Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Image difficult to understand

The image purporting to show before and after is difficult to understand. I had to stare at it for a long time to understand it. The problem is that the two shots are from very different distances and angles. I would propose removing the image as potentially misleading. Surely a better one can be found. If it is deemed that fair use applies here (and surely it does) then finding a good image should be pretty easy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to disagree; the tower is an excellent reference for the building behind it Serazahr (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I only now see it! I will clarify the caption so people know where to look, but agree with Jimbo that there might be better shots around... L.tak (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Just added a new image. Looking at it, it might be the same image (but uncropped) as before, but the presence of the other intact BWRs makes it for me much easier see what has happened. But it's a bit of a judgement call. Is it really an improvement? L.tak (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I find the earlier being better. Current makes more confusion with the different angles. --Kslotte (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I will move that one back... L.tak (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'after' picture only shows the top of the reactor building. It would seem the top half was only a light covering over steel frame, and the steel frame can still be seen. The bottom part is concrete and contains the actual reactor. So we do not have a picture showing the important lower section which hopefully is not significantly damaged. I think the two pictures are useful, but we could usefully have a clear picture of the reactor now showing the bottom. Admittedly, i doubt they are taking guided tours to get pictures.Sandpiper (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jimbo Wales and Sandpiper: The current image and text might be misleading in suggesting a "collapse" of the building. The different angle of view makes the tower a weak reference, particularly as its base is obscured and the (corresponding) horizontal beams are not easy to visually align with the building. The following images [1],[2] seem to be more revealing to me (though "13" is low resolution) and do appear to show top walls between the steel frame missing, but no collapse or height change of the structure itself when comparing to the neighbor building (presumably same height). Surely, there is an English source with better image quality to be found. (79.240.212.8 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Issues fixed with the current version. Nergaal (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong translation

the article says 「毎分１０万カウント」, while １０万 means 100.000, not 10.000.000. ("One out of three people who received the checkup showed "10 million counts per minute" (about 4.5 microcuries) amount of exposure.")

Anonymous edit accepted accordingly. --Kslotte (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And, someone reverted it. I have seen two edits trying to change this. What is correct? --Kslotte (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The translation of the article states "10 Million" but if an editor says it should be "100,000" I will leave the dispute to those who can read Japanese.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Google Translate gived the figure as "10 million" when the whole article is translated, but "100,000" when translating "１０万". So I'm guessing it really should be "100,000". —Quibik (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a native ja speaker. OP is correct. See Japanese numerals and [3]. Oda Mari (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's 100,000. BTW, OP means original poster. Oda Mari (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistent units

I notice the section on radiation levels at the plant mixes Grays and Sieverts. Having them in the same sentence that way leads to headaches when people try to compare these two values. They happen to be equivalent for gamma emissions, but that's not something I'd expect the average person to know. Any objections to picking one unit and sticking with it here? Dgatwood (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistency is a sweet melody ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The source starts off with Grays and then switches to Sieverts half-way through - any ideas why this might be?--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

because they dont understand either?Sandpiper (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is Tokyo Electric Power Company who operate the station - they of course know how to monitor radiation and what the different units mean. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In Civil Defense training they spoke of Rems (Roentgen equivalent man) and Rads (radiation absorbed dose). 50-100 Rads in a few days will make you sick, 500 and you're a dead duck, while you might get 100 millirems from a chest xray, if I remember correctly. Nuke workers were limited to 5 rad per year and 25 rad lifetime.All these Grays and Sieverts are meaningless without some table of the effects of various amounts of them, or some conversion to more familiar older units. Do we have an article? A see also link at the bottom of the page would be useful. Is this approximately correct? 100 rad = 1 Gray(physical radiation)? 100 rem = 1 Sievert (biological effect)? Edison (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No they aren't meaningless, your training is out-dated. Read the articles about the units, Gray is the modern version of the old Rad unit and Sievert is the modern version of the old Rem unit. The source given uses both Grey and Sievert, and I'm not sure why they switch between the two half way through the measuring process. Until someone can answer that, we need to stick with both units in this sentence.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly any of the following or a combination thereof: The staff and engineers at the plant use different measuring equipment for different purposes; some of the measuring apparatus might date back to when older measuring units were used. We should keep in mind that the first reactor unit was constructed in 1967 and commissioned in 1971, so sticking to older units might be a matter of proper workflow, as introducing new units can be confusing (older employees being familiar with old units and younger staff with new units), especially if some of the measuring equipment is non-replaceable in the first place. -Mardus (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done a thorough review of this and made some changes (some of which are being reverted right away as SYNTH, apparently) to units. It appears that the news outlets are getting it wrong from their sources, as news outlets tend to not understand such things fairly well. Since sieverts and grays have a 1:1 conversion for most of these purposes (only beta and gamma radiation being relevant to exposure here), we can probably use sieverts as our "primary" reference units, and avoid converting to rem except on first mention (as SI recommends).

I am also trying to add a paragraph that converts the cpm at the bottom to a reference on biological exposure, as cpm is a virtually useless reference by itself (probably a reporter on-site with a geiger counter), but we can still calculate an approximate Sv dose from it. It is also being reverted, however. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Putting in dosage conversions is WP:SYNTH?

You reverted my edit on Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant:

"The USFDA requires a safe maximum one-time radiation exposure of 30 mSv for a subject in voluntary medical research, which would be reached after 1–10 hours in this environment." ((ref: Radiation: How much is considered safe for humans?, with cpm calculations based on estimates at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Conversion factor is 60 kcpm ≈ 1 mSv/hr, allowing for an error of as much as a factor of 10.))

claiming WP:SYNTH. This is a unit conversion that is properly sourced, and I think adds needed clarity. Otherwise, the previous conversion from cpm to Ci is SYNTH, because cpm does not convert to Ci without "synthesizing" estimates of the type of Geiger counter used and the coordination thereof. Either way, listing cpm is utterly useless without some reference point, which is exactly what I give, sourced properly. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your complaint. However WP:SYNTH is using two or more reliable sources to further a conclusion. In this case the source you used had no mention to the power plant. however you may notice that I placed the appropriate wikilinks in the article right after that which gave reference to the exact table which you stated "we may need to insert a table" avoiding synth yet respecting and furthering what you were trying to accomplish. I should have done it in one edit and I am sorry you felt like I slighted your contribution. in fact I was trying to find a good way to present it.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Both sources list facts. It's like using two textbooks in an article on an airplane: one to convert Mach number at 3km to Mach number at sea level, and the other to convert Mach number at sea level to mph. WP:SYNTH is about opinions. I am listing facts to clarify a citation of cpm which would be useless without this clarification. Furthermore, one should not be concerned about my re-listing of sources, as these give explicit unit conversions and are cited only to clarify where the actual conversion comes from (because, as I said, cpm conversions are far from consistent). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We may not agree on the synth thing but I added those charts back in a format more consistent with wikipedia style. The information was not lost, and we were able to avoid an extra paragraph that had nothing to do with the power plant.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what charts you're talking about. The entire point of that paragraph was to clarify units (counts per minute) that themselves have nothing to do with the power plant unless so clarified. Do you understand what I'm referring to? SamuelRiv (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

yes I do. What is there is actually directly from the source at the end of the paragraph, so your revertion comment of "what experts, un-sourced statement" is actually incorrect. It comes directly from a WP:RS about the powerplant disaster which states "According to experts, this radiation exposure is that it is in need of decontamination" (the whole article is google translated so we had to paraphrase the whole paragraph, but it is the exact same information from the source cited).

