Jump to content

Talk:Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Definitions and objectivity

The definitions and objectivity of this article are questionable. References are lacking for bold claims. Various definitions are missing, for example the words "safe" and "safely" are used often but are not defined. Living in Tokyo is not safe because of traffic and air pollution deaths. Yet no one is evacuating Tokyo's 13 million inhabitants. How do we define safe? This is just one example of the lack of verfiability and objectivity of this article. Another example is the quoting of a study by Mark Jacobson, a well known anti nuclear campaigner with no credentials on health physics or nuclear anything, yet whose hatchet jobs on nuclear energy are well rebutted in peer review, but keeps being quoted in the grey literature, including this time on Wikipedia. Speculating on the number of deaths without knowing the dose to each individual is pure speculation and fails Wikipedia's verifiability and correctness requirements (among others). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siphon06 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A number of statements have been revised -- subjective words like "unacceptable levels" have been changed to "above the government limit" or "detectable levels of radiation" depending on the severity. Context has been added to blunt misleading alarmist statements. Sources still need to be scrutinized, questioned, and replaced with more accurate sources. Ottawakismet (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts but I had to undo your edits. We don't improve the article by employing euphemism; what we need are better sources and better writing. Your unsourced revisions weren't an improvement, sorry. --John (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You just mass removed every edit, without looking at any revision with looking to find if it was true or not. You removed citation needed tags where they were appropriate and didnt fact check a single edit. I'm restoring the edits, adding sources for these edits. Defining radiation as "unacceptably" large is a subjective definition, and reflects bias. If radiation falls well below a valid threshhold for affecting human health, it could be termed detectable, but not cannot be termed dangerous. I'm including sources that elucidate the meaning behind many radiation levels that have been cited without context. Furthermore, you did remove edits that included sources, so please refine your editing to what is untrue, or unbalanced. The article is definitely unbalanced and gives a misleading impression and unscientific perception of the situation at Fukushima. Please read each edit in its entirety before removing a mass group of edits. Ottawakismet (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC) You also edited elements out that are quoted within otherparts of the article (And sourced by previous contributors) please read edits you are trying to change, without assuming its vandalism or incorrect Ottawakismet (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Edits that were done to improve grammar, add commas, or correctly cite the referencing articles were removed in the mass deletion of edits. For example, the reference for bodies being unacceptably contaminated is incorrect; when reading the article, the article cites that radiation made them inaccessible (obviously only for a time, since the bodies have not been left to rot for 2 years) Equally, changing the edit to cite that the US Navy only suspended transfers temporarily is valid -- the US Navy has not ended their presence in Japan, and they have not stopped sending people to Japan 2 years on -- Therefore it was a temporary not permanent suspension of personnel transfer. The 7th fleet has returned to a typical pattern of deployment. Saying that radioactive elements with a short half-life emit particles more quickly then a product with a long half-life represents a rule in physics. (and does not require a citation.) Reporting radiation levels with citations is legitimate as is reporting if they are below the level that can affect human health. I understand some people who have a fear of radiation unjustifiably believe that any amount of radiation is dangerous, but this is unscientific nonsense and falls outside of a NPOV. None of the edits were done maliciously or to vandalize the article, but to improve it, and offer context and balance. Also, I'm removing the section about the criticism of Japans radiation levels being insufficiently strict, as the following paragraph details how Japan changed their levels, making the original Belarus criticism obsolete. The article is still already too long, unwieldy and in needs of streamlined organisation to make it readable Ottawakismet (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Content relevance

Is anyone else of the view that most of the content of this article is not relevant to the effects of radiation? According to the title, this article is specifically about "RADIATION EFFECTS" - yet almost the entire article does not discuss effects (either observed or projected). For example, even in the opening paragraph, only the very first sentence is actually relevant to the direct effects or radiation. The second, third and fifth paragraphs make no mention of effects at all. I'm considering starting a major overhaul of this article, but doing it bit by bit so that people can comment etc. A lot of this might simply involve deleting irrelevant sections and information. Suggestions? Objections?Ecoltom (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has become unnecessarily lengthy, and there is considerable irrelevant content. It should be re-organized and edited down. Paragraphs should be concise and to the point. Even material that is sourced isnt necssarily crucial to the article, there needs to be focus. Ottawakismet (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved the "Summarised daily events" section to the bottom of the article. Frankly, it does not discuss *effects*, and there is already a whole Wikipedia article for the Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. I'll leave it at the bottom for now and if no one object for a while will delete it.Ecoltom (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This article does concern the effects that radiation has on the surroundings of the plant, the living environment of the people there, and the pollution, that has been created there.... Why is that not a "radiation effect" ?.
1947enkidu (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, details on the source term and releases should only be supportive to evidence of the effects of radioactive releases.

