Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

color code?

I suggest that we use color code to distinguish events from different reactor units? This would make it easier for readers to track events, while not getting confused with the units. We could use e.g. visual templates from subway systems:

: an event at Unit 1 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 2 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 3 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 4 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 5 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 6 at Fukushima I

Of course we would need further color codes for Fukushima II as well or (alternatively) we separate the timelines by plant, using one for Fukushima I and one for Fukushima II. What do you think? --spitzl (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an original idea. However, I don't deem it necessary because of the article is currently organized by power plant and reactor. Xionbox^₪ 13:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, though you also need DaiNi, in addition to DaiIchi. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. IMO the colours would make the timeline less readable (not to mention that we'd have to create our own template to display the colours), but I like the idea of merging everything into one timeline and indicating which unit's being talked about on each line, the way it's already done in the Dai-ichi section—as opposed to the Dai-ni section, in which the Unit 1/2/3/4 split seems needless (too much repeated information). See an example below. Update: At this point, I'd suggest merging the timelines for Dai-ichi and Dai-ni into one, since the bulk of the information seems to concern Dai-ichi. Again, see below. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Example
"Unit #" refers to a reactor at Fukushima I (Dai-ichi), unless indicated.

1536

Unit 1: A massive event is caught on cameras. These cameras document an explosion on the outer structure of one of four buildings at the plant. It also documents the structure collapsing. TEPCO announces that four persons who are employed at the power plant have been injured. (The explosion was a hydrogen explosion)

1700

Unit 2: Something else happened. We should really write something here.

1713

Unit 1, Fukushima II: Something happened at Dai-ni!

1915

Unit 3: Something blew up. I was going to write about it but someone reverted my changes.

1934

Unit 1: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

I don't think we need to wait until we have new templates. The subway color codes are just fine for the beginning. They can be easily changed later. Since the article is already split in two sections (Dai-ichi & Dai-ni), we also don't need more colors. None of the plants has more than 6 reactors, which is exactly the number of color templates we have. Anyways, before we re-organize the article, I would be happy to get some more feedback from others.--spitzl (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ad Xionbox: Yes, the article is organized by plant and units, which makes it hard to read. IMHO color codes would make it just easier to read since we could get rid of the unit separation.--spitzl (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd still oppose the use of color codes for the time being—I just think there are better ways to make the information stand out. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Being curious how it would look like with color codes I just gave it a try. Seeing the result I'd still favor implementing it. It surely gives the reader a visual clue what's happening where, without disturbing the reading experience. Well, judge yourself, here is the result:

Shouldn't 4,5 and 6 be the same color, different shade?Geofferybard (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Friday, 11 March

14

46: A 9.0 magnitude earthquake strikes off the coast of Honshu Island at a depth of about 24 kilometres (15 mi). Fukushima I power plant's nuclear reactors 1, 2, and 3 are automatically shut down by the shake. Nuclear reactors 4, 5, and 6 were undergoing routine maintenance and were not operating. The tremor has the additional effect of causing the power plant to be cut off from the Japanese electricity grid, meaning that power is lost to the cooling pumps. Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), the plant's operator, finds that units 1 and 2 are not operating correctly and notifies the proper officials.

16

00: The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of Japan initiates an emergency headquarters in an attempt to gather information on the 55 nuclear reactors in Japan.

19

30: Prime Minister Naoto Kan declares a nuclear emergency status. This is announced by Yukio Edano, Chief Cabinet officer in Japan. Japanese government officials try to comfort the people of Japan by telling them that the proper procedures are being undertaken. They also announce that no radioactive materials have been located.

21

00: An evacuation order is issued by the government to persons within a 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) radius of the Fukushima station. Those within a 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) radius are told that they can remain in their homes and carry on with regular activities until told otherwise.

The emergency generators fail, subsequently causing the cooling system to fail, and the pressure in the nuclear units builds up. This pressure buildup is the result of residual decay heat causing the coolant, which is not being circulated, to evaporate. The coolant circuit pressure increase is controlled by pressure release valves. Because of the lack of release, there is a pressure increase within the containment chamber at the reactor building.

