Wikipedia

Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident/Archive 12

< Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Epiphyllumlover in topic Price of PV modules
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 40 external links on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of radiation levels with Chernobyl

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

We have a fair bit of comparison of total activity released and area contaminated compared with Chernobyl. Have there been any sources that have compared peak radiation levels inside of the primary containment to analogous areas in Chernobyl? Radiation levels of ~650 Sv/hr have been detected, probably more or less on top of the corium puddle under the RPV. There have been some recent edits comparing peak readings of 300 Sv/hr at Chernobyl 4, but as near as I can tell those were taken from the roof ~25m above the remains of the pressure vessel. VQuakr (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to prove my point established on my talk page that comparing A to B is not original synthesis as VQuakr says it is, heres a little logic exercise.
Read this title. Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents Note the word comparison.
On that page now scroll down to 'Maximum level of radiation detected' box. Read values.
Note the comparison between these two disasters. A to B. Note there is no conclusion made like this. A + B = C. In original synthesis C is a conclusion from A + B that is not mentioned by either of the sources.
Why this point? Here is VQuakr's edit note justifying removal of a comparison ' (→‎top: rmv unsourced WP:SYNTH violation; take to talk page.) Here is the text removed by VQuakr for being in his words a 'WP:SYNTH violation'.
By comparison the Chernobyl disaster vented 300 sieverts per hour at its peak.

This is not a good standard of editing behaviour. See my talk page for full discussion. I think we may need an admin to get past this. SaintAviator lets talk 22:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Comparison to other articles is a poor way to assess policy compliance, for the general reasons outlined at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Since this is the parent article, it makes more sense to me to discuss the question here, on the more heavily trafficked talk page. Comparison of radiation levels is fundamentally different than comparisons of years in operation, number of people evacuated, etc. The latter examples are quantitative numbers or assessments, while radiation readings vary significantly by location. It is also worth noting that that comparison article does cite this (paywalled) source that performs the analysis for comparison of activity released. The equivalent location to the Fukushima 2 readings (below the RPV, inside containment) never existed at Chernobyl and the analogous location (more or less on top of the corium pool) is inaccessible, buried beneath thousands of tonnes of improvised containment dumped in prior to construction of the sarcophagus. That's just a long way of saying that comparison of radiation readings is a non-trivial assessment, and to juxtapose the two readings we need a reliable source that has done the analysis.
This has been on the talk page for less than a day; I think a call for administrative intervention is premature. WP:3O seems like a good option if no one chimes in after a week or so. VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Your silence on synth validates my point. BTW Heres the other thing, radiation continues to be released into the Pacific via groundwater. No one know how much or where its from, exactly. There is no sea at Chernobyl that radiation has leaked into. No comparison. So Fukushimas problems are ongoing. None of this implies confidence. Chernobyl vented huge amounts of radiation, but they sealed it. Fukushima is also still vulnerable to another earthquake. SaintAviator lets talk 07:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The entire first paragraph of my previous post provided more detail on my concerns regarding WP:SYNTH. Nothing after your first sentence appears germane to the topic of this thread. VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I knew you would take the path of 'off topic', as a way to escape the heat directed to you due to your posts on my talk page ( and carried on here.) especially where you think A compared to B = Synth. It does not. The above is not off topic course. Its all related. Can you tell me how much radiation has leaked into the ocean? I may be wrong but you seem to have the view Fukushima is all safe and sealed like Chernobyl. But its not. [1] [2] SaintAviator lets talk 23:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
As already noted, it depends what "A and B" are being compared. I have already explained why comparison of radiation intensities must be performed by a reliable source. The oceanic and other environmental contamination has been characterized and quantified by numerous reliable sources (and is summarized in the article), but I am still unclear as to why you believe that to be relevant. VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A Broader Background view

Looks like another logic lesson is required. Fukushima is still leaking radioactive contamination into the Pacific.

Elevated levels found off the coast of Japan show that the situation is not yet under control, and that the facility is still leaking radiation. [3]

This is a problem. Ongoing radiation contamination after about six years is a key feature of this disaster and is unlike Chernobyl in this respect. Its very note worthy. Its NOT in the Lede. So this key feature after all this time is not in the Lede. Was this your doing? I ask because when I put in the 650 s/v figures you made up all sorts of confused reasons to revert it from the Lede.

