Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Article length

The article is far too long to read and navigate comfortably. WP:SIZERULE suggests we should consider splitting off sections into new article when the article size is above 100KB. It is currently 270KB. I suggest splitting Reactor stabilization and cleanup operations into a new article, although I'm struggling to think of a concise title, perhaps something like Stabilization and cleanup operations following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. This wouldn't be enough on it's own though - a better option might be to split the detailed sections about each individual reactor either into four separate articles or one single one. Splitting is relatively straightforward, the difficult bit is summarising the entire split sections in a couple of paragraphs to retain in this article. Any thoughts?--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some part or parts of the article should be split off in order to bring the whole down to a more readable length.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article is way too long. I also agree that some parts of the article should be split off per WP:Summary style. Johnfos (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that parts of the articles need to be split off - but the problem is which parts? While it might make sense to seperate out the Units into seperate articles, the problem is that the problems with the units are inter-related (i.e. the explosions at Units 1 and 3 causiing problems at Unit 2 due to damage and rubble). Similarly seperating the accident from the stabilisation/cleanup - it is going to difficult (i.e. contravercial)to draw a line between the accident and the stabilisation (as on some Units, the accident was continuing while on other Units the stabilisation had already started..... MWadwell (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Have taken the bold step of splitting some material to Fukushima Daiichi units 4, 5 and 6, leaving a summary here, per WP:Summary style; feel free to edit. Johnfos (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the page is getting too long.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What about removing the table for "Reactors stabilization" (located immediately before "Scope of Cleanup")? This table was only applicable during the first fed days of the event, and all of the attempted solutions are mentioned under the applicable Reactor Units. MWadwell (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What is against using the table under the introduction to split all, and using this to link trough to the new articles ? In this way anybody could find all, within a few links. Even the article Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster‎ is already too long... 1947enkidu (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Have removed redundant "Reactor stabilization" table, per MWs suggestion. Johnfos (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Following Ponti's original suggestion here, have now split "Reactor stabilization and cleanup operations" section to Fukushima disaster cleanup. Johnfos (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Considerable splitting and trimming of this article has now brought the length down to 188k. About one-third of this is references, so the main text length is about 123k. The lead has been reduced to six paragraphs.

In view of improvements made I am removing the tags at the top of the article. Please discuss any remaining issues here on the Talk page, or tag specific sections or sentences so we have a better idea where the issues are. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that work. It's a significant improvement.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake vs. tsunami

The Independent has published a story in which they say they've interviewed plant workers who told them that one or more of the reactors were seriously damaged prior to the tsunami. "The explosive truth behind Fukushima's meltdown" the article is also discussed in New Scientist.[1] I suppose that this will become a central controversy, since it implies that similar reactors are also vulnerable to earthquakes.   Will Beback  talk  09:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Already in the article in the section for Unit 1 - "On 11 March at 14:46 JST, Unit 1 scrammed successfully in response to the earthquake though evacuated workers reported violent shaking and burst pipes within the reactor building."

I suppose that no-one will remember that this was in the top 10 earthquakes in recorded history when thinking about this though..... MWadwell (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the earthquake, but I haven't seen that in coverage. The earthquake had an order of magnitude greater energy than the design limit, so it's no surprise that it failed. (The real problem would be if it failed within the design limit). Long term questions will include whether the design and approval process properly accounted for "black swan" anomalies.

As for the Independent article, they say, perhaps just to make it sexier, that their account differs from TEPCO's. Anyway, I'm just posting the link - but too busy elsewhere to follow up.   Will Beback  talk  11:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

New Scientist says that the IAEA and NISA deny the story.[2]   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

JAIF: Earthquake reports, might not give a complete view of the news on NHK-world

Some time ago JAIF started with the earthquake-reports... because the NHK-site does give a lot of infromation, but this site does not keep a archive, it just recycles the urls. So after a month, the information is lost. It proofs however, that not all texts on NHK-world are always included into these Earthquake-reports.

To show you the difference, two items were lost in the presentation:

News items on NHK today, concerning Fukushima related items: 15 september 2011: [3]

• Infants to be tested for radiation exposure
• Plant workers fail to evacuate despite exposure
• TEPCO spraying water directly into No.2 reactor
• Expert panel starts discussing decontamination

News Items in Earthquake-report 205: [4] NHK news regarding status of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station yesterday and today.

• TEPCO spraying water directly into No.2 reactor (Fukushima NPP Site)
• Noda sends message to World Economic Forum (other news)
• Expert panel starts discussing decontamination (other news)

How to start an archive ourselves, without violating any copyrights ? The NHK-site looks not be very interested... 1947enkidu (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate image - please delete

File:Fukushima7.png seems to appear twice - can someone please delete one ? This page is too big for me to edit, or even load, with my bad internet connection ! (51 files, 715Kb) Ought it to be sub-divided ? Or just condensed ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is always possible to leave some text on this talk-page, you can leave the link to the source that you found, and please point out where you think it might be put in between, it would be able to agree on it on this talk-page, and when all is right, there's sure someone with a better internet-connection, who will be willing to assist you in adding it to the wiki. The article is quite large indeed, due to the ongoing character of this disaster. Already there were some big parts been separated from it, the need to subdivided it even more might still remain in a way.

So please leave your proposals here, when you are not able to do it yourself directly in the article.

Greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Need to explain radiation release rate

re: "It is estimated that 10 PBq of I-131 per hour was released into the air at one point on the 15th of March, by the 22nd of March the release rate of this isotope to the air had declined to 410 TBq per hour and on the 4th of May it had further declined to 700 GBq per hour."

I expect these units of measurement are unfamiliar to most readers. Is there something objective we can say to put the numbers into perspective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.4.143 (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added details of two other sources, one was a source involved in a serious accident in Brazil while the other is a typical domestic smoke detector.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding section Radiation releases and recent edits, I think it's time we put the unit of becquerels in perspective to sieverts also. Note bequerels are units of nuclear decay per time, thus are measured in sec^-1, while sieverts are like humean-absorbed doses, with a one-to-one correspondence to the non-biological gray for gamma and beta radiation.

Thus we need to calculate absorption and convert tothe human dose, picking the correct isotope at the correct range. From a nice overview of on-site isotope concentrations, I selected the most-concentrated isotopes and got some ranges. Standing at 1m from the isotopes (height of person on-site?), the largest value, for Cs-134, was 40uSv/hr, while the most-concentrated and most-hyped isotope, I-131, was 10uSv/hr. Others were significantly less-concentrated with significantly-smaller doses (unbelievably, that sentence was hyphenated correctly).

I will therefore attach a note to the article, pending verification. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

How to compare these two complete different things:

Sievert = the absorbed doses

Becqeurel = is the amount of radioactive substances

The absorbed dosis depend form a few thing more: for instance the distance to the source, the time that the exposure takes place, and the protection against the radiation, and the kind of radiation.

Internal exposure is different for I-131 and Cesium, I-131 will be concentrated completely in the thyroid-gland, and this gives an instantly danger 1947enkidu (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

This journal has useful coverage of technical and non-technical issues associated with the Fukushima disaster, see [5]. Johnfos (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the Table of Contents for the Sept/Oct 2011 issue: [6]. Johnfos (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Readers want to know...

...how many people died as a result of not the earthquake or tsunami, but as a result of the nuclear meltdown radiation per se. If you use the table of contents you can't find this information easily. Just if you hit "casualties" it jumps you to the fact that a couple of workers who were directly right there have died. That can't be all! If we don't or can't know, please say so and explain, and please make it easier to find. I don't need all this information, I just want to know how many people died because of all of these meltdowns, and how many were emergency workers who went right into it to try and fix the problem and how many were citizens who lived downwind or in the surrounding area. We know that the earthquake and tsunami killed tons of people, but as this reads it seems like nuclear meltdowns are only dangerous to you if you're a first responder or some such who jumps right into it with a fire hose or some such. Great heroes, don't get me wrong, but nuclear meltdowns are supposed to kill everyone in the surrounding area pretty quickly and then many many others over the course of time who were farther away and this article leaves one with the impression that if there's an earthquake/tsunami big enough to cause a meltdown, the meltdown is the least of your problems. Chrisrus (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody was killed as a result of the radiation. One worker died, but of a heart attack. There may be some deaths in the future from cancer caused by radiation exposure, but it is too early to tell how many might be affected. In fact, the radiation levels outside the 30 km area are probably not high enough to cause an increase in cancers that will be statistically significant, meaning that nobody will ever know whether indeed there was an increase in cancers due to the radiation. Severe radiation (as from a nuclear bomb) does indeed kill everyone in a certain area very quickly, but the emissions from meltdowns of nuclear plants are not comparable because of the various containment systems. Even if the containment system does not work perfectly (as was the case in Fukushima), it still stops most of the radiation from escaping, so the level of radioactivity outside the plant is not high enough to cause rapid death. So indeed, in the case of Fukushima, the earthquake and tsunami certainly caused far more immediate deaths than the nuclear accident, and it seems likely that that will also hold for the long-term.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't you think the reader should be told this in as upfront and blunt way as possible? I'd like it right away, but at least make it easy to find. I looked for it under "casualties" but it's only sort of implied and the reader can't be sure. What, is this not, like, the most important job that this article has? To tell the reader how bad it was/wasn't? Chrisrus (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK for me. Do other editors agree with this suggestion?--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, how many cancers will occur within a certain time after this event. But in Namie a few thousand people, were exposed to a radiactive cloud for four days, Had they KJ-pills to protect their thyroid-glands ? It will take some years before these cancers develop, in the mean time these people will live in uncertainty.

For all who does not know it: there's no safe limit for cancerous substances. Any level might cause cancer. That's just the difference between a poison and a carcinogenic substance. 1947enkidu (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For radiation, the Linear no-threshold model is just a convenient assumption, not a proven fact. —WWoods (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, here at work we use the minimum dose of 100 mSv - anything below this the dose has very little effect. The ICRP uses this limit, and has higher limits for workers responding to a nuclear emergency (500 mSv). MWadwell (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with cancer from radiation, (except for radioactive Iodine which promotes Thyroid-cancer) is that you cannot prove it was radiation who did it. Cancer is a big lottery, only a few will be "lucky" and get the jackpot (cancer).

But look at smoking: there it is plain, that tiny amounts do cause also lung-cancer. Because people that do not smoke themselves but must endure the smoke of others do get cancer. This was first proven by a group of Japanese women with smoking husbands, around 1970

By the way, Japanese consumers do not fancy the idea consuming meat and other food with cesium, even when that contamination is below the Governmental "safety-limits" 1947enkidu (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, it's very simple. Tell the reader how many people are confirmed dead as a result of the meltdown so far. Then you can go on to talk about all this other stuff, maybe, about those that might die, and the problems of knowing for sure, about how people will probably die or whatever. But just tell us the truth. How many people have died to far. Chrisrus (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

First point, is that the number of exposed workers is described in the article - "of the approximately 6700 personnel tested so far, 88 personnel have received 100–150 mSv, 14 have received 150–200 mSv, 3 have received 200–250 mSv, and 6 have received above 250 mSv." (Note, that this is outdated, and I plan on updating this section with more recent information.)

Next point - the two fatalities from the tsunami are mentioned in the article (under "Casualties").

Last point - why do you believe that there are more? Do you know of any others that have died as a result of the nuclear accident (as opposed to the earthquake/tsunami)? I mean - aside from Chernobyl (where a portion of the core was thrown around outside of the building) , none of the other nuclear meltdowns have resulted in fatalities. MWadwell (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the summary is so long, it might not help readers like me to bury this in there somewhere, but if the summary were well done it would be helpful to say right near the beginning words such as "this resulted in only two confirmed deaths, but experts believe that it may kill from (low estimate) to (high estimate) more within (this amount) of time" or whatever sources say, even if it's zero. Aslo, when readers like me come looking for this information, we might, as I have, scan the ToC and find the section "Casualties" there. Once there, it would help those who, like me, are likely to come to the article with the preconceived idea that nuclear meltdowns are serious major disasters that kill tons of people, if it were worded in such as way as to clarify that the fact that these two heroes died implies that they are the only known deaths thus far, and(but?) that the info that follows means that there won't be any more confirmed deaths because there's no way to know (if that's the point), but it is (reasonable? not reasonable?) to conclude that (some idea of how many) people will die because of it. The point is, the reader wants to know if nuclear meltdowns kill lots of people, whether this meltdown killed lost of people, of if they do in general but not in this case, why. It's important!

P.S. I haven't organized this post as a point by point reply to your questions, but I think the answers are here in a clear enough way, but let me know if you feel any questions have been ignored. With this in mind, I'd like to point out for readers like me the bit you quote "of the approximately...250msv", that it is not clear what the significance of these facts is; what's the point? This article is great for facts but it could be better in making it's point clear, and I think part of the solution might be if the likely reader would be kept more in mind. Chrisrus (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As this point in time (and indeed, for the next few years), anyone who puts out a estimate of fatalities is full of $#!+ (to be blunt) - as any way of calculating it is going to be esitmate, compounded by assumption, with the addition of personal biase.

Let's have a look at why this so. First people are going to get a dose from airborne contamination, from particulate contamination that has settled on the ground, and from ingestion of contamination that has entered the food chain.

Firstly, airborne contamination. The dose people receive from this is going to depend on where they were at the various times in the day (i.e. outside or inside), their physical location (i.e. which town they live in), and if they were inside, how airtight their home is.

Secondly, the ground based contamination. This is going to depend on how much as settled, how much exposure people have had to it, and how effective any cleanup is (and how long it takes for the cleanup to start and be completed).

Thirdly, the ingestion of the contamination. This is going to depend on how much contamination was released, where it settled, how it entered the food chain (i.e. from land or water based animals), the amount consumed by the "average" person, and how long the contamination stays in the body (i.e. the biological half life).

And lastly, what the contamination is composed of, and the individual persons vunerability to that kind of contamination. Exactly the same as smoking (where some people are more susceptable to cancer then others), some people are going to be exposed to a LOT of contamination without developing cancer. On the other hand, others are going to get a small dose, and develop cancer.

As you can see, there are a LOT of variables in the equation, and quite a few (such as cleanup, and penetration of the contamination into the food chain) have not even started yet. So with all of these variables (especially those that haven't even started yet), any estimate is going to be incredibly wide, and totally useless. MWadwell (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

MWadwell is correct that there are many important factors in exposure, and even more to determine susceptibility to cancer. The measurements of radioactive material were spotty for the first few days, when most of the material was being disbursed. In the long run, it's quite possible that the evacuation and permanent resettlement of the local population may cause more premature deaths than the radiation itself, or that the shift to polluting power plants will lead to more respiratory illnesses than radiation-induced cancers, but I doubt we'll ever know. However, should experts or officials decide to start making predictions I think we're bound to report them. All we can do is avoid giving them too much weight or authority, and make sure they are presented in context. Until then we're just speculating, which is a waste of time.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then, let it say these things then, in clear simple words. You don't have to explain all of this, you can just say something like "...we'll never know the numbers of casualties because because" and "...but it's likely that there will be some more cases of cancer eventually" or whatever. I think you might want to scroll up and re-read my original quesiton/request. Just tell us what sources say about this in an upfront and clear way, if not right at the top of the lead then make it easier to find, because this is highly likely to be what many if not most average readers come here to find out or would appreciate knowing. Chrisrus (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Now we just need to find some decent sources. More recent would be better, as there was much confusion in the first weeks and months. BTW, this article doesn't give an estimate, but it does a nice job of describing the complexities.[7]   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Fukushima Accident: Radioactive Releases and Potential Dose Consequences" Peter F. Caracappa, Ph.D., CHP Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. ANS Annual Meeting. Special Session: The Accident at Fukushima Daiichi— Preliminary Investigations June 28, 2011 [8]

This is a very technical presentation by a professor of nuclear engineering.[9] He concludes that "projected increase in cancer mortality would be ~0.001% above the natural rate",and that "Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures: can’t be ruled out –conservative risk estimates ~100s cases, against an expected ~10 million cases". It's not peer-reviewed, or even published, but this may be one of the best available sources for the time being. Any objections to using it until better sources can be found, with all necessary caveats in the text?   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Another source (although dated) is this article [10] - which is from this presentation [11] in June. While dated, it does have some interesting comparisons between Chernobyl and Fukushima. MWadwell (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. I have edited the casualties section as agreed above.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I’ve removed this text from the article, as the source is someone’s PowerPoint slide presentation, which cannot be regarded as reliable:

As of September 2011, there were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures. Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures cannot be ruled out, but, according to one expert, might be in the order of 100 cases.

