Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fukushima I vs II

The present layout makes it difficult to follow events at Fukushima II, is there no way to separate them? Give Fukushima II its own timeline and tables? As it stands, 95% of this page seems relevant to Fukushima I only.--Tallard (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We could convert this to cover Fukushima Daiichi only, and move the timeline of Daini to the power station article... This would require renaming the article to Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents or Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_accidents/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_Dai-Ichi_nuclear_accidents, because there were evacuation zones set up for Daini. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm for clarification, but against renaming that would affect the URL address or a Google searches. Probably best to wait a month or so when nobody's looking, seriously. If I'm not mistaken, this time line mainly deals with Fukushima 1 Dai-ichi reactors 1-6 and Fukushima 2 Dia-ni reactors 1-4 have been stable with no issues. (Fukushima 1 - Dia-ichi, Fukushima 2 - Dia-ni) roger (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely not hinting at renaming, I and II are clear enough, they could readily be separated within this very article, it's just that the last entries for II mentioned problems, yet there was no followup...--Tallard (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Within the first week or so, the Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents page was relocated twice, likely hindering users and editors from finding the page via Google or other means. Well, at least I had to dig for the Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents page for fifteen minutes or so, twice. roger (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What about color coding Fukushima 2 enteries for clarity? Also, a Status of the Fukushima II station graph is in order. Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be helpful.--Tallard (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Status tables

The status tables are based on http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/ and I feel they shouldn't be edited at all. They are referenced properly after all. Any commentary remarks could be placed underneath them seperatly. Messelink (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a status table for March 21? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there should. There are three published on that date: http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300671507P.pdf http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300691852P.pdf and http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300712524P.pdf at 10:00, 16:00 and 22:00 respectively. Messelink (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Added the table as published on March 23rd at 21:00. Couldn't make a cell span two columns and set the background color at the same time. If someone knows, please edit. Messelink (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the work done by 83.153.4.58 to estimate the weight of the fuel, I feel that this should be mentioned outside of the status table. Right now it looks like this estimate is done and/or endorsed by JAIF. I would really like to see some feedback from the other editors on the question I raised before: should the status updates on this page be an exact copy of the ones released by JAIF (that is cited) or should they be our interpretation of them? Messelink (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop citing these "JAIF reports" as being "TEPCO status reports", they're not.
JAIF is a pro-nuke spinning NGO.
Statutory, official, and detailed, data is provided to NISA - Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.42.11 (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Food and Water Contamination

We should add some more entries to the food and water contamination finds in Japan, and subsequent government bans on food from the area, and of infants not using the water in Tokyo. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm... might be a good idea. Else, mark the Date and Times of the contamination finds over at Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Radiation_levels_and_radioactive_contamination page. It'll give a good sense of how long people can store the specific food items in the future if something like this happens ever again. I'm sure it'll only be a matter of time before we start hearing certain food items getting around the ban. (Money, gotta love it. It'll get into your pocket one way or another!) roger (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

SFP #2 down to 41C? Very unlikely.

Regarding the 23 Mar 10:15 entry. Reporting by the mainstream media has been notably poor for this event. Just because MSNBC "reports" that 18 tons of water dumped into the "nearly boiling" SFP pool #2 brought it down to 41C doesn't mean it's true. 41C is completely normal for when the pool is full and cooling and circulation systems are all functioning properly. The tank holds 1200 tons of water. 18 tons is 1.5% of that. In addition, #2 is the building which is mostly intact. Exactly how did they dump this 18 tons of water in through the mostly intact roof with any level of efficiency? This report is totally nonsensical and impossible. While it may be true that MSNBC reported this, should nonsensical reports of impossible events be included in the timeline without at least noting that the validity of the report is questionable? - Sbergman27 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's ~100C, the MSNBS "report" mixed up the units (100F is 40C, not the opposite). So according to JAIF report, the temperature was 100C (212F). --Luplocath (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Residents Between 20km and 30km now advised to Evacuate

[Japan Widens Evacuation Zone as Workers Try to Fix Reactor - By Go Onomitsu and Takashi Hirokawa - Fri Mar 25 04:34:33 GMT 2011] The reason being stated within the article, food and supplies being limited. roger (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Evacuation zones remain the same according to the JAIF Reactor Status and Major Events status PDF dated March 25 10:00 JST. I'm seeing another CNN article stating something about a voluntary evacuation within the 30km zone. However, if finally the Government is asking you to go, might be a good safe idea to leave. roger (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation doses of workers who walked through water in the basement.

Reliable sources (including the one we use) state three undisputed facts about the radiation dose picked up by the workers who inadvertently waded through radioactive water:

1. The three workers were exposed to radiation amounting to 173 to 180 millisieverts.
2. Two of them were exposed to 2 to 6 sieverts of radiation below their ankles.
3. Exposure to 250 millisieverts is the limit set for workers dealing with the ongoing crisis.

We report facts (2) - but not fact (1). This leaves one with the distinct impression that they took 8 to 24 times the exposure limit described in (3). Whereas (1) suggests that all three were well below the limit (which, incidentally is an international standard for radiation limits for workers in "life-saving" situations - a more normal limit for "workers protecting property" is 100 mSv - so it's still not a trivial radiation dose).

I'm not sure whether it's valid to consider the dose to just the feet - when an equivalent whole body dose is within acceptable limits given the gravity of the situation. So are we selectively picking numbers that, on the face of it, make matters sound much worse than perhaps they really are?

A "sievert" is defined as one Joule of radioactive energy per kilogram of material receiving the dose - since a persons' feet might represent only about 1/10th to 1/20th of their total body mass - you can see how fact (1) and fact (2) can be simultaneously true.

The issue is that a full body dose of 6 sieverts would be a certain death sentence and even 3 sieverts taken over such a short period of time would very likely be fatal. Yet these people are being released from hospital after just a couple of days! That leads me to believe that the "below the ankles" measurement is sensationalist - at least without some rather nuanced discussion as to what is safe as a full-body dose - and what acceptable as a "feet-only" dose.

IMHO, we should either replace fact (2) with fact (1) in our article - or we should include both (1) and (2) - or if we really are going to use only (2) and (3) then we need to carefully explain why these guys aren't dead - which would entail more discussion than this article could really warrant. Since this is also a WP:BLP matter - and we have to be sensitive to their future health concerns - I believe it is incumbent on us to be extremely careful about our reporting here.

Since we have reliable sources for either option, I have replaced the 2-6 Sievert "below the ankles" number with the whole body dose of 173 to 180 mSv - which can be presented alongside the 250 mSv recommended limits without further comment without misrepresenting the situation to the uninitiated.

