Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Article structure

I realise the event is ongoing, but the order of sections is confusing at the moment. The reactors are listed in order, but the order in which they went up was 1 -> 3 -> 2. That the timestamps are inconsistently formatted and incomplete, and have to be dug out of the text, only makes this worse. 188.220.41.189 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents is for. 220.100.86.153 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Japanese second explosion.png

There's a big problem with one of the Fukushima I images. File:Japanese second explosion.png is on commons, claims to have been screencap'd off CTV Winnipeg, a commercial TV station, but also claims to be GFDL. This is clearly impossible. The screenshot itself has a credit for NTV Japan, annother commercial TV station.

I suggest this be uploaded to Wikipedia with the copyright status corrected, and fair-use rationales created for the pages on which it would appear. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional Information on Failure of Generators

This article from brave new climate appears to have new information on the generator failures and the reason the backup generators trucked in didn't kick in (wrong plugs), as well as a generally authoritative discussion of the possible sequence of events. Can someone take a look and include what's relevent (sorry, I'm very inexperienced at wikipedia editing, so I don't feel qualified to touch such a fast-moving topic).

The New York Times quotes the manager of an American plant of the same design as saying the problem was not the wrong plugs but that the hookup was in a basement area that remains flooded. Given this sort of contradiction we have to go with the Times. Also, while this source is more or less authoritative, it is "bloggish" and other posts by this source seem to indicate an agenda of wanting to minimizing the hazards. It is an agenda I personally agree with because of so much irrational fear in the general public, but still raises something of a question mark. The source does not seem to have anticipated how the situation has been aggravated by the hydrogen explosions (ie EXTERNAL damage to containment as opposed to core materials eating INTO it; explosion at #3 affecting valve(s) at #2; explosion at #4 starting a fire that may have released radiation, etc)--Brian Dell (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

IAEA reports cold shutdown status at reactors 1-3

IAEA page

Japan Earthquake Update (15 March 2011, 03:35 CET)

Japanese authorities yesterday reported to the IAEA at 21:05 CET that the reactors Units 1, 2 and 3 of the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant are in cold shutdown status. This means that the pressure of the water coolant is at around atmospheric level and the temperature is below 100 degrees Celsius. Under these conditions, the reactors are considered to be safely under control.

Japanese authorities have also informed the IAEA that teams of experts from Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the plant´s operator, are working to restore cooling in the reactor Unit 4 and bring it to cold shutdown.

The IAEA continues to liaise with the Japanese authorities and is monitoring the situation as it evolves.

--joe decker^{talk to me} 04:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

yep, this is daini (Japanese: 2), not daiichi (Japanese: 1) and reported here. Thanks for the info!L.tak (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

oops, sorry, I'll strike to avoid confusion. --joe decker^{talk to me} 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Accident or Natural Disaster Induced Nuclear Emergency?

Calling this incident an accident may imply human error or human negligence of some type, but I have not been informed of any evidence of such. I'm suggesting to the people maintaining this Wikipedia entry that a possible change to nuclear emergency is more appropriate. From reading the entry, I see that there's strong evidence that the tsunami is the leading contributing factor to the cause of the emergency with the four reactors. KeoniPhoenix (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I retract my comment as I didn't notice the topic was already discussed below. KeoniPhoenix (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It is also usually best to hit new section so that it goes to the bottom. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuel rods "exposed to air" is this correct?

The "exposed to air" quote is directly from the source, but I'm not sure if the source has either transtlated this correctly or added the "to air" as a natural error. The term "exposed" to be used in proper context would be synonymous with "above the liquid surface" rather than exposed to "air". There is no air in the reactor vessell unless it ruptures. Venting is a one way process where steam and Hydrogen exit the vessel, but no air goes in. There is a steam and Hydrogen bubble present. The Hydrogen is generated from the simple chemical reaction of metals oxidizing in steam. The danger of "exposure" is that the heat transfer drops dramatically, causing the fuel rod bundles to overheat, deform, and possibly melt. Pmarshal (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)pmarshal

Under normal circumstances that might be true (and it might still be), but for radioactive isotopes to be detectable in the atmosphere means that the system has some type of breach, whether accidental or purposeful ("venting"). For now it should be written as reported with corrections based on future sources.MartinezMD (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, venting is a one-way process. Any radionucliedes escaping the vessel are via the venting. There should not be any significant amount of air entering the vessel (especially as it at extremely high pressure at the present). If they are pumping in sea water, there may be small amounts of dissolved gases which are not normally present in the coolant. However, the amount of Oxygen being introduced is orders of magnitude less destructive than the Chlorine from Sodium and Potassium chlorides present in sea water. Hydrogen will react with small amounts of Oxygen non-explosively in the reactor vessel, so this is not a direct threat in any case. Pmarshal (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)pmarshal

Metals from the shielding of the rods may react with water, releasing hydrogen, and the radiation leads to the dissociation of water into hydrogen and oxygen (small amounts under normal operating conditions, but maybe significantly more if temperatures are higher).  Cs32en Talk to me  01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a large number of sources for the information, and we should avoid those sources that appear to present information in a distorted or misleading way.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This phrase also made me do a double-take. It's not clear from the source whether the official spokesperson actually said this "air" bit, or if it was an embellishment from the writer (since it's not a quote). I think this is probably a careless slip of the tongue (or...er, pen?) by a journalist that didn't think through whether or not the gas above the liquid was really "air". I can find a few other sources that refer to a similar statement, without the "air" bit (like this one which seems a lot more polished). Of course, to be certain, it'd be better to find the primary source before translation...but for now, I'd take out the phrase about the rods being exposed to air. —AySz88\^-^ 05:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Took out "to air" and "to the air" in two locations and left "exposed" which is without dispute. Pmarshal (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)pmarshal

So far as heat transfer to cooling water versus the much smaller heat transfer to gas, it makes little difference whether it is air, steam or steam plus hydrogen. If the reactor vessel or any of the pipes fractured, then air could easily be present. That has not been established yet. Fuel rods will overheat and melt in any of the three gasses or mixtures, whereas they would remain intact if covered by water. If you consider ignition of the gas or oxidation of the zirconium cladding, then the makeup of the gas matters a great deal. Edison (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing to note about this (although its not in the source) is that there is "air" dissolved in the water. Under normal conditions, they use deionized water to minimize this, however sea water will have quite a bit of dissolved nitrogen and other particles in it, so whilst it is true that atmospheric air will not be able to enter a system under a positive pressure differential, it doesn't mean that there isn't oxygen, and nitrogen inside the pressure vessel by other means. 82.18.86.179 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm most worried about the fact that "exposed to air" might be interpreted to mean that the radioactive material was in contact with the atmosphere around the plant - that is to say, the material was no longer contained. —AySz88\^-^ 04:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Detonation?