Totally unpublished and part of a “preliminary investigation”. Johnfos (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the information from the NYT article as it is an error and not everyone can see the NYT articles. See page 44 of this Japanese governmental press release on April 23. [12] As for the information from American Nuclear Society, it's correct. There is no reports or news on radiation death and sickness in Japan so far. You can see the NISA's press release at here. Oda Mari (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The more right way to follow is: discussion first, remove after. When some information might be behind a pay-wall, this means that the info is not correct or unreliable. By the way, NISA, JAIF, the Japanese Governent and certainly TEPCO are not always reliable too, the last is certainly withholding info to the public. 1947enkidu (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems the NYT article was based on this news. The translation is here. See these too. An Asahi article and the translation. Another Asahi article and the translation. Someone pointed out the US media's mistake. The translation. The NYT's Tokyo office is in the Asahi Shimbun Building and the NYT has a tie-up with Asahi. [13] and [14]. Oda Mari (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

All of these links to unreliable sources just cause confusion. If the NYT article was wrong, then a correction would have been published, but I have searched and can’t find one. Moreover, other sources corroborate what the NYT says. For example, The Telegraph says “Five workers at the Fukushima nuclear power plant have already died since the quake and 22 more have been injured”. (See [15]).

With reference to the PP slide presentation, I’m not sure why you can’t see that an Assistant Professor with a bundle of overhead transparencies at a "preliminary investigation" meeting is not a reliable source. Johnfos (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Um. That's the Sankei Shimbun and Asahi Shimbun that you just casually dismissed as "unreliable sources" that "just cause confusion". 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Sankei Shimbun and Asahi Shimbun are reputable papers and are considered as two of the five "national" newspapers in Japan.--Watson system (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to use mainstream Japanese media sources such as these, go ahead. I will not object. But, for your information, the Japanese media has been criticised for “being in the nuclear industry’s pocket, because of lashings of advertising” [16]. TEPCO is one of the most powerful companies in Japan and it uses a “tremendous amount of money for advertising”. If the mass media shows nuclear power in a negative light, they risk losing TEPCO as an advertiser [17]. Johnfos (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

@Johnfos. This is the NYT article you cited, isn't it? The article doesn't say where the five workers died. Please take a look at this NYT article dated on April 4th written by the co-writer of the March article Hiroko Tabuchi and Ken Belson. The actual title of the NYT article is Effort to stem Japan reactor leak falls short. The article in April clarified the places of the 5 deaths. I suggest you to remove the misleading and outdated NYT information. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can improve on what we have, then edit the article in the usual way. Johnfos (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. Dear Johnfos, we are indeed trying to improve the article by editing it in the usual way. I have no objections to including the NYT article, even in light of the objections stated above. However I am surprised that (1) you chose to override the previously-reached consensus (see above) regarding inclusion of Caracappa's analysis and (2) you insist on stating that this is an upublished paper when in fact it was published as part of a scientific conference. The fact that the material is presented as PowerPoint as opposed to conventional text does not change its reliability or its pertinence. Surely the comments of a professor are more reliable and pertinent than various media speculation?--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So you consider that there has been a consensus on aspects of the Casualties section, and that I have come along and disrupted that. Interesting. That certainly was not my intention... I simply hadn’t been on the page for a while and just jumped in and started editing.

I have reached the point where I honestly don’t care if the Caracappa source is used or not. But it would be of general interest to see what the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard makes of it. Johnfos (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reply. I accept that you acted in good faith. I will restore the Caracappa bit and we will see if there are other reactions.--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there's a real edit-war started. The difference between 5 and 4 is only minimal, and the sources are quite unclear, what is the point of all this fuss ? The situation in Fukushima is far from stable, and it will take a lot of time and effort before substantial improvements will be realized... 1947enkidu (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. Dear Enkidu, I think that you are referring to the removal of the NYT material, not the addition of the Caracappa material. I don't see this as an editing war, rather a proper discussion of how best to improve the article. As far as I can tell, there is no longer any objection to including the Caracappa material, so I have addeded it back. There might still be a difference of opinion regarding inclusion of the NYT material. I do not object either to its inclusion or to its deletion.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"...the train ran over trash bags, a man, gumwrapppers..."

I just saw a parody “TV news” report on The Onion in which the actor portrays an autistic news reporter and I think it expresses quite well what I think is the problem with this article; what I've been trying to say about what's wrong with it. Here’s a link, please take a look: [18]. The "autistic reporter" tells the anchorwoman many accurate statements such as “The train ran over three trash bags, a Snicker’s wrapper, a stick of gum, a man, and a glove.” Notice how the death of the man is bizarrely couched into a bunch of needlessly specific information that normal people would not care about! Does it remind you of this article in any way? Admittedly, the analogy to this article is limited, but please: think about it. Look at the context and manner in which the human costs of this event are presented. Do you see what I‘m getting at? Chrisrus (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I seriously cannot see what you mean. What has this to do about the article ? How would you like the article be reorganized ? And who will taken this task, that you would like to be fulfilled, in his/her hands ? You could be a little bit more specific 1947enkidu (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please just scroll up and read, or re-read, the question I asked originally when I started this "Readers want to know..." section, and you'll see. But basically, to repeat again, to deal with the question of casualties in a more up-front and direct way, right near the begining of the lead and then more in depth in a more prominent and easy to find and understand way in a clearly written for the general audience Casualties section than the one that's there now, instead of burying it in a bunch of accurate but less important data and treating it as an afterthought, as is done in the parody about the train accident. To answer your other question, it's not important who does it, I'm just trying to point out something that needs to be done. And certainly, it's not going to be easy to do in such a voluminous and overloaded lead. Leads are supposed to be brief summaries of the article that follows. Have a look at the way it's done in other disaster articles, like Johnstown Flood for example. We can get some idea of the seriousness of the even right near the front. Chrisrus (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that no one knows at the present what the radiological effects will be - and trying to put a figure of the health effects is going to be impossible for a few years. If you have a look at the Chernobyl Disaster, you'll see that they weren't able to provide an estimate until 10+ years after the accident. So trying to provide a figure now is impossible. As I stated above, there is the long term effects (such as the amount of radioactive materials taken up by food sources) that cannot be determined - and so any figures produced at the moment will be totally bogus.

If you feel so strongly about this issue, then why don't you find some sources (and please don't use Christopher Busby - as he has already been discredited as a reliable source) yourself and add them to the article.... MWadwell (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

1947enkidu - please remember the wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view when stating your POV. While an emotional response and personal opinions are helpful in providing motivation to keep the article current, stating things such as "YET NUCLEAR POWER IS DANGEROUS, WE ALL CAN SEE IT" can raise questions as to your neutrality. While I haven't seen a bias in your edits, it is best to avoid public statements that can raise questions about your neutrality. I'm not critising you (as I have stated, you've been neutral in your edits), but just raising the point that the last thing anyone wants is to get into a discussion with someone who believes that you have an axe to grind... MWadwell (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You say what I'm asking for is too difficult, but contrast this article's dealing with this issue and that of the article Chernobyl disaster. See how it's done there? They even have a separate sub-article listing all the known casualties in an easy-to-understand chart! Now, I do understand that it's just too early to know as much about this as we can know about that. But we could just say as much in a few well-chosen encyclopedic words, something along the lines of "...it is impossible to know for sure because because...but we can know this much" and anything else you can say about the casualties. Chrisrus (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying, is that it is too difficult at the moment. If you have a look at the Chernobyl page, you'll see that the casualty estimates were done relatively recently - or in other words, nearly 20 years after the accident. And so I believe that at the moment the estimated number of injuries/deaths is impossible to predict. The only thing that we know, is that there have been 103 workers that have recieved more then 100 mSv - but this is already in the article (I know, because I was the one who put it in there!). MWadwell (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, OK, say that then, but it's a lot less useful to tell us about how many "mSv" people got, than what that means for their lives. Nobody knows what "mSv" are, and want you to get to the point, are these people sick? If you get 100 "mSv", what happens to you? Chrisrus (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Then it's a good thing we have an encyclopedia handy. See mSv#Symptom benchmarks. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why give people the run-around? If it means "...which is too little to get sick" or "enough radiation to cause disease" or whatever it means, why not tell us so here? I appreciate experts, but please write with the lay reader, not other experts, in mind. That's my whole point, actually, that is all. Chrisrus (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The plain facts make a lot clear, that's what I do, not more not less. But I'm sure no autist... Please look one time to this reference of the new york times: it from a long time ago, but please try to read it all through: Japan Held Nuclear Data, Leaving Evacuees in Peril There's quite a lot more on the NYT, an excellent search-function too. By the way, Japan made a law, that restricts journalists very much when they want to report on the disaster. The people on the plant had to sign for secrecy, only the more positive things can be said. In this way, it is sure that the Japanese news is not neutral at all. The coming day's I will take a wikibreak and leave for a long yourney, so do not expect a fast answer. 1947enkidu (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The facts are, that there was no need to immediately evacuate - the dose from the plume was low. If you have a look at the following image [19], you'll see that the maximum dose for the area outside of the 20 km exclusion zone was less then 2.17 mrem/hour - and that if a person was in this field for the full 5 days from 30 March to 3 April, they would have recieved a maximum of 260 mrem (or about 2.6 mSv) - which is well within the safe zone of radiation exposure (in fact, it's about 1/10th of the exposure from a CT scan).

An interesting read is the presentation from Dr D Higson (available here [20]), where (on page 27) he states "Even if evacuation had not occurred (except perhaps from the first 2km), it is unlikely that there would have been any physically discernible public health effects from radiation." So I'm a little surprised that you continue to make such a big thing about the delay in evacuating people, as the overall dose recieved was low.

Lastly, every single employer I have ever had has made me sign (as a condition of employment) a Non-Disclosure Agreement - prohibiting me saying negative things about the company (or divulging company secrets). In fact I believe that it's standard. So of course any interviews by Tepco staff are going to be positive - I mean, who's surprised by that? And as to Tepco (on the whole) - corporate secrecy is a fact of the capitalist environment that we live in. I mean Exxon fought the Exxon Valdez oil spill in court for 10 years before the affected people gave up. So, are you really surprised that a big business was protecting itself by initially withholding information? MWadwell (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Having done medical research myself, and having been in the middle of a research institute of a state of the art university, I'm not very impressed by the card presented above, and even less with the presentation of Dr. D Higson... (I had actually seen it before, and discarded it because the obvious lack of detail...) I've seen a website about what was called "the Hiroshima-syndrome", this is like that too. Some people might not have not enough wits to comprehend more, that's possible... But if all in the Wikipedia-encyclopedia should be based on research of this magnitude, I sure will resign. Speaking afterwards, taking the risks, and hoping it can be ran out all the way, is not a very ethical way to treat your fellow human-beings. The negative health-results we see in about 10 or twenty years, than I might not be with you anymore. In Chernobyl there are enough children who must endure their cancers. There some land will be inhabitable for decades, in Japan it will be likewise. Would you all like to deny those facts ? 1947enkidu (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what manner of medical research 1947enkidu has done, the problem is unless 1947enjidu unmasks himself and allows others to look at his publication record then it is impossible for anyone to make a valid judgement as to is he/she an expert in the field. I suspect that the health effects of the Japanese reactor accident will take years to appear, but that delay neither makes the effects large or small. The delay just means we have to wait a long time to see the effects, Dr D Higson has a point that it is possible that every cancer case in Japan in the future may be blamed by a large section of the general public on the reactor accident, but the problem is that about 20 % of the population will die of cancer even without any radiation dose from man made sources. Also from having had some radiological health and safety training, I know that the clinical effects of a case of a given type cancer induced by man made radiation are identical to one caused by something else. As a result a rise in some forms of cancer may be seen, but for many cancers it is very hard to identify the cause for each person. The effects of radiation is to increase the likelyhood of cancer, the best way to look for the health effects will be to concentrate on some cancers (thyroid) which have a very strong association with a nuclear power plant accident.

I also think that the references to autism are in poor taste, it is not reasonable to make a joke about a medical condition.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm considering this whole discussion as a kind of filibuster, this takes a lot of effort to follow, when all this effort was used more prudently, and would be put into the search of new material and new information to be added to the article... the article might improve a lot and grow and grow, sure we might soon feel the need to split it again. Since I'm got involved with this I gained a lot of new knowledge. Beside my medical degree, I worked for a long time as analist of histology doing electron-microscopy with the help of tritiated-leucine and auto-radiography. That should be enough explanation. I do not think any of you have studied nuclear-physics, so the most of us will be amateurs in that field. I'm planning to be more careful with my time, because I have some other serious business on hand, that will take a lot of time and attention. 1947enkidu (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Remember folks, Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for discussing the topic. This and similar pages exist solely to host discussions about improving the article. While this thread started off talking about the article, now we're just giving our opinions of the disaster itself. Unless we can bring this back to the topic of the article, we should just drop this thread.   Will Beback  talk  08:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology

Anyone who is interested in writing about the Fukushima accident should keep an eye on this journal. The journal is printing some articles about the accident, while none of the three articles so far are not about things like what has happened to the workers these articles have been about the very technical side of the work. So far three papers have been published

1. One which is an estimate of the iodine and cesium release (the article already had this as a reference) 2. One on the time scale of the core melting in unit one (the article already had this as a reference) 3. One on nylon supported potassium cobalt ferrocyanide which is a cesium removal agent which can be used to remove cesium from sea water.

The journal is at the following location, http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jnst/48/10/_contents and it is of note that the journal is fast tracking papers which are about the accident. The notice from the journal can be read at http://www.aesj.or.jp/publication/Announcement-en-AESJ110426.htm

Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A good paper on the release of Cs-137 and I-131 to the air and the sea can be found at http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/48/11/1349/_pdf Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Potential contradiction

Under the heading Casualties There are 2 statements which I read as contradicting each other:

"Potential exposure could exceed 20 mSv/year (2 rems/year) in some areas up to 50 kilometers from the plant ... However, natural radiation levels are higher in some part of the world..."

Note; as far as I understand it, high natural radiation levels indicate good places to mine Uranium, not to live. This isn't addressed and doesn't seem to be relevant; it's just providing some background for the amount but:

"Further, the radiation exposure resulting from the accident for most people living in Fukushima is so small compared to background radiation that it may be impossible to find statistically significant evidence of increases in cancer."

However this statement contradicts the above claim. Not only is this 'additional' radiation, on top of existing background radiation but the first statement makes it sound like this is well above the norm, not 'so small compared'.

This wikipedia Article seems to be saying that 20mSv is 5 times the Japanese average. Given the effective half lives of the radioactive isotopes released from a melt down are roughly 20-30 years away, even if measured out over a life time the contamination will result in more than triple the 'regular' exposure, at least according to the original statement & the wikipedia article on background radiation. One of the sources must be wrong and I'm assuming it's the one that claims that the second biggest nuclear disaster is insignificant next to background radiation.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A further note, my comment on Japanese background radiation seems to have taken into account a 2/3 contribution from man made contamination. So effectively it's 15 times natural radiation and 5 times general exposure.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction here at all. You're equating the exposure in "some areas" with the exposure for "most people in Fukushima". That some of those areas are up to 50 km away doesn't mean that everything within 50 km has that exposure level. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The presence of places with high natural exposure, has lead to some sites, where they call fear for radiation "The Hirosima Syndrome"... It's their aay to tell us, that we should eat and endure a lot more radiation before any complaining should start. In the mean time people in Japan are able to "eat" their way to 20mSv/year with all the cesium contaminate rice, beef, tea-leaves. And the producers of radiation-detectors have a golden time at hand. 1947enkidu (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The 50km line covers roughly 1/5 of the Prefecture, and it's at that line that the contamination is being quoted at such a high level. So if you assume that is true, which is unlikely as it wouldn't be uniform like that, this alone puts the average still well above natural & man-made background radiation averages for Japan. My point still stands unless the source quoted is showing figures that outside the 50km line, there is basically Zero contamination.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Again—the statement in our article does not say that everything within 50 km is at the high exposure rate, nor does the source it's interpreting. It says that "some areas" are; eyeballing the map in the source, I'd guess around 20% of the land area within 50 km is at that rate. Furthermore, most of the prefacture was measured at under 100mrem—just like the second sentence you quote from our article says. There's no contradiction here. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the section on Alternative Energy pertinent to the Reactor Accident, or someones idea of what we should think??

Most of this section is not about the reactor accident, or even about the Japanese reaction to the reactor accident. I move to remove it unless someone can explain clearly why German coal power plants are relevant.... Avram Primack (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the section is directly relevant. That the Fukushima disaster was entirely avoidable in that Japan could have chosen to exploit the country's extensive renewable energy base is directly relevant. That one result of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster could be renewed public support for the commercialization of renewable energy technologies is also relevant here. Johnfos (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that anything more than the change in opinions in Japan is completely irrelevant to this accident. The fact that you use "could" be renewed public support makes it a wish for this to be true rather than a fact that it actually is true. While it is true that other reactor accidents changed public opinion, we can report on those changes rather than report our wishes for those changes to be true. If it is true for this accident then a section on alternative power sources needs to be added to each accident article, or better yet, to the nuclear power page itself, not this page. I move to strike material that is not directly related to the accident and its particular aftermath. German coal power plants are still irrelevant to this accident since they have nothing to do with Japanese public opinion.

