Talk:Three Mile Island accident/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Miscellaneous topics

Diagrams? It's great to hear about valves and pumps, etc., but a diagram will explain a lot that can't be efficiently explained by text... 69.212.106.44 13:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Added a simplified diagram on 11 Aug 2006.−Enterprise Eric 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed "the accident was not serious." Granted no one died, but any accident that cost a $1 billion to fix and killed an entire industry strikes me as a big oops.

See comment below re "one excess fatal cancer."

Killed an industry? The US has the largest nuclear generating industry in the world, over 100 reactors producing over 8% of total US output. Hardly dead.

Is it true that no new reactors were ordered after TMI - only in process ones completed? Also "2.5 million curies of radioactive gas" is wrong. Curies measure an amount of radiation - not a volume of gas. Is there a good way to rephrase this? --rmhermen

No new reactors have been made since the 70's for comercial perposes. the thing that really killed it was the desicion in the US to not reprocess the spent fule rods.

Actually, plants were being cancelled en masse even before TMI. The reasons were that vastly increased federal regulations were stretching out construction times horrendously, at a time of double-digit interest rates. Both the regulations and the costs were out of control. Simesa 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a curie measures an amount of radioactivity (not radiation). (The SI unit is the Becquerel). A Becquerel is an amount of radioactive material that produces one decay per second. So this is a correct unit for the answer. --Andrew 20:16, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

The figure of 2.5 million curies / 90 PBq on this article page has been queried on the talk page for Windscale. Can we have a source for this figure, please? I've seen a figure of 3 x 10^17 Bq (of Xenon 133) quoted in Radiation and Health: The Biological Effects of Low Level Exposure to Ionizing Radiation Edited by Robin Russell Jones and Richard Southwood, published by John Wiley ISBN 0-471-91674-9.Blaise 07:58, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

J. Samuel Walker, the NRC's official historian, has written in his new book on TMI that "the accident discharged up to 13 million curies of radioactive noble gases to the environment" (231), but "less than 20 curies" of iodine-131 (238). Hope that is helpful. --Fastfission 12:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

How many square km are 814 acres ? Thanks, it's for a translation into French. Yann

About 3.3 km^2. -- Coneslayer 19:46, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

The phrase "no one died at Three Mile Island" has become almost a slogan. It is an oversimplification. The correct statement is that there were no identifiable deaths. Estimates are unreliable because radiation monitoring was spotty and it is not clear just how much radiation the local population was exposed to, but the official report (below) estimated "one excess fatal cancer." In other words, someone was killed by radiation, we just have no way of identifying who. Mortality among the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident Area: 1979-1992 found statistically significant mortality elevations, but dismisses it as inconclusive. A correlation with radiation exposure and breast cancer was found but assumed not to reflect causality, for reasons I cannot follow.

Certainly the health effects were so small as to be statistical and difficult to detect, but a flat assertion that there were none goes too far.

Authority for the estimate of "one excess fatal cancer:"

Battist L, Buchanan J, Congel F, Nelson C, Nelson M, Peterson H, Rosenstein M. Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Preliminary Estimates for the Period March 28 through April, 1979. Washington, DC:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979.

Dpbsmith 22:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to a study done by the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health (http://www.nei.org/documents/University_Pittsburgh_Study_TMI.pdf) there was no increases of deaths or injurys in the TMI exposed population. _James

Presidential influence muting criticism voiced in report: citation?

The article says:

According to Admiral Hyman Rickover, the key figure in the development of nuclear power plants and a close confidant of the president, the original report was so critical of the nuclear power industry's safety lapses that if it had been released, all nuclear plants in the US would probably be forced to close. The final version was more muted, at the command of Jimmy Carter.

There really ought to be some reference given for that. Which "report" is being described? The Kemeny report? Kemeny was not part of the government or the military, nor were other members of the panel, and would not have been under "command" of Jimmy Carter," though they might, of course, have responded to Presidential influence.

I'm not doing to do anything about this now, but if I remember to come back in a month or two and if that statement is still in there without any citation or reference, I'll be inclined to snip it. Dpbsmith 00:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the POV implication that President Carter undeniably commanded that the final report be muted. Rookkey 02:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

General public's approval rating for nuclear power?

An anon added this paragraph to the article:

Another effect, and one usually overlooked, is the physchological impact on the nation and on those who lived near the plant. Before the accident nuclear power was considered one of the great awe inspiring inventions of the twentieth century, and enjoyed an aproximatly seventy percent approval rating. After this accident, support for nuclear power across the country fell to about fifty percent, where it has remained.

I don't think this effect has been "usually overlooked" and nothing is cited to suggest that it was, so I've removed that phrase. I think it was nuclear weaponry rather than peaceful nuclear electricity generation that was "considered one of the great awe inspiring inventions of the twentieth century" so I've removed this phrase too. I've generally toned down the language to read:

Another effect was the psychological impact on the nation. Before the accident approximately seventy percent of the general public approved of nuclear power. After this accident, support for nuclear power across the country fell to about fifty percent, where it has remained.

But I still see a problem with the use of the phrases "seventy percent approval rating" and "support for nuclear power across the country fell to about fifty percent, where it has remained," without any citation of the source or nature of these "approval ratings."

In a general way, I don't think anybody would challenge the statement that the Three Mile Island accident reduced public approval of nuclear electric-power generation in the United States. But I don't like the false precision of the numbers. Unless they are sourced, in a week or so I'll probably rewrite this sentence, too. I'll see whether I can find some objective/authoritative source(s) that can be cited to show the impact Three Mile Island had on public support for nuclear power. If not, the impact is so obvious to anyone old enough to have lived through it that I think a general statement that the TMI accident "caused significant and long-lasting decline in public support for nuclear power" is OK, but no number and percentages if they can't be sourced. Dpbsmith 11:16, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Public support is a vague way to judge the impact. It's simple enough to show that there have been no new plants authorized since 1978. Of the 129 plants authorized to be built at the time of TMI, suggesting a boom during the energy crisis, just 53 were ever completed.

Ohio.com article

It reduced it not only in the US, but all over the world Eric B. and Rakim 00:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It would be wonderful to have actual facts; I am sure that they exist (public opinion polls, numbers of station licenses granted over time, etc.). I'll check some of the sources that might have them (I'm thinking Garwin's _Megawatts and Megatons_ probably does) and if so, add them in... others are welcome to do this as well, of course! --Fastfission 20:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Changed sentence indicating that the quench tank ruptured to say the quench tank rupture disk ruptured which is a design feature of the quench tank. The pressure relief valve for that quench tank had already opened but could not vent the full amount of flow coming from the stuck pressurizer relief valve.

Changed the sentence indicating a hydrogen explosion in the reactor to say a hydrogen explosion in the reactor building. Even that is a probable explanation as no one was in the building and only instrumentation readings and a "bump" felt in the control room lead to that conclusion.

How about some basic geography of the island? I just had someone ask me how long the island was, and I can't find the answer anywhere. --Carnildo 04:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The island is not three miles long but in fact about one quarter of a mile long.Scottfisher

The island is 2.2 miles long, and 0.2-0.4 miles wide. - Anon.

Is that a joke? =) Well, try looking at Mapquest. If they can keep the URL stable for awhile. That's more-or-less centered on the plant. (Pity they don't have the aerial photo anymore. Or is it by subscription or something?)

Also: regarding Rickover's pursuading Carter to whitewash the report and his regret thereof, it may be more accurate to say "according to an affidavit sworn by his daughter-in-law Jane"[1] unless you know of some more direct source. Kwantus 22:57, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Aerial photo of TMI pstudier 05:30, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Lack of clarity in event discription

The event description needs work and may be incorrect or oversimplified. Specifically the sequence of events which led to the partial meltdown. Sources at PBS might be helpful in clarifing this incident.

I agree completely. I'm currently reviewing a book about TMI and will try and brush up the entry a bit. About five discrete things went wrong at TMI (a mix of technical failure and operator error) which should be highlighted. --Fastfission 17:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Blame was placed on plant operators who mis-diagnosed the problems. ...Well, how about the fact that the proper instruments were not available, that the plant operators acted in ways that in the past had always been reasonable and proper? How about the pressure relief valve that failed to close, even though the operator pushed the proper button and even though a light came on stating it was closed? Why was the operator blamed for not checking two more insturments (one on the rear of the control panel) and determing that the light was faulty? (Actually, the operator did check one of them.) Human error? To me it sounds like equipment failure coupled with serious design error" - ISBN 0-465-06709-3

~ender 2007-09-09 13:13:PM MST

The China Syndrome

I was about to correct the grammar in the section of the article entitled The China Syndrome, but then it struck me how irrelevant the entire section is to the topic. I think maybe this section belongs in another article, perhaps an article about the movie or the actress or activation. Anyone else for chopping this section?

Jdbartlett 20:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would agree. There should be a mention and a link, but the section probably belongs elsewhere. --Millsdavid 23:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The China Syndrome was essential to the reception of the TMI accident, most because of its timing but also because of some of its similiarities (stuck valves, vibrations, faulty or unhelpful indicators, human errors in the assumption of the level of the coolant, etc.) in the accident itself. If anything I think more ought to be written on it, if we are really going to talk about the "aftermath" (more should be written on the attitudes towards nuclear power before TMI as well, considering an almost duplicate accident had happened two years earlier and was dismissed as a freak occurrence). All of these things added up to the reception of the accident both by the public but also by the politicians, the NRC, etc. --Fastfission 17:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then "The China Syndrome" should, at most, be a subsection of "Aftermath". I certainly agree that we should discus the manner in which people reacted to it in relation to the TMI accident, but I believe its plot and lead actress should be detailed in a "China Syndrome" article, not in this one. For the purpose of this article, the plot can be described succinctly as a movie that raised awareness of the nuclear safety issue.

I would like to continue to see The China Syndrome included. I find it most interesting that the movie was released (Within a week) prior to the accident. What a coincidence. I was living in Lancaster, Pennsylvania at the time, 30 miles away, and distinctly remember the local radio station saying there were a bunch of cows dead. I had to take a ride out to see this and found no dead cows, LOL. Interesting Scottfisher
China Syndrome should be removed from the Three Mile Island section. I just finished reading the Chernobyl section and there is no mention of the China Syndrome there, although two men in wetsuits relieved the accumulated water from underneath the reactor floor where, if the burning material had penetrated, a thermal explosion would have resulted.Robert 18:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's about the movie not the "idea". The China Syndrome movie came out right before the TMI accident and played a major role in the perceptions of the accident in the USA. It did not play a major role at all in the Chernobyl accident, which is why it is no surprise that it isn't mentioned there.
Is the role of the movie being overstated? Perhaps a more general discussion of public reaction might be better. This could include China Syndrome, and the general media reaction, etc. (if good sources can be found). -MrFizyx 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A section called Context before the details of the accident might make sense, with the section on The China Syndrome becoming a sub-section. I'm not familiar with the previous similar accident (refd above) but details should be included for if available. Mtpt 19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Most books on TMI discuss the China Syndrome in particular and give it a pretty prominent role (Walker's Three Mile Island, for example). I think it could be integrated into a large context/aftermath section, sure. The similar accident which happened earlier was at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station near Toledo, OH, on September 24, 1977. Hopefully I'll get some time to add to any context section that comes up, but otherwise, that should give people something to go on...--Fastfission 19:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If the movie The China Syndrome played a noticeable role in shaping the public consciousness and discussion about the accident, then it forms part of the history of the incident, and that fact, together with info about how and to what extent it did shape the public mind (and-or the aftermath), should continue to be part of the article. Brief mention of the nature or content of the movie are useful here, while most details about the movie could be in a separate article.Palmleaf (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

location

where exactly is three mile island?

Next to Goldsboro, Pennsylvania. Three Mile Island on Google Maps. --Fastfission 22:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Five mile south of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on the lower Susquehanna River

Scotty August 10, 2005.

