq had been released "into the atmosphere in March last year [2011] alone".[155][156] - I considered varying this because with a release in the 100s of PBq, the release of 500 or so PBq of 131I seemed too high. The TEPCO document does in fact say this, but it's inconsistent, could be tidied up if we find out why it's an outlier.

These are attempts to getreferences to work properly:- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talkcontribs) 12:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • It may be worth noting that not only is Graemem56, as self-professed above, extremely pro nuclear power, but that all this editor's work in their first month of Wikipedia editing is on the topic of nuclear power making this a single purpose account and worth scrutiny under WP:SPA. As such, I have to gently question the editor's commitment to WP:NPOV under the circumstances. It being the holidays, many editors have little time to sort through the wholesale changes being made to a previously stable article. If others here agree, I would support a complete reversion until the matter can be viewed with deliberation. I am not saying some of these changes may not improve the article, but I am saying I see enough here to urge caution. My thanks to all concerned. Jusdafax 12:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible source Bananasoldier (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest moving the speculative and opinionated second paragraph

Moving the speculative and opinionated second paragraph(starting with "Although no short term radiation exposure fatalities were reported") down to the Aftermath section would be advisable, as there is no real information pertaining to the disaster in that paragraph and is almost entirely speculative or related to the Tohoku 2011 earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I very much disagree. This article has been stable for some time. Jusdafax 07:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

- Disagreeing because an article is stable is hardly a reason against the removal of opinion and bias as per Wikipedia guidelines. What is supposed to be an introduction and abstract is reduced to mere hearsay that is not even further substantiated in the remainder of the article. (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is still a horrible mish-mash. I edited out a couple of claims where the reference referred to something completely unrelated, but I didn't necessarily edit out ambiguous or missing ones. There is a sentence in the article "Nuclear power plans were not abandoned in Malaysia, the Philippines, Kuwait and Bahrain, or radically changed, as in Taiwan." I put the not in, before that there was no not. I'm not sure the sentence is accurate with or without the not. I was hoping to provoke someone else into tidying it up, the references here again were poor.

Notwithstanding Justdafax's opinion, I would prefer to see it labelled as an incident for 2 reasons: 1. It's inaccurate to call it a disaster with zero or few deaths. 2. It's disrespectful to the victims of the earthquake and tsunami to try and imply that the nuclear incident is in any way comparable.Graemem56 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As to Bananasoldiers link to the Huffington Post story, the Huff Post attributes the article to Reuters and the Reuters article is here. Why not go to the horse's mouth? In this case it probably doesn't matter, but if the story is a report on a journal article, it's likely to be much more accurate to find the journal article.Graemem56 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Rollback

As stated above, I see good cause to roll back over 10 edits to the article by Graemem56. Some of the edits include sourced material that the editor in question objects to as a proponent of nuclear energy. If there is no objection by the community, I will proceed in the near future. Thanks. Jusdafax 02:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Graemem56's comments suggest the cited material did not support the text that was removed. Perhaps we should discuss how the cites do or don't support the text before making a sweeping change. NRC OPA (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • First things first. I see from looking at your user page that your Wikipedia account is apparently operated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which frankly, takes me aback. To quote your page "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Public Affairs has established this account to provide reliably sourced information on articles referencing the NRC. The Office of Public Affairs welcomes questions regarding the agency and the activities it regulates." So U.S. taxpayer dollars are paying for you to edit this article, which makes you a paid editor.
Assuming you are indeed a representative of the U.S. Government, and can be properly identified as such, my first question to you is, the article we are editing is of course regarding a nuclear disaster in Japan. I fail to see that this squares up with your mission statement. Aren't you in fact operating outside of your self-defined jurisdiction? Jusdafax 06:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
An informed but neutral party, without offering any edits, simply suggests a conversation regarding a proposed sweeping change. How is this not a good faith effort to improve the article? The U.S. NRC provide technical support to Japanese and U.S. Embassy officials during the accident, and the agency continues to work with the Japanese regulator today as part of a U.S. multi-agency effort supporting Japan's ongoing cleanup operation. As the Office of Public Affairs has properly and clearly declared its actions, what is the source of your concern?NRC OPA (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)





I have just come to this page again to check how it's going. I edited the highly out of radioactive-contaminated water, because the article doesn't say highly, and it's unlikely to be. I will try to quantify this some more. I've just read some of the comments about me above.