Avram Primack (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... appears as if someone already made the edits I would have made. I like the policy title better, but would still remove the could from one of the middle paragraphs...speculation is not a fact.....

Avram Primack (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-Criticality !

So,apparently, the reactors are still "on" in the sense that some of the remaining fuel is still undergoing fission: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-02/tepco-detects-nuclear-fission-at-damaged-fukushima-station.html 66.32.162.45 (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This possibility was already mentioned long time ago by Arnie Gunderson of Fairewinds... The fuel has moved to another place, the normal inhibitors are not in the former arrangement, the moderator - water - is still all around, so what is the problem for the fuel to become critical 1947enkidu (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Two points - 1) Neutron emission (from radioactive decay) occurs even when reactors are fully shutdown, and can occur months after last being at power: 2) as the reactors cool, they will be inserting positive reactivity into the core - which will increase the chance of re-criticality. Note I have said "increase the chance" - this means that the chance might have gone from 0.000000001% to 0.00000001% chance (figures are for illustration of point), but is still only a low probability.

The design of a nuclear core is quite difficult to sucessfully achieve, as you need to capture the emmitted neutron, slow it down, and then put it into contact with fuel before it is adsorbed by another material (such as water). So it is unlikely that Unit 2 is approaching re-criticality, as the core geometry is all wrong for this to happen.

Lastly, if the core was approaching re-criticality, then the neutron detectors would pick it up first, rather then gas sampling picking up the xenon..... MWadwell (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the assumption that the fuel in the Fukushima plants has the same mass and isotope siganture as the chernboyl unit four fuel then I would expect a lot of SF due to the curium in the fuel. Some shortlived xenon isotopes are major fission products. So xenon activity is not a perfect indicator of the reactor going critical.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Introduction needs attention

The fifth paragraph of the intro needs addrressing - as I have no idea what this sentence means "Officially 0 deaths after IAEA from nuclear disaster but about 28000 deaths from quake and tsunami who also opened the doors of oldest plant of Tepco about 10m high. Governement asked for 3.12m tsunami wall, 5.7m build instead fully closed also for >30m tsunami." - can someone clarify this? Also, there is a table right in the middle - which is inappropriate for the introduction..... MWadwell (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence in question needs to be totally re-written. The information is correct, but it has to be presented differently. In fact, the whole introduction needs to be rewritten, because, at present, it contains far too much detail. Some of the information in the introduction (such as the table) should be retained, but it has to be moved elsewhere in the article. Would anybody care to make a start at rewriting the introduction?--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This table can have an extra subhead, just under the introduction, there's a lot of work in this, and the information can be largely verified 1947enkidu (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the particular table is using WP:SYNTH to illustrate the point that the radiation emission has been on the same scale as Chernobyl. We need a WP:RS that explicitly says that, though we might have one already, I haven't checked. In that case, the table is redundant and should be removed from this article. I suggest not to delete it, but to move it to an appropriate sub-article. 1exec1 (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't actually looked at the content of the table in any detail, but it seems obvious to me that such a detailed and comprehensive element cannot remain in the introduction. If indeed the table says that the emissions were on the same scale as Chernobyl, then it has to be flagged as one view, because there are other sources that say that the emissions were about one-tenth those of Chernobyl. We should provide both pieces of information in the same place, for example in a section titled "Estimates of total emissions".--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I came to the talkpage specifically to complain about the tables. It's just plain ridiculous. I'm glad that others have already noted this problem. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

All accounts on how much radiation did actually escape, those figures are at the best very imprecise "estimates", rough figures, guesses, and most times exact measurements are completely absent. TEPCO's roll in this is quite questionable, this firm has all the way minimized the figures and the seriousness of it all. I've seen figures up to 40% but those are estimations too. Here we do not know, how the materials did spread, and in what volume the material is dissolved.

I wonder whether we will hear the whole truth about this. But when after 6 months it still was possible to measure radioactive Iodine at 400 places around the plant (halftime 6 days)... The spread of cesium is likewise, mushrooms grown 250 kilometers away are not to be trusted either. The amounts were enormous.

If it comes to figures, which source would you like to trust, or follow ?

But does it really matter? 10%, 20%, 40%... a large area might be inhabitable for a long time, and the damage has already risen into trillions.

a subhead, with a little introduction should do the trick. Nobody knows it all.

1947enkidu (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking about 1947enkidu's comments about the amount released, and had another look at the table, and it struck me how misleading the table is - as it would be easy to glance at the table and believe that more has been released then it actually has.

An example is that the first three rows have a tme period that overlaps ("12 – 15 March 2011"", "12 – 19 March 2011" and "11 March - 5 April") - resulting in same emmissions being counted three times.

To be honest, re-reading Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster there seems to be a consensus amongst both Japanese government agencies and international agencies that the total emmissions are slightly greater then 10% of Chernobyls - it might be an idea to just state that in the introduction and remove the table. MWadwell 27.33.169.62 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. Indeed, our task as Wikipedia editors is to faithfully report what reliable sources state, not to create compliations of unreliable sources. I agree with MWadwell that, as of November 2011, reliable sources agree that the Fukushima emissions are about 10% of the Chernobyl emissions. The introduction should say that and nothing else. If people are really keen to keep the table, then it can either go into a new section later, or, better, into a new article, given that this article is already too long.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear fuel outside of the rector buildings

I have been hearing numerous (but rather unreliable) reports of nuclear fuel "leaving" the reactor buildings. Some say that it could have melted through the reactors containment, others say the explosions in Unit 1, 3 and 4 flung fuel fragments out of the spent fuel pools and were found over a mile away. Did any of this ever actually happn? And if it did, can someone confirm it with good, reliable sources? Supposedly at Chernobyl, the nuclear fuel melted into the basements and floors below the reactor, but never made its way into the soil beneath the plant. They were able to help ensure this didn't happen by boring tunnels underground, and filling them with concrete. Given the fact that the reactor at Chernobyl was out of control and burning, and was as an extremely high temperature for months, I think it is unlikely this could have happened at Fukushima. However, the explosion launched tons of fuel and graphite into the air, where it landed over hundreds of meters around the plant. Did the unit 1, 3 or 4 explosions do the same with fuel fragments? Elinkwest (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In Chernobyl I've seen estimated of 55 kilo's Plutonium released from the plant. And at the very beginning, TEPCO released some notes about neutron-beams detected, what points to plutonium outside the reactor. Also some reports of plutonium found at places kilometers from the plant. after that it became silent... But the explosion in the fuel-pool made a terrible mess in the pool, fuel-rod scattered through the place and on photo's even one handle of a fuel-rod is to be recognized... With these massive explosions, that happened, you cannot expect that no plutonium was released at all, and the third reactor was fueld with MOX... so the spent-fuel pool of three was also loaded with used-MOX. Just look at that building, how could not anything excape from that ???? 1947enkidu (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Elinkwest... there are more than one articles that have information about Fukushima, one of it is Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, There are more of those pages on wikipedia. When you have a question, you might dig a little further into them. But... to make it easy for you, just take a look at: [[21]] Here the Japanese Government admits that plutonium escaped, and they even made a map of it, how it was dispersed and scattered over the country-site of Japan. What has gone into the ocean, is unknown... Now the question of the day, is this source thrust worthy enough for you ? 1947enkidu (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Plutonium/Uranium being blown from the spent fuel pool during the explosions seems very likely. Its important to keep fuel elements covered with water, because while the reactor has only enough fuel for one fuel cycle, the spent fuel pools have fuel from years of use, a much larger source of radioactivity. Since they are now exposed to the air and outside the containment vessels, I agree that fuel being blown from them almost certainly happened. What I don't think happened was fuel inside the reactor melted through the containment and into the subsoil, despite hearing reports of "cracks in the ground" and "radioactive steam escaping" and "nuclear fuel from reactor could be 12m underground by now" Elinkwest (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Elinkwest... The spent fuel pools, were never placed inside a containment, because this kind of accidents were thought to be impossible. But indeed that place contains many times the radioactivity of what is inside the reactor vessel.

Those reactor-reactors were melted, and for a long time this very serious fact was denied, the fuel was months very hot far above 100 degrees celcius, so any water poured on it was turned into steam immediately, that was the white & black "smoke" in the first months after March 11. That happened to be that steam condensing when it cooled down when it met the cold sea-winds. That steam was highly radioactive, nobody knows exactly how much radiation went into the air, noway to any sample of it. No attempt was made to do this with a robot-plane. And by the way, even 8 months after the disaster TEPCO does not know the exact location of the molten fuel, and had to rearrange the way to put water into the reactors, and was trying to improve on the cooling of the molten fuel.

The containment's are leaking highly contaminated water, and the basements are still filled with it. The containment's still need to be closed to stop the water leaking, They need to be completely filled with water in order to stop the leakage of radiation. THAT LEAKAGE IS STILL GOING ON.

In Chernobyl the containment was not capable to hold all inside, why do you think that could not happen in Fukushima, these three reactors had more inside than that plant in Ukraine...

It has impossible to inspect all places, even with robots, last week for the first time the 5th and 4th floor of reactor 4 has been entered, this disaster is far from over, the radiation-leakage is not stopped at all, but only minimized as far as they could. Apart from all speculations found everywhere, this I lay aside, but the "reality", the things that have come out already, and that were admitted by TEPCO and the Japanese government, those are already far worse than ever thought possible.

I changed the order of the comments, in this way it more handy to see the latest addition, please could you do that for the next piece

All the best 1947enkidu (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly it is normal to add the new discussion topic at the bottom and not the top of the page, I have moved it to the bottom.

Secondly judging by the isotope signature of the accident it does not look to me as if large amounts of fuel have been released in the form of the fuel fragments which carried plutonium out of the chernobyl reactor. The level of Zr-95 and Mo-99 were very low. This suggests to me that the radioactivity was released by heating the fuel until it melted rather than an explosion which smashes the fuel and throws it out of the reactor building. Also if a large scale fuel ejection occured then the radiation levels on the site would go up and then stay high, what occured was that radiation levels spiked at some times and then rapidly dropped. This spiking and rapid drop suggests to me that low boiling point radioisotopes such as xenon and iodine were released rather than large amounts of Zr-95, Ru-103, Mo-99, Cm and Pu. Also the relative lack of Mo-99 and Ru-103 suggests to me that little if any hot fuel was exposed to air, this lack of Ru/Mo release is further evidence against a chernobyl like explosive release. The Fukushima explosions were hydrogen / air events which occured outside the reactors in the upper part of the reactor building while the first (and most important of the chernobyl blasts) was a BLEVE which occured inside the reactor.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles needed

Fukushima is similar to Chernobyl and should have a similar set of articles.

• List of Chernobyl-related articles

In particular we need an article for the zone of exclusion. The Chernobyl equivalent is Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Exclusion Zone. Perhaps Fukushima exclusion zone, unless it has a more formal name. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Calculations about the speed at which the cores were dried out

This might be of some interest to some editors http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storycode=2060871&newstype=N&sectioncode=76&preview=1 Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup effort estimates?

'Foreign experts have said that a workforce in the hundreds or even thousands would take years or decades to clean up the area' So it could take 200 people 3 years to clean up, or 24,000 people 70 years? Doesn't add much, are there any more specific figures? 81.105.212.215 (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead too long already, garbled addition of Kay Uwe Böhm removed

I've removed a garbled addition to the lead, the lead section is already rather long and details belong later in the article. I realize that the editor adding the material is not a native speaker of English, and if anyone wishes to incorporate (and translate into readable prose) the material into the appropriate section of the article body - please do, it's in the history. Vsmith (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And the user has added it back complete with "exactly definition german wikipedia." Will wait for other input. Vsmith (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to improve part of the reinserted text and I deleted the remainder. I hope he will finally understand the comments and helpful suggestions of other patient contributors. About the content he added, his opinion is also biased (neutral point of view, WP:NPOV): he seems to try to minimize the radiological impact of the catastrophe. Fukushima release in Cs-137 (T½ = 30 years) is about half of that of Chernobyl. It will have a significant impact on man and his environment in the North-East of Japan during several decades if not more than a century! Removal of radioactive contamination and appropriate waste treatment and disposal is now already jeopardizing the Japanese economy and it will continue for years. The acute devastation of the quake and the tsunami is terrible but the long-term consequences of the nuclear disaster will affect the life of hundred of thousand of Japanese citizens and will last for centuries. Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the text in question was garbled and not supported by citations. As you will have seen, I added a summary of the casualties section to the introduction and I think that this covers the points that our German colleague Kay Uwe Boehm wanted to make. However, Kay deleted this section, without explanation. I have now added it back. If Kay continues his disruptive editing, then maybe some action should be taken? If so, what?--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems the added paragraph is an exact copy of the last paragraph in the "Casualties" section. Is that what you intended? Vsmith (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting that. No, it is not what I intended. It seems like sombody moved the paragraph in question from the introduction to the casualties section. It does not belong in the casualties section because it is a summary of material from the casulaties section. So I have deleted it from the casualties section. It should appear only in the introduction.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any Deutchophones (is that even a word?) watching the article who might be able to explain the situation to Kay on his talkpage? I just reverted another addition of his where he didn't just add the same unintelligible material again--and changed the version we put in that was supposed to be more intelligible to match his preferred, garbled version--but then also claimed that he had added all the charts in the article in an invisicomment, *and* changed the existing invisicomment to be an admonition not to remove his material. If we don't have anyone who can speak German well enough to discuss the situation with him, we may end up having to get a WP:COMPETENCE-based block, and I hardly want to call for that. rdfox 76 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually our Japanese colleague Endiku did explain the situation to him in German (see User_talk:Kay_Uwe_Böhm#cite-errors_on_the_fukushima_wiki, apparently without effect. So I think that we have a clear case of an edit war and steps should taken in that light.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For information: it seems that the user Kay Uwe Boehm was permanently blocked on the German Wikipedia because of disruptive edits. Original message in German left on his talkpage after he was definitely blocked: Talk page of Kay Uwe Boehm on the German Wikipedia, (English translation), Advanced search on the German Wikipedia.

Most of his highly specialised contributions since 14 October 2011 have a disruptive character or are inappropriate. It seems he does not understand the basic rules of Wikipedia after two months of trials or ignore them. Beside assuming his good faith as beginner and questionning his competence as contributor, is it not time to also consider the hypothesis of being confronted with a troll and behaving accordingly?. It is difficult to understand that a person with a real scientific or technical background behaves like he does, refusing to listen to comments and suggestions, and writing non-sense about radiological protection. The number of victims and the gravity of the damages caused by the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami cannot simply eclipse the fact that the Fukushima nuclear disaster has released in the environment about 40 % of the radioactive contamination of Chernobyl. His attitude and what he writes reflect the absence of scientific doubt and perhaps also a cognitive bias (see Dunning–Kruger effect).

I checked many of his contributions dealing with the nuclear reactor technology and I cannot find any useful contribution. All are literally technical junks and non-sense about the technical contents I am familiar with. The form and the language by themselves are always disruptive and he continuously violates the terms of use of Wikipedia by claiming copyright or the protection of his own rights.

It is a difficult proposal, I do not like to do, but I would suggest to definitely block him, at least on the topic of nuclear technology. His contributions have no added value, and worse, he has already caused too many damages to the pages of nice articles. A graded approach with clear warnings would be appropriate if he persists in his disruptive edits and refuse to listen. :-( Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What the user Kay Uwe Boehm has just done today confirms my opinion and my proposal: he is trolling all the contributors and administrators of Wikipedia. I would thus suggest to immediately block him for several days. Sorry to have to propose that. It is very sad, but we cannot tolerate more longer such a behaviour. :-( Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Enkidu1947 Japanese ?? Thanks for the compliment... but what made you think this ? The fact that I'm always capable finding news at Japanese sites ? Those sites are all written in English and very easy to access. In fact I've become quite lazy in this, a few sites give enough information to fill more content I can possibly write down...

Actually, I'm not Japanese at all, but a Dutch guy (born in 1947) living in the Netherlands. But I certainly do support the idea of blocking this German edit-warrior. there's little wits in this edits, and most times these edits are quite disruptive too. But blocking only a few days ?? would that be a very wise idea ?

I tried to contact with this man (?) even in my best German... but no response, what ever.