TEPCO announces that pressure inside reactor unit 1 is more than twice normal levels.

Saturday, 12 March

05

30: to release pressure within the reactor unit, steam is released out of the unit into the air. This steam contains some radioactive material.

10

09: TEPCO confirms that a small amount of vapor has been released into the air to release tension in the reactor unit.

10

58: Tensions are high with pressure still remaining inside the 2nd reactor. In order to alleviate some of this pressure, a consensus is reached to, once more, vent radioactive vapor into the air.

15

36: A massive event is caught on cameras. These cameras document an explosion on the outer structure of one of four buildings at the plant. It also documents the outer structure collapsing. TEPCO announces that four persons who are employed at the power plant have been injured. (The explosion was a hydrogen explosion)

20

00: A cloud of uncertainty surrounds the actual cause of the blast and the damage caused.

Yukio Edano announces that the concrete building surrounding the steel reactor container has collapsed as a result of the explosion; however no damage has been inflicted on the reactor itself.

Monday, 14 March

11

15: The outer building surrounding Reactor 3 of Fukushima I explodes, presumably due to the ignition of built up hydrogen gas. No health risk reported, though 600 people have been ordered to stay indoors.

11

20 (approximate): It was reported that the outer reactor building was blown apart, but the inner containment vessel was not breached. TEPCO stated that one worker was injured and seven missing.

21

00 (approximate): Fuel rods at Reactor #2 of the Fukushima I nuclear plant were fully exposed to air (but were still within the intact containment vessel and therefore not exposed to the outer atmosphere). TEPCO earlier said the cooling system had been lost and began injecting seawater into the reactor to cool it down.

21

16: Yukio Edano affirms that Reactor number 2 of Fukushima I is unlikely to explode. In addition, he stated that there is ongoing work to cool down the reactor.

23

20 (approximate): Fuel rods at Reactor #2 became fully exposed once again. TEPCO says that pressure inside the reactor rose again because the unit's air flow gauge was accidentally turned off. With the gauge turned off, flow of water into the reactor was blocked, leading to full exposure of the rods.

--spitzl (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In the 23:20 entry, I would be inclined to drop the claim of an "air flow gauge being accidentally turned off", and simply go with something based upon this link:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/15_05.html

It just makes so much more sense than the other reports. How can a *gauge* be shut, thus blocking the flow of air? Why would air be in there, anyway? Was no one at all paying attention to the flow rate of the water for the entire time it took for the chamber to completely drain, after the gauge was accidentally turned off? This sounds like yet another malfunction. This time a valve. And not an accident.

In fact, as a general rule, if sources disagree, I'd tend to go with nhk. They've been less clueless than other sources. Sbergman27 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it's an excellent idea, but it might be better to avoid the use of red, green or black (they could be misinterpreted as being safety status indicators). 82.132.139.212 (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, less intrusive colors would be better. Maybe there are some volunteers to create such icons. I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute much, since I'll be offline traveling the next few weeks. Let's see if the idea develops further. Cheers, --spitzl (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a really silly idea that smacks of form over content and implies (assumes?) that the target audience of this wiki page is primary school and pre-school children,or marketing and sales people!

The actual event is in most cases more important and relevant than the exact part of the plant that it occurred in, although those facts should be noted for the record even when they are not immediately important. A much better approach would be to clean up the language used to refer to respective plants, reactors & structures. That would include consistently using the same descriptions and phrases throughout the page. Bigredtoe (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Australian travel alerts

Why are we documenting Australian travel alerts in this article? 65.93.13.60 (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd advises Australians to leave Tokyo.[58]"

does look inappropriate. It's a general travel advisory to affected regions from the tsunami and earthquake, and is not directed specifically towards the nuclear incidents. 184.144.162.147 (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The latest travel bulletin from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, issued at 12:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC), does mostly deal with the radiation issue based on advice from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. These are highly reputable agencies of a significant nation in the Asia-Pacific region so they are totally appropriate for the situation. The actual text of the current advice includes this part...