I take issue with the use of Becquerels and TeraBecquerels as in the phrase "An estimated 538,100 terabecquerels (TBq) of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 was released." This sounds like a great deal, but in fact it does not even measure the quantities of the offending isotopes. One becquerel, Bq, is one radioactive emission per second. Since 134 grams of Cs-134 include about 6 times 10 to the power 23 atoms, the verb "was released" is erroneous, and if such a rate were measured, it is equivalent to 5.4 times ten to the power 17 events per second, less than 134 millionths of a gram. But that's nonsense too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.52.130 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Business Insider and SF water

I've removed the passage alleging that water in SF was found to be "181 times the federal limit." This was cited to "Business Insider," which from what I can tell is a website that anyone can post to and includes all sorts of bizarre stories. I would hardly consider it a reliable source. If water in San Fran was in fact 181 times the federal limit, this would be rather noteworthy and certainly other news outlets would have picked up on the story. But I did a search and couldn't find any reliable source to corroborate this report. -Helvetica (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Radioactive Seawater Impact Map

This image from March 2012 best shows the effect of the disaster. -Mardus (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That looks like it'd be good to add, but only if it comes with some clear labels describing exactly what it means. Does the yellow area mean 1 GBq, 1 kBq, or just 1 Bq? If you have a reliable source that precisely describes what the map is showing, you should add it. Otherwise, it's just a scary-looking diagram that doesn't provide any information. Great Skies Above! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Health effects

"An increase in infertility has also been reported." In the quoted article there's actually no reference to a detected increase in infertility in the area. There are, instead, concerns about a possible increase in infertility in the years to come.

And this sentence "As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture alone and nuclear experts warn that this pattern may also occur in other areas of Japan." leads to believe that these cancers are due to radiaton exposure, while Japanese doctors (as it is stated in the article itself) believe that the children had likely developed cancer prior to the incident.

This section has already been revised on the main article about the nuclear disaster. I suggest to revise the section in this article too.

I have aligned the section with the main article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The section:

"the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated."

is rather misleading since it seems to suggest that there will be no effects on the cancer rate within the Japanese population. However similar reports exist for the Chernobyl disaster, hence why I added that there were no statistically detectable increases in the cancer rates in Chernobyl to give readers an idea on the context.

Furthermore Cardis et al. discusses that only 0.1% of the 110,000 cleanup workers surveyed have so far developed leukemia, although not all cases resulted from the accident.

AritaMoonlight81 (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

What you are doing appears to me to be WP:OR and WP:SYN, that is, replacing what the source says with your own interpretation of what makes sense. Neither are allowed in Wikipedia. I have reverted your changes and once again request that you do not change the article again until we have reached agreement on this take page.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence of section 4.8.16 'Building Materials' states that "None of these represents a potential danger to human health." in reference to radiation levels of 0.8mSv/hour cited in the same paragraph. That statement is uncited. A figure I found for maximum acceptable levels of occupational radiation exposure (in the U.S.) was 5000 millirems/year. [1] That is in addition to a background radiation level of 300 millirems/year. That takes the max to 5300 millirems/year, or 53 mSv/year. [2] Based upon the reported measured levels of radiation: (0.8 mSv/hour) * (8760 hours/year) = 7008 mSv/year, which is much greater than the ~53 mSv/year regulatory maximum. This seems like it would refudiate that statement that there is no "potential danger to human health". I didn't want to make the change in case I made a faulty assumption in my analysis, but would like it if someone else were to look at this, and act accordingly.