Just saw the second explosion on the BBC! Excuse me but(!!) that looked a lot like a nuclear tactical field weapon going off! It had the "White Flash", the pillar, and the freaking MUSHROOM!! I am sorry, but that looked like a nuclear detonation.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No way, period, unless someone brought a nuclear weapon to the site and detonated it. Original research and error on your part. Edison (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no conceivable failure mode of a BWR reactor which would result in a nuclear detonation. Please provide a link to more detailed information.
Sbergman27 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Link provided at external links of the above mentioned "explosion" I know the text-books say thereis no conceivable failure mode of a BWR reactor. Just like the Russians were saying way back when about their reactors.....--Oracleofottawa (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Youtube search on "tactical nuclear explosion" and see if you find anything as puny as this: Video of Unit3 explosion. The danger is not atomic detonation but breaking out of the inner vessel, touching air and exploding in fire. That would be bad enough. That's what happened at Chernobyl. -Colfer2 (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have something to propose to add to the article, you can discuss it here. Otherwise, there is no source/references out there to suggest there was a nuclear detonation. This isn't a forum.192.77.126.50 (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Russian RMBK didn't explode in a "nuclear" fashion. It was a product of the steam explosion plus the graphite moderator, wich ignited in contact with air. It's downright impossible for a modern nuclear reactor (whether it's a PWR, BWR, CANDU or whatever) to explode in a "nuclear" way. They just don't compress nuclear fuel like weapons do (ie, don't reach supercritical mass), and don't use the 90% enriched Uranium of atomic weapons. They will ALWAYS melt, they never would explode (unless steam is present, as in Chernobyl).--190.189.11.201 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a possibility that fissile material reaches criticality if enough mass is concentrated in a single spot. In that case, the material rapidly expands, and the nuclear chain reaction is aborted. Criticality can even be reached in a vessel without the vessel necessarily being destroyed, if the expansion of the material finishes off the nuclear reaction quickly enough. But enough nuclear material in a close enough space can lead to a (not necessarily large) nuclear explosion, it does not have to be assembled for the purpose of achieving a nuclear detonation. The mushroom cloud, however, only indicates that hot gases rose upwards after the explosion. A different composition of hydrogen and oxygen at the time of the explosion may explain this. It's also possible that additional steam was exiting from the reactor at the time of the explosion.

Do not confuse a criticality accident with a nuclear explosion. The two things are 'not' necessarily synonymous. A Nuclear explosion requires extremely precise alignment of the materials to make a chain reaction runaway to the point of explosion. Whilst it is true that it is theoretically possible for corium to orient itself in a manner that allows fission to recommence, there is no mechanism to allow it to go super-critical and explode (of course there is a theoretical possibility of it happening, but equally there is a theoretical possibility that infinite monkeys can type the works of Shakespear). 82.18.86.179 (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, just about all explosions generate a mushroom cloud. I've personally seen a mushroom cloud formed from the fire department setting a gallon of gasoline on fire in a fire extinguisher demonstration. rdfox 76 (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro is very bad right now

It's supposed to be 4 sections, it's too detailed about injuries and the cause of the explosion, it doesn't cover the radioactive emissions. It needs to consider what the reader really needs to know about this topic.Rememberway (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The injuries are listed in the box as 15, and 3 from radiation sickness. There seems to be some confusion about this, and the intro cites an article stating only 1 confirmed radiation sickness case. The references used in the box are not ideal - one off-line document, and one "breaking news" stream, with a multitude of injury reports making it unclear which refer to the same event. Ketil (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Containment breach confirmed/reported

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/japan-earthquake-deaths_n_835651.html#288_container-of-nuclear-reactor-damaged

Links/sources in there. ABC News reporting. Merrill Stubing (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Time given in the official press conference on NHK for the "breach" was 6:14 JST. Pressure reading in this containment structure went from three to one bar. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see anything of substance confirming any containment breach. I see hearsay from forum posters. I have, however, seen this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/us-japan-quake-idUSTRE72A0SS20110314?pageNumber=1

This appears to be another hydrogen explosion, like in #1 and #3. They'd already said that there might be one, despite the venting of the building. No increase in radiation. No evidence of a breach. I would recommend being conservative. Remember, every time there has been a bang, there have been jump-the-gun hysterical reports immediately following. Sbergman27 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No it's not just another hydrogen explosion. I am being conservative here, this is just what the managers and government officials have said at the press conference a little while ago. Watch yourself [1]. Also, there has been an increase in radiation, unneeded staff has been evacuated. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a link for that video at [2] that does not require Microsoft? It displays an invitation to install Silverlight. -84user (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a video, it's live TV NHK World in english. Try on [3], right side - does that one require silverlight, too? Btw, they are now also talking about some kind of smoke/fume from the roof of reactor #3. Sorry, this is all very new information and has not yet been turned into news articles. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

NHK also streams to ustream: [4] that's flash afaik.--91.32.99.67 (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, [5] plays well with Windows Media Player, and [6] plays Ok in Flash at higher bandwidth for me. I just finished listening to today's live conference. -84user (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. The press conference is good. What I get out of it is that:

1. There was (the sound of?) an explosion at #2.

2. Radiation increased. But not to acutely unsafe levels.

3. Radiation then decreased.

4. Pressure measurements within the containment structure are lower than before the explosion.

5. Signs point to a possible, as yet unknown, problem in the torus section.

6. Unessential staff have been evacuated as a precautionary measure.

7. What has actually happened is currently uncertain and will require further study.

BTW. Neither of your original links work in Moonlight. The NHK link is fine, here.

Sbergman27 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@1, yes, a "strange" sound, like an explosion. @2 Radiation currently is measured at 8127 µSv/h, which isn't exactly healthy. "Acute danger" usually just implies people will die after exposure. So, "no acute danger" is often an euphemism. @3 the decrease was around 1/9, so not much of a decrease if I heard correctly. The pressure apparently lowered from three bar to 1 bar. Additionally, the water leven and other parameters remained the same. This was a few hours ago and could have changed by now. But yeah, the press conference gave quite a lot of details. New press conference comming up. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post has been shamelessly scaremongering for days now and should not be used as a source for the extent of hazards to the public as they will almost certainly be inflated.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

They're just citing what has been said on NHK by officials, like it or not. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Does "8127 µSv/h" imply lifetime allowable dose for a nuclear worker in 3 hours, radiation sickness in 12 hours and a lethal radiation dose in 63 hours? Rems and rads are more familiar units to some readers. Edison (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

8127 µSv/h = 8.127 mSv/h. A Radiation worker is allowed up to 20 mSv per year averaged over 3 years, or up to 50 mSv in a single year. Exceeding either of these limits is a reportable event to the nuclear regulator, and does not mean that the worker will automatically experience ill effects. For example, there are places in India where the natural background radiation is 20 mSv/year.MWadwell (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Live NHK summary from [7] as of right now:

• earlier they showed photo of unit 4 with the hole in the side next to the spent fuel pool and they speculated the spent fuel rods had lost all coolant and caused a hydrogen explosion. Photo looked like this one here.
• interrupted by an earthquake warning, didn't catch which city
• they listed the numbers missing from the coastal towns due to the tsunami, in the thousands

-84user (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactor 4 Fire

The source cited for this sentence:

A fire broke out at Unit 4 but was put out by mid-day.[22]

does not (or at least currently does not) support the assertion that the fire has been extinguished. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed by eg. this @ BBC. --hydrox (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This BBC article has various errors and inaccuracies in it. Seems like they have missunderstood many things at the last press conferences. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fire extinguished confirmed here too: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2_1503111.html 66.65.191.165 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is a good article. NHK didn't show all of the press conference, so the announcement about the fire being extinguished could have come later. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Japan has told the U.N. nuclear watchdog a spent fuel storage pond was on fire at an earthquake-stricken reactor and radioactivity was being released "directly" into the atmosphere, the Vienna-based agency said." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/japan-nuclear-iaea-idUSLDE72E04G20110315