Image correctness

An anon recently changed all captions of pictures of TMI, switching left and right, foreground and background. I find this unlikely: in Image:Three Mile Island.jpg, the cooling towers for the reactor on the right indicate that it is active, whereas the anon's claim is that it is the one that melted down. --Carnildo 03:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The captions are all correct now. TMI-2 utilized the two southernmost cooling towers. The photo taken from the west is an old one and shows the plant prior to the 1979 accident. In more recent photos (and in the Google Earth / Google Maps imagery) it's easier to tell the difference. The "fill" and outer skirts of the TMI-2 cooling towers have been removed, and you can see the ground beneath them. Scott Johnson 15:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

This article appears to be about the Three Mile Island accident, rather than about the locality. I propose to move it to that name, currently a redirect with no significant history. Not quite sure where the resulting redirect should go for the moment, but just so long as this article and Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station prominently (maybe a bit more prominently) link each to the other it's not all that important IMO. Comments? Andrewa 18:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. The redirect should go to the accident. Simesa 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiation Released

Just pointing out an aparent contradiction to the current text. According to a web-site run by Dickinson College the actual amount of radition released was somewhere closer to 9 million curies.

Three Mile Island 1979 Emergency: What Went Wrong

Flame12121 00:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I checked over a reliable resource and found that the upper estimate is even higher than that, so I put it in with a reference. --Fastfission 02:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

- - - -

The article's claim on radiation released is, to my best understanding, an official pronouncement. It's probably bogus to my best guess. Herds of cows reportedly dropped to the ground with radiation sickness right after the biggest release.

It reminds me of a recent claim by a nuclear power proponent that only 75 people have died worldwide as a result of commercial nuclear power, and most of them were Chernobyl nuclear plant workers. However, I believe that the Ukranian city of Pripyat lies completely empty not purely for precautionary reasons, but more likely because perhaps 50,000 citizens were already fatally poisoned or dead, and officials had no other choice but to abandon a valuable city.

Scientists should have nothing to do either with furtive attempts to cover up evidence or to furtively erase evidence from the community's mind. If an issue remains sincerely in dispute, the arguments of both sides of the debate should be laid out, that third parties may see the arguments and weigh them. For example, if the people who want to pooh-pooh global warming want to advance their theories, let them try! Science by political fiat is unacceptable. For this reason, I ask that the question of radiation exposure and aftermath remain an open question in this article, at least until the scientific community reaches consensus. you can reach me at: dontuspam3 (aatt) netscape .net

picture caption question

There is a picture of the Three Mile Island complex with the caption "Viewed from the west, Three Mile Island currently uses only one nuclear generating station, TMI-1, which is on the left. TMI-2, to the right, is permanently off-line."

If the reactor on the right is offline, why then is steam coming off its cooling towers? Is this a case of a mistaken caption, or a picture that has been flipped from right to left? --Tachikoma 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

if you look at the other images it is easy to see that the image has not been flipped, according to the alignment of the towers and water border, along with some of the larger buildings that can be seen. one image says it only suffered a partial-meltdown. I'm thinking this picture was either taken before the disaster (good chance) or this was taken just after the meltdown, where all of the towers were shut off (why the main two aren't functioning) but the two that had suffered the meltdown were still emitting smoke, possibly from flames. I can't be sure though, so I'll leave the caption until somebody else figures it out. --Z ee rus 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

if you search for Three Mile Island at [2] then this image will show up, though no date is provided. It can be seen though that the image wasn't flipped, as there were no technologies at that time (I believe) that could do that. --Z ee rus 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm you can flip an image by just putting the negative in the enlarger upside down though can't you?! Plugwash 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The pictures and captions are all correct as of today when I looked at them. TMI-2 is the southernmost of the two containment structures and used the southernmost pair of cooling towers. Tachikoma points out that there's steam coming from the southern cooling towers; this is due to the photo predating the accident. Scott Johnson 15:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Returned to Prior levels?

The recent edit by Ggb667 states that support for nuclear power has returned to prior levels. The article referenced (Three Mile Island shows US nuclear risks, rewards Jon Hurdle/Matthew Robinson http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060420/lf_nm/energy_nuclear_usa_dc_4) does not make this ascertation, nor does this article cite any quantitative data on public support for nuclear power. I have reworded the article to reflect a rise in support rather than a return to previous levels. --Matthew 18:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that three mile island is a very interesting subject. It seems to me that it was not as deadly as the accident near Chernobyl, but it is still very important subject matter to address. I think that nuclear power plants are much safer than they were back then, and many safety modifications have been made to them so there is less chance of a nuclear meltdown in the future. there have also been safety modifications made to them that helps to cut down on the level of nuclear waste that they create, and they also help to improve the efficiency of the power plants. i think that nuclear power is much better of a power source than fossil fuel power plants such as coal, gas, and oil. the burning of coal produces uranium and thorium which are radioactive. i learned that a bunch of scientists did some research and proved that people living near a coal power plant are exposed to more radiation than people living near a nuclear power plant. i think that is a very interesting fact and i think that more research should be done to help promote this fact, so the general public can become more educated about nuclear power. fossil fuel plants also relases sodium oxide and nitrogen oxide into the air, which floats up into the atmosphere and comes down in the form of acid rain. fossil fuel power plants also produce carbon dioxide into the air, which is a green house gas and contributes to the problem of global warming.

I learned that in france 78% of their energy is created by nuclear power plants. i also learned that nuclear power is viewed widely as a positive thing in france, and there is a lot of public support for it. some people have nuclear power plants that are practically in their own backyards and they do not worry about it unlike americans. the problem with americans is that they have watched too many movies and television shows that portray nuclear power as an "evil" thing that causes disasters and kills people, when in reality fossil fuels release toxins into the air that kill many more people than nuclear power ever did. i think that people need to open their eyes and become a little more educated on nuclear power. nuclear power has a bad reputation with everybody in america, when around the world people do not worry about it as much because they are not as thick-headed as americans.

another issue that i am going to tackle right now is natural power. natural power is a very interesting subject. there are many issues that need to be taken into consideration when going over the subject of this intriguing type of power. i

Bam

if you want more information about nuclear power than please visit some of the websites thare listed below

Shouldn't the Viva La Bam episode with this be mentioned? 216.56.38.130 12:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, its existence doesn't add much to our understanding of Three Mile Island. --Fastfission 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Move of Article?

shouldn't this article be on the "Three Mile Island" page with a redirect here? that makes a lot more sense. -- preschooler @heart 05:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I gather that the title is to distinguish this article from Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station. I think the move was a good idea. -MrFizyx 06:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Worth noting

I think it is worth noting that not far from the area is the Hershey Park conglomeration, and that in the nearby hotels, an emergency evacuation plan is given in hotel nightstand drawers.-Andr e wi a 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

They seriously have an evacuation plan in hotel nightstands? What a joke, the entire thing is a joke. The way people talk about Three Mile Island would lead one to think that it was a major disaster with thousands of deaths to its name, instead, it was more likely to have had a beneficial effect.

Most people know that TMI was not itself a major disaster. However there were many points at which it could have become close to a major disaster had things gone differently. For that reason evacuation plans are not totally ridiculous, and the entire thing is not, and was not, a joke. Taking seriously the risks of nuclear power plants is the first step towards persuading people that you have it under control and the risk is worth taking. --Fastfission 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that its true the TMI was not a major disaster and had a huge benefical affect on the nuclear power industry and safety at nuclear power plants. The fact that the evacuation plan is availible in the hotel nightstands is a great thing that is certainly indicitive of the effects TMI had on the United States. In a way I almost wish that all hotels near nuclear power plants were required to provide evacuation plans to guests. So the anonymous user and Fastfission both have really great points. --Matthew 19:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"split scienists" claim in article?

An unregistered user posted the following explanation for content they added to the aritcle:

The article's claim on radiation released is, to my best understanding, an official pronouncement. It's probably bogus to my best guess. Herds of cows reportedly dropped to the ground with radiation sickness right after the biggest release.

It reminds me of a recent claim by a nuclear power proponent that only 75 people have died worldwide as a result of commercial nuclear power, and most of them were Chernobyl nuclear plant workers. However, I believe that the Ukranian city of Pripyat lies completely empty not purely for precautionary reasons, but more likely because perhaps 50,000 citizens were already fatally poisoned or dead, and officials had no other choice but to abandon a valuable city.

Scientists should have nothing to do either with furtive attempts to cover up evidence or to furtively erase evidence from the community's mind. If an issue remains sincerely in dispute, the arguments of both sides of the debate should be laid out, that third parties may see the arguments and weigh them. For example, if the people who want to pooh-pooh global warming want to advance their theories, let them try! Science by political fiat is unacceptable. For this reason, I ask that the question of radiation exposure and aftermath remain an open question in this article, at least until the scientific community reaches consensus. you can reach me at: dontuspam3 (aatt) netscape .net

I'm kind of sketchy on whether any reliable sources support these claims. I have not removed the content from the article, but I think it should be discussed whether this content belongs in the article without sources or whether it can be sourced. I have e-mail this unregistered user at the address they provided, but haven't gotten a response yet.

The changes this user made can be seen on the diff page: [3] --Matthew 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Steven Wing's Study

The following is excerpted from a now deleted webpage:

Dr. Steven Wing, associate professor of epidemiology at the UNC-CH School of Public Health, led a study of cancer cases within 10 miles of the facility from 1975 to 1985. He and colleagues conclude that following the March 28, 1979 accident, lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher downwind of the Three Mile Island (TMI) reactor than upwind.

A paper Wing and colleagues wrote appears in the January issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, scheduled to appear Feb. 24. They first presented their findings last July at the University of Portsmouth in Portsmouth, United Kingdom, at the International Workshop on Radiation Exposures by Nuclear Facilities.

Simesa 21:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Roulette by Springsteen

The following text was recently added to the article:

Bruce Springsteen recorded a song titled Roulette about the Three Mile Island Incident.

This statement definitely needs a citation, as the lyrics of the song do not make this readily apparent, though the lyrics could certainly be interpreted as referring the TMI. According to our very own Wikipedia the song Roulette was included on Tracks in 1998:

"Roulette" – 3:57 Recorded at The Power Station on 4/3/79 (From Tracks (album) on Wikipedia)

The TMI accident, according to Wikipedia, occurred on March 28, 1979, so it is conceivable the song could refer to the TMI accident. Anyways, if anyone could find a source for this statement that would be great, I've turned up nothing so far. --Matthew 08:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, this source in passing states that "We're forced to wonder what stopped Springsteen from playing "Roulette" -- inspired by the Three Mile Island incident -- at 1979's "No Nukes" concerts.", but this source is hardly particularly credible. --Matthew 08:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

One more, from an interview with Mark Hagen found on TheBoots.net:

(Interviewer) Roulette was the very first song you recorded for what became The River. It would have been a very different album had you put Roulette on it.

(Mark Hagen) It was the first song we cut for that record and maybe later on I thought it was too specific, and the story I started to tell was more of a general one. I may have just gotten afraid - it went a little over the top, which is what's good about it. In truth it should have probably gotten put on. It would have been one of the best things on the record and it was just a mistake at the time - you get oversensitive when you're going to release the things.

Anyways, this is closer to a reliable source, but it doesn't say anything conclusive. --Matthew 08:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A small change under vs over estimation

In the section "The China Syndrome", I have changed "operators overestimating" to "operators underestimating" I do not have a citation from the movie, but from the incident, the operators overestimated (or misread) the coolant level, the operators did not underestimate the coolent level.209.42.179.144 14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)01/07/2007 09:24 Nick

Removed a line of text

"Anabanana and kittykat wrote this" I hope its ok for it, I dont think it contributes to the Three Mile Island SACP 06:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

trivia -> in popular media

As per WP:TRIVIA, the article doesn't need a trivia section, but the content is good, s I'm Being Bold and changing the title of the section. --RedHillian 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

R. William Field's paper

This paper is only available by subscription. For a journal, the one-time cost is $128. We may not have permission to quote from it. I have written to the publisher.

I am concerned that not all of what is in the paragraph came from the paper. Radon does NOT impart a one-time dose of 16,000 mrem - that comes from smoking 1.5 packs of cigarettes for a year [4]. That kind of dose concentration in the open air would certainly have had some other environmental consequences.

The statement that the three surrounding counties had the nation's highest levels of radon is also suspect. Radon is a noble gas and doesn't deposit - radon in the ground seeps upwards from mineral deposits. {Radon#Occurrence may also have to be amended.)

All-in-all a very suspicious set of statements, made by Tinsman on December 30, 2006. Simesa 04:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Background Radiation level

"The average person in the US gets about 360 mrem per year from background sources." [5] Simesa 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The image

The image of the reactor is quite interesting, but I wounder if the diagram found in volume 1 of the “Rogovin report.”, which is an exapnded version fo the same diagram would not be more meaningful. It shows some things like the sump pump and Auxilury building. It shows the block and saftey valves properly.

