This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 15:42, November 10, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Done
I don't think the investigations should be under "Consequences"--which should focus on effects to living beings, the environment, structures, infastructure, etc. However, I don't think it should have been under "Criticisms" either. Investigations are supposed to be independent. I would put it in its own category. I did look at the two U.S. shuttle disasters and was surprised neither had an investigation section. It would be worth looking at some of the other disasters like the recent collision of the ship destroying bridge in Baltimore or the ship that grounded and blocked the Suez Canal--to see how those articles placed the investigation section. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this remark and would support a move to its own section. I checked out 2021 Suez Canal obstruction which does not have a section on investigations and Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse which put the investigation section under the collapse which I do not think is great. I also looked at Chernobyl disaster which has its own investigation section although I don't think it is particularly well done either. None of these are GA.
There are a lot of reports/investigations related to this accident. If all of them are covered here this will be the longest article. With that in mind, I propose that this section only cover particularly notable investigations into subjects that are the main topic of other sections.
With this in mind, I propose to delete the below text. I think this investigation is no longer notable primarily because there have been more recent investigations that have better methodology for assessing the current state of the fuel. For example the muon tomography myself and other users have mentioned. Those are mentioned (or at least should be mentioned) in the sections detailing the events of each unit. Furthermore, I do not think it is worthwhile to include those studies into these section as those studies a primarily part of the cleanup effort and are investigating the accident itself.
TEPCO released estimates of the state and location of the fuel in a November 2011 report.[48] The report concluded that the Unit 1 RPV was damaged during the accident and that "significant amounts" of molten fuel had fallen into the bottom of the PCV. The erosion of the concrete of the PCV by the molten fuel after the core meltdown was estimated to stop at approx. 0.7 m (2 ft 4 in) in depth, while the thickness of the containment floor is 7.6 m (25 ft). Gas sampling carried out before the report detected no signs of an ongoing reaction of the fuel with the concrete of the PCV and all the fuel in Unit 1 was estimated to be "well cooled down, including the fuel dropped on the bottom of the reactor". Fuel in Units 2 and 3 had melted, however less than in Unit 1. The report further suggested that "there is a range in the evaluation results" from "all fuel in the RPV (no fuel fallen to the PCV)" in Unit 2 and Unit 3, to "most fuel in the RPV (some fuel in PCV)". For Unit 2 and Unit 3, it was estimated that the "fuel is cooled sufficiently". According to the report, the greater damage in Unit 1 (when compared to the other two units) was due to the longer time that no cooling water was injected in Unit 1. This resulted in much more decay heat accumulating, as for about 1 day there was no water injection for Unit 1, while Unit 2 and Unit 3 had only a quarter of a day without water injection.[48]
The NAIIC report is currently cited as FN72. This needs page numbers for each time it is cited. This would be a great thing for a newcomer to do.
Czarking0 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each unit X subsection in the Accident section makes an abrupt shift from what happened during the accident to updates with more recent info. Most of the those updates are actually out of date now. Overall these sections should really just cover what happened at each unit during the accident. However, I do think the reader would appreciate a quick summary of what the status is now.
Maybe the better middle ground is to just state that there are various construction projects happening at Daiichi. Which will support the safe removal of all the fuel from the reactors and these projects are scheduled to be completed by 2031? I would appreciate some editors weighing in on this.
Here is a quote of what is at the end of the unit one section now which I think is basically irrelevant. I think this could make good info for the Fukushima disaster cleanup page.
Deleted:
In February 2015, TEPCO started the muon scanning process for Units 1, 2, and 3. With this scanning setup, it was possible to determine the approximate amount and location of the remaining nuclear fuel within the RPV, but not the amount and resting place of the corium in the PCV. In March 2015 TEPCO released the result of the muon scan for Unit 1 which showed that no fuel was visible in the RPV, which would suggest that most if not all of the molten fuel had dropped onto the bottom of the PCV – this will change the plan for the removal of the fuel from Unit 1.
