Talk:Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Nuclear accident in Pennsylvania[edit]

I heard of an accident in PA which I am guessing it was a reactor leak I think it happened in the 50's or early sixties after this accident many dead farm animals were confiscated by the gov after that there was an increse in cancer that could have been connected Dudtz 22:10 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dudtz, in the off chance you come back to this comment I have never heard of this event, but I have catalogued 99 historical nuclear power accidents and incidents here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/25/960044/-A-commentary-on-nuclear-power-accidents#. Maybe you're referring to another example on the list?Bksovacool (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Chernobyl[edit]

I don't believe the Chernobyl should be listed here as a "criticality acident". Classifying it as such is inconsistent with normal definitions of criticality accidents (e.g. as in LA-13638 https://www.orau.org/PTP/Library/accidents/la-13638.pdf) because events on operating reactors, i.e. where criticality is the intended condition, are normally excluded. So although a nuclear chain reaction was involved at Chernobyl, the subtle difference is that there was a very severe "reactivity fault" - a loss of control as opposed to a transition to an unintended critical state.Knobeeoldben (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Addition grounds for excluding Chernobyl are that, although the IAEA definition of a criticality accident is "an accident involving criticality" most authorities regard the definition of criticality accidents as applying to accidents where criticality occurred when or where it was not intended. Hence the Tokai Mura accident - in a fuel manufacturing facility - was an example of somewhere where criticality was never intended (i.e. a process criticality accident) and the Sarov accident was an example of a case where criticality occurred by accident during the preparation of a criticality experiment (which may not have been intended to do other than get close to the point of criticality). At Chernobyl, the reactor was operating under power, so criticality was definitely intended - the accident occurred because control of the reactor was lost, leading to massive power excursion. Although the resulting sequence of events at Chernobyl did (reportedly) include the onset of prompt criticality, it does not make sense to start listing every accident on operating reactors as criticality accidents. I therefore think Chernobyl might qualify as a "reactor prompt critical accident" but such a distinction would be required, so as not to lump Tokai Mura and Chernobyl into the same category.

An additional (and more worthy contender) for the class of "reactor prompt critical accident" from the field of military reactors would be the K-431 submarine accident. In that case, criticality did occur when not intended; it has also been reported that the reactor achieved prompt criticality.Knobeeoldben (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

sine the section defines criticality accident as an "excursion" or "power excursion", I think you have undermined your own argument here. Rmhermen (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

My point is that, on that basis, any accident on a reactor that is (or has been) intentionally operating at power may count as a criticality accident, and this effectively broadens the term to cover both cases where criticality was intended as well as those where it was not. For example, the Three Mile Island accident involved a loss of post trip cooling, but the decay heat that damaged the core was only produced because the reactor had previously been operating at power, i.e. under conditions of criticality. So in practive it can be useful to distinguish between accidents where criticality occured but was not intended and those where criticality was intended.Knobeeoldben (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Also that section of the article currently starts with "A criticality accident (also sometimes referred to as an "excursion" or "power excursion") occurs when a nuclear chain reaction is accidentally allowed to occur in fissile material, such as enriched uranium or plutonium." A chain reaction is normally an intended operating condition in a reactor. Knobeeoldben (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

These are all interesting points and they do point to some disagreement over what counts as a meltdown, criticality incident, or chain reaction. Maybe one way around this would simply be to recognize that it was a "Major Accident" (Level 7) as classified by the INES, the International Nuclear Event Scale.Bksovacool (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


International Nuclear Event Scale

Nuclear reactor attacks[edit]

Why is this topic included in an article about accidents? Surely reactor attacks are deliberate acts and do not happen accidentally?Tealsnepal (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As per the first sentence of the article, accidents here are broadly defined to include many types of mishaps. Johnfos (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
As a neutral observer there is merit to both points - we also have situations where an attack can be accidental, as when during the first wave of US air strikes in Iraq they hit a reactor by accident. Maybe the easiest solution would be to rename the page "Nuclear and radioactive accidents and incidents." The term "incident" can imply both intentional and unintentional events.Bksovacool (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As per Prof Sovacool's suggestion, I have now moved the page to "Nuclear and radioactive accidents and incidents". Johnfos (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Worldwide nuclear testing counts and summary[edit]

The airburst nuclear explosion of July 1, 1946. Photo taken from a tower on Bikini Island, 3.5 miles (5.6 km) away.
Operation Crossroads Test Able, a 23-kiloton air-deployed nuclear weapon detonated on July 1, 1946. This bomb used, and consumed, the infamous Demon core that took the lives of two scientists in two separate criticality accidents.
Radioactive materials were accidentally released from the 1970 Baneberry Nuclear Test at the Nevada Test Site.