Radiation dosing is an extremely complex and confusing matter - let's not make matters any more confusing for our readers. SteveBaker (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

How about wording something like, "Workers were exposed, 2-6 Sieverts below the ankles, which is equivalent to 173-180 mSv by whole body calculation estimates." From what I researched, 2-6 Sieverts is a big deal. roger (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, whole body calculation doesn't matter, we are exposed to low ⁴⁰
K
radioactivity in the body, radon gas from outside and burnning of nutrients produces free radicals too. Locally high dosis matters much more (Iodine in the Thyroid). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly that's not exactly true. If these workers had taken 2-6 Sv to the whole body - they would likely be dead by now...not being released from hospital with burned feet. SteveBaker (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Roger: Yes, that's the entire point. 2-6 Sv over the entire body would almost certainly kill you - and absolutely certainly would require prolonged treatment...but averaged over the entire body, 180 mSv is less than the maximum acceptable dose for workers in these kinds of situation. So which measurement should we use to more clearly explain the seriousness of the issue? Clearly the localized dose to the feet isn't anywhere near as serious as a full-body dose of 2-6 Sv because we know that the workers are being released from hospital. Hence, the whole body estimate is a better way for us to explain the magnitude of the problem. I have no problem with explaining this in more detail - but if all we're going to do is a brief statement of the dose - then we should state the full-body average since the naive reader will not then come away with the wrong idea of the actual seriousness. SteveBaker (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

To the wholly uninformed reader, whatever dose you state is Just A Number, so you can't worry overly about them. For the rest of us - who know the difference between skin dose (which was clearly stated before) and depth and whole-body dose - the edited version makes us go "WTF". As well, the whole-body dose is irrelevant when we're talking about localized beta damage, like the burns they suffered in this case (I'm even willing to bet that the 180 mSv value is simply the Hp(10) value reported by their dosimeters). The 2-6 Sv skin dose should go back in. Also, a joule of "radioactive energy"? Argh! -- Kolbasz (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Steve: I think I worded it above pretty darn good. "Workers were exposed, 2-6 sieverts below the ankles, which is equivalent to 173-180 mSv by whole body calculation estimates." The sentence basically is two sentences of facts, but combined into one sentence. However, I just noticed it might be more accurate to state, "... which is supposedly equivalent to the 173-180 mSv by whole body calculations stated by the Doctors"? Because we're not the ones concluding 173-180 mSv equals 2-6 Sieverts below the ankles. Tricky. In the end, just my opinion -- whatever you decide but like Kolbasz states, 2-6 Sv should probably be in the article as readers just think they got a few uSv. roger (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP article on radiation burns should put things into perspective for you. It's not sensationalism. It's proper reporting. -- Kolbasz (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I read that Wikipedia article along with Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. radiation burned hand. The article seems to imply 5.1 Sv whole body and not just his hand. roger (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, Daghlian was irradiated with 510 rems (5.1 Sv) of radiation and Louis Slotin was exposed to a lethal dose (around 2100 rems, or 21 Sv) of radiation from the same Demon core. The system got supercritical with heat generation, both were a whole body exposure. As a ref: image:Fukushima_map.png --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Chemical Analysis (Unit 1)

Chemical Analysis of contaminated water in a puddle in unit 1 (NISA):

• ¹³⁷
  Cs
  : 1.8 million Bq
• ¹³⁴
  Cs
  : 160 thousand Bq
• ¹³⁶
  Cs
  : 17 thousand Bq
• ¹³¹
  I
  : 210 thousand Bq
• "Vor allem Cäsium-137 in radioaktivem Wasser von Block 1" (in German). 26.03.2011. Event occurs at 09:21 MEZ. Retrieved 26.03.2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
• Sorry, no volume unit is given.--Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

But without a volume measurement, the numbers are fairly meaningless. 1 Bq means one atom decaying per second (imagine counting single clicks on an old-fashioned Geiger counter). 1.8 MBq is a hell of a lot for a cupful of water, definitely something that you'd want to be on the other side of an inch thick slab of lead! But "the solution to pollution is dilution" and 1.8 Bq distributed across (say) the entire Atlantic ocean would be an extremely safe value. I'm kinda imagining a swimming-pool sized amount of water in this "puddle" - but if we don't know - these numbers are quite meaningless. We should try to stick to numbers in Sieverts and Sieverts-per-hour/year which are easier to envisage as danger to humans. SteveBaker (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, but we have already: "Three workers were exposed to radiation in the underground of unit 3 reactor's turbine building, and two of them were hospitalized due to radiation burns to their legs, after standing in a puddle of contaminated water. The amount of radioactivity in the water was about 3.9 MBq per cubic centimetre (0.105 Ci/litre)." --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"We should try to stick to numbers in Sieverts and Sieverts-per-hour/year which are easier to envisage as danger to humans". Apples and oranges: radioactivity VS radiation. You can't really give a meaningful dose rate here. -- Kolbasz (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not possible. It's a chemical analysis, each nuclide sends its radiation with a different energy. Ok, there must be a conversion factor for each nuclide between Sievert and Becquerel. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• ¹³⁷
  Cs
  : 1.8 million Bq/cm³ times 1.176 MeV times 1.602×10⁻¹⁹ J/eV = 3.4×10^-7J/s·cm³
• Becquerel is radioactivity, Sievert (Sv) is absorbed energy from an exposure: 1 J / kg of absorbing material · W (weighting factor). It needs many assumptions from J/s·cm³ to mSv/s·cm³. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any numbers on the German reference you give, but I did find them on NISA's page. The measurements are in Bq/cm^3. I'll try to add them to the article. -- Kolbasz (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

U r right, the updated article doesn't have the numbers anymore. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoring cooling functions might be impossible to restore

Just heard during an interview on NHK World News (English) March 28, 2011 07:00 GMT, experts stated; restoring cooling functions (to Unit #1 and #3) might be impossible if they cannot work in the highly radiation contaminated turbine rooms. (From what was implied, this work included running power lines within these rooms in which the three workers were already exposed.) I'm not sure if this should be entered as it's still speculation. However, likely worthy to wait and see if they cease work and consider burying #1 and #3 (or doing something else). roger (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiation reaches the UK ??

Are you serious ?? That's plain impossible. 200.55.135.211 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Because radioactive elements are detectable in minute quantities the radiation will eventually be detectable throughout the world, although at relatively harmless levels. In the 50s and 60s when atmospheric nuclear testing was frequently taking place it was only a matter of time before the radiation from explosions in the Pacific produced fall out in Europe. Its a good lesson in the interconnectedness of the whole planet's atmosphere, nowhere is too far away to be unaffected by events elsewhere.Lumos3 (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Now talk of Plutonium found near the Fukushima Reactors

Within past 15 minutes, articles have been posted concerning trace plutonium found near reactors. (More hype?) roger (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Five samples, over three days (attached cites only refer to 2 days), official press release from TEPCO -- I added it to the article. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/japan.nuclear.plutonium/?hpt=T2 http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11032812-e.html) 66.65.191.165 (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

According to NISA http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110330-1-1.pdf:"The concentration of the detected plutonium was at the equivalent level of the fallout (radioactive fallout) that was observed in Japan concerning the past atmospheric nuclear testing, i.e. at the equivalent level of the normal condition of environment, and was not at the level of having harmful influence on human body." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messelink (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed split

I've added a tag as this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably, and slow to load. Please consider splitting content per WP:SS, into two separate articles: Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents and Timeline of the Fukushima II nuclear accidents. No need to have information about two separate plants in one article. Johnfos (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see [Talk Name] and [Talk Fukushima Daiichi]. I agree it does take awhile to load with all the status tables, but think an archive function (similar to what used on the discussions page) might be a more sensible option. (This user has the wiki award for wanting to see everybody in the world in a group hug. But also realizes it might not be a good idea.) roger (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Could also use a lighter browser such as Dillo or KMelon for reading. roger (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would oppose a split as this article is too news-like; its being is largely a product of recentism. I believe that for an encyclopaedic article, we need to start shifting the emphasis on exhaustivity and move towards WP:SUMMARY. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have some fundamental concerns (news-like, recentism) about the article as a whole, then it may be best to start a new section on this Talk page and try to articlulate those concerns and open up discussion. Johnfos (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I support it. Two different plants, with completely different circumstances. Kolbasz (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Recentism is not a huge risk here. WP:RECENT is a defense against some random Internet meme getting too much coverage because it'll all be forgotten and largely irrelevant ten years from now. Smaller than Chernobyl and bigger than Three Mile Island, this is likely to be the second most serious nuclear disaster in history to date. People will look back at this with at least as much interest as either of those two existing subjects - so we should aim to ultimately have comparable amounts of article space devoted to this event as we do to each of the other examples of major nuclear disasters.