I do not work for the US government, I live and work in Australia and I am a medical practitioner. I am very concerned about climate change and I have little doubts that James Hansen is correct in saying that we NEED nuclear power as the only credible alternative to fossil-fuels. My opinion of the anti-nuclear movement is thus: It is a denialist movement that behave in exactly the way that climate-change deniers, holocaust deniers, creationists, flat-earthers, moon-landing was a hoax, etc behave. I think the hallmark of the denialist movement is the Conspiracy Theory although others like Cherry-Picking and Fake Experts are well known. And as soon as Jusdafax reads my edits he invokes a Conspiracy Theory. The flat-earthers and moon-landing-hoax people are just amusing, the creationists are a serious threat to science education in the US but not elsewhere. But some of these movements are downright dangerous, the anti-vaxers could kill millions and the Vitamin C cures cancer people kill too. But at the moment, I find the climate-change deniers and anti-nuclear groups to be the most dangerous and they may constitute the left-right hook to a serious response to climate change. I am totally amazed at the antinuclear people criticizing the conspiracy claims made against the IPCC reports and process and then make exactly the same conspiracy claims about the Chernobyl Forum reports and process.Graemem56 (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Thus, I'm very passionate about wiping out the errors and putting in some balance. A couple of these articles are simply diatribes written by an anti-nuclear writer, and awfully unbalanced. Almost all of the links are to anti-nuclear websites and no attempt has been made to find the underlying source. There was a line that 40% of children in a Fukushima study had thyroid abnormalities; this was a disgraceful failure to check facts. 40% of children had nodules or cysts of a certain size and this is normal. I found the original article and corrected it. Some of the other stuff was political with claims that the nuclear industry was about to go out of business. It may have been better to edit it out but I thought I'd simply try to balance it by offering an alternate viewpoint and referenced links to proposed new reactors. When the article described the energiewende as highly successful, I took the highly successful out, I think controversial might be better.

I first became interested in this when someone on a blog insisted that the Ukrainian Health Minister claimed in 2006 that more than 2.4 million Ukrainians, including 428,000 children, suffer from health problems related to the reactor incident. I was highly skeptical and I could find no link. I edited it out and someone else edited it back in again. Eventually I found the source of the claim, which was a regional government in Ukraine, and they were NOT talking about health problems. [14][15]Graemem56 (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

PS I do not think this should be called a disaster, surely incident is better. The disaster was the earthquake and tsunami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talkcontribs) 11:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I disagree with much if not all of your reasoning. The article has been stable for some time. Changing the name is simply a public relations ploy. Jusdafax 07:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Disaster, in most people's minds, implies a great loss of life, in which case this was not a disaster. The title of the page implies something that is not at all true. It strikes me as yellow journalism.

No, disaster implies a major accident. Given the enormous disruption to the life of thousands, the risks involved and the cost of stabilising the plant, it is the appropriate word. "Incident" is nowhere near strong enough. Mezigue (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Becquerels per hour

There is a very great deal of potentially misleading reporting on the subject of these meltdowns, of which I consider the enormous numbers associated with becquerels to be the worst. The radioactivity of one gram of radium, according to Wikipedia's entry "Curie" as a unit, is

    37 GBq = 37,000,000,000 atoms decaying per second
I trust your problem isn't just that the Bq is such a small unit. It is the SI standard derived unit for the rate of radiation (and thus a proxy for a quantity of radiative material). SkoreKeep (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daiichi disaster article says "In the first half of September 2011 TEPCO estimated the radioactivity release at some 200 MBq (megabecquerels, 5.4 millicuries) per hour." , which is nonsense.
For example, one metre per second is a speed, 3600 metres per second per hour is an acceleration of one metre per second per second. Becquerels express the rate of decay of a quantity of radioactive matter, in atomic nuclear events per second. So a rate of 200 MBq per hour would be one 3600th of 200,000,000 nuclear decays per second per second, which is a nonsense unit.

