Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Fukushima nuclear accident. 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 3

→

US spy drones taking images

Could be an informative addition to the article if we can get them. F (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

US government images are PD? The navy has also been taking pictures. some good satellite pics would be nice, especially at higher resolutions than is possible if we are using fair use images belonging to others. Sandpiper (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are able to see them, it means that the gov has put them into the PD. =p So yeah you can use them. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Radiation leak"

This article and news outlets use the phrase "radiation leak". To me that's an ambiguous term at best: either the plant is "leaking radioactive material" or it is radiating (emitting radiation, presumably ionizing and presumably traveling in a straight line), or both. As I things, if it is radiating, that's bad, but isn't a long-term problem in as much as once the radiation is stopped, the damage is done, so if you weren't hit by it it, you are OK. On the other hand, leaking radioactive material can be a colossal mess, depending on the half life. To the best of public knowledge, which is it?

Clearly it is leaking radiation due to the elevated readings across Japan and in the Pacific. It might also be radiating gamma radiation, but I haven't seen any sources for that. I think the term "radiation leak" encompasses both possibilities.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I right that the radiation of concern travels in straight lines with minimal diffraction (due to high energy)? If so, wouldn't elevated radiation readings over the horizon from the plant imply radioactive material is leaking? "Leak" just doesn't seem like the right word for radiation alone (although I suppose "light leak" is common parlance in photography). —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

virtually all the radiation people are talking about is from some radioactive material which has blown out of the plant and then emits radioactivity where it ends up. I have seen some misleading news reports suggesting radioactivity falls off with an inverse square power law as it spreads wider, This is not true. The particles are blown by the wind so it is possible for a dense cloud to travel quite a distance as a 'lump' without dispersing much. How fast the radioactivity declines then depends on the 'half life' of the material. This is the time it takes for half of it to disappear by turning into radiation plus a different generally safer lump of something. The radioactive material coming from the plant may be very fine dust or some of it is naturally radioactive gases.Sandpiper (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Better free images requested

I have made a request at Commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#illustration of damage to Fukushima I reactors. Please could any artistic editors consider creating similar images that could be used for these articles. This would save us from having to use copyrighted images. I have tried to create one using POV-Ray but I just do not have the skills. -84user (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed the words "washing away fuel tanks"

As noted in the thread above "NHK TV: Tsunami height & destruction of generator fuel tanks (veracity?)", I deleted the words "washing away fuel tanks" from the third sentence.

I don't know of a primary source for this, and I am very keen to avoid spreading a false report - since the possibility that the tanks were situated where they could be washed away would be the sort of thing people (myself included) might accept as a fact without checking and then rant and rave about. Those words had no citation. If someone can find a reliable source for this "washing away", then we *might* state it as if it were a fact, with a proper citation. If the generator fuel tanks were in fact situated on the waterfront and so were washed away, this would be so crucial to the question of "what went wrong here" that I think we should not report any such thing as if it were an uncontroversial fact. If there is a good source for this report, I think we should state it as "XXX reported that the tsunami washed away the . . ." - and then give whatever arguments the source advanced as to why this was the case.

I don't consider the NHK TV report to be sufficiently authoritative to quote as if it were factual. Some details, perhaps including this one, were obviously made up by non-experts - such as steam floating through the top of the reactor vessel and the secondary containment out to the atmosphere. Likewise, the second-hand copies of a supposed J. P. Morgan report, which itself gives no references. Maybe its true, but maybe its just a rumour which we should be careful not to lend credibility to.

However ... there's another angle. Irrespective of whether the tanks were washed away or not, the fact is that a prominent NHK program - which would have been watched and perhaps generally believed by millions of people in Japan - reported that the tanks were were washed away. This is part of the social history of this event, and so we might mention the NHK statement as such: as a statement they made, without indicating whether it is factual or not. Robin Whittle (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

does anyone have a plan of the plant before the accident which might shed some light on where things were?Sandpiper (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"How would you solve Fukushima?"

I have removed this again; but mentioned it here; I do not know why it was reinstated. "-

The Guardian newspaper is soliciting readers to [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/17/how-would-you-solve-fukushima post suggested solutions here].<ref>{{cite web|title=How would you solve Fukushima?|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/17/how-would-you-solve-fukushima|publisher=The Guardian|accessdate=17 March 2011}}</ref>

This is an unneccesary external link, its encouraging wikipedia as a lead in to a forum, and it is treating a serious accident like a spectator sport. Wiki's job should be to collate and orgainse information. 129.67.86.189 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thing the Guardian did. But indeed, no reason at all to keep it here. L.tak (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And I removed it once myself. Wikpedia Reference Desk has some suggestions and is just as improper as a entry. Rmhermen (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

shouldnt be there.Sandpiper (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't it meet the WP:EL criteria? 99.50.126.70 (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well for starters it falls into WP:ELNO being primarily a blog and it only offers conjecture from unverified sources. We could go from there. MartinezMD (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Found Site Plan Assessment - public doses after a LOCA

I've found an old (1971) technical report (~12 MB in size) compiled by the IAEA, and one article (starting page 521) details the site assessment of the different reactor sites - including Fukushima I. As mentioned, this report is very old (as it was written when reactors #2-5 were being built), but in the LOCA accident scenario listed on page 537 (for the (at the time) unfinished Fukushima #2), it includes a calculated worse case dose for public located on the boundary. I just thought it might be useful as a source when refering to public doses.... Here is the link (be warned - the file is ~12MB in size) [Bid Evaluation and Implimentation of Nuclear Power Projects]. MWadwell (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Question on title

It seems to me that the title "...nuclear accidents" isn't really fitting. It doesn't really seem to be an accident (it is obviously not intentional, but the word just does not seem to fit), as that infers human error, but this is all directly or indirectly because of the earthquake and tsunami. Personally, I think the term "incidents" should be used instead, as that leaves it more open to events outside of human control. Because was caused by an act of god rather than an act of man, terming it an accident just doesn't seem correct to me. Just my two cents on the title. Condolences to the victims of the tragic events in Japan. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Accident is the correct word here. As the article says the event has been officially rated as an "accident with local consequences" ... "the Japan Atomic Energy Agency announced that it was rating the Fukushima accidents at 4 (accident with local consequences) on the 0–7 International Nuclear Event Scale (INES)..." ^[1] Johnfos (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Official sources choose words for their own purposes. We report what actually is. I don't really think this is an 'accident' because there was no conscious action which caused it. 'Incident' is better, it is something which happened naturally and was unforseen but with bad consequences.Sandpiper (talk)

It resulted from numerous human actions in the design, construction and operation of the plant. "Accidents" are not. by definition the result of "conscious action." Thus "accident" is entirely appropriate, and consistent with the terminology used by numerous reliable sources. No one has suggested that it was anyone's intent that the explosions, equipment damage and radiation leaks happen. Yet it was all quite forseeable. Edison (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that's not really fair. It was hit both by a massive quake and a tidal wave. You can only forsee so much. HalfShadow 18:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This article summarises the updated user manual to the International Nuclear Event Scale as:

"Broadly speaking, events with consequences only within the affected facility itself are usually categorised as 'deviations' or 'incidents' and set below-scale or at levels 1, 2 or 3. Events with consequences outside the plant boundary are classified at levels 4, 5, 6 and 7 and are termed 'accidents'."

...so officially it would appear this is regarded as an "accident" and not an "incident".--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with L1A1. While the correct tehnical term is "accident", according to various groups with various acronyms, in general terms this wouldn't really be seen as a "accident". NBC news tonight spoke about the nuclear "disaster". And personally, I think that's the best word for the title. 2 cents. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "Fukushima I nuclear emergency" as a title? "Nuclear accidents" may well be correct, but for some reason or other it just doesn't look right. I'm not entirely sure why, but it doesn't. 82.132.139.33 (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I nuclear incidents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.253.161 (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Incident" and "accident" have specific meanings in terms of nuclear... stuff. This is categorized as an accident because it's more severe than an incident. I'd like to know who came up with that system in the first place, though. Didn't they consider that nuclear issues might happen through circumstances outside of human control? "Accident" very much implies a failure on the part of the squishy humans involved, not natural disasters. "Disaster" might be a good term. Fairly strong, but maybe the situation warrants it. "Emergency" is also a good one. I think I prefer "emergency" over "disaster", but both are good. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Title is wrong. It is not a pure "accident" it is a cross between an accident and a natural "disaster". BTW, wikipedia has a "Disaster" project. But there is an element of human error, corporate culpability,etc. Thus, it seems to be an "incident" in the colloquial sense, but the industry has coopted that. I think the above user 82.xxx.xxx has a good idea with emergency. .Geofferybard (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Emergency I'll back that, I think that is probably the best option at this point. Didn't realize my comment started this big of a debate. I get the thing about what the nuclear industry considers an 'incident' vs an 'accident' though, so probably best to avoid that.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Accident has been pointed out as being the correct term - so why is this discussion ongoing? Unless we intend to move it to a CNN-style "scare screen" title... Rmhermen (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. "Accidents" doesn't seem to fit, IMO. Sounds almost routine. Catastrophe, deluge, holocaust. Accidents are routine.IMO.But I need to get away from all this and sleep.128.111.96.129 (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The human error factor is missing. Incident or Emergency are far better. Marcus Qwertyus 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)"

I did a search on Wikipedia and Google, and compared the names of other nuclear accidents. Almost all INES level 4 and 5 accidents are named "accidents", see for example Goiânia accident or Three Mile Island accident. The Fukushima accidents are comparable with INES level 5. So I think the current name "Fukushima I nuclear accidents" is entirely correct and in line of naming of other nuclear accidents. BTW, the term 'accident' has nothing to do whether a human error factor is missing or present. The only INES level 6 and 7 accidents that existed are the Chernobyl disaster and Kyshtym disaster; those level accident are named 'disaster'. My gut feeling says that the situation of the Fukushima accidents is not yet definitely out of control, there's still hope. But if it reaches level 6 or 7, they can permanently not control it anymore, and with several radiation-related deaths - lets say it becomes "FUBAR" - then I would name it a disaster. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What anyone thinks is correct is irrelevant. The technical term is accident, so Wikipedia will use that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.52.136 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting 61 page results Fukushima emergency and 65 for Fukushima accident. This is by no means a totally accurate search. Google will often mistakenly display multiple versions of one cache for example. If two terms are used equally then the more correct one is used. See WP:Commonname at the end of the section. Marcus Qwertyus 16:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not emergency "Emergency" is something you tend to call an event that's actually taking place. Once the event is over it tends to be called something else. I would suggest "accident" (the official description and per Three Mile Island accident, although the word has connotations of human culpability), or "disaster" (worse than an incident, should probably cause deaths ala Chernobyl disaster), or "crisis" which is my preferred option. However I'd also suggest not changing the name until the event is over and we see what how the scale of it fits into history.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: not incident and not emergency. I initially thought "emergency" would be a good term, but Pontificalibus has a good point about it. I'm slowly coming around to the idea that, unfortunate connotations aside, "accident" is probably the best term simply because it's the most accurate (from a "technically correct" point of view). "Crisis" or "disaster" would also be OK by me, although again the connotations might not be the best--"crisis", like "emergency", does almost imply an ongoing event, and we don't know if the side effects are bad enough to really call it a "disaster". So I think I agree with Pontificalibus that it should be left alone for now, and in a week or whenever things have calmed down, we can consider how bad it is, relatively speaking. "Accident" is at least technically accurate. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I originally suggested "emergency" but I can see the force of the objection made here. Would calling it the "Fukushima I nuclear emergency event" instead perhaps get around the difficulty? As for technical accuracy, the events at the plant have led the Japanese government to declare an official nuclear emergency situation under article 15 of the 1999 'Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness', so the use of the term "emergency" can certainly be justified: it is an official legal description. 82.132.139.212 (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation unit in Sieverts

The article has a mix of μSv and mSv, one being x1000 the other. This may be confusing to the average reader. Because radiation sickness effects, and this is the concern now, are quoted in millisieverts, I suggest consistent use of the milli-unit. Many measured levels are reported in the μSv, I suggest they be converted to mSv, perhaps in brackets () after the micro unit, if the micro is considered important to keep. We have to indicate scale and magnitude, and limit confusion. 87.60.99.142 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, even if the source says μSv in some cases, we should be consistent. It seems that mSv is the most commonly used unit, with e.g. 0.2mSv being generally preferred in the scientific community to 200μSv. We must be careful, as I saw a source earlier claiming there was 0.8mSv/hr recorded in Tokyo, when the actual figure was 0.8μSv! --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I also like the idea but am concerned about minimizing errors. Conversions should be in square brackets to indicate that it is the work of the editor so that if there is an error it will be clear which is the source and which is the editor. IMO.Geofferybard (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

and I still cant find the micro symbol.Sandpiper (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

below the edit summary, there is a list of symbols. click the drop-down menu and go to "Greek", then follow the alphabet (ABΓ) until you get to "M" - the following letter "μ" is micro. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea per section, with individual references that are beyond 3 zeroes (.0001 mSv, 10,000 mSv) converted with clarification 1 mSv = 1000 μsV. However, we should be able to change the units in each section as we move chronologically from the 1st section to the 2nd to 3rd as the disaster gets worse.