Neutrality

This article seems to have been hijacked by a coterie of editors who are on an anti-nuclear campaign. The entire thing is stuffed with random things to try and frighten people, to the point where it has lost all pretense of a NPOV. This article does not seek to inform, the objective is to frighten readers Ottawakismet (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what parts or what edits are not neutral? For example, can you point to an edit which changed the neutrality? JoshuSasori (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It might look frightening, in fact it is,
whenever someone can find something positive in this disaster, he can add it, for sure.
Here is something that has a huge impact on all manhood. And this nuclear disaster has not stopped yet, see: TEPCO considers dumping water from Fukushima nuclear plant into ocean Dumping all that tritium ? Diluting all that water ? That does not change the amount of radioactivity, TEPCO wants too get rid off
Greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You are making unsubstantiated claims about the situation and are appealing to fear. The article you've linked is not relevant to the disputed contents, and moreover, you don't seem to have an adequate understanding of the material present in the article, whether it be tritium, chemical dilution or radioactivity. You are simply attempting to push an agenda, and are likely contributing to the non-neutral edits in question. 50.72.111.166 (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that User Ottawakismet has a clear bias. If you go to the casualties and health effects portion, it regularly downplays the risk of cancer and uses counter factual or non scientific reasoning. For example:

"According to the Japanese Government, 180,592 people in the general population were screened in March 2011 for radiation exposure and no case was found which affects health."

Which 180k people? Why were they tested? How is it possible that they were not exposed to radiation at all? Is there no background radiation where they live?

"Even in the most severely affected areas, radiation doses never reached more then a quarter of the radiation dose linked to an increase in cancer risk."

1 Sievert is broadly accepted to linearly represent a 6% increase in lifetime risk of cancer. The above statement seems to agree that people received 250mSievert's of radiation, which means they will face a 1.5% increase in lifetime risk. However the statement is worded to give the impression that you cannot get cancer until you reach the measuring criteria. That is unfactual.

"evacuation procedures after the accident may have potentially reduced deaths from radiation by 3 to 245 cases"

This estimate seems counter intuitive. If people were exposed to high levels (up to 100msv an hour) of radiation for between 1 and 3 days before evacuation, and ~1,000 of them will die, doesn't it seem quite clear that many more would have died if they'd remained there for years?

"However, that estimate has been challenged, with some scientists arguing that accidents and pollution from coal or gas plants would have caused more lost years of life."

More people will also die from car accidents. Relevance? Is this just there to give people context or is it an entirely unWiki paragraph?

"However, there is a larger issue. The radiation emitted in Fukushima instigated evacuations of "16,000 people","

Downplaying the numbers? Why? Over 400,000 people were evacuated. Why on earth would the article state something completely counter-factual?Senor Freebie (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


"Which 180k people? Why were they tested? How is it possible that they were not exposed to radiation at all? Is there no background radiation where they live?"
You have not read the article.
Fukushima Prefecture has started the screening from March 13. It is carried out at the evacuation sites and the 10 places (set up permanently) such as health offices. Up until May 3, the screening was done to 180,592 people. Among them, 102 people were above the 100,000cpm, but when measured these people again without clothes, etc., the counts decreased to 100,000cpm and below, and there was no case which affects health.
"Not exposed to radiation at all" is not an accurate statement. Radiation exposure alone does not imply adverse health effects, hence the need for screening to begin with.
"The above statement seems to agree that people received 250mSievert's of radiation, which means they will face a 1.5% increase in lifetime risk"
25 mSv, not 250. Given your own shoddy linear calculation, they might face a 0.15% increase over a lifetime. The radiation doses referred to never reached more than a quarter of the radiation dose linked to an increase in cancer risk i.e. 100 mSv. That number doesn't even suggest a causal link or the significance of the increase, so of course it wouldn't be proper to suggest anything that much lower would.
"This estimate seems counter intuitive."
Counter-intuitive doesn't mean incorrect. The estimate was a 22% reduction, which translates into the 3-245 estimate. Your hypothetical doesn't stand in the face of the calculations already done. You are not reading the articles sourced and are jumping around wildly in speculation in order to just suppose your arguments and leave them uncontested.
"Downplaying the numbers?"
Actually, if you'd read the article referenced, it was a mistake; the article states 160,000 were forced to evacuate. It also does not imply these were the only people who were evacuated.
Furthermore, the article referenced does not cite the study where it says so. There's a reason there's an unreliable source tag.
Ottawakismet doesn't have a bias; there is in fact non-neutral wording going on in the article. Rather, I ask why you did not talk about any of the phrases that are actually questionable in the article, such as the gross final paragraph in the article's intro section. 50.72.111.166 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
THIS user 50.72.111.166 I rather guess he is part of the pro-nuclear priesthood. The believe in the benefits of nuclear power is a true faith in itself. Rather POV here.....
You can put all of your bible here... why are you anonymous ?
I do not belief you at all.
greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh come on. Really, can't you do any better than some childish, baseless ad hominem? Likening pro-nuke stances to a religion is pretty laughable in itself. You're clearly paranoid and delusional in your stance and won't budge from evidence and argument, but the point here isn't to convince you, now, is it? It's to address the current state of the article and the things that do not belong in it. Nobody actually educated on the subject is going to agree with your babblings, so there's nothing for me to argue. We just need to get rid of the non-neutral and biased wording in the article.
That being said, I don't actively promote nuclear energy, I just try to make sure quacks like you don't become influential and are brought down a peg when possible. The Tohoku earthquake was an event very close to me, and when the internet exploded in anti-nuclear stances that were completely without rational basis, I took it to correct and educate people on the issue. I only came here because I was browsing and saw the wall of [citation needed] following dubious information. 50.72.111.166 (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


