Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident

Image difficult to understand

The image purporting to show before and after is difficult to understand. I had to stare at it for a long time to understand it. The problem is that the two shots are from very different distances and angles. I would propose removing the image as potentially misleading. Surely a better one can be found. If it is deemed that fair use applies here (and surely it does) then finding a good image should be pretty easy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to disagree; the tower is an excellent reference for the building behind it Serazahr (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I only now see it! I will clarify the caption so people know where to look, but agree with Jimbo that there might be better shots around... L.tak (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Just added a new image. Looking at it, it might be the same image (but uncropped) as before, but the presence of the other intact BWRs makes it for me much easier see what has happened. But it's a bit of a judgement call. Is it really an improvement? L.tak (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I find the earlier being better. Current makes more confusion with the different angles. --Kslotte (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I will move that one back... L.tak (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'after' picture only shows the top of the reactor building. It would seem the top half was only a light covering over steel frame, and the steel frame can still be seen. The bottom part is concrete and contains the actual reactor. So we do not have a picture showing the important lower section which hopefully is not significantly damaged. I think the two pictures are useful, but we could usefully have a clear picture of the reactor now showing the bottom. Admittedly, i doubt they are taking guided tours to get pictures.Sandpiper (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jimbo Wales and Sandpiper: The current image and text might be misleading in suggesting a "collapse" of the building. The different angle of view makes the tower a weak reference, particularly as its base is obscured and the (corresponding) horizontal beams are not easy to visually align with the building. The following images [1],[2] seem to be more revealing to me (though "13" is low resolution) and do appear to show top walls between the steel frame missing, but no collapse or height change of the structure itself when comparing to the neighbor building (presumably same height). Surely, there is an English source with better image quality to be found. (79.240.212.8 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Issues fixed with the current version. Nergaal (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong translation

the article says 「毎分１０万カウント」, while １０万 means 100.000, not 10.000.000. ("One out of three people who received the checkup showed "10 million counts per minute" (about 4.5 microcuries) amount of exposure.")

Anonymous edit accepted accordingly. --Kslotte (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And, someone reverted it. I have seen two edits trying to change this. What is correct? --Kslotte (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The translation of the article states "10 Million" but if an editor says it should be "100,000" I will leave the dispute to those who can read Japanese.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Google Translate gived the figure as "10 million" when the whole article is translated, but "100,000" when translating "１０万". So I'm guessing it really should be "100,000". —Quibik (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a native ja speaker. OP is correct. See Japanese numerals and [3]. Oda Mari (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistent units

I notice the section on radiation levels at the plant mixes Grays and Sieverts. Having them in the same sentence that way leads to headaches when people try to compare these two values. They happen to be equivalent for gamma emissions, but that's not something I'd expect the average person to know. Any objections to picking one unit and sticking with it here? Dgatwood (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistency is a sweet melody ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The source starts off with Grays and then switches to Sieverts half-way through - any ideas why this might be?--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

because they dont understand either?Sandpiper (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is Tokyo Electric Power Company who operate the station - they of course know how to monitor radiation and what the different units mean. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In Civil Defense training they spoke of Rems (Roentgen equivalent man) and Rads (radiation absorbed dose). 50-100 Rads in a few days will make you sick, 500 and you're a dead duck, while you might get 100 millirems from a chest xray, if I remember correctly. Nuke workers were limited to 5 rad per year and 25 rad lifetime.All these Grays and Sieverts are meaningless without some table of the effects of various amounts of them, or some conversion to more familiar older units. Do we have an article? A see also link at the bottom of the page would be useful. Is this approximately correct? 100 rad = 1 Gray(physical radiation)? 100 rem = 1 Sievert (biological effect)? Edison (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No they aren't meaningless, your training is out-dated. Read the articles about the units, Gray is the modern version of the old Rad unit and Sievert is the modern version of the old Rem unit. The source given uses both Grey and Sievert, and I'm not sure why they switch between the two half way through the measuring process. Until someone can answer that, we need to stick with both units in this sentence.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly any of the following or a combination thereof: The staff and engineers at the plant use different measuring equipment for different purposes; some of the measuring apparatus might date back to when older measuring units were used. We should keep in mind that the first reactor unit was constructed in 1967 and commissioned in 1971, so sticking to older units might be a matter of proper workflow, as introducing new units can be confusing (older employees being familiar with old units and younger staff with new units), especially if some of the measuring equipment is non-replaceable in the first place. -Mardus (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done a thorough review of this and made some changes (some of which are being reverted right away as SYNTH, apparently) to units. It appears that the news outlets are getting it wrong from their sources, as news outlets tend to not understand such things fairly well. Since sieverts and grays have a 1:1 conversion for most of these purposes (only beta and gamma radiation being relevant to exposure here), we can probably use sieverts as our "primary" reference units, and avoid converting to rem except on first mention (as SI recommends).