So how much article is appropriate for that? Well, there are at least four articles relating to Three Mile Island (not counting articles about the movies and books relating to it and articles relating to the island itself that make only passing reference to the disaster that happened there). Just a quick glance suggests that there are at least seven articles relating to Chernobyl's nuclear accident...again, not including information about the former city, etc.

That suggests that even 10 years from now, there will be plenty of room here for two timeline articles if size is becoming an issue - or if it makes organizing the material easier. I agree that we might want to boil this large pile of data down somewhat when we have some more historical perspective - and after that, maybe we'll even decide to merge the two timeline articles back together. But right now, we need to allow our editors to accumulate the information while we have editor-interest and easy access to reliable sources. It's a lot easier to simplify when we have historical perspective than it is to dig out information from ancient news feeds ten years after the event when we find the true importance of this event. Wikipedia has plenty of disk space - and our readers are plenty interested enough to read this much material.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Let things simmer-out. Might be months from what they say. With that said, I've thought of another idea. As the status tables are quite cumbersome, it might be best to only display the most recent status table while posting a link to find the archive of status tables. And, archive some of the already posted tables to secondary pages of this article, similar to the archive function for Talk/Discussion? (... just a few ideas.) roger (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving bits of article-space stuff is not something I've ever seen done. Simply deleting the older status tables and replacing them with a briefer summary would be "more conventional" for Wikipedia pages - but it's difficult to know what information in those tables will eventually seem important. We hear so many "such-and-such problem was found in so-and-so place" reports - many of which seem unimportant at the time - but may eventually turn out to be the key moment at which some major issue started out. With the benefit of hindsight, we'll know which of those things to keep and which to flush - but right now we don't. SteveBaker (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a split. Wikipedia articles should be complete and "in Depth". Lazy or superficially interested people should skip reading and go anywhere else. Serious people that fully appreciate in-depth information always welcome full, informative articles. I am against only showing the latest table, since by only pushing "Control-End" anybody can instantly skip to the end of the article; but sacrificing the possibility of comparing a changing situation is not in the best interest of serious readers. amclaussen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.20 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support split, Daini is getting lost in the Daiichi material. But I don't think you need a separate article, just rename this article to "I", and move the Daini material to Fukushima Daini, as there is not much change it will overwhelm that article. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, ditto as IP preceding me. When looking for information on the situation at Daini, I ended up going to its article anyway as it was too difficult (short of using 'find') to locate the info and view it in a concise manner here. Inclusion of Daini in this article may also cause misunderstanding of the situation, especially among those who are less familiar with Japanese and confuse the names. Finally, the events at Daini pale in significance to those at Daiichi, which should have an article (this one) dedicated to it. The best option would be as IP said before, move whatever information on Daini to its main article (if it not already there) and rename this one to Timeline of the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accident. Vindicata (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, exactly as discussed by Vindicata, above. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support and done. Made Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents a disambig page. Kept the history with Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

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

File:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Meltdown

The reactor core has melted down through the bottom of the containment vessel and escaped onto the concrete floor? Guardian newspaper "race lost" Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note, the above is based on an assumption from evidence. Site the following sentences, "The radioactive core in a reactor at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant appears to have melted through the bottom" and Lahey said, "I hope I am wrong, but that is certainly what the evidence is pointing towards." However, Lahey was supposedly head of GE's Saftey Research when the GE reactors were installed at Fukushima. On the lighter side of things, maybe it just leaked through. But from what I'm thinking, 'dem rods hit the ceiling during the explosions. roger (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just read the following article From Far Labs, a Vivid Picture Emerges of Japan Crisis stating, "70 percent of the core of one reactor had been damaged, and that another reactor had undergone a 33 percent meltdown — came from forensic modeling". roger (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

5th week

Shouldn't the 5th week start an April 9th? The 4th week has two saturdays now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.211.251.252 (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but consensus may decide to parse or subdivide this chronology other ways, e.g.,

March accident sequence

• 1st week, 11-17 March ?
• 2nd week, 18-24 March ?
• 3rd week, 25-31 March ?

April accident sequence

• 4th week, 1-7 April ?
• 5th week, 8-14 April ?
• 6th week, 15-21 April ?
• 7th week, 22-28 April
• 8th week, 29-30 April

May accident sequence

• 8th week, 1-5 May ?
• 9th week, 6-12 May ?
• 10th week, 13-19 May ?
• 11th week, 20-26 May ?
• 12th week, 27-31 May ?
• 13th week, 29-30 May ?

These are arbitrary 7-day ordinal increments starting from the initial earthquake/tsunami events. They are grouped in calendar month chunks. Does anyone propose another or better strategy? --Tenmei (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I was a bit confused when I first read the "weekly sections", until I realized each weekly section contained exactly seven days.  Suggestion, within heading "Timeline", add a description of what you just stated defining the weekly increments.  ie: "These are arbitrary 7-day ordinal increments starting from the initial earthquake/tsunami events.  They are further grouped in calendar month chunks."  Excellent work.  Cheers!  roger (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Fuel Rod Fragments at bottom of Vessels

Saturday, April 15, 2011 JST?  No meltdown risk if cooling remains uninterrupted.  http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110416a1.html  Although speculation, maybe this another is why they started pumping nitrogen? roger (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm by far no nuke scientist, but currently, the snip on the Timeline Wiki page - Sixth Week and Second Paragraph, seems to be solely based on speculation. 

"...The melted material was not expected to breach a container, causing a massive radiation release. Instead, the melted fuel was thought to have dispersed uniformly across the lower portions of the containers of reactors No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, making the resumption of the fission process, to the extent a recriticality accident, most unlikely.165".  Just reading the first one or two paragraphs on the referred to article on globalsecuritynewswire.org, the article also cites at the very beginning, "The group played down the possibility of a container breach...".

According to the the Three_Mile_Island_accident timeline, it took five years before they were actually able to open the vessel to see what happened inside.  Another SL-1 incident states during criticality of the rods, the rods were thrown upwards (into the ceiling) within three to four milliseconds.

Reading that whole sentence on the Timeline Wiki seems to contain way too much guess work.  As such, I would at least italicize the following words (omitting bold as it's only used for emphasis here), "...the melted fuel was thought to have dispersed uniformly..." and "...making the resumption of the fission process..." for the sake of accuracy.  But not italicize "most unlikley" within "to the extent a recriticality accident, most unlikely" as then it may sound like I'm being too political. roger (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment, roger. Why italicise "resumption"? Only makes it sound like you didn't realise that reactors are deliberately critical when generating power (criticality is the thing that was turned off within moments of detecting the earthquake). In fact, it sounds like you're trying to scare layreaders into thinking a criticality accident is more likely than it is (due to saying it sort of happened already before). There are lots of things that could go wrong, but a resumption of criticality is generally expected not to be one of them (if it did, could well see an explosion of the vessel as a whole rather than just of the emanating gases). I'm sure that plenty of reputable sources could be found to say the same thing. (And there is nothing wrong with including the informed speculation of acknowledged experts on the topic, we only need their speech and their expertise to be verifiable - not the content of their message. It's all the more notable as it isn't currently possible for anyone to access better information about the core state.) But science is always about probabilities and acknowledging fallibility, so of course they'll naturally have "thought most unlikely" rather than "known absolutely impossible". That caveat is plainly spelt out in the text, no need for further emphasis. By emphasising their uncertainty, it sounds like you are pushing an agenda (that the risks are greater and those experts cannot be trusted). This looks consistant with your ultimate decision not to emphasise the "most unlikeley"ness of the danger.