Now your edit replaced a wikilink to Radiation poisoning#Exposure levels (which I placed there to give the same information as you were trying to give) with this sentence "The USFDA requires a safe maximum one-time radiation exposure of 30 mSv for a subject in voluntary medical research, which would be reached after 1–10 hours in this environment." So this is WP:SYNTH in this article because the nuclear power source is in nCi, not mSv, the source you used is quoting max safe use for voluntary medical research but offers no explanation of decontamination or nuclear disasters. The only thing that ties this sentence to the article is they both deal with radiation levels, but use two different measurements, account for two different problems and are sourced from two different authorities (the FDA accounts for medical testing and consumption, I believe that the FEMA is in charge of meltdowns in the US).Coffeepusher (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's kinda sloppy to quote quoted unnamed "experts" on a fact that can be easily sourced, like that which I cited (or that on a wikilink). That paragraph is about exposure to a human, not radiation around a power plant (which is not measured in curies unless given a pre-stated nuclear decay rate). The listing of nCi is an unsourced calculation and is furthermore completely not useful to human exposure, which is precisely what is being talked about in that section. My calculation, originally, was sourced, but you decided that the paragraph I used to source it was too long. The point of citing a one-time exposure limit is because that is exactly what we want to compare. It doesn't matter what the exposure level for decontamination is, because they were decontaminated, so obviously they were exposed at that level. What matters is how much radiation "300,000 cpm" might actually mean in terms of human health, which is what I attempted to explain, as if you look back at this talk page there have been many complaints about the haphazard use of units quoted from various sources, and newspapers are generally pretty poor about actually backing up their numbers or making them relevant when on an hour-to-hour deadline. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well this is wikipedia, and we rely upon the original source. The newpaper quoted is a reliable source and in this case the "experts" that the Japanese newspaper consulted (they are the ones who didn't name those experts, so you can go to them about editorial responsibility and naming exactly who those experts are)about the radiation levels not only gave their measurements in nCi but stated that it was of the amount that needed decontamination.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

do you dispute that the experts were right, you keep removing the cited almost quoted statement from the newspaper claiming that experts must be identified. Cite your policy for removing cited content that is faithful to the cited source.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"According to experts,[who?] this is a level of radiation from which an individual needs to be decontaminated." The "level of radiation" is not the primary concern when you decontaminate someone, the concern is the "level of contamination". Primarily you are trying to ensure that the contamination is not further spread around, and trying to prevent internal contamination (i.e. swallowing radionuclides). The reasons you would decontaminate someone in descending priority would be 1) prevent internal contamination 2)prevent the spread of contamination 3) limit the exposure from the external contamination. So the level of radiation is a distant 3rd concern, and typically only significant when you are in the 100K+ cpm level, but the 1st two would still be your main priority. So bottom line a conversion from cpm to dose rate, or even referring to radiation levels as opposed to contamination levels is misleading/meaningless. My qualifications: former nuclear energy worker, with training in radiation protection (including on when/how to decontaminate people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.209.238 (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

this is wikipedia, WP:RS trump self declared expertsCoffeepusher (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the WP:OR. I am sorry we can't come to a consensus but constantly adding your interpretation of an accurate, albeit vague statement, coming from a reliable source is going against wikipedia policy. At no time have you disputed the accuracy of the "experts" testimony, which would be the reason to remove a cited statement. So to answer your question of "who" well they are the experts who were interviewed and published in a WP:RS about the indecent which makes them not only admissible to wikipedia, but is their qualifications. That is the thing about reliable sources, wikipedia trusts that they do their fact checking during the editorial process and if we start adding our own interpretation or commentary to the article that is WP:OR. Coffeepusher (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't trust newspapers on absolute facts that can be looked up in any technical manual, because newspapers aren't sources of scientific information. This isn't about blind policy citation, because one has to pick and choose policies (because a newspaper isn't an RS on such a fact, and because it doesn't cite its actual source for the fact). It is sloppy journalism, plain and simple, and if you refuse to include some conversion from counts-per-minute to an actual exposure (You even removed the statement that cpm is a geiger counter measurement! There's no context!) then that entire sentence needs to be removed. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, because of IP, I double-checked the calculations from external cpm with that of industrial safety cpm, and the difference in use is enormous. In industry (via ESH), the counter measures background at 40-50 cpm, with 150 cpm on a person requiring decontamination. This is measured with the counter frisker directly on the surface of the skin, whereas the medical source I was using cited an external Geiger counter (with 100,000 cpm being high, but not extreme as the ESH numbers would imply). This is probably what TBS used to get its numbers, but since it makes no citation thereof, we can't be sure, and thus I've removed the cpm numbers entirely, because if they conformed to industry standards these people would be on fire. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to continue fighting this. what you have done is acceptable by not adding any original research.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Evacuations section

Hi there, I dumped all evacuation-related info in one section, so we have it centralised. We now need to consolidate it and make some sense of it. Thanks. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But doing that you destroy the information about the order in which this happened compared to other events. Perhaps you might put it back where it was? Sandpiper (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, and even if it were surely it can be rectified. Please restore the centralised section, as conflicing information on the subject is scattered all over the article. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

conflicting information should be corrected. How is it incorrect that you are separating the sequence of evacuations and then further evacuations from the events which prompted them? No, it will be quite complex to correct, which is why i stopped it now at least until it can be discussed at length.Sandpiper (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The causes of the various steps can be mentioned inline. My edits were accepted by both User:Joe Decker and User:HJ Mitchell. Awaiting further opinions. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try to restore the timeline, I agree at the moment it's unclear. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance of a pending change is only a measure of not being vandalism, not a full review of goodness of content. I'm neutral on the content issue here (I'd want to look deeper at it than I have the time to do right now.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, makes sense. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if that was short, I was running out the door when I saw this. Taking a look at the situation now. --joe decker^{talk to me} 07:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned up a bit, in my opinion the last reference does not qualify as verifiable, since it is dynamic and the source references (badly) another source. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the timeline was very clear in the original version either, it was jumping around (e.g. "later"). This evacuation section is intended to be in line with the last subsection "Effect on employees and residents". I now better understand what you meant, but I think the whole article does not necessarily need to be a strict timeline. Subsections need to reflect topics, and topics may overlap in the timeline. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If moving the evacuation numbers down makes the article easier to read, I would support a separate section. We can't, however, stop accepting pending revisions based on such structure dispute, and have to settle for one or another. --hydrox (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree with you hydrox we cant take time out to squabble about this now, Whatever we do this moment people will be changing everything over the next few days. There are still lots of things which are not clear because of shortage of information. Matters may still be getting worse.It will not be clear what makes sense as a final arrangement of information utill the matter is over.Sandpiper (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on which way to break this down, only a mild one, about this after looking through it for a few minutes. Sorry for not looking sooner, but I had to be out of the house for a few hours, which is why I deferred before--I was just out the door. I do understand that there's a sense that a timeline is being lost with the separation of the evacuations, I also understand that the reactor events feel interrupted with the evacuation information intermingled. When I imagine what the article should look like going forward, a few weeks from now, we're going to want a separate evacuation (what happens to refugees?) for that. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be some cross-pollination, the sections do need to really have enough context to make sense by themselves, but I'm guessing that a year from now the moment-by-moment event order will be of relatively less importance than being able to present subject-based sections. That doesn't mean there can't be some evac info in the reactor history or vice versa, but I'm guessing we will eventually want standalone sections on the evacuations vs. the reactor events. --joe decker^{talk to me} 07:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to create a separate article chronicling the Timeline of the 2011 Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant incident? This would both keep the timeline of past events, and the main article could get summaries of the timeline and a separate section on evacutations, if that's necessary. -Mardus (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds entirely sensible. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Residual heat" or "decay heat"?