The article currently states the "structure" had burned (correctly, based on previously reported information). This is a significant difference, as it likely explains the substantial jump in radiation during the fire. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

explosion reactor 4

[8] Japan’s Stricken Nuclear Power Plant Rocked by Blasts, Fire March 15, 2011, 1:34 AM EDT By Tsuyoshi Inajima, Michio Nakayama and Shigeru Sato March 15 (Bloomberg) -- Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s stricken nuclear power plant was today rocked by two further explosions and a fire as workers struggled to avert the risk of a meltdown. A hydrogen blast hit the Fuushima Dai-Ichi plant’s No. 4 reactor, where Tokyo Electric earlier reported a blaze, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said at a briefing. Four of the complex’s six reactors have been damaged by explosions. Redhanker (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to put it in the page with proper reference... IAEA at http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html reports that the fuel storage pond for unit four is on fire. Sounds dumb, but they are the experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.130.148 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this fire has since been extinguished, but the information is only now (2 hours ago) being posted on the IAEA website. However, this fire is currently noted as a structure fire (not a fuel pond fire) in the article, so it should be updated. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At present, the article says that Daiichi 4 is being prepped for cold shutdown, and cites the IAEA update. But Daiichi 4 was already in cold shutdown when the crisis started. According to me, the IAEA update (03:35 CET) says Daini 4 is being prepped for cold shutdown. Does someone else want to confirm my understanding?151.60.142.38 (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Daini (Japanese for the number 2) 4 is being prepped for cold shutdown, not daiichi (Japanese: 1) 4, which was shutdown for maintenance at the time of the earthquake. See the section above. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So, as best I understand, this is incorrect as daiichi unit 4 is not being prepped for cold shutdown, and the article should be reverted.

I am relying on this article http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2_1503111.html to determine that the unit 4 fuel pond fire is extinguished. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "is being prepped for cold shutdown" because of the confusion above. Also, I added the above site for the fire being out.151.60.142.38 (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This WNN article: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2_1503111.html and this CTV article http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20110315/japan-nuclear-reactors-radiation-110315/ state that the fire is now out. Of course, it could have restarted, or been incorrectly reported, but since it was decided (by others) earlier to report it as out -- I left it as "reported out." 66.65.191.165 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not the best place for it

I know this is against the whole forum thing, but what do you call it when A, a secondary story (the reactors) almost eclipses the original story (the tsunami), and B, when you are watching a potential (even larger) manmade/natural disaster (these three reactors inching toward meltdown) slowly unfold before you and there is really nothing anyone can do to actually prevent it as seems to be the case here. Do we have terms for such things? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 07:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon Stewart would no doubt suggest "catastrofuck". ("Uh, what's it called when a hell-hole hits a cataclysm? A, uh... catastrofuck.") - Dravecky (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I call it par for the course. Law of unforseen consequences. I havnt read the latest bad news yet, but this is a much better design than the unfortunate difficulties in russia. As a linguistics question I am sure there must be a word for it, but I am certainly not a language expert. Sandpiper (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: International Reaction

Shouldn't this section be limited to either "official" or extremely remarkable reactions?

The New York Times editorialized that "the unfolding Japanese tragedy also should prompt Americans to closely study our own plans for coping with natural disasters and with potential nuclear plant accidents to make sure they are, indeed, strong enough. We've already seen how poor defences left New Orleans vulnerable to Hurricane Katrina and how industrial folly and hubris led to a devastating blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico".

While it does not officially speak on behalf of the US, the New York Times can arguably be considered the de-facto national newspaper, but the first part of this statement is vague and generic stating: "something bad happened, we should try and make sure it doesn't happen here/again" is obvious if not obligatory after any disaster . The second part mentioning Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill are irrelevant to the scope of this wikipedia article in the context it is presented.

Mark Hibbs, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Policy Program, reiterated the theme that "[T]his was a wake-up call for anyone who believed that, after 50 years of nuclear power in this world, we have figured it out and can go back to business as usual."

While the New York Times is notable, "The Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Policy Program" at least requires some description and justification for being considered as a significant example of US reaction. Also "Mark Hibbs", the person quoted is not described as a spokesperson for his affiliated organization, but as a "senior associate" an arbitrary term that with out explanation or contrast does not describe his position with in his group. Hibbs' clichéd "This is a wake-up call... ...can't go back to business as usual" response to any disaster or tragedy would be worth being mentioned in this section if it was stated by the President, Secretary of State or US ambassador to Japan would fit the criteria of being mentioned.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Moi

Shouldn't this section be limited to either "official" [probably no reason to limit to "official" responses; some of the most notable will be NGO's.] or extremely remarkable reactions? [Hm...I think you mean notable, not necc "extremely" notable. But the gist maybe there should be a split to a separate entry of International Reaction to Fukushima Disaster] [I am OK with that but for now let's let the page take shape as it will...I was involved in preparing the split which led to this page]

The New York Times editorialized that "the unfolding Japanese tragedy also should prompt Americans to closely study our own plans for coping with natural disasters and with potential nuclear plant accidents to make sure they are, indeed, strong enough. We've already seen how poor defences left New Orleans vulnerable to Hurricane Katrina and how industrial folly and hubris led to a devastating blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico".

While it does not officially speak on behalf of the US, the New York Times can arguably be considered the de-facto national newspaper,[right] but the first part of this statement is vague and generic stating: "something bad happened, we should try and make sure it doesn't happen here/again" is obvious if not obligatory after any disaster . [Yeah I take your point...eventually something more substantive would be better to use here ] The second part mentioning Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill are irrelevant to the scope of this wikipedia article in the context it is presented.[well I think irrelevant is a tad strong maybe some editing is appropriate though]

Mark Hibbs, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Policy Program, reiterated the theme that "[T]his was a wake-up call for anyone who believed that, after 50 years of nuclear power in this world, we have figured it out and can go back to business as usual."

While the New York Times is notable,[yes] "The Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Policy Program" at least requires some description and justification for being considered as a significant example [I think it is significant but arguably not the main central view] of US reaction. Also "Mark Hibbs", the person quoted is not described as a spokesperson for his affiliated organization, but as a "senior associate" an arbitrary term that with out explanation or contrast does not describe his position with in his group. Hibbs' clichéd "This is a wake-up call... ...can't go back to business as usual" response to any disaster or tragedy would be worth being mentioned in this section if it was stated by the President, Secretary of State or US ambassador to Japan would fit the criteria of being mentioned.

[well yes and no. I think NGO response is important maybe should be placed in separate section though how about maybe putting in some quotes from Greenpeace, etc?]Geofferybard (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is far too much information in the international reaction section that has nothing to due with the nuclear accidents. Anything not directly connected to these, such as general statements of aid or assistance or condolences, should be removed as they are not relevant to this page and other pages exist if the information is notable. Ravendrop 08:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Above, I proposed a section that focuses more on international aid, as was done in the case of Hurricane Katrina ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#International_response ). 66.65.191.165 (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

Maybe we should designate between "response" and "reaction".

This section seems more like "US response/reaction" than "international.