Now, hopefully by ascribing this agenda to you, I have completely misinterpreted your intention. But there's a simple way to avoid such problems. Those sentences are basically direct quotes, and it would be a mistake (WP:EDITORIALIZING, scare quotes) to add original emphasis to a quote (because that alters the meaning away from what was verifiable). Instead, if you feel part of the article is becoming unbalanced, simply find some reputable sources to support your view and add a sentence of so citing them (and leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions overall). Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I likely miss defined resumption here.  (ie. resumption -> assumption, ...) However, I think the timeline article was more then adequately commented for any incorrect assumption of safety a reader might make.  The main issue, whether or not the scientists are theorizing or actually seeing inside the vessels.  From all reports, they're theorizing/deducing by analyzing fallout and other outside indicators only.  This then leads into the suspected amount of material at the bottom of the vessels.  I did recently read some reports they'll have electrical sensors working within one or two of the reactors soon.  URL's are posted.  As far as political intent, I have none aside from being honesty and people remain safe.  You cannot see radiation.  Although I've yet to see it kill in person, I don't want others or me to find out after the fact.  roger (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest Updates

FYI: For the latest updates, view the JAIF press releases as most news media have pretty much slowed their monitoring. ie. I found, in the past week, they have started draining the basements and spraying the grounds.  Both events didn't make the news from what I see.  roger (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

May 5 entry on protective gear

The media have often failed to understand the difference between radiation and contamination. This entry states that, because of protective gear the workers were only exposed to very little radiation (2 mSv). What kind of protectine gear are they talking about? In my days, protective clothing (cloth suit, gloves, booties & breathing mask) was worn as a protection and control against contamination, maybe against alpha and beta radiation, but certainly not gamma radation. Is the gamma radiation really that low now inside the building?--Tvbanfield (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. Furthermore this article states that 2mSv is a "very little Dose". It's quite a significant Dose since it's approximately equivalent to a 1 year Backgound exposure, or 1/10 of the annual legal limit for nuclear workers in Europe. I know that for 2 months we heard huge doses and doses rates but I think we are gradually forgeting what are the normal orders a magnitude.Franssoua (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. For a routine task it would be considered high, but from both a health and emergency work perspective, 2 mSv is indeed a very small dose. While it's above the mandatory reporting threshold, it's well within the acceptable range for non-routine work. It's less than a CT scan, to put things into perspective. -- Kolbasz (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Dose v. dose rate? Lincher has changed the dose info from 2mSv to a dose rate of 4mSv per hour, saying he "modified value to reflect data in mSv/h which is the logical unit." Not sure about that. To me, the logical unit was as originally stated because the exposure to the workers would have been the reading on their dosimeters while in the building, which would be total dose received in mSv. The background radiation read on a dose rate monitor would be in mSv per hour. Also, don't understand the change from 2 to 4?--Tvbanfield (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting that change, for several reasons, including: A) Dose is indeed the logical unit. B) The reference gives it as a dose, not a dose rate. C) 2 mSv over 25 minutes is closer to 5 mSv/h than 4. -- Kolbasz (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fairbanks AK Radnet Gamma Air Monitoring steadily increasing

Our Gross Gamma Air Monitoring Data on the US Radnet for Fairbanks has risen back to the mean average levels of during the initial Fukushima building explosions.  This makes me wonder if Fukushima reactors are continually increasing venting over the past months.

While Gross Beta Air Monitoring Data seems to be steady or steadily declining.

The big stupor being, the US Government has no previous history posted until the monitors were installed recently just after the Fukushima explosions.  So, we can't really judge easily what a mean average is.  roger (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

MIT Graduate's descriptive damage write-up of IR Images & Photos

Another neat tidbit, is an article a MIT graduate wrote & published just recently detailing some building IR images & damage photos of the Fukushima Reactors: http://www.asianweek.com/2011/05/16/fukushima-happiest-nuclear-power-plant-in-the-world/ roger (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Third worker dead, but...

Please do not add to the sensationalism of the media, the two dead people found earlier at the plant fell victim to the tsunami, not radiation or anything related. I know the media has been quick to proclaim death and horror, and being a resident of Japan, the hype of the foreign media really annoys me. This worker who died today may or may not be the FIRST victim of radioactivity related circumstances, but even that is not known yet. In any case he is in no way the third victim. I too wish all nuclear plants would shut down, but I can't stand it when media perpetuates exaggerations. Someone please get the facts right, I am not a registered user and will not enter an edit war, this is just a plead. 221.89.82.147 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Worked was confirmed having died of a heart attack. Jap. [1] [2][3] Serazahr (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Cause & effect.  Poor working conditions likely the cause then?  Sort of like saying, he slipped in some radioactive slime puddle, but didn't die of the radiation, but the slime the nuclear accident caused.  From what Japan is judging, this nuclear accident should never have happened, even though the Tsunami caused most of the problems.  And I agree too with the Japanese government, should have plenty of redundant backup power for cooling pumps and several additional pumps encase primaries fail.  It's either be safe, or be responsible. roger (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No matter how he died, he is not the t h i r d victim. That is what I am trying to get across to the foreign media. The two dead workers did not die because of the nuclear plant, they were killed when the 15 meter tsunami crashed on shore. It has nothing to do with the nuclear plant, they are not to blame. Another 25.000 people also died or vanished in a similar fashion. The whole mess afterwards was the responsibility of the plant and TEPCO however, but thats another story.121.105.230.142 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Granted, much of this is currently speculation, but will likely be heard by a Judge sometime in the future.  Based on past scenarios, your explanations don't hold much water in the US here from my brief experience.  People are liable here for their actions as well as any secondary consequences.  However, other countries might be more lenient, with Japan likely being one of the most unforgiving of secondary causes from what I hear.  Legal stuff really.  And thars the problem of perception.  Most would find it more admirable if the person died in the line of duty vs. being listed as slipping in a puddle and dieing.  Not counting, just saying... ... but from the other side of the spectrum, deny lie deny does get you (only so) far! roger (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"[MOX fuel] is considered thousands of times more toxic than uranium nuclear fuel."

Instead of going into an edit war about the {{by whom}} template, I removed the weasel worded statement completely. It does not belong here, for several reasons:
1) It doesn't matter if it's a direct quote from a newspaper, an unsourced "thousands of times more toxic than uranium nuclear fuel" is still a weasel statement. This should be enough for its removal.
2) If it actually had belonged anywhere, it would be in Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents, not here in the timeline.
3) It's flat-out wrong. Whoever wrote it either has no clue, or has an agenda. First off, uranium and plutonium particles aren't what you're worried about in an environmental release - they don't travel far, and their health effects are negligible compared to the much more dangerous short-to-medium-lived fission products (mainly ¹³¹
I
and ¹³⁷
Cs
). Second, plutonium is produced in every ²³⁵
U
reactor after startup, and winds up as roughly 1% by mass in the spent fuel. Third, even neglecting points one and two, it could never be "thousands of times more toxic" - compare the lifetime cancer mortality risks of plutonium (specifically: ²³⁹
Pu
/²⁴⁰
Pu
) and uranium (specifically: ²³⁵
U
). In the worst case, inhalation, plutonium is 3 times worse than uranium. -- Kolbasz (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This censorship, and the removal of salient sourced material, seems to be original research. If the censor wants to argue that Plutonium is healthy, and has no long term environmental or public health effects (so that his censorship of otherwise salient material is justified, rather than based on his own opinion) he might at least cite his sources.

Ocdnctx (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As a start, the censor might begin to inform himself by consulting

""http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity

The fact that plutonium is toxic far beyond other fuels is quite salient to understanding the meaning of the Reactor 3 core breach, and the Irish Times recognition of that factor seems accurate, salient, and timely.

