Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Deletion of Comparison by Ultramarine

Ultramarine, do you think it's 'your' Article? It's not 'unsourced original research', that's a plea. Deletions without discussion can as easily be reinserted.

Read Wikipedia:No original research. Not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 09:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Pros and Cons"

I removed the following section added by Mhollinshead:

 ==Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power==
===The Pros===
''Little Pollution''
*It’s lengthy
*More fuel is produced
*It helps out in Ozone protection
''Reliability''
*It’s less vulnerable to shortages, due to strikes or natural disasters
*It’s evenly deposited around the globe
*It lowers Radon exposures
===The Cons===
''Meltdowns''
*If coolant water is lost in a fission reactor, Uranium fuel pellets would overheat and dissolve, leaving the fuel dissolved
*In disasters, such as Three Mile Island, workers failed to supply coolant to the core
*Meltdowns eventually led to radiation exposure
''Radiation''
*At least 200 rems of radiation doses cause radiation sickness, if it’s received all at once
*Out of the 100,000 Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing survivors, there have been 400 more cancer deaths than normal, without an above average genetic disease rate in children
''Waste Disposal''
*Uranium – 235 fissions remains radioactive for Millenniums
*Many nuclear waste sites have been built, but it’s tough to store it
===The Good and Bad of the Safety in Nuclear Energy===
''The Good''
*No Americans have died or have been seriously wounded from a nuclear reaction accident
*There are more safety mechanisms, which greatly lowers the chance of any reactor accident
*A series of barriers separate the radiation and heat of the reactor core from the outside
''The Bad''
*It could leak, due to an increase in humidity and radiation
*Humans are easily exposed to the radiation
*It can be disastrous

on the grounds that it was contentious, simplistic and redundant. There may be a case for a summarizing section however; any ideas? Joffan 17:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction fails to introduce and the importance qualities and distinctions of nuclear power

1. It's doesn't produce aerosol pollution ie like coal dust.
2. It's carbon neutral - so no Global Warming
3. Very high Energy density (low power density)
4. Medical risks to humans associated with radiation
5. Challenges of storage
6. Scarcity of (safer) fuel
7. Widely perceived potential for WMD weaponization.

Cutting to the History without first providing a cliff-notes summation appears unencyclopedic. Benjamin Gatti 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at other energy sources, such as Natural gas, Coal, or Renewable energy, there is no cliff-notes summary. They are all positively biased, not mentioning most controversies.Ultramarine 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Coal intro includes: as well as the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, which is believed to be the primary cause of global warming. It could go farther, but still, that is the essential problem with coal (that and breathing it kills children according to the NC Ag, and EPA). Benjamin Gatti 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Coal intro mentions none of the many other problems with coal, like causing various diseases and many deaths, problem with storing the ashes, acid rain, and so on. The natural gas intro not even global warming. The renewable energy intro has only positive things to say.Ultramarine 23:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The current Intro is good - perhaps it could mention that there are advantages and controversy and see below. However, there is no Advantages section! (one would fit nicely above the huge Concerns section). But I agree that any reasonable summation of the pros and cons would still be far too large for the Intro. Simesa 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, one could add a risks section to nuclear power as it is done in the German Wiki entry "Kernkraft" and delete the silly pro and cons part. That section would be a quick summary of the following issues and how they are currently handled, which are undeniable from a scientific point of view:

-The risks of ionisating radiation from isotopes produced during the fission process and their dangers caused by an uncontrolled release into the environment

-The risk of a core meltdown in nearly all civilian reactors

-The issue of safe storage/handling of fission products and transuranics in spent fuel

-The issue of proliferation

These are all issues where A LOT of work and effort is invested into to mitigate their potential risks.

In addition, the article IMHO needs more info on the essential aspect of governmental regulation and overwatch. --Dio1982 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Safety

Can the following be toned down a bit and re-incorporated: 199.125.109.58 09:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Most major forms of energy production cause deaths. In comparison, deaths per TWy of electricity produced are estimated at 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.