I am also trying to add a paragraph that converts the cpm at the bottom to a reference on biological exposure, as cpm is a virtually useless reference by itself (probably a reporter on-site with a geiger counter), but we can still calculate an approximate Sv dose from it. It is also being reverted, however. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hydrogen explosion

"that the concrete outer structure had collapsed as a result of a hydrogen explosion triggered by falling water levels."This makes no sense when the reactor vessel is assumed to be whole a few sentences later. That would be so unlikely that a building of that magnitude is reduced while a steel reactor vessel asemble and penetrated a hundred times survives? Especially since it was the source of the exposion. No Way! Please omit speculation about the buildings status, since there is no image backing this up. Deepsean666 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The status came from a source, (reuters), but I have tried to explain their rationale a bit more in depth now. Is that better? L.tak (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

de.wikipedia cites japanese media that the uranium stabs are 4 m long and the water level was 1.7 m at the all time low (Spiegel online live ticker/Asahi newspaper). Because the cooling system was without electricity and the pressure was too high, they let vapor out to cool the reactor down. Chemical analysis found Cesium and Iodine, implying on some rod exposure to air and some melting, and breaking of water to a hydrogen/ oxygen mixture. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Do these Japanese ref. help? [4] and [5]. Oda Mari (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont know exactly how this reactor is constructed and I agree the article is confusing. The reactor itself will have a very strong steel shell and be contained inside a further probably airtight concrete building. The outer building has blown up because of gas vented from the inner vessel. The inner vessell would not necessarily be damaged by large quantities of concrete falling on it, it is designed to withstand this sort of thing, but I dont know how the various pipe connections are doing. The use of the word 'container' is confusing in the article. I know it is in the source, but that just means they dont know what they mean either. I suspect a translation issue.

They would have let gas out to reduce pressure. The water inside the reactor would have boiled because heat could not escape and the pressure had to be released because otherwise it would have exploded frm the pressure. Far worse of the reactor vessel blew up, though I expect it is designed to fail at designed weak point to minimise damage. Once pressure was released, then the core would be uncovered and I heard elsewhere, the fuel elements would then start a chemical reaction giving off hydrogen gas. This also had to be vented, but is explosive. Something ignited it. The concrete outer building was blown to pieces. This is quite serious. Anyway, someone needs to figure out a bit better the reactor design so it can be explained more clearly. Sandpiper (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You see on the video that the explosion blew the outer shell away from the building. They are pumping see water now, they should have done that before red hot rods began to split up water into hydrogen and oxygen. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

But you would need pumps to pump. I am a bit concerned what is happening to reactors 2 and 3. Are they also short of cooling water, albeit no explosions yet? Sandpiper (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Emergency pumps don t need electricity. Seems that 5 reactors are having difficulties with the cooling. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Emergency cooling systemm pumps indeed need electricity, especially shortly following shutdown. Some reactor designs may allow passive cooling after much of the residual heat had decayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.190.232 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You do need electricity to control some functions. That was/is the main problem. No offsite power, failure of backup generators, only battery power left. --91.32.100.122 (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The wiki article on these reactors safety measures talks about diesel driven pumps as well as backup generators, not that I know where that fact might fit in.Sandpiper (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The diesel generators were taken out by the tsunami. Apparently, this particular setup included backup batteries, which lasted ten hours, and had a form of steam engine that could be used to drive the coolant pumps at a low power level as long as there was still steam in the system, which, last I knew, was the only source of cooling they had left. rdfox 76 (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The writeup of safety measures seems to suggest steam from the reactor is used to drive first stage emergency cooling, but if pressure is lost it then moves on to further measures. Sounded as though the last step might be gravity fed emergency cooling water. Sandpiper (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My imperfect understanding is that there are no strictly passive systems on Fukushima-1 Unit-1. There is a steam driven system, I think, that does not need electricity. However the valves to deliver coolant do need electricity. The battery backup is not to drive the pumps but to supply DC electricity to operate the valves (they can be operated manually, but I think there have been some difficulties attempting manual operation) Newer designs (ABWRs, I believe) have passive systems in place should the active systems fail, but this old GE design does not. Again, this is only what I've picked up in the last day, I am not a nuclear engineer. --Zippy (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Fukushima nuclear disaster"

Someone created Fukushima nuclear disaster... it doesn't contain much information, much less than here. Should we redirect it here, or are we splitting off the earthquake section? So we would then redirect it to where it splits to... 184.144.160.156 (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I redirected here for now - we can't have two ongoing articles about the same event. First we should get consensus here for a split and then do it properly.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I redirected to the article, but I agree we should wait to determine if a split is appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I meant to do, instead of redirecting to this talk page! --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is also a possibility of making it a disambiguation page, since there are also the incidents at Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I tagged the article for speedy delete. Oda Mari (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So far no mass casualties, so "disaster" seems premature, and Wikipedia must not be sensationalistic compared to what terminology the mainstream news media are using for the event. Edison (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to suggest we keep the information here. We have a well-written article and update, and splitting it off into a different article seems counter-productive. Agree that it is too early for the word "disaster" at this time. Jusdafax 22:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Tsunami