Again to the original-research based censor: what are your sources, rather than original research, that you claim to justify concealing the highly relevant fact that this is the MOX fuel, with plutonium that has a core breach, possibly a containment breach, has recently (in May) had 250 tons of water vented into the Pacific, and is swiftly running out of storage space for the additional contaminated water it must create to reduce the possibility of further catastrophic meltdown? Please cite one or more creditable sources, rather than claiming your original research has satisfied your own mind. Especially, please give your sources for your censorship justification, your (doubtful) assertion that plutonium leaks aren't a serious problem and your (more questionable) opinion that breakdown products cannot be long lasting. Credible sources, please. Something better than smearing the Irish Times for daring to disagree with opinions you claim to have reached through undisclosed original research.

Ocdnctx (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just merrily put the cite for reminding readers "reactor three contains the MOX_fuel", but didn't want to use my words and wanted to quote directly from the article.  So, could have just stated put something in parenthesis stating "(Reactor three contains MOX_fuel)" would have been pretty much an unbiased statement.  From what I just read, MOX is recycled nuclear weapons, burn once and toss?  As far as my hype meter reads here concerning toxicity, Kolbasz might be correct about sighting good references towards toxicity as well as being non-political.  However, merrily stating "Reactor three" might easily imply it was using the same fuel as the other reactors, hence, the reminder.  Since I only saw one study on the web concerning MOX being extremely toxic, I doubt you're going to find better info for the time being -- being we're likely all test bunnies at this point.  But look at the bright side, we're getting rid of nuke weapons.  roger (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, "censor"! Namecalling! Nice. And naturally, I'm trying to argue that it's "healthy", and I'm trying to "conceal facts". Paranoid much?

Anyway. Let's tackle your rantspoints one by one:

"If the censor wants to argue that Plutonium is healthy, and has no long term environmental or public health effects"

Oh come on. You can at least put some effort into your straw men.

"he might at least cite his sources"

You've got three of them right above your post, that you apparently missed. Or maybe I'm cleverly "concealing" them too? But here's some more reading for you re: isotopes of concern in a nuclear accident: Nuclear fission product#Countermeasures against the worst fission products found in accident_fallout (Wikipedia is always a good place to start), Nuclear Reactor Accidents - Radioisotopes in the Plume (while you're on that page, do look at the list of radionuclides in LWR fuel), Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impacts: Chapter II: The release, dispersion and deposition of radionuclides, Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impacts: Chapter IV: Dose estimates

"As a start, the censor might begin to inform himself by consulting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity"

Ok, let's do just that:

Several populations of people who have been exposed to plutonium dust (e.g. people living down-wind of Nevada test sites, Hiroshima survivors, nuclear facility workers, and "terminally ill" patients injected with Pu in 1945–46 to study Pu metabolism) have been carefully followed and analyzed. These studies generally do not show especially high plutonium toxicity or plutonium-induced cancer results. "There were about 25 workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory who inhaled a considerable amount of plutonium dust during the 1940's; according to the hot-particle theory, each of them has a 99.5% chance of being dead from lung cancer by now, but there has not been a single lung cancer among them."

Yep, it agrees with me.

"The fact that plutonium is toxic far beyond other fuels is quite salient to understanding the meaning of the Reactor 3 core breach"

You mean the unsourced "fact", which isn't a fact at all, which is what this is all about?

"justify concealing the highly relevant fact that this is the MOX fuel, with plutonium that has a core breach, possibly a containment breach, has recently (in May) had 250 tons of water vented into the Pacific, and is swiftly running out of storage space for the additional contaminated water it must create to reduce the possibility of further catastrophic meltdown"

Again with the loaded language: "concealing". It is indeed a reactor with MOX fuel. But it isn't relevant to anything that follows in that sentence. You might as well ask yourself why I am "concealing the highly relevant fact that the building was painted blue, with a reactor that has a core breach, possibly a containment breach, has recently (in May) had 250 tons of water vented into the Pacific, and is swiftly running out of storage space for the additional contaminated water it must create to reduce the possibility of further catastrophic meltdown".

"and your (more questionable) opinion that breakdown products cannot be long lasting"

My what of the what? Please do explain what you mean.

"Something better than smearing the Irish Times for daring to disagree with opinions you claim to have reached through undisclosed original research"

"Smearing"? What is this, the loaded language hyperbole championship? Back to the point: do you dispute that their "thousands of times more toxic" claim is unsourced? And to finish off this rather long post, allow me to repeat myself:

It doesn't matter if it's a direct quote from a newspaper, an unsourced "is considered thousands of times more toxic than uranium nuclear fuel" is still a weasel statement. This should be enough for its removal.

No, wait, I had one more thing to say: you are the one claiming that MOX fuel is thousands of times more dangerous than regular fuel - the burden of proof is on you. Your only is reference for this is a quote - which is, once again, completely unsourced - from a mainstream newspaper. Despite that, you've been given reliable sources on the actual relative toxicity of ²³⁵
U
and ²³⁹
Pu
/²⁴⁰
Pu
(the ratios of which are the only difference between MOX and regular uranium fuel), the presence of plutonium in any ²³⁵
U
reactor, and what nuclides are actually dangerous. And one last time, since this just can't be said enough: an unsourced weasel-worded statement is still an unsourced weasel-worded statement, no matter what the facts are. -- Kolbasz (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kolbasz's removal of the unsourced statement. For whatever it is worth here is the article that helped improve my understanding of the toxicity of uranium fuel vs plutonium fuel.

My takeaways from that article are:

1."Ed Lyman, a physicist at the activist group Union of Concerned Scientists, estimates the fuel in Unit 3 is 5 percent to 10 percent more dangerous than the fuel in the other crippled reactors."

2. "This means the fuel in all of the stricken reactors and spent fuel pools contain plutonium." My emphasis. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Good find! That article summarizes most of what I was trying to get across. It's extremely hard to find good mainstream reporting about science in general, and where nuclear physics or radiation are involved it's almost impossible, but this one seems to get it right. :) Kolbasz (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

However, Kolbasz, ... I think your above reply was a waste of white space and electricity. roger (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Is there any update?

Because italian journalist prefer talk about berlusconi and don't talk about Fukushima since April, is there any update about this emergency?--Marcopete87 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: For the latest updates, view the JAIF press releases as most news media have pretty much slowed their monitoring. (Already posted this within the above post titled, "Latest Updates".) What's even funnier, media isn't all that impressed with the so-called news of all three reactors melting down from just the passed reports of minor reactor damage! ...anyways, more important stuff to do here. roger (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--Marcopete87 (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly recommend posting an updated version of the color coded table that was posted on April 8. It is a great summary of the status of the 4 containment barriers and the spent pool status. Saves wading through the entire timeline to get a good status report.--Tvbanfield (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the repeated copying of those immense tables is very beneficial to the article. What about if instead we overlayed them all into one table, and used the colour to distinguish for example which issues were resolved after a week or a month or even still not resolved now?

