Talk:International reactions to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Move/Name Change: Accident + Disaster = Incident or Emergency?

Accident + Disaster = Incident? NOT. How about EMERGENCY? OK an

1. incident minimizes the damage.

1. accidents minimizes the role of Nature/Natural Disaster
2. disaster minimizes the role of human error, corporate, etc.
3. Emergency seems to be right down the middle.

I can understand the problem with "incident" but what do people think about

International reaction to Fukushima I nuclear emergency

Note the sentiment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Question_on_title Geofferybard (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 419234073 }}

I believe this was already discussed at Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Question_on_title Chaosdruid (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Added my thoughts to the other page; we might as well discuss it there and then change all related pages at the same time once we come to a consensus. No point in having the same discussion in multiple places! Fletch the Mighty (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Urgent: We need to separate International Advice/Comment from Action/Aid

They are already comingled it will just keep getting worse and messier if we don't keep them sorted. Geofferybard (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

US & Canada

So... should this article document the public hysteria on the Pacific seaboard of USA and Canada? With people clearing out the shelves of potassium iodide in pharmacies. The Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, publicly stating that people should not be buying the iodine pills, or taking them, as it is premature? 65.93.13.60 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Desparate people do desparately stupid things. =( Maybe a separate section about Public reactions. Harper could go there as part of it because it is in reaction to the public reaction. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It is part of the international reaction.Geofferybard (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, US and Canada now have the sellout of K-I. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Israeli Reactions and creation of Middle East Section

Bibi is rehtinking plans for a nuke plant [1], offering support to Japan [2] and Israel is calling on her citizens to leave. [3] Turkey should be included in the Middle East section as it straddles two continents and is in the Middle East. Politically the area is referred to the Middle East anyway, even if it is (geograhically speaking) mostly in Southwest Asia. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: Can anyone also find reactions from other Middle Eastern Nations that have people abroad? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Tokyo evacuation advice?!

Hi there, I don't have time to find reliable sources right now, but off the top of my head, consular advice from the following about Tokyo evacuation (or equivalent euphemisms) is noticeable by its absence. Off the top of my head, roughly in this order: France (as early as Monday), Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, UK. I believe also Australia at some point was recommending to leave. Sweden, too. One source, which is only tangentially relevant to this: [4] Thanks. 203.186.64.156 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel as well, like I said. [5] There must definitely be more than those. Every democratic nation in the world would likely put out such an advisement. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note how Jankz second guessed Japan and that story quietly died.Geofferybard (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit too much attention on Deutschland?

I think that there is a bit of a heavy focus on Germany including a Wikinews link. Germany might be a very consequential country, but it isn't the only. Please keep it balanced guys, thanks. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a predictable development might even warrant a split.04:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofferybard (talk • contribs)

Another reason might be the fact that the German action seems to be the most far-reaching (a complete stop). My initial response to country-specific splits of this article would be negative, mainly as I think the articles would not stand WP:notnews. However an article might in view of the farreaching consequences in time be useful... L.tak (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Related to Germany, the article assumes that the election result was good for the Greens because of this even though they've high in the polls since October. I was going to change it in the article but the same wording is in the source. How could we add that about the earlier polls? Munci (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Template

I think the template that was on the previous page is better suited to our purposes. The current one is a mess. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed...even though it was your idea, hah hah, right? Yes it worked for Libya but sho'nuff did look like a spider web in the outline version. I like your tight, concise organization, or actually Nucear Energy's...Geofferybard (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, there were two pages, the one you linked me to and I had started editing was blanked and then redirected [6] and then I put scraps in from there that I could place here effectively. So not sure I deserve the barnstar. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you do. You did a lot of encouraging. But I have trouble with calling this affair a mere "accident". Geofferybard (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews

Why was wikinews deleted with this edit? [7] -- The edit summary says nothing about removing it. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe from the thing I said about focus on Germany, but you're absolutely right, it shouldn't have been deleted without any reason being given. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actions and recommendations related to the Fukushima incident is too broad

Hi there, I'd suggest splitting the section in subsections that make it clearer what the trends are. Specifically, off the top of my head:

• Evacuation advice from Tokyo/Northern Japan/Japan (see new subsection I just created)
• Evacuation support, via additional flights
• Relocation of embassies
• Closure or relocation of other interests in Japan, such as Japanese branches of foreign companies
• Iodide tablets hysteria
• Offers for help/humanitarian relief

Thanks 219.77.7.111 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Idk if we need that many, but yeah it is quite broad. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I reckon we can pack the first three in one subsection. I guess my main point is that it's not so important what each country is saying/doing, but what many countries are saying/doing, so that's why I would slice it in that dimension instead. If country A does X, then fine, but if countries A, B, C and D start doing X, then it's X that matters most. 219.77.7.111 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Expert reaction section