In section Cooling failure directly after the earthquake: "Cooling is needed to remove residual reactor heat even when a plant has been shut down."

I am not sure which term is correct in this case but I think decay heat could be more precise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.245.115 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Decay heat is the correct term, i.e., heat from the decay of the nuclear fuel. Residual heat is heat that's there because of the mass of an object (like when turning off an engine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.189.11.201 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

but I am a little bothered why they need the boron. This would be to damp an ongoing reaction.Sandpiper (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Which appears to be the idea, see #Boron and sea water above. -Mardus (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

They use boron as a neutron poison. It prevents the reactor from self starting, wich would be a disaster given the conditions. --190.189.11.201 (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Partial meltdown in reactor 3?

I'm seeing lots of sources now saying that a Japanese government spokesman has said a partial meltdown is likely underway in reactor 3. See Washington Post for one example. Also, because this reactor has plutonium, that is a more serious hazard for long-term radiation effects. Carcharoth (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just changed the article to correctly say it is number 3 (not number 1) that the Washington Post quoted was thought to be in partial meltdown. The latest news though seems to be that both reactors may be undergoing meltdown, [4]. ChiZeroOne (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the Washington Post just edited the article, no they state "Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said officials were acting on the assumption that a meltdown could be underway at that reactor, Fukushima Daiichi's unit 3, and that it was "highly possible" that a meltdown was underway at Fukushima Daiichi's unit 1 reactor, where an explosion destroyed a building a day earlier." Maybe the news, a meltdown in unit 3 was underway was just a translation issue --TheBoDe ^talk 05:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just posted citation to Guardian article that reports that TEPCO has definitively stated that #1 has partially melted.--Nowa (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to try to source original sources, not second hand UK media. Cannot find a TEPCO report *confirming* partial melt-down --Ptroxler (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

New image, old caption

Can whoever changed the image fix up the caption and metadata as well please? 113.197.242.129 (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The file should be reverted. The new image should be in a new filename. The filename no longer describes the contents otherwise. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just removed the caption, which is a start. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 32

Could an editor familiar with footnote 32 please fix it? It's coming out as an error. Wabbott9 (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed, apparently, see below; not by me either. Wabbott9 (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Before and after image

Japan Earthquake: before and after is a collection of aerial and satellite images from ABC News, credited to Google. It includes a before and after image of this nuclear power station, so may be worth putting in the external links. Carcharoth (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

References of potential interest

I will leave the editing of this article to others. These reports and diagrams seem to be relevant:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Venting_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_3_1303111.html

Some of the diagrams used in the first one can be found at this site, which concerns General Electric BWRs: http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/bwr.htm http://www.nucleartourist.com/areas/bwr-in1.htm http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/Bwr-rx1.gif http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/bwrfuel1.jpg This is particularly informative, as is shows the control "rods" are actually flat plates which rise up between the square-section channels which contain the fuel rods. Presumably the control rods are fully raised at present.

No, the plant was automatically shut down after the earthquake, after hit by the tsunami one hour later the plant was battery operated 8-10 hours. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nucleartourist.com/imagemaps/rx-bldg1.jpg Reactor building, showing torus and bulb structure, with the concrete solid containment building with a removable, somewhat conical lid. The upper part, with the cranes, corresponds to the part which was most visibly damaged in the blast.

http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/Core1.gif Pulling a fuel assembly out of the reactor - with the "reactor vessel head" and the containment structure's conical lid presumably removed.

http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/headlift.jpg Removing the "reactor vessel head".

There's a bunch of other images at the bwr-in1.htm page. My guess is that some of these refer to later design variations than would have been used for the 1967 construction of Fukushima Daiichi 1. (See PDF mentioned below - some of these diagrams are for a later "Type II" containment design. Some of the colour schemes of the equipment and the diagrams strike me as 1970s or 1980s vintage. The Browns Ferry Unit 1 was built in the late 60s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browns_Ferry_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Some other items: http://texty.org.ua/action/file/download?file_guid=27605 BRW/6 - looks like late 1970s graphics.

According to this page: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/protectingtheenvironment/factsheet/events-at-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-plant-in-japan- "The plant is a General Electric boiling water reactor 3 Mark 1 design". "It appears that as the level of coolant in the reactor vessel lowered, a portion of the top of the uranium fuel rods was exposed. This may have caused zirconium cladding of the fuel rods to react with water to create hydrogen. This hydrogen was vented, then somehow ignited, causing the explosion." "The explosion caused a breach in the secondary containment." (concrete building). "TEPCO has been pumping seawater, laced with boron, into the reactor core of Unit 1 of the Fukushima-Daiichi plant to cool the fuel."

If the operators were venting the vessel during the cooling deficiency then they shifted the risk of a hydrogen explosion from inside the containment vessel to outside. Probably this is a smart move - although I wonder if a vessel designed to withstand *outwards* pressure is strong against *inwards* pressure? either way, the hydrogen explosion appears to have occurred inside the building but outside the vessel. Question comes to mind; how much damage did this do to the pipework and controls leading into the vessel? can venting still be performed? Also, doesn't this mean they were venting radioactive gases directly from the core into the environment? Toby Douglass (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

They have a diagram: http://www.nei.org/filefolder/BoilingWaterReactorDesign_3.jpg annotated to refer to Fukushima Daiichi 1 and its explosion. On page 2: "The General Electric BWR 3 Mark 1 reactor design is used in six of 104 reactors in the United States."

They cite this highly informative document: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf Which shows the Mark I, II and III containment structures. Fukushima Daiichi 1 uses Type I.

Also of interest: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html "As a countermeasure to limit damage to the reactor core, TEPCO proposed that sea water mixed with boron be injected into the primary containment vessel. This measure was approved by Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and the injection procedure began at 20:20 local Japan time."

Unit 3 is apparently a Toshiba design, but I didn't find anything significant searching for BWR Toshiba.

- Robin Robin Whittle (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese spokesperson Yukio Edano comments that meltdowns might have occurred in two of Fukushima's reactors. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iXSKdXpID9ZNmrezm_ynY-_0BD-g?docId=CNG.bd57fdfbae452af0d2b556455b5b59ec.3b1

67.212.44.69 (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Chernobyl?

Beginning to see reports of radiation levels 4km away being greater than they were 4km away from Chernobyl... Nothing 'reliable' yet but keep an eye out as this article might need to be updated soon. Buckethed (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

4km but when at Chernobyl? after the core was exposed? how many days after? do they mean *now?* also, in which direction? upwind or downwind? Toby Douglass (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Evacuation

The evacuation and related material from 11 March should be created in a section. This should not be left as a simple paragraph in the introduction, it should be expanded upon. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The evacuation section has been hiding behind a broken ref for a while. It's back now. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

missing information

hey, half the information about early events which was in the power plant article last night before it got moved here has disappeared. what happened to it?Sandpiper (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a stray ref creating havoc, and actually it happened before the move. I think it's fixed now, please check. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

template

We should have a footer template for all the related quake/tsunami/nuclear articles.