There is a strong possibility this topic is creeping away from the subject and into the scope of the "Nuclear power debate". It seems focus is shifting from the event to opinions on nuclear power. This may escalate due to the popularity of wikipedia, as citable opponents and proponents of nuclear power release citable statements that while may be notable are more relevant to the debate over the subjective costs and benefits of specific and general policies in across the globe.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Moi

Reaction to this disaster will be very great around the world and it will be entirely appropriate to report it as a consequence of the disaster. It hasn't happened yet, but I would be surprised if this does not have the same international effect as three mile island and chernobyl, causing a major shift in attitude towards nuclear power. This will very likely have major consequences for the world economy for decades ahead as energy shortages get worse globally. No one has ever built a nuclear power station which they believed to be unsafe, but every time something like this happens it demonstrates that there is always something else unforseen and in a purely scientific way demonstrates the errors in assumptions which have been made about safety. Sandpiper (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I vote for "Official Responses". Every country, except the USA, has a quote from credible sources which is very good. Another section labeled "Media Responses", or something like that would also be very nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.113.201.240 (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea. Media responses from different countries can be important too, but they should definitely be kept separate from official responses actually from governments. Currently the "International response" section is a big mixture of media (like in the US section) and actual governments (like the China section), and that isn't a good thing. At the very least, it should be more clear about who said what. (did the US government give a statement on it, btw? That should definitely go in the article.) 155.138.3.21 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorting out nuclear leakage and radiation

It's a bit difficult to get an overview over leakages and radiation. Would it be useful to make a table listing this for the various reactors, with leaked isotopes and radiation levels inside and outside the plants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We currently have a section "Radioactive contamination" in which we state:

Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yukio Edano, said that radiation levels at 10.22am (local time) 15 March 2011, were 30 mSv/h between the No. 2 and the No. 3 reactors, 400 mSv/h near No. 3 and 100 mSv/h near No. 4. "There is no doubt that unlike in the past, the figures are the level at which human health can be affected," Edano said.

I'm not sure that putting this data in a table is likely to be useful?--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it is possible to link particular rises in radiation to specific events, eg explosion or venting, but in general the measurements are a mixture from all the reactors. They are getting readings from considerable distances now. Sandpiper (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible tangent: In the hope that it would be helpful, I added a citation to the radiation contamination section. The cite is for table 13.6 on page 421 in "Atoms, Radiation, and Radiation Protection" (Turner, 2007). I'm noting it here for editors far more familiar with the topic than I am. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perspective

This article contains nearly as much prose as our article on Japan (an FA), which is supposed to document the entire history of the country! I understand that this is an alarming event and it's leading the news, but, at some point, this is going to need to be boiled down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Most likely some content will be split off just like the Chernobyl disaster article (this has also happened to the Japan article). This of course shouldn't happen until there is proper discussion and consensus - there is no hurry, the article isn't yet too long to read and navigate comfortably.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's fine for now. This article is about an event that has importance beyond the borders of Japan. It is one of the most significant nuclear events in history. I see no problem giving it as much space as the Chernobyl Accident, for example. Perhaps even more, as it is such a complex situation with potentially far-reaching consequences. To put it bluntly, we do not yet know if this will be one of the biggest nuclear disasters in history, or the biggest nuclear disaster in history. 173.53.174.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps it's not that this article is too long, but that the Japan article is too short. Come on, first an earthquake followed by a tsunami, creating a nuclear disaster with 3 explosions - this is significant event in history.MartinezMD (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, its not long yet. I would anticipate this getting significantly longer before it is finished and I would not anticipate any more article splits until this was absolutely necessary. Whats with the idea that knowledge has to be compressed into an arbitrary space allocation? wiki is not paper.Sandpiper (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"[...] Japan (an FA), which is supposed to document the entire history of the country!" - Not quite true, we have History of Japan for that. 220.100.103.16 (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection level of this article

Hello. Sorry about the meta/WP:FORUM comment, but I'd just like to say that I am proud of our job here. This article (well, the original power plant article) was initially semiprotected, then downgraded to PC, which incidentally I thought worked very well in this case, and then the vandalism pretty much disappeared or anyway nobody saw the need to protect or PC this new article. I think this is just great. Thank you everyone. 220.100.86.153 (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin request

This article uses Japan Standard Time (JST) for events taking place in Japan. Before adding the time of an event to the article, ensure that it is a JST time and use the format "23:59 JST".

Can an admin create an editnotice to remind people to use only JST times in the article as previously agreed. I've noticed some UTC times/dates again which will take some time verifying. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! Could that edit notice also contain the info that JST is 9 hours ahead of GMT and 14 hours ahead of EDT. With those references it should be easy to do the math (I always have to look it up)... L.tak (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Daylight Time is actually GMT -0400, so wouldn't JST be 13 hours ahead of EDT? Also note that the US was on standard time until early March 13, when it switched to Daylight time. 70.225.190.27 (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

14 hours ahead? How can one zone be more than 12 hours ahead? Don't you mean 24-14=10 hours behind? 213.112.133.229 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is going to change soon/has already changed with DST, so I'd avoid hard-coded offsets from an arbitrary set of time zones. 220.100.86.153 (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See this is why I always have to look it up;-) . Maybe good to leave it out then; it's about time we get a uniform date for changing to daylight savings (but that's beyond the scope of this article)... L.tak (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Other country's daylight saving times is yet another reason to keep all times in JST. Not to mention possible confusions with the date as well. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was just suggesting (and than retracting that suggestion) to add it to an editing notice . For me, in the article whatever is chosen is ok, as long as we are consistent. And we are quite consistently at JST for some time now, so let's keep it there... L.tak (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just use JST, with a UTC conversion in brackets, taking account of any DST for JST. There's no need for EDT or any other time zone to be mentioned. LemonMonday Talk 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't give UTC in brackets every time, it was tried before and looked ridiculous. Have you seen how many times are in the article? We have the JST wikilink and UTC conversion in the infobox, I think that's enough.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. Maybe we just put a conversion for the absolutely key events (and UTC, not GMT). LemonMonday Talk 17:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me confess that I am one of the users frequently using non-JST timestamps. I generally take the timestamp as it is from the source. It's okay if someone changes it to JST, but I hope it's okay too if I refrain from converting it myself before I add it. --rtc (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really, there's broad agreement to use only JST in the article, so if you could go with that it would save other editors the trouble of altering your contributions. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember The First Grade...

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Get it? That's counting. I just going to make a point that the article should go "Reactor Unit 1, Reactor Unit 2, Reactor Unit 3". Definitely not Unit 1, Unit 3, Unit 2.John Holmes II (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the sections are ordered the way they are in order to present the three failures in chronological order. Kaini (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Strictly, there is a complete chronology for each reactor separately, or should be. They did not take it in turns to have failures.Sandpiper (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. This article is not a Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents. One, two, three. 220.100.86.153 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ASN now updated the accident as a 6 (out of 7)

Today ASN (Autorité française de sûreté nucléaire) has updated the accident as a 6 (out of seven; it was clasified as a 4 untill today).

I think we should update that in the section "Reactions of nuclear authorities" since it isn't up to date anymore and 6 compared to 4 is a biggy.

