This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is "Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents" really appropriate? Daiichi is in the introduction as being covered by this article, but Daini also had incidents at that plant. If this article covers both nuclear power plants, then the title is fine, if it only covers Fukushima I, then it should be renamed Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 12:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant
• Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant

The addressing of both plants resolves this name issue. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 13:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If this only covers only plant 1, then should it exist separately from Fukushima I nuclear accidents ? (see Talk:Fukushima I nuclear accidents for the status of that article)

The intro paragraph clearly links only to Daiichi, and not to Daini.

184.144.160.156 ( talk) 12:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The intro paragraph has been corrected, as this article addresses both plants. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 13:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of times that are the time that someone told the media what hapend, and not the time the actual event hapend. What is interesting in a time line is the actual events time if it is avaible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.14.129 ( talk) 12:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

just as a note, some quite specific times are included in press releases from NISA and TEPCO, and of course they are not always consistent. Sandpiper ( talk) 14:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the valid distinct roles of wikipedia may be to track media coverage and thus it is of interest when various ministries and corporations issue their press releases and when various important news agencies release that information, where the inaccuracies occur, who scoops whom. Geofferybard ( talk) 05:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to say that the two tables for conditions on March 14th have been very informative for establishing what is currently going on. Is there any chance that with the recent developments that the table could be updated, or perhaps a new table made for the current status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.86.74 ( talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There's something wrong, it's not saying if it's Daiichi or Daini station. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 02:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a big problem with one of the Fukushima I images. File:Japanese second explosion.png is on commons, claims to have been screencap'd off CTV Winnipeg, a commercial TV station, but also claims to be GFDL. This is clearly impossible. The screenshot itself has a credit for NTV Japan, annother commercial TV station.

I suggest this be uploaded to Wikipedia with the copyright status corrected, and fair-use rationales created for the pages on which it would appear. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 01:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/fire-at-japan-nuke-plant-radiation-rises-kan-20110315-1bvdl.html 110.174.86.241 ( talk) 02:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this article, I wonder if there is some confusion between Reactor #2 and #4, because the article states that #4 had an explosion and fire, while everything else points to damage having occurred at #2. I guess it might just pay to keep an eye on this one. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/japan-quake-snapshot-idUKL3E7ED02D20110315 72.66.232.117 ( talk) 03:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Michael Rudmin

The BBC translated the presidents speech as stating Reactor Number Four was on fire. It seemed odd to me also but it could be damage from the explosion from Reactor Number Two, I think we should wait for more information and sources before adding it to the article 94.168.210.8 ( talk) 03:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Table in section regarding Tuesday 15 March has been vandalized. Recommend locking article? SnowmanRequiem ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Yes the article was recently vandalized however I do not think that we should request page protection because there has not been enough activity to justify protection and many of the edits that have greatly improved the article have been IP edits. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 03:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactors 5 and 6 were shut down prior to the earthquake. But their fuel load remains in the core, and still needs cooling, just as the spent fuel. The longer the reactor is shut down, they need less and less cooling, but it's several years until they'd need no cooling at all. The wording "not neccessary" implies exactly that (no cooling at all), and that's wrong for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.52.149.147 ( talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

With so many articles floating around, a template would be a good idea for the 2011 quake/tsunami/nuclear disaster. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 12:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A sample template is available at Talk:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami/Template:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

Talk:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami/Template:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

184.144.160.156 ( talk) 12:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, very good idea. Do you have a bit of time to implement your idea? I'd like to, but don't have the time right now. Xionbox ^₪ 13:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't, I'm not an autoconfirmed user, and several of the pages are protected in any case. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 13:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If this gets implemented, it should be placed at {{ 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami}}. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 14:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The most recent update at 18:00 16th March about radiation decreasing and link to map. It's only 19:52 right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.23.54 ( talk) 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC timeline article

This BBC timeline article should be of great help. -- spitzl ( talk) 12:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

NISA timeline

The Seismic Damage Information bulletins issued by Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) include a detailed timeline: http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english 82.132.248.225 ( talk) 13:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Telegraph online timeline