You also might want to point out that while a dam just sits there and pumps out gobs of power and no one ever gets killed thousands die from black lung disease and millions could be killed from radiation from one nuclear accident. 199.125.109.127 10:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful that millions could be killed, it is not a bomb. Chernobyl, the worst kind of distater possible, may kill some thousands due to cancer over many years. Hydro power dams can and have killed thousands if they break.Ultramarine 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the figure for hydro power deaths is overstated or misleading. Most of the failures I am familiar involve earthen dams. As far as I know, few, if any, hydroelectric dams are earthen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubba78 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 July 2007

Here is a list of accidents.[1]Ultramarine 10:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Without reliable data on radiation deaths, deaths from black lung disease, air pollution related deaths, global warming related deaths and so on there is no point in including the data. 199.125.109.64

Apparently all of the hydroelectric fatalities stem from two dam failures in India and one in Columbia - not very relevant for comparison purposes. This is an encyclopedia, not a sales brochure. 199.125.109.64 03:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is what needs to be included, and when you start out with saying "most major forms of energy production cause deaths" you are doa: All deaths associated with the industry. Black lung disease, cancer deaths, I appreciate the attempt to include pollution deaths, but it was only an attempt, it was not incorporated, plus all deaths from Uranium mining (radiation), all deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and if you don't think those are related to nuclear power, why do you think so many people are opposed to Iran's nuclear program? Most major forms of energy production cause deaths. What kind of a statement is that? There is nothing inherently dangerous about wind power, wave power, geothermal, solar, or hydroelectricity. Nuclear is inherently dangerous and pretending it isn't so by choosing to skew numbers is just a smokescreen. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. 199.125.109.36 03:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete sourced material. If you disagree, add your own sourced.Ultramarine 09:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. 199.125.109.127 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why?Ultramarine 18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You could start with WP:REDFLAG 199.125.109.127 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not their own numbers, they are simply citing: Ball, Roberts & Simpson, Research Report #20, Center for Environmental & Risk Management, University of East Anglia, 1994; Hirschberg et al, Paul Scherrer Institute, 1996; in: IAEA, Sustainable Development and Nuclear Power, 1997; Severe Accidents in the Energy Sector, Paul Scherrer Institut, 2001).Ultramarine 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It clearly consists of a "surprising result". I reviewed the source and it was clear that the data was cherry picked to present a POV. 199.125.109.127 18:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The claims of an anonymous wikipedia editor are certainly not a reliable source. If you want to dispute it, you have to quote a source. The result are not surprising, it is well known that coal mining and hydro power have caused many deaths.Ultramarine 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Coal yes, but not hydro power. May I direct you to a statement above "I suspect the figure for hydro power deaths is overstated or misleading" made by, oh yes that was made by yourself. 199.125.109.127 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, the personal opinions of us do not count, you have to cite a source. I did not make that statement.Ultramarine 19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My apology - I knew it wasn't me, supporting my allegation that it is not generally known. I see now that it was unsigned. 199.125.109.127 03:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is misleading to claim that deaths due military use should be counted. If arguing this, then we must include deaths from vehicles powered by fossil fuels and windpower, and weapons made from or by burning the renewable biofuel wood.Ultramarine 18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you are being silly. I added a reference which discusses nuclear proliferation and the terrorist threat, and which contains the statement "Critics allege that nuclear energy and bombs are merely two faces of the same coin." 199.125.109.127 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you have stated "Not included in the study are deaths due to black lung disease, air pollution from fossil fuels,[33] radiation deaths, or deaths due to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" If making such an comparison, you must also count deaths from military use of other power sources as per above.Ultramarine 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be an idiot but why does the section say 'Not including deaths from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks'? Has this been edited? We are speaking of nuclear power in the page, not nuclear weapons, which ahttps://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nuclear_powerre two inherently different items.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.219.230 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 13 July 2007

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are closely related, especially when you get into a discussion of accidents. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just an example of what to fear from nuclear proliferation. Why do you think so many people are either in favor of or opposed to Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs? The danger of subverting nuclear power into nuclear weapons needs to be included. 199.125.109.127 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If this was the way we organized the articles, would it not also be plausible to mention that the coal and wind power death ratings do not include the number of people killed on or by coal or wind-powered ships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos2546 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 July 2007

Hiroshima and dirty bombs do not belong in the Accidents section which discusses safety issues of nuclear power plants. There are section discussing Nuclear proliferation and Use of waste byproduct as a weapon specifically addressing those concerns. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bit has been removed from the Accidents section. Vsmith 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