The article says the plant was hit by an earthquake. Was it also hit by a tsunami, which is implied later? Any clarity on damage caused by one or by the other? Sandpiper (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

de.wikipedia tells the emergency generators stopped producing electricity after the tsunami hit the coast. The timeline is not clear, agree with u. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

timeline, local time:

• 14:46 11 March, earthquake
• after one hour tsunami hits and emergency generators stop
• generators are delivered but the connecting cable is the wrong one
• 13:30 12 March, radioactive caesium was detected
• 15:36 12 March, outer shell is blown away

Some details Here see NUCLEAR THREAT'section. ☢ - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt really explain what happened. An expert saying he thinks an explosion is unlikely. Got that wrong. Sandpiper (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

0.18 grams acceleration

This is clearly wrong, I dunno how to get the convert template to show g-force or other units (m/s^2, ft/s^2 ...) 129.97.246.125 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Forget the Convert template. It causes more problems than it solves in many cases. 1 g = 9.8 m/s², so 0.18 g = 1.74  m/s². Dead simple. —Quicksilver^{T @} 21:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And the most recent pending revision shows just that. Until a reviewer approves it, however, we'll not see that go live. rdfox 76 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Scheduled shutdown date

The article currently says "scheduled for shutdown on March 26, 2011" however that appears to be a rough estimate based on 30 years of operation. The original source just says March 2011. Are there any other sources saying it was actually scheduled to be shut down before the disaster? - unsigned by 98.234.112.7 21:22, 12 March 2011

agree this is a bit worrying. We have a report that units 7 and 8 are delayed by a year. I wonder what that means for the schedule dates of taking things out of operation... L.tak (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, while this is purely speculative, you can assume that I will be out of business for good. It was supposed to be taken off very soon. It's not reasonable under any circumstances to repair it. --91.32.100.122 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The source for the shut down date is here: http://www.icjt.org/npp/podrobnosti.php?drzava=14&lokacija=818

This should be added as a reference.

I had asked earlier (in the Discussion - Built vs. designed. vs. constructed section) if anyone know if the the scheduled shutdown date shown in this reference (26 Mar 11, only a couple weeks before the accident) is really an accurate "decommissioning" date? Each of the shutdown dates shown in the source are exactly 40 years after the commercial operation date. Do operational licenses run 40 years in Japan, with no extensions? But there was no response.

Obviously, Unit 1 isn't going to return to operation, however, if this is was an accurate shutdown date, it is worth noting.66.65.191.165 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

According to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42044156/ns/world_news-asiapacific/ , "Japanese regulators decided in February to allow it to run another 10 years." 70.225.190.27 (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC Live Blog as source

This should really be removed as any source of information in the article proper. The BBC is very specific about their live blogging events not being independently verified and should not be considered as fact, and often discusses speculation/conjecture.

If that blog is claiming a certain source gave a particular piece of information, then that needs to be what's sourced, not the blog. Moreover, the url is likely to change, and with no cache of a live blog there will be no way to later verify any information cited.

Basically, it needs to be removed. A live blog, even if from a reliable source, is not considered reliable as continuous content. Datheisen (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but give one - three days until we have some good overviews/sources published. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean we should continue to add information from unverified blog posts until better sources publish verified information? Sorry, but no. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I was only thinking about not to erase BBC live blog and Spiegel online live ticker, until we get tomorrow a better source. Nothing about adding more. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If anything, the BBC are one of the more conservative news reporting network and only report fact if its verified as true. In other words they avoid "guesswork" like tabloids and other news networks who frequently use "sources" Stevo1000 (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree those refs should go now. Unverifiable does not mean that those blog entries are not verified by the publisher, but that today readers cannot verify yesterday's posts because they are gone from the blog. In other words, for example, can you now find anywhere on a BBC-hosted website that "The explosion was officially confirmed at 18:43 JST (9:43 GMT)."? It's definitely not in this URL any more. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Basis of design

I have a question on this sentence:

• Unit 1 was designed for a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s2) and a response spectrum based on the 1952 Kern County earthquake.

I like the expansion of the section a lot as it really finally describes the reactors well; but it is still a bit technical/unclear to a earthquake-layman like me.

• When I think of a design basis I would think about equipment sizing based on required power production, not the safety structure design. How is that rephrasable. Does "The earthquake engineering design parameters were based on (..) for example makes sence?
• What does "designed based on" mean? Should at least be able to withstand at least the 1952 earthquake? Or were the values of 0.18 g derived from a) the safety required, which was b) calibrated for this specific spot with as the input the response of the 1952 earthquake?