A timeline which focuses on official statements (NB - the times are all in UTC!): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8383473/Japan-nuclear-crisis-Timeline-of-official-statements.html 82.132.248.240 ( talk) 16:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

CNN's timeline

I just spotted this [1], which has substantial overlap but some slightly different times for things. Since I'm not working on this article I thought I should throw it out here to see if anyone wants to reconcile it with this version. Wnt ( talk) 23:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is basically unsourced - and what are these times...the times the events actually took place or the times that the events were reported, or a mixture of both.? -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 14:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe most of this article was copied from the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant articles; whoever did the copying forgot to copy over the references. They should all be there; someone just needs to match the statements and copy the references over (checking them out along the way to make sure they actually support each item, of course).-- dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It looked weirdly specific in a way that implied an employee of the plant has been making edits. Especially the "We" part...if so, please verify your identity, and then we can consider the edits to be reliably sourced. Right? -- Magmagirl ( talk) 16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong: That would be at best a self published source or at worst, original research. 86.179.104.178 ( talk) 16:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the new stuff was added in here, I am going to try and manually remove it as it is totally uncited.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pontificalibus, I just undid your good faith revision. In fact, I agree with you that uncited sentences must go. In this case chances are high though that there are good sources for each statement. Lets give the author some time to add them.-- spitzl ( talk) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok ok, I take it all back. You were absolutely right. My bad.-- spitzl ( talk) 18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think these are RS. [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Oda Mari ( talk) 17:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

With Siverts being a si unit when it reaches "1000 micro Sieverts", isn't that then "1 sievert". If so I think this,

"Environmental effect 11,900 microSievert/hour at 09:10"

should read 11.9 Sievert/hour instead of 11,900 microSievert/hour

this would provide better understanding for people looking at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Exposure_levels 94.168.210.8 ( talk) 03:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing micro and milli. It would be .0119 Sv 74.109.223.215 ( talk) 04:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sievers - at what location?

"Environmental effect - between 0.1 and 0.4 Sv/h". I think someone has mixed sieverts inside reactor room and near power plant (environment). -- 81.19.115.130 ( talk) 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful to add an entry for the state of the spent fuel pools in the different blocks. See also analysis by Arjun Makhijani -- PSeibert ( talk) 11:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I will note that the paper is written by the IEER, an anti-nuclear group, pushing a program called "Carbon Free and Nuclear Free". It may be an accurate analysis. And it may not. But I'd prefer a more neutral source than the publication of an anti-nuclear activist group.

Sbergman27 ( talk) 20:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The table states Fukushuma 1 Unit 1 at 20:30 on March 14 and 0700 on March 15, for "Pressure vessel, water level:" "None." This seems to be stating that there is no water whatever in that reactor core, which is a dire situation which would lead to a complete meltdown. Is it supposed to mean that we have "no status information," and if it really means the fuel rods are completely exposed, a source is needed. Edison ( talk) 15:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybes

"18:00: Japanese nuclear safety official has confirmed reports that the water inside the waste fuel storage pool for the number 4 Fukushima reactor may be boiling, AP reports."

How can you maybe confirm ?

Dear Sirs!100 and 400 millisieverts mSv/h[19]

-100 and 400 milliSieverts/hour -100 000 to 400 000 microSievert/ μSv hour Milli is 1/1000 part Micro is 1/1000 000 part or Norma 0.2 microSievert in hour Zasdcxz ( talk) 23:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

489.8 µSv/hour/ mikroSievert in hour/ this is 0,4898 milliSievert in hour at 16:30 is ABSOLUTE UNREAL and mistake / we have report today early 100- 400 milliSievert or 100 000-400 000 mikroSievert/hour/ Sorry In article BBC [19] say 100-400 milliSievert in hour 100-400 mSv You misstake mikro and milli sign Zasdcxz ( talk) 22:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Zasdcxz (
talk • 
contribs) 22:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 