But it's use would mean some of the article text ought to be corrected. Like the 4:15 event being merged into the 4:11 event, as they are actually the same event. The quench tank could not overflow, but what did happen was the rupture disk (diaphragm) broke, letting the radioactive coolant ount into the containment building, which pooled in the sump, and triggered the alarm. (The rogovin report does not mention this alarm though, and says the time was 4:14).

Also the phrasing about the Emergency core cooling pumps should clarify that the pumps where the HPI pumps that were injecting water from the BWST tanks.

To be honest that report is quite interesting reading, despite the terrible OCR done on the PDF copy I was reading. I did notice that while the sump pumps where turned off shortly after they turned on, they must have been restored (or the presure in the containment building must have acted like a pump), because the tank that pumps pumped the coolant to in the Aux building eventually overflowed. This was noticed by the flooding occurring the the AUX building shortly before the site emergency was declared.

I also find it ironic that everything *except* secondary cooling system was shut down by the declaration of the site emergency (the HPI pumps, the primary coolant pumps, and finally the PORV leak shut down via the block valve), when the secondary cooling system was the original problem (but was now running fine via the emergency feedline pumps).

The other important fact is that *Either* of knowing the PORV was stuck open, or having a way to measure water level in the core could have prevented the accident, and instead make the system a routine shutdown for repair of the PORV and main feedwater pumps, or even just fixing them while the system was running. The key was to have the PORV block valve closed, and to have the emergency feedwater pump running the secondary system.

Also, While the report explains how even after the PORV block valve was shut, the radiation levels in the AUX building continue to climb (the reason being that radiation in the primary cooling water was so high that it leaked through the pipes, it did not explain why the readiation levels in the contaiment building where climbing. I'm guessing it was for the same reason. There was annother way in which the Aux building radion level increased, but that one could not have affected the contaiment building.

Whoa... Sorry for the rant. Hope somebody finds it interesting. 66.254.241.199 08:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike Doyle?

As far as I know, William Zewe was shift supervisor the night of the accident. Craig Faust and Ed Frederick were the operators on duty. Fred Scheimann was also working as an operator that night. None of these people are referenced, but this "Mike Doyle" is. Michael_F._Doyle does appear to be a Congressman from Pennsylvania. Is this vandalism? Scott Johnson 15:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Saw no objections, so I've fixed this. Scott Johnson 14:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalize the "A" in accident

Isn't it correct to capitalize titles? 72.139.241.181 08:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Tom Homer - Middle of the Night, Beginning of June

moved comment to bottom of talk page

No, it's not: see MOS:CL and WP:NC. Phaunt 11:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't they SCRAM it?

Why did the operators kept trying to fix what was goig on, instead of immediately SCRAMming the reactor? I imagine they believed they knew what they were doing in the beginning, but some time they must have given up... Was it impossible to stop the reaction by full insertion of control rods at this point? (Was it possible in the design, to begin with?) I imagine that the partial melting of the core made this impossible... But didn't they try it?

In other words, this accident is different from the Chernobyl and the SL-1 disasters because it was not an explosion that happened by surprise. They could have scrammed the reactor. The term should be mentioned somewhere in the article! -- NIC1138 02:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It was probably SCRAMed in a matter of seconds after the first event, the failure of the feedwater pump. Everything after that has to do with the decay heat. Even if a reactor is 100% off (which it was in this case) it will still produce about 7% of the heat. This number will decrease as time passes, but even after a day or two, it is an incredible amount of heat. If you let the heat build up with no means to remove the heat, it doesn't matter that it's not producing that much. Decay heat can still melt through any container in the universe given enough time. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation!... So, when the article mentions that the "nuclear reactor automatically shut down", this means a SCRAM operation, that is, the full insertion of control rods?... I would like to put that in the article.

Yes. The reactor was scrammed within seconds after the feedwater system tripped. All rod groups were quickly inserted, bringing the reactor subcritical. As other editors have pointed out, though, there was considerable decay heat to be removed. In the nuclear power industry's vernacular, this is generally called a "reactor trip" rather than a SCRAM, although the terms mean the same thing. Scott Johnson 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the problem was that the SCRAMmed core still needed cooling, but the coolant was unavaiable... Now I guess I started to understand the thing... -- NIC1138 02:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There was no feedwater for some time, so no heat could be removed from the primary system. This caused a pressure rise which exceeded the setpoint of the PORV and caused it to open. The PORV then failed to close and operators failed to notice, resulting in a small break loss of coolant accident (SB-LOCA.) There is a very accurate description of the events at my site on the topic: http://kd4dcy.net/tmi ... I have not put the link on the article due to self-promotion concerns. Scott Johnson 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevant?

"It is a common misconception that the water in the cooling tower comes directly from the reactor, and that the visible vapor that often emanates from the cooling tower is contaminated or radioactive."

This is contained in the section "A note on understanding pressurized water nuclear reactors" (A title that could be improved). This is an attempt to debunk a common misconception about nuclear power and whilst true, does not seem relevant to the article. This section would be greatly improved by providing a link to the article on Pressurized_Water_Reactor which deals solely on the relevant technology.--Marmite disaster 10:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And more... If this is relevant it needs to be explained why it's relevant and what the actual construction times were: "The two shortest nuclear power plant construction projects were in this same volatile period, River Bend and St. Lucie-2." Jim62sch 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto [In experimental "fast breeder" reactors (see also LMFBR), media such as liquid sodium are used for heat dissipation.] Jim62sch 22:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto bis: [In seaside plants such as San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, cooling towers are not used; salt water is instead pumped in from the ocean to absorb the waste heat and is then pumped back into the ocean where the heat dissipates.] Jim62sch 22:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Babies' teeth

The parenthetical remark "(a study on babies' teeth is yet to be done)" appears under the section "Health effects and epidemiology". The source is a press release on the website of an advocacy organization. Shouldn't a press release be considered "self-published" and therefore not be used as a source (except in articles about the organization that published the press release)? Leehach 01:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Undo of User:Karenjb27's edit explained

Karen's edit was good in that it simplified the explanation. However, the page was showing an error message due to the removal of several ref tags which interrupted the sequence and broke the references. Also, some accurate information about the possibility of water entry into the instrument air system was removed; that possibility is mentioned in the Rogovin and Kemeny commission reports as well as "The Warning" and other published works chronicling the event. I think that information should stay in. No offense intended. Scott Johnson 20:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Btmi3.jpg

Image:Btmi3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

radiation release numbers added to first paragraph

OK, based on the "Being Bold" wiki editing directive... It seems to me that the tenor of the introductory paragraphs sounds overly reassuring, as if it had been edited by someone in the nuke industry PR department (apologies and all due respect of various authors of the page). Included are phrases like "no immediate deaths or injuries", and "public reaction to the event was probably influenced..." [implied to mean "worsened" or "made more severe than appropriate"] "... by ... the release ... of a popular movie called 'The China Syndrome' ". And, the introductory paragraphs fail to include mention of the actual radioactivity release to the environment, which was significant. Therefore I have taken the liberty of copying to the first paragraph information which appears later in the page, about "It is estimated that a maximum of 13 million curies (480 petabecquerels) of radioactive noble gases were released by the event, though very little of the hazardous iodine-131 was released."; from a note in the discussion page, the I-131 quantity is believed to be under 20 curies (= ~ 740 gigabecquerels); I have mushed all this together into one sentence in the first paragraph. because of the significant radioactivity release to the environment (even if it is true that there were no *human* casualties - and this is somewhat in dispute), this deserves to be mentioned right away in the introduction. hope you all agree. (lanephil, 2/25/2008). Lanephil (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

TMI March 1979 eye witness account

I was there. I was 14 and I was in high school the day the reactor started melting down. The sky was hazy and yellowish, the air tasted and smelled like metal. My mother was pregnant and my parents came and pulled me out of school and we evacuated to DC that day. I will NEVER forget the air, the smell and the taste of radiation. I was 15 miles from the plant at the time. You cannot tell me that the central PA population only received mild radiation that day, I was there I saw it I smelled it, I tasted it. My uncle was the only one who did not evacuate, he was 10 miles form the plant at the time of the beginning of the melt down and he died 5 years later of a a rare form of pancreatic cancer. TMI was a huge cover up by thornberg and company, they did nto want to admit they were careless and sloppy and had no real plan to evacuate the community. They lied to us about the core melting down, we found out later how close we all came to being toasted. They never talked about the contaminated fish and crabs that were sold to the public afterwards-- where do you think all that contamination went? Hello Chesapeake bay -- downriver from harrisburg btw!

I do nto know how much radiation I was exposed to during that time but now that it has been over 30 yearsand I am only now starting to relax. BTW I live less than 10 miles from that plant now. First sign of trouble and I am out of here for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.42 (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd... I traced your IP and it indicates you are nowhere near Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.17.18 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Navy IT service is rather centralized, and there's a Navy logistics facility in New Cumberland, PA, FYI. Acroterion _(talk) 19:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Evacuations

Pregnant women and children within 5 miles of the plant were advised to evacuate on March 31 (Jane Roberts, The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events (1981), p. 195. This would seem to be a worthwhile addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Why hasn't this article been flagged for neutrality? There are some significant disputes here in the discussion section, and the overall tone (as well as some of the sources) appears, to me at least, quite biased.

I'm a newbie, so I apologize if this comment isn't totally within Wiki's posting guidelines. Rapunzel676 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Rapunzel676

We're glad to have your opinion, but I'm interested in how you think the article is biased? The disputes on the talk page are nothing very unusual, and the article seems (to me, at least) to be a fairly straightforward recitation of the referenced facts. Acroterion _(talk) 01:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While I actually tend to agree with the author's conclusions, I believe accounts of historical events should strive to avoid even the appearance of bias. In the very first paragraph the author seems more intent on portraying public fears of radiation poisoning as utterly baseless and irrational than in presenting a simple, straightforward introduction to the TMI incident. Why include a detailed discussion of the controversy surrounding TMI at this point in the article, particularly when it receives such extensive coverage later? This, coupled with the author's heavy reliance on government sources, suggests that at best the author is a little less than neutral in his or her presentation of the "facts" and at worst, that there is an agenda at work. Rapunzel676 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Rapunzel676

Ideally, you're right that there shouldn't be an appearance of bias. In Wikipedia, almost all the articles show bias so most readers expect it anyway. As to this particular case, consider that accident reports always feature body counts prominently. To diminish the prominence of the body count for TMI would be a clear instance of bias. Biased reports always portray the accident as though it were a catastrophe and most people who have heard of the accident believe it was. For this article to be accurate, the singular fact that the accident harmed no one has to be made clear. Your point that the article depends heavily on government reports is a good one. I've added a reference to the Columbia University study.--Cde3 (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cde3, and I understand your position. I could name a few other articles that are a bit too strident in their declarations that popular beliefs are baseless. I'd note that this article gets hit rather hard by people on all sides, so neutrality is a shifting concept. It's been pretty quiet recently, though. Acroterion _(talk) 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

danger of nuclear explosion by stratified core uranium

I remember reading a german journal of nuclear power industry, between 1991 and 1995, reporting the results of the examination of the damaged core after opening the vessel. The report stated that the meltdown of the core was very close to become catastrophic because the molten substances of the core moved to the bottom of the vessel, and stratified according to the density of its components (this is possible because uranium is a very heavy, dense metal, similar to lead). The report says that if the primary cooling would not have been restarted, it would have been well possible that a nuclear explosion would have happened about only 20 minutes later (I suppose because the molten uranium layer would have reached its point of nuclear criticality). I don't have notes on the exact source date and journal title, but it should be possible to recover that information. If the report was correct, the accident was far more dangerous than admitted in 1979. --82.113.121.16 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC) (Joise, shared IP)

Doesn't sound plausible to me. From Pressurized water reactor#Moderator, The use of water as a moderator is an important safety feature of PWRs, as any increase in temperature causes the water to expand and become less dense; thereby reducing the extent to which neutrons are slowed down and hence reducing the reactivity in the reactor. With no water, I don't see how it can go critical. Even if it did, it would be a dud because of the relatively slow speed that the mass comes together and the fact that there would be many neutrons which would prevent over criticality. Paul Studier (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the design of nuclear weapons is a closely guarded secret, we don't know that much about them. However, I think it is well established that a conventional shaped charge is used to increases the density of a radioactive substance to the point of criticality. Now consider a pressurized water reactor. Without water, the nuclear fuel is likely to melt and reform with increased overall density (i.e. due to elimination of space between fuel pellets). At the same time, hydrogen gas produced in the process is likely to explode. Depending on the proximity and confinement of the hydrogen gas, this spontaneous shaped charge could further increase the density of the nuclear fuel, resulting in a range of scenarios from a nuclear "micro-bomb" to something much more noticeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.54.138 (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite a bit is publicly known about nuclear weapons. See Nuclear weapon and Nuclear Weapon Archive from Carey Sublette. From Enriched uranium, The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s) -usable); I believe that typical light water reactors are only enriched to about 4%. Nuclear weapons require precision high explosive shaped charges and precise timing. There was a hydrogen explosion at TMI, but it was a minor event. So a significant nuclear explosion is not possible. Paul Studier (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They also use tritium triggers. Hydrogen formation is not a "shaped charge", it has distinctly not been shaped to create any particular geometry or direction of force. Nuclear weapons are designed so that you can actually crush them without creating a detonation, so it is not merely an increase of proximity but an enormous crushing from all directions that drives all nuclear material into a super critical mass, simultaneous with the addition of a large number of neutrons from the trigger. Even a bomb going off near a nuclear weapon should not detonate because it is designed to not function when the explosion is coming from a single direction. There's also the issue of fuel type, as discussed above by Paul. Just creating a change to geometry does imply that nuclear fuel has become a nuclear bomb.