At the moment TEPCO considers to dump radioactive water, they might be able to take away 62 of the 63 found radioactive substances with a new filtersystem, but not the around 2000 becquerel per mililiter, this they want to dilute first, and after that the whole lot TEPCO hopes to dump. Cheap ! see: The Mainichi Shimbun (6 March 2013)TEPCO considers dumping water from Fukushima nuclear plant into ocean
Diluting does not take anything away, the whole lot would dumped.
This newspaper brings all kind of news about the handling of radiation and more.
best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The newspaper article contains two different things which need to be separated, yes TEPCO did discharge contaminated water in the early stages of the accident into the sea. My understanding of this was that a controlled release of water with low levels of contamination was made to make space to allow strongly contaminated water to be kept on site. This action can be viewed as part of an accident mitgation plan. But the planned release of tritium contaminated water long after the start of the accident is a different matter, the nuclear accident is now under better management so it is no longer reasonable to make as strong a moral argument for the release of the water which goes over the limit for tritium. On the other hand tritium is one of the least toxic radioisotopes, it is important to understand that in terms of how toxic they are not all radioisotopes are equal.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

talk appears to be a victim of the disaster themselves - they appear to have a clear case of radiophobia and are rabid anti-environmentalists. Coal power is invisibly killing 10s of thousands of people in America alone each year and contributes more radiation to the air than all the reactors in the world combined ever have. Fukushima induced hysteria has increased coal usage and paradoxically therefore increased rather than decreased radiation in the air - this is an effect worth mentioning in the article i believe. Fear of radiation is also driving climate change at a time when new reactor designs would make us able to dispose of what is currently dangerous waste safely, using it to give us 500 years of power. These new designs are also idiot proof unlike older designs like BWR2. Nobody with access to the facts and their facilities could be anti-nuclear, certainly not if they have any concern for our future.Mycosys (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting edits - help needed

Editor ArialMoonlinght has made a series of changes that, according to me, were not consistent with the sources. I made changes to align the text with the sources and ArialMoolight reverted them. Since I don't want to engage in an editing war, I would like other editors to step in, take a look, and edit the text appropriately.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The latest edit by AritaMoonlight is at [1]. This edit states "the source linked did not support the information provided". But the information in question, that Arita removed, was a literal quote from p. 8 of the WHO report, see [2]. And that was the cited source. So I would appreciate it if a third party looked into this and lets us know what they think.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I requested a Wikipedia:3O but was informed (see User_talk:Gautier_lebon#Third_Opinion_requests) that it was premature because there hadn't yet been a direct discussion between me and Arita. So I've now asked Arita to post comments on this talk page, see User_talk:AritaMoonlight81#Fukushima_edits.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

AritaMoonlight has again made an edit, see [3], removing material on the grounds that the source [Cardis et. al.] did not support it. But the source of the removed material was not Cardis, it was the WHO report, and it was correctly cited as far as I can tell. So I have realigned the text with the sources and invited Arita to discuss on this talk page before changing it again.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have again reverted Arita's changes, which were made without discussion on this talk page. Please do not change again prior to agreeing on this talk page, and please see the related discussion at Talk:Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Help:_I_cannot_do_this_alone. See also the comments in the section above.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WP can be great for history, cooking, cars and the like, but when something is important like Fukushima WP is not very good. Why? Editors with motive. This disaster is huge and worsening, theres a lot at stake. It will take years for WP on this topic to be neutral and up to speed. SaintAviator (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