Source: http://www.lemonde.fr/japon/article/2011/03/15/l-asn-classe-l-accident-nucleaire-de-fukushima-au-niveau-6_1493498_1492975.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.230.155.23 (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a private opinion of the ASN. The ASN is not the responsible authority for Japan. --rtc (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Until such as time the Japanese authorities determine it to the be a 6, it remains a 4. 41.241.35.248 (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And, not to generalize on the French, but they do tend to overrate other countries' irresponsibilities, even (sometimes especially) the experts. In fairness, it's a Western Europe thing, not just a French thing. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, I thought that the official classification according to the INES scale of nuclear incidents was the jurisdiction of ASN, didn't jknow it was just a reference scale without an official meaning on an international basis. --editor

Nope, it is the job of the nation's (in this case Japan) nuclear authority and the IAEA to classify things like this on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES directs to some Belgian operation). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

JST/UTC

I noticed much of the information here seems to be split between UTC times and JST times, though JST seems to be the most prevelant. Since it is a Japanese event these times should all be changed to JST. Am I correct? 41.241.35.248 (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes all time should be only in JST, this has ben discussed here and also just above in "Admin reqest".--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, JST. And Japan does not have daylight time, so it's easy. Just add 9 hours, and use 24-hour time. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

An MIT's professor's opinion

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2011/mar/14/meltdown-japan

I have no idea whether it is correct or not. The guy's an MIT dude though. Tony (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like he's being reasonable, but being from MIT or being a professor of science and engineering is not a credential for commenting on a situation for which one does not have complete information, or even information that may be completely reliable, nor does it help if one hasn't done specific work on those types of reactors or safety implementations. Michio Kaku went on ABC News Saturday and said "we're looking at another Chernobyl" in an excited hand-waving exclamation, commenting entirely on a subject with which he is completely unfamiliar (particle physicists do nothing with reactor fission, or fission in general, and especially not engineering) and irresponsibly fear-mongering at the same time. Basically, if they're sensationalizing, then shut them out.

Oh, and I have a suspicion that ABC News wanted him because he looks as if he's of Japanese origin. Except he was born and raised and educated 100% in America. (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

News blogs as reliable sources

Can we not simply wait a few moments until details are published in reliable sources, rather than adding minute-by-minute updates sourced to breaking new blogs? These blogs are not suitable references as they are not subject to the same degree of fact-checking that properly published articles are. By adding these details rather than waiting, we raise the potential for inaccuracies in the article and create problems when these statements need to be resourced to proper articles. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just now matters seem to be deteriorating quite fast. Must admit I am getting a little confused trying to track sources and it is easier to wait, but the information is there. Sky news has covered everything here pretty much on tv. I agree though, it is not clear if major radiation is coming from burning fuel rods in pond at 4 or leaks from 2. people are being withdrawn which sounds awfully like they are getting close to abandoning ground crews trying to restore cooling. Sky had a report the russians claim all 6 reactors are at risk. Sandpiper (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd suggest just a fair bit of due caution with breaking news sources, not having dug through the most recent changes, with a "please be careful." I have a few words of reminder that I've been putting together on the subject. Between the very early and incorrect (then) meltdown reports, and the mistaken BBC report yesterday.... --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

On-site radiation level

TEPCO announced some raw measurement of gamma ray radiation (Here), It show after the explosion of plant 2, the radiation increased obviously. And here is the map of the site. Does it worth to add to the article, despite some data missing for 2 hours? Matthew_hk tc 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thx, can you make some diagrams that English speakers can understand. BTW, the first link gives me a PDF that uses a Font that seems to be specific to Japan... None of the readers I tried could display anything else than an empty table, or a table with black dots in it. --rtc (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a more recent TEPCO radiation report: http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110316e.pdf

I think it is worth it to add, from what I remember of my Astronomy and Chemistry courses, gamma ray radiation is pretty serious business (takes a mile long length of lead to stop one particle, hypothetically speaking).

A gross exaggeration. Gamma rays vary greatly in their penetration ability but none of them take "a mile of lead to stop". The main point to make is that the thin protective garments the workers are wearing will not stop that sort of radiation.

The font isn't the problem it must be in a different encoding, like UTF-8 and ANSCI, I'm no expert on those sorts of things though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I had thought PDFs relied on fonts carried within the documents, strange. Reads okay here on my Mac/Chrome/OSX. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what I meant: Text_encoding. Maybe it's actually irrelevant here. You can have strange text encoding in a document. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When I opened the very first PDF from TEPCO, my Foxitreader 3.1 invited me to download a specific font, and now TEPCO PDFs always display Ok - in Japanese but the Sievert levels are all readable, for example: 11930 micro Sv/hour at 15 March 09:00 JST then decreasing. -84user (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactor 5 & 6 spent fuel

According to recent IAEA update the spent fuel in these reactors is still within reactor vessels. I updated the Units 5 & 6 section with that information, howwever I see that in the table status of spent fuel is listed as in spent fuel pool. Do we have sources for that? Mchl (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

as usual the difficulty is if we understood how these things worked we would be able to better know what makes sense when something is announced. The very nice aerial shot of the plant before accident seems to show one of the new reactors without a roof. I also understand there is spent fuel, and then there is spent fuel, depending on how long it has been sitting about cooling. Which is more of an additional question than an answer.Sandpiper (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

More questions. Might it be possible, that there is spent fuel both within the reactor as well as in spent fuel pool? Was spent fuel ever shipped away from the plant? Of not, it might mean all 6 reactors have fueal rods in SFPs. Mchl (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand, spent fuel has to stay in the pool for a longer time than in the reactor, to cool down before it can be taken away (it is, ultimately). This means all 6 reactors SFPs hold more spent fuel than the reactors themselves (I read or heard something of the order of 3x or 5x, can't remember where). The SPFs location on top of the reactors in these plants is in fact one very serious aspect of this crisis (still as far as I understand) that didn't come up officially before the issue with Reactor #4. This was foreseen though, again I can't remember where. 86.68.38.37 (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Introduction is MUCH too long

Thats it. Someone has to collect most material to a paragraph directly below.Sexandlove (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we need to try and summarise all aspects of the article, including recent developments, in no more than 4 paragraphs.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest:

• one paragraph for the earthquake and tsunami, location of the plants etc...
• one for what has happened to the reactors (e.g. 3 have had explosions etc..)
• one for radiation levels, disaster rating, fears etc
• one for corporate, government and international responses

--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Quickly done some things. Nothing deleted.Sexandlove (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

er, the introduction was not too long. wiki article do not start with a summary after the lead. They start with a lead section Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) which is itself a summary of the whole article. Arguably the first paragraph of the lead is itself a summary of the lead. 20:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the introduction needs to include a pretty good explanation of this day by day. The idea is that someone will understand the events if they just read the introduction. I personally think that given this is an ongoing emergency, the lead ought to be biased just a little towards a government health warning, so quite clear the nature of the ongoing emergency, evacuations, dont panic, and the like. There are thousands of people reading this and some of them live there.Sandpiper (talk)

I also put back top level headings through the article so there are lines across dividing up sections instead of it all running together.

I dont know who put the reactor status box in, but it looks kinda big in the centre of the article so i put it to the end where infoboxes generally go. If it is right at the start a stranger would not necessarily understand what it is about - until they have read what happened to the different reactors. Sandpiper (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I just got to this article and all the reactor sections were running together. Wouldn't a better place for the reactor table be immediately after the "Reactor units 5 and 6" section, though? It sums up all of the information from the five reactor sections, so that seems like a logical place to put it. 155.138.3.21 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

yes that would probably work. might be more natural there.Sandpiper (talk)

OK, I moved it. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

brave you: took me four goes with edit conflicts, Sandpiper (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd mention here that I tried to update the reactor status box with the broken ref, and updated the table with the latest report. Since it's my first time to update a current article in ages, please see if the reference can be "autogenerated" or whatever the problem was before I quickly fixed it. Cheers, CalvinTy 21:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

someone fixed it, ta. Bit depressing, isnt, it, the way it keepds getting redder.Sandpiper (talk)

And while i think about it, I dont think the lead is required to have references. As a summary of the text it should only be saying things which are also included later, where they would be referenced as necessary. Though sometimes a lead does include something which is not mentioned later. But in this case we probably need them to track things.Sandpiper (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked the MoS to see what it says, and here's the applicable points:

• Leads "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". Because this is a complicated topic, it's understandable the lead would be fairly long.
• Leads "should contain no more than four paragraphs". The current one is 7, but some are fairly short so I'd say it's still under the limit. The last paragraph (on the stock market) might be unnecessary, though. That can go under the Business section.
• And more to the point... leads "must be carefully sourced as appropriate".