Then theres this. As Japan prepares to mark the fifth anniversary of the 2011 tsunami and nuclear disaster, the problems at stricken power plant are far from over, with contaminated water problems unlikely to be fixed before 2020

Its another key point that should be in the Lede. [4]

The article is not up to speed and is not highlighting all the important things in the Lede. I could be wrong but you seem trapped in a viewpoint. Ive seen this before on Wikipedia. Its usually solved by Rfc, lots of chatter and time later. Sometimes the party in your position attempts to get the edge by starting the Rfc themselves worded badly of course. That just delays things. So I have to ask: Why are you gatekeeping this article? SaintAviator lets talk 21:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What does anything in your previous post have to do with the topic of this thread, Comparison of radiation levels with Chernobyl? VQuakr (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
A lot. I subtitled the above background section to assist you to comprehend the coming inclusion of comparison data. SaintAviator lets talk 21:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I still don't see the connection between the two, but the currently chronologically-organized "contamination" section certainly could do with updating and possibly reorganization. We should also establish a clearer parent-child relationship with Fukushima disaster cleanup, which itself badly needs cleanup as well as updating. The lede summarizes the body so changes to the lede should be after (or concurrent) with updates to the body. VQuakr (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes body then Lede. SaintAviator lets talk 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tokyo related

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Anyone know if it's safe to travel to Tokyo? Gooballsam (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gooballsam: Hi, while this is a talk page about the Fukushima article, it isn't designed for general chat or questions such as yours. The talk pages for articles are for talking about what to put in the article. Wikipedia isn't a forum for general chat, though you can chat to other editors on their User Talk pages - feel free to talk further about Wikipedia on mine here. BW |→ Spaully ~talk~  14:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gooballsam: for general questions such as this you also can go to the reference desk. VQuakr (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The title should be renamed to Fukushima Daiichi disaster

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is not a nuclear disaster, it's natural disaster that destroyed among many other things a nuclear powerplant. The disaster wasn't caused by a nuclear reactor or nuclear power in any way. --Dqeswn (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Gonna have to disagree with ya there. Attribution is generally assigned to the context, which isn't necessarily the cause. For example, the Delta flight 191 accident in 1985 is considered an airline disaster, yet it was caused by wind shear, which is a weather event. Additionally, there were deficiencies in the design, construction, and (especially) operation of the power station which played vital roles in the events. Rob (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the references in the article the accident commission decided it was, overall, a man made disaster because it was both reasonably foreseeable and preventable.GliderMaven (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Figure of 1,600 Indirect Deaths

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

However, an estimated 1,600 deaths are believed to have occurred due to the resultant evacuation.

This is demonstrably false. That description makes the claim that all of the deaths were a result of the nuclear disaster. However, the actual collected data covers the total body of people in Japan who were displaced at the time. The majority of whom were displaced by the earthquake and/or tsunami. Rob (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of how many people were evacuated in total in Japan, or even how many were evacuated in Fukushima. It's a question of how many people were evacuated due specifically to Fukushima Daiichi. This is a matter of public record it's 154,000, and secondarily, how many excess deaths there were in this group.
Presumably things like evacuating hospitals and moving old and infirm people safely is not easy to do perfectly. GliderMaven (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood my comment. The cited figure of 1,600 deaths is not includes all evacuees in the Fukushima Prefecture. That includes people who were evacuated due to the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, but also those evacuated due to the earthquake and tsunami. Rob (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is very contrary to yours. Even the pro-nuclear World Nuclear Association claims 'over a thousand' deaths are due to the on evacuations due to the nuclear fallout of 'over a hundred thousand' people (our Wiki article gives 154,000 evacuations due to nuclear fallout); compared to the 470,000 evacuated due to the tsunami. GliderMaven (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Cool, I'll update the article to use that source. Rob (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

While it's perfectly proper for me to mention them on the talk page as an attempt to help look for the true number, no, because they 'conveniently' rounded down, rather than to the nearest number, and because they're not, technically, a reliable source anyway. GliderMaven (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm becoming convinced that you lack the neutrality to contribute to this article. Denying the context of a piece of data is one thing, but you're now claiming that an authority on nuclear energy isn't a reliable source. Rob (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Your ignorant personal attack not withstanding, in Wikipedia the views of an association is not a reliable source unless it has been through an editorial process, per WP:RELIABLE. A website like this is not generally considered reliable, unless there is evidence of that happening. GliderMaven (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There's no point to using thread when it's only two people engaged in a linear discussion, so I've removed the indentations.
I don't see any indication that industry trade publications aren't generally considered reliable as long as they're acting as a secondary source, which is exactly what the World Nuclear Association article is. But this is all beside the point.
The presentation of the cited number is verifiably incorrect and unsupported by the cited sources. The first four paragraphs of the cited NBC article:

More people have now died because of the Fukushima evacuation process than were killed in the region by the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami which caused the displacement, a survey said.