Hope I am not too cryptical! L.tak (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read the source now and propose:

Unit 1 was seismic design was based on a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s2) and a response spectrum based on the 1952 Kern County earthquake. During the 1978 Miyagi earthquake all 6 units withstood a 30 s ground exceleration of 0.125 g (1.22 m/s2). </br but would appreciate a heads up from someone who has worked with these things before! L.tak (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Boron and sea water

Anyone know why they are adding boron to the reactor? Having read the wiki article on safety measures (not that i understood it), it doesnt mention boron anywhere in the entire list of cast iron guaranteed worse case scenario fixes. Boron absorbs neutrons, and there arent supposed to be any because all the control rods will have been inserted automatically. The reactors would seem to be designed to be self sufficient in shutting down and maintaining cooling even in the case of power failure and damage. Reports from the company would seem to suggest that the several reactors at both power plants affected are in different conditions though it is hard to follow which stage of emergency shutdown they are at.

Similarly, what is the sea water for? It might be because the explosion has caused damage to the cooling water supplies for the damaged reactor. I am not clear if the seawater is being flushed through the reactor, or simply is running through a heat exchanger to cool the liquid contained in the reactor. This would perhaps make more sense. Sandpiper (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Boron slows down the reactions. That's for later. For now, the seawater is to bathe the reactor vessel from the outside, to cool it down. AFAIK. -Colfer2 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is into the core, not outside, according to the latest KEPCO press release: "We have been injecting sea water and boric acid which absorbs neutron into the reactor core."[6] i.e. replacing the normal coolant flow it seems. I'd like to know what they are doing with the sea water outflow; into a pond, or out to sea contaminated? Rwendland (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Water acts as a neutron moderator - promoting chain reaction. Boron is added to prevent this. Also it has been used to get Chernobyl disaster under control. Control rods being inserted do not mean much because core damage (meltdown) is dead cert already, even before an explosion, possibly immediately after cooling was lost in the wake of eartquake (hint: caesium detected outside the reactor, which can be released only when fuel is exposed to air). This whole story is heavily controlled and huge cover up of the scale of an incident is underway, so thinking about details of released information does not make much sense at this moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.190.232 (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If you (or someone else) finds a reliable source citing that caesium is only released when fuel is exposed to air and referring to Fukushima, referring to the time when caesium was first detected, then this would make the article more accurate. -Mardus (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Boron, that's a constituent of the Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System, which is a tank of borated (sodium pentaborate, or some similar chemical) water and pumps that get it to the core. Its design function is to mitigate an "Anticipated Transient without Scram", otherwise known as ATWS. It's an event where you want to insert your control rods (to stop the core's reaction) but, for some reason, the rods don't insert. The SLC injection serves as an alternate, if messier way to stop the reaction.

Since the major constituent of SLC is water, it becomes another source of water for the core if you really need it. The sodium pentaborate also has the secondary benefit of keeping radioactive iodine in solution, if you have failed fuel. That's beneficial for minimized dose release, as occurs when you vent containment. For that to be truly effective, however, you need to have pumps that can spray it into the containment atmosphere.Topamo (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

Is there a protection mode that automatically accepts all edits from logged in users? I believe the current level of page protection is a turn off for editors and definitely a turn off for new users. I'd rather deal with the vandalism. So my suggestion is to:

1. Remove page protection for logged in accounts
2. If that can't happen then remove all page protection.

What is your opinion? Thanks! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is part of a test called wp:pending changes. In principle all autoconfirmed accounts (incl you) can edit automatically; however, if you edit after an IP made an edit, a reviewer has to accept the version of the IP first. The pending changes is very controversial and it is not yet clear if it wil be implemented fully. [I personally only today obtained the reviewer permission while struggling with the same problem...] Cheers! L.tak (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I still feel this type of page protection does more harm than good. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Good update as of 2344 UTC, 12 March 2011

World Nuclear News has the best written, best informed news update I've seen in many hours:

• "Battle to stabilise earthquake reactors". World Nuclear News. updated 2344 (UTC), 12 March 2011. Retrieved 13 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not state every single news source

It is not necessary to add the news source of every new information coming in, as long as the source is mentioned in the reference tag. It only dilutes the real information and makes the article harder to read.--spitzl (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. At some point when things cool down we will also need to review all those timestamps, not sure how many of those will still be relevant from a historical perspective. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Added <references/> tag here just to avoid the ref error. -Mardus (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Layman's terms

While there may be experts in the field that would understand ""100,000 counts per minute" (about 45 nCi)" or "385.5 microgray/hour (1 μGy = 1000 nGy) " many people cannot comprehend what those numbers mean, if they are bad, or good, or whatever. Maybe there can be a comparison between counts per minute and how many of those units people are generally allowed per minute/day/year when there isn't a nuclear disaster. i just feel that all those numbers to someone who has no idea what they mean, such as myself, might worry some people without something to compare it to. JBDRanger (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix the unit conversion but am continually reverted by Coffeepusher. Please comment on his talk page where the paragraph is reproduced! SamuelRiv (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

or we could talk on this page. Just a thought since that would let everyone have a say. so here is what is on my talk page so far:

Putting in dosage conversions is WP:SYNTH?