Greetings from Holland 1947enkidu (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Enkidu1947 for your wise proposal: let us go for a definitive blocking of this edit-warrior. Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is quite a task, reverting all the vandalism produced by this fellow. Everywhere he leaves his name inside the article... quite annoying too. this subject "nuclear power" is just an item that attracts this kind of people.... best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

How do we go on with this ? It looks like there's an edit-war on hand... and it is quite heavy too. Who knows how to contact the supervising moderators 1947enkidu (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Here the original text of the German site explaining why Kay Uwe Böhm was blocked:

22:40, 21. Aug. 2011 Stefan64 (Diskussion | Beiträge) sperrte „Kay Uwe Böhm (Diskussion | Beiträge)“ für den Zeitraum: Unbeschränkt (Erstellung von Benutzerkonten gesperrt, E-Mail-Versand gesperrt, darf eigene Diskussionsseite nicht bearbeiten) ‎ (Kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit erkennbar)

English translation here
22:40, 21 Aug. 2011 Stefan64 (Talk | contribs) blocked " Kay Uwe Bohm (Talk | contribs) "for an unlimited period (account creation blocked, e-mails blocked, cannot edit his own talk page) (Reason: No desire to collaborate to the Encyclopedia can be identified)

Thus the German moderators there could not see any intention of Kay Uwe Böhm to collaborate to the encyclopedia ...

It would be nice if the moderators of all wikipedia-sites had some knowledge on what is going on elsewhere 1947enkidu (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC) + minor clarifications from Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Already this guy is polluting my talk-page... this needs to stop, anyway... 1947enkidu (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking it to ANI now. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. Enkidu: sorry about the mistaken assumption that you were Japanese, your Wikipedia pseudonym made me think of that, which is silly, because I'm not French despite my pseudonym.--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, guys. His edits are not constructive at all. He left a message on my talk page too, but it wasn't understandable. Oda Mari (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Gautier Lebon, the name Enkidu comes from the Gilgamesh-epic, that has been found written on clay-tablets in the middle east. Dating from 4000 years before our timetable started... So nothing Japanese there either. I could tell you more about it, but Enkidu is not Japanese at all. 1947enkidu (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Enkidu, thank you for that. You learn something every day, especially from Wikipedia.--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Cold Shutdown status reached

As per Tepco's news release (on the 16th of December - Progress status of "Roadmap towards Restoration from the Accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station" on December 16), the reactors at Daiichi have reached "A condition equivalent to Cold Shutdown". However, due to the way the article is written (with each reactor having a seperate section), to record this would require a lot of duplication to record in each individual reactors section the fact that cold shutdown has been reached.
Similarly, updating the other wiki article Fukushima disaster cleanup is also going to be problematic - as that article seperates different items (i.e. radioactive waste, water treatment, etc) into seperate topics. So, in both articles, there is no single location that this information can be added.....
The way I see it, we can do one of a couple of things:
1) Keep the article the way it is, and accept the duplication of information;
2) Seperate the reactor units into seperate articles, put a summary on this page;
3) Any other ideas?
MWadwell (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Create a section on the reactors altogether and make the existing sections into subsections of that. There is no doubt already some duplication which could be gathered in such a section, plus the more recent information. Mikenorton (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Error in the Energy Policy Implications section.

The paragraph below regarding wind turbines assume that wind turbines run at 100% capacity, this is never the case. The reality is that they on average only provide 25% of their design capacity. As a result 4056 2MW turbines are required to replace the 3 damaged reactors, making a replacement wind farm 29 times larger than the largets to date.

corrected text below

As of September 2011[update], Japan plans to build a pilot floating wind farm, with six 2-megawatt turbines, off the Fukushima coast.[358] After the evaluation phase is complete in 2016, "Japan plans to build as many as 80 floating wind turbines off Fukushima by 2020."[358] However, to match the 2028 MW rated output of the 3 damaged reactors, Japan would need a wind farm with over 4056 2-megawatt turbines, nearly 29 times larger than the world's current largest windfarm, Thanet Wind Farm in the UK. [359] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.116.230 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the second part of the paragraph because it is WP:SYNTH. The reference does not mention fukushima at all.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Gasses

As part of ongoing efforts to stabilize the plant, nitrogen is being injected in two of the three reactors to avoid explosion from hydrogen/air mix.

As containment has been breached at all three reactors involved, emissions of radioactive substances continue, albeit at a much lower level.

There is no mention of all this in the status table or anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.100.130.9 (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The short lived isotopes that produce most of the heat after a shutdown, those are gone now, this makes it more easy to cool the cores, and the places under the primary containment's. But the leaking goes on, only the first reactor has a plastic cover now, and there the gases are collected and filtered before they are released into the atmosphere. For number 2, 3 and 4 this has to be built altogether. Besides gases and water-damp there is the leakage of water from the leaking containment's... these leakages are hard to fix. The lower floors and basements of the reactor houses are filled with radioactive water, each day some 300 cubic meters groundwater inwards extra... this is by long not yet over, because they claim a "cold-shutdown".

But when you want all tables nice and proper filled, please add something yourself, this is just too much for a few people to follow. Please, please, don't complain, just do something... 1947enkidu (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Mainichi Daily News

I did undid the latest edit of MarkForeman, [22] the source-text of this part is now behind a pay-wall, (this is just a little bit different than a dead link). But this does not mean, that it has lost it's relevance or it's value. If you want, I just can give you a copy of the text, because I keep a mirror of it all, since I know, that the content won't be always be available without payment.

This is all based on a study of French scientists: for now I will add a part of it:

....The amount of radioactive cesium-137 that flowed into the Pacific after the start of Japan's nuclear crisis was probably nearly 30 times the amount stated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. in May, according to a recent report by a French research institute. The Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety said the amount of the isotope that flowed into the ocean from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant between March 21 and mid-July reached an estimated 27.1 quadrillion becquerels. A quadrillion is equivalent to 1,000 trillion. Of the amount, 82 percent had flowed into the sea by April 8, according to the study, which noted that the amount released as a result of the disaster triggered by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami was unprecedented.

If you are very interested, you might ask the original report from the France institute... it is sure published in an English version.

There are a few newspapers in Japan, that still do follow the nuclear-crises in a critical manner, those links will all be dead after two months, this means, they need to be controlled just at the moment when they are fresh, taking the content away two months later, because the content is "disliked", why ?

best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Enkidu, the French report that you cite above regarding high level of release into the ocean is no doubt reliable. However, the Mainichi Daily News report that you wish to include either does not say that "the radioactive pollution in the waters on the coastal area of the prefecture Fukushima, northeast of Tokyo will remain significant for a long time" or it is manifestly self-contradictory and thus unreliable: given strong currents there is no no way that a high concentration of radioactivity would remain in the waters close the coast (unless of course there were continued emissions from the plant, which does not appear to be the case). Therefore, I have deleted this part from the article, on the grounds that either the source was misquoted, or is not sufficiently reliable.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Misquoted ? here another quote from the original article:

The report also said the Pacific was polluted at an exceptional speed because the plant stands in a coastal area with strong currents, though it said the impact of the contamination on marine life in remote waters is likely to wane from autumn. But the institute warned that a significant degree of pollution would remain in waters off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture, northeast of Tokyo. Radioactive cesium-137 has a half life of around 30 years. The Mainichi Daily News (29 October 2011)

You might not like the message, the statements came from the french researchers, and because sampling was prohibited directly after the accidents and the explosions to independent researchers, all we know is from TEPCO and the Japanese Government, those two sources are by no means in all aspects reliable either.

Just a question: who wants to eat the fish or the sea-weeds caught at the Fukushima coastal area ?

"Some" people in Japan have serious doubts, and do not think this radioactive pollution will go away this fast. 1947enkidu (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In the mean time, I'm busy to get a copy of the original french paper/publication, and I sure will ask this institute permission to cite from it. The Japanese newspaper is also willing to provide extra information. 1947enkidu (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be glad to read the original french publication but I would urge caution in the way you deal with someone else's findings. I do not doubt that a large amount of Cs-137 has been released into the sea near the plant. But while the physical half life of Cs-137 might be circa 30 years, it does not say anything about how it will behave in the big wide world. The environmental chemistry of cesium is not a simple matter, cesium will be partly in the mud layer at the bottom of the sea, partly in the shallow coastal water and partly in the deeper water in the seas. So it is not possible to predict what the cesium will do once it is in the sea from just the amount which was released into the sea. I think that it is important that the editors/authors of wikipedia do not try to publish original work here, so unless we have an author who is a known expert (whose quailifications can be checked) in the geochemistry/environmental chemistry of cesium then I think it is best if we do not start to make predictions of how the cesium will behave. Also if a newspaper makes a claim that the cesium will do XYZ or ABC once it is in the sea, we should trace the original of the newspaper article back to its origin and then make a careful judgement as to how fit the person who made the judgement about the cesium behaviour is and then try to decide if we include it. It is very important on nuclear / radiological matters to avoid adding stuff because "everyone knows XXXX".Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear mister Dr. MarkForeman,

I did a direct request to the ASN, cannot predict when they reply.

Only little research revealed that was the French nuclear "Watchdog": the ASN, l'Autorité de sûreté nucléaire, that gave this information, not the newspaper...

The french government might also be interested because they have some islands in the Pacific Ocean, that they regard as little pieces of france (as I recall myself correctly) Nothing is here invented by a handy prejudiced journalist, but a few of the leading experts on nuclear safety in the world. (However... "nuclear safety" in the case of fukushima, this could be a "contradictio in terminis") I did read a recent article in a Japanese newspaper, that the disaster-exercises held in Japan were just a fake and were not taken seriously, because of the safety-myth that was kept alive by the Japanese nuclear industry. Now they know a little bit better. One of the lessons of Fukushima ? I did not see anything said about the behaviour of Cesium, only that it will be around for a long time in quite some quantities, like it will be present in the forests in the mountains, and that the rain will transport each time some cesium with it to the valleys below, what to think of the wood, needed for growing mushrooms ? Already there was little interest for licenses to shoot some wild animals in the regions around the prefecture Fukushima....

Taking something away, only because a link is broken, is not acceptable, why was it not controlled right away, directly after when it was placed ?

All the best in this newyear 2012 drs. 1947enkidu (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. BTW I've got a grade on the university, and worked for many years as a researcher with radioisotopes

Well I will look forward to when the ASN give you a reply, it will be interesting. I think that you need to bear in mind that the cesium behaviour on land and in the sea will be very different. You wrote that you have been for years a radiochemical worker, I know that radiochemistry (I include all open source and environmental radioactivity work under the term radiochemistry) is a broad church which has many different areas; Did you have any involvement in radioecology or metal binding onto mineral surfaces ? I think the first big difference which I see is that sea water is very rich in potassium and sodium which may lower the Kd for Cs on "mud" compared with the value which would be seen for land soil. Also in the sea the liquid to solid ratio will be different from that seen in a typical farm in the Ukraine.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Enkidu: from the above exchange, it seemed clear to me that the challenged material should not be added to the article until such time as you obtain the definitive reply from the French scientific institute. Thus, I was surprised to see that you have added back the material, on the basis of the Mainichi News report, which I cannot accept as being a reliable source. By adding back that material yoz have (no doubt unwittingly) violated the three-revert rule, so I kindly ask you to remove the material until we know what the French scientists really said.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I was involved with research using auto-radiography and electron-microscopy.

I do not have any idea, how cesium would behave in seawater, on land it has been proven to be quite unpredictable how much cesium is gathered into rice, depending on the use of vertilizer, kind of soil, etc.

Cesium is just one isotope, there is radioactive Strontium too, it was just a mix, The iodine is gone now, due to it's small half-time. Whatever place, these isotopes will find there way into marine live, and the Japanese just like those fishes and more.

at the moment, TEPCO is capable to get rid of cesium when purifying water, but strontium that's another story. Recycling the cooling water will enrich the strontium content. And TEPCO would like to dump the "low-radioactive" water -- enriched with strontium-90 -- This has been halted for the time being. but how long? 1947enkidu (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. Dear colleagues, I think that we are getting off track here. Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources say. I do think that the French scientists are sufficiently reliable to be cited in Wikipedia, but the citation should reflect what they say, not some extrapolation of what they say. As you can see above, the French scientists say that more radiation was released than what Tepco said. This is reflected in the article. They also say "said the Pacific was polluted at an exceptional speed because the plant stands in a coastal area with strong currents, though it said the impact of the contamination on marine life in remote waters is likely to wane from autumn"; I would have no problem in including this statement in the article, although I don't see that it adds much. It is not disputed that Cesium will be around for a long time in quite some quantities, but, as said before, it is not the quantty of radioactive material that matters, but its concentration. The total amount of radioactivity present in the ground and the sea is huge, but it is very dispersed, so it is not dangerous (or at least no more dangerous than other stuff that is in the environment, such as cosmic rays, sunlight, etc.). Given the strong currents around Fukushima, the cesium got widely dispersed and so will stay around in the ocean for a long time at very low concentrations which are not particularly dangerous. If the Mainichi News article says that "the [French] institute warned that a significant degree of pollution would remain in waters off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture", then I would suspect that the news article misquoted the scientific reporrt. I took look forward to learning what the French scientists really said.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Separate thread. Endiku says that most people are afraid to eat fish caught off the coast of Fukushima, and this is no doubt true. But people are notoriously irrational when it comes to evaluating danger. For example, some of very same Western people who would never accept to eat fish caught off the coast of Fukushima are happy to pay money to travel to beaches where they can lie in the sun and have a greater exposure to cancer (of the skin) than the exposure to cancer that would arise from walking around most parts of Fukushima province or eating fish caught off the coast of Fukushima. The nuclear industry is no doubt paying the price of not having properly evaluated the way that most people actually evaluate risks, which is not the same way as specialists(engineers, statisticians, epidiomologists, etc.) evaluate risks. That would not bother me, except for the fact that, in my opinion, global warming is a greater risk than the negative consequences of nuclear power, and greater use of nuclear power would be, in my view, the best way to mitigate global warming.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It not only, that they ("the nuclear industry") did not not having properly evaluated the way that most people actually evaluate risks, but all those specialists they as a whole were not capable to determine the real risks involved. Actually the risk of accidents was thought to be so low, that it was practical "impossible". That's why there were no real exercises, how to evacuate, and how to control a reactor in distress. This is not a "safe" technique, and even the climital benefit is questiannable, taken in account the energy needed mining, extracting, enriching, and savely storing it for a longer time than humanity exists ... when it has become "nuclear waste" 1947enkidu (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you both please to move this separate discussion thread from this talk page, as it is not the place to discuss the benefits/dangers of nuclear power. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the source is indeed the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN): you may find the original report, in French, here. They are the official French government agency dealing with radiological protection, so they generally are on the safe side whenever they state their results. Google translating parts of their report from French to English may be your friend there.

It seems IRSN has modeled the 137Cs releases at sea, then estimated the total release through extrapolation. Below is a quick google-aided translation from two passages that seem relevant to your discussion (p. 6-7):

Extrapolating the best-fit curve beyond April 8 makes it possible to estimate the total amount of 137Cs released by the end of the main release time slot (March 26-April 8). The amount thus estimated through extrapolation is 22•10¹⁵Bq (22 million billion becquerels), with a 95% confidence interval 20.8•10¹⁵-23.1•10¹⁵ Bq. The main uncertainty for this calculation is the estimating of the mix depth; this uncertainty is estimated at about 50%. This revaluation of the release of cesium-137 at sea leads to a result about two times higher than that estimated by IRSN in July (see note from July 11), and 20 times greater than the estimate made ​​by TEPCO that was published in June.

IRSN could establish an empirical correlation law between the total amount of cesium-137 estimated for the period from March 26 to April 8, and the average concentrations of cesium 137 measured in sea water close to the damaged NPP by assuming that dilution processes are stable and homogeneous at this scale. By applying this correlation law to measurements made till July 18 (after which the number of measures is too low to get correct release estimates) IRSN could determine the total amount of cesium-137 released into seawater until mid-July. The resulting value is 27•10¹⁵ Bq. As expected, the bulk of the discharge occurred prior to April 8, since the estimated releases after this date represents only 18% of the total releases. It is the largest single-shot release of artificial radionuclides in the marine environment ever observed.

ConradMayhew (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, although I can't find an English translation for the October's IRSN report yet, here is an earlier report written in English: Impact on the marine environment of radioactive releases following the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daichi, 13 May 2011. ConradMayhew (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. Thank you for having supplied the link to the original French paper. I am fluent in French and will update the citation to reflect what the French report actually says. As I suspected, the Mainichi News didn't quite cite the report correctly.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody explain to what conclusions you have come. And what was misinterpreted by the newspaper ? the releases were a lot larger, than published by the Japanese authorities and TEPCO, and the sea around the coast of Fukushima is going to be contaminated for some time to come. what has changed now ? 1947enkidu (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't come to any conclusions. I changed the text to match what is said in the original French report, which is not quite the same as what your text (presumably based on the Mainichi News) said (in particular, the original report does not way that "the sea around the coast of Fukushima is going to be contaminated for some time to come"). You can easily compare the two versions to see the differences.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Split of land and sea ?