{{2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami}} or something, similar to the {{2010 Haiti earthquake}} one.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Try out Talk:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami/Template:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

184.144.160.156 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Introduction texts for main articles

We need to create good introduction texts for main articles:

• 2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami#Nuclear_power_plants
• Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accident

--Kslotte (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also some correlation with Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant is needed. --Kslotte (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have re-done the introduction of 2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami#Nuclear_power_plants just now. Feel free to improve it further.--spitzl (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

JST/GMT times

We don't need to give every event in two times. How about we stick to JST - it says this is UTC+9 in the infobox if anyone wants to know. Otherwise it just looks cluttered and is cumbersome. --Pontificalibus (talk)

I agree --Qqchose2sucre (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, use japanes time only through article.Sandpiper (talk)

Death Daiichi/Daini

Don't you think that TEPCO's Press Release is more reliable than World Nuclear Association's about the worker's death. Tepco said Daini, WNA said Daiichi. So can't we remove this information about death on Daiichi's page ? This section seems to have been previously deleted. Is there any reason ? --Qqchose2sucre (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Information that I got from several sources is that this worker died as a consequence of the earthquake while operating a crane close to the exhaust port at great height. It would therefore indicate that this fatality occurred or was initiated before beginning of the nuclear emergency. I think it should be removed. If however you believe it should be left in the article it should be clearly stated; i.e. that he died due to fall and not due to explosion/exposure etc. Is this ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.101.215.197 (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you have any reference it will be OK. --Qqchose2sucre (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how the poor man died, he didn't die at Fukushima Daiichi. 82.132.248.88 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In case the death is unrelated to the nuclear accident, we should include the information to avoid confusion, as people may have heard about the death, but not about the specific circumstances.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I think this information really belongs to the separate page for the Fukushima II (Daini) plant, which is where the incident occurred. 82.132.139.84 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it belongs to Fukushima II Dai-ini's article. But where are the references about specific circumstances ? The last time I could access to Tepco website, they didn't make any mention about the moment of the death, although I think it would be more "convenient" for them to say the worker died during the earthquake, instead of during a nuclear incident. For the moment the death is recorded by Tepco in the nuclear incident's press release, so we can record it in the Fukushima II Dai-ini's nuclear incident's article.--Qqchose2sucre (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the first mention (in English) of the earthquake casualties at Fukushima II is in the bulletin issued at 00:00 JST on 12 March: "A seriously injured worker is still trapped in the crane operating console of the exhaust stack and his breathing and pulse cannot be confirmed. A worker was lightly injured spraining his left ankle and cutting both knees when he fell while walking at the site. The worker is conscious". The 05:00 and 11:00 bulletins give the same information. The 13:00 bulletin simply adds: "Currently, the rescue efforts are under way". The bulletin at 15:00 mentions that the lightly-injured worker is back at work, having received medical treatment. Then, at 20:00 JST on 12 March: "A seriously injured worker who had been trapped in the crane operating console of the exhaust stack was transported to the ground at 5.13pm and confirmed dead at 5.17pm. We sincerely pray for the repose of his soul". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.205 (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant to add that the relevant bulletins are the ones headed "Plant status" on the TEPCO site (when it isn't displaying error messages). 82.132.139.212 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

TEPCO

Did TEPCO's server crash? getting site not available on [5]--Nowa (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

it is still working but presumably overloaded.Sandpiper (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

: It seems to work slower and slower for 2 hours now --Qqchose2sucre (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If it helps here are twothree google caches of TEPCO links used in this article:

• "福島第一原子力発電所の現状について【午後４時40分時点】 [Condition of Fukushima I (4:40pm)"] (marked as dead, but I'm sure it will return) is cached at [6]. It links to this PDF but that is not cached.
• TEPCO (March 12, 2011). "Press Releases" is cached at [7]
• "Occurrence of a Specific Incident Stipulated in Article 15, Clause 1 of the Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness (Extraordinary increase of radiation dose at site boundary)" cached at [8] used to support TEPCO reported that radiation levels at the site boundary exceeded the regulatory limits quote from source: "3:29PM, radiation dose measured at site boundary has exceeded the limiting value"

-84user (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (added another -84user (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Please use context quotes

I have seen two cases of inline citations used in this article which did not support the claim they were attached to. Adding a fragment of the source in a "|quote=" parameter would help readers such as myself verify the article. I would fix this myself but the article changes too quickly. The latest is TEPCO gives a "vertical earthquake" as the reason for the explosion supposedly sourced by [9]. I could not find this in that reuters source (I recall "vertical earthquake" in the TEPCO bulletins though, but no claim that was the cause). Bear in mind that reports may get updated and URLs may change or even get typoed. So, please add some context when adding inline citations. -84user (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(That ref may have just got fixed, but once again the article moves too fast for even a non-editing reader to follow properly. Please consider slowing down the edits and moves.) -84user (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Update. TEPCO site is giving errors, but Firefox plugin Resurrect Pages gives this google cache of the TEPCO bulletin used to cite the above claim. That cache does not contain wording that really supports the claim, I suspect there has been a misinterpretation or possible synthesis. The sentence that mentions "vertical" is :In addition, a vertical earthquake hit the site and big explosion has happened near the Unit 1 and smoke breaks out around 3:36PM.. Accordingly I am adding a {{Failed verification}} tag. -84user (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what to make of this recent edit summary: no need for tags right now: we are intensively working on this text right now - also I have just removed a paragraph that was completely unsourced. If the consensus is for no tags, then what about removing the unsourced and badly sourced stuff? -84user (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Unit 1 cooling problems

The section dealing with the events at unit 1 are confusing and require clean up. It seems like different times of different days are randomly mixed together, making it hard to understand what really happened one after the other.--spitzl (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just re-ordered the section chronologically. It is still worth checking the original sources though to confirm that the statements and events published really took place at the given time. Various ref-tags contained a wrong time or day!, probably due to confusion of time zones.--spitzl (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

inadequate information by officials

it becomes more and more obvious, that official information is contradictive and sometimes outright inadequate. It is plainly inadequate to speak of "falling temperature" in the core without saying from what previous level and for how long and whether temperature stayed low afterwards. Appearantly the system of governmental information has broke down and they are in full propaganda mode like Alan Greenspan.

Also, TEPCO has a poor track record of truth telling during crisis, given their history of accidents. --Frank A (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactor Unit number clarification

After the split from the article about the plant itself, it is no longer clear that "Unit x" refers to reactor numbers at the Fukushima plant. Many nuclear stations do not refer to reactors as "units" and this might be confusing for an uninformed user. Recommend clarification by changing the article headings to read "Reactor Unit 1," "Reactor Unit 2," etc. Xanthis (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with cites

Something must be wrong with the URLs in the cites here, maybe caching or reuters updates are not reaching my European location? My edit here was reverted with And that is exactly what the text said, in contrast to your verison. I reworded to match the Reuters source as it appeared at my Firefox browser. I still cannot see zirconium in this reuters source:

"TOKYO, March 12 | Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:36am EST"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/japan-quake-reactor-idUSTKZ00680620110312?feedType=RSS&feedName=hotStocksNews&rpc=43

There is no mention of zirconium. Here is the whole last paragraph

"Edano said due to the falling level of cooling water, hydrogen was generated and that leaked to the space between the building and the container and the explosion happened when the hydrogen mixed with oxygen there.