At this edit [4] AritaMoonlight claims to have removed material that was not supported by the source. But in fact the material was an exact citation from the source. The material added by AritaMoonlight does correspond to a source, but it is taken out of context, because the main conclusion given by the source is "People in the area worst affected by Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident two years ago have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers, the World Health Organization said on Thursday", see [5]. I will revert the misleading changes. But can somebody else please step in? And is it time to ask for an administrator to review the situation?--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I hate this sort of thing "As part of the ongoing precautionary ultrasound screening program in and around Fukushima, (36%) of children in Fukushima Prefecture in 2012 were found to have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, but these are not attributed to the effects of radiation.[45". Why reference to a newspaper? Why not find the journal articles. It wasn't abnormal, it was cysts/nodules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC) I found the table A subtotal Within normal range 132,354 99.5% A (A1) No specific finding 77,497 58.3% (A2) Nodule with e5.0 mm or/and Cyst with e20.1 mm 54,857 41.2% B Nodule with Q5 mm or/and Cyst with Q20.1 mm Recommended further examination 734 0.5% C Needed further examination 1 0.001% Total 133,089 100% [3]

"Plutonium-239 is particularly long-lived and toxic with a half-life of 24,000 years and remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years.[370] Radioactive products with a long half-life are less radioactive than products with a short half life, as isotopes with a long half life emit particles extremely rarely. Experts commented that the long-term risk associated with plutonium toxicity is "highly dependent on the geochemistry of the particular site."[371]" - I've taken out the "particularly" because it isn't correct, although the author had taken the world directly from the source, there are several other isotopes in nuclear waste with longer half-lives. 238U 235U 234U 230Th 79Se 95Ze 99Tc 107 126Sn 135Cs is an incomplete list. The toxicity of Pu is controversial. The "Radioactive products" sentence is poorly worded, begins with the plural, changes to the singular. Unfortunately the source for the "highly dependent on the geochemistry of the particular site." quote has disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I added the sentence "For example, one mole (131 grams) of 131I releases 6x1023 decays 99.9% of them within three months, whilst one mole (238 grams) of 238U releases 6x1023 decays 99.9% of them within 45 billion years, but only about 40 parts per trillion in the first three months." but I'm not sure about it. What do others think? Does it clarify or confuse?Graemem56 (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting information

This source http://www.podniesinski.pl/portal/fukushima/ claims many districts experienced over 50mSv/year while the wiki article says 25mSv/y was the max. I'd be interested to know what the primary source of the former is and whether the figures can be reconciled? 131.251.254.160 (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A question of balance

It seems that Chernobyl is mentioned 36 times in this article, which is surprising given that we already have the Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents. I notice that radiation experts Tilman Ruff and Ian Fairlie, who have written much on Fukushima are not mentioned at all. This leaves the article rather skewed and unbalanced. Johnfos (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Date Consistency

While reading this article, I became confused on dating. There are a number of passages where a month by month progression is entered, and the entry is a day/month progression, but no year. The sections often have multiple sequences like this and they do not reference the year. There are more than a few locations where the timeline jumps from 2011 to 2012, then back to 2011 without providing any sense of timeline that is accurate. I know it would be best to provide specific examples, at this time I cannot, but I will attempt to update the sections that need revision soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1600:823F:E532:8F2A:D0A9:BF2F (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there really is no reason not to include the year in every date reference, which is also encouraged by the manual of style at WP:YEAR. Just be sure to add the correct year; you recently changed a 2011 to 2012 inaccurately. VQuakr (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Extraneous "citation needed" tag