In similar vein to the above, while interesting, does the data on nuclear tests really belong here, under the topic of accidents?Tealsnepal (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There were many, many accidents, and some loss of life associated with nuclear tests that did not go as planned. Johnfos (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Johnfos here, sadly - there is a history of tests having large accidental consequences.Bksovacool (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear-powered submarine core meltdown mishaps[edit]

Is there any reliable source calling any of the incidents listed "meltdown mishaps". K-27, for example was scuttled deeper than an International Atomic Energy Agency requirement, no radiation leak has been found, and the idea that it was a meltdown is fiction. In K-429, control rods jammed after a sinking, and the reacter was left running at 0.5% power inadvertently, no radiation leak, and no meltdown. Calling these "meltdown mishaps" is massive exaggeration bordering on propaganda. 109.78.163.215 (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Political[edit]

> In the 2003 book, Brittle Power, Amory Lovins talks about the need for a resilient, > secure, energy system: > > The foundation of a secure energy system is to need less energy in the first place, > then to get it from sources that are inherently invulnerable because they're diverse, > dispersed, renewable, and mainly local. They're secure not because they're American > but because of their design. Any highly centralised energy system -- pipelines, > nuclear plants, refineries -- invite devastating attack. But invulnerable alternatives > don't, and can't, fail on a large scale.[114]

This is a very political quote, highly POV and factually very dubious. Yet its left as a final statement without comment. 82.31.66.207 (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

unable to display links to archives[edit]

The talk page archives would be far more useful if there were links to them to make them more accessible. I tried to do this here [1], according to instructions at User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo, but no links to the archives were displayed (perhaps the links are only added at each archiving action?). At least 1 archive exists Talk:Nuclear and radiation accidents/Archive 1. Could someone show me how to display, in the header, links to the archives?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Collection of recent accidents to include[edit]

Many nuclear and radiation accidents are accumulated here:

https://blog.fefe.de/?q=UNS+SICHER

The blog is written in German - some of the links are English news articles though. Even though the layout is archaic is one of Germany's most read blogs (#10 in 2011) and it also has a German Wikipedia entry: de:Fefes Blog.

It would be nice if someone could go through it and add all the missing accidents.

--Fixuture (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Blogs are not usually regarded as reliable sources on WP. The "missing accidents" don't seem very notable to me, and not suitable for inclusion in this main article on nuclear accidents. If some of the entries are to be selectively used, they would have to be put in a relevant sub-article, see Category:Nuclear accidents and incidents. Johnfos (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Johnfos: I know that and I wasn't suggesting to use the blog as a source. I was suggesting to use the blog's accumulation of reports of nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents to find reliable sources. Why don't these "missing accidents" seem very notable to you (and I doubt that you read through many of those)? Also what about getting all the entries into a table (should be done anyway for easy sorting and better clarity etc) and adding a rough severity-rating to the table so that it can be a very long list and at the same time people can easily see which of those were truly serious? --Fixuture (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, as I say this is the main article, and we already have many WP sub-articles relating to Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents. Many of these lists/tables include, where possible, the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) rating which shows the relative severity of the accident. So let's not reinvent the wheel. Johnfos (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Johnfos: Alright - didn't know there were additional articles for these. This article's title makes it seem like it encompassed all accidents and incidents of that type (maybe it should be moved?). Anyway I hope that the link is useful for anyone intending to complete these lists - I probably won't link it again on the other pages' talk pages. --Fixuture (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

POV[edit]

So I come into this article talk page after attaching the POV tag and soon notice, that I'm far from being alone.

I see concern about gross mislabeling of submarine losses as "meltdowns" and concern about political paragraphs of quotations by Amory Lovins, who is? the self-styled expert on energy? Right. Then I go back to the article and notice he is not only still in the article but he's there with Stephanie Cooke, who gets herself a nice big quote where she says that a comparatively high safety history shouldn't really be important to us, what's important is...something else but human lives? Ok Cooke. Talk about unbalanced, unqualified and uninspired POV.

In any case. Most people are visual, so we'll start there. In the intro we have a picture of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant with a description on how it was off-line for 20 odd months after an earthquake in 2007, so I asked myself, what has this got to do with nuclear accidents or "incidents"? The IAEA inspected the station and said - "no visible significant damage has been found" although "nonsafety related structures, systems and components were affected by significant damage". Which I can translate for you, as I speak IAEAian: - things that are not important/"non-nuclear"/non-safety related things got broke, but everything else, all the important safety related stuff, was just fine. You still with me? Great. Yet a picture of the station and this unpreturbing earthquake is here in the intro to this nuclear article on accidents and incidents? huh? To what end? The conclusion one may come to is that this picture is there due to editor POV, as the only reference attached to this picture in the article is a pdf from the European Greens, a rabidly anti-nuclear political group.

Also in the intro we have this grand attempt at misdirection: Some technical measures to reduce the risk of accidents or to minimize the amount of radioactivity released to the environment have been adopted. Despite the use of such measures, human error remains, and "there have been many accidents with varying impacts as well near misses and incidents".[6][7] As of 2014, there have been more than 100 serious nuclear accidents and incidents from the use of nuclear power. Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster,

Do I have to even begin to point out the problem with this maligned and grossly misleading paragraph, or how the references lead to anti-nuclear organizations?

I think it probably best just to delete this POV piece as all the actual important data in the article was simply copy-pasted from decent articles like List of civilian radiation accidents etc.

P.S. The Windscale fire did not occur in "plutonium piles" as the article or the referenced Sovacool, laughably suggest. Boundarylayer (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have dealt with these issues by wholesale removal of the clearly POV sections. They were basically unsalvageable in their current form. I also removed nuclear medicine from 'see also' since having it there has obvious POV implications. Jtrainor (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't think that was appropriate and I have restored the deleted section. Fix the POV, if need be, but nuclear accidents are qualitatively different than accidents at other energy producers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Simi Valley meltdown[edit]

Are you sure this Simi Valley meltdown did not occur two years later than what you presently state, on or about July 12, 1959? (I acknowledge, this date is not very well documented.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:47D6:2B00:EDFA:726A:A42E:83D4 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents&oldid=869197370"