Recommend that these sections are deleted or scaled back as the info is basically out of date and somewhat out of scope. However, I wanted to wait until better info is added:
Subsequent analysis in November suggested that this extended period without cooling resulted in the melting of the fuel in unit 1, most of which would have escaped the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and embedded itself into the concrete at the base of the PCV. Although at the time it was difficult to determine how far the fuel had eroded and diffused into the concrete, it was estimated that the fuel remained within the PCV.[48]
In November 2013, Mari Yamaguchi reported for Associated Press that there are computer simulations that suggest that "the melted fuel in Unit 1, whose core damage was the most extensive, has breached the bottom of the primary containment vessel and even partially eaten into its concrete foundation, coming within about 30 cm (1 ft) of leaking into the ground" – a Kyoto University nuclear engineer said with regard to these estimates: "We just can't be sure until we actually see the inside of the reactors."[49]
I updated this to cover the fact that fuel is still in the SFP, and there is a (long) plan in place for getting it out. However, I would appreciate some help understanding/summarizing the state of the fuel in/around the PCV as this report was a little too technical for me to feel comfortable summarizing it. One of the main points of confusion I have is: does all the fuel debris remain contained in the concrete base of the PCV or did some fuel melt down to the ground?
Removing this section in favor of the Fuel Removal summary
In February 2017, six years after the accident, radiation levels inside the Unit 2 containment building were crudely estimated to be about 650 Sv/h.[1] The estimation was revised later to 80 Sv/h.[2] These readings were the highest recorded since the accident occurred in 2011 and the first recorded in that area of the reactor since the meltdowns. TEPCO released images taken inside unit 2 by a remote-controlled camera that show a 2 m (6.5 ft) wide hole in the metal grating under the pressure vessel in the reactor's primary containment vessel,[3] Later analysis indicated a meltdown/melt-through had occurred, through this layer of containment.[4][5]Ionizing radiation levels of about 210 sieverts (Sv) per hour were subsequently detected inside the Unit 2 containment vessel.[6] Undamaged spent fuel assembly typically has a surface dose rate of over 100 Sv/h, ten years after removal from a reactor.[7]
The article currently talks about simulations of the melt into the concrete there is not reliable source for this so I am not sure what to make of this claim. TEPCO diagrams don't make this seem true, but they obviously have vested interests.
"Within the first three days of the accident the entire core content of reactor 3 had melted through the RPV and fallen to the bottom of the PCV." This claim as it is currently written almost certainly cannot be verified or is at least contestable. First of all, the source is highly technical and relies on simulations which even the source expresses doubt in and on remote neutron measurement. Remote neutron measurement is not an established way of assessing PCV breaches and this source is clearly academic and speculative. Second, the 2017 muon study indicates there was doubt about if there is still fuel in the RPV. It certainly would not be neutral to present "the entire core ... melted through the RPV". I propose that the prose is updated to summarize the diagram of unit 3 at the bottom of the 2017 muon study.
Updated about the fuel rods being removed. Stated decommissioning timeline for removing the debris. Boldly implemented the suggestion I explained above.
I made a "Fuel Removal" subsection under Remediation and recovery to consolidate the info I discussed in this section as what is here clearly does not belong in descriptions of what occurred during the accident. Czarking0 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already some existing talk page discussion about what the source of the hydrogen gas for the unit 4 explosion was see Archieve 9 for more background.
Here I wanted to point out that "The explosion was later found to be caused by hydrogen passing to unit 4 from unit 3 through shared pipes." is not a neutral representation of the source. The source clearly shows there was no consensus on the cause of the hydrogen gas and in that analysis the unit 3 venting was just one theory. However, I do think the spirit of claim is correct but additional sources are needed. Czarking0 (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source for this claim is highly technical and it is not clear that it verifies the claims in the quoted paragraph below. I think this constitutes WP:OR or at least needs additional sources to verify all the claims. Given the single source it is not clear to be that the claims are also notable. There is a lot of published research about the accident, but a single publication in a second-rate journal cannot be used as the standard for notability or this would be the longest page on WP.
Once released into the atmosphere, those which remain in a gaseous phase will simply be diluted by the atmosphere, but some which precipitate will eventually settle on land or in the ocean. Thus, the majority (90~99%) of the radionuclides which are deposited are isotopes of iodine and caesium, with a small portion of tellurium, which are almost fully vaporized out of the core due to their low vapor pressure. The remaining fraction of deposited radionuclides are of less volatile elements such as barium, antimony, and niobium, of which less than a percent is evaporated from the fuel.