Keep in mind that it makes no sense anymore to compare things to background or yearly dosage - instead we need to compare to some useful guideline, like OSHA limits on 1-time dose (10 mSv for normal occupations), the limit dose to consenting experiment subjects (30 mSv), the dose from an abdominal CT scan (10 mSv), the dose to an astronaut on a space shuttle mission (250 mSv, 1x/yr max, obviously considered reasonably safe long-term), and the dose that begins classification as mild radiation poisoning (1000 mSv, causes nausea and vomiting). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as most of us don't really have an understanding of these measurements is there any way to communicate the seriousness of X number of micro Svierts or w/e they are called? I mean is there anything to compare it to? I always thought radiation was measured in "rads" w/e those are. Otherwise putting the number of mSv's is like when the Israelis talked about 11.000 dunams of forest being destroyed in the Carmel fire. The writer and others might understand it, but everyone else is scratching their head and saying "what the hell is a dunam?" (it's 1.000 m^2 in case you're wondering btw). I think if we're gonna have a WP:COMMONNAME we should also have things the average intelligent reader can understand. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 21:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest using the "Banana equivalent dose"? It makes things simple enough to understand for everyone. 130.102.158.15 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, very funny. :p I am saying it should be understandable enough for maybe 90% of the readership is there any way to do that? My bro knows about radiology but forgot how the measurement system works. At the moment you have radiation levels in this article that might as well be measured in cubits (it's a distance measurement, I know, but it's about as useful to people in this case as the Sv one). Is this really the only way to measure radiation? If so is there any way to explain it to or simplify it for the general readership? It's not good if few people understand what you are talking about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree in particular that the "micro" μ symbol is uncommon for non-scientists. For example, it would not be common for people to know that 1000 μSv = 1 mSv. Perhaps a sidebar which brings in material from the relevant wikipedia article i.e. Sievert would be useful here. I think particularly the ratio between Sv, mSv, and μSv, and then a few dose examples. Perhaps with some green, yellow, and red colours to indicate danger levels.

Well I at least recognise micron, but yeah, only if you paid attention at certain points in chem would you remember that I guess. The examples with the colour codes would work quite well in my opinion. Great idea. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and smoothed over the units. Standardized the presentation of equivalent dose units within radiation rates, starting with milli sievert and continuing with mSv in most cases. Linked early appearances of prefixes such as µ. Parenthetically added conversions in rem (again, usually m rem) and linked early appearances of such units per section. Squared up the associated language. Hth. – RVJ (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good job on getting the use of mSv consistent. However we shouldn't be giving rem conversions at all. We need to keep it is as simple as possible, and rem are old non-SI units that aren't really used outside the US and even "Continued use of...is strongly discouraged by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology". These units wouldn't be useful to the lay-person reading the article, only being of use to retired engineers or those working industries that still use the units, and those kind of people are capable of reading the Sieverts article and converting for themselves. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed all mention of rems from the article as I think dealing with the standard SI units of becquerels, sieverts and graysis enough for the average person without mentioning obsolete units that aren't even used in Japan or in the sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand you are editing from Britain, but please return the U.S. customary units (rem) to the article. The unit conversions which are provided only parenthetically as per WP:UNIT make the article comprehensible to Americans (a significant audience on English Wikipedia). The units are not obsolete, but are industry standard in the United States. Also, including customary units eases the comparison of this accident to the severity of previous nuclear accidents. – RVJ (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not about where I am editing from. the vast majority of the people reading this article will be unfamiliar with both rems and sieverts. Using both will confuse them only further. The rem article clearly states "Continued use of the rem is strongly discouraged by the style guide of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology for authors of its publications." It is a deprecated unit only of use to those familiar with working with radiation units in the US - these people are capable of reading the wikilinked Sievert article and converting the units themsleves. The conversion is hardly onerous as it's a simply factor of 100 difference, but including this extra unit in the article is going to cause confusion with those unfamiliar with the subject.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't care, as I've become familiar enough with the SI units, despite having only used the customary units in the U.S. nuclear power industry. I provided the units in response to multiple requests. As for the NIST style guide, that is a recommendation for NIST authors and is not binding on the American public or industry. Similarly, the United States went metric in 1964. ;) You seem to care more about eliminating U.S. units on Wikipedia than I care about providing them per WP:UNITS, and you're an administrator, so I'll leave it at that. – RVJ (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What units are the Japanese reporting in? If they are using Sieverts/Grays, then I would recommend that it stays that way to avoid unnecessary conversion errors.

It doesn't matter who is an admin or not, what matters is the integrity of the reporting and what is good for the reading audience. What is good for the reading audience might include either (a) learning a new metrics or (b) learning to be conversant in both. My shoot from the hip sense is that the international dialogue is in terms of sieverts. Geofferybard (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese logs are in Gy/h at the low levels and Sv/h at higher levels.

I would respectfully disagree with any suggestion in point (a) that what matters in Wikipedia is the unnecessary enforcing of what some editors deem good for other parts of the reading audience.

I would agree that what should be important is the article and its usefulness among likely readers. Every dose unit gets expressed in sievert because 1) that's what the article's sources (many non-U.S. ones) are usually using, and 2) we use SI first, when the measures are useful among the greatest number of likely English Wikipedia readers. We assume they are in non U.S.-centric articles.

No sievert, or actual reported, numbers were being removed, to my knowledge. (Though the article cites U.S. regulations as Sv levels; they are not.)

Providing conversions on the values throughout an article so heavy in measurements turns out looking busy and impacts reading. I do however find it entirely appropriate to include, for example, next to a most notable value, an equivalent alternate measure or conversion factor, such as is done elsewhere on WP and encyclopedias in general. Good places would include: after an important future value which makes it into the introduction, and later in the health section. Readers can mentally interpolate without leaving the page. – RVJ (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

MWadwell (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC) If I can raise another issue, we now have a very confusing situation surrounding the conversions we have supplied from micro- to milli Sv. Most obvious in the transcription of the jaif report, in which a wrong understanding of the decimal point would lead a reader to misunderstand what the table should read by a factor of 1000. Since there is no common understanding of the decimal point IMO, I strongly suggest that we either keep to the source's original use of micro and milli, OR convert into a instinctively understandable number; as an example, the jaif report should then be translated into 'just below 3 milliSv/hour'. 92.254.124.97 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cancellation of water drop just now on reactor 3 by helicopter - radiation levels ? too high

There is a report on NHK World news just now, that the SDF have 'aborted an operation to spray water on the no 3 reactor at (fukushima 1) plant, as plumes of white smoke are seen and SDF ground force unit dispatched a CH47 helicopter from (nearby). The SDF planned the helicopter to make many passes, they had dispatched another helicopter to monitor radiation levels; they have decided they cannot safely continue to fly over the reactor.' (near word for word transcript above) Landspeed (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

sky news was showing footage of a helicopter with a water scoop and carried the same story but Im not certain if it was live or stock footage. The article has a platitudinous comment about plans to use fire hoses. Last I heard that plan wasnt doing very well. The TEPCO report of a fire in unit 4 at 0600 also says on further investigation no fire was found, but it also says the person who discovered it was taking batteries into the building. Clearly there is still major electrical failure throughout the plant. Sandpiper (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why can't an unmanned aerial vehicle like the MQ-9 be used to drop water if the radiation is too high for a human helicopter pilot?Taylor qwerty (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the mighy MQ-9 Reaper is a fixed-wing aircraft that cannot hover and the UAVs we have that do hover are tiny. You need a set of big helis for this job. Find a source talking about the possibility of UAVs in case I am wrong. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The NHK video at At 12:47 Japan time http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/17_18.html shows a ch-47 ~400 ft above the plant moving fast, dropping water as if it were spraying a forest fire. The caption says "spraying water". So not really a drop on Unit 3 unless the aim is to cool and condense the Unit 3 steam. If the MIT numbers on decay heat are correct http://mitnse.com/2011/03/16/what-is-decay-heat/ a serious cooling problem will last for months. The courageous Japanese human effort may fail and no government in this situation can prepare to admit defeat and plan for failure. I hope someone (U.S.? On our own dollar a slapped together Sasebo gift?) is preparing the remote control, unmanned, 100 foot barge with a 10,000 HP diesel sea water pump and a remote control 200 ft+ crane with a Red Adair-style self-cooling delivery head on it, so that in five days, if time runs out and Japanese courage is not enough, the first crude prototype can be run directly up against the seawall and start delivering real volumes of borated water directly into specific Units and storage pools. Off topic, I know; but where else? DaveFromAustin (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Article currently quotes NHK: "...radiation levels of 50 mSv." PROBLEM: That is a dose, not a dose rate. Until it gets paired with a unit time (e.g. "50 mSv per fortnight") it conveys no useful information and should be removed. Even an agency like NHK can talk in total drivel when they don't know what they're saying. Wikipedia ought not repeat drivel. (Just because "anyone can edit" Wikipedia doesn't mean everyone should, so I'll sit this one out.)RobertSegal (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuelrods-Fire

Concerning fire, it might be useful to know, especially for the Spend-Fuel-Pools, to know (if even possible) if the fire is from just 'stuff' there OR that the fuelrods themselves are on fire.

If fuelrods melt, it's about 2000 degr.C; when they burn it is much more AND then we have a metal-fire which cannot be put out with some water (unless you can divert a river).

IF there IS a metal-fire in the SFP, then it's game-over for that part.... 94.212.148.55 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's below 2700C (I think?) water should still be able to cool the flames, and extinguish them, provided you dumped them in the cooling pond. Above 2700C, water will dissociate, so it might fan the flames by feeding them oxygen. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I heard or read something which suggested the problem of fire was hydrogen gas again. If the rods get hot they react with water to make hydrogen. This would be more difficult in a cooling pond because presumably the water would all have boiled away before the rods could get that hot but ... It is unclear (at least to the public) where exactly radiation is coming from, though we know the steam being vented from reactors to cool them is now contaminated. Sandpiper (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The reports I've seen said that the portions of rods above the water would get hot enough to do that, so that when you added more water, it would react and give off hydrogen. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Likelihood of a metal fire is unlikely because as far as I know the metal in fuel rods is already oxidised, having a higher melting point and cannot burn because it has already oxidised. However it is very possible that the exposed fuel rods get hot enough to strip hydrogen from water as we believe to have happened inside the reactors. Not an expert but 2000-2700C... are you sure? AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The reactors contain superheated steam under pressure and water is continually being added (in theory), so conditions are not quite the same. Sandpiper (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If hydrogen is formed and ignited it will just explode, it does NOT burn like a piece of wood. Operators are very concerned so it cannot really be just 'stuff' surrounding the SFP; then, most likely, all or most of the water is gone and fuelrods are melting causing a lot of smoke and radiation, that's why the controlroom has radiation levels. When the fuelrods are melting, then it does not matter anymore is they were oxidised and when they are reactive enough (hot/just used rods from unit 4) they will burn: metal fire.