As for your personal concern, Tvbanfield, what do you think of putting a "current status" subsection in the article? I think such a section would always be warranted, even though the content appropriate to it will evolve to be completely different in the future. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Question About Article Title

Is there any particular reason why the word 'accident' in the title of this article is pluralized? So far as I understand, this has been a single large, prolonged accident and should therefore not warrant pluralization. If anyone can provide any arguements to the contrary I'll be glad to hear them, otherwise I recommend the title be changed accordingly. Orca1 9904 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right. I think it's an artefact of its inception, when it was "Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents", before being split into one "Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents" and one "Timeline of the Fukushima II nuclear accidents" article (after which I and II were subsequently changed to Daiichi and Daini, respectively). Kolbasz (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

... of course, one could also assume it to be for the various units separately. Kolbasz (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh geez.  Another attempt to change the title so the page's URLs related to the Fukushima accident(s) can get lost!  Of course we can change the title to "Heart warming hugs from Fukushima cuddling reactors!"  Oh, I mean to state singular because there's really only one Fukushima Daiichi, not counting the reactors themselves!  I also realize I just wasted a mess of space explaining this. roger (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

SFP Cooling System

As of June 7th JAIF still says that cooling systems for the spent fuel pools has not been restored. Should the TEPCO's Sunday, May 29 statement be disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.192.122 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to note this, but a better place -- if this is true -- is on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accidents page instead of the timeline.  Timeline is an actual timeline and not a place of debate, right?  Another better idea, insert a comment in parathesis next to entry you specified stating, "As of date/time, cooling has not been restored for the SFP according to [link to JAIF report] [including date/time of the referenced JAIF report incase the JAIF goes down or reports disappear]."  I kinda noticed this too, but also noticed much of the JAIF reports are copies of the previous reports.  Another thought, if these three reactors melt through, the SFP cooling ponds will likely not be something to even worry about? roger (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is much more fuel contained in the spent fuel pools than in the reactor cores. So yes, this is something to worry about. Boardhead (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Water treatment

The radioactive water treatment system was forced to shut down because a filter exceeded its radioactivity limit. The filter, which removes cesium from the water, was expected to last about a month before requiring replacement when its radiation levels reached 4 millisieverts. However the radiation levels reached 4.7 millisieverts after just 5 hours, reportedly due to oil and sludge in the water which contained more radiation than expected.

I'm afraid this paragraph makes very little sense. First it says that a filter has exceeded some limit of radioactivity. So far, so good. Sounds plausible. Then, it states that it needed replacement because its "radiation levels reached 4 millisieverts", which is where it all strays into "... WTF?" territory. First off, radiation and radioactivity are not the same thing. Second, equivalent doses (sieverts) are for living tissue - not inanimate filters or machines. Third, a decontamination filter whose life time is measured in units of dose, and then just 4 mSv of them? It makes no sense whatsoever. Now, this is not the Wikipedia editor's fault - he simply stayed true to the reference. I believe this is one of those cases where the reporters have had a bunch of figures stated to them, and then, lacking education in that field of science, they thoroughly mixed them all up (and here you have a translation from Japanese to English on top of that). It's even more clear if you look at more of the article:

Decontamination of about 105 million liters of water in basements and trenches at Fukushima No. 1 was halted after the level of cesium in a filtering unit reached 4.7 millisieverts of radiation, Matsumoto said Saturday.

... there's no such thing as 4.7 mSv of caesium. My take is that the story is actually as follows: 1) the filter has soaked up way more caesium than projected and 2) the dose rate as measured somewhere near the machine rose to higher levels than expected (e.g. 4.7 mSv/h).
TL;DR: the paragraph as written states a bunch of units, but those units are just gibberish in that context. It should be rewritten into a more general (but accurate) form, e.g. like the news items in JAIF Report 119. Kolbasz (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion to make the paragraph more clear.  I'm no English/Grammar teacher, but I might suffice as one these days.  Most problems seem to contain run-on sentences and misplacement of commas -- which are easily detectable and fixed if you know a few tricks.  Most times, they happen because we're typing sporadic comments versus proof reading three or four times before publishing -- aka stuff happens. roger (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The radioactive water treatment system was forced to shut down because a filter exceeded its radioactivity limit. The filter, which removes cesium from the water and requires replacement when 4 msv is reached, was expected to last about a month before requiring replacement. (*Note run-on sentence when the word "when" is encountered.. restructuring the "filter change at 4 msv" part of the sentence seems more feasible due to the existing commas.)

However the radiation levels reached 4.7 millisieverts after just 5 hours, reportedly due to oily sludge and the water containing more radiation than expected. (*Modified to "oily sludge" as it basically means the same exact thing as previously stated unless, the oil and sludge were completely separate in the water -- for which, this might be more exact as most oil spills distribute "oily sludge" and not "oil and sludge"!  Emphasized the radiation was originating from the water and not the oil.  Note, oil is a big big enemy for filter media!)

I was only quoting the source, and don't want to put words into their mouth, but they probably did mean millisieverts per hour. My guess is that the filter likely needs to be replaced at 4 mSv/h because replacing it at a higher level would be dangerous to the operator, but again, I didn't say this because it is not up to me to interpret the report. If a more accurate source could be found, this should be used instead and the section changed correspondingly. Boardhead (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have located a better source and changed the article accordingly. Boardhead (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! Kolbasz (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

June 19th 2011 Entry: School Decontamination

I was kind of lost when reading this recent entry and as to it's relevance to this time line. To clarify the entry, I would have typed something like this, "Even though the school hasn't detected levels of radiation in excess of the legal limit, they pressure washed the building ... while also hopefully easing concerned parents worries." But this still doesn't solve the relevance issue, as the reference material states "... Meanwhile, radiation levels exceeded the limit in other parts of the city." which would be more worthy of noting here. Also another reason not cited for cleaning the school themselves was because of the slow government response and they wanted to help.

Of more relevance within this referred material for this time line, is the fact that they're going to partially open the door on Reactor 2! This was completely omitted within this June 19th entry. Maybe this issue should replace the above mentioned issue? There's going to be a lot of building washing for the next few years. roger (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first point and have restructured the section to change the emphasis. I moved the point about the school to the end of the paragraph, but it could be dropped completely as far as I'm concerned. Boardhead (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of you. The reason I wrote about the school decontamination is because for me this is maybe the first news that present what some Japanese do. I have read much more news about protests in Germany, rather than protests (or generally, reactions) in Japan about nuclear safety. I would like to see several news published that state what Japanese people really do. Of course, we can discuss whether we should write about people reactions on this article. As regards the opening of the door on reactor 2, we should focus on numbers and on what actually happens, so I propose to wait until the day the door opens.nickmeet (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I kind of realized all this and also figured, if you tried all other available options, this is probably the most peaceful place to document what you need.  And, even though it might be a little premature to start scouring all the buildings down from fallout -- as there still is a risk of more explosions -- it might be considered historical when people started cleaning-up.  But personally, if this is the only thing they can do to keep busy until the reactor area is deemed safe, it might be worthwhile and a more healthier option to move farther away rather then risking their healths further.  As far as opening the doors, although historical, how many more doors are they going to be opening within the next six months before they say the cores are no longer in the buildings -- so figured I wouldn't make a big deal of the small stuff. ... and to further note, I'm not there and I'm way up here, so who cares about my opinion...lol roger (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, cleaning a building is historical because it is an ad-hoc approach like in Chernobyl.nickmeet (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Tuesday, June 14 smoke/steam eruption

June, 14 from 00:00h to 03:00h lt there is a big outburst of steam and/or smoke, recorded live by the Tepco-"Live Fukushima Nuclear Plant Cam":

• http://www.twitmunin.com/v/280278/2011-06-14-00-00-01-00-福島原発ライブカメラ-live-fukushima-nuclear-plant-cam/
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-EDceWFovc (starting slowly at video-minute 0:30, major cloud starts at 2:11)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg8yGBhoLxU
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrffE86ewYw

Up to now, I didn't find info in english oder german, unfortunately I don't understand japanese... --Trofobi (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeline articles and writing standards

The deletion discussion concluded that this timeline article needs to be retained, but needs cleanup. Here is a set of a resources regarding timelines:

• Articles
  • List of timelines
  • Timeline
  • Chronology
  • Living graph
  • 2010s
• Projects
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Years
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline Tracer
• Other
  • Category:Timelines
  • Category:Graphical timelines
  • All pages with titles containing timeline

• Writing standards
  • Wikipedia:Timeline
  • Wikipedia:Timeline standards (I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards)
  • Wikipedia:Timeline syntax
  • Wikipedia:EasyTimeline
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists)
  • Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

Obankston (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This was annoying me, especially on mobile platforms. Also, the "summaries" were not summarizing, but adding new info or simply duplicating it. I reformatted the timeline and removed the superfluous "timeline" heading.     — SkyLined (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge "Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011"

The article "Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011" is referenced as the "main article" for March. However, it seems to contain less information than this article does. I suggest the former be deleted after any information that's not in the later be copied to the later.     — SkyLined (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I already removed the link: since the article contains less information, I felt that it was incorrect to reference it as the "main article".    — SkyLined (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Still Can't Find Original Source of Cesium-137 'Dispersion by Sea' Map for July 4th's Monday Entry

I've done a pretty good search and cannot find the original posting of the Cesium-137 spread map by sea supposedly performed and posted by jaea.go.jp.  Nor is there anything of late posted to jaea.go.jp.