2006 POSTnote

Is there any reason why the results of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology's 2006 report [2] which showed that the life cycle CO₂ emissions were comparable to, or less than, that of wind power, should be regarded with suspicion? Cheers, Tompsci 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Any summary is subject to question, but suspicion? The report indicates that most of the CO₂ from wind is from maintenance vehicles, which of course could be reduced to zero by using electric vehicles. Nuclear puts out an awful lot of power from a small facility. However I suspect that you could find other studies that showed results ten or twenty times as high as those given. 199.125.109.127 03:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting graph

I stumbled upon this graph: [3], which is an interesting comparison of money invested by the US government for different types of energy sources. It's useful in the context that people accuse nuclear of being subsidized by disproportionate government spending into research (yeah, how good is this claim with no numbers?). But the second thing interesting is the recent increase in funding for nuclear and other power sources, which would be useful for a Nuclear renaissance article that I want to build. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The chart does not go back far enough. Much of the nuclear spending occured earlier, including the billions spent on developing nuclear weapons. See the steady decline in nuclear spending at the beginning of the chart? 199.125.109.58 17:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to argue with you, but there is spending for fossil fuels and renewables on that chart too. Nuclear never received any funding disproportionate to what it was giving back like solar or wind power :) -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure it did. Wind is particularly cheap to install, about $1/watt. While solar was expensive thirty years ago there was very little invested compared to what was spent on nuclear. It is expected that solar will be down to $0.80/watt in a few years giving a rapid return on investment. Nuclear never breaks even because you have to contain the waste practically forever. Nuclear is entwined with nuclear weapons development as well, so it is hard to separate the two. 199.125.109.58 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to get the raw data and try to expand that graph all the way back through the DOE's successor organizations. I was once able to get some pretty detailed funding data from the DOE in relation to their sponsorship of physics (all the way back to 1960); maybe I'll try to see if I can get them to give me some of that data. --Panoptik 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, modern nuclear plants are expected to cost about 1.4$ per watt. The only difference is that that watt of nuclear you pay for delivers on average 90% of its capacity compared to 10% or whatever it is for wind. Anyway, that would be great if we could get data that went back further as well, but the fact that information doesn't support your preconceived winner doesn't warrant disregarding it. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, extremely high amounts of government funding of reactor development did occur in the 1950s and 1960s, and they explicitly turned a lot of that over to industry after that, so to not have that data does lead for a misleading graph, if it is meant to give a real sense about what sort of research investment the government has put into any given technology. I mean, the entire deal with the economics of nuclear plants is that they require immense capital investments, so that's pretty important if you're going to imply anything about the overall cost. What warrants disregarding the data, if one is going to do that, is if it is likely to be misleading because of its sampling, which I suppose is what is being alleged here. --Panoptik 15:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it would be great to have more data going further back, but right now we don't have any information that could be plotted and added (it wouldn't even go in this article since we have Nuclear power in the United States). But if you did go back that far, I'm sure it would decrease because no reputable organization would count nuclear weapons spending as spending for nuclear power. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand does any reputable organization count Iran's nuclear power investment as spending for nuclear weapons? The infrastructure for mining and processing uranium, and the construction of a reactor are imperceptibly different from a nuclear weapons program. 199.125.109.64 03:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And does anyone know where I can get free load factors for nuclear plants around the world through time? I am in need of some graphs that contain this information, but I can't use someone else's and I can't seem to find the numbers myself. This is frustrating when I'm looking at the exact thing I want in a magazine. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1973 Oil Crisis

The article prominently asserts that the 1973 oil crisis played a significant role in the decline of nuclear power. This may be the case, but in trying to follow up on this assertion (which was surprising to me), I found the references associated with it to be of poor quality.