You cannot use water to put that out. Hopefully, it will not form a critical mass...

Personally, I would, because of rising temp. on SFP on unit 5+6, take them out (only unit 5+6) and dump them in that small harbor/port (ocean) just before the plant. Before they get too hot as well. Not nice for environment? This is the FINAL countdown! Fukushima will not be like Chernobyl? No. It's worse. Unless they can get some equipment (pumps) going, we face maybe a triple reactor-core meltdown and a quad SFP-meltdown.

And someone noticed that the vessel (RPV) will be OK, even if the core melts....no way: the molten core will just go through it.

Also: we're talking about tens of tons of metal; it takes a LOT of cooling capacity to cool that down, you can run a city (like with 250 000 citizens) with that heat.

Remember the scale of these reactors: you can live in a RPV or SFP (spacewise). A RPV cooling/circulation pump takes (about) 3-6 MW.

Yes, I am scared what could happen there. 94.212.148.55 (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Has any reliable source stated how much fuel is in the pool for each reactor? That belongs in the article. Has any nuclear expert really stated what could happen if the storage pool fractured and the water leaked out, or if it boiled away? Would there be enough heat for the uncooled fuel rods to melt down and form a pool at the bottom? In some US reactors, all the fuel rods they ever used are stored in a pool onsite, or perhaps in dry casks after many years, since there is not national waste repository or reprocessing center. So some of these reactors could have 40 years of fuel stored. Doesn't recently used fuel run hotter than unused fuel, due to the breakdown products from the operation? Edison (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I read a discussion, somewhere, that said that only pool 4 contained recently used fuel. They had planned to unload reactors 5 and 6 as well, but they hadn't gotten to it before the quake. So the fuel in the other pools is considerably older and cooler. Dragons flight (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall something suggesting the Japanese did regularly remove it (don't remember what regularly was) although this may have been before anything happened to it and the site was suggesting there was nothing to worry at all (i.e. don't know if I would trust them). BTW wouldn't only some/most of the fuel in 5 and 6 be older and cooler but there still be about an equivalent amount of newer hot fuel (presuming each reactor got about the same amount of use)? Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm suggesting that the newer / hot fuel from 5 and 6 is still in their respective reactor cores and hadn't been moved to a spent fuel pool. Presumably the total amounts of hot fuel are similar, but the locations are different (at least according to what I recall reading). Dragons flight (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks for the clarification, you're right I misunderstood what you were saying. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

hat-region/ ([1]) supports the idea they had removed all the fuel from reactor 4 but not 5 and 6 where only 1/3 had been removed. For some reason the main NEI site is behind [2] ([3]). This now removed (i.e. perhaps some details are wrong) factsheet [4] ([5]) suggests all the fuel is stored on site but not all in the individual reactor storage ponds (most of it is in a shared pool with a small amount in dry storage) Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting fact sheet. I like the bit which says radiation monitors in the building would warn of increasing radiation if the water level fell and the bit about just adding some extra water with a fire hose is good too. The fact sheet is very positive but says it should take days or weeks for water to get dangerously low. Pool 4 had an entire reactor load of fuel in it - potentially plus spares due to refuelling? so it might perhaps have been loaded to capacity and so be a worst case evaporation situation?Sandpiper (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The fuel itself cannot be on fire, they would just melt as any metal would. The fire (or better to say explosion) was probably caused by hydrogen which is normally a product of radiolysis of the water. In case the fuel was not cooled properly, the hydrogen would form from reaction of water and zirkonium. This happens on large scale when the fuel cladding reaches temperature of 1200 degrees celsius.

Very hot metal usually oxidizes on the outside and then cools down sufficiently, so that it does not "burn". Radioactive metal, however, does not cool down, and therefore would burn, likely breaking up any oxide skin that may occur, if the oxide does not evaporate (sublimate) readily into the atmosphere due to the heat. Cs32en Talk to me 20:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The fuelrods are normally not oxidised, when they are, then they give off or have given off hydrogen = problem.

How much fuel? Well, just read that Daiici-4 was completely defueled on 30nov2010, so that gives 94 tons of hot-rods in the SFP. And assume the SFP was not empty.

If about 15% of fuel is replaced every year, then that would be 10 tons for unit-1 and 14 tons each for unit 2 - 5 and 20 tons for unit-6.

Total hot-rods Fukushima-Daiichi = 180 ton

Just great. 94.212.148.55 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If there would at one point of time emerge a situation in which there are 2.500 °C hot uranium fuel rods in plain air, then hydrogen will be a comparatively minor problem. Radiation will very likely make any work near the site impossible in this case, with or without any additional hydrogen explosions. The total heat emission from the fuel rods is probably about 30 to 40 MW, so without a continuous supply of cooling water, the fuel rods will probably not stop heating until they have evaporated into the air. Cs32en Talk to me 23:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look into status updates by JAIF [6] (not the 16:00/march 17 as they removed information about fires at building 4) they suggest that the fire that started morning 15th has not been extinguished as stated in the article, but has burned out on itself. The same is applicable for the second fire on the 16th which burned for less than an hour. This suggests that the rods were not themselves on fire, as one cant expect them to burn out in a couple of hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.239.106 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuel quantities in each pool are listed here. The fist column is the total storage capacity, the second column is the spent fuel, the final column is the unused fuel.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I had recently modified the data in the line "Estimated spent fuel assemblies" of the section Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Reactor_status_summary, using a recent French source coherent with these new data, but which ignored the presence of unused fuel (except for reactor 4 where they had a footnote telling they had modified their data due to an information received from AIEA). Since your source is more first-hand (Japan) your new data should be inserted in the article. (I don't do it myself, since it is not reasonable to use a source in Japanese when I do not read this language). French Tourist (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

why would it be the nr of "spent" fuel rods is not in the article..? (tilde key dont work soz, bot will take care).ah: 80.57.43.57 (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Monitoring station readings

I have uploaded and added the following images to the article:

Image:FukushimaI rad long term prequake.PNG - Radiation readings from the TEPCO website for 3 months until the earthquake[7]
Image:Fukushima I accident radiation monitoring.PNG - Radiation readings from TEPCO during the accident

The first image is fair-use and I ask any willing users to check the rationale I've written and bring up any issues with expediency. The second image is self created from released data but probably not the ideal kind of quality or format for what we want. Time is of the essence so I'm putting out what I have there, but ideally this would be done in Python or GNU Plot or something that isn't terrible. I'll be willing to share the data with anyone who will help me get an appropriate template (cut and paste into a script would be nice). I don't know of any other sources other than the TEPCO reports, and I found those fairly difficult to extract numbers from. There are other distanced radiation readings out there on the internet that are relevant to the reports of elevated levels in different places in Japan.

I'll jump on the soap box here. News articles might have once-upon-a-time been a good source, but these days, any major media article is an incredibly sub-standard source of information, particularly, for events like these. If a spike in radiation reading of a certain amount was reported you can not know how thoroughly cherry-picked it was or even it if was reliable in the first place, and I have seen no data to substantiate some radiation claims regarding the Tokyo area, for one. I would encourage other users to recognize the importance that this information has on the unfolding of events and encourage that real data is sought. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The first image is not copyrighted, nor is the second one. You do not get copyright merely because you made something. There is no "sweat of the brow" doctrine, intuitive as it may be, that gives you copyright merely because you put some skill and effort into things. --rtc (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

actually, I would disagree. The first image is a graphical representation of data, and although the data would not be copyright, I would say the representation is. It would be copyright to whoever made it. Similarly, the second image you made yourself would be copyright to you so you can declare it public domain (pd-own) or gfdl as you choose. Sandpiper (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, these pictures are clearly not copyrighted and there is no discussion possible about that. You cannot get a copyright on something by making a "graphical representation". You only get copyright on originality and creativity. You could perhaps get a design patent on the style of a graphical representation, though. --rtc (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying that something doesn't have any claim to copyright because it's not original in your opinion seem extremely fishy to me and I pretty much think that's wrong. But since it's not going to impede the use of the images it's not bothering me. I'm only worried about a more experienced user coming along and deleting it all because of the tag. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the "MP" monitoring point locations taken from here (Google translate):

MP-1 Kashiwazaki Shiiya MP-2 Kariwa Tanimura Taki MP-3 Kashiwazaki Nishiyama Tamati Ban MP-4 Kariwa Village MP-5 great-city of Kashiwazaki area MP-6 Oonuma Kariwa Village MP-7 Kashiwazaki MP-8 Kashiwazaki Kamihara
~~MP-9 Matsunami, Kashiwazaki City~~

-Pontificalibus (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is likely to be wrong. See [8] -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the info I found is not applicable here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

These are also monitoring posts, but it appears these are MPs covering a major part of Fukushima Prefecture itself. Those are helpful and I think the data from those have been making the press in many cases. I've only done things with data from the MPs located on the edge of the power plant grounds. These sets are both important, but none of them are streaming through their normal connection. This seems reasonable considering the difficulty in attaining power for just the reactor safety systems. A correct historical picture of the accident should include the plant site MPs, area MPs, and nation-wide MPs. True there are readings from things like US aircraft carriers, but they don't have a reporting protocol. See the page here [9] for some data from the area MPs, and [10] for national MPs. Curating this data makes a big project, but it's clearly of historical value. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I made a couple new graphs from the TEPCO Japanese reports. Feel free to use them if you like; I may update them as new reports come out:

wikimedia:File:FukushimaRadiationPlot-Log-Mar16-15h50.png

wikimedia:File:FukushimaRadiationPlot-Linear-Mar16-15h50.png

-- Xerxes (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice - do we have any data to make a graph for Tokyo?--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. As far as I can tell, Tokyo peaked somewhere near 300nSv/h, which is around the space between the MP-4 and MP-8 labels on the log plot and invisibly negligible on the linear plot. Of course, we'd like to be able to perform the integral over this strongly peaked function, but we only know the maximum value of one peak. Somebody must be measuring; we should poke around Japanese university webpages. -- Xerxes (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, this isn't Tokyo, but there are some measurements from outside the 20km exclusion zone here: [11] (Japanese Excel file) -- Xerxes (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And here's a plot: wikimedia:File:FukushimaOutlyingRadiationPlot-Log-Mar17-00h00.png. No linear plot, since these would all be invisibly small at that scale. -- Xerxes (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the graph. All pictures on a page are a bit small but it makes its point clearly.Sandpiper (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I found data in English. See these. [12] and past data [13]. And this page might be helpful. [14] This is a data of Tokyo, in ja though. [15]. Newspaper articles are these. [16] and [17] Oda Mari (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese city readings

see [18]. I think some Wikipedians could go to town on that. Plus, people keep saying nonsense like "we don't have Tokyo readings", yes we do. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

IAEA presentation including gamma readings for Tokyo and other cities.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Carefully Read your Source

I've noticed that there are several areas where something is said to be certain (eg. There were deadly levels of radiation) when in fact the reference indicates that what is written is uncertain (eg. It is Believed that there were deadly levels of radiation).