You reverted my edit on Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant:

"The USFDA requires a safe maximum one-time radiation exposure of 30 mSv for a subject in voluntary medical research, which would be reached after 1–10 hours in this environment." ((ref: Radiation: How much is considered safe for humans?, with cpm calculations based on estimates at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Conversion factor is 60 kcpm ≈ 1 mSv/hr, allowing for an error of as much as a factor of 10.))

claiming WP:SYNTH. This is a unit conversion that is properly sourced, and I think adds needed clarity. Otherwise, the previous conversion from cpm to Ci is SYNTH, because cpm does not convert to Ci without "synthesizing" estimates of the type of Geiger counter used and the coordination thereof. Either way, listing cpm is utterly useless without some reference point, which is exactly what I give, sourced properly. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your complaint. However WP:SYNTH is using two or more reliable sources to further a conclusion. In this case the source you used had no mention to the power plant. however you may notice that I placed the appropriate wikilinks in the article right after that which gave reference to the exact table which you stated "we may need to insert a table" avoiding synth yet respecting and furthering what you were trying to accomplish. I should have done it in one edit and I am sorry you felt like I slighted your contribution. in fact I was trying to find a good way to present it.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Both sources list facts. It's like using two textbooks in an article on an airplane: one to convert Mach number at 3km to Mach number at sea level, and the other to convert Mach number at sea level to mph. WP:SYNTH is about opinions. I am listing facts to clarify a citation of cpm which would be useless without this clarification. Furthermore, one should not be concerned about my re-listing of sources, as these give explicit unit conversions and are cited only to clarify where the actual conversion comes from (because, as I said, cpm conversions are far from consistent). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We may not agree on the synth thing but I added those charts back in a format more consistent with wikipedia style. The information was not lost, and we were able to avoid an extra paragraph that had nothing to do with the power plant.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what charts you're talking about. The entire point of that paragraph was to clarify units (counts per minute) that themselves have nothing to do with the power plant unless so clarified. Do you understand what I'm referring to? SamuelRiv (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

yes I do. What is there is actually directly from the source at the end of the paragraph, so your revertion comment of "what experts, un-sourced statement" is actually incorrect. It comes directly from a WP:RS about the powerplant disaster which states "According to experts, this radiation exposure is that it is in need of decontamination" (the whole article is google translated so we had to paraphrase the whole paragraph, but it is the exact same information from the source cited).

Now your edit replaced a wikilink to Radiation poisoning#Exposure levels (which I placed there to give the same information as you were trying to give) with this sentence "The USFDA requires a safe maximum one-time radiation exposure of 30 mSv for a subject in voluntary medical research, which would be reached after 1–10 hours in this environment." So this is WP:SYNTH in this article because the nuclear power source is in nCi, not mSv, the source you used is quoting max safe use for voluntary medical research but offers no explanation of decontamination or nuclear disasters. The only thing that ties this sentence to the article is they both deal with radiation levels, but use two different measurements, account for two different problems and are sourced from two different authorities (the FDA accounts for medical testing and consumption, I believe that the FEMA is in charge of meltdowns in the US).Coffeepusher (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's kinda sloppy to quote quoted unnamed "experts" on a fact that can be easily sourced, like that which I cited (or that on a wikilink). That paragraph is about exposure to a human, not radiation around a power plant (which is not measured in curies unless given a pre-stated nuclear decay rate). The listing of nCi is an unsourced calculation and is furthermore completely not useful to human exposure, which is precisely what is being talked about in that section. My calculation, originally, was sourced, but you decided that the paragraph I used to source it was too long. The point of citing a one-time exposure limit is because that is exactly what we want to compare. It doesn't matter what the exposure level for decontamination is, because they were decontaminated, so obviously they were exposed at that level. What matters is how much radiation "300,000 cpm" might actually mean in terms of human health, which is what I attempted to explain, as if you look back at this talk page there have been many complaints about the haphazard use of units quoted from various sources, and newspapers are generally pretty poor about actually backing up their numbers or making them relevant when on an hour-to-hour deadline. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well this is wikipedia, and we rely upon the original source. The newpaper quoted is a reliable source and in this case the "experts" that the Japanese newspaper consulted (they are the ones who didn't name those experts, so you can go to them about editorial responsibility and naming exactly who those experts are)about the radiation levels not only gave their measurements in nCi but stated that it was of the amount that needed decontamination.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

do you dispute that the experts were right, you keep removing the cited almost quoted statement from the newspaper claiming that experts must be identified. Cite your policy for removing cited content that is faithful to the cited source.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"According to experts,[who?] this is a level of radiation from which an individual needs to be decontaminated." The "level of radiation" is not the primary concern when you decontaminate someone, the concern is the "level of contamination". Primarily you are trying to ensure that the contamination is not further spread around, and trying to prevent internal contamination (i.e. swallowing radionuclides). The reasons you would decontaminate someone in descending priority would be 1) prevent internal contamination 2)prevent the spread of contamination 3) limit the exposure from the external contamination. So the level of radiation is a distant 3rd concern, and typically only significant when you are in the 100K+ cpm level, but the 1st two would still be your main priority. So bottom line a conversion from cpm to dose rate, or even referring to radiation levels as opposed to contamination levels is misleading/meaningless. My qualifications: former nuclear energy worker, with training in radiation protection (including on when/how to decontaminate people).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.209.238 (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) 

