Talk:Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant

This is wikipedia

Not Wikinews. Stop writing articles based on a day by day current affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.100.14 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

At what point does an event stop being "news" and start being "history?" The point is; as long as what is being written isn't just blind speculation or original research, I see no problem with keeping it as long as it's correct to what we know now.--Mackattack1991 02:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 earthquake coverage

Some of the comments at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant may be relevant to work on this article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone created a Fukushima nuclear disaster article, it was redirected to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. In the future, it might be needed to convert to a disambiguation page, if the incidents at this plant are severe. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

they are. --92.227.133.144 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to disambiguate Fukushima nuclear accident then. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents"

A new article has appeared, Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A detailed timeline for each of the reactors at both Daiichi and Daini plus lots of other detailed technical information is given in the formal Japanese government report to the IAEA from 2011 (updated a bit in2012). I am surprised that this very inportant document (many hundreds of pages long) is not included as a key reference to this article. It definitely should be. It can be found here:. I have not yet had time to compare that document with what is in this article - somebody should do that. Some of the references to this article are references to newpaper articles, Huffinton Post, etc. These are OK as initial references, but I think one cannot place too much reliance on them, as they will be third hand information at best, and likely to have been written by non-experts. Regards 86.156.76.110 (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant → Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant — Formal rquest per discussion at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant#Change title to Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant ... NHK uses this to decrease confusion, as does Wikinews. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional support provided that Daiichi is also renamed, otherwise do not rename. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. Teyandee (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Also agree, provided both pages are renamed. 173.206.133.77 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggest no further votes the present discussion should yield to the outcome of the daiichi discussion. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support' Kittybrewster ☎ 08:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. English wikipedia prefers WP:ENGLISH, and "II" is well-understood by English speakers. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the name used IN ENGLISH on the News is "Daini", so regardless of whether "dani" is understood or not, the name used in English is "Daini". 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Explosion?

removed from page: "On March 15, TEPCO reported that an explosion had occurred in Unit 3, followed by a plume of white smoke, at 11:01 a.m. March 14, with an increase of radiation measured at the site gate. This occurred after pressure release measures were implemented. "

This appears to be the explosion of reactor 3 at Fukushima I, not II. Rmhermen (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This was reported by TEPCO, as part of the Daiini update section. And the explosion time is different than the Diaichi Unit 3 explosion. Given that everyone is focussing very hard on Daichi, it doesn't seem impossible that Daini had one too, but people aren't paying attention, and believing that all the higher radiation levels at Daini are really due to Daichi. In any case, TEPCO reported it. And I haven't seen a correction or retraction. If you have a reference showing they've retracted that report, not a problem. Otherwise.... I do not see any reason not to report what they have reported. (It's at the bottom of the status report, just before the update on measured radiation at the very clearly repeated Daini gate.). To quote:

- At approximately 11:01am, Mar 14th, an explosion followed by white smoke occurred at the reactor building of Unit 3. It was believed to be a hydrogen explosion.

- There was an increase of radiation dose at site boundary measured at the monitoring post of Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station. Accordingly, at 10:07pm Mar 14th and at 12:35am Mar 15th, it was determined that that a specific incident stipulated in article 10, clause 1 (Increase of radiation dose at site boundary) has occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.133.77 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to pertain to daini and should be in (as it lists very clearly typical daini-things (over 100C in the cooling system etc)... L.tak (talk)

I disagree. It exceeds probability that two explosions occurred at two separate nuclear plants, both in the number 3 reactor, both on the same minute of the same day and that only one was covered by any press source in the world.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not dubble post you have stated your views on the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.180.105 (talk • contribs)

I am quite sure there was not an explosion at Daini unit 3. The discussion above probably emanates from a typing error in the confusion of the original reporting. The most detailed description of the nuclear plants and the events at both Dai-ichi and Daini is given in the Japanese government report to the IAEA from 2011 (minor updates in 2012), which can be found at this address: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/japan-report2/. This describes the explosions at Daiichi, but does not mention any at Daini. Unit 3 at Daini is the one reactor that did not have problems, and achieved cold-shutdown soonest.86.156.76.110 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Contradictory map

I am restoring the {{contradict}} tag in the lede, linking to this Talk page section in the edit summary. The reason in the tag is: "If this distance is correct, the 10km evac. zone of Fukushima 2 is not completely included in the 20km zone of Fuku. 1, as claimed below in the map and the text". The contradict claim is justified in my opinion. Either the map or the distance is wrong, or both. The map implies the two plants are closer than 10 kilometres apart. -84user (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• If Google maps are accurate then my WP:Original research tells me the distance between the plants' centres is 9 kilometres. Each plant extends about 1.5 kilometres so distances will depend on exactly where one measures, using the reactor buildings I measured between 8.8 and 9.5 kilometres. This makes me feel the map is correct and the 11.5 km claim wrong. Unless the evacuation zones are centered on something else, like a water outflow? -84user (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• There's no contradiction. If you look at google maps you see the that on the ground it is 11½ km to travel between the plants, but obviously (as the crow flies) the hypothetical straight line distance between them would be shorter than the physical paths that connect them. So both claims (daini's evac. radius entirely within daiichi's, and 11+ km between them) are correct. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have clarified the 11.5 kilometre distance means by road. I am not familiar with unqualified distances being treated as meaning following roads and terrain. I have always understood distances as being direct, or "as the crow flies". However, I looked at two more google applications ([2] and [3]) to calculate straight line distances and they agree on these distances:

boundary to boundary is 10 kilometres

centre to centre (of the reactor buildings) is 11.6 to 11.8 kilometres

My 9 kilometre measurement I posted above was a mistake. But this makes the evacuation map clearly inaccurate. Looking at that map it appears the circles are not actually centred at the plants and they are about 20% too large (or the map's scale is 20% reduced from true). -84user (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima map

File:FukushimaGrid.JPG

A map has appeared: File:FukushimaGrid.JPG. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the quality of the map is not good enough. We should be using OSM as a source, not hand-drawn maps. -- 92.225.168.89 (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Timeline merger

Per suggestion, I merged the "Timeline of the Fukushima Daini nuclear accidents" here. There had been no significant edits since April, thankfully because there have been no ongoing issues. Much of the material was redundant. It's a short timeline and could be shortened further, with some later information moved into the general discussion. Let's hope that there will be little more to report on this.   Will Beback  talk  10:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is not impartial

This article places a favorable light on the whole tragic affair and draws on websites that are run by the pro nuclear crowd. " By March 15, all four reactors of Fukushima II reached cold shutdown which remained non-threatening through April." This is patently false.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110524006012.htm
Tokyo Electric Power Co. admitted for the first time Monday the Nos. 2 and 3 reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant likely suffered core meltdowns, in addition to a previously acknowledged meltdown in the No. 1 reactor.

The utility made the admission in its report to the government's nuclear safety agency.

I would suggest that this article

1. REDIRECT [Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident]], based on sound science, be reviewed by the author and then this whole article needs to be redone. Meanwhile, this page should be taken down as it is pure propaganda for covering over the huge damage done at Fukushima.

Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident-

The soils around Fukushima NPP and neighboring prefectures have been extensively contaminated with depositions of more than 100,000 and 10,000 MBq km-2, respectively. Total 137Cs depositions over two domains: (i) the Japan Islands and the surrounding ocean (130–150 °E and 30–46 °N) and, (ii) the Japan Islands, were estimated to be more than 5.6 and 1.0 PBq, respectively. We hope our 137Cs deposition maps will help to coordinate decontamination efforts and plan regulatory measures in Japan.

Thaddeus0720 (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Daini (Fukushima II) is a different complex of reactors than Fukushima Daiichi (Fukushima I). Reactors 1, 2, and 3 in the Fukushima I complex had core melt accidents. None of the reactors in the Fukushima II complex (which this article is about) did. The article you're looking for is Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, or more likely Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

第二 (Dai-ni) plant still shut down?

It sounds like the plant is still shut down, and in no condition to be active. For that matter, is there any plans to restarts this one? Flightsoffancy (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is shut down and there's no plan to restart. See [4], [5], and [6]. Oda Mari (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

RM followup

It's over a year since this page was moved but the lead and infobox both still read Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant not Fukushima Daini.... Fixed. [7]

Consequently also removed

or '''Fukushima Dai-ni''' (''dai-ni'', characters ''第二'', means "number two"),

which seemed redundant.

But I'm not entirely confident of the result. There's currently a strange difference between it and the similar lead to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. [8] What does the 2F in this article mean?

But it was there before. [9] So I'm sure that what I've done is better, it's just it may not quite be right yet. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Radiation levels?

This article mentions a radiation level expressed as millisieverts, echoing a practice extant in most news reports. Does this unit actually refer to intensity of radiation, or is it more properly used for the cumulative damage sustained by a biological specimen per kilogram of mass? Would not millisieverts per second be more appropriate for expressing the rate of damage, and hence a reflection of intensity of radiation? Would not millisieverts per second depend on the specimen's distance from the radiation source so that a more meaningful report would state that radiation encountered by, say, a sentinel chicken posted 1 meter away from a radiation source would receive X mSv/sec/kg? In other words would not a distance and test specimen have to be given to afford actual meaning to the statement? I'm not a physicist or a public relations flack so I don't understand. Perhaps this article should be edited to clarify. Myron (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• The source cited about the no-fly zone speaks of mSv/hour (not "mSvs") at the minimum altitude airplanes passing the stricken area would ordinarily fly. The exact reading given, even if correctly stated, is irrelevant, so I'm deleting the offending sentence. Myron (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there are no "safe" radiation levels, all radiation can cause DNA damage, and in this way cause disease, the same applies to all cancer-causes. 1947enkidu (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)