Later on, it goes into more detail about citations and basically says that if it's controversial, cite it, but avoid unnecessarily redundant citations, and that there's no hard-and-fast rule; it should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Aside from the last paragraph, I personally think the lead is just fine and offers a good quick overview of events, and it's certainly adequately sourced. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Potential section on international radioactivity?

I haven't been keeping up too closely with the news on this topic, but in passing I've seen reports talking about different governments preparing (or at least keeping an eye out) for radiation spreading to their country. I know the possibility of radiation spreading to Alaska/Hawaii/the West Coast of the US was mentioned, and I've seen Indonesia mentioned as well. This may not be a significant enough risk (if it's even reasonable to have these fears at all) for it to be worth adding to the article, but if it is then it seems like a worthwhile addition. 155.138.250.7 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ishibashi Katsuhiko

I don't know if WP policy would agree, but it might be a good thing to mention / link Katsuhiko Ishibashi at this point.

Why worry? Japan's nuclear plants at grave risk from quake damage 86.68.38.37 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead (again)

Hi all - reference is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lead_section)#Length

The lead is a little off in that it consists of 7 paragraphs. I appreciate that they are mostly due to the "On the XX of March". It may be possible to justify this for the start, the first few days, but as time goes on we will have "on the 16th March" and "On the 17th March"

It is not necessary to have four or five long paragraphs, they just need to be small, concise paragraphs dealing with it in a sense that encompasses all of the article. At the moment there is nothing in the lead that discusses the Government reaction, International reaction or the effects of the radiation on the population.

I suggest turning those paragraphs into a "Day by day" section (just adding the header) which would be the first section after the lead. We have 7 lead paragraphs currently - I am proposing moving 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 into the "Day by day" section leaving 1 and 7 in the lead. That would leave two or three paragraphs to be inserted to summarise everything. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia

Not Wikinews. The entire article looks like a collection of newspaper clippings. How about waiting until qualified investigators have actually had a chance to analyse the problem and write a directly quotable report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.100.14 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously many others disagree and think its a good and appropriate article. Of course there will be many changes and improvements with time. 172.162.139.33 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC) BG

As per WP:EVENT, the subject is notable enough to merit a page in Wikipedia--Frédéric Grosshans (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the only location on the internet I'm aware of that consolidates the facts of this ongoing event in a concise and complete way. News stories from the standard sources are actually a poor way to follow what is happening, because each story is 95% the same content as the previous, with only a few new facts added as events unfold. At this moment this article is on the front page of Google News, and that is out of 16,853 other articles concerning this nuclear accident. So this article is being read by many, many people, and even Google recognizes the value of the information covered here. --Dan East (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But please someone try to edit ugly scrambled paragraphs at the end. My best guess it's googled from japanese. But still totally not readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.38.147 (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For a concise and qualified report of what's happening, try the International Atomic Energy Agency's web site. If people had consulted the World Health Organisation as opposed to the media with regards to swine and bird flu, that would have also been a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.235.204 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To an extent I agree with both POVs about the reporting here. Whilst I agree that facts that are relevant to the problem should be reported, it is fairly apparent that there are going to be things that are not notable. For instance the large section about US Navy ship movements. In 5 years time will this be notable? Is it really notable now beyond the fact that its of interest to the families of those aboard? (BTW I wasn't suggesting that the bits about them detecting radiation isn't notable rather that it needs reformatting at least) 82.18.86.179 (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

They have been sending helicopters to do somehting. I wonder what? Sandpiper (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that readability should be maintained. But, waiting is not something; I'd recommend. This article is currently about the only place on the internet, that provides insight into the big picture of the event and is both independent and comprehensive. The ongoing edits are a good thing and should be kept up. You see, unlike some of the last important events recently, proper live coverage is missing this time. There were live reports from 9/11, there is a live broadcast from every Space-Shuttle launch and the LHC has it's "Page 1". Such coverage is missing from this incident. Unfiltered Coverage like this is an important contribution to everybody being able to gain insight into the situation and the consequences. Thus the way the article is maintained is good and should be kept at that level, at least while it isn't over. If there is better coverage available, it should be linked at the very bottom of the article. If you're looking for improvement, I suggest creating a template which mimics the principle of the LHC "Page 1", where the most important information is presented in an intuitive manner on one screen (page) and is overwritten as new information arrives. The progression of the events can be tracked using the wiki's version system. Perhaps there is somebody who can provide a piece of code to create a slider to navigate the last view versions easily. --79.230.50.93 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

March 17, 2011 at 01:10 GMT... I have been scouring the Internet for the past week getting details in bits and pieces, slowly building a picture I could understand on that is happening..... This page and the Time Line page are very well done! They are the ONLY places I could find on the Internet explaining the Decay Heat from spent fuel is one of the root causes of the ongoing problems and why it is so important that those fuel elements, no matter where they are, Must be actively cooled for long periods after they have been used in a reactor. They are the ONLY places on the Internet that have pulled all the data, properly referenced, together to present a concise picture of the serious events unfolding at Fukushima I nuclear power plant in Japan. My hat is off to the contributors for a job well done. These page are helping to eliminate ignorance and fear. The www of this page is very much worthy of passing on to people who need a concise summary of what is happening. Cumulusgranitis (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Level 4 applies to reactors 1 and 3

Japan's nuclear safety agency has rated the situation at Units 1 and 3 as Level 4 accidents, but the situation at Unit 2 has not yet been rated. The formatting of the infobox etc may have to anticipate different outcomes for different reactors.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

True. What's happening at Unit 2 right now should exceed Level 4 by at least one or two. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

More precise link on French nuclear agency rating the accident to Level 6 Reuter. --KrebMarkt (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless there has been a confirmed release, or unless the core is confirmed to be significantly damaged - there is no justification to raise the INES rating. Of course, as more information is released, it is likely (IMHO) that the rating will go to at least INES 5. MWadwell (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation level

AP is reporting "11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast" - more than the highest number we report. See [9]. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What is their source? Been watching the official press conferences for the last hours, haven't heard that number yet. Although, just now, I hear about 300-400mSv. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

400 mSv is 400,000 microSv!!! Nergaal (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Background radiation is roughly 3.6 mSv. Nergaal (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, background radiation right now in Hamburg/Germany is 0,04 μSv/h, that´s 9000 times less.--89.204.153.232 (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Read below. He's talking about avg. dosage per year, which seems alright. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking 400mSv/h. 3.6mSv background should be per year. People within 30km of the reactor have been asked to stay indoors and close doors, windows and turn off their air conditioning. They assume this high radiation level is caused by a fire in reactor #4 (offline at the moment), but the is spent fuel in the water tank. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So if we take 0.04 microSv/h as the normal background radiation, then 400 mSv/h is 10 million times above normal. What a terrible, nightmarish situation this is becoming. 82.132.248.87 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, getting the SI prefixes right is difficult. :-/