The predominant mechanism by which fission products can leave the core during core melt is through vaporization, thus only relatively volatile nuclides mix with the vaporized coolant and can be transported by the flow of gas. This gas can then exit the RPV and into the PCV through small leak paths in imperfections in the RPV, but in a situation in which the RCIC is used, this gas flows through the RCIC system and into the suppression pool, where some of the vaporized or suspended fission products are condensed or captured (scrubbed) by the SC, although some remainder (notably, radioactive noble gasses) will remain vaporized or suspended inside of the PCV. From the PCV, similar to the RPV, some small quantity inevitably leaks through small imperfections in the structure, but the predominant designed path for the escape of suspended radionuclides is through venting of the PCV where they are dispersed by the vent stack. However, if the PCV is compromised, the gas will be released directly into the secondary containment, and the potential loss of the SC function would also increase the concentration of unwanted fission products in the gas.
This is probably supposed to be from section 4.1 of the IAEA source FN9. However, it really says nothing like this and this seems like WP:OR or at least not verifiable with the sources. Therefore I will remove.
Suggestion: Move the Lawsuits out of the Fatalities/Injuries and the Infobox and to their own Subsection "Possible/Uncertain Radiation-Related Casualties"
Lawsuits and Legal Settlements are problematic because they can't be scientifically proven to be tied to the radiation exposure. Radiation Scientist James Conca pointed this out in a 2018 Forbes article that the man who developed Cancer likely did not receive it from Fukushima, and while his article is biased, scientifically speaking his point stands because it is more likely the man developed cancer due to secondhand smoke and that ionizing radiation from Nuclear accidents doesn't have a strong correlation with the type of Lung Cancer he developed (it's also overlooked that he exceeded his dose earlier in his career as well if one does want to attribute it to radiation, so it may be a non-Fukushima radiation-related death). The same can be said of the Thyroid cancer patients; I just updated the radiation related illnesses section with some recent studies including one that suggests in the interest of unbiased and neutral language that the UN and Japanese Government may be causing underreporting of Thyroid cancers (I couldn't find a 2024 follow up on this so there seems to not be any new information yet), but the overall scientific consensus remains that there is no evidence of a dose-response relationship due to ionizing radiation, and that the cancers are likely being detected via the screening effect.
I second the spirit of this suggestion. However this could be controversial. Additionally, even if you have the right spirit I think it will be hard to get it right given that it is the lead to a complex topic. I encourage you to boldly attempt to make this revision. We shall see what others think. Personally, I had a similar idea a while back and then never got around to editing the lead. Czarking0 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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.
Thank you so much I know this article is dense but I think it is a very important topic. I got all the easy points you made. I am unfortunately very busy in my personal life right now but I will get to everything in the next couple days. Czarking0 (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
I'm going to place this on hold since there is several unsourced sections of text and the citations need to be edited to be consistent (either use templates or don't, either use rp or sfn) and I have a feeling that may take awhile. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a long one but I think anyone who takes the time to read the article and the review can see that this article fits GAC. It is reasonably well-written, understandable, complies with the MOS, is well-sourced, has no plagiarism, is neutral, stable, broad, and the images are all appropriate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I didn't do that I would be opposed to changing it. If see read the 20 or so pages of talk page archives ( which I don't expect you to but I did). You will see that much of the disagreement between editors revolves around exactly what was said in the lead. Adding sources helped resolve this debate. Czarking0 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like your opinion on this photo since it seems like in its present form it was just made by one of the editors. Not sure what to do with that. Comparison of radiation levels for different nuclear eventsCzarking0 (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo you're referring to is the "Fukushima Nuclear Accident - Radiation Comparison" (at right), I am the author, and that map is clearly marked at CC0, Public Domain. It doesn't get any more free than that. Under CC0 you technically aren't even required to cite the source, although I would appreciate it anyway. This map was also featured as a 2-page spread in the journal Elements, and also in the journal Leonardo (Vol 45, No 2, pp 113-118, Apr 2012).
Just realized you're referring to a different image regarding copyright.
In any case, this map is CC0, and the Leonardo details could work if you need a direct citation for the map itself. (Article: Visual Communication in Times of Crisis. See https://ramakarl.com/fukushima/ for citation details).