Evacuations section

Hi there, I dumped all evacuation-related info in one section, so we have it centralised. We now need to consolidate it and make some sense of it. Thanks. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But doing that you destroy the information about the order in which this happened compared to other events. Perhaps you might put it back where it was? Sandpiper (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, and even if it were surely it can be rectified. Please restore the centralised section, as conflicing information on the subject is scattered all over the article. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

conflicting information should be corrected. How is it incorrect that you are separating the sequence of evacuations and then further evacuations from the events which prompted them? No, it will be quite complex to correct, which is why i stopped it now at least until it can be discussed at length.Sandpiper (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The causes of the various steps can be mentioned inline. My edits were accepted by both User:Joe Decker and User:HJ Mitchell. Awaiting further opinions. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try to restore the timeline, I agree at the moment it's unclear. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance of a pending change is only a measure of not being vandalism, not a full review of goodness of content. I'm neutral on the content issue here (I'd want to look deeper at it than I have the time to do right now.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, makes sense. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if that was short, I was running out the door when I saw this. Taking a look at the situation now. --joe decker^{talk to me} 07:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned up a bit, in my opinion the last reference does not qualify as verifiable, since it is dynamic and the source references (badly) another source. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the timeline was very clear in the original version either, it was jumping around (e.g. "later"). This evacuation section is intended to be in line with the last subsection "Effect on employees and residents". I now better understand what you meant, but I think the whole article does not necessarily need to be a strict timeline. Subsections need to reflect topics, and topics may overlap in the timeline. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If moving the evacuation numbers down makes the article easier to read, I would support a separate section. We can't, however, stop accepting pending revisions based on such structure dispute, and have to settle for one or another. --hydrox (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree with you hydrox we cant take time out to squabble about this now, Whatever we do this moment people will be changing everything over the next few days. There are still lots of things which are not clear because of shortage of information. Matters may still be getting worse.It will not be clear what makes sense as a final arrangement of information utill the matter is over.Sandpiper (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on which way to break this down, only a mild one, about this after looking through it for a few minutes. Sorry for not looking sooner, but I had to be out of the house for a few hours, which is why I deferred before--I was just out the door. I do understand that there's a sense that a timeline is being lost with the separation of the evacuations, I also understand that the reactor events feel interrupted with the evacuation information intermingled. When I imagine what the article should look like going forward, a few weeks from now, we're going to want a separate evacuation (what happens to refugees?) for that. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be some cross-pollination, the sections do need to really have enough context to make sense by themselves, but I'm guessing that a year from now the moment-by-moment event order will be of relatively less importance than being able to present subject-based sections. That doesn't mean there can't be some evac info in the reactor history or vice versa, but I'm guessing we will eventually want standalone sections on the evacuations vs. the reactor events. --joe decker^{talk to me} 07:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to create a separate article chronicling the Timeline of the 2011 Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant incident? This would both keep the timeline of past events, and the main article could get summaries of the timeline and a separate section on evacutations, if that's necessary. -Mardus (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

fyi: importance of this page: viewed 306K times on Saturday March 12th

http://stats.grok.se/en/201103/Fukushima%20I%20Nuclear%20Power%20Plant   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Residual heat" or "decay heat"?

In section Cooling failure directly after the earthquake: "Cooling is needed to remove residual reactor heat even when a plant has been shut down."

I am not sure which term is correct in this case but I think decay heat could be more precise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.245.115 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Decay heat is the correct term, i.e., heat from the decay of the nuclear fuel. Residual heat is heat that's there because of the mass of an object (like when turning off an engine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.189.11.201 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

but I am a little bothered why they need the boron. This would be to damp an ongoing reaction.Sandpiper (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Which appears to be the idea, see #Boron and sea water above. -Mardus (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC Live Blog

I removed a reference to the BBC "live blog", since I think it's unverifiable. I notive 5 more references to it. Thoughts? 220.100.15.15 (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC is always reliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.132.80 (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Unverifiable is different from unreliable. That link is unverifiable, because it is dynamically updated. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sea Water //

According to the last press conference, aired on NHK, sea water is not being used (and thus has likely not been used anyway), instead, they are using "normal" water. Could not find a written source about this new information yet. --91.32.119.142 (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

tepco website says " We started injection of sea water into the reactor core of Unit 1 at 8:20PM, Mar 12 and then boric acid subsequently."[7] Sandpiper (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

News media overview links

I added these links that have a good overview of what is happening. What do you think?