Some 300,000 people evacuated their homes in the prefecture after the disaster caused multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, according to Red Cross figures.

A survey by popular Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun said Monday that deaths relating to this displacement – around 1,600 – have surpassed the number killed in the region in the original disaster.

Close to 16,000 people were killed across Japan as a direct result of the earthquake and tsunami in 2011. According to the Mainichi report, 1,599 of these deaths were in the Fukushima Prefecture.

It names the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns as the reasons for evacuations, then compares the number of deaths resulting from the evacuations to the number of deaths due to the original disaster. The following paragraph specifically names the earthquake and tsunami as the cause of the figure with which the subsequent deaths figure was being compared. This is further reinforced by, which would make the statement nonsensical if the other disasters weren't also included.
Additional sources further disprove the language used in the article. One example is a Japan Today article published 5 months later which cites a similar figure of 1,656 deaths while specifically noting that it includes evacuees due to the meltdowns, tsunami, and earthquake. The article also compares that figure to those from other prefectures in the region in order to provide some idea of how the nuclear disaster may have contributed to the higher number of deaths.
At this point there has been over a week for the edit to be defended. As no logical defense has been made, I'm removing the sentence from the main article. If a figure which excludes earthquake and tsunami evacuees can be found, I encourage it to be included. It may be possible to properly present the 1,600 deaths figure elsewhere in the article, though doing so would require sources which present the data more clearly.
Rob (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Despite the reasoning being clearly outlined above, my edit was revered by GliderMaven. To avoid an edit war, I'm initiating the process of requesting a 3rd opinion. Rob (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Rob; there seems to be a concerted effort to maintain false and misleading information in this article. The source, as I've already pointed out, and attempted to make clear in edits, is incorrectly cited, and deliberately misleading. I actually think that this article should be semi-protected, because at this stage, it seems that any attempt to edit even this utterly ridiculous lie results in edit warring from people unwilling to discuss the issue in good faith.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Tyler Yates (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

After reading through this, I find that GliderMaven is correct here. The articles posted support his/her evidence, and I think we are done. If you wish to counter Rob, find an offical news source that has a counter point to this current argument.

I feel that I outlined the my position quite logically, demonstrating specifically how the articles don't support his position. Further, I've already provided an additional source which supports my position. To sum up: The Wikipedia article states that 1,600 people have died while displaced due to the meltdowns. All of the cited sources, however, state that the 1,600 figure represents people were evacuated due to the meltdowns as well as the earthquake and tsunami. These are vastly different figures, which at least one source demonstrates by comparing the figure from Fukushima with the equivalent number from other prefectures. Notably, none of which had any evacuations due to the meltdowns. I urge you to review my statements and reconsider. Rob (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly how would you compare different prefectures of different sizes? Fukushima has unusually high rates of evacuation due to the meltdown. Also, the numerous sources (and I have found a whole bunch more that aren't in the article) specifically mention the death rate in context of the meltdowns. There's no OR in any of this, not from my end anyway.GliderMaven (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Why are you asking hypothetical questions about methodology when the mere existence of the comparison in your cited source contradicts your argument?

As of the end of August this year, such aftermath-related deaths totaled 869 in Miyagi Prefecture and 413 in Iwate Prefecture.

— Stress-induced deaths in Fukushima top those from 2011 natural disasters
I've also gone to the trouble of locating the official data. This document contains the most recent revision of the data, which it describes as the "Death toll associated with the Great East Japan Earthquake". Its figures as of September 2013 closely match the above: Fukushima (1,731), Miyagi (911), and Iwate (452).
Rob (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I did exactly the same thing as user Rob, and found the original source of this information. I asked for it to be discussed, but instead it has been repeated re-added, without discussion. Glad to see people discussing it here, but utterly dumbfounded to see people still misinterpreting what is there in plain English. It does not state that these deaths occurred wholly due to the evacuation of the containment zone. The source is misattributed by NBC, misquoted in the Wikipedia article, and not even particularly clear in the Mainichi article. FURTHER, and this is critical. Those numbers are NOT attributed to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japanese language sources, except those that refer only to the NBC article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Unarchiving