More importantly, your hydrogen production in a fission reactor = nuclear weapons is WP:OR If you can cite a WP:RS then by all means add it to the article. Mishlai (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Edward Teller Washington Post Ad.jpg

The image Image:Edward Teller Washington Post Ad.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Two one word changes and some thoughts on profitability

I made two one-word changes:

1) I replaced time with money. Consider that to save time, all other things being equal, one takes Second Street instead of Fourth Street to go to the market. To save money, one decides not to install a gauge. Sure that saves time too, but that's not the primary reason. Ironically, in the case of the Three Mile Island Accident, this attempt to save money ended up costing a significant amount.

2) I replaced camp with group. I think most would agree that the word camp is just too psychologically loaded.

I made changes on both sides of the ideological divide, so perhaps they can both stand!

Also, I remember from this era (1979) that nuclear power plants were no longer cost effective, and I don't believe this point is covered sufficiently in the article. It wasn't just increased government regulation, or the declining cost of fossil fuels. It was the increasing cost of nuclear fuel, the increased costs (due to complexity) of constructing nuclear power plants, and the increased cost of nuclear waste storage, long term disposal and plant decommissioning.

Also, tangentially, I recall that some insurance policies at the time specifically denied coverage in the event of a "nuclear event." Consider what this would mean (e.g. to hurricane victims) if current insurance denied compensation due to "global warming."

I'll try to find the time to research these and update the article, but if anyone beats me to it, I would be much obliged.

213.1.54.138 (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the time to money conversion, but it's not a big deal. That statement is actually not sourced by the reference for that paragraph, so it would be nice to see the reference on the decision to not include the relief valve indication. If the WP:RS says it was to save time, then we should stick with that wording.

Cost effectiveness of nuclear power has an entire article already, Economics of new nuclear power plants although this is not so applicable to 1979. I'm unsure of what you're driving at with this, except perhaps to diminish the notion that TMI created a substantial decline in popular support for nuclear power. This relationship is pretty well supported by references.

In terms of insurance, I think you may find this interesting. Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act Mishlai (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

"A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view."

Please do not change the conclusions of Steven Wing's study to suit your POV.
Radiation and Public Health Project is *not* a political organization. It is a non-profit organization made up of qualified scientists. Please do not remove contributions to suit your POV.

Kgrr (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up these concerns here, Kgrr. Was the R&PHP study published in a peer-reviewed journal? According to this NYT article their "credibility with the scientific establishment hovers near zero", so I'm concerned about sourcing them in the context of the scientific study of TMI accident effects. We really should limit the discussion of the health effects and epidemiology to peer-reviewed scientific studies, or at least make clear which results are peer-reviewed and which aren't. Jfire (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Mangano, "Three Mile Island: Health Study Meltdown," Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 60 (September/October 2004): pp. 30-35. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is a peer-reviewed journal. But it's not available online for free.Kgrr (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have access to it? From what I can see of it online, it seems to be more of an opinion piece than a peer-reviewed study. Jfire (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not Mangano's article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.Kgrr (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say that? It's labeled as such. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September, 2004 by Mangano, Joseph. Jfire (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a copy of the article. The original is on another site.Kgrr (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Radiation and Public Health Project cannot be termed an "organization made up of qualified scientists." The main contributor is Joseph Mangano, who has crusaded against nuclear energy for some decades, who is noted mainly for eschewing peer review, and who is not respected by any qualified scientists. That is, assuming Alec Baldwin and Christie Brinkley aren't qualified scientists. I suspect Mangano is the owner of the web site. An organization that publishes articles like "Resolve health issues before building more nuke reactors" and "Too Much Cancer Already – New Nukes Too Big A Risk" doesn't meet any normal standards for objectivity or authoritativeness.

Mangano is not the owner of findarticles.com. Don't be ridiculous. However, although you might think it's not authoritative, it's probably as meaningful as NEI propaganda, but nevertheless a countering opinion and perhaps should be identified as such.Kgrr (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If a NEI article was referenced here it would be slapped down without a chance to blink. Please let's not turn this article into a debate page over TMI. Readers come here to get solid information and we ought to provide it. I consider the reference to Radiation and Public Health Project to go strongly against Wikipedia's principles, but as long as readers understand its purpose perhaps it's okay to acknowledge that other voices are speaking.--Cde3 (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The conclusions given in the college newspaper article do not appear in the Wing paper. Manufacturing misinformation like this is totally contrary to the intent of Wikipedia. The version I put up to correct it comes straight from the article's conclusion.--Cde3 (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you removing the "peer-reviewed" from the reference to the article? The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal and was defended several times afterwards. It's not junk science. It seems important to you to discredit Wing's work at every turn. Why?? Leave your POV out of it.Kgrr (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it's unnecessary and defensive. All the articles should be peer-reviewed and we don't qualify the other references this way. It's like "I'll always love you and this time I really mean it." Dr. Wing's study deserves more respect. It certainly doesn't deserve to be misrepresented the way the college paper treated it.--Cde3 (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC) PS: I've haven't said anything to discredit the paper. I merely corrected the information here to reflect what he said.--Cde3 (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This paper constantly gets discredited by the pro-nuke lobby because it counters their myth that no one was harmed by TMI. I'm sorry if I'm being defensive, but inevitably this reference gets beat up on Wikipedia. In fact, it was in this article at one time and has been removed since by other authors saying the reference was too POV for their liking. Incidentally, what you are quoting is not the conclusion, but the abstract.Kgrr (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I took it from the paper. The link here takes you to the abstract, and there's a link there to the paper. Please read it and assure yourself I'm not dissembling here. The Wing paper actually has been criticized in the literature, but I'm not qualified to parse out what's right from what isn't. But if the paper is referenced we ought to get it as accurate as we can.--Cde3 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the free paper myself as well. Look under Discussion. He does show a strong positive correlation with leukemia and lung cancer "Accident doses were positively associated with cancer incidence. Associations were largest for leukemia, intermediate for lung cancer, and smallest for all cancers combined". Further down, "This analysis shows that cancer incidence, specifically lung cancer and leukemia, increased more following the TMI accident in areas estimated to have been in the pathway of radioactive plumes than in other areas." But out of all of the whole paper, you choose to cherry-pick a few numbers that the lay person cannot possibly interpret. Is this on purpose?Kgrr (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in the paper does Wing say downwind cancer rates were some multiple of upwind. That's totally made up. I think I pulled out the salient part of the conclusion. If you think some other part is more accurate, please let's see it.--Cde3 (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive Talk Page?

Anyone object to letting MiszaBot archive some of the old threads here? Jfire (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No objections, so done. Jfire (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Health effects and epidemiology

Continuing from the above discussion, here are my thoughts on this section.

On the Wing study much more needs to be said. This was possibly the most important (and most contentious) study of the epidemiological effects of the TMI accident, but our coverage of it leaves much to be desired. To begin with, if I'm reading the study correctly, the existing article content is misleading -- the figures cited are the estimated rate of cancer increase per unit dose (which I believe refers to the Sievert) and unit dose estimates for each of the 69 study tracts ranged from 0.0 to 1665.73 units. As Kgrr implies, in addition to citing such figures, we should provide context from the discussion section of the paper which will be easier for a lay person to interpret. For example, "This analysis shows that cancer incidence, specifically lung cancer and leukemia, increased more following the TMI accident in areas estimated to have been in the pathway of radioactive plumes than in other areas." (p. 56)
Secondly, the Wing study was a reevaluation of the earlier Hatch study, using the same data but, purporting to correct some logical and methodological problems. More needs to be said about the Hatch study, the connection between the two, and the academic debate between the two research teams following the Wing publication.
On the Mangano paper and RPHP project figures -- these should stay, as an example of public advocacy groups who believe that the medical research into the effects of TMI is incomplete in significant ways, but it needs to be made clear that they are figures from a group skeptical of the safety of nuclear power, not from a peer-reviewed scientific study. I have found the full text of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article here. It's not a peer-reviewed study, it's a review of the literature, identification of alleged gaps in the research, and a call for further study; useful as one viewpoint on the (in)adequacy of existing research, but not as a research result on its own. We cite it here as a source for the purported increase in childhood cancer deaths, but in the the paper itself, those results are raised in the context of a call for scientific study of a TMI accident correlation; the immediate following sentence reads: "The degree to which this [i.e. increased childhood cancer rates] reflects the latent effects of Three Mile Island should be explored, especially since no other risk factors in these two counties are obvious." By the way, the the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a nontechnical public policy magazine, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Still a reliable source, by all means, but not a source for peer-reviewed epidemiological studies.
Otherwise, this section is incomplete in several other important ways. It should lead with the conclusions of the two governmental commissions as to the health effects of TMI. There's a bit about this in the intro paragraphs, but it should be fleshed out here. In addition, coverage of scientific studies of stress-induced illness resulting from the accident and media coverage thereof should be included -- this is a significant part of the literature, as Mangano makes clear. Finally, results should be noted from Talbott, E O (2000-06). "Mortality among the residents of the Three Mile Island accident area: 1979-1992". Environmental Health Perspectives. 108 (6): 545–52. ISSN 0091-6765. Retrieved 2009-01-03. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Jfire (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jfire, I agree about Steven Wing's paper. I understand it stands muster after several vigorous cycles of discussion between the two teams. The section certainly does not bring any of this up. I think it's very much needed because without it, the epidemiology section becomes very pro-nuclear biased. This paper should be mentioned:

Steve Wing, David Richardson. Collision of Evidence and Assumptions: TMI Deja View, in Environmental Health Perspectives

I have not read Joseph Magano's paper yet, but thanks for the link. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist *is* a peer-reviewed magazine/journal [6] "A journal devoted to educating citizens about global security issues, especially the continuing dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and the appropriate roles of nuclear technology." However, I will agree that it's not a place to find a peer-reviewed epidemiology study.

I definitely feel that these three Evelyn Talbot et al works need to be included:

Evelyn O. Talbott, Ada O. Youk, Kathleen P. Mchugh. Mortality among the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident Area: 1979-1992, in Environmental Health Perspectives
Evelyn O. Talbott, Ada O. Youk, Kathleen P. Mchugh-Pemu. Long-Term Follow-Up of the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident Area: 1979-1998, in Environmental Health Perspectives
Evelyn O. Talbot, Amir Zhang, Ada O. You "Collision of Evidence and Assumptions: TMI Deja View": Talbott Response, in Environmental Health Perspectives

Kgrr (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the BAS is NOT a peer reviewed journal. Some of it's articles ARE peer reviewed, later, but not as a criteria for a paper's publication. But the New England Journal of Medicine is it not.67.174.197.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

The article states: " A 2005 study has noted that the counties surrounding TMI have the highest natural radon concentrations in the United States and that this may be the cause of the increased lung cancer noted in the region.[40]

Here is the reference that is being used:

Three Mile Island epidemiologic radiation dose assessment revisited: 25 years after the accident R. William Field Received September 6, 2004, amended November 24, 2004, accepted December 5, 2004 Over the past 25 years, public health concerns following the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident prompted several epidemiologic investigations in the vicinity of TMI. One of these studies is ongoing. This commentary suggests that the major source of radiation exposure to the population has been ignored as a potential confounding factor or effect modifying factor in previous and ongoing TMI epidemiologic studies that explore whether or not TMI accidental plant radiation releases caused an increase in lung cancer in the community around TMI. The commentary also documents the observation that the counties around TMI have the highest regional radon potential in the United States and concludes that radon progeny exposure should be included as part of the overall radiation dose assessment in future studies of radiation-induced lung cancer resulting from the TMI accident.