(Reporting by Leika Kihara, Kiyoshi Takenaka; Editing by Joseph Radford)"

I even checked this google cache. Is there another URL maybe? Could someone add a fragment from the source as they see it? -84user (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The "And that is exactly what the text said, in contrast to your verison" was not referring to your edit but to Serazahr's, see also User_talk:Rtc#March_2011. I did not want to revert your edit. This accidental revert was caused by confusing diff display after my edit conflicted with yours. But I noticed and undid it instantly: [10] Sorry for the confusion. Your edits are in the current version. --rtc (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I just noticed, thanks. Meanwhile, I do find google search results contain mentions of zirconium and Fukushima, but when I click the links the zirconium is gone. This is one example, which probably got updated after google indexed it. But this one still mentions it: The zirconium sheath encasing at least one rod, and possibly more, had started to crack and melt after it was exposed above the water level early yesterday. -84user (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you That last Sidney Morning Herald has some good annotated diagrams so I am off to Commons to improve the images there. -84user (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please fix the red cite error

this revision has "^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named By-2011-03-13; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text". I tried but too many edit conflicts. -84user (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed, but not by me -84user (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Onagawa reactor site alarms triggered by radiation from Fukushima I?

Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, owned by a different utility, Tohoku Electric Power Company, declared an emergency today due to radiation alarms. According to the sources cited in our article on that plant, Tohoku Electric is claiming that their radiation alarms are being triggered by contamination from the Fukushima I reactors. I don't know if that claim is correct or if Tohoku Electric has problems of their own and are trying to shift blame. In any event, Tohoku's claim should probably in this article.

I don't know which is worse -- still another reactor crisis elsewhere, or contamination spreading from Fukushima I to Onagawa. Just looking at the map, they appear to be very roughly 100+ km apart^[11][12] based on the lat/lon coordinates for each plant in our articles.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

the sheep in wales still glow in the dark....Sandpiper (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As a WP reader, I would like to see Wikipedia do a more extensive job of putting all these radiation level characterizations into perspective. The mass media is reporting in units of "1000 times normal", etc. And the few quotes of specific numbers, like "7 millirems/hour", "1557 microsieverts per hour for 2 hours, dropping to 184 microsieverts per hour", are incomprehensible to most people. If the WP article on the "Röntgen equivalent man" unit is not grossly inaccurate in saying that a total acute exposure of 50 rems is subclinical, then the scary sounding numbers like "1557 microsieverts" are totally inconsequential.

Another area which might benefit from some emphasis is the nebulosity of the term "meltdown", and its related terms, like "partial meltdown". They are very scary terms which people tend to think they understand, but don't.

Sbergman27 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I would advise against any synthesis here. That would result in endless debate, given the various ways to quantify radiation and radiation effects. We should instead stick to what reliable sources report, including possible explanations for a non-expert audience.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cropped images at Commons

There are now a few cropped and annotated images that might be useful at Commons:Category:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. -84user (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Another power plant has cooling problems: Tokai No.2

See: http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFTKG00708120110313 — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Staal (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why it's in the Tōkai Nuclear Power Plant article, not relevant here. Maybe we will need a Japan 2011 nuclear accidents summary article at some point.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot agree it should not be mentioned here, it is part of the same incident and demonstrates both scope and the weaknesses of the reactor design. Sandpiper (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) How can Tōkai Nuclear Power Plant be part of Fukushima I nuclear accidents, it's not even located in the same prefecture, also the reactor design is totally different.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont know exactly how we do it, but sort of summary paragraph which mentions other reactors which also had problems.Sandpiper (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

At the very least a see also link is in order. Taemyr (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevant information on other plants should be added to 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, and may be moved to the respective subarticles if and when such articles are created.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of cutaway drawing

L.tak, in your edit described as "refs",[13] did you mean to revert my addition of a cutaway drawing of the Unit 1 design, and some other cite improvements by others? I think the cutaway drawing File:BWR Mark I Containment, cutaway.jpg is enormously helpful in understanding the steel top section damage that can be seen in the before&after explosion photo. Rwendland (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

L.tak undid quite a few other edits there, and should probably manually reinstate them.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I am sorry about that and will look into it! L.tak (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the edit and did not see me removing the image there. But editing with so many people is a bit crazy sometimes; I'll try to do it is smaller steps to avoid the inevitable conflicts... L.tak (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of this one, but yeah, MediaWiki is pretty useless when it comes to lots of people editing different parts of the same article at the same time. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that one is clear indeed! As said the change of refs over more sections (manually) in such a heavily edited environment was asking for problems... (until Mediawiki becomes good enough to handle it ;-) ) L.tak (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

37 subject to radiation exposure

88.114.172.212 added under "injuries" in the infobox "at least 37 radiation exposure victims..." Citing this which states "A combined 37 people have been exposed to radiation near the plant". This does not mean they are suffering from radiation exposure, it could simply mean they have been in an area where there are elevated radiation levels. It's not appropriate to put this under "injuries" in the infobox.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify what exactly you are objecting to? The Wikipedia article you link to indicates that the usage to describe these victims as suffering from radiation exposure to be completely accurate. At the current state the linked article contains at least two definitions that are relevant:

Absorption by an object of high-energy ionizing radiation, and the chemical damage that typically results from that. In humans and animals, this leads to radiation poisoning.

The part "this leads to" is somewhat misleading though, proper statement would be "this could lead to" or "with high enough doses this leads to" or even "continued exposure leads to".

Radioactive contamination of an object by a substance containing unstable atomic nuclei, which by ongoing radioactive decay will gradually apply ionizing radiation to the object.

This is fully applicable even if you accept it at face value, because to be able to diagnose someone as having been "exposed" to radiation, you either need to observe symptomps of radiation poisoning in the patient, which are much delayed (except for extremely high, fatal doses) from the time of exposure, or alternatively you have to measure ionizing radiation coming directly from the patient or her clothing. In other words, the person has "radioactive contamination", which is what the nuclear regulatory agency in Japan (NISA) has reported also in patient screening.

I would also readily accept that a person exhibiting either symptoms of radiation poisoning or contamination exceeding decontamination or radiological monitorin levels, is indeed both "injured" and a "victim" of an accident. 85.156.224.62 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The third possibility stated above is that these people were in an area where elevated radiation levels were thought to be present, and were then termed "exposed". The source is simply not clear enough on this issue to establish that they were injured due to radiation exposure. If you can find another source explaining what happened to these 37 that would be great. I would expect if that many people had been injured by radiation exposure, it would widely reported. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A more detailed breakdown for the radiation "victims" is in another Kyodo English article, which quite obviously is translated from Japanese.

Nineteen people who had evacuated from an area within 3 km of the No. 1 plant were found exposed to radiation, joining three others already confirmed to have been exposed, the Fukushima prefectural government said Sunday.

In addition, about 160 people are feared to have been exposed to radiation, according to the government agency.