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a number of important discussions getting archived here. As it is now impossible to undo, I am going to have to manually revert at some point. This is just a notice that there are outstanding, major discussions on this article, that need addressing that can be found in the history.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

3 months with no replies seems a pretty generous amount of time to allow a discussion to die down. I suggest starting a new thread and linking to the archive instead of copying a bunch of old stuff back over to the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Title -- How many deaths for a "Disaster"

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I do not know how many deaths are required to have a "disaster" vs and accident. I would think at least hundreds. Certainly more than zero. The Tsusmi was a disaster, killing thousands, but the nuclear part? Suggest renaming article to "Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident", which is much less POV. Tuntable (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Property damage alone is sufficient for an event to qualify as a disaster. rspeed 07:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
"Disaster. An unexpected natural or man-made catastrophe of substantial extent causing significant physical damage or destruction." I think we're covered here. VQuakr (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

About Japanese wiki-readers getting their feelings hurt

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I notice most of the discussion on this talk page is about the unfairness of calling this accident a "NUCLEAR DISASTER" even when the first sentence of the article is "The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was an energy accident..." and the next paragraph says "...the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) found that the causes of the accident...", and then the next "The Fukushima disaster was the most significant nuclear incident...". This is the ENGLISH article of the AMERICAN encyclopedia called Wikipedia, people. You are not going to find here an objective, unbiased, fair representation of facts. This is life as seen by the americans. Pretending to have this event called anything less than a disaster is like expecting to not have a section on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings named "Reasoning and undeniable justification for the unavoidable reluctant deployment of the self-defensive life-saving new munitions by the anti-imperialist alliance". You read Wikipedia historical articles to know what americans think that happened, you don't quote this stuff as a source in your school homework. Also, if you get your feelings hurt by xenophobic content, I would avoid the english articles about events where Americans are not the victims... if you have visited the articles for their national school shootings and domestic terrorism, then you'll be shocked at the content that is featured when the victims are foreigners. The only reason that this article doesn't have a picture of an irradiated Japanese baby with an empty eye socket and an arm protruding from his forehead is that that picture doesn't exist. As soon as a deformed baby is born within 100 miles of Fukushima, you can expect some nasty gore featured at the top of this article. 186.129.1.65 (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


There is a reason for the use of disaster and accident on this page; you'll find it if you care to view the archives. It isn't accidental or an editor's whim. There are people on both sides of the controversy both in the US and in Japan, and indeed world-wide. You may have noted that there is no way you can tell which editors live where, so I assume the rest of your rant is based on your prejudices. SkoreKeep (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
As the editor who first linked this article to the broader Energy accidents topic, in the opening paragraph as the IP mentions, I personally tend to agree with the use of the word disaster for this event and really any accident that results in more than a few deaths or more than a few million in economic damage. As that is a disaster. I'm Irish by the way and as such, can officially give you marks of a 5 out of 10 for your ranting skills. Try harder elsewhere and only ever come back here if you find something WP:NOTABLE to have us discuss.
Boundarylayer (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Nah, 5 is too high for skill, 3 at most. Maybe a 5 for simulated outrage, but not for skill. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If you are Japanese, I am genuinely curious as to why the the Japanese consider this to be a disaster. some 16,000 people died in the tsunami, many times the losses of the World Trade Center, so I would have thought that to be the disaster. Fukushima killed nobody directly. And property damage was far less.

From a non-Japanese point of view, Fukushima is sexy because it is nuclear, and we have nuclear plants, and we do not really care about a bunch of foreigners drowning on the other side of the world. But I would have thought the perception would have been quite different in Japan.Tuntable (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If you take the trouble to look up the meaning of the word disaster, you will find that nobody needs to die for an event to be a disaster. If it had happened in my back yard I would still consider it a disaster, why shouldn't Japanese people use the word the same way as anyone else? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

G values

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the opening description of the plant, the design tolerance of reactor 1 is given as 0.18g. In the second tion about the earthquake, the acceleration at reactor 1 is given as over 0.5g at the other reactors. Acceleration is stated as being within tolerance at reactor 1. This seems unlikely. I have followed the link that is associated with the statement and it does not help me. Overlycautious (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

loss of power vs black out

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

A black out in the sense of the linked to wikipedia article has many causes, but all related to grid failures. There is no evidence that the grid failed (no article cited to that effect), and the evidence indicates that it did not, since the "quick fix" for a grid failure is to being in emergency power, say emergency generators. To the extent that this was tried it failed to work, because control panels were under water. In fact, other facilities tied to the same substation were not blacked out. Etc. At the time, TEPCO tried to shift some of the blame to the grid, but this was false. Note that a grid failure is a much more serious event than a plant failure in most cases. ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC))