I would like to suggest that we should consider making a change, as the radioactivity from the accident has landed both on the land and has entered the sea then I think we should write the article in such a way that we separate the consideration of the two. This is becuase it is likely that the cesium and other radioisotopes will behave differently in the sea from the way they will behave on the land. What do the other authors think of this idea ?Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What you propose is no doubt sound from the scientific point of view, but you would have to find a source that proposes that approach and that lists the radioactivity in that way. Remember, Wikipedia editors are not supposed to perform original research, we can only reflect what has been published in reliable sources.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Explosions.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Explosions.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

anonymous: 217.229.17.171

What to think of the edits of this anonymous user ? It looks like the next sock-puppet ? and those tables ? what do they add ? 1947enkidu (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, sorry, it's the obviously same guy we've been struggling with on Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, see talk page for details. He obviously changed target, and I forgot to revert his edits... again! ConradMayhew (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I already undid one of his edits, but the rest should go too, how vigilant do we need to be ? Is this that German guy again, or a friend of his ? Who can tell, it looks almost quite the same 1947enkidu (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I just heard he was there before, but I wasn't contributing on WP:en at the time. You probably know more than I do. ConradMayhew (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous is busy again, now under another IP-address: 84.183.106.243 , won't this ever stop ? 1947enkidu (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. Very annoying. I have requested protection.--Gautier lebon (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

temperature edit

I have removed the following edit:

On 19 January the interior of the primary containment vessel of reactor 2 was inspected with an industrial endoscope. This device, 8.5 millimeters in diameter, is equipped with a 360 degrees-view camera and a thermometer to measure the temperature at this spot and the cooling-water inside, in an attempt to calibrate the existing temperature-measurements that could have an error-margin of 20 degrees. The device was brought in by a hole at 2.5 meter above the floor were the vessel is located. The whole procedure lasted 70 minutes, the result were to be published at the end of the day.

The justification for this edit is that "you need to see the real message: TEPCO does not know the PRECISE temperature inside the reactor vessel." unfortunately the citation is 404, and the current verbiage of the edit is overly technical and doesn't say they don't know the precise temperature, but rather that details are forthcoming "at the end of the day."Coffeepusher (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a project, never finished, in the mean time it is not forbidden to ADD something interesting to the subject, that's better than complaining and criticizing the efforts of others, in the mean time the outcome has been added too, a more permanent link might be added tomorrow, it all explains aboout the troubles TEPCO has, to get a grip on the situation. But besides this: all the best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

something interesting does not include the iameter of the endoscope, what type of camera was used and what the possible error margins are. this is an encyclopedia not a technical manual.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You can have it your way. but to my mind, technical data can be an important part of an encyclopedia, Diderot's encyclopedia stood full of it, besides the philosophical issues in it... 1947enkidu (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. I have to agree with Coffepusher on this one. The article is already long, and the information in question is not critical. One article cannot contain everything. Maybe there should be a separate article on "measurements within the damaged Fukushima reactor" or whatever.--Gautier lebon (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

NYT resource

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/business/global/independent-panel-to-start-inquiry-into-japans-nuclear-crisis.html?ref=todayspaper Panel Challenges Japan’s Account of Nuclear Disaster section B - page 3 by Hiroko Tabuchi 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.112.212.201 (talk)

Maybe in Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster#Investigations? 99.181.139.43 (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

sockpuppetry again

We have another sockpuppet on our hands, with the same table again, we need to have permanent protection against Uwe Boehm and maybe his anonymous "friends" 1947enkidu (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Major error in intro section

It's protected so I can't edit. It says that the tsunami broke the connection to the grid, thereby causing the reactors to overheat. It was not the loss of the grid that was the final trigger, but the loss of the backup generators, which was indeed caused by the tsunami. Can someone edit the section to reflect this? 146.139.144.220 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. I have corrected it.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

On top o this, there was another problem: the electric engines that should have pumped the cooling water could not work at all... because these engines were flooded too. Whenever these engines were activated, they would have burned... The plant had in batteries a supply for 8 hours pumping. Twice the amount of the batteries in the nuclear reactors of the United States of America. The batteries were useless too. And even when the the connection with the power-grid had been intact, those pumps could not be used at all. 1947enkidu (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that the intro needs further editing, or it is OK as it stands?--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To my mind, that should be done alright. Did you see the next article ? from the Mainichi Shimbun (24 February 2012) U.S. frustrated at lack of information from Japan after disaster ? That describes the poor reflexes of TEPCO and the Japanese government. On the same time the US was quite aware that those spent-fuel pools contained even much more radioactive material than the three reactors that were out of control. But the Japanese turned their attention first away from these boiling pools... It gives an indication of the first hectic days. Now TEPCO claims that those pools were not much damaged at all... 1947enkidu (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"unneeded references"

I undid the last two edits, without any explanation I cannot see the need or not-need of these edits, PLEASE COULD YOU EXPLAIN ? 1947enkidu (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you looked at the rendered article and not just the diffs, it would be obvious. All the references that User:老陳 removed aren't actually cited in the article text, so A) don't display their contents and B) do display large red "Cite error"s at the end of the reflist. Edits were correct and should be reinstated. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know what references are needed, I noticed that at least some of the references were from "New Scientist" and "Christain Science Moniter". Neither of these are primary sources and neither of them are to the best of my knowlege journals which have strict peer review or some other means of making sure that the standard of the science is high. I think we need to make sure that the article does not turn into a just a mass of links and references. PS I did not make the edits which 1947enkidu is making a reference to.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against removing references, but I do think, this should not be done without consulting... That's the reason why I undid the two edits. 1947enkidu (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to remove unused references that break the page without first starting a talk page topic.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I hold the view that none of us have exclusive ownership of wikipedia, if you look below the edit box there is a warning that If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. So when you post something then you should accept that someone is going to rewrite it, delete it or rip it up and start again. While to mindlessly delete content is clear vandalism, the removal of references which are no longer in use is not vandalism. If a person (who put in the references) or someone else who likes the references then they can always start the talk page thread to argue a case for putting the references back in. I would be interested to know if the references which 1947enkidu objectioned to the removal of were ones which were mainly from one point of view in the "nuclear debate". I know that on nuclear issues that feelings can run high, but wikipedia is not the place to have a debate as to the virtues and vices of nuclear power.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Inside my edit was already the answer, I would like to see an explanation, and a little reasoning, why those ref's are not needed at all, why they do not add information, or might be biased in some way. Whenever that was done and NOT ANONYMOUS, than I would have accepted it.

In the mean time there are a few people ANONYMOUSLY messing around with this and relating subjects, so we should take some care deleting. 1947enkidu (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at what I think are the edits you mean but I can not see what you mean by the reason, I think that it would be best if 1947enkidu states what he means by his reason for making the revert here as it will make it more easy for everyone to understand what is going on. 1947enkidu thinks that people are messing around with this article and some related things, do you think that this is just random messing around or do you think it is some POV editing which is going on.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

is this article seriously dated and in need or rewrite?

two things have occurred that make it worth considering rewriting this

1) The Japanese government has put out a interim review that actually states significant information was withheld or downplayed particularly in the first months of the accident.

2) Significant data has arisen from non-official sources. While Wikipedia has a dedication to NPOV and Sourced material, when credible sources indicate that many of the sources are effectively "Not Credible", then it becomes difficult to stay within the tenor of major media and magazine reports.

While the official casualty count is low, there is solid information that the Japanese government is supressing radiation related casualty figures. The Government maps of radiation discharge are off significantly from maps compiled by some japanese universities.

Perhaps a second article of (Controversial opinions) should be considered?

Patbahn (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the article would benefit from a careful overhaul. Much of it was written in the moment, and subsequent coverage has provided more balance and revealed issues which were not known at the time. I'm not so sure about the idea of splitting off "controversial opinions", as that would probably be a WP:POVFORK.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

'While the official casualty count is low, there is solid information that the Japanese government is supressing radiation related casualty figures. The Government maps of radiation discharge are off significantly from maps compiled by some japanese universities.' Could you provide a reference for these? I have not heard that university data has disagreed with published data but that if true would be extremely important. Regarding radiation related casualties the amount of radiation seems vastly lower than is required for any immediate affects, so a reference for that suggestion would be very helpful. Zwitt.the.twitt (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The link below includes ahigh res map of Prof hayakawa's maps from his analysis http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2011/06/22/radiation-dose-contour-map-revised-version/

while this was the official Japanese govt map.

http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/05/10/fukushima-radiation-map/

note the much smaller inland plume?

The Hayakawa map shows out to 100 KM high rad fallout which NRC had recommended initially.

Patbahn (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

more importantly the Japanese government was in the immediate aftermath of the incident only suggesting evacuation at the 10KM radius,

OK thats interesting but there does not seem to be much backing up this different radiation level map, and the levels do not seem to be very different. He admits that margins of error are undefined. Wheras the original 'official' maps were taken by gamma cameras / detectors from the air which is a pretty good was to measure overall average levels (spot readings are not as accurate). Personally I would not vote to replace the published data with this data unless there was considerably more proof that its more accurate, and since the difference in rad levels seem quite small, it does not seem that significant anyway. However an interesting point to monitor so thanks, I will study this. What about 'radiation related casualty figures' - any evidence for any radiation related injury at all in civilians? I am not aware of any myself.77.75.107.122 (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

bear in mind reporting anything outside the official line makes one a dissident in Japan. The official news reports delayed reporting the reactors were in meltdown for months when the reactors melted down in hours. Patbahn (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK but thats not evidence of suppression of radiation related casualty figures or of the maps being deliberately distorted IMO, would you not agree? Re radiation related casualties, you must be talking about acute effects which are only apparent at doses above several hundred mSv, but there does not seem to be enough radiation in the environment outside of the immediate area to deliver such doses. Would you reconsider your opinion in the light of this?

Nuclear explosion speculation

Re the paragraph

'Low-dose radiation researcher and anti-nuclear activist Christopher Busby speculated on Russia Today that the explosion that destroyed the Reactor 3 building was a "nuclear explosion" of some kind in the spent fuel pool.[243]'

Is a nuclear explosion possible in a reactor (or sfp) with <5% EU? Ive just been commenting in the chernobyl talk page on this but I might have seen the reference on the fukushima page rather than the chernobyl one. Anyway I can't see any references on the web to the possibility of thermal neutron atomic bombs. Heres some of my comment on the chernobyl page, relevant to this page too:

AFAI understood, whats known as a nuclear explosion is a product of fast neutrons - with the characteristic of having a very short period between generations of neutrons (around 10 ns). Thermal fission (even prompt critical / superprompt) on the other hand has a generation time of about 1 ms, about 100,000 times slower. The much slower generation time of thermal fission means that a critical mass can not be sustained in a practical (super) prompt core for long enough to release anywhere near the same amount of energy. IE its generally said that about 64 generations of neutrons are produced in a typical atomic bomb core, taking about 0.64 microseconds to be produced, and inertial confinement keeps the core small enough to be critical during this time frame.

If we tried to allow for 64 generations of thermal neutrons this would take 0.064 seconds, but since the energy produced in such a criticality is in the region of several kilotons of TNT at least, the core would disassemble (become sub critical, or 'blow apart') far before the 0.064 second mark - producing a practical limitation on the number of generations which can be sustained in a thermal superprompt criticality, and therefore a limit to the energy released, unless the core was somehow very superprompt (which in spent nuclear fuel is impossible because of the high background neutron rate). The limitation on energy is so significant that a thermal nuclear excursion is completely incomparable to a fast neutron reaction.

Since fast fission is impossible in fuel with an enrichment of less than about 5% and chernobyls (or fukushimas) fuel was well below this enrichment, it seems impossible that any fast fission occurred during the explosion (or at any other time).

Fundamentally this comes down to the question of can a thermal nuclear reaction be called a nuclear explosion, and if so, where is the line between a power excursion and a nuclear explosion? Prompt criticality does not seem to be sufficient to call a power excursion a nuclear explosion (see the SL1 accident where the reactor was said to be significantly super prompt but its described as a power excursion). There is no named condition which a thermal reactor can be in which is more critical than super prompt and unless someone can find a definition where fission reaction exceeds a certain amount of super prompt reactivity and transitions into a state which has a different name (IE an explosion), any degree of superpromptness is still just a super prompt thermal reaction, meaning it would be impossible to label chernobyl (or fukushima) as anything but a power excursion.

Hence even if Busbys comment needs to be left in, which I personally feel is not the case considering his history on nuclear matters, it should be sternly tempered with a simplified account of why it is not possible according to standard views of nuclear fission. Zwitt.the.twitt (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I hold the view that a nuclear detonation in either the spent fuel ponds or one of the Fukushima reactors was impossible.

This is becuase to cause a nuclear detonation the bomb creator must make sure that the following three things are true in their design.

1. The bomb must start subcritical then then become super prompt critical

2. The change from subcritical to super prompt critical must happen in a time shorter than the time between the random appearance of neutrons in the bomb's fuel.

3. A source of neutrons must be injected into the bomb's fuel at the right moment to make sure that the bomb starts up before the super prompt critical mass changes back to being subcritical

As the mass of used fuel is so large in a spent fuel pond, I suspect that the amount of Pu-240 will be very large. If we assume that the pond contains 80 tons of used fuel which is 1 % Pu then the pond will have 800 Kg of Pu present in it. If we assume that the Pu is 5 % Pu-240 (I suspect that the plutonium in a used power reactor fuel will have more than 10 % Pu-240 in it), then it is possible to calculate the activity of this plutonium isotope alone.

As this isotope has an half life of 6564 years (2,07144E+11 seconds) we can calculate the decay constant (lambda) to be 3,34621E-12 s-1. As we assume that the pond has 40 kilos of Pu-240, then it will have 167 moles of this isotope. As there are 6,022e23 atoms in a mole we have 1,00367E+26 atoms of this plutonium isotope in the pond. So the number of radioactive decays per second for this isotope will be 3,35848E+14 per second (336 TBq). The fission events create about 3 neutrons. Now as the spont fission branch ratio for this isotope is 5.7E-6, then we should expect 1914332084 fission events per second. On average that is one fission per 522 picoseconds.

As I think it is impossible that an event in the pond will be able to rearrange the fuel into a super prompt critical arrangement in less than one microsecond (let alone the sub nanosecond timescale) then I think a nuclear detonation in the pond is impossible. My calculation has grossly underestimated the Pu-240 content of the pond which I think could be 5 times higher, so I think a nuclear detonation in the pond is impossible. I also suspect that the quaility of the fuel will make it impossible to create a working bomb, but as it appear to be impossible to rearrange the fuel in time to make a detonation occur I think there is no need to consider the question of the pond turning into an atom bomb further.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OK going with your route I agree that that reactivity insertion speed is not possible without atomic explosive driven compression, which the fukushima reactors did not have, and if youre talking picosecond timescales even thermonuclear driven compression could never achieve, so on several fronts Busbuys claim is clearly impossible. Can we remove the reference to his theory about nuclear explosions from the page then, or even better add a comment to its impossibility demonstrating busbys incompetence to comment? Unless there is some uncertainty as to the possibility of a nuclear explosion in the fuel, which I dont believe there is, surely it should be removed. I also feel it would be worth putting a note on the wiki page dedicated to him to indicate that his theories are not supported by science and basically, in polite language, that hes crazy and should not be listened to. Overall it would be for the greater good since they guy is clearly either motivated to upsell the significance of this accident (and chernobyl) or hes just not knowledgeable enough to comment. In case others are not aware he was connected to a company selling calcium replacement salts for 'fukushima survivors' for some ridiculous amount, and also runs a lab which does testing on body fluids for radioactive contamination. Theres a clear conflict of interest and its obvious hes taking advantage - we should not be supporting him in any way IMO. Zwitt.the.twitt (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well my own view is is does not matter if you like or hate Chris Busby, I think that you should not use wikipedia to try to campaign either for or against him. I would say as a general rule those who edit wikipedia are not here to impose our morals on other people. If someone makes a statement which you think is silly then feel free to say it is silly, maybe even do a calculation to show that it is not true. Also if someone makes a statement which you think is good, feel free to praise it here (even do a calculation to confirm it if you can). Maybe someone makes a statement which you are unsure of, then feel free to calculate or otherwise compare it with reality.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Since Busby's claim of a possible nuclear explosion is outside the scientific mainstream, I think that having this claim in the article gives undue weight to Busby. That claim should be removed from this article, although it's still OK to have it in Busby's article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the comments suggesting that a nuclear explosion occured in the spent fuel pond should be altered. The section on the explosion should start with the explaination (hydrogen gas build up) which is supported by the observations of the state of the pond and by some simple calculations. Then as a note at the end of the paragraph it should be noted that it was speculated that a nuclear explosion had occured in the pond. I hold the view that a fission energy release was not responsible for the explosion. I would expect a lot of damage to fuel if such an nuclear event has occured. As the fuel was not badly damaged in the pond, I think that this idea can be ruled out.