Background radiation differs hugely depending on where you are. You're taking this a little out of context, it doesn't just work like that. Also, this is close to the reactor. Between #2 and #3 the level of radiation is a lot lower. Health effects depend on the type of radiation, the intensity and the time of exposition. It will also reduce when it spreads out. Please, read Radiation_poisoning --91.32.99.67 (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources speak of radiation *at* the site - presumably this is outside the plant? Any source confirming this? Ketil (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out the TEPCO data sheets; the normal backround radiation in the region would appear to be around 0.04 microSv/h, which would make the reported reading of 400 mSv/h 10 million times above normal. Obviously it will reduce as it spreads out, but remember that there are also people working at the site. I was simply clarifying the units, not trying to predict the health effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.204 (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to teach me about radiation or what is this about? Abstract comparisons which don't tell anything about the health effect don't clarify a thing. Yes, the radiation is higher than "normal", but unless you know what that means, it's an abstract and thus irrelevant comparison. Anyway, it seems to have been a very localized hotspot around #4, related to the fire which has been put out. The radiation went down quite a bit later. --91.32.99.67 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Many readers are more familiar with Rems and Rads. Does "11,900 microsieverts" imply only an 8.4 hour exposure to cause radiation sickness, and death from acute radiation sickness after 42 hours exposure? Is it that much radiation per hour? Edison (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See [10]. The fuel rods in the reactors are perhaps the least of our worries. How much spent fuel is in the storage pools at each of the exploded reactor buildings, and how sure are we that their storage pools are adequately filled and cooled, if the power is off and workers are trying to avoid further blasts and radiation leaks? The article says the cooling of the spent fuel is out of service, and that in a week it could boil off enough water that the spent fuel would burn and release a huge radiation cloud, depending on the age of the spent fuel. Edison (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that I'm trying to teach you about anything; I apologise if you got that impression. I just think that many ordinary readers of the article will not instinctively appreciate that 400mSv/h is in fact an extraordinarily high radiation reading. The problem with a "milli"-anything is that it *sounds* small. The fact of the matter is that this particular measurement really was 10 million times higher than a normal background reading. I don't think it is meaningless to explain the figure in these terms, any more than it was meaningless for Kyodo news and the BBC to describe it as having been 400 times the annual legal exposure limit (for members of the public). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.159 (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"evels of up to 0.33 millisieverts per hour 20 kilometers northwest of the power plant. Exposure to this for 3 hours would result in absorption of the maximum doses considered safe for 1 year for members of the public." Further down, 2-3mSv/year is cited as normal background radiation. So is background radiation then three times the safe levels? Ketil (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

1mSv/year is the dose limit for members of the public. This is a legal limit that companies etc must ensure that they do not expose the public to doses in excess of. The are separate limits of 20 and 50 mSv/year for employees. Obviously this doesn't take into account background radiation, and so I removed the comparison statement as potential confusing. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

US Response

"Asahi newspaper reports that according to TEPCO, the operator of the troubled nuclear power plants in Japan, US military personnel were involved in fighting the fire in Reactor Number 4 of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant."

"The United States nuclear regulatory commission has sent eight additional experts and managers to Japan to help respond to its damaged nuclear power plants."

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/japan-quake-live-report-20110315-1bvqc.html

oh yeah, US response. why dont they respond and check out the reported failing diesel generators in their own country, huh? 78.55.28.171 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

French Response

"French experts will be reaching the Japanese sites shortly to measure radioactivity levels"

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110314-711220.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.191.165 (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The international reaction is strange anyway. Obama's comments don't seem to be releated to the nuclear accidents (difficult to be certain without a cite) nor does the US Navy stuff Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I am not sure what more they can really do to help out any more than these experts. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 07:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Er what does that have to do with anything? Nil Einne (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You called the reaction strange so I assumed you meant the experts mainly, not just Obama's comments. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 07:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As the proposer of the section: my intent was more to do with experts, money, and materials. The Obama comments / Navy info currently in the article were not added by me. However, the amount of content currently being added is part of the reason I think separating the sections is valuable.

As to what it has to do with the accident -- it is typically part of the reporting of an international incident to document international response. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#International_response and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Queensland_floods#Response as examples that this information is normally reported on Wikipedia. Also note, that in the Queensland flood article, remarks by US President Obama, Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key, and the Mayor of Auckland Len Brown are included. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're completely missing the point. Obama's reactions appear to be related to the general disaster (earthquake followed by tsunami). They are not specifically related to the nuclear accident which is a subset of the problems the disaster. This is a specific article on the nuclear accidents, as such reactions that relate to the general disaster do not belong. None of the articles you refer to are equivalent since they are articles on the general disasters not specific subsets. Now if Obama had made specific comments relating to the nuclear accident then perhaps these would belong but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Nil Einne (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No I specifically said the section is strange because it included (at the time [11]) reactions from Obama and from the the US Marines (misidentified as US Navy at the time, sorry wrong branch but that doesn't seem to have been the cause of confusion) which don't seem at all related to the nuclear accidents. In fact there was nothing in the section about experts at all at the time so I don't really understand your point at all Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I could have sworn there were several items in that section at the time talking about various nations sending experts. O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No if you look at the time stamp of when I posted [12] and [13] the section there was nothing. I presume thats why the OP proposed adding something asking for us to add the decisions to send experts. Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading injury figures

after looking through sources 2 and 3, there is no indication that anyone has any symptoms of radiation sickness. The source quotes 3 people as having between 18000-40000 cpm readings after being evacuated. A cpm is a very poorly defined unit for one thing and there is no guarentee there will be any lasting damage from a short time at around 40000 cpm, recommend the radiation sickness injuries be removed until further information is available - very misleading to general public who wont differentiate exposure from sickness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this, I removed it temporarily - let's get some up-to-date sources for the total number and nature of injuries.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand removing the radiation sickness figures, but why were the injuries removed?Teafico (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html has a list of all current injuries from the reactor-housing explosions, personal contaminations, and possible poisonings if you want to use it. I won't add it in myself since you removed it previously for a reason. Teafico (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Assurance standards for this article

SOURCE: [[14]]

This is a quick checklist of things to look for when systematically assessing articles, especially those for disaster events. If you find deficiencies you don't have time to fix yourself, create a todo list at the top of the article's talk page by adding {{todo}} there. Then you can edit the todo list and add items to it.

• Assign quality and importance according to the definitions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. See the top of the talk page of the article of interest to see if this has already been done.
• Is the article in the correct categories?
• Does the title comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (most common English name) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)?
• Does the first paragraph give a concise explanation of the subject, including alternate names in bold, location, major causes, and major outcomes?
• Does the article use the correct infobox? Is everything in the infobox filled in?
• Is there a concise assessment of the loss to human life?
• Is there a concise assessment of the financial losses? Are figures clearly labeled as to whether they are in (for instance) 1900 dollars or 2007 dollars? Is a modern inflation-adjusted estimate available?
• Does the article cite its sources using footnotes, especially for statistics?
• Does the article have a map showing the area affected?
• Does the article have a photograph illustrating the event?
• Is the article in need of wikification, copy-editing, or other cleanup?
• Major articles should be linked from lists such as List of wars and disasters by death toll, and the statistics presented in lists need to be consistent with those found in articles (which hopefully have references).