"Believed" and "is" mean very different things. Anything with "believed" that is not a direct quote from a reputable source (being the Japanese Government or TEPCO) should not be used as a reference as the majority seem to be 'experts' opinion on what is going on, rather than concrete evidence from radiation sensors on the ground. Just because some Nuclear expert in America or France "Believes" that radiation levels are deadly does not mean it is so if there have been no readings from that area of the plant.

As an example, there is currently no data on the state of the spent fuel rod pool in Reactor 2. If an expert says they 'believe' that the Pool is empty, it should not be written as "The Pool is empty" as there is no data to support this.

PookeyMaster (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no "is," unless you are omniscient. It is all "believed," with varying margins of error. It is quite appropriate, for instance, to say the the head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency believes that there is no water in the fuel storage pool of one of the damaged reactors, since he is a reliable source and has agents at the site who are not as bound to lie as local officials or company spokesmen might feel called upon to do.The power company and the Japanese government are just two among many sources of information. Especially when they have a track record of lies and coverups. Rather than asserting "truth," the artice shoud source statements to the reliable source, indicating where there are disagreements or disputes. Edison (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just spotted this section (whew! there's a lot of text, here!), otherwise I would have put my notes here about this article's severe problem with passive voice. (You can do a text search on "passive voice" to find them in this page.) PookeyMaster is exactly correct, and the problem exists because Wiki's writers are not using active voice, so their statements lose much meaning. It's NOT a problem with omniscience or untrustworthiness. All the Wiki writers need do is, instead of repeating the "is believed" nonsense from the source (the source who doesn't know how to use active voice), just write our sentences in active construction: "NHK reported (FACT - they actually made such a report) that unidentifed persons believed Santa Claus exists." Using active voice immediately shows the true (minimal) value of adding that sentence to Wikipedia. It's a very severe test for fact versus surmise. RobertSegal (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Boiling water reactor

Boiling water reactor article describes the type of reactor used, but there is very little on how this type of reactor was involved in this disaster. Redhanker (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. If you mean, what exactly went wrong, frankly we dont know. Wont know until someone investigates probably but anyway until the crisis is over and people stop to discuss it. 08:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The current theory is that after the batteries ran down after 8 hours, cooling water couldn't be supplied, rods were exposed, which generated hydrogen and the hydrogen exploded, blowing off the walls and roof of the outer containment building. (Apparently they were designed to blow off the steel superstructure, so it appears this sort of catastrophe was expected.) Someone mentioned that after it reaches a certain percentage, the hydrogen doesn't even need a spark to ignite it (any scientists out there have info on this?). Anyway, that's the theory. We'll have to wait and see what the bureaucrats and spinmeisters say and interpret from that. I'm sure there will be massive cover-ups so the more info we get now, the better.69.236.143.147 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Section: Isotopes of possible concern

I would recommend culling large part of this section, and keeping only the relevant isotopes that currently have been measured.

Example, plutonium is nasty.. but it's not a gas nor very water soluble so it's not coming out in any measure of concern.

But keep the link to Fission_products#Countermeasures_against_the_worst_fission_products_found_in_accident_fallout Henk Poley (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

it is undeniably an isotope of especial concern and I have seen this commented on. Why do you want to remove it?

Because plutonium (or strontium) has not been released at the site. Plus: the common fallout products (that may be released at a future date) are already discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. No need to reproduce that here. We could rename the section to the more relevant "Health effects of currently released isotopes" Henk Poley (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is splitting hairs to discuss elements which have been released but not elements which are threatened to be released. People will be concerned about this and it makes sense to report it. I dont believe in hiding worrying information but i do believe in reporting it in a balanced way. I regard the risk of a plutonium release as of grave concern, because of its long term dangers and thus is an important matter to mention. Perfectly fair to be clear that it has not happened yet. (and I add the yet deliberately)Sandpiper (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fission_products#Countermeasures_against_the_worst_fission_products_found_in_accident_fallout deals well with iodine and caesium, and we need to keep a summary of those in this article as they have been measured. However that article doesn't explain the risks of plutonium-containing fuel, and I like the paragrpah we have, although it could better qualify the risks. The only bit I think that should go is the strontium paragraph, as I don't see any sources linking strontium with this accident. We might however have some information on radioactive noble gases, as I believe they are typically the principal radioactive product released to the environment as per Three_Mile_Island_accident#Radioactive material release.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In the intro para on that sub section its stated that iodine and cesium are the only two acknowledged isotopes. But of course its assumed that other isotopes are being released, and where they have been discussed in association with Fukushima by experts, i think its ok to cover them, especially where they are important to public health and providing there's adequate referencing. They wouldnt be getting publically discussed if they werent relevant - even if only reassure the public. Strontium has been cited as an issue by an expert in regards to Fukushima, assume for good reason. Plutonium has also been cited, primarily in regards to reassurance - however, if you look at the scientific reference material you will see that there's a bigger risk in the event of an explosion. If this doesnt eventuate with the MOX reactor then maybe consider dropping plutonium, but leave it in its qualified form while the situation is still in a state of flux.John Moss (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The strontium reference is in The Australian newspaper article, March 16, "Stealthy , silent destroyer of DNA" and not online as far as I know (?), and quotes Tillman Ruff, physician from The Melbourne University Noosal Institute for Global Health. But I will get an online ref as well for strontium cited by authority in regards to Fukushima I. cheers.John Moss (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually plutonium might be more in play as an a contaminant than officials acknowledge. I saw an expert who's being widely viewed on TV News as saying that contamination from plutonium is an issue. Also engineer in first ref on plutonium section cites toxicity as issue (as well as reactiveness). Would imagine effects of plutonium to be most significant to on-site workers.John Moss (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the last sentence. Atomic Pu is 'heavy', but it's extremely friable and is known for it's ability to travel long distances on very light air currents. The reference given is weak. Pre1mjr (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone put it back apparently, but I can't verify their sources, maybe it should be removed again. 207.96.202.114 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed this text:

"Plutonium is one of the heaviest known substances with very low vapor pressures and under no circumstances can be carried up in air plumes as aerosolized material. Even in the worst case scenario of it becoming airborne, plutonium would 'sink' back and precipitate within the confines of the reactor building."

It was affecting to come from the reference after it, but that reference only supports the preceding sentence. Left the text here so it can be added back in wih a reference, if one can be found. The bit that needs to be referenced is that it cannot be carried up in plumes, the rest is not disputed.Pre1mjr (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removal of that section as it's too absolute. The expert reference does support movement of plutonium in the atmosphere in the event of an explosion, and given that hydrogen explosion has already occurred, the possibility cant be ruled out.John Moss (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

thoughts on the viability of taking all radiation measurements and radioactive spread, etc, and putting it in a separate article?Sandpiper (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

suggest doing this later, but not as this event is still unfolding, because we probably need to keep the essential information in one article. Many will come to the wiki article via the links to chase radioactive info specifically, and probably best to keep in this main article for that reason until the crisis has resolved...comment?John Moss (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

radiation on US ships

The subsection Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#U.S._military is a section in Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Radiation levels and radioactive contamination, but it feels a bit long for just the measurements of a single country on a few ships. I propose to remove it. Any thoughts? L.tak (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

see below, my thought is that if something has to go, then the entire section on radiation from the acident could be put into a separte article. This could then grow happily to chat about american ship measurements or anyone elses. Sandpiper (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

no problem splitting an article out on radiation (although with care as I wonder how many articles on this we'll need in 6 months from now, but I have the feeling we all agree there). But we do not need to report every radiation report available and for me this would be not enough for inclusion. A close call however, and I therefore would also settle for a strong rephrase... L.tak (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

yes I agree this will all shrink in the future when it becomes clear what is important. This is one reason I do not like to split but there seems to be pressure to do this. At the moment it is all important. I think anything which gets split off will then get neglected and people will recreate the stuff here. (like, seen any growth in the reactor stub?)Sandpiper (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This has some importance in the conflict between the happy-happy Japanese announcements versus the "go-slow" cautious U.S. approach. The presence of independent radiation monitors has been an issue with the public distrust of the utility as well. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The value of this independent response was especially important for understanding the situation. Perhaps still worth leaving in reduced size. Japanese Government and company possibly still manipulating radiation level data. Seems to be some gaps in info, but that could also be because they are dealing with multiple crisis.John Moss (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation increase

CNN's Anderson Cooper reported about an hour ago (around 11:30AM JST) that Tepco announced that the radiation levels around the plant has reached a high at 20 mSv/h around a building where workers were using to try and restore power.[19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSDGFCTCT9 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper isn't the most realiable source for these matters since he is not a scientist and has a tendancy to play for the camera. Besides, print journalism is much easier to cite and tends to be somewhat more reliable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

He also sustained multiple head injuries recently which may impair his ability to bullshit effectively. [20] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope his peers on tv news formed a queue.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Improvement needed: Solutions attempted chart

This chart is really difficult to read since it is far too long. It could be improved or prose-ified. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

what do people think about this chart generally? with regard to Kyaa's comment, the chart is already meant to be a graphical summary of the prose above it. It is questionable how much it is adding to information. I also have some issues with items in it,

"The backup batteries kept coolant flowing for 8 hours after the generators failed.". Backup batteries only powered some control electronics. I dont personally know to what extent they actually did keep coolant flowing?

"Effective, until they ran out. The operators failed to connect portable generators before the 8 hours ran out, thereby dooming #3 to overheat and nearly melt down." ditto, were they? Batteries seem to have arrived at the plant along with generators and it is possible batteries did not run out even though generators could not be connected.

"Due to the power loss after the earthquake, mobile power units were installed to provide power to pump wate". were they? Is there any evidence that reactor pumps have been re-started. Water injection keeps referring to using the fire fighting system, and this may just mean connecting an external fire truck. "Mobile power units were generally successful particularly at unit 2. "it was?

"Regardless of partial power from mobile units, without full power, all of the cooling systems are less effective which led the water to overheat and water levels dropped below safe levels. Eventually, additional sea water had to be added along with the release of a buildup of radioactive steam". I have seen a report a generator on 6 is working, otherwise no reports to suggest generated power is significant enough to drive any plant pumps. Reactors have been cooled like a pan of boiling water, by letting out the steam and then adding more water.(by fire system)

"A power line was laid to reconnect power to unit Number 2 and attempts to restart water pumps are scheduled to begin on 18 March 2011."My best understanding is that they intend using the existing grid transmission line which presumably survived the disaster, but the control and distribution gear in the basement at the plant was flooded and is inoperable. So they are trying to rewire the plant. Sandpiper (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Really? But what about Chernobyl disaster? That's not called 1986 Chernobyl disaster, and that was an "event" too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you responding to? 65.95.13.139 (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question. The page was just moved from Fukushima I nuclear accidents to 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be that there have been other accidents at this station. If so, we could just rename it Fukushima I nuclear disaster instead (to make it separate from the precipitating tsunami disaster) or Fukushima I disaster, since any preceding nuclear incidents or accidents were clearly not disastrous. Naming by comparison with Chernobyl. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There was an inspection after an earthquake but I am onlu aware of a mention in the reactor article. Are we planning a 2012 Fukushima nuclear disaster....?Sandpiper (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been moved back as it should be. I am going to ask for move protection as we shouldn't be moving it without consensus at a discussion here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I moved it back, per WP:PRECISION. --Kslotte (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, all nuclear accidents and incidents are named without the year in front of it, see International Nuclear Event Scale. Instead, pages about an earthquake and tsunami disaster are named with the year in front of it. I do not now why this is done with the latter one. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Eartguakes are that many that you usually need year to distinguish them from each other. Nuclear accident are that rare that we don't need a year per WP:PRECISION. --Kslotte (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant section