While Zwitt the Twitt may not like Chris Busby and thinks that he is doing something wrong in relation to Fukushima/Japan, I think that wikipedia is not a court of law. No attempt should be made here to rule on the ethics of Chris Busby and his anticontamination pills or his radiometric work with food, if a ruling is needed regarding his morals/actions/words then it should occur in a proper court of law. However the editors of wikipedia are free to rule on the question of should comments from Chris Busby be retained in the article or expunged from the article.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to briefly discuss the hydrogen build up, assuming that it's properly source. To avoid original research, any calculations would need a reliable source that uses these calculations for the explosion at Fukushima Daiichi unit 3. A source that discusses general nuclear accidents in general, but not the unit 3 explosion, cannot be used per Wikipedia's policy on synthesis of sources.

As far as Busby is concerned, this is also a matter of Wikipedia policy. Unless his ideas on a nuclear explosion at unit 3 can be shown to represent at least a significant minority of experts, it a violation of WP:UNDUE to have his ideas in the article. WP:UNDUE is part of the NPOV policy, which is non-negotiable. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If it comes to find a source, how the hydrogen could built up outside the reactor-buildings after the pressure rose on to 125 pounds /square inch but before the vents were opened... just look at [23] here you find an explanation also about the experiments done some 40 years ago at the Brunswick Plant in North Carolina, there the containment began to leak after the pressure was raised to that pressure... because the lid on the containment was raised, after the bolts were stretched 1947enkidu (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That source deals only with Fukushima Daiichi unit 1. It would be a violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research to use that source to discuss unit 3. Also, since my previous posting, I have noticed that there already is a brief discussion of the hydrogen build-up, so I don't see that much need to elaborate on what's there. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In all three reactors the pressure went up to almost the same level, the design of all three on this lid on top of the containment was not that different for all of these reactors... what applies for unit one, could happen in the others too. Than the only source would be the pressure-tables of unit 2 and 3. That hypothesis would it not be proper to test it ? 1947enkidu (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The great problem is that on wikipedia we need to be careful to deal rightly with three things. There are facts which can be checked with relative ease, standard examinations of things based on well documented methods which are almost universally accepted [for example Activity = lambda . number of atoms . exp -(lambda . t) gives the activity at time t of a given number of atoms of an radionuclide] and then their is personal thought on a given subject. I know that the first (hard facts) are welcome here while the last will fall foul of the "No Original Work" rule here. The things in the middle are more difficult to judge, as the different reactor units were different designs of BWRs then I think it is unreasonable to assume that a xx psi event in unit 1 will have the same effect in another unit.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be quite difficult to find a nuclear reactor, that has a "twinsister" 100% alike. The key here how different were these three reactors as far as the lid on top of the containment ? If the three were closed with bolts, than the containments could behave quite similar. I've seen one drawing long time ago, are those other avaiable ? And where can we check ? 1947enkidu (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)$

1947enkidu, you can describe and test your personal hypotheses on your own talk page. For this discussion, such hypotheses are original research which do not belong in the article. It doesn't matter how similar the reactor pressure levels were or the reactor designs are. To quote the policy on original research, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No need for speculation, or to imply wrong doing at all, or A+B->C?? : just see: reactor-data Fukushima plant nr 1 All containments of no. 1-5 have the same design: MARK-I. Only no. 6 has a MARK-II-containment. (whatever the difference between MARK I & II) The source is just about this MARK-I. where the lid on the top of a MARK-I containment would be lifted when the pressure becomes high enough 1947enkidu (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

According to what you have written, you started with source A (by Gunderson) and then used info from source B (the Wikipedia article on the plant) to reach a conclusion C about reactor unit 3. In other words, A + B -> C. This conclusion C is not explicitly stated by either source, so it would be a clear violation of the original research policy to put this conclusion in the article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

2 things; Firstly, I believe the reference to Busbys 'nuclear explosion' claim has been removed so shall I or someone else delete the above paragraphs of discussion?

Secondly a reference to Gunderson's claim about a prompt criticality (I believe he actually states it was a a nuclear explosion too in his video) has appeared in the article under the heading 'Possibility of criticality in the spent fuel pool'. Gunderson is the only other supposed nuclear expert to make this claim together with Busby, and I would assume that the same principles apply to him too. Although the wiki article only says 'prompt criticality', I think we have established above that not only are there no other nuclear experts in the world making such a suggestion and hence the reference to Gunderson's claim seems to fall foul of the rule mentioned above (Unless his ideas on a prompt criticality at unit 3 can be shown to represent at least a significant minority of experts, it a violation of WP:UNDUE to have his ideas in the article) - but also on the principles discussed above, true prompt criticality itself is an impossible state to achieve with such a high neutron background in the material (spent fuel) in question since thermal effects driven by partially delayed critical fission will fight the compression of the fuel when prompt k is very close to 1, and will win without extremely forceful external compression (not achievable with chemical explosives as are all that was present to provide compression of fuel). If prompt critical was approached, voids in the coolant / moderator would form and reduce delayed + prompt k to 1. So prompt critical must be impossible.

Lastly in the same paragraph I think its confusing to say 'small but non-zero probability that the exposed fuel assemblies could reach criticality'. It seems to suggest that if exposed (IE uncovered by water) spent fuel could reach criticality but since this is the opposite of the actual case it might be better to write it as 'small but non-zero probability that the submerged fuel assemblies could reach criticality. If this happened, it could cause the cooling water to evaporate of boil off more quickly, leading to the fuel becoming uncovered, which would cause the fuel to become non critical but could lead to it igniting in the air.' Zwitt.the.twitt (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet another one at wikipedia fulminating at Gunderson... Up till now he was quite right from the very beginning. What do you like to believe the "fairewinds" that the Japanese Government and TEPCO do offer the world ?

Who is here a supposed "nuclear expert" ? the people discussing here, or Gunderson, that worked in this field for so long. The fact that he has changed his views, might not be liked by the nuclear industry and all the people that hope to earn money on this dangerous technique. But who's here graduated in this field ?

That number 4 reactor, has always been pictured through them as "safe" because the fuel was out of the reactor... in fact that fuel was in the spent fuel-pool, and spent fuel-pools do not have any "containment", although the containments of no 1-2-3 did not contain all, they contained somebit, and the fuel pool of no 4 was neglected the first days, until the American watchdog pulled the bell, because they realized, that when it went wrong in this pool the things could go wrong all the way.

The theory of TEPCO that the hydrogen of the explosion in building 4, came from reactor no 3 through the connecting pipes of the climate-system... has this story ever been proven ? TEPCO just wants us to believe that all is under control... BUT IS IT ?

greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Gunderson *should* know as well as us all but the fact is that what he is claiming is way out there as is apparent to anyone who has studied nuclear physics in any degree. Of course wiki should not either have a bias either way, since your view differs from mine we should have a mutually acceptable middle ground where no supposition is being published to unsuspecting readers. If the idea of a nuclear explosion / prompt criticality is not supported by a single other nuclear 'expert' (one who we can verify the credentials of) then should it be published? The official story is very logical and I believe that no official is yet saying 100% that they know exactly the events and causes which led to the explosions. However if nuclear fuel had melted (as a prompt criticality would absolutely have caused, looking at the precedents) and subsequently burnt (at least the zirconium cladding would have) then we would have a situation we have seen before, with nuclear fuel exposed on the site radiation levels are sky high and a cloud of uranium, plutonium etc at very high levels is detected at considerable distance (chernobyl).

I am new to editing wiki so I don't know protocol. All I am doing currently is discussing on talk pages. Where do we go from here? Zwitt.the.twitt (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

First: science is no democracy, and the "official version" ? the Japanese government and TEPCO did not reveal all, and might have lots of reasons for it. There are enough questions to be answered, and Gunderson was in lots of things quite alright from the start.

What might be possible in these spent fuel pools ? In these pools a lot of material is concentrated, and a hydrogen explosion could force bars together, concentrating the materials, could this not be the start of the unwanted fission? In the nr. 4 pool, all material is present, all the rods that should "burn" in the reactor too. And this is all outside any containment ? It was long ignored, but when this pool had collapsed the disaster would have been a lot worse.

TEPCO hopes, that they can start here to pull out the bars, but now TEPCO discovered, that they cannot see far enough into the pool, because the water has become clouded, and the visibility is only a few meters or less. the problems are far from over... 1947enkidu (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. As Enkidu says, science is not democracy. Nor is it speculation, as this section is aptly title. Science is found in refereed scientific journals, and I haven't seen many references to them to back up the speculation referred to here. So the answer to the question "where do we go from here" is, in my view, simple: we wait until reliable scientific reports say something about the issue. If they don't, then we don't say anything about this issue.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

POV paragraph for discussion

I have removed this POV paragraph about views of "proponents of nuclear power", as it only presents one side of the story and so unbalances the article:

Proponents of nuclear power argue that nuclear power has killed by far the fewest number of people per terawatt hour of any type of power generation, and it has a very small impact on the environment with effectively zero emissions of any kind. And this even taking into account the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, in which few people were killed directly and few excess cancers will be caused by radiation leaks. Some proponents acknowlege that most people will not accept this sort of statiscal argument nor will they believe reassuring statements from industry or government. Indeed, the industry itself has created fear of nuclear power by pointing out that radioactivity can be dangerous. Improved communication by industry might help to overcome current fears regarding nuclear power, but it will be a difficult task to change current perceptions in the general population.

With regard to "effectively zero emissions", only reactor operation is free of carbon dioxide emissions. All other stages of the nuclear fuel chain – mining, milling, transport, fuel fabrication, enrichment, reactor construction, decommissioning and waste management – use fossil fuels and hence emit carbon dioxide.

With regards to deaths from Chernobyl, our article on the Chernobyl disaster says: "Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers. A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties. A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout. A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl".

Moreover, as Stephanie Cooke says, it is not useful to make comparisons just in terms of number of deaths, as the way people live afterwards is also relevant, as in the case of Fukushima. And there are substantial environmental impacts:

You have people in Japan right now that are facing either not returning to their homes forever, or if they do return to their homes, living in a contaminated area for basically ever... It affects millions of people, it affects our land, it affects our atmosphere ... it's affecting future generations ... I don't think any of these great big massive plants that spew pollution into the air are good. But I don't think it's really helpful to make these comparisons just in terms of number of deaths.

In addition, accidents at nuclear power plants rank first in terms of their economic cost, accounting for 41 percent of all property damage associated with energy accidents. To take TMI as an example, cleanup started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, with a total cleanup cost of about $1 billion.

With regard to the proposition that "Improved communication by industry might help to overcome current fears regarding nuclear power", M.V. Ramana says that the basic problem is that there is "distrust of the social institutions that manage nuclear energy", and a 2001 survey by the European Commission found that "only 10.1 percent of Europeans trusted the nuclear industry". This public distrust is periodically reinforced by safety violations by nuclear companies, or through ineffectiveness or corruption on the part of nuclear regulatory authorities. Once lost, says Ramana, trust is extremely difficult to regain. Faced with public antipathy, the nuclear industry has "tried a variety of strategies to persuade the public to accept nuclear power", including the publication of numerous "fact sheets" that discuss issues of public concern. Ramana says that none of these strategies have been very successful.

So you can see that there is considerable debate about the pro-nuclear propositions so simplistically put forward in the opening paragraph. This debate is already presented in the nuclear power debate and other articles, so I have added a link to the nuclear power debate article. We should not try to open a can of worms here and repeat discussion which already appears elsewhere. Johnfos (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Johnfos, you are recycling many anti-nuclear talking points and heavily relying on a few biased sources.

All of your CO2-related sources are heavily affected either by the patently absurd and widely debunked Leeuwen and Smith analyses, or by Sovacool's severely biased "meta-analysis" where he included 3 different versions of Leeuwen and Smith in a mean of 19, then picked some favorable numbers for wind, solar etc. to make a brutally skewed "comparison". But even those numbers do not support his contention that renewables are "2-7 times more effective" (quote from another of his papers) at CO2 reduction than nuclear, which is due to a basic conceptual error. To compare the effectiveness in CO2 reduction, you need to compare the difference between the replaced source and the new source of generation, not their absolute emissions. It's like saying that hydrogen has twice the lifting force of helium. In reality it has only 8% more lifting force, because it's the difference of density between the gas and air that matters. Nuclear replaces mainly coal, while wind replaces mainly gas, so even by his own numbers nuclear is more twice as effective at CO2 reduction as wind.

For the 41% share of damages due to nuclear accidents, you again use Sovacool. He simply ignores a multitude of fossil fuel accidents. This post has several examples of severe fossil fuel related accidents which he omitted: [24].

Among the reports of death toll, the WHO / Chernobyl Forum report is the most authoritative. Yablokov's publication is simply a morbid fantasy and has no relation to reality, which is evident considering its reviews. TORCH is not credible either, as it was done by Ian Fairlie, who gave the only glowing review of Yablokov's fantasy novel. I am not familiar with the content of Greenpeace and UCS reports, but considering the distortions coming from these on other subjects related to nuclear power, I expect the content to be similarly worthless.

Now back to the point: are you arguing for removing the pro-nuclear side of the story for the sake of "balance"? --Tweenk (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick comment there. I won't debate with you regarding heavily-biased reports such as Yablokov. TORCH is not so bad actually (at least the first part, before they start computing collective dose estimated). On the other hand, the Chernobyl Forum report was biased as well (because local governments participated to its writing), and was thus less neutral than the WHO report that predated it. Furthermore, it is rather outdated nowadays (especially for rapidly growing figures such as childhood thyroid cancers). Thus, the Tchernobyl Forum report is a good starter guide for non-specialists, but the true reference now is the United Nations' UNSCEAR 2008, "Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident"[25]. ConradMayhew (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You make very valid points regarding why this paragraph is out of place in the Fukushima article. I have added the paragraph in question to the article on nuclear power debate, where it fits better than in the Fukushima article. I've also added some of the counter-arguments. Regarding your criticism of the data cited in the paragraph, it seems to me that that it not our business. The author of the article has made those claims, and it is our responsibility to report them. As you say, his data can be disputed, but so can the data showing a higher number of causalties. In particular the high numbers regarding Chernobyl casualties are contested by the "scientific establishment", for what that is worth.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What you've done at Nuclear power debate, adding arguments and counter-arguments per WP:NPOV, seems fine to me.

But with regard to some of your other comments, and this article in general, I think it is a mistake to keep focusing on number of accidental deaths to the exclusion of other economic, environmental, social and political impacts of nuclear accidents. The extensive disruption at Fukushima is a case in point:

As of September 2011, more than 100,000 Fukushima Prefecture residents are still subject to a range of evacuation measures, forcing them to live outside their home cities and towns. Some locations near the crippled nuclear power plant are estimated to be contaminated with accumulated radiation doses of more than 500 millisieverts a year, diminishing residents' hopes of returning home anytime soon. Even areas away from the nuclear plant are still suffering from a sharp decline in tourism and sluggish financial conditions. As of September 2011, nature reclaims the 20-kilometre evacuation zone, “Fukushima's $3.2 billion-a-year farm industry is being devastated, and tourists who hiked the prefecture's mountains and surfed off its beaches have all but vanished”.

Moreover, if I may widen the discussion, we need to be looking forward to what might happen in the future regarding nuclear power accidents:

An interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005 – 2055, at least four serious nuclear accidents would be expected in that period. To date, there have been five serious accidents (core damage) in the world since 1970 (one at Three Mile Island in 1979; one at Chernobyl in 1986; and three at Fukushima-Daiichi in 2011), corresponding to the beginning of the operation of generation II reactors. This leads to on average one serious accident happening every eight years worldwide.