@Senor Freebie: re this, a citation has been provided, [6]. Putting the same ref at the end of both sentences is not editorially favorable. Your edit summary appears to express your personal opinion and analysis, which of course is wholly irrelevant. Can you better articulate a policy-based reason for the tag? VQuakr (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, we can probably handle a duplicate callout. I added a second source, [7], as well. VQuakr (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The source that you added contradicted the un-scientific, un-encyclopedic information you appear to be intent on including in this article. Please discuss this in good faith, and in detail, before proceeding unilaterally. I have trimmed a large amount of baseless and unsourced information, and it's clear that there has been an attempt at providing misinformation here. It's concerning that instead of doing the same, and attempting to improve the accuracy of the article, you have instead insisted that this material is supported.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
From 2nd the source provided: "Although radiation may cause cancer at high doses and high dose rates, public health data do not absolutely establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates — below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv)." You need to get consensus for these removals prior to blanking; your proposed removal has been contested. VQuakr (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WTF

¿Qué coño significa esto? 600 suviets every hour? They cannot even send the robots to take pictures? Even Flexpart stopped to show out data? Please, wise wikieditors of this article, check out this and go deeper than I am able to: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushima-daiichi-radiation-levels-highest-since-2011-meltdown Gracias and best regards. 45.254.247.178 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ~600 Sv/hr has been estimated. That is inside the containment vessel, underneath the pressure vessel near where the fuel melted through. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Actual readings are only ~210 Sv/hr inside Unit 2's containment vessel.[4] The initial ~600 Sv/hr readings were calculated very roughly based on corruption from radiation in photographs, the later reading is from an actual proper detection instrument sent into the same area. Garzfoth (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Radiation, how much is considered safe for humans?". MIT News. Retrieved 14 February 2016.
  2. ^ http://news.mit.edu/2011/explained-radioactivity-0328
  3. ^ https://www.fmu.ac.jp/radiationhealth/conference/presentation/day1/1109.pdf
  4. ^ Beser, Ari (22 February 2017). "After Alarmingly High Radiation Levels Detected, What Are the Facts in Fukushima?". National Geographic Society (blogs). National Geographic Society. Retrieved 9 April 2017.

Jacobson

@Senor Freebie: what was the reason for this reversion? VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I was unable to undo your other, unconstructive undo. You provided insufficient edit summaries, and refused to engage in discussion of the changes, and frankly I believe you have been deliberately engaging in time wasting, so I was simply trying to be as efficient as possible in improving the article. Please note the following complaints in the heading, which I have been trying to address by removing irrelevant, unsourced and repetitive information; "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: the article is incoherent, rambling and poorly organized" & "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably." --Senor Freebie (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I cannot tell from your reply - do you object to the change? If so, why? VQuakr (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

1,600 deaths due to the evacuation

This is an incredible claim. I need to emphasise this. There is no current source in the Japanese language that supports this, that does not directly cite the NBC article, which in turn cites the dead Mainichi link. The current, apparent article owner, is doing their best to include this claim, and associated other claims in the article, in a clear effort to demonstrate that evacuation is more dangerous than radiation. There is not one mention of the specifics of these deaths, and the associated figure, of 1,599 deaths due to the earthquake, within the evacuation zone is repeatedly mentioned in articles on deaths during the evacuation.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