Your lack of command of basic sentence structure, leaves even me, confused as to what you are trying to say...and that's saying something!
Now Martin, with respect to your obsession with the technical phrase station blackout and how that is re-directing to the article "power failure", and from there, you inferring some vast conspiracy that this is blaming the power grid...can you perhaps take a second away from smoking reefer and look at the jumps of sheer conspiratorial fervor you are doing to arrive at this notion?
Thanks.
As the station lost power, it had a power failure end of story. Nothing to do with the power grid. Agreed?
I would revert your edit again if you try to change it, as the sentence you are attempting to re-instate, is well, total garble-ation.
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
From Power outage:
"There are many causes of power failures in an electricity network. Examples of these causes include faults at power stations, damage to electric transmission lines, substations or other parts of the distribution system, a short circuit, or the overloading of electricity mains."
Fukushima experienced a fault at a power station and damage to transmission lines, so the link is appropriate. Dlthewave (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
DLTHEWAVE: No there was no damage to the transmission lines. The substation also served Fukushima Daini, and that continued to receive power after the earthquake from the same substation. As to the transmission line, one power tower, on the plant property fell, and that was to a construction circuit. None of the 3 sets of high-volatage towers was compromised nor the 6 circuits on those 3 sets. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC))

Boundarylayer, your insults do not serve to further your argument. Are you saying that it is false that there were stories of "grid failure" after the earthquake? It should be easy to show that you are mistaken. [Are you able to understand that sentence?] ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC))

You claim I inserted a sentence that had poor structure. This is false if you look at the history comparisons. I changed the words "power outage" to "complete loss of power" and removed the link to "station blackout". Why this has you hysterical is beyond me. Surely this violates the policy on revisions. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC))

What might "total garble-ation" mean? ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC))

Take a gander at the edit diffs. |here. Specifically try to decipher the following sentence left there after you finished editing. It reads " many that had constructed[the what?] Generation III reactors adopt the principle of passive nuclear safety. "
That my friend, is total garble-ation. Which to clarify for you, is a term of whimsy. Whimsy being an essential quality to retain when subjects such as yourself come on out to my talk page, trying your best condescending routine about how I allegedly reduced the quality of the article. When in reality, the exact reverse is the case.
Now onto this obsession over the term "station blackout" leading to the article power failure and you two jumping to conclusions. Dlthewave & Martin. Firstly, a power failure is not limited to a grid power failure. The term is being treated very curiously on the power failure page, that is the fault of those who wrote that article, when it is widely accepted that a power failure can occur in many things, such as a vehicle, a house and so on. Which you could argue, in some respects, are essentially "grids" in of themselves, but I digress. Linking to that article when expressing the term, station blackout, is not however insinuating that the Japanese grid, in the prefecture, failed.
It is for that reason that I will again ask you to step away from the reefer.
As given the context, linking to the article power failure exclusively conveys to readers that what is being discussed is that the fukushima power station, had a blackout when the electric batteries ran low. That's it. That's what the technically precise nuclear-safety-term, of a "station blackout" means, in case you 2 aren't aware.
Now what I would recommend, as you seem very interested in the grid connections of the power station following the tsunami and you were seemingly triggered by the term station blackout. To improve the quality of the article, I warmly suggest that you do some calm-unbiased-writing on the topic, you know start by gathering quality reference material on the remaining HV lines, what they could power, why power was not routed from these lines to the ECCS etc. What efforts were made to step-down the voltage from these lines in an expedited manner to operate these emergency systems etc.
When you're finished writing on this specific topic you seem especially interested in, a topic that would be very illuminating to have fully detailed, once you're finished, place your paragraph on this topic somewhere higher up in the article, say for example, up where conditions in the power station are being described. With that in mind however, I will once again ask you to not remove technically accurate phrases such as "station blackout". Or to go off the reservation and assume the link to the article power failure is part of the promulgation of a vast TEPCO conspiracy. Ok?
I wrote that paragraph years ago, the paragraph under question is about lessons learned and the paragraph is making a point about newer generation power stations, I did not consider that someone would one-day come along and do this conspiratorial reading that you have, doing a crazy daisy-chain of assumptions to conclude that the writer was talking about the japanese grid. When in reality, the term you were triggered by, "station blackout", is a nuclear safety term. I come back to see that weird garble-ation has infected the paragraph and you being more concerned with removing the term "station blackout".
So look, put this right and write a paragraph on the HV lines as discussed. Make some good come out of this circus created from nothing but your own biases.
Boundarylayer (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
My apologies if I was unclear. I was trying to express my agreement that station blackout (linked to Power outage) is an appropriate way to describe the event. Frankly, I think your version and Martin's are both perfectly fine. We shouldn't use overly technical language, even if it's accurate, but "station blackout" and "total loss of power" are both reasonably accurate as well as understandable to the average reader. This is a minor difference in opinion that can easily be resolved without accusations of reefer-smoking. The fact that you were the original writer of the paragraph is irrelevant here.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that Martin is responsible in any way for the "garble-ation". His edit only involved a few words at the top of the paragraph. Dlthewave (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Dlthewave that "station blackout" and "complete (or total) loss of power" are functionally equivalent in the context. I would say that "station blackout" is the slightly more technical term, and "complete loss of power" perhaps slightly more accessible, but neither are incorrect. If the wording is changed to "complete loss of power", I would still recommend linking it to power failure. That article is currently written from solely a "network/grid power failure" perspective, which is unfortunate, because it completely ignores other types of power failures which would be more appropriate in this case. However, as Boundarylayer points out, the problem lies with the power failure article, not this one. Cthomas3 (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the support.
Boundarylayer (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What about a disambiguation page about power failure? Overlycautious (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Fourth Para Issues