My personal view is that if we have another nuclear disaster, or sabotage/terrorist attack at a nuclear plant, then it may well spell the end of the nuclear power industry as we know it. Johnfos (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

With Chinese coal as cheap as it currently is, Japan probably should build some huge coal-fired power plants until they can get their renewable energy systems to scale, then use the coal-fired plants as backups for the nature-dependent power producers like solar and wind. Anyway, I haven't seen a source yet which discusses what Japan should do now that it's nuclear power plants are almost all shut down. Cla68 (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That's simple: just turn them back on. —WWoods (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And build a little taller walls between them and the ocean. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that questions linger as to the extent of damage to the plant caused by the earthquake even before the tsunami hit. Any evidence of serious quake damage at the plant would cast new doubt on the safety of other reactors in quake-prone Japan. [26] Johnfos (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There was no earthquake damage. The disaster was entirely caused by flooding. --Tweenk (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. Jonfos: I agree with your suggestion that the casualties section could be expanded to include topics other than death and cancer. Indeed, the possible psychological consequences of the accident are already mentioned. So I would invite you to add the material regarding evacuation. I'm not so sure about the material regarding future accidents because (1) it might better fit in the article on nuclear power in general rather than here; (2) the projections were made in 2003, and there will surely be many fewer nuclear plants in 2055 than what the MIT study assumes; (3) I don't think that it is correct from a statiscal point of view to count the 4 Fukushima events separately: they are obviously highly correlated. Data simply do not support an inference of one severe nuclear accident every 8 years.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gautier. I wasn't really thinking so much of adding to the article at this time as just opening up the bigger picture a little for general discussion. (To be honest I find this article very long, unwieldy, and slow to load, which puts me off editing it.) Johnfos (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

May I add something to this discussion ? See : The Mainichi Daily News of 23 January 2012 : Gov't withheld estimates showing electricity surplus to boost nuclear power: critics

The power-supply was quite sufficient in all those months, and renewable energy was already available in substantial quantities... but the Japanese government withheld this information.

About the deaths this disaster might induce... These casualties will be in the future, when the people living there will eventually get their cancers, and their genetic defects. There's enough evidence that low dose radiation has those effects. see: the BIER VII report Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation It's a lot of reading, very scientific prose, but the study is done with the largest cohort ever available. Some explanation is to be found at the site of fairewinds.com [27]

young children and especially the girls might experience the effects somewhere in their lifetime.

greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Equally there is a new study trying to get to the bottom of the accuracy of the LNT at low dose rates which show that for the conditions studied the LNT considerably overestimates actual risk http://lowdose.energy.gov/pdf/2011/PNAS.pdf. A single study is not enough to kill the LNT at low dose rates yet but the paper is by highly esteemed researchers and institutions and is following up on real world data which sometimes (but not always) suggests a lower risk than the LNT predicts at low dose rates. The temporal element to the exposure is vital here btw. If the study is verified and its shown that the human cells which they used in the experiments are acting in the same way as other human cells (IE from other parts of the body) then this pretty much kills the LNT. It won't be long until this study is either confirmed or refuted. Strikes me that a balanced tone should be employed when writing about the possible future harm from these very low dose rates since its very possible that within a year or two we will be saying 'actually, these low dose rates are unlikely to have any effect'. This research should be mentioned when referring to harm from fukushima since its highly salient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwitt.the.twitt (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind the other authors of the need to avoid using wikipedia as a place to publish original research, also the Fukushima page is not the right place to discuss new ideas on the field of radiation biology. I would hold the view that if you want to discuss the virtues and vices of the LNT model then this is not the right place to do so.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a good diagram that could use labelling and insertion

Please help add captions and pop it right in, I expect there are editors who can do this faster than I can.

Penyulap ☏ 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Status summary

The status summary table hasn't been updated since last August. Does it serve any purpose, or should it just be removed wholesale? Jpatokal (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Adds little, and I think it should be totally removed. Johnfos (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm not seeing much mention of the cold shutdown in December in the article. Jpatokal (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The cold shutdown is disputed. A report in the Guardian has said: "The announcement by the Japanese government that the damaged reactors were in a state of "cold shutdown" was met with scepticism and anger from a concerned public – and with disbelief among nuclear experts". One year on, the situation is not under control. [28] -- Johnfos (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The containments were leaking, and those leaks are not yet fixed at all. The fuel melted, and escaped from the reactor vessels. Now it lies on the concrete floors. But where it is now, TEPCO does not know. When the fuel is concentrated on a few spots, the fuel in contact with the concrete could be rather hot, and the water can only cool from above. Hot fuel will damage the concrete, eating it slowly away. Because one thing is obvious: concrete will crack down when heated to munch. TEPCO is not able to come very close to those places, to investigate this all. Even temperature readings cannot be trusted at all times... In the mean time these reactors and spent-fuel pools are still emitting each hour a lot of becquerels into the air... Control is far away indeed. 1947enkidu (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The possible locations of the fuel are known - after all the original design predicted possible fuel location after a meltdown and the design of the reactors leaves little question, the only one being how much fuel leaked to the containment. However with respect to your point 'the water can only cool from above. Hot fuel will damage the concrete, eating it slowly away' is not really correct. Theres a proper official analysis from many years ago out there on the web which defines the thermal conductivity of corium as close to that of metal, and if you have a 2, 4, 6 inch (etc) slice of metal heated from within with a particular power density, cooled to 100 degrees from above, the temperature of the underside of the slice will not be much above 100 due to the slices conductivity. Concrete is OK up to a few hundred degrees so it will not be being 'eaten away' now. As for concrete cracking when its heated, I think youre talking about spalling, which at these temperatures is not a factor. Remember that all concrete is by definition cracked, its the reinforcement that holds the cracked pieces together. The cracks are too small for anything to penetrate unless there is pressure driving them. In these reactors theres a layer of metal which creates an environmental seal which is buried in the concrete which protects it from the heat. I think its fair to say the situation is not 100% under control for all foreseeable scenarios (another earthquake for instance) but at the moment the situation is mostly under control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwitt.the.twitt (talk • contribs) 17:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Although the cold shutdown was disputed by some experts, I still think it should be mentioned, as it was an important polical gesture. Offcially, from this point on, the nuclear crisis was over and had turned into a nuclear accident aftermath. This was obvious if you watched NHK World English: from one day to the next, they just stopped using the expression "nuclear crisis" (very comonly used before the cold shutdown announcement), and they stopped speaking about the "nuclear crisis minister" and started using a much more inocuous title or his ("minister of environment"). I could give you other examples. Basically, my point is: whether it is true or no from a technical standpoint, I believe that the cold shutdown announcement was a very important milestone from a political and PR standpoint. ConradMayhew (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed the Japanese government and TEPCO try to hold on that impression, that all is under control. But this is far from true. The containments are still leaking, emissions are not zero, the groundwater under the plant is heavily contaminated, and the flow into the ocean is not stopped, but more or less invisable. The pollution of the far neighbourhood is still there, and claiming that 20 milisievert per year is save for the whole population, young children and pregnant women included, is safe... Those spent fuel pools are not yet empty... 1947enkidu (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you how much of it is golden true and how much is blatant lie: my wild guess would be 50/50 (except for the "20mSv a year is safe" part which obviously was 100% BS). The point is: last time I used the sentence "nuclear crisis" on the French WP project, I was immediately told "you can no longer use this sentence, the crisis ended the day the reactors reached cold shutdown, that's official, and thus it's NPOV". So whether you believe it or not is beside the point: for most people, the nuclear crisis if officially over, and the Kantei's PR operation worked like a charm. ConradMayhew (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Most people just belief what the government tells... With every disaster or accident the first thing told is: "There was no risk for public health" or something alike... but even in Japan some people did start thinking for themselves. like the mayors who did not want to talk to two ministers.

The Ducth WP is even worse: there it almost looks like, that a few people try to minimize all negative "content" on nuclear power. I think most fora and blogs on nuclear power (at the internet and elsewhere) are controlled by people propagating this risky technique. Whenever someone takes another stand, than the first thing you would be told, that you have not enough "knowledge" about it...

I do read French, but I will never try to write it. I rather keep it with my French projects on August Michel Benoit Gaudichot (alias Michel Masson 1801-1883 a writer and journalist (L'ancien Figaro !) in the 19th century) and the big Diderot of the first big encyclopedia. 1947enkidu (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, congrats for reading French! I learned German, but I'm definitely crap at reading, writing and speaking it! Sorry mate!

I won't follow you into the topic of which WP project is more or less neutral. Other things to do, and ... let's say it's just... off-topic;-) ConradMayhew (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Have removed outdated reactor summary table per discussion above. Johnfos (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

some form of precognition

"Citing the Fukushima nuclear disaster, environmental activists at the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference urged bolder steps to tap renewable energy so the world doesn't have to choose between the dangers of nuclear power and the ravages of climate change." - Are we to assume then that the environmental activists were blessed with some form of precognition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.145.101 (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the atmosphere doesn't go on forever, it's more a closed system, like a garage, and if you start the car engine in a closed garage, like burning a gazillion tons of fossil carbon, it won't take a prophet to work out what will happen. 10 out of every 10 scientists now agree, seriously, just ask 'em. It's like when the weatherman says 'torrential downpours this afternoon' they could be wrong, but I'd leave the picnic for another day. Is the statement controversial ? Would you prefer a different wording ? Penyulap ☏ 21:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the fact that people in 2010 apparently cited a disaster that happened in 2011. VDZ (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the issue. The article was inaccurately stating what was in the source. I've fixed that. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

UNSCEAR and WHO reports

I don't have the wherewithal to get up to speed on editing this article, but here is a very interesting article on two new reports from UNSCEAR and WHO on the health effects of the Fukushima disaster. This is an exclusive scoop from Nature, and unfortunately behind a paywall, but it says the reports should be made public next week. Some quotes from the article:

The UNSCEAR committee’s analyses show that 167 workers at the plant received radiation doses that slightly raise their risk of developing cancer. The general public was largely protected by being promptly evacuated, although the WHO report does find that some civilians’ exposure exceeded the government’s guidelines. “If there’s a health risk, it’s with the highly exposed workers,” says Wolfgang Weiss, the chair of UNSCEAR. Even for these workers, future cancers may never be directly tied to the accident, owing to the small number of people involved and the high background rates of cancer in developed countries such as Japan...

Experts agree that there is unlikely to be a detectable rise in thyroid cancer or leukaemia, the two cancers most likely to result from the accident. “There may be some increase in cancer risk that may not be detectable statistically,” says Kiyohiko Mabuchi, who heads Chernobyl studies at the National Cancer Institute in Rockville, Maryland. In Chernobyl, where clean-up workers were exposed to much higher doses, 0.1% of the 110,000 workers surveyed have so far developed leukaemia, although not all of those cases resulted from the accident.

The risk to the roughly 140,000 civilians who had been living within a few tens of kilometres of the plant seems even lower. Because detailed radiation measurements were un­available at the time of the accident, the WHO estimated doses to the public, including radiation exposure from inhalation, ingestion and fallout. The agency concludes that most residents of Fukushima and neighbouring Japanese prefectures received a dose below 10 mSv. Residents of Namie town and Iitate village, two areas that were not evacuated until months after the accident, received 10–50 mSv. The government aims to keep public exposure from the accident below 20 mSv per year, but in the longer term it wants to decontaminate the region so that residents will receive no more than 1 mSv per year from the accident.

The WHO’s calculations are consistent with several health surveys conducted by Japanese scientists, which found civilian doses at or below the 1–15-mSv range, even among people living near the plant. One worrying exception is that infants in Namie town may have been exposed to enough iodine-131 to receive an estimated thyroid dose of 100–200 mSv, raising their risk of thyroid cancer. But data collected from 1,080 children in the region found that none had received a thyroid dose greater than 50 mSv. Chernobyl’s main cancer legacy in children was thyroid cancer.

--BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

TEPCO Estimates of released Radiation.

The media reporting on the TEPCO report of 24th May 2012 seem to be incorrect. Reuters states 900,000 Tbq's, and RT 760,000. RT even claimed there was 4 times as much cesium 137 released when the TEPCO report shows it was only `17. I've used the numbers from the actual TEPCO Press release of 538,100 TBq's not including noble gases. I'm waiting on replies to emails from Reuters and bloomberg on why their figures are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Validpoint (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Those figures are republished by JAIF, the Japanese board for Nuclear industry, should we think, they would accept a too high figure ?

besides this, the figure only mentions the Iodine and a part of the Cesium-releases, and does not mention all the radiopactive materials like Plutonium, Uranium, that were spread around the plant when the explosions occurred in the various reactors...

The total number of Terabecquerels are likely to be a lot more than this figure. 1947enkidu (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Then were is the source that CNN and RT are using? Something is odd here. Rmhermen (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't find where Validpoint's 538,100 is coming from. It looks like this is the relevant table and that it says Tepco estimates 1,020,000 and INES estimates 900,000. At least I think that is what it says. Rmhermen (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I used the 24th May 2012 english Press Release from Tepco. I referenced it in the wiki article. It lists the actual amounts of the different isotopes released into the atmosphere and ocean.

Thanks for the link to the Japanese Press release, it seems to be very different from the English one. Wish they put the same information in each. Shouldn't have to use google translate to get a full version of what they said if.

The 1,020,000 number is the atmospheric releases of noble gases (500,000), Iodine 131 (500,000), Caesium-134 (10,000) and Caesium-137 (10,000).

According to UNSCEAR (Table II Page 519) Chernobyl has equivalent figures of 6.5 million for noble gases, 1760 for Iodine-131 and 85,000 for Caesium-137. Therefore Fukushima Daichi has released 7.6% of Chernobyl's noble gases, 28.4% of the Iodine-131 and 16% of the Caesium-137. Fukushima has released 27.6% of Chernobyl's combined Iodine and Caesium releases.

The INES figure which is used in the articles but not explained at all as to what it is, comprises the sum of Iodine-131 and Caesium-137 released into the atmosphere. However the Caesium release is converted by a factor of 40 to make it an equivalent amount of Iodine-131. This used to work out what INES level a release should be rated.

The 900,000 INES figure in the Japanese Press release comprises of the 500,000 of Iodine-131 plus 40 times 10,0000 of Caesium-137. It states it should used to compare with other organisations estimates. Such as the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency's (NISA) April 13 2011 estimate of 370,000 TBq, which is also an INES converted number. The Nuclear Safety Commission on April 12 estimated 630,000 TBq using the same method of conversion. These figures were reported here.

In the table from the Japanese Press Release the INES figures fordifferent estimates are listed:

Organisation	Noble Gases	I-131	CS-134	Cs-137	Cs-137 X 40	INES total
TEPCO 24th May	500	500	10	10	400	900
Japan Atomic Energy Agency Nuclear Safety Commission (H23/4/12. H23/5/12)	NA	150	NA	13	520	670
Japan Atomic Energy Agency Nuclear Safety Commission (H23/8/22)	NA	150	NA	11	440	570
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (H24/3/6)	NA	120	NA	9	360	480
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (H24/3/6)	NA	130	NA	6.1	244	370
Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (H23/6/6)	NA	160	18	15	600	770
Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (H24/2/16)	NA	150	NA	8.2	328	480
IRSN (Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety, France)	2000	200	NA	NA	NA
Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident (H24/2/16)	6500	1800	NA	85	3,400	5,200

Not sure what the H24/2/16 figures mean could possibly be? Maybe date?

This method is also where the 5.2 million figure for Chernobyl comes from. 1.8 million Iodine-131 plus 40 times 85,000 Caesium-137. Therefore Fukushima has released 17.3% of Chernobyls INES converted amounts of Iodine-131 and Caesium-137. I assumed this was a typo of the 5.3 million figure from the UNSCEAR estimates of non noble gas releases.

So it seems the reported numbers are correct but not explained very well as to what they are. They aren't estimates for the total release of all material as reported. They are instead only the atmospheric release of Iodine-131 and iodine equivalent amount of Caesium-137. As these are the two most important elements in regards to safety and Caesium with it's half life is more dangerous than Iodine, it is used to give a better idea of the impact of the release on human health.

With the exception OF RT's figure of 360,000 for cesium and the assertion that it was 4 times chernobyl. That's flat out wrong and outrageous reporting that could increase uneccesary stress and anxiety.

Given the wide diversity in all the stimates so far I think it won;t be until the UNSCEAR estimates are released will we have an agreed estimate. Would be intersting to see what the preliminary draft Nature saw last week estimated.

I don't have time to edit the article atm (essays and exams to prepare for), so if anyone wants to have a go at putting this info into it (maybe make a proper table for the Japanese Press relase in English) and the Radiation released at Fukushima one you're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Validpoint (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The lede is still too long!

The lede is still too long! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.124.207 (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Radiation Releases

while the section talks aout how the japanese were underplaying various releases, should there be a section devoted to that?

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201206180048 "Even as thousands of residents pondered the implications of the nuclear disaster in Fukushima Prefecture last year, Japanese government officials took little notice of up-to-the-minute high radiation measurements provided by the U.S. Energy Department.

The Energy Department used its Aerial Measuring System (AMS) between March 17 and 19, 2011, and compiled a detailed map of radiation levels on the basis of 40 hours of flight time over Fukushima Prefecture.