184.144.160.156 ( talk) 02:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this belongs here, so please delete this comment if you think it doesn't. Also, please distribute this if you think it should be. This is not spam, I just want to show a good, local point of view of what's happening in japan. reuters/NHK live streaming: rtmp://fl0.c03837.cdn.qbrick.com/03837/live for high res, and mms://nhk-world-m.gekimedia.net/nhkw-highm for low res, both are being translated to english. Thanks. 201.246.221.226 ( talk) 07:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I forgot to add these: http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/ and http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/default.aspx , both are being updated. 201.246.221.226 ( talk) 07:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sirs!BBC live http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698 report 16.03.2011 08 00 London time

-600 - 800 milliSievert/hour / mSv or 6OO 000 -800 000 MicroSievert/ hour on nuclear station / Front gate/

That drop from level before 1000 milliSievert/hour mSv

Normal radiation level- 0.2 microSievert per hour.

Sorry Zasdcxz ( talk) 09:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We should improve the zircaloy article, with all that is being mentioned about the failure modes of the fuel rod cladding. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 08:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone can read a little bit of Japanese there is a PDF put out by TEPCO that lists their measurements by time:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110316e.pdf 99.22.62.94 ( talk) 10:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Should there be an article relating rad, rem, roentgen, curie, gray, sievert, rutherford, becquerel ? We don't seem to have an overarching article to cover the differences between these units. As older disasters did not use sieverts (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl) in news broadcasts from that period, people looking up resources on those events may end up needing some sort of guide on the issue. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 12:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sirs!Please PUT MEDIA SOURCE about current radiation level on your date WITH VERIFIABLE possibility . This is MEGA DISASTER /German-MEGA GAY/ You date 3 361 μSv/hour 3 361 microSieivert/hour ??????????????????Normal radiation level- 0.2 microSievert/hour.

Please,can you read this http://www.kavkazcenter.info/eng/content/2011/03/16/13828.shtml http://www.kavkazcenter.info/eng/content/2011/03/16/13829.shtml

Sorry,sorry Zasdcxz ( talk) 12:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sirs! Commentary Boris Paramonow/UK/ Radiation dimension, all dramatically simplified /

1 Sv / Sievert / = 100 Roentgen / biological Roentgen /

1 microSievert / h μSv= 100 micro-Roentgen per hour

1 000 000 = 10 -6 degree microRoentgen per hour = 1 Roentgen per hour

Normal level of radiation 0.20 mikroSievert / h = 20 microRoentgen per hour,

1 Gray = 1 Sievert

1 Gray = 100 Roentgen / Rad on the scientific /

1 BER = 1 Roentgen

1Rad = 1 Roentgen / Röntgen in the original in German /

1 Rem = 1 Roentgen

Lethal dose is about -600 Roentgen / Rad on the scientific /= 6 Sievert All dramatically simplified

Becquerel Never translate into Roentgen

-Becquerel and Curui is that you had get fallen on his head / background / -Roentgen something that you become inside during particular PERIOD of TIME before you leave an infected area.

Acute radiation sickness

In practice, almost never determined by the dose that you have received, it is very difficult to measure the total your dose. ALWAYS determined by the symptoms, particularly in terms of decrease of lymphocytes, white blood cells / on what day and what per cent./

-1 Mild radiation sickness 100-200 Roentgen ,100-200 Rad (1-2 Gray (Gy), 1-2 Sv, 100-200 Rem, 100, 000-200, 000 mRem / milliRoentgen / 100, 000,000 - 200, 000, 000 microRoentgens.