"Because of disruption to essential services, infrastructure damage, strong aftershocks and continuing uncertainty about the status of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, Australians in Tokyo and northern Honshu should, unless their presence in Japan is essential, make arrangements to leave – either to Southern Japan or elsewhere. It is for the same reasons that the Australian Government is authorising the voluntary departure of dependants of Australian officials from Tokyo." http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/TravelBulletins/Information_for_Australians_in_Japan

118.210.178.97 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree these warnings are appropriate for time line events and may save lives. Stating they're irrelevant without specifying why is puzzling. I think you're getting confused Travel Alerts are only relevant to vacationers, when a majority of people traveling are actually working or performing in the line of some sort of official duty. Roger.nkata (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hearsay concerning a Current Full Meltdown of Reactor #4

March 16, 2011 21:00 AKST (March 17, 2011 15:00? JST) There's recent hearsay on Coast to Coast AM radio beginning news hour with an interview with Linda Moulton Howe obtaining information concerning a current full meltdown of Reactor #4. Her information was sourced from Arnie Gundersen and infrared images? I believe this information is based on speculation but could hold some truth. (I'm interpreting this to mean the rods stored in Reactor #4 to have fully melted down. I always hope information like this is completely incorrect.) Roger.nkata (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Find an radio broadcast station affiliate of the C2C AM radio to listen to the rebroadcast: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/. Linda's written references are contained here: http://www.earthfiles.com/.

ORLY? Moulton Howe + George Noory + Coast to Coast = Crop circles and UFOs. Nah. Moondyne (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto your concern of crop circles vs. any real threat. Since Art Bell left, seems to be all hype and no fact these days -- but I didn't want refrain from posting anything since there's talk of recent infrared imaging and the very recent US/British recommended extended evacuation zones for it's citizens. (Adding my own personal disclaimer from drunk driving alien crop circle enthusiasts and their own hype.)Roger.nkata (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wednesday, 16 March, 05:45 Hey, To whoever made this edit, this article is supposed to be a brief timeline explaing each even in a sentence or two. this entry has a few paragraphs and isnt really suitable, it would be a better fit in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents anyway im not gonna delete your edit, but you should clean it up a bit :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.210.8 (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved the above comment into this section as I think he was referring to my post here, but he/she may have been referencing another post posted at "Wednesday, 16 March, 05:45". If you are referencing my recent post, this is a discussion page only and it does contain very recent info. If any of it were fact, I would have then have merged it into one of the main pages. Roger.nkata (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactor 4 at Fukushima I? The one reactor that is empty? Meltdown? Oh well. The fuel pool is a different (and very bad) story. --91.32.45.178 (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

March 17, 2011 08:05 AM ABC Morning News states, "... satellite imagery shows spent fuel rods are red-hot" and then further explicitly states the US request for citizens to evacuate. (In the near future, I'll probably move this section of info to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents discussions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger.nkata (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We need a new article to document events on this website.

We need to document a timeline of the development of this article documenting the Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents. This would be of great assistance, thank you. 130.56.89.71 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Click on the "View history" button [1]. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

order of events

Would you folks consider placing the most-recent events at the top of the page instead of at the bottom? It would be a lot more useful for readers like me who refresh the page often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Encyclopedia, etc. --91.32.81.188 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Try Wikinews, wikinews:Category:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, they order their most recent articles first in the category description. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

GAN nomination

I think it is a little premature to nominate this as this is an-going event and it will likely be quick-failed. I see that User:SunCountryGuy01 has removed the nomination from WP:GAN, but it will be reinserted by the GANbot unless the nomination template on this page is deleted. You may also wish to read the GA criteria at WP:GACR. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur. SunCountryGuy 01 02:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought GA required some article stability... this article has no stability. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest to add spent nuclear fuel pools temperatures