No, it's not nonsense. As I said above, Bq is a proxy for a quantity of radiative material, so Bq/hr is a rate of production (or release, or what-have-you) of radiative material capable of the given radiation rate. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The error is slightly less glaring under "Contamination" where
"Between 21 March and mid-July around 2.7 × 10^16 Bq of caesium-137 (about 8.4 kg) entered the ocean, about 82 percent having flowed into the sea before 8 April"
Given that the half-life of Cs-137 is just over 30 years, presumably the radioactivity per kg of the 8.4 kg total would have been fairly constant over that four month period. But why not simply say that
"Between 21 March and mid-July about 8.4 kg of caesium-137 entered the ocean, about 82 percent having flowed into the sea before 8 April"
In another article, I read the same sort of poor specification of units, reported about neptunium 239, which has a half life less than the period over which the rate in becquerels was reported. It must have been four times as high at the beginning as at the end. Neptunium production ceases when the reactor is shut down. DaveyHume (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Other sources that cite the same Japanese article (JAIF-Earthquake Report 211) use the same units. While I do not read Japanese, I can say that the other articles (e.g., refer explicitly to the rate of radioactive substance or material being released, not to the radiation rate. So the amount of radiation being produced by some quantity of gas is measured in becquerels, but if that amount of gas is being produced/released every hour, then you get becquerels per hour. In other words, if you know the material produces some amount, X, of becquerels per gram, and that you are producing Y grams of material per hour, then you are producing X*Y becquerels per hour. Since we care about the amount radiation produced by the material being released (rather than the mass or volume of material), this is about the only practical way of reporting the numbers. Elriana (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

NRC query

I posted this on the NRC editor's talk page in the hope of getting a reply.

Query your knowledge might solve

Dear Sir/Madam

I am attempting to update the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster page and wish to corroborate or dismiss suggestions that I've heard and read to the effect that: Had reactors 1-3 not entered a SCRAM after the earthquake(as legally required), then in all likelihood they could have continued to power their own cooling pumps, irrespective of any damage that might have then been caused to the back-up diesel generators. As the turbine buildings were capable of generating electricity from the reactors on their own.

I find this a seductive line of reasoning however I am skeptical that the turbine building/electricity generation systems were still in working order after the tsunami.

Boundarylayer (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Site flooding following Typhoon Etau, 10 September 2015

I'm just flagging this as a situation to watch and expand with relevant information as it emerges. --Danimations (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Verb tense

As noted in the edit notice at the top of the article editing window, encyclopedia articles are written in past tense. @Delerium2k: thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @VQaukr: I saw the past tense edit notice, but allow me to challenge its intellectual validity. That notice is arbitrary, and technically it is incorrect. To consider Fukushima as something in the past is an inaccurate portrayal of reality, where as cited, tremendous engineering efforts are being undertaken in order to prevent a constant flow of highly contaminated, untreated groundwater is washing out to sea. This is an article about an ongoing event. Delerium2k (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Delerium. The Fukushima triple meltdowns are a complex and ongoing disaster, and the wording in the article should reflect that fact. Using past tense gives a casual reader the impression the disaster is over. It is not. Jusdafax 05:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I tend to disagree, there is an ongoing impact but the disaster in any normal meaning of the word is over. Clearly there is still some release of radioactivity to the environment, but on a much smaller scale than the initial event and I'm not sure that that is clear from the current wording of the lead. Mikenorton (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mikenorton: Regarding scale, the contaminated water problem has been steadily getting worse since 2011. As said in the reference I used: "Since the 2011 meltdowns at Fukushima, TEPCO has been fighting a losing battle with groundwater that flows downhill towards the sea, permeates Fukushima’s fractured reactor buildings, and contacts their melted-down nuclear fuel. Until recently, TEPCO was sucking 300-400 tons of contaminated water out of the buildings every day, adding continuously to the site’s ballooning fields of radioactive water storage tanks. The frozen barrier is one of a suite of measures intended to stem that tide." ---- If TEPCO hopefully gets the situation under control with this frozen soil barrier, then putting the event in past tense is accurate. Delerium2k (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing to the talk page. The groundwater issue has been getting worse in the sense that more of it has accumulated in storage; that doesn't make the disaster (particularly the meltdown) "ongoing" any more than Chernobyl. We seem to be evenly split on the semantics here; RfC? VQuakr (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @VQuakr: Fukushima is not merely accumulation of storage tanks. Those storage tanks are leaking with some major leak events reported, not all contaminated water is even captured in the first place, and treated (not radiation-free) water is now released into the ocean. This is a problem great enough to warrant the engineering cited in the undone reference: You make an interesting point that technically Chernobyl is an ongoing event as well, but let's focus on Fuku for now. Ok, RfC Delerium2k (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I added a bit to the RfC query, [39]. Look good? VQuakr (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The ref should go in the article body, not the lede sentence. The lede summarizes the body. VQuakr (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @VQuakr: Totally fair, added ref to end of intro section. The use of 'ongoing' in the lead sentence is factually justified. Delerium2k (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should we use the terminology "ongoing" to describe Fukushima?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that the disaster happened in the past and so the tense should show this for the disaster itself. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Delerium2k (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Should the lead sentence of this article describe the disaster in the present tense or past tense? The two versions discussed so far are: "The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster ... was an energy accident..." and "The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster ... is an ongoing energy accident..." 07:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