• Overview from AlJazeera news - March 12
• Explanation from ABC news and Physicist Dr. Michio Kaku - March 12

Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Dr kaku was enjoying himself greatly discussing worst case scenarios.Sandpiper (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that link be removed? Daniel.Cardenas (talk)

Kaku was sensationalizing. Conjuring visions of "China Syndrome" and "Chernobyl". He has no better information than we do. Filter out the wild speculations made by media "experts" who don't have any better than we do and Kaku's prognostications are revealed to have no particular evidential basis.

The reason I moved to WP as my news source for these kinds of events was specifically *because* of the way it filters the wild speculation. I do not favor including this Kaku link. Sbergman27 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan confirms meltdown

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.quake/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.132.80 (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's NOT what the article says. Flatterworld (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The article says authorities are assuming the possibility of a meltdown. (That said, in the cases prior where authorities have said "possible X" that seems to have been a soft way to introduce a later annoucement that "X has occurred". Obv. we can't use this kind of interpretation in the article, but I thought it would be useful context for the talk page.) --Zippy (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Partial meltdown in reactor 3?

I'm seeing lots of sources now saying that a Japanese government spokesman has said a partial meltdown is likely underway in reactor 3. See Washington Post for one example. Also, because this reactor has plutonium, that is a more serious hazard for long-term radiation effects. Carcharoth (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just changed the article to correctly say it is number 3 (not number 1) that the Washington Post quoted was thought to be in partial meltdown. The latest news though seems to be that both reactors may be undergoing meltdown, [8]. ChiZeroOne (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the Washington Post just edited the article, no they state "Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said officials were acting on the assumption that a meltdown could be underway at that reactor, Fukushima Daiichi's unit 3, and that it was "highly possible" that a meltdown was underway at Fukushima Daiichi's unit 1 reactor, where an explosion destroyed a building a day earlier." Maybe the news, a meltdown in unit 3 was underway was just a translation issue --TheBoDe ^talk 05:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just posted citation to Guardian article that reports that TEPCO has definitively stated that #1 has partially melted.--Nowa (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to try to source original sources, not second hand UK media. Cannot find a TEPCO report *confirming* partial melt-down --Ptroxler (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg

Hello, Fukushima nuclear accident. You have new messages at File talk:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Someone uploaded a different file on top of this filename, from a different source. It is no longer the screenshot as indicated in the filename. This seems like a bad idea, since it is a different source, with a different image, and is unrelated to the original copyrighted source. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

New image, old caption

Can whoever changed the image fix up the caption and metadata as well please? 113.197.242.129 (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The file should be reverted. The new image should be in a new filename. The filename no longer describes the contents otherwise. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just removed the caption, which is a start. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Illogic

"NHK Sōgō channel TV screen shot of the Fukushima power plant before and after the explosion"

Someone explain to me how one image can capture two events in time? 98.176.12.43 (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

From the page on the image itself it looks like the caption is talking about a previous version of the image, which was a split-screen shot showing both before and after the explosion. I'd adjust the caption, but I can't figure out how to edit it. Wabbott9 (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest just reverting the file. The new image should be in a different filename. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 32

Could an editor familiar with footnote 32 please fix it? It's coming out as an error. Wabbott9 (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Before and after image

Japan Earthquake: before and after is a collection of aerial and satellite images from ABC News, credited to Google. It includes a before and after image of this nuclear power station, so may be worth putting in the external links. Carcharoth (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

References of potential interest

I will leave the editing of this article to others. These reports and diagrams seem to be relevant:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Venting_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_3_1303111.html

Some of the diagrams used in the first one can be found at this site, which concerns General Electric BWRs: http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/bwr.htm http://www.nucleartourist.com/areas/bwr-in1.htm http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/Bwr-rx1.gif http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/bwrfuel1.jpg This is particularly informative, as is shows the control "rods" are actually flat plates which rise up between the square-section channels which contain the fuel rods. Presumably the control rods are fully raised at present.

No, the plant was automatically shut down after the earthquake, after hit by the tsunami one hour later the plant was battery operated 8-10 hours. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nucleartourist.com/imagemaps/rx-bldg1.jpg Reactor building, showing torus and bulb structure, with the concrete solid containment building with a removable, somewhat conical lid. The upper part, with the cranes, corresponds to the part which was most visibly damaged in the blast.

http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/Core1.gif Pulling a fuel assembly out of the reactor - with the "reactor vessel head" and the containment structure's conical lid presumably removed.

http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/headlift.jpg Removing the "reactor vessel head".

There's a bunch of other images at the bwr-in1.htm page. My guess is that some of these refer to later design variations than would have been used for the 1967 construction of Fukushima Daiichi 1. (See PDF mentioned below - some of these diagrams are for a later "Type II" containment design. Some of the colour schemes of the equipment and the diagrams strike me as 1970s or 1980s vintage. The Browns Ferry Unit 1 was built in the late 60s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browns_Ferry_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Some other items: http://texty.org.ua/action/file/download?file_guid=27605 BRW/6 - looks like late 1970s graphics.

