Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident

nuclear accident : why not "nuclear disaster" ...

Hello, I am french, I write to you in english, learned at school, not very good, I wish you can understand... Fukushima disaster is more important than a so-called nuclear "accident". In french : accident nucléaire. Isn't it rather a nuclear "disaster", in french : catastrophe nucléaire. This is an important debate.

I wish the french wikipedia would write : CATASTROPHE nucléaire de Fukushima. Thank you for your response Evelyne Genoulaz 89.3.51.240 (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This article used to be called Fukushima nuclear disaster, but it was moved after a discussion. See the link near the top of this page. As for French Wikipedia's title, that's not anything that English Wikipedia has any say over. Meters (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

missing talk page archives

talk page archives 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are all red links. Not sure if this is the right spot to mention it, but oh well. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer not Reliable for scientific info

Unfortunately this is not listed in WP:RSP but based off Skeptical Inquirer I do not think this is a reliable source for scientific information. I am removing it in a few locations. The reason I am making such a stir about this is the structure of the section on Radiation Effects in Human is clearly inspired by the Skeptical Inquirer source.

• "a number of media reports incorrectly describing thousands of victims of tsunami as if they were victims of the "nuclear disaster" - Skeptical Inquirer is the only source for this claim. I think this is an example of the kind of non-scientific claim that it could be a reliable source for, but this seems like something that should have more sources.

• "Worldwide media coverage of the incident has been described as 'ten years of disinformation'" - Skeptical Inquirer is the only journal using this term this is not a widely held belief. If this POV was notable then it should have been attributed; however, this POV is not notable so I am removing it. I reworded the claim and moved it to the section on Germany's response since the source was talking about German media coverage.

Czarking0 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

International Impact

As part of consolidating the two international impact sections, I removed this line because it was unsourced: "Responders included IAEA, World Meteorological Organization and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization."

The CTBTO actually has some nice info on this that is probably notable to add back in with some appropriate sources. Think some non-state actors other than the IAEA would be notable. https://www.ctbto.org/news-and-events/news/fukushima-related-measurements-ctbto

This image was also removed. They don't really belong right now but I think they could be added back in the right context.

U.S. Navy humanitarian flight undergoes radioactive decontamination

Czarking0 (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Changed Criticism To Prior Warning

Removed this bit since it did not fit

TEPCO released estimates of the state and location of the fuel in a November 2011 report. The report concluded that the Unit 1 RPV was damaged during the accident and that "significant amounts" of molten fuel had fallen into the bottom of the PCV. The erosion of the concrete of the PCV by the molten fuel after the core meltdown was estimated to stop at approx. 0.7 m (2 ft 4 in) in depth, while the thickness of the containment floor is 7.6 m (25 ft). Gas sampling carried out before the report detected no signs of an ongoing reaction of the fuel with the concrete of the PCV and all the fuel in Unit 1 was estimated to be "well cooled down, including the fuel dropped on the bottom of the reactor". Fuel in Units 2 and 3 had melted, however less than in Unit 1. The report further suggested that "there is a range in the evaluation results" from "all fuel in the RPV (no fuel fallen to the PCV)" in Unit 2 and Unit 3, to "most fuel in the RPV (some fuel in PCV)". For Unit 2 and Unit 3, it was estimated that the "fuel is cooled sufficiently". According to the report, the greater damage in Unit 1 (when compared to the other two units) was due to the longer time that no cooling water was injected in Unit 1. This resulted in much more decay heat accumulating, as for about 1 day there was no water injection for Unit 1, while Unit 2 and Unit 3 had only a quarter of a day without water injection.

Czarking0 (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Czarking0: You did not mention this deletion in the edit summary when you deleted the material. You should have mentioned the reason for the deletion in the edit itself (or at least directed editors to this section of the talk page that explains it). Hence, I restored it as an "unexplained deletion". The move and deletion should have been done as two separate edits. Since you had explained it here, I will reconsider whether it should be deleted or not. In the meantime, I'll let other editors comment. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My bad on not putting it in the edit comment.

I think it should be removed since it is effectively a not very good summary of what is in the Reactors subsection of the Accident section. Czarking0 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Investigations -- where to place in article

I don't think the investigations should be under "Consequences"--which should focus on effects to living beings, the environment, structures, infastructure, etc. However, I don't think it should have been under "Criticisms" either. Investigations are supposed to be independent. I would put it in its own category. I did look at the two U.S. shuttle disasters and was surprised neither had an investigation section. It would be worth looking at some of the other disasters like the recent collision of the ship destroying bridge in Baltimore or the ship that grounded and blocked the Suez Canal--to see how those articles placed the investigation section. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate this remark and would support a move to its own section. I checked out 2021 Suez Canal obstruction which does not have a section on investigations and Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse which put the investigation section under the collapse which I do not think is great. I also looked at Chernobyl disaster which has its own investigation section although I don't think it is particularly well done either. None of these are GA.

I did look at Space Shuttle Challenger disaster which has its own section on Reports which would be equivalent to an investigation section here. To me, that is sufficient guidance. Czarking0 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)