Since the reference offered does not back up this information, I will remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The section gives all these figures for the radiation released as fact yet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Congress that because the radiation monitors were overloaded they no longer worked so they did not know how much radiation was released or where it went which makes them guestimates at best. Several experts claim the radiation released had to be at least 100 times higher than claimed based on the design of the reactors alone. This seems to be supported by the fact that Pennsylvania stopped using the tumour register after the accident and I read they also stopped reporting cancer rates. Are there any studies with proof for the numbers reported? Wayne (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cde3 has repeatedly removed some of my recent additions based on Joseph Mangano's 2004 Bulletin paper. He refers me to WP:RS. Well another editor notes above that though it's not peer reviewed it is reliable enough source and in the broad survey sense (which is all it's doing, it's not a new study) I agree. And I'll quote here what it says in the bulletin blurb about Mangano: "Joseph Mangano, the national coordinator for the Radiation and Public Health Project in New York, is the author of 19 medical journal articles and the book Low-Level Radiation and Immune Disease: An Atomic Era Legacy (1998)." Now what exactly did I add which Cde3 keeps removing (to be clear, he's not removed everything - see diff): it's a paragraph summary of the early work on estimates and statistics; and Mangano's (explicitly attributed) observation on gaps in the literature. I'm sure the section can be improved (see comments by others above), but I don't see that removing this material contributes to that. Rd232 ^talk 00:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

NB in re-adding this material I've this time left out Mangano's criticism of the Columbia and Pittsburgh studies for the way they assigned fallout impact: "using the wind direction on the morning of 28 March to assign fallout impact, even though, according to Joseph Mangano in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the areas of lowest fallout by this criterion had the highest mortality rates." Is this issue mentioned in the Wing/Hatch discussions? Or anywhere else? Rd232 ^talk 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence, "An exchange of published responses between Wing and the Columbia team followed.[34]" tells the reader exactly nothing. There is no point in its inclusion. Mangano has no standing in the scientific community. He publishes articles in unprofessional magazines for self-publicity and makes his living on grants. Wasserman is no more a journalist than I am. He doesn't work for any reputable newspaper or magazine and all he ever has written are polemics aimed at influencing people's opinions by distorting facts. If you choose to revert, at least have the integrity to leave in referenced information.--Cde3 (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

?? what referenced information did I remove? I've been careful not to undo unrelated changes; I haven't simply reverted, but re-added material I thought was more helpful being there. For example how is removing that sentence about the exchange an improvement? It does provide some limited information, namely precisely what it says. It needs expansion and clarification - which deletion does not encourage. As to Harvey Wasserman, I don't know the guy but his WP article describes him as a journalist. Mangano I've already provided the Bulletin blurb for. Now I'm going to revert this info back. If you object so strongly to this use of these sources, one of us will have to go to WP:RSN and I'd ask you to do that rather than remove it again. Rd232 ^talk 13:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the part you chopped out: "and concluded, 'The mortality surveillance of this cohort does not provide consistent evidence that radioactivity released during the TMI accident has a significant impact on the mortality experience of this cohort to date.'" This is a quotation from a legitimate source. I'm putting in warning templates to advise readers about the unreliability of the sections as they presently are. If you revert them, be aware that you are clearly violating both the intent and the practice of editing WP articles.--Cde3 (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recognise that sentence; and I've been mostly adding things, not removing. Have a helping of WP:AGF. Also I'm leaving the tags out (which came out due to edit conflict) as the section is now very different from when you put them in. Add them back if required, with detailed explanation please. Rd232 ^talk 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I take it that sentence refers to Talbott; and I've actually added back the key phrase in my Big Bold Edit (TM). Rd232 ^talk 19:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you don't recognize the sentence. You aren't even reading the article, just vandalizing it. Before you began attacking it, the article was a serious treatment of an important subject. Now it includes unsupported misinformation from disreputable sources. I've put considerable effort into correcting the damage you've done because I did assume you were acting in good faith, but you only have to hit the undo button to prevent any salvaging of the article. Your zeal in removing even the warning tags proves you have only a malicious intention. I intend to keep putting them in as fast as you take them out.--Cde3 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, I've been admonished that the correct procedure for dealing with this is to warn you that I will implement an administrative procedure against vandalism. I'll clean out the junk you've inserted here and restore the valid information you deleted when I get a chance and if you revert it then it will be up to the administrators to deal with it.--Cde3 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Really... I thought you'd been given a standard template warning advising to be civil and to check the definition of WP:VANDALISM. Anyway, I'd rather you didn't immediately revert all my work, which includes a lot of additional stuff from the scientific literature, as well as clearly attributed and properly sourced stuff about other ideas (some of it referred to by Wing), because I've posted at WP:NPOVN asking for more input. While you're waiting, have another helping of WP:AGF. Of course, if you want to finally take up my invitation to discuss specific issues in more detail, fire away. Rd232 ^talk 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: I (an administrator) warned Cde3 to stop calling people vandals, using phrases like 'malicious intention', etc. Please read WP:AGF and WP:Civil. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a blatant misrepresentation. Here's the actual text of Dougweller's missive: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Three Mile Island accident. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please read WP:Vandalism and WP:AGF Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC). Nowhere does Dougweller tell me to "stop calling people vandals, using phrases like 'malicious intention', etc." I did look at the articles Dougweller mentioned and am complying with them. I'm not attacking anyone, merely pointing out that some of the editors are inserting material that doesn't meet WP's standards and that one editor in particular has proved by his conduct that he doesn't respect the standards. Dougweller's one-sided response, together with a misrepresentation of his note to me, puts his own objectivity in question. At this moment my thinking is that the article needs a "dissenting views" section so readers can distinguish between the conclusions of scientific experts and those of others.--Cde3 (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And you don't understand that to mean stop calling people vandals, accusing people of malicious intent, etc? I also added 'please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Calling people vandals and accusing them of malicious intent is clearly a personal attack. Your response is illuminating. Don't turn a content dispute into a personal one. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well somewhere in there is the first substantial point you've made for a while. Oh, it's like the first snow-drop of spring... Anyway, it may work to distinguish the official from the dissenting view on radiation output. The issue is so critical that it does deserve more in depth discussion. Problem is the health discussion is written as a history to avoid a Pro/ Con structure (which is rarely helpful, especially on something contentious); and removing the radiation output from that is tricky because when it comes down to it, the main difference between the studies is in whether they believe the official radiation figures. This is backed up in Hatch's case by dosimeter data, which Wing points out is unreliable; and in Talbott's case by some remarks that Kodak had some film stored in the area and none of it got enough radiation to fog... Still, developing the radiation output issue would help, and that can be structured either as a history (my preference) or as Official / Other views. Rd232 ^talk 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Prevention

How could the three mile island disaster have been prevented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.200.193.250 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

worlds worst nuclear accident (pre chernobyl)

The opening paragraph states that Three Mile Island was "considered" to be the worlds worst accident, according to the wiki article on "Sellafield" particularly the Windscale fire incident highlights that published figures show that radiation levels were worse for the windscale incidident.

I'm not sure which was conisdered as the worst accident but even if three mile island was "considered" wouldn't it be better to add "(although infact the windscale incident was more damaging)"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neosophist (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is biased-Relies too much on one source

This article leans very heavily on one source:Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective by J. Samuel Walker ( ISBN-10: 0520246837)

Specifically this line though very little of the hazardous iodine-131 was released, is unsupported except to cite Walker. He is the official spokesperson for the government on Nuclear Power and Energy. Once again, Wikipedia continues its venerable tradition of being a toady to the government. Three Mile Island was a disaster of unprecedented scale, due to radiation released during the crisis, hundreds of unborn fetuses were damaged and then died at birth or soon after delivery. Thousands of people were killed because of the accident and all Wiki can do is trot out the mouthpiece for the cover up. This source, and others like it give a completely different story: Deadly Deceit: Low-Level Radiation High-Level Cover-Up, by Jay M. Gould ISBN-10: 0941423565

As far as the talk article above that is between others and Cde3, again, the gist of the research is "let's just go over what the government says and then go from there." His statement "It should lead with the conclusions of the two governmental commissions as to the health effects of TMI" is an attempt to put all other sources in the penumbra of disrepute.

Again, such an attitude does not bode of scholarly effort, rather it is a further effort to oppress us all by making compliance on government facts as the beginning of legitimate discussion. What I hear is "if you're going to contest what the government tells us, just be quiet." Such an attitude is disheartening and is nothing more than an effort to stifle honest and open discussion. If Cde3 can take the heat, I'd like to hear what he has to say. Rverne8 (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Rverne8, I don't intend to take any heat. I don't make the rules here. WP's policy is to include information from reliable sources, especially from qualified, disinterested experts, published in peer-reviewed professional journals. Sensationalist free-lance writers who publicize unsupported claims from political groups or unverifiable sources aren't supposed to be included at all.--Cde3 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you seem to have a problem with Mangano in particular, so let me note that he does have a relevant academic record: Scopus lists 19 items for him; I make 10 of them to be articles in peer-reviewed medical journals (all on health impact of radiation). (NB The 10 doesn't includes the BAS article.) Google Scholar has more [7]. Rd232 ^talk 17:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot his 1998 book, Low Level Radiation and Immune System Damage: An Atomic Era Legacy (Google Books). Published by the scientific/technical publisher CRC Press, to anticipate your next question. Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Three Mile Island is the premier scholarly work on the accident and one of the most reliable sources on it in existence; it's no accident that the article relies on it heavily, but exactly as our standards here demand. Jfire (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But it has been criticised as well (see article) and in any case it is by the NRC's historian, who's hardly very likely to rock the official boat now is he? It may be scholarly but it's not, say, by an independent academic. Rd232 ^talk 23:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Rverne8, what is it you expect to see in an encyclopedia? This is not an advocacy forum. I came to this article looking for the chronology (and there it was!) The changes you seem to advocate would only muddy the subject. Links to articles that address controversies surrounding nuclear power would be appropriate, and your objections would be fitting there, but otherwise we really should try to stay on topic. Flagmichael (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

PORV

Reverted section about PORV. IIRC, the PORV exhaust line was always hot because it had a cronic leak. Don't have a reference handy. pstudier 19:20, 25 April 2005 (UTC)

Secret report?

I removed the following changes by an anon:

A report comissioned by President Carter concluded that nuclear power plans in the US were inherently unsafe and should all be shut down. Later, after pressure from the nuclear power lobby, a toned-down report was released about the incident.

... Over the years, journalists who have tried to find this earlier report have been rebuffed by Jimmy Carter and/or the editors they work for. Some have been threated with violence to themselves and their families.

I'd really like to see such information cited if you are going to make claims that former U.S. presidents have been threatening people's families. Additionally -- if the report was made secret, how do we even know it existed or was real? Again, citations needed so this sort of thing can be verified and NPOVed if necessary. --Fastfission 23:38, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

Questionable Citation

Citation 33 is for an article in Science Magazine from 1980 by "New York heath officials" it should include the authors names - M Wahlen, CO Kunz, JM Matuszek, WE Mahoney, and RC Thompson (or at least the first author!) to make it easier to find.

Additionally, the citation also includes un-cited information about Charles Armentrout's findings. A quick search returned no published articles for "Armentrout" on the subject by major citation indexes. The only reference is an un-cited mention in Mangalo from Citation 32. Please provide a publication, year, location, anything to Charles Armentrout's findings, rather than to Mangalo's un-cited comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.70.168 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've removed most of the health effects section. It was unnecessarily long, mind-numbing in statistical detail and basically supported the initial paragraph's summary and the US government's position on the subject rather than the conspiracy theorists. If someone is attached to the information they should create a seperate article. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What malfunction, design flaw or operator error caused the plant to scrum in the first place?