The expert reaction section currently gives 2 expert reactions. There are however tons of them and they cover quite a variety of subjects. Lot's of that is already covered at the Fukushima I nuclear accidents page, and some of it isn't. I think it would be best to have it interspersed in the text there at the relevant locations. If we keep it here, it would need to be much more detailed and separated (expert reactions regarding, e.g.: i) the design, ii) implementation of guidelines in the past years, iii) actions after the problem, iv) gravity of the situation and v) lessons learned for other operations. Let's discuss what to do here... L.tak (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Make sure they're actual experts ofc, and not just an uninformed talking head. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the section for now, as I didn't hear comments to that suggestion. Feel free to reintroduce if a balanced statement can be written that gives a good overview... L.tak (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What the hell? that guy is the director of nuclear studies at Imperial College, London......he is politically neutral, independent...Do only alarmist politicians get a say? Tri400 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are pretty good credentials, and he is more knowledgable than most politicians would be. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not contesting that. Only that a section of just 2 or 3 sentences on such a heavily debated subject is covering it only a little bit. For a section it should be taking into account many things. For me it doesn't matter: either a part of substance on the experts (see above), OR nothing at all. Feel free to reintroduce and start expanding... L.tak (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol, what about putting it back and putting an {{expand}} tag on it? That always attracts editors and sets them off on the hunt for info. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

True, the effect of such templates can hardly be overstated, wikipedia wouldn't be what it is now if hadn't we had them! ;-) L.tak (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Potassium iodide

With the increased acquisition and prophylactic consumption of the pills, it would be good to increase the potassium iodide article on the effects of overdosing on it. The news channels keep saying something about thyroid damage. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Food bans

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/83085.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.184.61 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad article. I will tidy it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Stuff and Nonsense

I've just been looking at this article and I think it's appalling and contains a lot of wishful thinking from a (dangerously delusional) anti-nuclear person. Anti-nuclear opinion is widely quoted but pro-nuclear isn't. What about George Monbiot "Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power", or Mark Lynas "Fukushima’s lessons in climate change. - If we abandon nuclear power, prepare for catastrophic global warming" or Hansen et al "There is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power" There's no mention of the significant increases in CO₂ production in Japan, Germany and other places. It would be useful to put numbers on some things, like "The entire Fukushima release was ¹/₃₀₀₀₀^th of the natural radiation in the ocean. or that it would require that 40% of Japanese land area be covered in wind turbines to replace both coal & nuclear. China's nuclear program is back on track, and notwithstanding the claim that nuclear stocks have fallen, "CGN Power, the mainland’s largest nuclear power company by capacity IPO in Hong Kong was nearly 300 times oversubscribed with HK$350 billion yuan in subscriptions" Indian Vice President Ansari "Nuclear energy is the only option before country"Graemem56 (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I begin editing "Events at Fukushima "cast doubt on the idea that even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety".[4] isn't linked to anything, the original comment seems to be from an anti-nuclear activist Julian Moron. I beg to disagree, it's a statement of opinion.

edited out, it's not relevant, although it maybe relevant somewhere else.

"International experts have said that a workforce in the hundreds or even thousands would take years or decades to clean up the area." The newspaper article doesn't say hundreds or thousands and in my opinion this is an implausible claim. I will look for information on the quantum of radiation involved, it's probably not too much.

Following the Fukushima I accidents, the International Energy Agency halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.[5] So says a report in the economist, doubtful.

"Elsewhere in the world, nuclear power plans were abandoned in Malaysia, the Philippines, Kuwait and Bahrain, or radically changed, as in Taiwan. China suspended its nuclear development programme, but restarted it on a reduced basis in late 2012 with the government approving a ‘small number’ of projects in each of the next five years. The initial plan had been to increase the nuclear contribution from 2 to 4 percent of electricity by 2020, but renewable energy already supplied 17 percent of China’s electricity and, post-Fukushima, it seems likely that most of the 15 percent of non-fossil energy that China aims to use by 2020 will be from renewables. The situation is similar in many other places around the world." - There are no reference to any of this. I could not find any evidence that Malaysia abandoned a nuclear program, but it seems to be actively considering one Kuwait and other middle eastern states seem to have continuing plans for nuclear energy

but renewable energy already supplied 17 percent of China’s electricity and, post-Fukushima, it seems likely that most of the 15 percent of non-fossil energy that China aims to use by 2020 will be from renewables. The situation is similar in many other places around the world. Actually it's 6% hydro & <1% other renewables — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

References