The data was provided to Japanese government officials, but not released to the public. ,,,, The monitoring showed that communities in a northwestern direction from the plant, including Namie and Iitate, had radiation levels exceeding 125 microsieverts per hour over an area as wide as 30 kilometers.

Exposure to that level of radiation for eight hours would exceed what is deemed by the government to be safe over the course of a year.

According to Foreign Ministry officials, the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo twice provided data through e-mail messages. The radiation maps based on the results of the AMS were provided on March 18 and 20.

"

certainly the Japanese Govt and TEPCO at every step was underplaying this disaster, to the detriment of everyone.--Patbahn (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the specific design?

I tried to find out what design the reactors are. All I could find out was that they were BWR. Problem is: There are three basic types.

1: Totally externalcirculation (first generation).

2: Partial external circulation assisted by external circulation (25-40%) driving venturi jets, this normally allows selfcirculation so that you only have to replace waterboilof but still it has thick external water piping.

3: Internal pumps assisting circulation, selfcirculation enough after scram and no thick external piping.

I wonder: Have anyone information on exact design??

PS: The ilustration have the venturijets under the reactor core, I wonder if that is right, all designs I have seen (just a few) have had the jets high up, above the core but under the minimum water level. They also had all thick piping above minimum water level for safety and accesibility reasons. With all thick piping abowe minimum water level you only have to keep waterlevel above minimum to emergency cool the reactor and there are no big pipes to empty out water?

Seniorsag (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I n=know it is a MARK I design for the containment: but see: Containment building 1947enkidu (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Website for the the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission

http://naiic.go.jp/en/

Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not very ascessable website, most times it is down 14:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1947enkidu (talk • contribs) Not meant to be unsigned at all 1947enkidu (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess the reason the website is down is because of the high level of traffic. I really wish all the best to Japan during this hour of need and crisis. Also, I added more cites to the interpertaion of the report. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

you could read the article in The Mainichi Shimbun (06 July 2012) http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20120706p2g00m0dm030000c.html Diet-appointed panel says Fukushima accident was "man-made" disaster

1947enkidu (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Another newspaper is also quite cynical about the causes of this disaster: "Made in Japan", where people do not question autority, and just obey:

The Tokyo Times (06 July 2012) http://www.tokyotimes.com/2012/fukushima-crisis-caused-by-typical-japanese-obedience-panel-says/ Fukushima crisis caused by Japanese obedience, panel says

1947enkidu (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We should consider a global search and replace for the word "accident". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What about setting up a mirror of all those files, to be able to study them a little bit more relaxed ? It looks like the Japaneese have solved their server problems... 1947enkidu (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

casualty figures

"to a non-peer-reviewed "guesstimate"[30] of 1,000.[20]" why is this guesstimate reported at all? Direct death from radiation were zero, like future death between 0 and 100. It's a non-story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.166.222 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have been estimated to be between 100[24] and 1,000.[20]"

other sources are discussing radiation cancers at over a million http://enenews.com/nuclear-expert-forecasts-1000000-cancers-from-fukushima-in-japan-first-thyroid-then-lung-organ-brain-leukemia-video

while this is not the "Prestigious" newspapers of japan, the alternative media has been much closer to the truth.

Patbahn (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a huge number of variables. It may be a decade before the estimates become accurate. However it's not our job to decide which ones we like the best. Instead, we should report all significant estimates, including those by the government and by established experts. However we should not report self-published estimates by self-declared experts. I'm afraid that he linked article appears to be self-published. Warren Pollock does not seem to qualify as an expert, by Wikipedia's definition, but Arnie Gundersen does. Overall, it's a weak source. However, since it's a remarkable claim on an important topic I expect that it will be repeated in reliable sources if it's significant. I think we should wait for that.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

we also have to be careful not to add information about future events on Wikipedia. While statements made by experts published in reliable sources is a gray area for this principle, I would prefer to error to not adding it to the article unless a specific claim itself becomes significant within the discourse. Stating that there are future cancer deaths expected with a standard deviation of WAY OVER ANY RESPECTABLE STANDARD existing between the various estimates seems like it would detract from the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Arnie Gundersen claims that a nuclear explosion occurred in the SPF but there is no reference anywhere on the web that a nuclear explosion is possible in fuel with an enrichment content of <5%. My own understanding, although not admissible, is that a nuclear explosion is not possible in 3% reactor fuel.

http://jol.liljenzin.se/KAPITEL/CH19NY3.PDF page 552 states that 'A nuclear explosion in a reactor is impossible because of a long Tper' - (time period - boiling down to neutron speed).

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pBG1k9YluvoC&pg=PA422&lpg=PA422&dq=nuclear+explosion+possible+with+thermal+neutrons+ms&source=bl&ots=LcpZuQmqVc&sig=QoAR6xekNn1WZ2aRqIwsyv9CdwM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ld4qT76VL4aVOpTLtZcO&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=nuclear%20explosion%20possible%20with%20thermal%20neutrons%20ms&f=false states that 'power reactors that operate with a slow or thermal neutron spectrum can not undergo a nuclear explosion even if the worse accident is imagined'.

Heisenbergs quote from a different wiki page: "One can never make an explosive with slow (thermal) neutrons (IE in uranium with an enrichment of <5%), not even with the heavy water machine, as then the neutrons only go with thermal speed, with the result that the reaction is so slow that the thing explodes sooner, before the reaction is complete."

In 3% fuel self sustaining fission can only occur with moderated, slow neutrons, because the U238 will capture most of the fast neutrons without fissioning (fast fission in U238 only becomes significant at higher neutron energies than U238 emits when it fissions, so a chain reaction is never achieved). No matter how large a piece of 3% enriched uranium you have, even an infinite sized piece will not be critical because of this. Only when you slow the neutrons with a moderator can you achieve criticality in 3% fuel. However by moderating the neutrons the time between generations becomes too long for inertial confinement to keep a core together for if a significant yield is to be achieved.

Further, moderators lose their moderating properties at high temperature so a moderated 3% U core can not achieve a significant yield either since the moderator will become ineffective well before the core reaches a temperature typical in a nuclear explosion, shutting down the chain reaction prematurely.

Thirdly with spent or partly spent nuclear fuel it would be impossible to achieve a significant degree of superpromptness, a prerequisite to a nuclear explosion, since with this fuel the neutron background is so high. Even with high explosive driven implosion, as soon as prompt criticality was achieved (actually slightly before) the core would start to produce just enough energy to oppose the further compression of itself. Once the shockwave from the implosion passed it would disassemble to well below prompt critical because of inertial effects.

Surely a nuclear expert must know the basic question of whether a nuclear explosion is possible in low enriched uranium, and if the answer to that is no, does this not demonstrate that Arnie Gundersen is not a nuclear expert? I think that his references to casualties or any other facts on this page should have a disclaimer that his information has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Zwitt.the.twitt (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

while you may feel very proud of your analysis, you are incorrect. Gunderson refers to the events at Unit 3 as most probably a "Prompt Critical event", which is more like a nuclear squib then a nuclear bomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_critical#Nuclear_reactors

"Nuclear reactors can be susceptible to prompt-criticality accidents if a large increase in k-effective (or reactivity) occurs, e.g., following failure of their control and safety systems. The rapid uncontrollable increase in reactor power in prompt-critical conditions is likely to irreparably damage the reactor and in extreme cases, may breach the containment of the reactor. Nuclear reactors' safety systems are designed to prevent prompt criticality and, for defence in depth, reactor structures also provide multiple layers of containment as a precaution against any accidental releases of radioactive fission products. With the exception of research and experimental reactors, only a small number of reactor accidents are thought to have achieved prompt criticality, for example Chernobyl #4, the U.S. Army's SL-1, and Soviet submarine K-431. In all these examples the uncontrolled surge in power was sufficient to cause an explosion that destroyed each reactor and released radioactive fission products into the atmosphere"

Oh look, look It's something called wikipedia referring to Prompt Critical. Now, you may confuse a prompt critical with a nuclear explosion but it's a standard problem in fuels production, recycling, and reactor operations. Now there is some debate wether Unit 3 blew up from a hydrogen explosion, a steam explosion or a P-C incident. I'm in the P-C camp. After 9 impossible things happened that morning, what's one more? Patbahn (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes prompt criticality is a problem in low neutron background fuel but not in used fuel because of the high neutron background. The reason is that as a core is brought over delayed critical and towards prompt critical the fission rate will increase by a large degree - at the point where the fuel is a few fractions away from prompt k=1 the real fission rate will be very high, assuming mechanical assembly (IE assuming you are not using a very rapid assembly method like a nuclear device to create megabar pressures to assemble the critical mass). The reason that prompt criticality can be achieved in clean (low neutron background) fuel is that there is a good chance that no neutron will spontaneously be emitted and start the chain reaction as the mass being assembled (brought from sub delayed critical through delayed critical to prompt critical) IS being assembled. Mechanical assembly of a core where the spontaneous neutron rate is as high as in SNF will bring the core significantly more reactive than delayed k=1 true, but when this is achieved the rate of reaction will rapidly increase. At this point Doppler broadening, thermal expansion, moderator void formation etc will all fight the insertion of any more reactivity much more strongly than non nuclear assembly on its own can insert reactivity (compress the core further). Hence prompt criticality can never be achieved. Even with a nuclear trigger to compress a critical mass, prompt criticality is difficult if not impossible to achieve because the rate of energy increase once (fast) prompt criticality is achieved is far too high (doubling of energy every 10 ns). Just doppler broadening on its own will limit criticality status to sub prompt critical.

That said my point is mainly a technical one, since fuel brought to this degree of super delayed promptness will still create a significant amount of energy before it disassembles. The energy will easily be enough under certain circumstances to melt and vaporise fuel even without prompt criticality. Melting / vaporising nuclear fuel will cause it to be at the very least strewn around the area, as was seen at chernobyl, and would cause background rates of radiation in the area in the hundreds of sieverts order, as was seen at chernobyl. Since at fukushima around the SFPs we only see tens or hundreds of milisieverts, it seems unlikely that a significant quantity of fuel is in the area.

further a mechanism which could assemble a prompt critical mass with fuel which is dispersed underwater is difficult to conceive of. Remember that neutron generation times in thermal fission are of the order of 1 ms, and that with such a high neutron background as is present in SNF there would be many many initiation neutrons, we would only be looking at a few generations of neutrons (and hence a few ms) to create a very large amount of energy acting to disassemble the mass. How could fuel be assembled into such a critical mass while underwater, which would essentially be solid at the velocities implied? How exactly does Arnie think that a mass of thousands of tons of water can be moved significantly in a few miliseconds, and how does the fuel move relative to the water while there are these enormous hydrostatic forces acting on it? To actually compress water requires megabars of pressure as is found in the atomic bomb but thats created by a very carefully designed system of the highest chemical explosives that we have and uses various tricks to overcome the Rayleigh Taylor instabilities inherent in such a compression. I don't think theres any debate any more, but if you can find any credible debate then bring it here. Without that my original point which I have been saying for months seems to stand to me - Arnie is using this for his own purposes and this nuclear explosion / prompt criticality thing is either a facet of that or a sign that hes lost his marbles. 77.75.107.122 (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your problem isn't with arnie, it's with Wikipedia. I'll note Wikipedia reports the SL-1 and Chernobyl reactors as having gone prompt critical.Patbahn (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

SL1 went prompt critical because it was a lump of weapons grade U configured as a power reactor with control rods which were then removed very rapidly. There is little comparison to a civilian spent fuel pond, in which criticality is specifically avoided for obvious reasons by making sure that accidental movements of the fuel does not cause criticality. You cant have a situation in a SFP where dropping a fuel assembly into the pool onto other fuel creates a criticality, let alone a prompt one. Its all to do with the amount of reactivity available and in SL1 there was plenty of reactivity available due to the highly enriched nature of the fuel and hence the extremely compact configuration of the reactor. SL-1 used 93% (bomb grade) uranium, compared to Fukushimas 3% iirc fuel. As for chernobyl, 3 different effects combined to allow such a great rate of reactivity insertion that prompt criticality was, it is thought, achieved, but this was not purely by mechanical means. 2 non mechanical methods (xenon pit burnup + void formation in a positive void reactor moderated with graphite) combined with a mechanical method (scramming with graphite tipped rods) to create such a insertion, which can be described as 'compound' by the fact that burnup of the xenon poison was accelerated by the reaction which was being driven by the burnup of the xenon. Once again this bears no comparison to a SFP where theres no graphite moderator (hence theres a negative void coefficient), the fuel is several weeks at least old, and hence well out of its xenon pit - and as such, its configuration needs to be well away from delayed critical even when not poisoned by xenon, plus theres no mechanism for compound reactivity insertion critical to the chernobyl excursion. I believe the misunderstanding here is youre not comparing like with like. Try to find a prompt criticality with 3% enriched fuel in anything other than a poisoned reactor - you wont be able to. Zwitt.the.twitt (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We may have to wait for a study of fast neutron flux isotopic artifacts produced during the meltdown to settle this prompt criticality question. Meanwhile perhaps we could agree that a ‘nuclear-mediated’ reaction produced “a lot of heat in a short period of time” rather than evoking a “nuclear explosion” involving a high yield supercritical fission event.

Again invoking Wikipedia’s SL-1 article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1) for linguistic guidance:

“The accident also showed that in a genuine, extreme accident both the melting of the core and the water to steam conversion would shut down the nuclear reaction. This demonstrates in a real accident one aspect of inherent safety of the water-moderated design against the possibility of a nuclear explosion.” Delphwhite (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe we do. No one in the industry apart from Arnie, whos not even in the industry now and who is clearly trying to make political collateral from this event, has suggested even the possibility of a prompt critical event in the SFP. As such I believe there is simply not enough evidence to give him the soap box to make his claim. There seems to be no question, not even a mention of the possibility, in the wider scientific arena of this claim. If wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, surely content should be verifiable by, for instance, peer agreement? Where are the peers agreeing with Arnies POV? Zwitt.the.twitt (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that attempts to make predictions of the cancer death toll of the accident are very hard to make. I think that wikipedia editors should stay away from writing about future events in general, also it is important to see the logic and calculations behind any estimate of cancer deaths. I hold the view that if any person makes an estimate and fails to disclose the assumptions, logic and calculations behind the estimate then the estimate should be ignored.

An important part of the basis of the wikipedia NOV policy is verifiability, I think that to keep in accordance with the policy that no attempts should be made to add the suggestion that the used fuel pond explosion was caused by a nuclear reaction inside the pond unless it is shown to have happened by an examination of the materials from around the spent fuel pond. It is a simple examination to do, the way I would do it would be to take a steel sample and subject it first to gamma counting and then I would dissolve it up and do liquid scintillation counting to allow me to look for Ni-63 and Fe-55. I think that after the long decay time it would be hard to see Fe-59 by gamma counting but it might be possible (depending on the purity of the steel and the grade used) to see Co-60 in it if an vigerous nuclear reaction had occured in the pond. Only when it has been possible to make a good estimate of the neutron dose which the materials near the pond had back in march 2011 can it be possible to prove a nuclear event occured, I think that until then no attempt should be made to include it in wikipedia.Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

tokyo times, has anyone read the article of KENICHI OHMAE published at Wednesday, April 18, 2012?

I wonder if anybody active here at this wiki has read this article:

Fukushima: Probability theory is unsafe

I need some time to be able to comprehend all "news" in it.

But it gives away a lot of things to rewrite the whole summery of the wiki.

best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is just one person's (albeit a highly qualified person) analysis of the events, so I don't think that we can rely on it for the summary. As far as I can tell, he does not put forth any new facts, he just analyses facts that have been put forth earlier. His analysis seems reasonable to me but, again, at this stage it is just one person's view, so I think that we should wait and see if others say the same things, in which case we should incorporate this material. But it probably fits better at nuclear power debate.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

For the moment this holds some observations that are new for me. And a few facts are in the open, that the Japaneese autorities would not like at all,

In the mean time there are a few extra observations: for instance, that the molten fuel has gone further than the containment, TEPCO has been unable to fix any leakes in the containments, they cannot even find them...

At the floor above reactor 2, a 10 sievert/hour was measured, how would TEPCO add a new thermometer into that reactorvessel ? As they promised to do when the last (?) thermometer broke down...

1947enkidu (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Error in File:Power Grid of Japan.svg

In the image of the 50Hz/60Hz power grid in the section "After the tsunami", the ledgend shows the green area as "Chubu" and the light blue area as "Kanto".

These need to be swapped: the green area is the Kanto region, and the light blue area is the Chubu region.

See any description of the regions of Japan for confirmation, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_Japan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.81.120 (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgot Canada

" Increased anti-nuclear sentiment has been evident in India, Italy, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States." they should add Canada - Thomas Lavoie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.18.170 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)