The Fire and Disaster Management Agency said 15 people were found to have been contaminated with radioactive material at a hospital located within 10 km of the reactor.

I think the only reasonable way to interpret that is out of about 200 people, of which 160 meet your definiion ("were in an area where elevated radiation levels were thought to be present"), while 19 + 3 + 15 = 37 have actually been measured.85.156.224.62 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Detailed explanation

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/ has a detailed opinion of the events from an expert who has been endorsed as a reliable source on the RADSAFE mailing list. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says "When designing a nuclear power plant, engineers follow a philosophy called 'Defense in Depth'". Then there should have also been a convection heat exchanger to handle decay heat (it wouldn't require power) . I can't believe they are flooding the core with seawater, but its an old facility anyway. They are probably doing what they have to. It might be a blessing in disguise, the Japanese can rebuild modern facilities much better and maybe will show the world a better way. 172.162.139.33 (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)BG

Spread across Pacific

Hi. I'm still not certain whether this information belongs in this article, the article on the reactors or the one about the earthquake and its direct aftermath, but reports (and maps) are circulating on the Internet purporting to show the spread of a radioactive cloud across the Pacific Ocean that will reach the U.S. West Coast in 10 days. The image I keep seeing shows the extent of radiation measured in rads, but I have several doubts over its validity. A mention of this claim should IMO be included in this article or another, but more importantly information concerning the validity of this information is required, backed up by one or two reliable sources. The reason I suggest adding this information regardless of whether it is true or false is because many people have already been exposed to these rumours, and Wikipedia should compile information on whether it is legitimate or if it's a hoax. A major reason I doubt its validity is because many factors will cause shifts in the general direction and overall spead of the radiation cloud, including changes in the jet stream (currently pointed over North America), the exact timing and intensity of any nuclear releases as well as its initial altitude soon after leaving the east coast of Japan. Different computer models showing the release place the bulk of radiation over places such as Alaska, California, Ontario, Manitoba, Hawaii, Mexico, the central Pacific, etc. all at the end of around the same time span. Any radiation carried by ocean currents such as the Kuroshio Current will also affect the final destination of any radiation deposition. Also, it's unlikely that the exact concentration of possible exposure to this radiation is already known to any accurate measurement. Even volcanic eruptions and their ash clouds are hard to predict. Furthermore, there have been reports stating that France has put into place an evacuation alert for its nationals living in Tokyo, because the French government is concerned about radiation being blown by (southerly?) winds back toward central Honshu from yet other nuclear plants that may malfunction[14][15]. Please discuss where to put this information, and in which specific articles. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm also interested where the claims (repeated for several days) that "the wind blows towards the sea" come from. Earlier today METAR reports from the Fukushima airport as well as those from NISA reported reported the exact opposite: winds from North East to North North East. Also, there have been reports of increased radiation levels at the Onagawa NPP and official assurances, that these readings are due to radionuclide spread from Fukushima. Onagawa is 100 km to South South West of Fukushima, indicating that any release is moving down the coast of Honshu, and is not even heading towards the sea, let alone towards Hawaii or the US mainland. 85.156.224.62 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Onagawa is located north of the Fukushima I plant, and the maps show the estimated tsunami wave height, not radiation.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement that the wind was blowing out towards the sea was made by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano in a televised press conference and has been widely quoted in the media. As Cs32en pointed out Onagawa is up the coast of Honshu, not down the coast. Nevertheless, the direction of the wind will be a relatively minor issue until the containment vessel fails, as the quantity of radiation released along with the hydrogen is only a tiny fraction of what is contained in the (potentially melting) fuel rods. Joewein (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of events by Nature journalist

See here.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Double Explosion at Unit 3

I saw two explosions at reactor No. 3 on TV, the first explosion was associated with huge plume of debris that rose vertically, it blew the roof off. A second explosion followed a few minutes later and appeared to blow the lower walls of Unit No. 3 outwards. The building looks in allot worse shape then reactor No. 1. Also saw plume of white steam jetting out of reactor vessel, it's now gone. Explosion was felt 30 km away. 7 missing, 3 injured in blast. --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

USS Ronald Reagan

Not sure if this should be included, even though it is related to the plant http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110314/ts_alt_afp/japanquakenuclearusmilitary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfledrich (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Background information in laymen's terms

Hi Folks,

I have written an account of the events in laymen's terms, discussing the fundamentals of nuclear physics, the plant design as well as an account of the events. It has gone viral and right now we are Twitter #2. Am an engineer at MIT, so I had it checked out by a number of people. So far, it has been holding up. Please use it in any way you seem fit (including ignoring it ;-) ). It will be relocated in a few hours to an universities website, but this link will point then to the new location: http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/

Best, Josef.

18.101.8.107 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a few points we do not mention. The issue that when new generators arrived, they could not be connected for lack of suitable cables. Typical shut down power output while cooling is 3% of operating. Earthquake was 5x more powerful than plant was designed to withstand. Suggestion that gases might have been deliberately vented inside the building to allow radioactive decay before they escaped to the atmosphere. Anticipated ongoing power shortages in japan due to 20% loss of nuclear capacity for years, and nuclear being 30% of total generating capacity. Sandpiper (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from the text you have written: "The earthquake that hit Japan was 5 times more powerful than the worst earthquake the nuclear power plant was built for [...]" The energy of the quake was spread over a very large area, and over a relatively long time span. At the Fukushima I plant, the peak intensity (ground acceleration) was less than half the quake in Christchurch, and less than a third of the Haiti earthquake. (See the shake maps at USGS.) That was also well below a hypothetical 8.25 quake at the nearest fault line. What the plant could not cope with was the combine effect of the power outage and the tsunami. While we probably don't know at this point, the earthquake itself probably did not cause the problems at the plant.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The earthquake was quote forseeable, as was the tsunami it created. Edison (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

sea water

still not clear about sea water. Dont know where it has been going. I am veering towards the view that sea water has been injected into the reactors for coolant because they have run out of fresh water. That this might be a 'last resort' because the sea water will cause significant damage to the reactors. I noted some references saying the government had ordered them to use sea water, which begs the question why they might not want to. There seems to be a lot of injecting water and venting gas going on, which sounds awfully like boiling a pan of water. Pretty salty inside by the time they have finished doing this? Also some comments saying how thoroughly they have been filtering the vented gas. Which means they are concerned it might contain lumps of something radioactive. Anyone found anything? Sandpiper (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources say that they're injecting seawater into the cores of #1 and #3. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Its an old facility anyway. They are probably doing what they have to although it sounds outrageous. It might be a blessing in disguise, the Japanese can rebuild modern facilities much better and maybe will show the world a better way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.82.165 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

...unless accumulated salt from the sea water completely clutters the reactor, disabling any further cooling by liquid.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because the seawater from the tsunamis overran the freshwater pools? 99.50.126.70 (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Cs32en, a lot of seawater would be boiling, and salt concentration would increase. This would require regular flushing/dilution of the reactor vessel, needing even more water. Awful situation for those poor operators. 172.164.65.71 (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)BG

Content added by Special:Contributions/198.145.74.6 and removed by User:MartinezMD