Nuclear power plants don't scrum, unless something goes very badly wrong. The TMI incident begins with some pumps shutting down and then the plant scrumming. So what went wrong? Why did the pumps shut down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.108.14 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Randall Thompson

There is a discussion about Randall Thompson (and his wife joy), about the amount of radioactivity released. I think it cannot be quoted as unrealiable but we should definitively create a page for that guy. (check here for pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear statements) A link to the guy page would tell a lot. The problem is that claim is really severe, you can't just make that claim and expect all pro-nuclear people to believe it, unless you "reference" it (by plugging a page for that guy and a reference of his claim).

“

"Thompson and his wife, Joy, a nuclear health physicist who also worked at TMI in the disaster's aftermath, claim that what they witnessed there was a public health tragedy... Randall Thompson could never be accused of being a knee-jerk anti-nuclear alarmist. A veteran of the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarine program, he is a self-described "nuclear geek" who after finishing military service jumped at the chance to work for commercial nuclear power companies. He worked for a time at the Peach Bottom nuclear plant south of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania's York County, but quit the industry six months before the TMI disaster over concerns that nuclear companies were cutting corners for higher profits, with potentially dangerous results."[8] Rndm85 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, my source for Thompson being a travelling clown is from the very same source you just cited. Did you not even read the entire article? Here is the relevant section:

Today they live quietly in the mountains of North Carolina where, inspired by time spent seeking refuge with a traveling circus, they have forged a new career for themselves as clowns -- or what they like to call "professional fools."

The article goes on to say Thompson believes his brother in law was killed (and he was attempted to be killed) by a government conspiracy, the same conspiracy that stole his manuscript. He's a loon, in short, which is why no reputable source has ever published him. Further, he gives absolutely zero evidence to back up his claims. FellGleaming (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

”

AlexH555 (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be more information on the actual reaction process itself

you know, with the uranium-238, and how it under goes beta-decay inside if those zirconium rods, maybe include how the hydrogen bubble was formed when the zirconium underwent a hydrogen displacement reaction to remove the hydrogen from all the steam, and make ZrO, and that's why the H2 was left all by itself. all i'm saying is that there are a few scientific details you guys are leaving out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.166.103 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Gundersen

We can leave Gundersen out, if that improves the article. It is not the case that he describes himself as pro-nuclear. In the video he states clearly that he turned against nuclear energy in 1994. It is a fact that he hires himself out as an anti-nuclear witness, as his website shows. These are facts, and even if you think they are "argumentative, opinion, unsubstantiated, slanted, petty, obsessed with trying to label things per one viewpoint" they are relevant to the article. Part of the story of TMI is that anti-nuclear advocates challenge the official findings. Leaving out the advocates' financial connections to their anti-nuclear activities would mislead the reader and bias the article.Cde3 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Then we must also label the industry for their questionable acitivities since they are all nuclear profiteers. GPU plead guilty to a felon so they need a "felon" tag and therefore are unreliabble sources too. You ought to get your own web site if you feel the need to label everthing. You can't hire yourself as an anti-nuclear witness. So your strange bias is showing. You can however testify as an expert witness as he has done and been proven correct while the Vermont Yankee folks were mistaken of hiding the truth. Own the facts dude. Get you own page to to say whatever you want. Wikipedia is not the place to slant everything you can.

Anonymous poster, I wish you would please look at some WikiPedia guidelines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

Once you are familiar with WP's policies, your contributions will be greatly appreciated.Cde3 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing facts or altering facts with you opionated labels. The label "nuclear profiteers" is accurate and could be added to each industrial reference. The reader can determine these labels for himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.148.177 (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

74.99.148.177, your edits here demonstrate a lack of understanding of wikipedia policies and are contrary to consensus on this article. Please reach consensus in the discussion here before reinstating them.

Re the tampering charges, they are appropriate for this article, if sourced (I added sourced statements to the body) -- but they are not among the most pertinent facts that need to be summarized in the lead section. Please see WP:LEAD for more information.
Most of your other edits were unsourced and/or containing POV language. Consensus will be against you in adding these unless you can provide adequate sourcing and state things in a NPOV. Jfire (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one adding POV language. I trust the reader to be aware without a label. Additionally, If stating trhat the accident could have been avoided if regulations were followed instead of deliberatley being broken, is not important to state at the beginning of an article which describes such an accident, then you miss the biggest "lessons learned" of all. In fact, that "bold" statement invites the read to continue further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.161.71 (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Arnie Gundersen is pro-nuclear.....ask him! His statements on the TMI accident (referenced video) say that his views on the event turned 180 degrees, not his views on nuclear power.````??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.148.177 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Gundersen is paid by an anti-nuclear political group, Beyond Nuclear, which makes him anti-nuclear. To say he still is pro-nuclear requires some justification. There is nothing in the video that suggests he is anything other than anti-nuclear. He even references Helen Caldicott, probably the most virulent anti-nuke on the planet, as an information source. But I could be wrong. Do you know of any place where he states that he advocates increased use of nuclear energy?--Cde3 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is troubling, he is pronuclear. Does being an attorney defending a rapist make the attorney "pro-rape"? How about an expert witness for the defendant? You are wrong, stop adding the labels. Ask Gundersen for yourself, I have. You really need to stop putting labels on things you don't like. I'm ready to add labels if you continue. Gundersen is a pro-nuclear safety expert who testifies in legal cases.74.99.148.177 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask Gundersen. His website is off-line at this moment, but I'll ask when I can. --Cde3 (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary of effect on nuclear industry

Let's discuss the preferred wording. My wording:

The accident ... has been cited as a contributor to the decline of new reactor construction that was already underway in the 1970s.

Anon's wording:

The accident ... has been incorrectly cited as a contributor to the end of new reactor construction. The industry had already stopped ordering new plants in 1978 due to financial concerns.

I think mine is better in several ways:

The fact that it was "cited" is backed up by the body, with references. The assertion that such a citation is "incorrect" is not.
The body does not state and has no reference for the assertion that the industry had stopped ordering new plants in 1978. What it does state is that the decline was underway for various reasons by 1979, which I correctly summarized.

Anyone else have an opinion or want to make another suggestion? Jfire (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"has been incorrectly cited as a contributor to the end of new reactor construction. The industry had already stopped ordering new plants in 1978 due to financial concerns." - is accurate, more precise and descriptive of the facts. One source is HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003 AND THE ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES ACT OF 2003. There are hundreds of sources that repeat the error that after TMI, no more plants were ordered (sic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.161.71 (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to work on the body text first: "According to the IAEA, the Three Mile Island accident was a significant turning point in the global development of nuclear power." That's what the body says, backed by a source. "From 1963 to 1979, the number of reactors under construction globally increased every year except 1971 and 1978. However, following the event, the number of reactors under construction declined every year from 1980 to 1998... As a result of post-oil-shock analysis and conclusions of overcapacity, 40 planned nuclear power plants had already been canceled between 1973 and 1979." As it stands, I think my wording is a more accurate summarization of these sentences, and that's what the WP:LEAD needs to be. If you feel they are inaccurate though, I would welcome edits or additions to this section of the article body -- it's true that it isn't sourced adequately. That's why it's all the more important that additions be properly sourced; you can't just write off those hundred of purportedly incorrect sources, you need to find a reliable source and cite it in a way that I or anyone else would be able to verify what it says. Jfire (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good source: [9] (bottom of that page, starting with "Despite the reforms") Jfire (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"no one knows the exact cause"

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) states in their investigation that the exact cause of the iniating event is unknown. The NRC also states that it was not necesarry to discover the initiating event causation. ^[1] To this day no one knows the exact cause.

I propose to revert this addition as misleading, inadequately sourced, and imprecise. While it might be strictly true that the initial failure of the condensate polishing system had an unknown cause, the overall sequence of events leading to the accident is very well understood. Others agree/disagree? Jfire (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your characterization is completely backwards. The source is provided, you agree with the fact - but want to remove it to add clarity! pffft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.161.71 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with it being clarified and better integrated an appropriate place. As it stands, as the opening text of the article body and "Accident" section, it leads the reader to believe that the accident as a whole is not well understood, which is not the case. It's not clear what "iniating [sic] event" refers to. The second sentence argues for its own unimportance ("not necesarry [sic] to discover"). And it's inadequately sourced -- "NUREG-0600" does not provide enough information that a reader would be able to verify the first two sentences, and the final sentence is completely unsourced. Jfire (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the cause was due to a combination of work being done to the Condensate Polisher Deminerilzers (CPD) and that water in the Instrument Air (IA) system prevented the bypass valves to the CPDs to operate correctly. Essentially, workers managed to isolate the Main Condenser to the Condensate and Feedwater System (CFS) which is why the Main Feedwater Pumps (MFP) tripped due to loss of suction. The MCR was not able to open the bypass valves to the CPDs and the MFPs tripped causing them to loose their main source of feedwater. Then there's the added problem with leaving the Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFS) valves shut, which is well known. But yea, maybe the CPD bypass valves was just a theory and not the determined initiating cause of the accident. Has anyone heard of this determination and know that it's just a theory and not the proven cause? Gilawson (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

NEW --- When the NRC investigators attempted to duplicate the hypothesis of water in the air line (instrument control air, they could not cause the condensate polisher inlet or outlet valves to close despite pouring 15 gallons !! into the air line. But no one ever figured out the exact cuase. But somehow that hypothesis became a supposed fact since its been told so often. That is the system where the problem started (condensate polishers). Unit 2 had no automatic Condensate Polisher Bypass Valve which was a huge mistake. I think you meant to say Emergency FeedWater Valves were closed to the steam generators. Know one knows why that happened either. Some, including the President's Commission suspected sabotage. In fact, they asked the FBI to investigate. That whole story has yet to be investigated. intials RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.148.177 (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know moisture in Instrument Air (IA) system prevents valves from operating correctly. The IA system at SHNPP has several moisture traps built in near the three compressors. Operations also has required periodic procedures that must be performed twice a day to drain moisture from the IA system. INPO actually criticized certain power plants (won't say here) that they aren't doing enough to remove moisture from their IA systems. Also, if you see in a comment I posted in a topic in this Discussion, I stated the fact that one of many mods made to "post-TMI" nuclear power plants are auxiliary tanks that store pressurized air to operate the bypass valves to the Condensate Polisher Demineralizers (CPD) in case the IA system is lost. Also, I find it hard to believe that a demineralizer doesn't have a bypass valve. Every demineralizer has a bypass valve in order to protect it or to have the ability to conduct maintenance on it while remaining online. Demineralizers are sensitive to both high temperatures and high pressures, hence the use of Pressure Control Valves (PCV) and Temperature Control Valves (TCV) to bypass demineralizers.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but a lot of consequences happened due to the "hypothesis" that the IA system failed to operate the bypass valves to the CPD correctly.

No, there is no such thing as "Emergency FeedWater Valves ... to the steam generators". There is the Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFS) that encompasses a lot of components. I just referred to AFS to keep it simple. But more specifically, the AFS encompasses Auxiliary Feed Water Pumps (AFW Pumps). More specially, there will be two electrically powered AFW pumps and one Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump (TDAFW Pump). I could bore you with the specifics of what kinds of valves are on the discharge of these two different kinds of pumps, but I'll just say that there are PCVs and Flow Control Valves (FCV) used on the discharge. Trying to think of it now, I am not sure if there was a manual valve on the discharge line, I think there are locked open manual valves on the discharge. But essentially, one of these valves were left shut (FCV, PCV, or manual valve). This is why the nuclear industry has strictly enforced the ideology of Plant Status Control in procedures. Operations at TMI-2 had lost Status Control of their valves and had left their AFW Pump discharge valves shut without knowing it. Whenever you leave these valves shut, you place the entire plant in a LCO which starts a short countdown (like 72 hours) to start a shutdown to hot standby. If they knew those valves were shut, they would place themselves under a LCO. But it must have been a clearance that they did not exit correctly and left those valves shut. So I highly doubt it was sabotage, it was just paperwork error and that Status Control wasn't strictly upheld back then like it is now.

Thank you for your response. I am very interested in that study by the NRC to try fail the IA system by use of moisture. Do you have any links to that data? Also, I find it hard to believe that there would be no bypass valves to a demineralizer. Engineer designs of these plants always include a bypass valve to practically everything. If you mean that the valve was there, but just not automatic, ok. So in other words, you're saying that it was a manual valve, or a Motor Operated Valve (MOV) without any inputs/outputs (I/O) such as a PCV, TCV, or FCV? Gilawson (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Randall Thompson

There is a discussion about Randall Thompson (and his wife joy), about the amount of radioactivity released. I think it cannot be quoted as unrealiable but we should definitively create a page for that guy. (check here for pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear statements) A link to the guy page would tell a lot. The problem is that claim is really severe, you can't just make that claim and expect all pro-nuclear people to believe it, unless you "reference" it (by plugging a page for that guy and a reference of his claim).