Every article published lately merrily refers to this same news article url displaying a small image of a map: http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110627p2a00m0na009000c.html

Question being, does an original map exist?  Not only this, but the spread rate seems to be using one of the most slowest possible ocean current speed rates.

If a map does exist, should it not also be posted to the following Wikipedia page also? Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Distribution_by_sea roger (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing, only blogs or other unpopular media sources are relaying this news item and then referring back to the original article.  Since I still see no original map, I'm concluding it's false media reporting.  I suggest adding a prefix to the sentence stating "Online newsite mdn.mainichi.jp reported, Radioactive cesium from Fukushima was expected to enter the Japanese seafood supply and projected to reach U.S. West Coast in 5 years.  However, there seems to be no original published research papers or map images available." ... else, somebody can produce the url's, etc.  Another option, deleting it completely unless verifiable data can be produced.

Some more interesting news and likely more verifiable, Radioactive whales caught 650 km / 404 mi from Fukushima plant.

I've been planning my fishing trips using the faster deep ocean currents of 1 mph for an extra margin of safety.  From guess work, deep ocean currents are typically much less then this, while surface currents are much much faster. You can use the following website for a reference, Speed of Ocean Currents.  To convert m/s (meters per second or centimeters per second, use google.com and enter "2 m/s to mph".  These speed rates completely contradict the above so-called published dispersion rate map after multiplying the number of miles to the distant coasts, right??  (I think they somewhere included the amount of time a message in a bottle is atypically found after floating from one coast to another?)

roger (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit July 2011

Hi

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need looking at:

Friday, 11 March

• 14:46 "finds that units 1 and 2 are not operating correctly" - reactor units or generators? The preceding sentence part is talking about the generators.
• A quote was not correct, "Daiichi" had been replaced with "Fukushima I"

Saturday, 12 March

• There are two paragraphs of information at the end which seem to repeat what is said in the timeline - the first repeats 05:30's comment and the second repeats 20:00's.

Tuesday, 15 March

• 20:00 "most severe condition of the three reactors" - which three? there were six as far as I understood.
• "An explosion in the "pressure suppression room" causes" - in which or what psr?

Thursday, 17 March

• What relevance is the last sentence? Surely there should be some mention of the consequences of the wait?

Sunday, 20 March

• "both of which are returned to cold shutdown." - perhaps "both of which are returned to cold shutdown status" or "both of which are returned to a cold shutdown state"?
• "Japanese broadcaster NHK at 1:06." 01:06 Sunday or 13:06 Sunday?

Thursday, 24 March

• It is not clear where the workers are from, i.e. which company they work for, and which company the manuals are from.

Wednesday, 30 March

• "finds radioactive iodine in milk in the United States." - as a result of this accident or jsut that they found it? How can this be linked/proven as being from Fukushima?

Thursday, 31 March

• "The world's largest concrete pumping plant" -> "The world's largest concrete pumping truck" - Clarify, as plant is also the name for a large factory.

General

• There seems to be a mix of present tense and past tense used. This should ideally be one, probably present tense (although there are some instances when the timeline talks about previous days and the past tense is appropriate).
• The usage of "reactor 1", "reactor 2", etc. may be unacceptable. I am not sure though so I have left them as is - it may transpire that they should all be changed to "reactor No. 1", "reactor No. 2" etc. and can be easily achieved by the use of AWB or similar.
• Date format changed from "Monday, 1 June" to "Monday, June 1" towards the last third of the article. I have matched them to the same as the first half.
• According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry) elements should not be capitalised. Caesium is spelled caesium, as cesium is a redirect.

Copyedit finished! Chaosdruid (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid.  In my opinion, the main purpose of this time line was to keep a log of active issues in a time line format so press and residents can be informed rather then depending on inaccurate info obtained elsewhere.  During this time, the information was gleamed from a multitude of press, radio and Internet radio reports; with their references documented.  Some inaccurate press reports were made to my knowledge, but we did the best we could to filter and remove them as they became unverifiable over short periods of time.

Secondary to the primary goal (as documented above), it also seems a good place for a documented historical time line.  Of which, you seemingly mistook as the primary goal of this time line  I don't think we were too concerned about certain specifics at the time, but only more concerned about getting accurate information and certain specifics.  (ie. reactor blew-up now evacuate, contamination present in drinking water so don't drink the water -- we weren't too concerned about which reactor blew within the square mile area or which faucet in the room was contaminated, just as long as nobody's safety was put in jeopardy.  These specifics can likely be found within the press references, but I'll take a gander the press was more perplexed with our first goal as well!  So the reference material might also be quite bland.  However, you can also cross-reference with the 2011 Japanese nuclear incidents as it contains more specific info about everything in general vs. just the "(possible) threats to safety issues".  I see your changes now, including the last one in the list above referrring to the largest concrete pumping truck.

I'm sure things will get straightened out sooner or later.  Thanks for correcting the obvious blunders!

Just heard last night on NHK Shortwave 10:00 JST(?) that they were now searching for supposed hot spots with hand scanners as some equipment(?) has detected some really hot spots within a generalized area.

Comment signed by: roger (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. This timeline is a remarkable document, as such I believe its primary and secondary goals should be switched, making the "historic documented timeline" the main goal here (that would also be more encyclopaedic than "Log of issues"). As such the article is already 85-90% there, in my opinion, with just a few little changes to make if fully encyclopaedic :¬)

Imagine a student or schoolchild that wants to do research on a nuclear accident - where are they most likely to go? Windscale? Three Mile Island? Chernobyl? or the most recent, which is probably the only one out of those that occurred in their memory.

This article is really important in documenting those events. It explains how things seemed ok to start with, and then proved otherwise, how people were misled, how mistakes were made, and how important it is to learn fro this for the future. If I was at school I would have loved the opportunity for this kind of an article. It has links to official documents, news reports, video, and from all sides of the story!

Do not underestimate the power of encyclopaedic material, after all this page was viewed 86,608 times between May and July (as Fukushima I), and 4,727 times in the second half of July (as Fukushima Daiichi). I expect that the numbers may drop, but they may also rise when schools go back after summer and if this becomes part of any projects. That amount of traffic warrants the article getting a chance at being as good as it can be. Compare this article to the others: Three_Mile_Island_accident#Timeline, Chernobyl_disaster#Timeline and Windscale_fire#The_accident

This one is so much more detailed it is an incredible record Chaosdruid (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto concerning moving goals towards accuracy, things have simmered down a little now (no pun intended).

The significance of this Time Line article really contains a significant Political Science lesson concerning policing and/or money.  Are the police there for the security of the government or for the people?  (ie. WW2 era German police rounding up Jewish people and knowing they're sending them to their graves by doing so.  Some neglected their duty/orders and secretly aided the people.)  Is money more important then human lives?  One can obviously see part of this money drama by the recent news of the Japanese government renaming their Nuclear Safety agency to an environmentally concerned agency.  Energy is a big thing in the World.  These issues are not just specific to the Japanese government, but can be constantly actively found throughout life today. (Book Ref. Ordinary Men : Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland Christopher Browning)

Although what I've written sounds negative towards the Japanese people, I really find the Japanese people extremely motivated and focused towards bettering themselves and life around them.  Recently, just found their main religion is Shinto, seemingly completely different from other mainstream religions.

