Talk:Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States

The table entitled "Nuclear power accidents in the U.S." includes several accidents that are in no way "nuclear" other than to have happened at a nuclear power plant. While, the accidental electrocution of a worker is a tragedy for his family, it is not a "nuclear accident".

The statement that "71 percent of all nuclear accidents (45 out of 63) occurred in the United States" is based on fraudulent data. The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) created the accepted INES standard that defines a nuclear accident.

"The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale - is a tool for promptly communicating to the public in consistent terms the safety significance of reported nuclear and radiological incidents and accidents, excluding naturally occurring phenomena such as Radon." - http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.htm

INES User’s Manual* defines seven levels of severity for nuclear events. The top four are considered "accidents". The lower three are considered "incidents". The electrocution of a worker is a zero -- off the bottom of the scale -- not even an incident much less an accident.

This page does not conform the the accepted international standard for a discussion of nuclear accidents. It is fiction.

• INES, The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User’s Manual, 2008 Edition. co-sponsored by: The International Atomic Energy Agency and OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2009.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.194.11 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 July 2010‎

This article is not fiction because it is based on hard data. I've added an extra column in the Table for INES ratings, if you wish to include them. And have tightened the focus of the article to "nuclear power plant accidents", rather than simply "nuclear accidents". As the article says, these accidents are defined as "incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define major energy accidents that must be reported". Johnfos (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So the use of the word accident in the context of nuclear power is not fraudulent because you have simply redefined it within the scope of this article? That's like saying a passenger onboard a commercial aircraft dying of a heart attack while still on the tarmac should be characterized as an aviation accident. Not only do you provide no reference for the reporting limit to the USG for property damage at power generating stations, but you also provide no basis for ignoring the use of the international standard INES scale for characterizing nuclear accident severity.216.96.229.48 (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

See my reasoning below for why this definition of an accident is valid, especially when one looks across different energy systems. But more to the point: what's wrong, inherently, with this definition? If an energy system breaks down and either kills someone, or causes $50,000 in damages, or more - that's more damage than almost any automobile accident, and about half the price of most people's homes, and most nuclear accidents/incidents cause many magnitudes of this low range - why should it not count as an accident? What logic do you have arguing the opposite?Bksovacool (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no point arguing with you. Your agenda is quite clear Mr. Sovacool. If you feel the need to characterize a worker falling down a manhole as a nuclear accident, then your reasoning only serves to damage your cause.216.96.229.107 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Still not understanding why things which are not reactor accidents are in the reactor accidents page. Tritium spills are bad, but they are not reactor accidents. A turbine trip causing a reactor trip is not a reactor accident. Loss of normal feedwater is not a reactor accident, it is an anticipated transient which the plant is designed for. Accidents are things which result in material damage to the reactor, it's components, the nuclear fuel, or results in a radiation release due to the accident. They are things which result in a valid entry to the emergency plan due to accident conditions. Many of the things on this list don't meet that criteria. Many are not reactor based events, or do not have any core related damage. We also see things like Davis Besse's reactor head degradation on here. While this was a very bad situation that left the reactor with low safety margin to the potential for a loss of coolant accident, nothing actually occurred. Why is this listed as a reactor accident? If we can't be consistent with the definition of a nuclear reactor accident or at least true to it, then this page becomes subjective and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.209.135 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Three Mile Island was NOT the worst accident on American soil

The Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experiment meltdown, according to scientists who have studied it released 459 times more radiation than 3 Mile Island, and unlike 3 Mile Island has not been cleaned up. https://psmag.com/environment/50-years-after-nuclear-meltdown-3510 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:9AC0:570A:FD39:8ACF:E97:BBE6 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent markings in "List of accidents and incidents"

The Cost column uses "unknown", "Undetermined", "?", and "??" seemingly arbitrarily. These should all be changed to "Undetermined." Peter J. Yost (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)