Although the unregistered User likely meant well, I agree that the content added by Special:Contributions/198.145.74.6 was not very well written, and I understand why User:MartinezMD removed it and basically agree it is better removed. The emphasis the zirconium is highly volatile is misleading and basically downright wrong. The removed content also implies that zirconium is highly reactive. In fact, zirconium and zircalloy are solid metals which can indefinitely withstand the high normal operating temperatures of a nuclear reactor core cladding and is corrosion-resistant under these severe operating conditions. It is only when the zirconium alloy reaches much higher temperature that it reacts with water to produce hydrogen, a situation not seen anywhere near normal operating temperatures. H Padleckas (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The information added by the IP editor was basically correct, but it was not written in encyclopedic style. In addition, it was taken directly from a copyrighted text. See also the text mentioned in the section above.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This source says hydrogen gas is highly volatile, not that zirconium is highly volatile. Anyway, the fact that zirconium reacted with water to form hydrogen gas is likely correct, although likely still speculation. Maybe we should wait until a reference source specifically states that before adding such information to the article. H Padleckas (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your observation is correct. From the text that was added to the article (zirconium as an alternative for stainless steel), it is evident, however, that "highly volatile" means "highly reactive" in that context.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It was copied word-for-word from an article on CommonDreams.org by Karl Grossman. -Colfer2 (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be widely accepted that hydrogn caused explosions, that hydrogen came from somewhere, and the only explanation put forward is from exposed fuel rods reacting with water. Sandpiper (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Article should merge back to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The problem is that the articles are getting out of step, they're highly related, and the articles aren't too large to do that. If we merge now we won't have to keep editing all three. It's bad enough keeping the intros straight. Otherwise we have 3 articles on the go, the earthquake, the plant, and the accidents at the plant.Rememberway (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The plant article should just summarize this article, for their accident section. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There should also be a summary of the evacuations in the Fukushima Prefecture article. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just not working, we end up needing 6 summaries of what's happening, in the original earthquake article, in the plant article and here; for each in the body as well as the introduction. It's too much work, nobody is doing it, and the plant article has nothing in it anyway. This is all stuff that should be there, it's all about the plant. We can always split it again later if the article gets too big; it's much easier to do it that way.Rememberway (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree and opposed splitting. There isnt really much technical information in the powerplant article, which was barely a start article before this happened. What information ther is, is basic and directly relevant to understanding the accident. This article needs a good deal more technical information about the plant than it now has to explain what is going on. That information will inevitably be in the article eventually. Incidentally, I see this article has had a name change. Hardly a stable choice. Sandpiper (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. It looks better this way at the moment anyway.Rememberway (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please CEASE ALL SPLITTING and MOVING of this page! For the second time, just today, the page was relocated again! Moving and splitting hinders people trying to attain accurate safety & health information. (It also gives the appearance people trying to silence or divert info for their own political gain.) It could be very likely aide organizations might be using this info for organizing current or future efforts -- as it more accurate and filter compared to all other sources I've seen so far! If you need to split, wait until this situation resolves. People have already requested not to split/move this in the past days -- as it causes people posting info to lose the page! Roger.nkata (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Too Fast

For stability reasons, I opposed a split yesterday, which was performed later on based on a consensus. Now it is done I feel at least a decent discussion needs to be performed before it can be undone. A discussion of 1 hour between 3 editors; without informing or reflecting on the outcome of the previous discussion seems very premature. I strongly suggest to move it back, then have the discussion and not move on a 3 editor "consensus"!!! L.tak (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been done now, but the last thing we need is a split-war. Everyone: Please don't change the article split again before discussions have taken place - for a while we ended up with two copies of the information, which would have gotten ugly quickly as they diverged. I've for now reverted the accident to a redirect, but that is not an endorsement that that is the proper way - I have no opinion on what the proper split should be, but form a stable consensus before changing it back again.

Please use this section to discuss: Talk:Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant#accident_merged_back_here, rather than fragmenting the discussion as well. henrik•talk 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merging, with 45KB, this article will survive on it own. We should develop this article further. Not going backwards. Having to have an introduction section on many place isn't an issue. You can copy and paste and cordinate such things here in talk. --Kslotte (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merging. Was proper consideration given to the fact that both articles were top news item on the WP Main Page? I think the merge was terrible while featured on the main page. None of the mergers even sorted out the duplicate images on the remerged page. Rwendland (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

obviously both articles wer top item because everyone interested in reading one of them also read the other. This is a reason for having both together. I agree there might be an enire articles worth of info in the accident article, but the reactor article was a stub before all this happened and no one has added to it as regards general info. Which, anyway, is mostly stuff people reading the accident article want to know anyway. Sandpiper (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Merging as of right now there are enough WP:RS to keep both articles separate. When events die down I believe we should write a small section in the main article that gives a brief explanation of the events and links to this article, but otherwise we will have the problem of overwhelming the other article.Coffeepusher (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Merging The nuclear plant has a history going back over 40 years, and the main article should concentrate on this, with all the various reactors. The Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents article should concentrate on the current crisis. I don't see how it would be better to force all of this into a single article. - Robin Robin Whittle (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose however, I believe the plant article should have a very limited scope on the incident, instead referring to this article for full details. Otherwise, as mentioned in other areas, we would be doubling all the required work.MartinezMD (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How would that work? The problem is that the accident is on the site, involves the the site intimately, and the topic here is everything relating to the site. Subarticles are a great idea when things are stable, or when articles get very unwieldy, but if you don't have to split you shouldn't. We don't have to split right now. It simply creates more work and scope for duplication and contradiction. People were talking the talk, but weren't walking the walk of actually keeping everything in step.Rememberway (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Response to request for independent opinion I have been asked for an opinion on this discussion. I have not hitherto taken any part in this, and indeed was unaware of the existence of these articles, let alone of the discussions concerning them, until I received the request, so I come here as a completely uninvolved administrator.
• I see that there was extensive discussion of the possibility of a split at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on 12 and 13 March, with input from over twenty editors. There was a consensus for splitting. This was followed by a discussion on this page lasting a little over an hour, with three participants, on the basis of which the change resulting from the consensus in the earlier discussion was reverted.
• Further discussion on this page has produced a consensus to reinstate the result of the consensus in the original discussion.
• I have no view whatsoever on the rights and wrongs of the split proposal myself, but it is clear that there is consensus for the split, and those who have repeatedly redirected this page are acting against that consensus. The split should be restored and remain until consensus changes, if it ever does.
• I have given my assessment in response to a request to do so, but I am not making the relevant change myself, as I prefer to remain uninvolved. I hope the issue can be resolved by all editors accepting consensus, whether or not they personally agree with the consensus, and that administrative action will not be necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merging. The accident deserves its own article and the plant's article should be about the plant itself. The accident article should be shortly summarized in the plant's article. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merging back. There are other nuke plants in trouble. May want to create one page for all of the nuke issues due to earthquake. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose splitting. The merged article is not even close to the size limits, all of the accident is at the plant, or directly associated with the plant, and in practice we were getting too much duplication; people were simply not updating all three articles. Each article said something different. Splitting should be avoided as much as possible, since it always creates more work and scope for errors.Rememberway (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

In light of the hasty discussion that turned this article into a redirect without the proper time to hold a discussion, should this article be merged into Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant or not? Take a look at the arguments above and then note whether you Support or Oppose redirecting Fukushima I nuclear accidents to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. --John KB (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

More evidence of conensus against the merge is at Talk:Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant#accident_merged_back_here. --hydrox (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This thread seems to have been closed messily, given there's an active RFC in it. There appears to be general consensus above opposing the merge - is the RFC still necessary? If yes, move the RFC tag to a new section outside the closed discussion tags. If not, please remove the tag from inside the 'closed' section above. As it is, I'm not clear on whether you still need outside comment or not. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

NYT article about longer-term dangers

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html

This also discusses the process of pumping in water and letting it evaporate to cool the reactor, thereby carrying off fuel-contaminated water vapour to the atmosphere. There are further details regarding the flooded basement and how this prevents them doing things.