On the research side, I find it more useful to view a time line because I can easily skip/skim rather then having to read through paragraphs, trying to extract information.  One can easily then, just compare facts to find discrepancies.  A time line seems to double the information value of a basic encyclopedia entry.

Signed off by: roger (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Water injection for blocks 5 and 6

There is a Reuters reference that blocks 5 and 6 have also been cooled by water (fresh or sea water?). However the text of that source is very short (literally a couple of sentences), not confirmed elsewhere and not following from the logic of the events. We need additional reference for details about that or maybe could remove this as questionable. Unlike blocks 1 to 4, the blocks 5 and 6 did not suffered significant damage hence it is strange if they required emergency cooling. Audriusa (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

images

why did almost all the images get deleted when this page was moved from the fukushima page? Several images were being used to illustrate specific points in the text etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.113.98 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Factual stuff is contained on the Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents page(s).roger (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think this article should contain more images, since this would give the reader a visual guide to point down the major events.--spitzl (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Small typo

guys, on the 11th of march, there is a 'equals' sign. can't edit the page now, am at school (which is banhammered from Wikipedia)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. Oda Mari (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Debris Field Reported to have reached Sitka, Alaska

NBC Evening TV News just reported at approximately Tue May 1 03:03 2012 UTC, the debris field has reached the Sitka, Alaska coastline and will likely occur in surges/waves. They also briefly showed a new digitized model representing the debris field float path by some agency. roger (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The local paper here reported it is a "Canadian island". Sitka is likely very close, if not the exact location; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration seems to be monitoring ocean debris: http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/18430199/article-Tsunami-swept-Harley-in-container-found-in-Canada?instance=home_news_window_left_bullets; I did my own math as I fish from the coast here in Alaska and calculated, using average fast ocean currents, water from Fukushima could reach here within three to six months. So debris showing up now doesn't surprise me at all. roger (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nitrogen-16?

The Saturday March 12 entry contains the sentence "This steam contains water vapor, hydrogen, oxygen and some radioactive material, mostly tritium and nitrogen-16." Nitrogen-16 has a half life of 7 seconds, so that doesn't sound plausible. 173.219.75.66 (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011

In July 2011, it was proposed that Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011 be merged into Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Since then, there has been no discussion, and little editing (8 edits since July 2011) of the "log" page. I also find that there are almost no links to the "log" page, but many links to the "timeline". So, it seemed clear to me that the "log" page should be merged into the "timeline".

Unfortunately, although the "timeline" page is quite a bit longer than the "log" page, the "log" is still quite long, and items in the two pages occasionally contradict each other. So, it would take an enormous effort to merge all of the unique information in the "log" into the "timeline". Since the "timeline" is already quite long (148,538 bytes), I have decided to delete the "log" entirely.

However, rather than simply delete the "log", I have copied its contents into a new page under my user page, at User:Dtgriscom/Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011. I would appreciate it if anyone with interest would copy any useful material from that page to the "timeline" page, and delete material which should be relegated to the bit bucket.

Thanks, Dan Griscom (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Second explosion of reactor 3?

The article mentions a second explosion of reactor 3 on March 15, referencing a report from The World Meteorological Organization, which states "Unit 3 explored again" (this is their typo, not mine). I question the reliability of this source, and I haven't been able to verify this claim with another reference. Boardhead (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No new updates-last update is August 2013

I just noticed that there are no updates with the timeline ending in August 26 of 2013.

Errors and mistakes continue to occur.

http://rt.com/news/fukushima-button-mistake-worker-834/

173.23.112.63 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a continuous stream of minor mishaps in the decommissioning. I think it is reasonable to report only the significant incidents. Accidentally switching off the cooling pumps comes under the minor mishap category unless they took a significant amount of time to turn them back on again. Boardhead (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110404021750/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-radiation-milk-20110331,0,7944812.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-radiation-milk-20110331,0,7944812.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110921200920/http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/21/japan-typhoon-roke.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/21/japan-typhoon-roke.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121106104556/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/03/bloomberg1376-LNS8HU1A1I4H01-0LGDTMA62NN12V3Q1MNPDH59JP.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/03/bloomberg1376-LNS8HU1A1I4H01-0LGDTMA62NN12V3Q1MNPDH59JP.DTL
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120203031732/http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Japan-utility-seals-area-with-high-radiation-level-1693617.php to http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Japan-utility-seals-area-with-high-radiation-level-1693617.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121111223907/http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110802-710970.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110802-710970.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Time of tsunami arrival

Hi there.

Most sources and timestamped images recorded the tsunami reaching the FDNPP1 site at 15:36 - 15:42 local time.

Not 15:29

(Sources)

• https://makanaka.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/in-pictures-342-pm-fukushima-nuclear-power-station-on-11-march/
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dED9AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT51&lpg=PT51&dq=tsunami+fukushima+3:42&source=bl&ots=KfNcmaj9ua&sig=2CeIFwCJ0Bs5OKh6cvAUH_oefMk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit9IW1navMAhWmJMAKHS9iC3IQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=tsunami%20fukushima%203%3A42&f=false
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xc-lBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=tsunami+fukushima+15:37&source=bl&ots=irRd6B6fjK&sig=NZMI67_KSErM0gScn_jbiRPpGbo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT49XQn6vMAhUDRhQKHZg4ATIQ6AEIQDAG#v=onepage&q=tsunami%20fukushima%2015%3A37&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.110.138 (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Timeline of the 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513050824/http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78008.html to http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78008.html
• Added archive https://web.http://www.webcitation.org/5xJ1uphia to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/18_25.html
• Added archive https://web.http://www.webcitation.org/5ykpp0m9m to http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81122.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110405074653/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20110327/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110327/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110619001951/http://mdn.mainichi.jp:80/mdnnews/news/20110616p2a00m0na015000c.html to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110616p2a00m0na015000c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Timeline of the 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1306229916P.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=soc_30&k=2011031500479
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611163226/http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/15/japan-nuclear-reactor-storage-pool-may-be-boiling/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/15/japan-nuclear-reactor-storage-pool-may-be-boiling/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/18_25.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414184011/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/19_11.html to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/19_11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501090831/http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110322-1-1.pdf to http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110322-1-1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110322195213/http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110322-3-1.pdf to http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110322-3-1.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81122.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511114926/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/24_53.html to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/24_53.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123248837
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xWI2G8Me?url=http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_26.html to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_26.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-radiation-milk-20110331%2C0%2C7944812.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323204637/http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/110320/3/ncmx.html to http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/110320/3/ncmx.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513003524/http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300368041P.pdf to http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300368041P.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://in.ibtimes.com/articles/132391/20110409/japan-nuclear-crisis-radiation.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110619001951/http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110616p2a00m0na015000c.html to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110616p2a00m0na015000c.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716005936/http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/s/article/2011071390070408.html to http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/s/article/2011071390070408.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715020854/http://mainichi.jp/select/weathernews/news/20110714ddm001040054000c.html to http://mainichi.jp/select/weathernews/news/20110714ddm001040054000c.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1313037997P.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521071937/http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1320208900P.pdf to http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1320208900P.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103124954/http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1320374709P.pdf to http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1320374709P.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103104541/http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1323921629P.pdf to http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1323921629P.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521074911/http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1324275503P.pdf to http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1324275503P.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516160456/http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1327033033P.pdf to http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1327033033P.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521073935/http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1329889047P.pdf to http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1329889047P.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521082833/http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1333614003P.pdf to http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1333614003P.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110061324/http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1337929736P.pdf to http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1337929736P.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20130322_01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829070907/http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/ to http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)