hmm in the case of the second photo I'm not quite sure what to do with that. Since it contains a lot of detail I think it would be okay to include if it is properly sourced (aka the information it uses should be sourced on the wiki page). If not then I know there is technically an inline tag for unsourced images with info like that so I would say it is a bit of a prblem if there is no sources for it. In the case of the first photo, non-free content is allowed as long as there is proper rational behind it (which I believe there is but I'm not too experienced with copyright stuff). IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ok that was not a very good source for that claim because the original source is describing US regulation which generally speaking Japan followed but I still replaced it with a source for the actual incident. Czarking0 (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon detecting the earthquake, all three operating reactors (units 1, 2, and 3) automatically shut down. Due to expected grid failure and damage to the switch station as a result of the earthquake, the power station automatically started up the EDGs, isolated the reactor from the primary coolant loops, and activated the emergency shutdown cooling systems. is unreferenced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One air cooled EDG, that of unit 6, was unaffected by the flooding and continued to operate. The DC batteries for units 1, 2, and 4 were also inoperable shortly after flooding. is unreferenced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) was the first independent investigation commission by the National Diet in the 66-year history of Japan's constitutional government. is unreferenced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Commission recognized that the affected residents were still struggling and facing grave concerns, including the "health effects of radiation exposure, displacement, the dissolution of families, disruption of their lives and lifestyles and the contamination of vast areas of the environment". is unreferenced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No adverse health effects among non-worker Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the accident, according to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. is very close to the source according to [1] I'd either reword this or put it in quotes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting for citations isn't consistent here. At times you use plaintext citations and othertimes you use templates. Sometimes you use RP and other times SFNs. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is apart of the GA criteria. I might need to get a second opinion here but according to Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not “Any system that allows the reader to connect a specific sentence with a specific citation is an acceptable inline citation method. However, one system should be used consistently for inline citations.” IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start to assess some of the other areas while this is on hold. All acronyms (such as INES and NISA) should be spealt out in full the first time they are used. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you could cut back some of the detail and move it to the corresponding articles in the sections Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, International impact, Radiation effects in humans, and Treating contaminated water. Some of these sections may have less material to remove than others but every little bit counts. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this article is a bit long. I think the talk pages debated this particular point in detail. I will have to reread them to see if there was some consensus there. Czarking0 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to all your points in due; however, I wanted to point out that citation format sfv vs rp, etc is not a GA criteria. It is for FA Czarking0 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is because Criterion 1 requires compliance with MOS:LAYOUT, and criterion 2 also requires compliance with the MOS:LAYOUT section MOS:REFERENCES. It says:
"No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident" - United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Seems out of place. Consider maybe wording it as "according to" or something similar. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zircaloy can be oxidized by steam to form hydrogen gas or by uranium dioxide to form uranium metal. I'm a little unsure about what you mean here. do high temperatures also create uranium metal or is that the uranium dioxide. If it is the former is that relevant to the article? IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that both these reactions would be contributing to the meltdown. The high temp, high pressure steam from emergency cooling systems should oxidize the components. This is bad because it weakens the material. The source calls out the exothermic nature of this but how important that heat is compared to the reactor itself would require expert analysis. FN29 seems to indicate it is not negligible.
The second reaction very important. This is the primary reaction that causes the meltdown/ melt-through. As the uranium oxidizes the vessel it will melt/ break the zircaloy and eventually escape. This is part of how the fuel ends up outside of the containment.
Now the source for this section is not actually about Fukushima at all and it just background info on reactor chemistry so I am not sure how to edit the article. Maybe the summary sentence is "these reactions are important processes in how a zircaloy cladding fails during meltdown."