  • Putting a disaster in the present tense, while not impossible in some rhetorical situations ("Climate change is an ongoing environmental disaster that will continue to challenge mankind for hundreds if not thousands of blah blah blah"), it generally sounds weird to the reader, because most people think of a "disaster" as an acute emergency. Yet I completely agree it's important for the casual reader to understand from the beginning that the sequelae are ongoing, the economic costs are huge and lasting, etc. I think this conflict can be resolved satisfactorily by putting the "disaster" the past tense, but immediately clarifying, like this:
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was an energy accident at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, initiated primarily by the tsunami of the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011, which catastrophically destroyed the plant's fundamental cooling and control systems, including the multiple backup systems. It was X weeks/momths before the continuing threat of meltdown and largescale radiation release was something under control something, and it is estimated that ongoing cleanup, economic effects in the X billions of dollars per year, and need for health monitoring of nearby residents will continue for as long as blah blah blah.
Something like that. I just made up all that stuff, of course, but you get the idea. EEng (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with EEng. It sounds better to say it "was" a disaster, then proceed to talk about the "ongoing consequences" or whatever. LjL (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The disaster happened, some of its results are ongoing. Same is correct for Chernobyl disaster, while there is an ongoing effort to improve the containment, nobody would call Chernoby disaster ongoing. WarKosign 12:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with the foregoing 3. I don't think it is a big deal anyway, but if someone really cares, then you could word it as something like: "The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster began with an energy accident..." JonRichfield (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with all the above. The phrase "is an ongoing energy accident" suggests that the article has not been updated for years. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "Energy accident" should be in the past tense. Beagel (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Past Tense - In accordance with the reliable sources on the subject. NickCT (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Past Tense - Agree with everyone above. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Past Tense - As I explained in the preceding section on this page. Mikenorton (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disaster is ongoing according to Japanese news source: past tense in first sentence in lede is flat-out wrong

Rfc or no, this current article in the Mainichi Shimbun, a major Japanese newspaper, says the amount of radioactive contamination in the water around the three nuclear meltdowns is considerable and growing. So, claims in Wikipedia's voice that the disaster is over and done with are flat-out wrong. This should be corrected without delay. Jusdafax 07:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned about a claim in that one of the reactors went supercritical, causing all of the reactor fuel to vaporize and leave the building. For now, this article could be balanced by admitting that there are two hardened sides to basic facts of the disaster events, which leads to a hypothesis that one side may be cooking the facts for political reasons, or perhaps both sides are cooking the facts. Paul Klinkman (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That claim is nonsensical on its face. Supercriticality does not result in the fissile material vaporizing; it results in an increase in the rate of fission in the fuel. Indeed, going "delayed crit" (supercritical due to delayed neutrons) is fundamental to any reactor startup or increase in power output; going "prompt crit" (supercritical due to prompt neutrons) is what makes for a runaway fission chain reaction with rather dramatic consequences. The reactors may have gone delayed crit during the accident, speeding the meltdown process, but that would not vaporize the fuel. Had any of them gone prompt crit, there would be vastly more visible damage, with an explosive yield of several tons of TNT. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Natural seawall removal