According to this page: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/protectingtheenvironment/factsheet/events-at-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-plant-in-japan- "The plant is a General Electric boiling water reactor 3 Mark 1 design". "It appears that as the level of coolant in the reactor vessel lowered, a portion of the top of the uranium fuel rods was exposed. This may have caused zirconium cladding of the fuel rods to react with water to create hydrogen. This hydrogen was vented, then somehow ignited, causing the explosion." "The explosion caused a breach in the secondary containment." (concrete building). "TEPCO has been pumping seawater, laced with boron, into the reactor core of Unit 1 of the Fukushima-Daiichi plant to cool the fuel."

If the operators were venting the vessel during the cooling deficiency then they shifted the risk of a hydrogen explosion from inside the containment vessel to outside. Probably this is a smart move - although I wonder if a vessel designed to withstand *outwards* pressure is strong against *inwards* pressure? either way, the hydrogen explosion appears to have occurred inside the building but outside the vessel. Question comes to mind; how much damage did this do to the pipework and controls leading into the vessel? can venting still be performed? Also, doesn't this mean they were venting radioactive gases directly from the core into the environment? Toby Douglass (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

They have a diagram: http://www.nei.org/filefolder/BoilingWaterReactorDesign_3.jpg annotated to refer to Fukushima Daiichi 1 and its explosion. On page 2: "The General Electric BWR 3 Mark 1 reactor design is used in six of 104 reactors in the United States."

They cite this highly informative document: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf Which shows the Mark I, II and III containment structures. Fukushima Daiichi 1 uses Type I.

Also of interest: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html "As a countermeasure to limit damage to the reactor core, TEPCO proposed that sea water mixed with boron be injected into the primary containment vessel. This measure was approved by Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and the injection procedure began at 20:20 local Japan time."

Unit 3 is apparently a Toshiba design, but I didn't find anything significant searching for BWR Toshiba.

- Robin Robin Whittle (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese spokesperson Yukio Edano comments that meltdowns might have occurred in two of Fukushima's reactors. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iXSKdXpID9ZNmrezm_ynY-_0BD-g?docId=CNG.bd57fdfbae452af0d2b556455b5b59ec.3b1

67.212.44.69 (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Chernobyl?

Beginning to see reports of radiation levels 4km away being greater than they were 4km away from Chernobyl... Nothing 'reliable' yet but keep an eye out as this article might need to be updated soon. Buckethed (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

4km but when at Chernobyl? after the core was exposed? how many days after? do they mean *now?* also, in which direction? upwind or downwind? Toby Douglass (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Evacuation

The evacuation and related material from 11 March should be created in a section. This should not be left as a simple paragraph in the introduction, it should be expanded upon. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The evacuation section has been hiding behind a broken ref for a while. It's back now. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

missing information

hey, half the information about early events which was in the power plant article last night before it got moved here has disappeared. what happened to it?Sandpiper (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a stray ref creating havoc, and actually it happened before the move. I think it's fixed now, please check. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

template

We should have a footer template for all the related quake/tsunami/nuclear articles.

{{2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami}} or something, similar to the {{2010 Haiti earthquake}} one.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Introduction texts for main articles

We need to create good introduction texts for main articles:

• 2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami#Nuclear_power_plants
• Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accident

--Kslotte (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also some correlation with Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant is needed. --Kslotte (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have re-done the introduction of 2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami#Nuclear_power_plants just now. Feel free to improve it further.--spitzl (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

JST/GMT times

We don't need to give every event in two times. How about we stick to JST - it says this is UTC+9 in the infobox if anyone wants to know. Otherwise it just looks cluttered and is cumbersome. --Pontificalibus (talk)

I agree --Qqchose2sucre (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, use japanes time only through article.Sandpiper (talk)

Death Daiichi/Daini

Don't you think that TEPCO's Press Release is more reliable than World Nuclear Association's about the worker's death. Tepco said Daini, WNA said Daiichi. So can't we remove this information about death on Daiichi's page ? This section seems to have been previously deleted. Is there any reason ? --Qqchose2sucre (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Information that I got from several sources is that this worker died as a consequence of the earthquake while operating a crane close to the exhaust port at great height. It would therefore indicate that this fatality occurred or was initiated before beginning of the nuclear emergency. I think it should be removed. If however you believe it should be left in the article it should be clearly stated; i.e. that he died due to fall and not due to explosion/exposure etc. Is this ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.101.215.197 (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you have any reference it will be OK. --Qqchose2sucre (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

TEPCO

Did TEPCO's server crash? getting site not available on [9]--Nowa (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

it is still working but presumably overloaded.Sandpiper (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

: It seems to work slower and slower for 2 hours now --Qqchose2sucre (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)