Since there is a related wikilink, I think it's better to trim or delete the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant section to make room for arriving info. Technically detailed plant's description is a side info here, not directly related one. Brandmeister t 21:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you cant. It is necessary to describe and explain what had the accident. Even if you 'main articled' it, it would still have to have a summary which would still have to say the information essential for the rest of this article to make sense. In other words, exactly what is there now. I personally think that the sections on the tail of this article will have to go. Last night someone took off 'international reaction'. I would have taken away all reaction to the accident, so also sent with it the section on Japanese government reaction. I further think the radiation section would be the next best to go. I can see there will be something more to add to this if radiation gets worse and there are casualties, but in general it could be expanded to gibve more detail of how the radiation storey went. Sandpiper (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mind you, much of the technical description was originally dispersed through the other text to explain issues as they came up. Arguably this made more sense, but then someone decided to make it into a section. Sandpiper (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting would not be appropriate, but I think it can be trimmed by ca 50% by leaving out. The main part to be left out would be the info on who built it. Furhermore, the reevaluation after the earthquake 30 years ago is important, but is best left in the powerplant article itself, so we can just leave the seismic design values here. In a normal encyclopedia, I might object, but this is an electronic encyclopedia, so people can click for more information if needed, so not all background would be needed... L.tak (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Im not quite sure what you mean, the same considerations apply here to making a narrative which a reader can follow in a linear manner as in a conventional encyclopedia, except we have the luxury of more space. This article needs to make sense as if someone has not read anything else about this story. So it needs some more geography (notably relation to tokyo!), needs to outline 6 reactors and their different sizes, TEPCO, and then we really need some explanation of the essential parts of a reactor which are involved in the incidents and the issues about cooling, fuel fires and so on. Any fact needed to understand the story needs to be introduced somewhere. As I said, some of this could probably be dispersed into the text, but I presume the reasoning was that if someone gets lost, then a specific explanatory section is easy to refer to. Really we need more info on plant layout, the business of how the generators got flooded, issues of fuel tanks allegedly on the docks, fuel stores.Sandpiper (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, this luxury of more space means we can make more articles, make longer articles, but also makes it possible to link easier to other things (much faster than on paper). It is always impossible to make the perfect article. 1 that is not too long for the casual reason, not too detailed for the reader with much knowledge, and 1 that is detailed enough for the beginner. that means that in my opinion we should not try to make an article that gives all the background info needed, as that will always depend on the specific situation of the reader. Then specifically:

I would add only the info directly needed for context and thus remove at least the info on the manufacurers (but keep the info on the form of the reactor, the earthquake design)
If we have a layout of where the locations were where things were flooded: that's specific info and should be added, preferably with pictures/schemes!
as for interspersing in the main text: the reason why I think it leads to in-text duplication is that many of the general items addressed would have to be placed 3-5 times as it applies to all 6 reactors and we have 5 reactor specific sections.

(but all that all said, I think we're doing quite well in keeping an article navigatable and consistent!) L.tak (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

erm, yes, bloody miracle. Bit hectic here. yes, manufacturers is dispensable, and the data about previous earthquake is confused and needs revising (but someone needs to find this out), but it seems relevant it withstood a previous one ok, and how big it was etc. I dont like having this big chunk of background here because it is an immediate obstacle for a reader to get through, that is why I would mention the technical stuff one time, the first time it comes up, but it is necessary to have a crash course on reactor design to understand what is happening. The sections about different reactors also have this same problem, that stuff repeats and I have been taking the same line, mention something in reactor 1 writeup, then assume in 2 writeup that someone read 1 first, and so on. I think the level of detail thing works quite well because we now have in effect a three tier article, intro, timeline section and then detailed. The timeline isnt really a timeline because it works quite well to address the story as a daily overview and then the individual dramas.Sandpiper (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Three paragraphs doesn't seem like too much to me, especially when it touches on many contextually important issues (the age of the plants, the fuel, the type of plant (BWR) and the general design (the troubled GE Mark I)). 70.76.166.245 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I have removed the supplier part (and also the info on shut dwon end of this months; that's placed into context at the otehr article). Feel free to readd if I went too far..

Perhaps we need a new article General Electric Mark I Boiling Water Reactor ? 65.95.13.139 (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

cooling requirements section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

conclusion was that this section provides no good basis for a split and that it might be reduced a bit

A move request has been placed at the '2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents#'cooling requirements section to make it its own article, to which I added the link to this section (I did not make the request however...). I wonder -before I can weigh in- what exactly the title and scope are going to be (cooling of nuclear reactors after scram? or a more specific section?). L.tak (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ditto comments already stated aboveSandpiper (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There are already general articles about reactor emergencies. The reason this info is here is because a reader must understand it before understanding events at the station. It is not supposed to be a complete explanation, just enough for purposes here. (but I expect it could be sorted a bit, seems to be growing)Sandpiper (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is general information about how nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel can be cooled, including the difficulties involved, then Nuclear reactor technology#Cooling could be expanded, possibly including a sub-article on, for example, Nuclear fuel cooling technology. Cs32en Talk to me 08:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the cooling requirements of PWR, BWR, HWR, LWR reactor types different? 65.95.13.139 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That they need cooling and why they need cooling is pretty universal. How plants achieve cooling does differ somewhat, but that fits better in articles on design. Sangrolu (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That section of the article already referred to a pretty thorough section of the decay heat article. I think it would be best to trim the section down to a short summary and keep the reference to the decay heat article, perhaps keeping any (sourced) statements that pertain to this particular accident. Sangrolu (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling we agree on that this could be expanded in general paragraphs like Decay heat#Power reactors in shutdown (specifically the decay heat after scram) and the more general Nuclear reactor technology#Cooling. If one of those sections becomes too long, it might be worthwile splitting to an article based on those sections. Our section here seems not to be a good basis to split from, so I will remove the request. Furthermore, there have been some comments that the section could be shorter here (but keeping in the info needed to understand this article). That could be done, but I'll leave it to someone else... 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

restoring power

The tepco, nisa and iaea press releases are somewhat cryptic. I think they are saying that one of the diesel generators belonging to reactor 6 has been repaired and is providing power to reactors 5 and 6, but not enough. The press release might just mean they have brought in a generator which is doing this.

The release says 'cable installation to receive electricity from the transmission line of TEPCO. Schedule to be connected to unit 2 after the completion of discharge work' (discharge work=water canon spraying 3 - I said they are cryptic). I can quite undertsand they are trying to connect power. But the specificity of the statement makes me wonder if what they are doing is trying to repair connections to the transmission grid, involving transformer equipment and switchgear at the plant which was flooded. Anyone have any information? Sandpiper (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The next release [21] says "<recovery of power> The contents of operations for recovery of external power supply to units 1 to 4 (Power supply from electric transmission grid of Tohoku Electric Power Co., and from the route via transformer sub-station of TEPCO) being confirmed. (As of 06:30 March 18th)"

Does anyone understand Japanese who could find the japanese version of this release and see if it makes more sense in Japanese? I think I would interpret the bit in brackets as saying there is power at the low voltage side of the transmission transformer but not yet into the buildings.Sandpiper (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Can there be a new section on recovery efforts

Clearing roads is important. Were equipment operators mobilized to clear roads? Evacuation of flooded areas? Hotels mobilized? 172.130.234.176 (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC) BG

um. Tricky. I think this article is currently quite big and so it would be hard to add a useful section here. My inclination is that this could be covered in the article about the overall damage from the tsunami and earthquake. If there is enough material specifically about recovery effort for the nuclear incident, then maybe it would need its own article. But so far, the evacuation and radioactive worries are the main consequence of the nuclear accident, and we do mention this.Sandpiper (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides the complaints from the mayor of Fukushima that his people are not being provided for, I haven't really heard much related to the details of the reactor-related evacuation. Rmhermen (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Sandpiper, general recovery efforts should be in the tsunami article. Not to trivialize the nuclear accidents, but the net economic damage and deaths at this point from the tsunami far exceeds the impact of the nuclear accidents. Crucial recovery efforts like basic road restoration can effect nuclear recovery efforts, and the tsunami damaged areas should be mostly evacuated regardless of the nuclear situation. 172.164.36.130 (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Also note Japan has long history of tsunamis, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis Some historical wave heights reached 25 and 30 meters, causing widespread damage and deaths. How could this tsunami history not have been addressed both in nuclear construction and general construction? Not even elevated evacuation areas. 172.164.36.130 (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Fukushima 50

don't forget them, this people risk they life for shutdown or prevent nuclear disaster, this unit are 50 skeleton staff compose from 180 people and work in the shift between 15 menit periode, as i know japan labor and health minister rise the limit of the radiation acceptable to let them able to work. i hope they sacrifice are worth Daimond (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We have an article Fukushima 50. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

hmm, in the main artikel there no mention about them, but there USA operation are mention under usa military this fukushima 50 are suposed under tepco (japan reaction ) maybe.Daimond (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

if you have more information, please consider doing some work on the fukushima 50 article. Im afraid there isnt space to have a section about them here, and at this moment we dont know much. Sandpiper (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

sentence excised from lead

I took the following from the lead, because i didnt think it was worth noting, not in the lead and i dont see where else it might belong.Sandpiper (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"It is worth noting than a 2009 OECD report about Japan's risk management policies stated that "Industries that can trigger special harm in case of flood accidents, such as chemical and nuclear industries, should be required by law to move to safer areas”.^[2] As of Friday 18 March 2011, the accident is deemed at least as serious as the Three Mile Island accident of 1979."

^ Cite error: The named reference autogenerated3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Japan: Hard questions and no easy solutions". OECD Insight. 17 March 2011. Retrieved accessed 17 March 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

International Scale Upgraded

It is now officially a Level 7: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-edano-20110319,0,6723770.story ElMeroEse (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Japan upgraded it to a Level 5 (from a Level 4). Others have suggested it should be rated a 6. Dragons flight (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, checking what is presently in the article, I noticed the mention of the opinion of the US-based Institute for Science and International Security on this accident level. Does it really pass the relevance tests ? The French nuclar authorities and the US energy secretary obviously do, but why this think-tank among myriads of organizations ? Should it not be removed ? French Tourist (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS, Quoted a by a secondary source, a major news organization.--Stageivsupporter (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cited source text clearly says, "on a scale of seven" and later cites Chernobyl as the only 7.--Stageivsupporter (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Fukushima I" or "Fukushima Daiichi"

My impression is that international press is mostly referring to this plant as "Fukushima Daiichi" (or occasionally "Dai-Ichi"). As I understand it, "Daiichi" simply means "Number 1" in Japanese, so calling it "Fukushima 1" is also entirely appropriate. However, if most sources in English are referring to the plant as "Daiichi", then we should probably move the page to "Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accidents" per WP:COMMONNAME. What do other people think? Dragons flight (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME should not be our only consideration. Neither does it matter what the majority of sources call it. We don't change the name every time a Google search reveals a simple majority of sources calling it something else. Calling it Fukushima 1 helps to avoid confusion with Fukushima Daini for people unfamilar with the subject, a large number of sources call it this, and a name change would not be useful.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think people unfamiliar with the topic tend to confuse Fukushima I with Fukushima Daiichi reactor 1 (rather than the whole site), which would be another reason to support a move. Google certainly isn't everything, but "Fukushima Daiichi" [22] is running 2.8:1 relative to "Fukushima I" [23] in my searches. Shrug. It's not a big deal, but personally I think that Daiichi is a better name. Dragons flight (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I - because Daiichi doesn't mean anything to me as a non-Japanese speaker, and I had to compare letter-by-letter early on to understand which plant they were talking about. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

please just dont keep changing it.Sandpiper (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Factual content... And Sloppy Construction

I hate to bring it, but the Fukushima article (-s) become more and more like newspaper articles.

That means: it is becoming 'overall' with a lot of bla-bla, less useful or factual.