“

"Thompson and his wife, Joy, a nuclear health physicist who also worked at TMI in the disaster's aftermath, claim that what they witnessed there was a public health tragedy... Randall Thompson could never be accused of being a knee-jerk anti-nuclear alarmist. A veteran of the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarine program, he is a self-described "nuclear geek" who after finishing military service jumped at the chance to work for commercial nuclear power companies. He worked for a time at the Peach Bottom nuclear plant south of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania's York County, but quit the industry six months before the TMI disaster over concerns that nuclear companies were cutting corners for higher profits, with potentially dangerous results."[10] Rndm85 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, my source for Thompson being a travelling clown is from the very same source you just cited. Did you not even read the entire article? Here is the relevant section:

Today they live quietly in the mountains of North Carolina where, inspired by time spent seeking refuge with a traveling circus, they have forged a new career for themselves as clowns -- or what they like to call "professional fools."

The article goes on to say Thompson believes his brother in law was killed (and he was attempted to be killed) by a government conspiracy, the same conspiracy that stole his manuscript. He's a loon, in short, which is why no reputable source has ever published him. Further, he gives absolutely zero evidence to back up his claims. FellGleaming (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

”

AlexH555 (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Timeline table

I'm removing the line "March 1979 - TMI operators are falsifying reactor leaks rates." from the table because it doesn't seem to be separate from the next line which reads "March 1979 - TMI-2 accident occurred. Containment coolant and unknown amounts of radioactive contamination released into environment.", because it could be POV, and because it isn't past-tense like the rest of the table. Drcarasco (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Plasma recombiner changed to catalytic recombiner

I have modified the sentence "steam and hydrogen were removed from the reactor using a plasma recombiner" in the section Three Mile Island accident#Emergency declared.

In the linked article on Plasma recombination there is no obvious explanation of what it has to do with the elimination of hydrogen. After checking references and the article Nuclear meltdown#Standard failure modes, I assume that it's a catalytic recombiner that was used. The mechanism doesn't involve plasma but the reaction of hydrogen at the surface of a catalyst. Some of these catalysts can be manufactured using plasma technology, which could be an explanation for the confusion = shortcut on the name plasma catalyst ?

I don't have any reference specifically for the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, but I found a valid reference^[2] on catalytic recombination of hydrogen on page 16 of this book OCLC 439775802 available online.

If you find the reference saying it was really a plasma recombiner, then simply revert my edit and add an explanation in the Plasma recombination article.

--MyopsToo (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source? tags

I can not see why these tags are here for references #29 and #35. Please justify this or I will remove the tags. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They don't meet WP's requirement that says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Both these references come from the Institute for Southern Studies, an advocacy organization with a distinct POV. For more on WP's policy, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.--Cde3 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the Wiki policy. The section in question:

According to Randall Thompson, the health physics technician in charge of monitoring radioactive emissions at TMI after the accident and a veteran of the US Navy nuclear submarine program, radiation releases were hundreds if not thousands of times higher.[29][unreliable source?][35][unreliable source?]

Reference # 29 is from the institute, however do you really question that Thompson actually was in charge after the accident and that he stated that large amounts of radiation were released? This is not a question about whether or not he is correct, just a report about what he stated he felt to be correct. As for ref #35, it is a report. You may not agree with it, however that does not automatically make it "unreliable". It is important that wikipedia not make judgements, rather that we just present information and let the readers make their own judgements. Gandydancer (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I don't make the rules here. If it were up to me to decide what is true in this article and what isn't the article would be much different. I have no way of knowing what Thompson was or what he stated. Ref #35 doesn't come from a reliable source. That doesn't make it automatically false, but it is unreliable --- meaning that the reader can't rely on it. If we follow the practice of just including any information presented by anyone and letting readers sort through it themselves then we aren't meeting WP's purpose. Try this analogy: imagine there's an article about Stalin, and someone refers to information that Stalin was a kind-hearted constitutional scholar who's been maligned by corrupted Western news media. The editor inserting this may genuinely believe it's true, but we still can't include it unless it comes from a reliable source. Leaving it up to the reader to decide renders the encyclopedia worthless. But whether or not you agree with this explanation, WP sets the rules.--Cde3 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are confused regarding what is or is not a reliable source. Every source is considered biased to a certain segment of the population. Wikipedia is speaking of blatant bias and certainly blogs. This article was reprinted at several porgressive sites. You may feel that Huff Post (for instance) is biased, however there are many progressives that feel that info from the EPA, etc., is biased. I will remove the tags. Gandydancer (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. WP requires "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Institute for Southern Studies doesn't meet that requirement, nor do any of the progressive websites sympathetic to the same viewpoints. An ideological viewpoint automatically disqualifies any such website as an authoritative source. WP goes on with the following guideline: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite scholarly consensus when available. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree."

WP also admits news organizations, as follows: "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting."

WP further explains about other sources: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." Since ISS intentionally expresses views that are promotional in nature and which rely on personal opinions, WP does not allow it as a reference.--Cde3 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All true, but don't overlook, "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves". The first item to debate here should be, is the source reliable enough for us to believe that Randall Thompson actually said that? If not, we could still say, "The Institute for Southern Studies reports that Randall Thompson, the health physics technician in charge of...". The second point, I suppose, is who is Randall Thompson, and are his statements WP:NOTABLE enough for inclusion? I have no idea on that. If the source says he was "health physics technician in charge of monitoring", this could mean he was a techy guy in charge of calibrating the geiger counters, or that he was the chief executive with responsibility for ascertaining public safety. What do we have to prove his notability? I must say the word technician makes me suspicious. The debate should be notability, not reliability. --Nigelj (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To restate my point, I feel that it is correct to question Thompson's statements, however I feel that according to wiki standards the journal that printed the article that discussed his opinions (and his report) would not fall in the wiki Questionable Sources catagory.

As to your mention of the red flag re "technician"; at first reading I felt a similar doubt. In the article they are sometimes called "health physicist technicians", but it is hard to actually figure out just what sort of training they had. On the other hand, considering that it seems that NO ONE in the building seemed to have had the proper training to figure out just what the hell was going on, what it meant, and what to do about it, it would not be surprising that they would hire a person with those qualifications. Think of an oil well fire for a similar picture - you'd have someone with hands-on experience come in to try and put it out. And it was documentated, as a matter of fact, that nobody in-house seemed to be knowledgeable. See the report issued after the accident:

Commission Findings:

F. TRAINING OF OPERATING PERSONNEL

1. Training of Met Ed operators and supervisors was inadequate and contributed significantly to the seriousness of the accident. The training program gave insufficient emphasis to principles of reactor safety.

2. The TMI training program conformed to the NRC standard for training. Moreover, TMI operator license candidates had higher scores than the national average on NRC licensing examinations and operating tests. Nevertheless, the training of the operators proved to be inadequate for responding to the accident.

3. NRC standards allowed a shallow level of operator training.

a. The Operator Licensing Branch activities were principally restricted to preparing and giving initial licensing examinations and occasional visits to vendors for an informal spot check of start-up certification tests. The branch was heavily involved in the initial start-up of the B&W cold licensing program in the early 1970s. A paper review of B&W's course for new plant operator training was performed without comment in 1976.

b. NRC prescribed only minimal requirements for operator training. There were no minimum educational requirements for operators; there was no requirement for checks to be made on the psychological fitness of candidates or whether they had criminal records.

c. An individual could fail parts of either the NRC licensing examination or the utility requalification examination, including sections on emergency procedures and equipment, and still pass the overall examination by getting a passing average score, and qualify to operate the reactor.

d. The NRC had no criteria for the qualifications of those individuals who carry out the operator training program. It also did not conduct regular in-depth reviews of the training programs.

4. Met Ed had primary responsibility for the training of operators. The quality of the training program at TMI was low.

a. The training program was quantitatively and qualita- tively understaffed as well as conceptually weak; emphasis was not given to fundamental understanding of the reactor and little time was devoted to instruction in the biological hazards of radiation. The content was left to the instructors, who had no greater formal educational qualifications than those of their students.

b. TMI-2's station manager, unit superintendent, and supervisor of operations were not involved in operator training.

c. With NRC approval, the unit superintendent and the station manager at TMI were only required to acquire the experience and training necessary to be examined for a senior reactor operator license, but were not required to hold such a license.

d. Although auxiliary operators performed tasks that could affect reactor power level or involve the handling of radioactive material, there was no formally defined training program for them.

e. Met Ed did not request waivers from employees with naval reactor experience to allow examination of their Navy records.

5. TMI contracted with B&W to carry out a portion of the TMI operator training. B&W performed only those functions specifically required under the agreement.

a. There was little interaction in B&W between those who conducted training and those responsible for nuclear plant design. Course content and conduct of courses were made up by the B&W training department, entirely on its own. There were no formal syllabi or training manuals.

b. The simulator at B&W was a key tool in the training of operators. Simulator training did not include preparation of the operators for multiple-failure accidents. Indeed, the B&W simulator was not, prior to March 28, programmed to reproduce the conditions that confronted the operators during the accident. It was unable to simulate increasing pressurizer level at the same time that reactor coolant pressure was dropping. Gandydancer (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks he was also author of a book:

"Three Mile Island: Tales from the Heart of the Beast", Randall and Marian Thompson (Izzat Publications, 1980), privately published timeline account by a health physics technician who worked ant TMI April 1979"Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World. 2004. p. 607.

The book is also cited here: [11]--Nutriveg (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reliable source, but it has a pubmed... [12]. UPDATE: I now realize it's the same author of "southern studies" magazine.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems we have enough evidence that he probably did say these things, and that he was important enough in the setup for his observations to be notable enough for this brief mention. We are attributing what he said to him, not stating it as objective fact. So, is there any further problem with inclusion without tags? --Nigelj (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've researched this as well as I can. All we know is that PubMed includes an abstract of an article titled "Investigation: revelations about Three Mile Island disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety: a special facing south investigation" by Sue Sturgis, who works for the Institute for Southern Studies. The article was in the publication "New Solutions," which was published in association with the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International union, which merged into the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union in 1999. According to the abstract, Thompson was a health-physics technician who monitored radiation at TMI after the accident and who told his story to Sturgis. A union magazine is neither an academic source nor a news source. We have not found a single reliable source that tells us Randall Thompson ever worked at TMI, or what his job was if he did, or for how long. We don't have a reliable source that says he wrote a book. The US Library of Congress doesn't list any such book. All we have is a chain of nuclear opponents referencing other nuclear opponents. This doesn't come close to meeting WP's requirements.--Cde3 (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that New Solutions would not be an acceptable source. Their editorial policies are here: http://www.newsolutionsjournal.com/index.php/newsolutionsournal/about/editorialPolicies#custom1 Gandydancer (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How New Solutions chooses to describe itself doesn't bear on its reliability as an information source. The author of the article is not a scientist and the article wasn't peer-reviewed. I don't think that in the history of publishing a magazine has ever described itself as a propaganda rag written by political zealots with no qualifications who are dedicated to spreading misinformation. We need a better reference point than New Solutions' description of itself.--Cde3 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"New Solutions" is not a reliable source for some purposes, but it can be used for others, like references for those advocates opinion. We may say "Randall Thompson who claims to have worked as a health physics technician at TMI".

The US Library of Congress doesn't have a copy of every book ever published.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't say Randall Thompson claims anything. We don't have a reliable source that says he even ever existed. Only when we find a reliable information source can we figure out how to describe who he was and what he may have said. I mentioned the Library of Congress to illustrate that we don't know if he wrote a book --- if the LOC doesn't mention it then it couldn't be significant and might not even exist.