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/tsunamiupdate01.html

Unit 4 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 84 °C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 84 °C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: no data Unit 5 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 59.7 °C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 60.4 °C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: 62.7 °C Unit 6 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 58.0 °C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 58.5 °C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: 60.0 °C

Unit 4 13 March, 19:08 UTC: 84 °C Unit 5 17 March, 03:00 UTC: 64.2 °C 17 March, 18:00 UTC: 65.5 °C Unit 6 17 March, 03:00 UTC: 62.5 °C 17 March, 18:00 UTC: 62.0 °C — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeEd (talk • contribs) 07:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews

Why are all the wikinews links deleted? 65.95.15.189 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

See this edit [2] -- the edit summary says nothing of the sort. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• None of those second-hand 'news reports' adds anything that isn't already covered by the given article or sister articles. In general terms, the sources cited in our articles are more extensive and up to date than those in WN, and this case is no exception. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A Good Source of news or status for Electrical Power Line status?

Is there any live video coverage of the activities concerning re-hooking of the power lines? NHK World News (English) seems lacking live coverage and rebroadcasting only what they plan to do. Roger.nkata (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

March 19, 2011, 2:38 AM EDT Workers Miss Deadline to Reconnect Power at Nuclear Plant Roger.nkata (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

timeline

22:21 3/19 states that radioactive iodine and Cs are found in trace amounts in tap water. I recommend this be removed since radionuclides are almost always present in trace amounts in water. Tom Hubbard (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sirs BBC Time line report

0832: LONDON TIME The radiation level at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant reached a high of 10 millisievert per hour at one point Wednesday morning, Kyodo reports. Here's a Q&A on the health risks from radiation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

Staff withdrawn from Japan plant

Sorry Zasdcxz (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sirs ! Would you like PUT MEDIA SOURCE on your date about current radiation level, because your date NOT POSSIBLE VERIFIABLE /my date in commentary- I put

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698 Listen interview,please

You date 3 361 μSv 3 361 microSieivert/hour low as in Press now in hundred, thousand time!!!!!!!! Sorry

600 000- 800 000 microSievert /hour

No illusion Staff withdrawn from Japan plant, because of very very very high level radiation Last time level increase again. Sorry,sorry Zasdcxz (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what the Japanese gov is saying those choppers were dumping water on units 3 & 4. No question about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.158.48 (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reference from a scientific source with a timeline. Timeline: The Japanese Nuclear Emergency.

Here is a reference from an official source with a timeline. Sequence of Developments at Nuclear Power Stations Affected by the Earthquake. Obankston (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline articles and writing standards

Timeline resources:

• Articles
  • List of timelines
  • Timeline
  • Chronology
  • Living graph
  • 2010s
• Writing standards
  • Wikipedia:Timeline
  • Wikipedia:Timeline standards (discussion at Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards)
  • Wikipedia:Timeline syntax
  • Wikipedia:EasyTimeline
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists)
  • Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
• Projects
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Years
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline Tracer
• Other
  • Category:Timelines
  • Category:Graphical timelines
  • All pages with titles containing timeline

Obankston (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very useful links. SunCountryGuy 01 16:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Exposed or Exploded ?

Both tables "Status of Fukushima I at 22:00 on 19 March" and "Status of Fukushima I at 16:00 on 20 March" in cell "Unit 4" / "Integerity of fuel in SFP" read:

Hydrogen from SFP exploded ,

whereas the previous version of the table reads Hydrogen from SFP exposed, and there is no mention about that hydrogen explosion in between, so probably it is a typo error... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.161.20 (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Power status of each reactor?

I just noticed the IAEA website has status for "off-site power" and "diesel generators". Status of reactors with power status Roger.nkata (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just heard on NHK World News (Live Stream ~01:00 AKDT) that power has been connected to other reactors aside from #2, but no power is going through the lines prior to grey smoke being seen at #3. Again, the status tables here omit "off-site power" status. Probably will start seeing news shortly specifying which buildings exactly. roger (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactors #1, #2, #5, and #6 are connected. Reactors #3 and #4 will be connected later today? ... but is progressing more slowly then the others due to caution? roger (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Engineers have connected power cables to all six reactors. (Along with #5 having cooling restored per time line here.) roger (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

MOX Fuel with Weapons Grade Plutonium?