Some: - SFP injection of water: there is no injection, just spraying from 10m away (a joke really)

injection seems to be used a lot by the translations from japanese. I dont know if it is commonly used by nuclear engineers, maybe it is. People can only do their best and I am sure some of the people who have contributed to this article are not english first langauge speakers. Sandpiper (talk)

- Injection into RPV: with what? what capacity is availble? external pumps? magic?

It is stated via the fire extinguishing system. My guess is someone has hooked an external pump to a fire main which for some reason goes into the reactor. If this is wrong, I have no idea what they are doing. MY guess - but it is only my guess so it will not be going in the article - is that they do not want to explain they have a total power failure for running pumps,etc. What they are doing is releasing pressure, pumping in as much water as they can, allowing pressure to build up and then doing it again.18:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

- powerlines are being restored/hooked-up: what kind? just a small 220V/20A line? or air-line 10-100kV, 50-200MW?

again - they do not say. Maybe there is more known in Japan? There is some evidence the whole electrical distribution system in the reeactors has been flooded and is inoperable. They are trying to rebuild it. I suspect the high voltage lines to the plant are working and so are the step down transformers.Sandpiper (talk)

- pumps are flown in: a pond pump? or 5-10MW ones? Where to put them? How to hook-up at all? Original pumps are massive. so is this useful at all (while with high radiation figures)?

I see you understand their problems. And ours.Sandpiper (talk)

- mobile generators on site: what kind? quite hard to find the good ones: 6-10 or 100kV, 10-200MW. and how to hook them up? can industrial electricians get there with equipment? just not easy.

I understand several MW is required. I presume they cannot get there, and if they can it is tricky connecting to underwater switchgear. My educated guess. Show me a source explaining this and we will write about it. Sandpiper (talk)

- unit 5+6 seem all OK in chart: OK? no damage? no cracks? piping OK? Then why don't they start 5 or 6 to get the much needed power? Only logical. So, what's up there?

Because (as you probably figured) you need power to run a power station. I am guessing somewhat, but I think they have one original generator running on 5&6, the reactors are controlled in pairs. I dont even know how many generators there were, but I would guess two each reactor. So 1/4 is producing power, or someone managed to get an external generator attached to reactors 5&6. This seems to be enough to run mimimal cooling on a reactor already shut down, so they are stable. sort of. 5&6 are in a physically separated building, whereas 4 (also shut down) was probably badly affected by being attached to 3, and also had this problem of an overloaded cooling pond. I suspect that rapidly ran out of clean water for topping up reactors.Sandpiper (talk)

Status chart of Fukushima-plant and last of -timelime should be in sync.

There is a 'Status at earthquake', it might be useful to put row in with 'Status now' with could say 70% operable, or 'piping cracked', that would give an idea about unit 5+6 which seems like they could be start-up.

no one is going to start 5&6 until the mess on the others is completely cleaned up. They have been trying to save 5&6 by not injecting sea water, but depending what happens they may still be unusable if they end up next to a radioactive pit. 5&6 may be stable and shut down but the plants are seriously damaged by flooding (again a guess). What they are doing is trying to hang on until external power can be restored.Sandpiper (talk)

And the reference list is sooo long now, it is 1/3 of the article, move and link to it?

The more info, the more devil in the details, unfortunately.

It should not just be informative overall, but be useful. If someone later looks at it to see what has been done, then they read that water is injected, while it is not.

by and large, the article follows official statements. these may or may not be correct. Sandpiper (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I KNOW that data is hard to come by, but I see things on TV now which are not in the article. And Wikipedia should be better.

Only saying this to help, not meant negatively. Article is OK, but one needs to read it all, twice, to work with it. I'd like the article to be GOOD/OUTSTANDING.

I am afraid that is impossible on wiki because we cannot make a perfect article when the facts keep changing all the time.Sandpiper (talk)

I could edit it, but have to proof first I could, again... And ok, I will not 'bash' again, don't WANT to. I recommend doing a bit of editing to get the hang of it and choosing a name. Then if there is another occasion when you can help, you will be all set up.Sandpiper (talk)

94.212.148.55 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that reactors 5+6 have been shutdown for months, and that there is no external power to run them. Also we have to avoid original research here. Rmhermen (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In that vein, we must avoid using passive voice. Many authoritative sources are making statements at odds with each other, so writing here, "smoke was spotted" or "Radiation levels of 5 Sieverts per weekend were reported" is exceedingly problematic and even if it's QUOTING a source who uses passive voice, it does a disservice to this work and its readers. WHO spotted?!? WHO reported?!!! Not only must we nail down sources for what goes in here, we must also not push aside those sources through passive voice. Active voice ("Johann Q. Tractoroperator announced radiation levels of..." et cetera) is how we must phrase it here. We must put everything here in active voice (yes, really) and we ought construct quotes of passive voice to read something like "NHK reported pink flamingos were spotted (by unknown persons) in the spent fuel tank." Now it's a useful fact about a news report instead of a near-meaningless repeat of an unattributed statement about birds. See why it's important? RobertSegal (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont beleive in advertising. Most refs are simply examples of widely available information, whether it is correct or not. Where there is an issue editors generally switch to stating the specific source in the text.Sandpiper (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wkinews

Why were all the Wikinews links deleted?

See this edit [24] -- whose edit summary does not indicate anything of the sort. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone didnt like them?. Have no objections myself.Sandpiper (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed conclusions, WP Bias

"have not been high enough to constitute any significant danger to the public" And "An acute exposure to radiation is much more harmful than the same dose spread out over a longer period of time, making comparisons between short-term and yearly doses problematic." Are both scientifically VERY dubious statements. There is no consensus in the scientific community on the non-linear vs. threshold arguments against radiation but the overwhelming majority of scientists in biology and medicine believe that there Is no safe threshold. What that means in practice is that a tiny amount of background radiation carries proportionally the same risk as 1000 times as much, at least when it comes to Cancer. This article only represents the minority position, which is that there is a safe level of radiation exposure possible before health risks occur.

The first statement also only reflects a minority opinion. Current information, coming out of long term studies into the effects of nuclear testing in the 1950's & 1960's is showing the first conclusive links between fission & cancer on a large scale. Previous studies suggested it was possible and others, usually penned by physicists not biologists claimed it was impossible and that the above mentioned 'safe threshold' protected people. It is now apparent the casualties from fissionable material such as Strontium-90 are massive and this is an ongoing world wide problem so to make the claim that there is no significant danger to the public when serious government bodies are only just starting to acknowledge their own private reports detailing the dangers of radioactive isotopes is a poor example of sourcing.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not true to say that 'the overwhelming majority of scientists in biology and medicine believe that there "is no safe threshold."' Indeed, it is postulated that low levels are beneficial (see Ionizing_radiation#Hormesis), but as this is difficult to prove conclusively, it is regarded as prudent to make the assumption there is no safe level. I also don't agree with your assertion that "casualties from fissionable material such as Strontium-90 are massive and this is an ongoing world wide problem" - do you have evidence for this? You might find Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_the_disaster.27s_effects_on_human_health interesting. In short, I don't see that you have raised valid objections to these two statements.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The article itself, points out 2 things; A - people 20km from the plant are recieving at the rate of roughly 3000msv / year, although, with the decay of the first round of radioactive isotopes occuring so quickly by the end of the year this could be assumed to reduce to half this over the course of a year and even less with some clean up. And B - a dose of 100msv in a year increases the lifetime risk of cancer by 1%. I've gone through this process in the past of trying to provide extensive scientific sources into this issue on a different article only to be asked to provide so many sources by people who effectively controlled the content of the article that due to work etc. I didn't have time but I would like to repeat my assertion; numerous government bodies & scientific studies have shown that the casualties from atmospheric testing were enormous. This includes the Australian CSIRO & a study cited by the US EPA, although I don't have time to track these down.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about original research. We need references from reliable sources to include material in articles, and original research is not allowed.Rememberway (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"The primary danger from plutonium is that small particles will become airborne and be inhaled, with estimates that 0.08 milligrams inhaled will have 100% probability of causing a fatal cancer. To inhale 0.1 milligram of plutonium, however, a person would have to inhale more than seven hundred thousand particles. A single 0.1-milligram particle would have a diameter of over 260 micrometers, about 90 times too big to be readily inhaled." This section also reads very badly. Why is there commentary on the size of particles and how much a person needs to inhale? Wouldn't it be simpler to rate the amount that provides the supposed 100% risk of cancer and compare this to the amount of plutonium contained in a typical reactor and the amount that has been released in previous accidents (if there are previous comparable accidents)?

Do you propose a change to the article that is reliable? Because this is not a forum to get on a soapbox or to debate. MartinezMD (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because it effectively was a misquote of the source.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not trying to debate the point, it was just that the sentence was poorly worded. It did not specify what particles you would have to inhale (was it 700,000 plotonium particles?). It also makes some comment about particles too large to inhale in a way that seems quite odd. It provides no information about the liklihood of these 'large particles' or broadly dispersed particles occuring. It just makes some odd assertions without actually explaining them.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Article 15 Emergency Law

Japan has "Article 15 Emergency Law" which suppresses news to prevent riots/revolution. It's hard to assess at this time how much this played in the difficulty of getting reliable information from the Japanese government but I definitely think we should take a look at this after the situation has cooled down over there and see what part it played in all this.69.236.143.147 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any information that the law has been invoked by the government? Cs32en Talk to me 01:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I remember reading that they invoked it, but I'm not sure. It would certainly explain a lot about the lack of credible information if they did. But yeah, how can we confirm it for RS?69.236.143.147 (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the only one I could find (other than people asking about Article 15). It reads a lot like an opinion piece, so I'm not sure how credible/reliable it is. Either way, we won't know what they might be holding back (if anything) until they tell us or someone else discovers it. So for now it's mainly something to keep in mind only.MartinezMD (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there perhaps some confusion here with Article 15 of the 1999 "Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness"? It determines the circumstances in which a nuclear emergency is declared, but has nothing to do with the suppression of news. There's an English translation of the entire act available at: http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/resources/legislativeframework/index.html . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.88 (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

One of Governments main functions is to ensure for it's citizens health & safety, at least within a democracy or some sort of sane government. I haven't read or interpreted Japan's Article 15, but it sounds more something for rioting versus a National Emergency. Misleading or hindering information during an emergency will only cost lives if they're at risk. My two cents. Roger.nkata (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I Googled "COVER-UP: Censorship beginning in Japan" and found a video at the top of the page with a dynamic map of the radioactive cloud whipping back and forth across the Pacific like a snake in the storm winds, as it makes its way to California. (It arrived here in California today, Friday, our monitors detected it). There's an interview with Yoichi Shimatsu, former editor of the Japan Times Weekly, who said that a "cloak of secrecy" had been imposed everytime Japan had a nuclear disaster under the "mysterious" Article 15 Law, which is not to be confused with Article 15 of the Constitution. Shimatsu said everytime he tried to find out about a nuclear incident he was stonewalled. TEPCO in one investigation was found to have about 200 violations...69.236.143.147 (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What's going on with radiation measurements?

There's been some major editing on the recorded radiation levels, which is inconsistent with the reference material cited. It says in in the section Summarised daily events:

Shortly afterwards, reports surfaced[by whom?] that all but a small group[41] of remaining workers at the plant had been placed on standby because of the dangerously rising levels of radioactivity up to 10 mSv/h.[12][42]

But the reference cited actually says: The level of radiation at the plant surged to 1,000 millisieverts early Wednesday before coming down to 800-600 millisieverts. Still, that was far more than the average.

1,000 millisievert is also what was widely reported in the media right across the board as the peak level supposedly quoting Edano, and there was no disputing that from the Japanese government and IAEA. What also supports the 1,000 mSv/h radiation level is that Edano made the point that there was an evacuation at that rate, when there was no such evacuation as a matter of urgency at the 400 mSv/h that we are aware of.