I've just come across this 2011 WSJ article about Daiichi's 35m natural seawall being reduced to 10m. The comparison with nearby plants that survived the tsunami is telling and should not just be included, but given a certain prominence, I think:

The destruction of that natural tsunami barrier at the Fukushima Daiichi site contrasts starkly with later decisions in the 1970s to build the nearby Fukushima Daini and Onagawa nuclear-power plants at higher elevations. Despite being rocked by the massive March earthquake, both of those plants' reactors achieved "cold shutdowns" shortly after the tsunami struck and thereby avoided the damage wreaked upon the crippled Daiichi plant.
Both of those plants, located along the same coastline as Daiichi, survived primarily because they were built at higher elevations, on top of floodwalls that came with the landscape. As a result, the tsunami didn't result in an extended loss of power at those plants, allowing their operators to quickly cool active reactors and avoid meltdowns.[40]

I don't want to start editing this topic, so I hope an interested editor picks this up. Thanks. Podiaebba (talk)

There is some ambiguity in the height of the seawall. The "Tsunami" section lists it as 5.7 meters, but the "Overview" section states a 10 meter height. This should be clarified, and the seawall graphic may need to be updated or explained, as it depicts a 5.7 meter height. Hadron137 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. 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:

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. 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}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

Now we have a single paragraph lead, which is inadequate, see WP:Lead. Much more is needed on social, political, and environmental issues (Useful source: Nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daichi). So I have added a couple of tags to provide guidance, regards, Johnfos (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of deaths in article could be 1600

I have found one article on one internet magazine that 1600 people may have died from the nuclear accident. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryfyfesmith79 (talkcontribs) 10:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – the consensus is that "disaster" is appropriate here. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

– The word "disaster" in the titles of the articles above represents a sensationalist and anti-science characterization of an event referred to predominantly in scientific literature as an "accident": "The Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant accident"[16], "IAEA Releases Director General’s Report on Fukushima Daiichi Accident"[17], "Health Risk Assessment From the Nuclear Accident After the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami"[18], "Meltdown: Despite the Fear, the Health Risks from the Fukushima Accident Are Minimal"[19]. Characterizing the event accurately is important: "...the stoking of fear and misrepresentation, the botched response and forced evacuations, the ridiculous limits on low levels of radiation, the closing of all nuclear plants and the increase of coal- oil- and gas-fired electricity, and the politicization of the tragedy – these have huge and lasting effects."[20] Wtmusic (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