1. "This contributed to the cancellation of over 100 reactor orders in the USA. [4]"
2. "More than two-thirds of all nuclear plants ordered after January 1970 were eventually cancelled.[5]"
3. "However, in the US new construction dropped sharply before the Three Mile Island accident, after the 1973 oil crises. [6]"
4. "... and the Brookings Institution suggests that new nuclear units have not been ordered in the US primarily for economic reasons rather than fears of accidents. [7]"

The first source justifies only the number of cancellations without offering any reasoning as to why. I'd also note that fully 60% of those cancellations occured after Three Mile Island, so it strikes me that some source is required to justify what contributed to them. The second source, the IAEA, actually blames Three Mile Island as a major cause and makes no mention of the oil embargo. The third source, a single chart from PBS, does blame the oil embargo for changes in the US but is fairly insubstantial offering no discussion or reasoning. The last source is probably the only effective source of the bunch, as it does describe the economic effects of the post oil embargo changes in the energy industry. Even so, it is somewhat limited by national scope, and it is unclear whether an institution that Wikipedia describes as a liberal oriented think tank is a representative point of view or not.

I would also note that according to the IAEA, the number of reactors under construction globally increased every year from 1963 to 1979, excluding small declines in 1971 and 1978. After 1979 (the year of Three Mile Island), the number of reactors under construction declined every year till 1997. While it would be original research for me to say so in the article, this certainly suggests to me that globally the turning point was Three Mile Island and not the 1973 oil embargo. The article mentions that France and Japan invested heavily in nuclear power as the result of the embargo, and so it seems plausible that on a global scale the effect of the oil embargo was actually to promote nuclear energy.

I'd like to encourage people to take another look at the "development" section and firm up the sources. Since nuclear power is a politically sensitive issue, I am concerned that POV issues may get introduced. In particular the claim that nuclear power is uneconomical is a point of view that may be getting unjustified support by reference to the oil crisis. I say "may" because I am unsure; however, I do think the statements are poorly justified by the references currently present. Dragons flight 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The official IAEA history [8] (page 147) says initially orders increases, but then a decline from an economic recession following the oil price increase (so presumably no anticipated electricty capacity shortage):

At first, the 1970s witnessed a steady rise in orders for nuclear power plants. The Arab–Israeli war of 1973 led to an oil boycott by the Arab States and this, in turn, caused a fourfold increase in the price of oil and provoked a record spate of orders. However, by 1975 the curve of orders had already passed its peak. From 1974 to 1975 the volume of orders dropped abruptly from 75 000 MW(e) to 28 000 MW(e). The IAEA’s Annual Report for 1975 called the decline temporary, attributing it to economic recession, rising capital and fuel costs and environmental concerns.

Rwendland 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the alleged problem with the think tank reference, in my experience, almost all well known think tanks are either strongly conservative or liberal, with the conservative think tanks seemingly being far more numerous. Even those think tanks that claim to be non-partisan usually have serious problems, either because they are lying to appear more credible or because they were founded upon a cause or specific world view. For example, a think tank could have as its purpose the promotion of extreme capitalism (no regulation of businesses whatsoever), socialism, anti-abortion, pro-nuclear power, anti-environmentalism and so on. Finally, some think tanks are actually just trade associations for industries, such as oil, nuclear energy and automotive manufacturers. While they may have people doing "research", the purpose is always to make the industry look good.

It is a common mistake to believe that a person is incapable of remaining objective because he or she has certain beliefs and/or is employed by a certain company or type of company. However, the people employed by think tanks are often fanatical about their beliefs and are incapable of being objective. Also, beliefs and money can cause problems even when the person is truly trying to remain objective. Finally, since think tanks hire people on the basis of their beliefs, put them together with people who have similar views, will not fund research that may go against their interests* and will not publish reports with conclusions that would be harmful to their interests, those who work for think tanks have no chance to be neutral.
*For example, a think tank that is heavily supported by the coal industry would be unlikely to fund a study that looks for the effects of coal power plants on nearby residents, unless they already know the results would be favorable for the industry, whether by manipulation or for other reasons.

As a result, in my opinion, the material put out by think tanks is worse than useless because it actually causes harm. People gobble up the material that think tanks put out (magazines, pamphlets, articles, press releases and websites), especially when it is consistent with their preexisting beliefs. This incorrect information causes people to make poor decisions. This is particularly harmful when it comes to politicians, business executives, philanthropists and other people with power. -- Kjkolb 09:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for feeding the troll

But just so that someone doesn't try to undo my undo of untrue material:

This reference: was used to say that radiation releases were unmonitored after the accident, which it doesn't say at all. It mentioned something about NRC not monitoring radiation in some capacity, which was unrelated to the accident.

This:

However, the NRC no longer monitors radiation around nuclear reactors despite incidents where citizen groups have measured releases of radiation including one of 15 times background radiation.