Also noticed that the reference to the 1,000 mSv/h was removed from the Radiation levels and contamination section along with associated health implications.

If there is no good cause to maintain the 10 mSv/h figure stated soon, we will have to reinstate the 1,000 mSv/h on the basis that its inconsistent with the references cited, and that whoever edited this probably made a mistake (easy done!) confusing microsieverts with millisieverts.John Moss (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I say WP:Bold... 10msv/h may be relevant for a civilian area outside the plant. I think I saw a similar figure for the gates at one point but to believe that anywhere in the plant recently has been around this level seems illogical with the way radiation spreads. It's also my opinion that these sorts of articles suffer from editors who forum shop and when that fails they vandalise, so WP:Bold and re-add the source materials levels.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

cheers Senor Freebie, will edit now.John Moss (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, just going back to a TEPCO source document www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110315g.pdf . Can someone else check this who reads Japanese, and confirm dates etc to see whether radiation levels did in fact rise to 1,000 mSv/h around March 14 to 15. It would be a major mistake if the media have misreported the radiation figures on the basis of a confusion between microsieverts and millisieverts.John Moss (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Can the article state what kind of equipment is indicating the radiation levels? Stationary detectors? Detectors carried by humans? Are there portable battery powered radiation detectors that record or transmit readings? 172.164.36.130 (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Worlds Figure Skating Canceled/Postponed

Although Yoyogi Stadium in Tokyo was not damaged in the earthquake, it was decided just a few days ago to either postpone or cancel the 2011 Worlds Figure Skating Championships. This may seem unimportant until one realizes that the Japanese are fanatics about figure skating so to postpone Worlds, the biggest skating event of the year worldwide, means that the disaster in Japan is enormous. In fact the figure skating world is in an uproar as to whether to cancel Worlds altogether to honor the Japanese or to hold them to support the Japanese in a time of tragedy. It's quite a quandry. A decision is expected next week. The only time Worlds was ever canceled (outside of WWI and WWII for obvious reasons) was in 1961 when the entire U.S. figure skating team was killed in a plane crash. This would make an interesting encyclopedic entry for historical illumination of the enormity of the earthquake-tsunami-nuclear event.69.236.143.147 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the earthquake/tsunami article. Rmhermen (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Burning Uranium and MOX fuel

I have done some research into the combustion/oxidization uncharacteristics of depleted uranium and MOX. Apparently, DU will oxidize into a fine powder at temps as low as 350f. If the rods hare hot enough to boil water and damage the casings (and the wiki says the rods in the spent fuel pools are hot enough to boil some 300 tons of water in 24 hours if I recall correctly,) it seems there is plenty of heat for oxidization or combustion to occur, and the presence of water would not necessarily help this. It seems to me that "fire in the pond" as lightly reported is actually referring to a class D metal fire of burning DU in oxygen. I wonder if a component of the "white steam" we are seeing is at times oxidized uranium or MOX?

This ought to be added to the wiki but I would like more support from others before posting it on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.121.173 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's speculation until some reliable source states otherwise.MartinezMD (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The fuel rods do not contain uranium metal. I think it is already uranium oxide, formed into ceramic pellets and then encased in zircalloy tubing. I think we are talking 2000C to melt it. Sandpiper (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The fuel is tyopically UO
₂ [25]. If Zirconium starts burning then it will release enough energy and H2 to produce a lot more damage (like blowing up the reactor building). Nergaal (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

radiation vs. radioactive material

It would be helpful for the article to distinguish between radiation (i.e. neutrons, gamma rays, etc.) and radioactive material (i.e. Iodine-131). I realize that news media conflate and confuse these concepts all the time, but I have hope that Wikipedia can do better. -Stepheng3 (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Root causes?

Put the backup generators and switch gear in the basement, below prior "high tide" marks, as well as a seawall below the 100 (or 500) yr event. Tokyo Electric ignored warnings about the tsunami risks that caused the crisis at Fukushima, Tatsuya Ito, who represented Fukushima prefecture in the national parliament from 1991 to 2003, said in a March 16 telephone interview.

The Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant was only designed to withstand a 5.7-meter tsunami, not the 7-meter wall of water generated by last week’s earthquake or the 6.4-meter tsunami that struck neighboring Miyagi prefecture after the Valdiva earthquake in 1960, Ito said. [26]--Stageivsupporter (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan has long history of east coast tsunamis, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis Some historical wave heights reached 25 and 30 meters, causing widespread damage and deaths. How could this tsunami history not have been addressed both in nuclear construction and general east coast construction? Not even elevated evacuation areas there. Suppose there were NO reactors there, but they only stored spent fuel at the location, or any other dangerous material. There would still be a big problem! Any construction on the east coast of Japan should consider tsunamis. 172.162.224.52 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC) BG

Map of the plant area?

I've been trying to find a source for this "layout map" of the plant area with explanations or names of the various buildings in English, which would be very helpful in pointing out various activities and dose rate measurements etc. It's clear that this is a map of the correct plant (Dai-ichi), since the layout and markings match an info map at the main gate of the plant.

With the help of building locations from this layout, it would be possible to quickly identify them from recent satellite imagery (such as from DigitalGlobe) or even Google, and provide versions of such images with accurate markings. There is currently one such highly outdated (70's with reactor 6 still under construction) picture that shows only the location of the 6 reactors.

Would someone be able to translate the Japanese markings from the first picture or do we need a higher resolution version? --85.156.224.62 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Responding to my own request, it appears this work has already been done here. --85.156.224.62 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for finding thatSandpiper (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

water cannon (bringing to talk after ^{[citation needed]} being removed

reposting after archiving, as still not resolved apparently

Japanese police water cannon similar to the one used in Fukushima

Not the most important item, but for the sake of clarity. The figure caption here stated that the unit used at Fukushima one was similar to this one. Now I am no expert in firefighting (or nuclear reactors, or japan), so I'd like to see a short justification why we think this type was used (who knows whether they have many different types?). If it has been on tv, that's also ok, but we need to have some more indication then this... L.tak (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The water cannon on the right doesn't really look like the ones that are actually being used. Cs32en Talk to me 23:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Those red vehicle are the airport fire engines they brought in after the police water cannon couldn't get close enough. Rmhermen (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But still we have no source on whether it were these units. Only that these units exist in Japan. As the info that this truck was "similar" to the ones used on site was added again, I have re-added a citation request. Please add a reference or discuss here why such a reference would be not needed... L.tak (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is here. And its G translation. This is NHK news and the translation. We have an image of the truck. See the license number in the Asahi article. Oda Mari (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I read the translation correctly, they are actually converted fire trucks that have been painted blue, unlike the first picture that shows a vehicle designed for police use? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's how it seems indeed (although google translate is not great...). Anyway, I have changed the image and used the link provided. tnx! L.tak (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi I'm the editor who kept removing the cite tag. I thought you wanted a cite on whether they were in use at fukushima, not a cite for the type of water cannon truck being used. Obviously I don't live in Japan or know anything about which riot trucks are used where- this was just the only one on the Japanese police wp- I appreciate the other editors doing the extra legwork and figuring out the proper model and find a pic for that. I feel its a better way of handling things than just deleting like with the first fire truck pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Level 5?

The article claims the event has been recategoirized as a level 5 event, and the only source is a webpage from a news source (wasn't this disallowed?) which isn't even working (at least for me, I get an http 500 error). If the source is not changed to a serious and working source (the only type of acceptable source is a press release from an official source) within 10 hours, I'll revert it to level 4. Oskilian (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was on TV channels and is on IAEA website. Good enough? 94.212.148.55 (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

TV channels: not good enough. Hufftington post (or whatever it's called): not good enough, bbc news, not good enough. IAEA website: haven't seen it, but if it's true, then please change the reference. News, including cnn, bbc or al jazeera are NOT, and will NEVER be good sources for encyclopedic content. Oskilian (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Most news media are appropriate sources, see WP:V and WP:RS. Cs32en Talk to me 18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's quoted from a news source, it should then say "BBC reported blah blah blah". If it says "Officials say blah blah blah" then it must be quoted from an official source. In other words, saying something is official and then quote it from news source is not correct. You do know lots of news sources get data from wikipedia, right? In addition, the classification quoted in this page is a joke. According to the IAEA website each reactor has a separate INES rating for different reasons, and they don't seem to give a rating for the entire incident. Oskilian (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In full compliance with WP:RS, thousands of articles make statements cited to The New York Times, Time Magazine, the BBC, CBS News, the Wall Street Journal, and countless other mainstream news sources without qualifying them in the text as just being an opinion the news source. RS says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If the cited source meets that requirement, then we do not need to name the source every time we state something, other than in an inline reference. It clutters the article and tends to make it far less readable. The view that if some agency says something, it is a fact, but if news media say something it is just an opinion is, sadly, not borne out by the long history of officials covering things up and prevaricating, while investigative reporters stated the true case. If an agency head says something, but a reliable news source cites a credible authority who says something else, then to have a neutral point of view, we might report both versions of what is going on, or in a table note it as disputed. Not every crackpot minority theory deserves that level of coverage, however. Something in an editorial would be appropriately noted to be an opinion, as well. Edison (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

While the BBC, the New York Times et.al. usually represent reliable sources, one should keep in mind that this is a "current event", and even those "reliable sources" gave a lot of misinformation, even prompting the IAEA to make additional clarifying statements about news reports. As wikipedia is not wikinews, it can afford not to "report" every "breaking news" in realtime, and wait for official statements from the IAEA or those shown in the Kyodo News. I.e. I recommend behaving like we are operating a nuclear powerplant: Better safe than sorry. --Amazeroth (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We should strive to operate far more better than some power plant operators have recently. Edison (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that this is even possible. So far there have been no reports of human errors or mistakes made by the local operators. Despite the fact that they've been there for a week without electricity, living with the threat of death by radiation contamination, probably stressed by lack of sleep and likely worried whether their families and friends survived the earthquake and tsunami. Of course one has to wait for full assessments in later reports, but as of now, it seems as if these operators have done an incredibly awesome job that is difficult to top. --Amazeroth (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Coca Cola Vending Machines Still Running

Here's an interesting sidenote, John Harris, a Canadian speechwriter living in Japan, reported that Japan's 5.5 million vending machines are still on. This is significant because each vending machine uses as much electricity as a household per day. (5.5 million houses constitutes a major city!) And Coca-Cola vending machines are the biggest electricity hogs of them all. This at a time when the Japanese are being told to conserve electricity. This would certainly make an interesting historical note for an encyclopedia. 69.236.143.147 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You could make that argument about a lot of things that use electricity (video games, store lighting, etc). The Talk page is for the article and it's already on it's 3rd archive due to size. Let's stick to the topic please. MartinezMD (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I am wandering off topic (see below about figure skating) but these ancillary news reports keep coming in. Anyway, nuclear reactors only last 30 to 40 years, and I've heard that Fukushima was scheduled to be shut down anyway in just a few weeks (it's 41 years old). Anybody got any info on this? And here in the U.S. half of the U.S. reactors are over 30 years old. And 23 of those are Mk I boiling water reactors like at Fukushima. GE--"Better living through electricity".69.236.143.147 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