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a lot going on in this sentence that doesn't seem to all fit together, or there is missing punctuation and grammar problems.

"In 2017 risk analysis has determined, that unlike Chernobyl, "relocation was unjustified for the 160,000 people relocated after Fukushima" especially considering 1,600 deaths occurred due to the stressful evacuation conditions, when the potential future deaths from exposure to greater amounts of radiation, had everyone instead stayed home and been supported by a shelter in place, there would have been fewer deaths." SquashEngineer (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Misinformation regarding “Deaths” subheading

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The confirmed number of radiation-related deaths is still 0. There has been no confirmed causality of the death in question and establishing it as being “confirmed radiation-related” is incorrect. The article citation certainly doesn’t establish any confirmed causation. As far as I’m aware the “acknowledgement” of the death is solely based upon the fact that the individual worked at the reactor location and later died of cancer. 76.81.14.82 (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)C

Death confirmed by Japanese Gov.

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/05/644933882/japanese-government-acknowledges-first-fukushima-radiation-death?t=1536275803186 http://time.com/5388178/japan-first-fukushima-radiation-death/ http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/09/06/japan-acknowledges-first-fukushima-radiation-related-death-seven-years-after-disaster.html https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fukushima-worker-died_uk_5b90faeae4b0511db3df7628

A death has been confirmed. Edits need to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliceSheep99 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The article has been updated. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

These stories refer to cases where compensation has been paid without providing significant details, and with the admission that medical confirmation is impossible. Is this considered a 'confirmed' death simply because of the compensatory actions taken, which are contractual rather than medical? I'm going to try to locate a better source. Appreciate any comments as this seems like a politically charged issue generally. Ucbuffalo81 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

maps?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

why there is no map of radioactive contamination? https://peakoil.com/enviroment/fukushima-radiation-has-contaminated-the-entire-pacific-ocean-and-its-going-to-get-worse http://ta1.universaltelegra.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/fukushima.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.1.77 (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

elevation of waves, not radiation contamination. --Dwalin (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
That's not a map of radiation contamination, that's the effect of the tsunami (max wave height) from NOAA and you can find it in the relevant article 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami#Tsunami. The fact that certain radioisotopes from Fukushima can be found throughout the Pacific Ocean is a demonstration of the extreme sensitivity of our instruments rather than radioactive contamination. There has been no meaningful radioactive contamination in the Pacific Ocean except in the immediate vicinity (hundred meters) of the plant. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

should it be called a disaster at all?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The definition of a disaster is:

"A disaster is a serious disruption, occurring over a relatively short time, of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental loss"

(from the wiki)

However, nobody died as a result of radiation from Fukushima. How does that compare with the actual Tōhoku Tsunami, that killed almost 20.000 ?Fsikkema (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

See discussion above --Ita140188 (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Price of PV modules

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anyone want to update "Price of PV modules (yen/Wp) in Japan"?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fukushima_nuclear_accident/Archive_12&oldid=1175273863"