Is even acknowledged on it's own site that it's disputed. If a nuclear plant EVER released enough radiation to be statistically significant against background, it would be a giant event (worse than TMI).

The rest was so ridiculous that I don't need to support my revert. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So sorry, but you are beating a dead horse by trying to make an encyclopedia article into a brochure on nuclear power. 199.125.109.73 18:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's pretty much what we want - a reliable, balanced, extremely detailed write-up. Simesa 18:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Recent changes

Contested points include:

1. handling of the TMI accident in this article
2. supposed detection of "15 times" greater than background radiation
3. two deletions

As I see potential hostilities breaking out, an RfC is the most civil approach I can imagine. Summary of the TMI in this article should remain extremely concise in this article, adding doubts about the scientific consensus in regards to radiation release should go in the article about the accident itself, and added material in question is clearly Wikipedia:Main article fixation. That covers the first two points, the deletions I consider to be just bickering. As I make it a personal rule to not go to the second revert, I request that a third party handle this. Thank you. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your proposals good to me. TMI is most important here not so much as an actual technical event than as a historical event — how it changed perceptions, policy, how plans were run, orders, etc. Any real discussion of TMI should be in its own article. --Panoptik 21:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these sentiments, but I sure wish diffs were provided so I could figure out what the heck this RFC is about. ←Ben^B4 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see one major problem here as verifiability of the contentions. "Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources" (Wikipedia:Attribution). In this case, ONE time was there a spike of between 6 and 15 times background, it wasn't traced to the plant with reasonable assurance (people's feelings aren't scientific evidence), and the nearby plant was shutdown at the time!!! [9] was the reference cited. And from that we're supposed to put in that there have been instances of releases 15 times background??? Simesa 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the bottom line.

1) The NRC is not monitoring for radiation today and much of the radiation released from TMI was not monitored.

2) Citizen groups are monitoring for radiation and have picked up alarming levels of radiation. The source is a local newspaper, and provides a balanced report.

3) This is an encyclopedia article, not a brochure for nuclear power and all sides must be represented.

I think that a good compromise would be to include the articles, including the release of Krypton from TMI, and to use the lower of the four readings, 6 times background instead of the higher reading of 15 times. I do not have a ref but the plant admitted to releasing radiation on the date in question, after five months of denial. This is the edit in question http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_power&diff=150019250&oldid=149931267 199.125.109.108 02:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, if the things you are claiming are true, these would be radical examples of radiation releases, unprecedented in US history. As such, that should be argued on the TMI accident article. I wrote a lot about supposed radiation released in the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant article, and what you'll find is that releases millions, BILLIONS times less than background cause huge problems for the utilities. The entire industry would have to be a complete scam for what you say to be true, which is why you should take it to the TMI accident article instead. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And is there any fact that you are disputing? The release of Krypton was found to be illegal. That is a fact. The radiation released was largely unmonitored. That is a fact. The reactor was not being operated in a legal manner. That is a fact. If it had been the accident would not have happened is a conjecture, as stated. Citizen groups are monitoring for radiation. That is a fact. Are you disputing that they recorded radiation? Read the article and judge for yourself. Considering that Seabrook admitted releasing radiation after denying it for five months, it seems highly likely that the radiation measured was both accurate and came from Seabrook. The reason these facts need to be included in this article is that they are endemic of the industry and not specific to one facility or incident. I would not go so far as to call the industry a complete scam as you would suggest. However it is important to note it's shortcomings. Oh and by the way how do you propose measuring radiation levels one billionth of background? Do you have a counter that is accurate to 10 decimal places? On a separate subject, this is an article about nuclear fission, not fusion. It is entirely irrelevant to include fusion in every section as you seem to insist. 199.125.109.47 08:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The error in a count is proportional to the square root of the count, furthermore weather and all sorts of unpredictability exist in natural radiation - the human induced radiation must be at least like half of background for it to be statistically possible to detect. Small radiation releases are completely impossible to detect. Also, you're source says this:

• State officials had no means to measure radiation at the scene.
• The NRC no longer monitors radioactive releases at reactor sites.