To me this just boarders on super technical information that WP is not super well suited for. I would also consider deleting this materials section and seeing where else in the article this info might be relevant. Czarking0 (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DC power was needed to remotely control it and receive parameters and indications and AC power was required to power the isolation valves. Acronyms should be spelt out in full when first used. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a guidance on this? All times are local to the accident and I think it makes sense to present it that way. This is actually stated at the top of the article in a hidden note. Czarking0 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You switch between giving times and saying 50 minutes after etc. I think for clarity purposes it would be easier to stick to either giving times or minutes after. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed these and I think it sounds good the way it is. Willing to discuss specific examples. Like this with sentence "The largest tsunami wave was 13–14 m (43–46 feet) high and hit approximately 50 minutes after the initial earthquake" the relative time is providing context between the beginning of the two important but distinct historical events of the tsunami and the nuclear accident. I think it is important to keep it relative here Czarking0 (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The DC batteries for units 1, 2, and 4 were also inoperable shortly after flooding Why? I'm assuming it was due to the flooding but I think clarification would be nice here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response, the operators assumed a loss of coolant in units 1 and 2, developing a plan in which they would vent the primary containment and inject water into the reactor vessels with firefighting equipment. might sound better as In response, the operators assumed a loss of coolant in units 1 and 2 and developed a plan in which they would vent the primary containment and inject water into the reactor vessels with firefighting equipment.IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
09:15 leading directly from the water storage tank to the injection port to allow for continuous operation (the fire engine had to be periodically refilled). timezone. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are trying to make this shorter anyway I edited this out. FYI the explosion was the hydrogen which is created by the reactor and water. Czarking0 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the melted fuel in Unit 1, whose core damage was the most extensive, has breached the bottom of the primary containment vessel and even partially eaten into its concrete foundation, coming within about 30 cm (1 ft) of leaking into the ground" I believe quotes need to be cited right after they are given. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the initial hours of the accident, in response to station blackout and uncertainty regarding the cooling status of units 1 and 2, a 2 km radius evacuation of 1,900 residents was ordered at 20:50. The phrasing here is a bit hard to follow, could you reword? IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The size of these evacuation zones was set for arbitrary reasons at the discretion of bureaucrats rather than nuclear experts. This doesn't sound very NPOV. Maybe consider rewording to "nuclear experts criticize that..." or something. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source here is the investigation by the national diet of japan so I think this is a neutral POV. The claim here is simply a matter of fact. The group making these decisions were not nuclear experts and were career bureaucrats. Czarking0 (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the aftermath, Germany accelerated plans to close its nuclear power reactors and decided to phase out the rest by 2022[107] (see also Nuclear power in Germany). the see also part looks a bit awkward. maybe wikilink Germany with the relevant link instead. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well to me this is the updated info. I worked on this section before the GAN. As you can see the sources are from 2023 so it is fairly recent. I could search for 2024 sources but I think this section clearly shows that the cleanup timeline is quite long so I don't expect meaningful change year over year. Czarking0 (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of October 2019, the total amount of tritium in the water was about 856 terabecquerels, and the average tritium concentration was about 0.73 megabecquerels per liter. Is there any relevant info on wether or not tritium has any health or environmental effects? IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this. I don't think there is a clear yes/no answer. This appears to be the authoritative source on the subject; however, I do not speak french. I will use some Japanese sources that reference this. Czarking0 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think it is fine to leave as is. I'm Canadian so I'm used to there either being USD or CAD behind prices but that may have been my personal experiences getting in the way. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They take advantage of convection (hot water tends to rise) and gravity (water tends to fall) to ensure an adequate supply of cooling water to handle the decay heat, without the use of pumps. I don't think the explanations of convection and gravity are needed but let me know what you think. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. There are still a couple graphs that are unreferanced as well but I think this article will definetly be a pass once those issues are cleared up! Thanks for your hard work! IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czarking0 I have finished my review. Overall, great work. I can't imagine taking on such a big topic. I wrote a lot of feedback as there was a lot of content but I don't want that to scare you in any way. If you disagree with some of my suggestions just let me know and I'm sure we can find a way to work it out. If this article passes (which I really hope it does!) I hope you will consider nominating it for DYK as it would make a great topic for that kind of thing. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The Town of Namie (population 21,000) was evacuated as a result of the accident.
... that residents evacuated in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident were exposed to so little radiation that radiation-induced health effects are likely to be below detectable levels?
Source: "Outside the geographical areas most affected by radiation, even in locations within Fuku-
shima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer
ALT1: ... that during the Fukushima nuclear accident officials were told not to use the phrase "core meltdown" in order to conceal the meltdown until they officially recognized it two months after the accident? Source: " Tepco asked a third-party panel to investigate the matter and the panel released a report on 16 June saying the company’s then-president, Masataka Shimizu, had instructed officials not to use the words "core meltdown"." https://www.neimagazine.com/news/tepco-concealed-core-meltdowns-during-fukushima-accident-4931915/
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done
I don't think the investigations should be under "Consequences"--which should focus on effects to living beings, the environment, structures, infastructure, etc. However, I don't think it should have been under "Criticisms" either. Investigations are supposed to be independent. I would put it in its own category. I did look at the two U.S. shuttle disasters and was surprised neither had an investigation section. It would be worth looking at some of the other disasters like the recent collision of the ship destroying bridge in Baltimore or the ship that grounded and blocked the Suez Canal--to see how those articles placed the investigation section. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Space Shuttle Challenger disaster which has its own section on Reports which would be equivalent to an investigation section here. To me, that is sufficient guidance. Czarking0 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Done removed Czarking0 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Not done coming back to this Czarking0 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