With the help of my partner, who is fluent in Japanese, I may have gotten to the bottom of this. The number refers to the total amount of deaths amongst the evacuated group since the evacuation, at the time of the survey. The numbers are as follows, according to this material; deaths within the zone due to the earthquate; 1,607. Deaths between the earthquake, and the survey being undertaken, due to all causes (including, but not exclusive to the evacuation and fallout), 1,599. Until a source that more clearly explains the figures in this link; http://healthpress.jp/2016/03/5-24.html ... this content may not be included in the article as it appears to be misleading.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, the source does not define clearly between deaths due to people evacuated as a result of the earthquake, and people evacuated as a result of the fallout.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
What leads you to determine so conclusively that that article, dated 2016, was the source of information for the 2013 Mainichi Shimbun survey? Why should we rely on personal analysis, particularly when we have sources that say the complete opposite? VQuakr (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Because those sources literally link or reference the now dead article and refer to the newspaper BY NAME. Are you even reading this material that you're referencing?--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Why do you believe it matters if verifiable content is not currently online? VQuakr (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not verifiable content. There is literally zero mention of this figure in Japanese sources. It's an utterly exceptional claim, and requires more than a dead link. Simple as that.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Verifiability means that the original claim must be possible to examine. All we know is that a newspaper conducted a survey, and listed figures that have since been quoted by other sources. We don't know for sure what the context of those figures is, and there seems to be no continued discussion of them in English or Japanese, most likely because they are bogus.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No, verifiable means that content has been published somewhere; ie, it is not just made up by the WP article editor. That has been demonstrated, so you are incorrect in asserting that the statement is not verifiable. I think you are trying to express that you do not think the sources provided are reliable, though the only reasoning you have provided to support that line of thought is that it doesn't match your original research and the content doesn't parse with your personal beliefs. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstand what I am saying. What I am saying is this; the information is not presented clearly or consistently in secondary reporting of it. The information that was allegedly in the dead link is unlikely to be accurate, is now deleted, and is most likely out of context. It is not possible to verify that this information ever existed, in the way it is presented in the article, let alone whether it is reliable, or accurate.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No, it is trivial to verify the information since a convenience archive link has been provided, [8]. Of course in any case, there is no requirement for a source to be available on the internet for it to be used; unscanned print books and newspapers are perfectly valid as sources. I'll post a query at WP:RSN to get additional input on your suggestion that the source might be unreliable, since we seem unable to independently agree on that one. VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, the section is WP:RSN#Fukushima evacuation deaths. VQuakr (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Answered on RSN - we have the original source archived and the reputation of the source is more than enough to satisfy WP:RS. Garzfoth (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Did you guys actually read this link?
"A survey by popular Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun said Monday that deaths relating to this displacement – around 1,600 – have surpassed the number killed in the region in the original disaster."
"Close to 16,000 people were killed across Japan as a direct result of the earthquake and tsunami in 2011. According to the Mainichi report, 1,599 of these deaths were in the Fukushima Prefecture."
Meanwhile in the article that they linked to:
"The number of deaths in Fukushima Prefecture caused mainly by stress from the nuclear disaster reached 1,539 at the end of August, almost equaling the 1,599 fatalities due directly to the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, the Mainichi Shimbun has learned."
In summary, NBC misquotes the source they're quoting, the paragraph in this article misquotes NBC, and attributes that to Mainichi, which never made the claim in the article in the first place. Not only that but, they even concede that "many municipalities declined to specify the causes of those disaster aftermath-related deaths, saying they would affect future screenings of applications for condolence money."
And then, inexplicably, they go on to talk about the number of deaths in OTHER prefectures due to evacuation. Can you guess why those people were evacuated? And why, at the 'start of the article they clarify their statement as only partially applying to the nuclear disaster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs)
2nd paragraph from Mainichi: "In addition, bereaved families have filed condolence money applications for at least 109 victims who they say died due to fatigue, stress and aggravated health conditions while living in evacuation shelters and temporary housing. If this number is added, deaths attributable to post-disaster conditions surpass the number of those killed directly by the March 11, 2011 quake and tsunami." You claim that NBC misquotes Mainichi is not accurate. We are not going to "guess" at anything.
I would be fine, though, with changing the article sentence to read, "A survey by the newspaper Mainichi Shimbun reported that by August 2013 there had been about 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation, comparable to the 1,599 deaths due to the earthquake and tsunami in the Fukushima Prefecture." VQuakr (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read the entire article before responding. If you had done so, you would have noticed that there were a significant number of additional deaths attributed to the post-evacuation conditions that were not already included in the first count of 1539, as the article clearly explains. And Mainichi actually did make that claim that they surpass the tsunami deaths once added - again, if you had actually read the article you would have seen this. I was going to quote more of the article but since you really need the entire thing for sufficient context I decided the first paragraph combined with a link should be plenty -- apparently I was mistaken.
For reference the archived original article is located at https://web.archive.org/web/20130927033901/http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20130909p2a00m0na009000c.html. I'll reiterate my original argument from RSN again: Since we have the original source archived, I think this question can be considered answered - the Mainichi Shimbun appears to be the most reliable news source in Japan, so barring direct evidence from a more reputable source (which would always be ideal but cannot always be located directly in all cases), this should be more than enough to satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Garzfoth (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


i offer the following redaction proof archive-ception as well; 2013/09/13 mainichi jp = [9] & , 2016/03/5 = healthpress jp google translated = [10] ergo, this question is asked & answered so may i put this in the main article to end this "despute" , , PS: will this be considered a personal attack Senor Freebie? Waptek (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster/Archive_1&oldid=1251162468"