Geofferybard (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Working on breaking news? Please follow these suggestions:

Develop an accurate picture of what's going on, and do not be swayed by conflicting advice and rumors from "experts" with their own agendas.

Don't become a conduit for every rumor and accusation.

And once you have an accurate picture, share it with the public so they can make a decision on what to do. http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/134573800/nuclear-information-gap-spreads-doubt-fear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofferybard (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in with a comment below which raises an important point: Please avoid exaggeration and scare-mongering! The media is full of frightening and unsubstantiated rumors, and most people seem to think that plutonium is all over the place, and even that the reactors will blow up in a nuclear explosion. Let's keep it sane and in perspective - so far 1 to 3 people have suffered from radiation sickness, compared to 13000 killed by the quake and flood, and the huge numbers who have lost everything but their life. WP is where a lot of people (including me) go to get accurate and substantiated information. Ketil (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan govt downgraded the level of severity permanently and this article bases on that and moreover, the problem is not over and there's still not enough information from foreign scientists, please keep the article updated as much as possible. thanks. 190.139.223.59 (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that NRC upgraded severity. Note also WP:REFACTOR which is long overdue on this page.Geofferybard (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Error in dose rate in section on Fukushima I no. 2

This is the first time I've contributed and don't really know how to go about it. The following part of the article contains a factual error: "At 21.37 measured radiation levels at the gate to the plant had reached the maximum thus far, 3.13 mSv per hour, which was enough to reach the annual limit for an individual in twenty minutes,[70]" The actual number is 3.13 microsieverts/hour (not millisieverts) as correctly reported by [70] and other sources. However, 3.13 microsieverts/hour reaches the regulatory limit of 1 mSv in 320 hours, not 20 minutes. (If it were 3.13 mSv it would reach the regulatory limit in 20 minutes.) Ref. [70] is correctly quoted; the error is in the source. How is this handled? One easy fix would be to just delete the phrase "which was enough.... in twenty minutes." 151.60.142.38 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says 3.13 millisieverts, are you saying they are wrong, do you have a further source?--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about this source and this quote, right?

Prior to the second full exposure of the rods around 11 p.m. Monday, radiation was detected at 9:37 p.m. at a level twice the maximum seen so far -- 3,130 micro sievert per hour -- near the main gate of the No. 1 plant, according to TEPCO. The radiation amount is equivalent to reach by 20 minutes the permissible level for a person in one year.

--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. See how it says microsieverts/hour (μSv/h)? The original article says mSv, which is millisieverts. There is an obvious error in the source, since 3.13 microsieverts/hour takes 320 hours to get to 1 mSv. The 3.13 μSv/h number was picked up in other sources, like the current NYT frontpage article, which correctly states that this is six times natural background (natural background is 2.4 mSv/year, or 0.3 μSv/h). (This is approximately correct because the natural background level can vary significantly from place to place.) I am looking for a better source, but in the meantime the incorrect comparison could be removed without harm, in my opinion. 151.60.142.38 (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It says "3,130 micro sievert per hour" which is 3.13mSv/hour. I think this is correct. NYT agrees and states "...readings around the plant reached 3,130 micro Sievert, the highest yet detected at the Daiichi facility since the quake and six times the legal limit." --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think you're right. That number is so high that I think I subconciously converted the comma to a decimal point. (I work in Europe, so this is a common source of confusion.) Everything coheres. Sorry to waste your time. 151.60.142.38 (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's good to check these things out.--Pontificalibus (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

According to german newspaper "Der Spiegel" radiation exceeds 8mSv/h by now. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,750817,00.html For comparison: My "Gammascout"-geigercounter shows 0,04 μSv/h right now (Hamburg/Germany, device was calibrated to +/-5% in Mannheim University in 06/2010). So that´s 200.000 times normal radiation level.--89.204.153.232 (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the radiogem I use at work, we have a dose of 2 mSv/h on our primary coolant heat exchangers at the OPAL research reactor. Why I'm not worried? As this is NORMAL values. Stating a radiation value is useless without also stating what the normal values are. Also, I've noticed that the article refers to both contamination and radiation as "radiation". It would be better to have the article specify what the dose is refering to (contamination verse radiation), as contamination is treated by having a shower, whereas sheilding/distance is the only way to protect from radiation.MWadwell (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

2 MILLIsievert? Why don´t i believe you... --89.204.137.241 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you don't work in a Nuclear reactor? <VBG> Seriously though, there are hotter places than that in the building - places that staff are not allowed to enter... MWadwell (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking ´bout ambient radiation, dude... --89.204.153.230 (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As was I... 2 mSv/h is ambient dose from a PCS HX. But that's my point - stating what the radiation is at a particular point in time isn't relevant unless you can state what the normal ambient radiation is... See my point? MWadwell (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I can clearly see your agenda. 2mSv/h is by no way "normal". It´s 50.000times more than ambient (0,04μSv/h), and it would cumulate in a 17,52 SIEVERT per year (17.520.000 μSv/a!)!. Not even a selfproclaimed superhero like you would survive this.--89.204.137.240 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if it's a good idea to intrude on this argument, but we do know that the measured radiation levels at the plant monitoring positions before the accident were around the 0.04 microSv/h mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.200 (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The plant monitoring points are along the fenceline - not amongst the reactors (which is where the highest reported dose rates were recorded). To put these high dose rates into perspective, we need to know what the dose rates were before the accident to understand whether the reported high dose rates are of concern or not. MWadwell (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan, Sendai

There seems to be a problem with the city 'Sendai'. I see it happening on more websites (other than wikipedia too). Sendai is up north, near Fukushima, and where the earthquake+tsunami hit hardest.

However, on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents there is a map with a nuclear plants in Japan and Sendai is on the bottom (as south as you can get). There is a Sendai-river there but not Sendai (or maybe a small other village with the same name?) near 'Isa', and that's it. Please check where Sendai is? Bit stupid otherwise in light of developments.... Frans 94.212.148.55 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I see now: someone is confused with the 'old' Sendai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satsumasendai,_Kagoshima Still, it looks silly, especially because another map on a related page shows Sendai on the right spot. Kick or edit the faulty map?

PS I see that wikipedia can/could use a lot of fulltime editors; too bad I can't live of it (otherwise I would apply), so I want to express high respects for all the (non-paid) editors for wikipedia's content. 94.212.148.55 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the pay's not very good. I got so far as to find an atlas. Does anyone know if the map has other mistakes? Sandpiper (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that the sendai reactor is located at satsumasendai in kagoshima prefecture, which is where it is marked on the map.[15] The map shows power stations, not cities. Sandpiper (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

When I google 'sendai reactor', I indeed get an article about a reactor down south named 'Sendai', however this cannot be near the city Sendai, which is up north.

So, if help is flown in, do they get dropped of at the planned site for the Sendai-reactor down south OR do they go to Sendai up north, for the Fukushima Plant(-s).

Who named all this stuff? Every other map shows Sendai up north. Well, if all Fukushima-I reactors blow and take Sendai with them, then there is only 1 Sendai left... Let's ALL hope this does not happen; expensive way to fix a map... 94.212.148.55 (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's no different than how there's a Springfield in just about every US state. To make sure you're talking about the right one, with Japan, you have to use both the city name and the prefecture name, just like with most US cities. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)