  • Oppose all - Three nuclear reactor meltdowns and long-lasting relocations of many thousands of residents is self-evidently a disaster. The article titles have been stable for over five years. Radioactive releases are in fact ongoing, with the location three highly radioactive cores currently unclear. This looks very much to me like an attempt to "scrub" Wikipedia. Jusdafax 03:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
By what definition are these events self-evidently a disaster? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC), Merriam-Webster,, and The Free Dictionary, for starters. I'm sure there are others. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was caused by a natural disaster, so isn't an "accident", it was an incident that was part of a natural disaster. And it was a triple meltdown, so nuclear disaster is appropos -- (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Obviously not everything caused by a natural disaster qualifies as "disastrous", or even as part of it (the tsunami was not "part of" the Tohoku earthquake). A "disaster" without deaths or injuries, even when significant financial loss is involved, amounts to inappropriate hyperbole. Wtmusic (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Obviously with a triple meltdown it is not hyperbole to call it a "disaster". You are over focused on human death to make things disasters. Financial disaster can happen without death. And your obvious denigration of nuclear meltdowns does not help your point. At any rate, it's a disastrous incident and should not be called "accident" -- (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Query, Was it officially declared a disaster or disaster area? Does it fit the accepted definitions for a disaster? (citations requested for responses) • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Peter, it was officially designated an "accident":
"The INES system exists to communicate with the public about the severity and extent of a nuclear event. It is meant to provide a guide, such as the Richter scale for earthquakes, to qualify a nuclear accident. As such, it is important to accurately rate a radiological event in order to afford the public the time and information needed to take necessary precautions. The INES scale rates radiological events on seven levels. Levels 1-3 are termed “incidents,” and levels 4-7 are called 'accidents.'"[21]
It's been labeled many things as a marketing aid for sensationalist press, or to solicit donations in antinuclear activist literature. What it wasn't was a "disaster". That the article titles have been stable "for over five years" is irrelevant - they're incorrect.Wtmusic (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It would appear that the official scale that you refer to does not include disaster as an option. Therefore it is appropriate to consider other assessment systems, which do contain disaster as an option. The incident could logically be considered both an accident, which refers to how it occurred, and a disaster, which refers more to the social consequences. I agree that the stability of the title is less relevant than the accuracy. We have had complete bullshit which was stable for over five years. I have not seen any convincing evidence to suggest that the accident was not a disaster, and Wikipedia is not constrained to using the terminology of any specific organisation. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The official scale of INES doesn't include "blasphemy" as an option either, but we would probably agree that's not an appropriate description of the event. Popular media quickly adopted the "disaster" theme to capitalize on the radiophobia of a public with little understanding of the subject. It seems that furthering understanding is a big part of Wikipedia's mission. Wtmusic (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
My point is that you cannot measure something on a scale that does not include the possibility of its existence. Disaster is a valid concept, albeit not always well defined, and whether an incident qualifies for description as a disaster will be significantly influenced if it is measured on a scale which does not include disaster as a possible option. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It's irrelevant and incorrect in your opinion but the stability of the the title demonstrates a strong existing consensus over a half decade. And to the tens of thousands of Japanese who still cannot occupy their former homes and towns due to radioactivity, it's a disaster. Your slam against "antinuclear activist literature" prompted a look at your editing history which shows your bias, and reveals you to be a Single Purpose Account, so you argument and slant, under WP:SPA are noteworthy. Jusdafax 22:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The stability of the title reflects current popular understanding of the event whether accurate or not, and labeling the Fukushima Daiichi accident a "disaster" parrots sensationalistic media accounts without basis in fact. Immediately after the accident, so-called radiation "hot-spots" in the Fukushima-Daiichi exclusion zone delivered one-third of the excess dose of radiation received by residents of Denver, CO.[22]. In lieu of changing the title of Denver to "Denver Disaster Area", an "Overreaction to Fukushima nuclear accident" article would reflect a more accurate understanding of the event. 1,600 deaths, many among seniors age 90 and older, were attributed to "'fatigue' due to conditions in evacuation centers, exhaustion from relocating, and illness resulting from hospital closures. The survey also said a number of suicides had been attributed to the ordeal."[23] Another would be supplementation of Radiophobia, which contains an excellent account of similar phenomena at Chernobyl. The purpose of my contribution was not to slant anything, but to correct a biased or misunderstood perception of the subject under WP:SPA: "Although the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy." Wtmusic (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Do any of the above organisations include disaster as a grade of incident? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Peter, I am moving your question above Johnfos' !vote below, as I believe you are addressing me. To answer your question, I am quite sure that all agencies use the International Nuclear Event Scale developed by the IAEA. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
You were correct in that assumption. If all the agencies use the same scale, and that scale does not include the category "disaster", then are we to assume that those organisations do not recognise any nuclear incident as a disaster? If that is the case then that scale cannot be used to decide if an incident qualifies as a disaster if one concedes the possibility that a nuclear disaster is a valid and physically possible concept. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
A quick search for a definition of disaster finds "A disaster is a sudden, calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community or society and causes human, material, and economic or environmental losses that exceed the community’s or society’s ability to cope using its own resources. Though often caused by nature, disasters can have human origins" on the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies website, which could reasonably be considered fairly authoritative and a plausibly reliable source.
Testing the Fukushima Daiichi incident against this definition:
  • sudden  Pass
  • calamitous  Pass
  • seriously disrupts the functioning of a community (or society)  Pass
  • causes human, material and economic or environmental losses that exceed the community's (or society's) ability to cope using its own resources  Pass
  • can have human or natural origins  Pass
The event appears to pass on all counts as a local (community) disaster, but not on a national (society) scale. It appears to me that both accident and disaster are appropriate terms in this case. As to which is better, I do not know. Accident is technically correct and appropriately encyclopaedic, Disaster also fits according to what I consider a world authority on disasters. One could say a very serious accident, and a moderate scale disaster. I would accept either as a reasonable title, provided that the content is unbiased. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Peter, "sudden" is a stretch. According to Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster no threat to the public was present until a full two days after the earthquake; "calamitous" is considered a synonym for "disastrous" (tautology); what seriously disrupted the functioning of the local community were the effects of the earthquake, tsunami, the bungled/exaggerated official response, and the panic which ensued; no doubt the accident caused economic and environmental losses, but significant is the conjunction "and": there were no human losses (deaths) as a result of the nuclear accident; agree that the accident had both human and natural origins. The word "disaster" is not included in the INES scale for the very reason it has emotional associations which are unhelpful for assessment purposes, and can even be dangerous. It's time to give the accident some proper historical context and move beyond popular media accounts. The aphorism "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so" is often attributed to Mark Twain. Ironically, it's likely the attribution itself "just ain't so."[28] Wtmusic (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Government agencies typically use conservative language, and present traditional ideas. No surprise there. Johnfos (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
While tabloids use sensationalist language in order to draw eyes and increase sales; no surprise there either. Which would you prefer this encyclopedia to resemble Johnfos? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
  • Oppose Although it was initially caused by a natural disaster, human error and human decisions building the site had a great impact, how this could evolve. After the years gone by, the site is still seriously polluting the world with nuclear waste. Japan and TEPCO cannot stop that at all. So nuclear disaster is sure the right way to describe this "event" 1947enkidu (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
What's the basis for your understanding "the site is still seriously polluting the world with nuclear waste", and if so, that "Japan and TEPCO cannot stop that at all"? Wtmusic (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Would you suggest, that the site is not leaking anything radioactive material anymore? That the frozen walls have stopped all groundwater entering the buidings ? I never did read anywhere, that all reactors are sealed off completely... 1947enkidu (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Your claim - your responsibility to support with references. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – There is no advantage to using the value-laden "disaster" in this case. Indeed, our MoS tells us not to bring emotional labels into the encylopaedia unless they are the most common form. In this case, whilst a disaster certainly occurred, that disaster encompassed the whole range of events from the earthquake to the tsunami to the nuclear accident. As this article is only about the accident, there is no reason why it should not be titled as such. The survey of government agencies above is quite telling. Much of the opposition above seems rooted in emotion, but that should not be brought into the matter of deciding the appropriate title for these articles, per WP:NPOV, MOS:LABEL, and WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester 23:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose one of our five naming criteria is WP:CONSISTENCY. The only other level 7 accident is Chernobyl disaster. I find the argument that the title inherently violates NPOV to be unconvincing. VQuakr (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
VQuakr, both level 7 accidents also described in Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents, so titles are inconsistent among articles on Chernobyl. In that accident, 31 workers died within minutes of the initial explosion - a disaster by any standard. Characterization of a casualty-free nuclear accident as a "disaster" is radiophobic and thus violates NPOV. Wtmusic (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you have made your opinion clear in your replies to every single oppose !vote. Not sure why you think the title of the list is more relevant than the title of the actual Chernobyl disaster, though. VQuakr (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the current titles are perfectly acceptable and accurate. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there was no 'accident', there was a clear disaster of epic proportions. In what way does the word 'accident' (i.e. 'whoops!') apply to leaving spent fuel rods lying around and the numerous other engineering mistakes made in the design of the plant. Wikipedia also has naming precedent with Chernobyl disaster. Randy Kryn 18:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ JAIF (5 September 2011) NSC Recalculates Total Amount of Radioactive Materials Released
  2. ^ INES (the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale) Rating on the Events in Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station by the Tohoku District – off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake. NISA/METI, 12 April 2011, archived from Original.
  3. ^ JAIF (9 September 2011) Radioactive release into sea estimated triple
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Fukushima kids have skyrocketing number of thyroid abnormalities - report". Russia Times. 18 February 2013. 
  7. ^ "More suspected and confirmed cases of thyroid cancer diagnosed in Fukushima children". Asahi. 13 November 2013. 
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fukushima meltdowns set nuclear energy debate on its ear was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference calamity was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference economist-20110428 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Recriticality, a Key Phenomenon to investigate in Core Disruptive Accident Scenarios of Current and Future Fast Reactor Designs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ a b Barry W. Brook - Professor of Environmental Sustainability at University of Tasmania, Corey Bradshaw Professor and Director of Ecological Modelling at University of Adelaide. "It's time for environmentalists to give nuclear a fair go". IAEA & House brick for Nuclear and Energy Technologies (IKET). 
  13. ^ Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute, Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "There is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power". 
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Overview section vs lead