This doesn't say no one was monitoring radiation - they were. It says that certain people weren't monitoring detection and hopes that the reader fails to look further into the issue. Are you disputing that they recorded radiation? - you understand what background is, right? Do I dispute that they measured higher radiation due to the plant? Yes. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In the article that you worked on about the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, unfortunately many of the sources are in Japanese. Tepco has an English version of their website though not everything has been translated. I found the link to the real-time monitoring. The archive shown http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/kk-np/info/pdf/19071702.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) appears to clearly show three readings above background radiation, although without a longer record two of them could just be the same person walking by at the same time each day. Unfortunately since it is also in Japanese I can not figure out the time reference in relation to the earthquake. The larger of the three seems to be about double background, would you agree? 199.125.109.36 01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, that's the exact misunderstanding that people like you are having trouble with. The blips have nothing to do with the nuclear power plant, they have to do with the weather. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, are you saying radioactive rain or wind borne radiation, and from what source? What is your source for saying it was weather, and not the plant, carried by the weather? 199.125.109.58 14:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources of natural radiation. Rain absorbs and concentrates radon gas so much so that it can and has cause false alarms in nuclear plants. A decrease in air pressure could conceivably cause more radon to diffuse out of the soil into the atmosphere. Similarly, places on the earth above uranium deposits have higher concentrations of radon to begin with. This is in addition to the the fact that Carbon-14 is constantly raining down on us from space. Changes in radiation levels don't necessarily have any human cause and just because we don't know the source of a change that doesn't mean we can assume the source is human. Nailedtooth 17:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for saying it was weather - MATH! -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Before we can say in Wikipedia that it is due to the plant, we must have reasonable grounds for doing so. Suspicion alone doesn't cut it. I suggest we all read Wikipedia:Attribution. Simesa 18:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And has anyone in Japan reviewed the data to provide an opinion? I would suppose there must be a lot of newspaper articles on the subject. I certainly do not wish to propose a conclusion, and while I have taken every math course offered, I do not see any reason for using mathematics as a source for your conclusion. If I had seen the anomalous data on those days and never in the weeks before and never in the weeks after I would conclude that it was from the event which had occurred at that time, i.e. the earthquake, and not "the weather". By the way there are three pages in the pdf file above. Are each a magnification or are each a different time frame? Looking at the real time data [10] I see differences of 30% between different sensors, although the static data shows no such variance. 199.125.109.73 19:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to go with somewhat more credential reports than "citizens groups", for which there is no reason to think that they have the required knowledge to do reliable radiation monitoring. Stories in a local newspaper are not going to be "reliable" enough on strictly scientific matters to be useful here. If the question is a scientific/technical one (as I see the question of background radiation being), then the only sources that I think we can consider "reliable" are those which come from some form of the scientific community, are published in peer-reviewed publications, etc. Wikipedia does not rate strictly amateur observations as having as much credibility as expert observations. Once the citizens groups are able to compile enough high-quality data to get attention from the scientific community, then we'll happily include their work in this tertiary source. (And no, I don't think the scientific community is homogeneous enough, especially on the question of nuclear power, to allow some sort of conspiracy to be taking place.) --24.147.86.187 16:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest adding a link to Three Mile Island accident in the text, keeping the text brief, and keeping it to the conventional view. There should be no paraenthesis in the paragraph. There is a whole main article about nuclear and radiation accidents in addition to the TMI article, so going into any detail at all here is not reasonable. This RFC has been open for a while, and as far as I can see, there is a consensus from editors here not to have reports of radiation release at TMI in this article. Is it possible to edit the text and remove the RFC template so the RFC list clears up a bit? Thanks! Enuja 01:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Other languages

Does anyone know why so many of the other languages were removed?[11] 199.125.109.108 20:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that looked wrong actually. It probably has to do with nuclear energy and nuclear power distinction, but I'd say they probably need to be restored. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that is what happened, and ironically there are links from both nuclear power and nuclear energy to the same ml article. Links have been restored. And the one from nuclear energy deleted. It also looks like some of the language links can be updated to better links. And the nuclear energy article needs to be flushed out. There is a ton more information on the other language articles than there is on the English article. 199.125.109.36 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Politics of Containment