BTW, I support this article continuing separately from the article about the plant itself. - Robin Robin Whittle (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's causing very big problems, the references to this article are saying very different things than the article are. If somebody reads the Wikipedia they will get very out of date, and often completely incorrect information. It's a BAD idea to have have to everything 6 times (in the intro as well as in the body of 3 different articles).Rememberway (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The redirect hardly did anything good to the duplication at least. --hydrox (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The summary article format was completely out of date and wrong, and the plant introduction was also very significantly wrong. Having had an extra article it doesn't seem to have worked out well at all. People just weren't keeping them in step.Rememberway (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wider-ranging discussion forum: groups.google.com/group/wp-japan-nuclear-crisis

I have established a Google Group to discuss these nuclear reactor crises: http://groups.google.com/group/wp-japan-nuclear-crisis

I intend this forum support more speculative discussion than is appropriate in the WP talk pages, or in the WP articles themselves. I hope this forum will relieve the pressure on this and any similar talk pages, and that discussion of the WP articles themselves will remain on the talk pages.

Anyone can join, though you will need a Google account. Please see the first message for a more detailed description of the forum. Please join and discuss your theories, point to new information sources etc.

I reposted this because due to edit conflicts I couldn't revert VQuakr's deletion. I request that this short announcement intact, rather then deleting or debating it. I am trying to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of this talk page. I reposted this again because Rememberway deleted it with the comment "not a discussion forum". Exactly - I am trying to help this talk page avoid being a general discussion forum.

- Robin Robin Whittle (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with this as long as we keep all other non-article discussions off this talk page. MartinezMD (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MartinezMD, this is my intention. I am glad this separate "accident" article exists again. Robin Whittle (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents"

A new article has appeared, Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring over the redirect

It's disruptive. This article was linked from the Main Page, until I changed it a few minutes ago thanks to the redirect. Now it was reverted. Cut it out, please. Given the ongoing nature of this event, we can't really protect this page. So, we're going to have to rely on you all to not fight over the redirect. So, please stop. -- tariqabjotu 14:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "fight", calm down. Consensus appears to be for this article not to be a redirect. The now-more-up-to-date parent article just needs to be re-split properly. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

how so more up to date? But I am also quite pissed at all this incomplete shifting all day. The article should not have been split in the first place.Sandpiper (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

BWR Image clearly not government work

I would like a good image of a Mark I containment myself, but I've seen this case time and time again - we could use images from national labs and the NRC, but companies basically have a monopoly on images of their design, and GE most clearly has rights to the posted image File:BWR Mark I Containment, cutaway.jpg unless otherwise granted. Go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong, and I've followed the source. I know it comes from a Sandia publication. My point is the the Sandia publication was not the origin of the image. I don't doubt that Sandia used it with proper permission, but that does not give us proper permission. This should be deleted because it is not consistent with the standard that all other images are held to. Someone interested should upload it specific to English Wikipedia and write a detailed fair use rationale that is exclusive to this article and this article only. I've seen these cases time and time again and it can not stay. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed 84user took the time to create a drawing himself and gave it a PD license, Wiki policy is unambiguous in this case, we will use his

Interesting source

Given the multitude of sensationalistic, misguided or just plain wrong reporting by ordinary journalists in the daily press with a poor to non-existent understanding of reactor physics, I suggest any claims of what happened in the reactor or how the power plant system is connected be fact checked against sources such as this very nice 360 page document from the Nuclear Energy Agency with the title "Nuclear Fuel Behaviour in Loss-of-coolant Accident (LOCA) Conditions". It gives, for example, descriptions of BWR reactor systems, under which conditions hydrogen can form in high temperature steam environments, LOCA design assumptions, etc. henrik•talk 20:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect quotation of citation #79

citation 79 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Japan-Quake-And-Tsunami-Plea-For-US-Help-After-Third-Explosion-At-Nuclear-Plant/Article/201103215951706?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_15951706_Video_Japan_Quake_And_Tsunami%3A_Plea_For_US_Help_After_Third_Explosion_At_Nuclear_Plant)

The quote accompanying the citation reads:

"The appeal for help comes as the the Japanese government confirmed that part of the container housing the troubled nuclear reactor appears to be damaged. Damage to the hermetically-sealed reactor container dramatically increases the risk of serious radiation leaks."

However, when you load the page, it does not say that. In fact, the article says, "There was no immediate word on exact damage from the third blast, which tore through the unit 2 structure. The latest blast occurred after cooling water dropped repeatedly in unit 2, with the nuclear fuel rods partially exposed - risking an overheat of up to a temperature of 2,200 degrees Celsius. Damage to the hermetically-sealed reactor container dramatically increases the risk of serious radiation leaks." 70.225.190.27 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This source wasn't necessary as there were already two sources supporting the statement, so I removed it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

World Council for Renewable Energy's call to outlaw nuclear power

We presently devote a paragraph^[16] to this anti-nuclear organization's call to outlaw nuclear power around the world. I suspect the organization is probably notable by our standards but not by a lot (it gets <900 unique Google hits). Our article on the WCRE is 2 sentences long. Do we want to give their statement so much attention here? I mean, what about the Liechtenstein foreign ministry? The American Nuclear Society? The Edison Electric Institute? Seems sort of POV-ish and distracting. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. One of the organization's goals is to abolish nuclear power, how's their call to outlaw nuclear power anything noteworthy? It has been their position before, hasn't it.--91.32.99.67 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Also agree. This should be removed.98.225.106.150 (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation not supporting the information in the sentence

Under the section regarding Reactor #2, the following sentence is not supported by the citations:

Due to a defect of the valve (caused by the explosion of the unit 3 building) this could not be done and additional water could not be added.

I had reworded the sentence earlier, and added a citation...now it's been reverted back. Perhaps a report somewhere did say this, but it's not in the reference. What the reference says is :

"Air pressure inside the reactor rose suddenly when the air flow gauge was accidentally turned off, blocking the flow of water and leading to full exposure of the rods, operator TEPCO said."

Nowhere does it say that the problem was caused by the explosion of reactor #3, or from a defect. I'm going to reword the sentence once again. If I'm wrong - sorry, but it just doesn't seem to fit the given info. Nihola (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the two sources cited, fully: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/77959.html and http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/15/3163913.htm Example for your claim "Nowhere does it say that the problem was caused by the explosion of reactor #3, or from a defect." to be false: the first source clearly says: "The utility said a hydrogen explosion at the nearby No. 3 reactor that occurred Monday morning may have caused a glitch in the cooling system of the No. 2 reactor." --rtc (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I now see the problem. Will see how I can phrase it. --rtc (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, you could allow others to phrase it too.....Nihola (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I restored parts of your edit[17] If you see the necessity of further phrasing changes, go ahead. --rtc (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it seems fine, at least given the citations we have at this time. Nihola (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)