OK, so the article has a problem, which is that its lead is too short. Meanwhile we have a long "Overview" section which seems to summarise the rest of the article - something Wikipedia articles don't typically have. Isn't that the job of the lead? Could the Overview section not be condensed into the lead, instead? Popcornduff (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, no one replied here, so I went ahead and added some of the Overview content, summarised, to the lead. However, I think in the long term, to avoid unnecessary duplication, the Overview section should be removed, with its various bits of information moved to other relevant parts of the article. As the article is very long, and concerns a complicated subject, it would be great if someone more experienced with the article could help do this - it's difficult checking every bit of information to see if already exists in another section or if it needs to be moved. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Translation request for picture banner text with invitement of japanese from fukushima area

Anti-nuclear power plant rally on 19 September 2011 at the Meiji Shrine complex in Tokyo.

Does the following picture really show an anti atom rally inside fukushima desaster article ? Request for translation of japanese banners inside the picture with no anti atom signs just children balloons at Meiji Shrine side. Maybe correcting yourself inside eWP or answering here.

I have viewed the image at full size and can confirm that the several yellow banners to the right of the image say "脱原発", which is a slogan for ending Japan's use of nuclear power. See here for a dictionary definition. Further, this Japan Times article confirms that an anti-nuclear rally was held at the Meiji Park on 19 September 2011. The file was uploaded the day after the rally, so there is no reason to believe it was not taken at the rally. I hope this addresses your concerns. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
IP user I have tried to read what you have said above, I honestly have. But I have no idea what the point of that screed is. I am guessing, though, that it really has nothing to do with that photo.
If you have concerns about the contents of this article, I suggest you address them individually in short, specific posts in separate sections. A lot of what you say seems to be a suggestion for a different type of reactor to be built. Well, they better build a time machine first before they can think about building a different type of reactor. On the other hand, If you are suggesting the different type to be used in future projects, then this is not the place to discuss it.
At the risk of repeating myself, I will say again that if you want changes made to the article, identify the individual changes clearly and describe exactly what you want changed. I'll be frank - nobody wants to try and decipher what you've typed above. But in the interests of fairness I am leaving it there so that anyone interested can have a look. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
See User:Kay Uwe Böhm. Usually such nonsense is removed on sight. - BilCat (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


Editor Nuve307 has added a paragraph about the alternative use of Thorium reactors, which I have removed. Specific reasons are:

- The use of Thorium reactors is only one of a plethora of possible mitigations for the disaster, ranging from higher seawalls to all sorts of Gen III+ and Gen IV designs,which are all possibilities. If one is mentioned than all should be, which are not germane to the article.
- While I like Sorenson and his ideas, he has not addressed thorium reactors as a panacea for any particular disaster, namely the one the article addresses. Neither does the article change. Moreover, if LFTR is a panacea, it is a panacea for far more than just Fukushima Daiichi.
- The change is not factual, but rather prescriptive. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
- Thorium reactors are addressed in specific articles on Molten salt reactor, Liquid fluoride thorium reactor, Nuclear reactor safety systems, a probably a dozen more articles.

New section proposal: Cultural impact

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: ATTENTION SEEKING KID – KEOW WEE LOONG Arkadiusz Podniesiński ..and it hasn't been very successful:

22:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

government material of exclusion zones, including the actual "red zone"

From 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. More here: Talk:Fukushima disaster cleanup#Edit proposal: new section "Controversy"? . 00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)