Nuclear power is not about a little electric power for a lot of people. It's about a lot of political energy for a few. When it produces plutonium, and it always does, the choice becomes using it or losing it very carefully. BrewJay 06:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Can I go anywhere without seeing inadequate leads? One brief paragraph is a terrible thing to have introducing an article this long. There's no way an article should be given an A class when the lead is so poor. Richard001 07:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that does totally suck. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Move it back to B while that is sorted out? 199.125.109.108 02:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly... an A vs. B rating don't matter. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then B it is. 199.125.109.47 15:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Image: status of nuclear power globally

In the image "Status of nuclear power globally", Canada needs to be changed to 'considering new plants'. Energy Alberta has applied to build two reactors near Peace River, Alberta. [12]

Also, would someone please be kind enough to direct me to where I can find out how to change images myself. Nailedtooth 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is here, which is the Wikipedia Commons. You'll need to register an account there, and then you can upload a new revision. I had just revised it myself by changing the USA from "stable" to "considering new plants" (duh, the US has license applications started). Shortly afterwards, another user changed Canada and Mexico to blue. I guess all of north America being gold doesn't look very visually appealing, but I wouldn't try to change the status because of that :-P -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite the right way to change the picture. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not my first choice either. I can't overwrite pictures with my 'new' commons account so, as per the suggestion on the commons page, I uploaded with a new file name. Yes, It will have to be corrected, but works for the time being. Nailedtooth 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion

The two sections on nuclear fusion have been moved to the nuclear fusion article. I would say that the four remaining references are ample coverage in this article, especially with the link at the top of the page. 199.125.109.108 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, 199.125.109.108. Fusion is not what is currently understood as "Nuclear Power" to most of the public, and if they ever get it to work, it has different strengths and weaknesses. I considered changing the whole article's title to "Fission Power", but I suspect that'd just make everyone mad. Wikisteff 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

U for millenia

this image is as relevant to reality as comparing,the total energy our sun sends us each minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.82.47.118 (talk) at 03:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Estimate of Available Uranium depends on what resources are included in the estimate. The squares represent relative sizes of different estimates, whereas the numbers at the lower edge show how long the given resource would last at present consumption.
██ Reserves in current mines
██ Known economic reserves
██ Conventional undiscovered resources
██ Total ore resources at 2004 prices
██ Unconventional resources (at least 4 billion tons, could last for millennia)

The amount of solar energy available to the Earth in one minute exceeds global energy demand for a year.

How? They don't compare the same thing, and what they do illustrate on their own is highly suspect (I've already expressed my opinion of the solar cube). -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with references in history section

I've been having some trouble in regards to my references 8-12. I will fix it tomorrow, but what's strange is a completely similar reference I inserted (7) is coming out fine. If anyone can lend a hand while I sleep, it would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos2546 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for "debate" section

I believe this section is preventing the article for handling the information in an approprate fashion. It's ridiculous that

1. We have a debate section that takes up around half the article
2. It's silly that we have sections like "accidents" in the debate section that don't exist as a section on their own.

I say delete it. All the parts of the debate section should exist on their own and should not contain sentences at all like "supporters argue...". If we're going to have opinions with supporting information with them - then delete the opinion, leave the supporting information. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the sections under debate don't seem to be about a debate, and there are articles on many of the topics which could probably be summarized better. (SEWilco 02:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

Indeed, I'll try to make further organizational contributions later. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro image explanation

I know people have bickered and fought about this before, so I think I should explain what I did. Firstly, I found the image of Susquehanna was insufficient for these reasons:

1. PD images are nice to have, that's all. They should never be preferred over genuine user created media, and epically when it's
2. low resolution.
3. Also, BWRs are worldwide a smaller share than the (literal) majority PWRs.
4. Furthermore, the use of cooling towers is the majority case, but there a large fraction of plants out there don't have them (even though most people don't know this).