WP's policies decide this issue. It couldn't be clearer. Advocacy organizations and union-supported magazines don't qualify as reliable sources.--Cde3 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a reliable source for me that he existed: [13]

Rosalie Bertell, Randall Thompson, David Blumbaum, Radio Station KPFK, Los Angeles, CA. "TMI Coverup: Suppressed Evidence", Subjects: Nuclear accidents, Three Mile Island, Ionizing radiation, 31 May 1985, 30 mins.---Nutriveg (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg, thanks for finding the reference. I suspected Thompson was a real person, and it's reassuring to know.--Cde3 (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thompson is a real person who actually worked at TMI, but being real and being reliable are two different things. What is most troubling to me is that his most serious charges are unverified. He has a history of making claims with a conspiratorial nuance that can not be supported with solid evidence and have not been corroborated by others working at TMI. We are supposed to believe that only he and the corrupt overlords at the plant knew of the alleged schenanigans (and they supposedly aren't talking). He alleges very large releases from TMI but extensive monitoring in the area around the plant by several independent groups in the days following failed to detect anything, including the local community college where they had radiation detectors sensitive enough to catch the faint whiff of radiation blown in from Chinese weapons testing from half way around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubbaloo (talk • contribs) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Source 78, "What's Wrong With the NRC Fact Sheet on the 1979 Accident?". Three Mile Island Alert. Retrieved 2010-08-14. Makes many bold and questionable claims while citing sources for only just a handful of these claims. Soul Shinobi (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Commission Findings report was biased. "Training of Met Ed operators and supervisors was inadequate and contributed significantly to the seriousness of the accident ...... NRC standards allowed a shallow level of operator training", etc. OK, but the operators performed as trained. The accident would never have happened if the PORV position indicator was designed correctly or if dedicated instruments directly measured core water level. Operators read instruments. Also note steam vents were added at the top of the pressure vessel after the accident. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.139.33 (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Circular Source

Cite note 75 refers to a statement made in a book, while the statement in the book is cited as coming from the Thee Mile Island Wikipedia page. What is going on here? -ariccio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.156.25 (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

The Cleanup section did not have any references. I have added one that seems to supply information for the two "citations needed" tags. It is also not in agreement with some of the figures. However, considering the importance of the article right now and the fact that I am not very knowledgeable about this subject, I hope that another editor will make the changes to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, almost 200 people watch this article and nobody has made any changes. I'll see what I can do. Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Long term effect

Does anyone know about the long term effect? What's going on there today, more than 30 years later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.88.165 (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

See the Health effects and epidemiology section, as well as Three Mile Island accident health effects. Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

TMI accident remediation

I'm new to the Wiki community, at least as a contributor. I wanted to add what I believe is useful commentary about some fixes that were made to help prevent future nuclear accidents. Specifically, I wanted to add right after the following sentence in the existing article:

"Because of the lack of a dedicated instrument to measure the level of water in the core, operators judged the level of water in the core solely by the level in the pressurizer. Since it was high, they assumed that the core was properly covered with coolant, unaware that because of the voids forming in the reactor vessel, the indicator provided false readings."

...a comment something like this:

"Shortly after the TMI accident, the nuclear steam supply system vendor Combustion Engineering developed just such a dedicated level sensor. The sensor used a device called a heated-junction thermocouple, and took advantage of the fact that water is a better conductor of heat than steam. This level sensor was inserted into an in-core instrumentation thimble inside the reactor core. At 5 different points along the approximate 12 foot length of this sensor, a pair of thermocouples were placed - one heated and one unheated. The temperature difference between the heated and unheated thermocouples would indicate whether or not water covered that point on the sensor. If there was water, the temperature difference was a few degrees Centigrade; no water - the difference would jump to several hundred degrees Centigrade. The temperature difference for each of the five thermocouple pairs was transmitted to a water level indicator in the power plant control room. Each of the five signals was reduced to a green or red light - green for water, red for steam. If all five thermocouple pairs indicated water, the plant operator would see a vertical stack of five green lights - good times. If an accident occurred, and water in the core started to flash to steam, the lights would change from green to red, beginning at the top of the stack. This is one of the remediation steps taken to reduce the likelihood of human error at nuclear power plants. This flashing of water to steam occurs isentropically - at a constant pressure - underscoring why traditional pressure sensors were useless. The first such HJTC in-core water level sensor was installed at the Waterford III Nuclear Generating Station in 1984 by Combustion Engineering engineers."

Interested in feedback on how to incorporate this, where to incorporate it, whether it's even relevant to the core story... ...I think it is because this article, very well-written as it is, leaves the reader to wonder what has been done to redress this particular problem.

Johnjmccauley (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You bring up a great point. We could actually create a new section in this article with the title being something like: "How TMI affected the nuclear industry". I know Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant installed a Reactor Vessel Level Indication System (RVLIS) due to the accident at TMI. However, its indications are different from what you described, it has an entire console dedicated to the output of RVLIS and has a 1980's style black and green screen showing an outline of the RV and shows water level using two arrows (must be using two channels). There are many other examples. Such as the bypass valves for the Condensate Polisher Demineralizers (CPD) now have auxiliary tanks to store pressurized air in order to operate the bypass valves even if there's a complete loss of Instrument Air in the power plant. TMI lost their main feed water supply due to the bypass valves to the CPD not opening. Another example is the installation of the Hydrogen removal system in the reactor containment building. High Hydrogen concentrations became a concern days after the TMI accident, therefore, the industry came up with two methods to remove Hydrogen from the containment atmosphere. There are also rigorous processes (engineered and proceduralized) that reduce moisture in the Instrument Air system of the power plant. Water in the IA system prevented valves from operating correctly. But for the most part, it really wasn't an engineering mistake that caused the accident, but mainly human error. So a lot of the fixes made in the industry have to do with operator training and the implementation of procedures. Also, training for how the Main Control Room reacts to events have changed based on the accident at TMI. As one operator from TMI at the time of the accident said that if the operators in the MCR did nothing and allowed the computer to remain in control, the accident would not have happened. Gilawson (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that these improvements would currently best fit in the "Lessons Learned" section. How the TMI2 meltdown effected the nuclear industry already has a section that talks about general trends rather than specific changes. I suspect that there were many improvements made to reactor designs and instrumentation, and I wonder if there should be a separate listing of them, perhaps incorporating major lessons learned from several nuclear reactor accidents on the separate page. Or there could be a section on these added to the List_of_nuclear_accidents. Drcarasco (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

" But for the most part, it really wasn't an engineering mistake that caused the accident, but mainly human error." I totally disagree with this statement. You have it backwards. Also: "As one operator from TMI at the time of the accident said that if the operators in the MCR did nothing and allowed the computer to remain in control, the accident would not have happened." This statement sounds like nonsense. Can you source it? TMI was primarily caused by engineering failures, from the PORV failure to the system response. 172.130.45.164 (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC) BG A few years before the TMI accident the Beznau Switzerland reactor had a similar open PORV valve accident, and the Integrated Control System automatically stopped water injection into the system because of pressurizer high water level indication. The Beznau staff quickly identified the problem, but the TMI staff initially followed procedure as they were trained to do and they did what the Integrated Control System would. 172.129.29.244 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC) BG

There were a lot of people problems associated with TMI:

Reactor operators were not trained to deal with accident conditions, and the NRC had not established effective communication with utilities. Moreover, once the accident occurred, the lines of authority proved to be ill defined. The public received conflicting reports that caused needless panic and evacuations. It was these systemic weaknesses in the regulatory system that allowed gifted people to make the mistakes they did.
-- Thomas Wellock, (22 September 2005). "Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (Book review)" The Historian, Vol. 67.

-- Johnfos (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. Reactor operators were not trained to deal with accident conditions. That says a lot. 172.163.37.92 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC) BG

Suggestions for additions to the article

An excellant and refreshing article. Thank you for noting the PORV valve had previously failed on 11 occasions. Here are some suggestions for additions to the article:

(A) A few years before the TMI accident the Beznau Switzerland reactor had a similar open PORV valve accident, and the Integrated Control System automatically stopped water injection into the system because of pressurizer high water level indication. The Beznau staff quickly identified the problem, but the TMI staff initially went by procedure as they were trained to do and they did what the Integrated Control System would.

(B) The PORV was probably guaranteed to fail under normal conditions for 2 reasons: (2) Due to the B&W design using a smaller volume pressurizer to save money, the PORV valve would frequently open under routine shutdowns - much more frequently than the original Westinghouse PWR designs. (2) More importantly, due to the pressurizer spray turning on prior to PORV opening, the PORV would have to handle water droplets in the saturated steam. This water droplet/steam mixture is what causes the sound of a freight train, and this mixture will destroy anything, including the convoluted path in a PORV valve. To my knowledge this is still not addressed for PORV valves. A simple steam dryer box prior to the PORV would be a solution.

(C) If steam forms in the reactor vessel, and the pressurizer vents, water is ejected from the pressure vessel because the pressurrizer connection (at the coolant loops) is effectively connected about 1/3 of the way down from the top of the pressure vessel. (Your mom’s pressure cooker had a vent at the top, not 1/3 of the way down on the side.) This is why after the TMI accident vents were connected at the top of the pressure vessel to vent steam or hydrogen in this kind of emergency, so the core can always be covered with water. IF there is enough fresh water, the option even exists to let it boil - venting some radioactive steam into a steam dryer/condensate tank outside the building can save the core. There's no substitute for a reliable 100,000+ gallon water source . The reactor building should have vents that open on over-pressure, and the building sometimes should be vented in an emergency. The most important thing by far is core integrity, as the poor Japanese are about to find out. 172.164.188.98 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Bernie Goetz

A Wiki article on the Japan nuclear accident(s) already started. They can still benefit from the TMI Wiki article although they are boiling water reactors. The piping described above doesn't directly apply because the Japanese reactors are BWRs, but like TMI they still had an unnecessary situation of cores not covered with water. There should have been a convection heat exchanger for decay heat. I can't believe they are flooding the core with seawater, but its an old facility anyway. It might be a blessing in disguise, the Japanese can build modern facilities much better and maybe show others a better way. Steam bubbles, hydrogen, and other things must be handled better. Reactors should not be built in areas with a history of tsunami flooding, like the east coast of Japan. 172.162.139.33 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC) 172.162.82.165 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)BG

Due to the loss of heat removal from the primary loop and the failure of the auxiliary system to activate, the primary side pressure began to increase, triggering the pilot-operated relief valve (PORV) at the top of the pressurizer to open automatically. The PORV should have closed again when the excess pressure had been released and electric power to the solenoid of the pilot was automatically cut, but instead the main relief valve stuck open due to a mechanical fault. The open valve permitted coolant water to escape from the primary system, and was the principal mechanical cause of the crisis that followed.

In this paragraph I miss the note that cutting the elecric power to the solenoid was intended to shut the valve again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.131.97 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lessons Not Learned...

Because of the production of hydrogen at the Three Mile Island incident, vent was added to the design to vent hydrogen. The venting of hydrogen was responsible for large explosions in the 2011 Japanese nuclear incident. It seems sad that there was no provision made to flare (burn) the hydrogen into much less explosive water, which could have have been condensed and contained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.136.217 (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A steam bubble formed in the top of the pressure vessel first. I'm not sure, but I think the added vents were to vent steam first (so the core doesn't become uncovered), and then hydrogen if the core becomes uncovered. I think the main pressure vessel vent should go to steam dryer and then to a vented condensate tank located outside the containment building.172.129.181.52 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC) BG

Biggest lesson not learned: The operators were fall guys. The official reports stated the fundamental cause of the accident was operator error, not design errors. And possibly PORV failure was not adequately addressed. A PORV opening on a Westinghouse PWR would have been considered a minor accident, but on a B&W reactor it was routine. 172.129.127.212 (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Bernie, if you're interested (I read your words as you're connected to the industry), you might want to read Dyatlov's recall of Chernobyl events as well as K-19 crew's (automated translation is bitter but getting plain misinformation is poisonous, and there was deliberate misinformation, "east and west", regarding both of these events). In short, at least several men among those operating the reactors weren't merely "trained" but knew the theory and practice to the degree that only knowing them better than designers (or knowing the particular construction negligences) could have saved them. --Gvy (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, afterwards the operators were somehow expected to understand the plant design better than the TMI designers. The Japanese of course will do a reevaluation of reactor designs after their terrible meltdowns, and they can be expected to do a more complete analysis than was done after TMI. 172.162.121.239 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC) BG

^ NUREG-0600
^ International Atomic Energy Agency (2001). "Catalytic recombination". Mitigation of hydrogen hazards in water cooled power reactors. IAEA-Tecdoc. p. 16. {{cite web}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1196_prn.pdf" ignored (help)

[1] NUREG-0600

[2] International Atomic Energy Agency (2001). "Catalytic recombination". Mitigation of hydrogen hazards in water cooled power reactors. IAEA-Tecdoc. p. 16. {{cite web}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1196_prn.pdf" ignored (help)

[1]

[2]