An earlier news article said that Fukushima#1 had already been extended another ten years.--Stageivsupporter (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In Japan, these vending machines and video games are littered throughout the area in a magnitude not seen elsewhere. And, add a penny here and a penny there, it adds up very quickly, especially if you've studied your electrical bill. I think, although this is a minor issue, likely in the future maybe they'll place non-essential vending machines on a separate circuit. Therefore, support this mention and think Japan Government might be interested too in the later future. I don't think you're wandering off-topic, think it's completely relevant. Elsewhere where vending machines are far and few, well, then I'd say you would be off-topic. Roger.nkata (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How is this related to Fukushima I nuclear accidents? Rmhermen (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here. Try 2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami#Electricity, if you have a source. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the article that the output of Fukushima equaled the amount of electricity used by the vending machines, to give some idea of how much electricity the plant put out and how much the Japanese use in just one sector of their economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.143.147 (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about Coca Cola, but I can say firsthand that other companies have shut off at least some of their vending machines. Power outages have been canceled, at least for the weekend, as well. Many department stores and large retail businesses have been closing significantly earlier on a daily basis. I think it's safe to say, again based only on firsthand knowledge, that many, if not most, businesses in Japan are chipping in to conserve electricity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.242.117 (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation Protection

I'd like to see in the article (or perhaps in the Fukushima-50 article) details about the workers' protective equipment and proximity to dose exposure. Are they wearing simple rubberized gowns and particulate filter masks or are there leaded suits and leaded-glass eyewear (to prevent cataracats), etc. Do other responders have similar or lesser equipment? etc. This will become increasingly more relevant as the amount of exposure time and limits is increased, etc. If the situation becomes crucial, do some sacrifice themselves as in Chernobyl to save their city and countrymen? Anyone have a good source or two on that? MartinezMD (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

When I was in the military, we had NBC suits I think they were called--Nuclear-Biological-Chemical. So they might have something of that nature. There's also Hazmat suits. I think some suits are pressurized also to keep out toxic materials if there's a leak. They might be limited in the amount of time they can work in them out of simple exhaustion, since it might be like working in a giant, heavy, rubber envelope, moisture building up, etc. So aside from radiation exposure these parameters could also limit their time inside the plant. Anybody recognize what kind of suits they are? Maybe we can find similar suits on e-Bay for comparison.69.236.143.147 (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

An article from an American news source that I don't remember right now read that the suits they wear are not sufficient to block radiation. Several workers have been exposed bodily to radiation above recommended government limits at the site but no one seems to have been exposed to a life threatening degree yet. France has apparently sent hazmat suits to the site, although I don't know if they have arrived yet or, if not, when. As in the Chernobyl incident, workers appear to be working in shifts and rotating regularly to limit exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.242.117 (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Radioactive Iodine found in Tokyo Tap Water; & Radiated Milk and Spinach Found

Japan officials: radioactive iodine in Tokyo water (AP 35 minutes ago) Wow, now that's fast! But with my experience with ground water, understandably fast. Roger.nkata (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This should probably go within "12 Radiation levels and radioactive contamination" as "12.6". My guess, some fresh water springs/streams were contaminated leading to underground aquifers. But this newly found radioactive iodine contamination is probably to early to conclude it's from Fukushima reactors. Roger.nkata (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This should go in a "Food and water contamination" heading under the "Radiation Levels and radioactive contamination". There's also been contamination found in milk and spinach.John Moss (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The radioactive food was found as far away as 90 miles. Since around 7,000 cases of cancer were caused by drinking radioactive milk after Chernobyl, more than any other cause, should the radioactive food menace become a highlighted, major part of this Wiki article at this time to help save people from getting cancer? I'm sure Japanese people are referencing this article. I think we should be humane and not academically callous. 69.236.143.147 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

@OP: Your guesses need sources I'm afraid, we can't go based original research. @69: we gotta have sources. If this is true about food contamination, you can bet some source is going to be reporting it soon. We can't put it in without sources, otherwise it is just a rumor. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, lots of nice sources. [27] [28] [29] and [30] and [31] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work, Sir Petrie. You deserve recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.143.147 (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw in, that as of 20 March, Japanese health authorities are urging that vegetation and tapwater outside of the exclusion zone is not contaminated above Japanese governmental health standards. Although the New York Times reported that the Japanese standard is more lenient than the USDA standard. It was unclear if they were talking about the tap water, or the milk/spinach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.242.117 (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Many red trucks" image

Large groups of firefighters have been deployed to Fukushima to help cool the reactors

I have also removed this image from the article twice now. As there is no indication that these fire engines were involved with Fukushima. (There is also the problem that English Wikipedia and Google Earth have no entry for the town the image was supposed to have been taken in.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems to be a general disaster relief picture (looking at the commons description)... L.tak (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See the news videos too. [32] and [33] As for the red trucks, the description in ja says the image was taken in a town called 漉磯/Sukuiso, 岩手/Iwate prefecture. Oda Mari (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia has no entry for 漉磯, either. This may be another mistake in the U.S. military descriptions. We already have an issue with pictures said to be from Wakuya on the main earthquake article. Rmhermen (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

better than no pictures, surely?Sandpiper (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we have a source that shows it's used, yes; but as far as I've seennow, we haven't. (if proof it was used on the nuclear accidents is not needed, I propose this image ;-) . L.tak (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think youre getting a bit over the top there. Doesnt have to be the exact same vehicle to demonstrate what kind was used. Did someone bring in polar bears because it is cold there now? I'll go for it if bears were used for some reason. Sandpiper (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that it isin general not required to have the exact same vehicle. But we need an indication they are with a ref that are similar and indicate it clearly in the caption. If that's the case, we could consider it... [this German polar bear actually died today and amounted to my own very very very fringe theory that he must have died because of the radiation; end of comment ;-)]. L.tak (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont think we need a ref about anything. As below, there are not enough images here to break up the text and these are at least disaster images.Sandpiper (talk)

Why would a picture of lots of fire trucks outwith Fukushima be of use here. We may as well have a picture of some water with the description "Water in a reservior in Scotland, water similar to this was used in an attempt to cool the reactors."--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The japanese might appreciate a picture of a nice calm water scene.Sandpiper (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sukuiso is not a name of a town. It's a part of Yamada, Iwate. It's a mistake. Sukuiso looked like these. [34] and [35] The image has nothing to do with Fukushima. Oda Mari (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) hello I'm the editor who has been working on the pics. about the only person working on pics it seems. Obviously I come down on the side of "better a pic than none at all." I am the first person to admit this pic was not from Fukushima- however I disagree that we should not have any images of fire dept response to fukushima, when at least the last two entire DAYS in the accident timeline section revolve around Tokyo FD! Looking at a massive 20 paragraph block of text with no graphs or images or ANYTHING, is just as bad as looking at a picture that is only 75% related to the text at hand.

And please don't intentionally diminish this picture by referring to it as a pic of "many red trucks" uggg OBVIOUSLY IT IS A PICTURE OF JAPANESE FIRE ENGINES IN THE TSUNAMI ZONE!! You all know that, and it is only this rampant wp deletionist impulse that even allows POV talk page posts like that to go unchallenged.

More to the point- THERE IS AN EVACUATION ZONE AROUND FUKUSHIMA. The idea that we will suddenly find a trove of candid Free-Rights-Usage accident pictures from the actual Fukushima power station, is ludicrous. If we hold ourselves to standard of only using images taken inside fukushima, or created graphs and cgi- this page will very quickly get very boring! This page has every potential to be a great page with pictures that illustrate the text, thanks to the dozens and dozens of Public Domain pictures, being uploaded every day concerning the disaster. But if we force the page to only use pictures taken within a 5 /10 km piece of property, we are tying our hands behind our backs. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

　:: I understand your point of trying to pretty up the article a bit. But, to be honest, this site is supposed to be informative first and attractive second. For people like myself, who live within relatively close proximity of the exclusion zone, this article is one of the more informative and up to date sources on the reactor situation, and we will take the time to read the article thoroughly, pictures or no. To be honest, seeing all this emotion and speculation in the talk section is disconcerting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.242.117 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Making articles pretty also makes them more welcoming to a reader and easier to read. The firetrucks picture is not irrelevant because it shows the current disaster. Helps split up the text into mnageable portions. Dealing with the nuclear problem would be much easier if vast areas had not been flattened with rescue services being needed elsewhere. How would three mile island have been in the US if half the state had been wrecked around the plant? Sandpiper (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

plant damage

Just been reading about BWRs. It would seem a BWR has some major diesel driven pumps. Has anyone any information what might have happened to them, or even how they might be laid out in the plant?

I note there is a report that at dainin at least one diesel pump failed in the emergency, but I do not know why. was Daini flooded?

I saw a comment somewhere here about whether diesel fuel tanks were located on the dock, and were swept away. Do we know if this is true?

The diesel generators for unit 6 seem to have survived rather better than others. Any information about where they are in the plant and why this might be so?

It would seem quite a lot of water is stored somewhere for cooling and to act as heat exchanger for temporary cooling. Steam from plants has been attributed to water in the spent fuel pools, but it would seem there are heat exchanger systems from the reactors which can heat aforsaid tanks of water, which given the reactors are not being cooled adequately, might be expected to boil. Anyone know anything?

The plant used cooling sea water to pump through heat exchangers. Any information on how this worked and whether it might have pump houses or whatever which have been flooded or otherwise damaged - so there might be a specific weakness that even if a reactor building is restored perfectly it could still not get cooling water? Sandpiper (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For me this article helped a lot (used it on the II article). It says at least regarding II clearly that Diesel engines were flooded because of the tsunami, that the diesel's functioned for cooling the last cooling loop with seawater. For I, it's less clear, but they speculate it was worse as it was lower lying; and that emergency diesels were lost. No info on layout however! L.tak (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

TEPCO is saying that the generators "were not directly exposed to the wave, some electrical support equipment was outside." [36] Seems like they could have fixed it faster if that was the case though. Rmhermen (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is this business of fuel tanks being washed away if it is true....There was a comment in one of the emergencies about a pump being allowed to run out of fuel. That sounded like carelessness, but perhaps it was because there was no fuel. But you might think fuel could have been supplied by now. And which generators. The trouble is all these comments are very delphic. How to interpret 'not directly exposed to the waves'. Within the 1m too low sea wall? Obviously some switch gear would have to be outside, but they did not install new switchgear for the new power supply for fun. There is a mess inside the buildings and it surely cant be anything except flooding? The latest nisa numbers on reactor 6 says core water level is up 1m, 5 as it was but they all look low at around 2m compared to daini at around 10. Daini water level in reactor 1 went dowm 2 m and temp up 10C in 6 hours. daiichi pool 5 went down 15C which the article says was due to re-filling. There are no temperature reading for the 5 and 6 reactors. therefore control electronics is not functioning? Understandable in 1-3 where there has been gross overheating, but what happened in 5&6? Unit 6 reactor looks to have cooled because pressure has fallen. 5 pressure has gone up. 5&6 have been prepared for venting by removing roof panels. Conclusion, there is no cooling water supply from the sea and this may well not be an electrical supply issue. I am puzzled about these fire trucks. I can understand rotating crews to reduce radiation exposure but they seem to be rotating trucks too. Are they having to drive away and refill with water from somewhere else? Sandpiper (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I expect they are rotating trucks to refuel them and rest the pumps. No truck could hold several hours worth of water. I was puzzled by the venting of the buildings around reactors 5 and 6[37] - what is the source of this possible hydrogen? There have been no high temperature events at these reactors. Are there other source/different reactions yielding hydrogen than at reactors 1 and 3? Or is this just an excess of caution move? Rmhermen (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Some water is continuously being split up into oxygen and hydrogen due to radiation, also during normal operation or simply cooling of an idle reactor or spent fuel. There should be facilities at the buidings to eliminate that hydrogen, but may they are not working. Cs32en Talk to me 01:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think equipmet failure seems likely. However, my guess is they are worried the reactors are heating up (which the published figures say they are) and may have to vent steam, if they have not done so already. The water levels are very low which must mean it has gone somewhere?Sandpiper (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[autogenerated3-1] Cite error: The named reference autogenerated3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] "Japan: Hard questions and no easy solutions". OECD Insight. 17 March 2011. Retrieved accessed 17 March 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1]

[2]