So given these reasons, I think it would be best to show the majority and minority case in both respects. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Some other good pictures

• 
  typical PWR - Clinton Nuclear Generating Station
• 
  The Superphenix, one of the few FBRs
• Laguna Verde nuclear power plant
  Laguna Verde nuclear power plant
• 
  The Candu Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant
• 
  Donald C. Cook Nuclear Generating Station
• San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
  San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
• 
  Dukovany Nuclear Power Station
• 
  Example of a gas cooled reactor, typical of the British fleet - the Oldbury nuclear power station
• 
  A plant canceled during German reunification - the Stendal Nuclear Power Plant
• 
  A canceled nuclear district heating plant
• 
  dual generation with a coal plant at the Crystal River 3 Nuclear Generating Station
• 
  dual generation with wind power in a Taiwanese plant
• 
  dual generation with wind power - Borselle Nuclear Power Plant

My posts are perfectly accourate and meticulously researched

Ignorant Right-wingers had better stop messing with all my commentary in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.151.150 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) This is another notice not ot remove my excellently researched information........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.151.150 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You researched it? Please see WP:OR. Gscshoyru 21:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And speel chqed theem to. 199.125.109.36 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

lol, classic stuff. Really classic. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Im back from my block. that was riduclas. My iniformation is well researched. Citations are unnessary. In your precious right wing guidelines it says that well known obdvious well known facts dont need to be cited. There. back off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.151.150 (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Right wing lunatics should get off my cloud

i RESEARCH MY INFORMATION BETTER THAT dAN rATHER.Quit messing with my accurate commentary

Please see keyboard and how to spell. Happy editing! -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have improved the debate and safety sections

Ignorant right wingers no longer dominate this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.197.96.125 (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA and remember to sign your posts, if you want to be taken seriously as an editor. --LeyteWolfer 16:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Checking changes since my last change, it would seem that you got this article semi-protected. Why don't you take a break to pat yourself on the back in light of all the contributions you've made to human knowledge? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Risk instead of safety?

Why don we call paragraph "Safety" "Risk" instead? I read for my university a paper about the (GMO) industry publishing "safety assessments" when they are required to make risk assessments, because "safety assessment" sounds so much nicer. But then it can never be asserted that anything is 100% safe, where the size of risk can be (reasonable) assessed. Also, when one reads the para, it is mostly about risks of nuclear power, and not about the safety. --85.27.49.134 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a good point in your concern about loaded language and I don't think there's a person here who would fault you for it. However, I have to disagree with your suggestion. You seem to provide your own answer if you think about what your professor said in general terms rather than applied only to GMOs. If you look around you will find most risky things - not just GMOs and nuclear power - classify their risks under 'safety'. Sports pads aren't "risk equipment". Cars aren't given a "five star risk rating". Airlines don't have a good or bad "risk record". It's not that we aren't taking about risk when we talk about nuclear safety, it's that risk is generally talked about as a safety issue regardless of the subject. It is an understood, unwritten convention that "safety issues" have to do with risk. In that light changing "safety" to "risk", by going against the normal convention, would make the article harder to use and may introduce bias. Nailedtooth (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fusion article

There are two paragraphs that someone keeps bringing in from the fusion article. They have no place in this article and should be deleted. They are "Fusion energy makes nuclear waste of a type that must be stored and could be reused after some 100 years, not the tens of thousands of years of fission waste." And "Fusion power commonly propose the use of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in many current designs also lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years." 199.125.109.36 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There are still about four sections about fusion in this article which should be removed, such as the following: "Whilst fusion power reactors will produce a very small amount of reasonably short lived, intermediate-level radioactive waste at decommissioning time, as a result of neutron activation of the reactor vessel, they will not produce any high-level, long-lived materials comparable to those produced in a fission reactor. Even this small radioactive waste aspect can be mitigated through the use of low-activation steel alloys for the tokamak vessel."

The discussion about too cheap to meter referring to fusion can stay. The rest have no place in this article. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about "too cheap to meter" is irrelevant to the fusion issue. Unless the article is moved to fission power, at minimum, a short contrast to fusion power is absolutely necessary. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignorant right wingers should not mess wit accurate commentary

I will revert any edits to my accurate information which was well researched —Preceding unsigned comment added by Togokill (talk • contribs) 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The vandalism of User: Layla27 and his associated sockpuppets is getting quite old. Is there any stronger action that we can take to prevent him from disrupting articles on nuclear energy? Lwnf360 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

What, exactly, is lacking from this article that would prevent it from being a WP:GA? Lwnf360 10:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The two most obvious points are 1. that it is written like a brochure for the nuclear power industry, not like an encyclopedia article, and 2. the lead section needs to have two more paragraphs added to properly summarize the article. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It does need a better lead. And if there's something you find POV please feel free to point it out, as I don't that's currently an issue. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)