Why is nothing in this article about which reactor contains MOX fuel? Hint: It's reactor #3 that has MOX fuel. 98.204.35.80 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

They are not weapons grade plutonium. If it were weapons grade, it would not be MOX fuel. There is not enough Pu to be weapons grade, and there's alot of uranium in there as well. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

All Plutonium is weapons grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.166.216 (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely wrong. Weapons grade is a purity of plutonium. If the plutonium is insufficiently pure, it will not detonate. Isotopic makeup is also a concern, since the wrong isotopic mix will result in bad characteristics for a bomb (excessive heat, excessive radioactivity, etc) 184.144.166.85 (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This statement cannot be further away from the reality!

MOX fuel is an alternative to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel used in the light water reactors that predominate nuclear power generation.

MOX fuel refers to a blend of plutonium and natural uranium, reprocessed uranium, or depleted uranium. For example, a mixture of 7% Pu / 93% U (Plutonium/Uranium) reacts similarly - although not identically - to low-enriched uranium fuel that most nuclear reactors were designed for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel

In a nutshell MOX is cheap(er) and very good alternative for reactor fuel since usually it is using already used reactor fuel after minor processing - so in a way it is a good option to run your reactors on lightly processed nuclear waste (instead of wasting it as... well waste).

In MOX there is about 7% PU with isotope content which is something like: 52% ²³⁹
₉₄Pu
, 24% ²⁴⁰
₉₄Pu
, 15% ²⁴¹
₉₄Pu
, 6% ²⁴²
₉₄Pu
and 2% ²³⁸
₉₄Pu
for lightly processed MOX.

Usually industrial quality MOX (better quality-which does not require "Fast" reactor, or graphite moderator) is made of 7% plutonium mixed with depleted uranium, assuming that the plutonium has about 60–65% ²³⁹
₉₄Pu
.

In contrast Weapons grade plutonium is:

FIRST: Well as the name suggests 100% Plutonium (or 99.9999999 as many 9s as the technology can get)

and SECOND: it is targeted to be only ²³⁹
₉₄Pu
which is impossible so the limit for calling something weapons grade PU is that it consists mainly of ²³⁹
₉₄Pu
with less than 7% ²⁴⁰
₉₄Pu
 !

So in short - stop creating panic without reasons and without basic knowledge please! There are enough "green" leechers out there to do that for you.

Pressure in reactor and containment

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300624909P.pdf

There are such data. Why it's not used in table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.200.245 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think people only care about getting timely current status updates for getting the power and pumps reconnected. (Or when they're going to start burying the effected plants -- although I see some references mentioning burying might still not be an ideal solution.) Neither of these graphs depict "off-site power" status. Only the IAEA Fukushima Daiichi Summary Table - Units 1-6 (20 March 2011, 21:00 UTC) depicts "off-site power" status. Seeing very slow power status updates here. roger (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of boldface in status tables

What is the intended purpose of the boldface text in some of the cells in the status tables? At first it appeared that it indicated cells that had changed from the immediately preceding table, however that is not the case with the more recent tables. - Dmeranda (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

1,600

In Tuesday Mar 22 the statement "161 µSv/h . ...This level is 1,600 times higher than normal" is incorrect. World wide average is ~0.3 µSv/h, so this is closer to ~500 times higher than normal than 1,600. Cannot edit from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Status of the Fukushima II station graph

We should add a graph for Fukushima II as well, since it received some damage and radiation leakage. Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Lights back on in control room of unit #3

NHK is reporting that power has been restored, and lights turned on, at Unit #3.

"Power restored to control room of No.3 reactor" : http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/23_02.html

Sbergman27 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)