-2 Moderate radiation sickness -200-350 Roentgen 2-3.5 SV

-3 severe radiation sickness-350-600 Roentgen 3.5-6 Sv

600 Roentgen-Rem- =6 Sv - lethal dose

-4 Very severe radiation sickness - 600-800 Roentgen 6-8 Sv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_sickness

All dramatically simplified ,sorry,sorry for possible mistakes. Zasdcxz ( talk) 13:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The initial opening of the article does have some text regarding damage caused by an earthquake and tsunami, but there's no entry in the time line after the earthquake of said tsunami or any details as to what was actually damaged because of it. -- Rubin110 ( talk) 10:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a time-index for the time that the tsunami hit, add it. The IAEA doesn't have a time-index for that, only that it had occurred at some point. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 10:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In the main 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami#Japan article the tsunami hit Sendai airport at 15:55 local time. Would it be wrong to assume that the tsunami hit the rest of the coast at approximately the same time? As far as damage goes, there was a posting a few days ago somewhere talking about how the majority of generators were swept away with the tsunami, I'll see if I can dig it up again. -- Rubin110 ( talk) 10:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, tsunami travel fast, but not instantaneously. Fukushima is far from Sendai. Though if you use the "approximately" notation some of the entries on the timeline contain, you could do it. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 10:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to find reliable info on this. I have found "one hour" (after the main earthquake) http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=29625&terms=tsunami "about an hour" http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html In addition to the diesel generators, the switchyard was hit by the tsunami, see http://mitnse.com/ (apologies for my limited Wikipedia skills) Oaklandguy ( talk) 06:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

...Kyodo News reported that radiation had risen to 8.2 millisieverts per hour[98] around two hours after the explosion—about four times what one usually is exposed to within a whole year.... The article currently states a rate (8.2 mSv/hour) can be a multiple of (four times) a total accumulation (exposure accumulated after a year, no units given) and then later drop to an accumulation (2.4 mSv). Such is not possible. The statement ought to be either rewritten in terms that make sense or eliminated as being of no value.

To clarify: Please note this is not an issue with magnitudes of units (micro vs. milli).

This is an issue of mSv/hr versus mSv versus mSv again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.194.203 ( talk) 22:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In article BBC [19] say 100-400 milliSievert in hour 100-400 mSv You misstake micro and milli sign Zasdcxz ( talk) 22:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear sirs! milliSievert- mSv, MicroSievert-μSv Different 1000 time Sorry Zasdcxz ( talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sirs! 489.8 µSv/hour at 16:30 489.8 microSievert /hour -citation needed .This is absolute unreal /Japan Chernobyl / Norm. radiation level- 0.2 microSievert/hour Must be 100- 1000 time more Sorry Zasdcxz ( talk) 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sirs! 11.9 µSv/hour 11.9 microSievert /hour at 09:10, today [citation needed]!!!!!!!!!!!! This is absolute not real / norm radiation level-0,2 microSievert/hour. Now is Japan CHERNOBYL. Sorry Zasdcxz ( talk) 23:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sirs! reed, please http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435

2 mSv/yr per year)= 2 000 MicroSievert per year = 5.5 MicroSievert per day =0.23 MicroSievert per hour NORM.RADIATION LEVEL)

Typical background radiation experienced by everyone (average 1.5 mSv in Australia, 3 mSv in North America)

1 millisieverts/hour- mSv/h = 1 000 MicroSievert per hour-μSv

I Sievert per hour -Sv/h = 1 000 millisieverts/hour- mSv/h

Sorry. Zasdcxz ( talk) 00:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that some editors here are "Ma'ams" rather than "Sirs." And most can do basic arithmetic, knowing that one thousand "micros" somethings equal one "milli" something. And some are more comfortable with Rads and Rems rather than all the Grays and Sieverts, units created in some wave of adulation for some workers in the field. Edison ( talk) 04:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I am the initiator (69.112.194.203) of this topic and it was I who appended "To clarify: Please note this is not an issue with magnitudes of units (micro vs. milli). This is an issue of mSv/hr versus mSv versus mSv again." My apologies for not knowing, at the time, how to sign it. I have cleared that up, now (see above). This discussion on units is scrambled beyond my ability to follow but none of it is pertinent. There remains an issue, not with units so much as with an incorrect comparison between a dose and a dose rate. It's now in the section for Tuesday 15 March, 06:14 where it talks in "microsieverts per hour" (a dose rate) and then states, "That is about eight times a normal annual exposure" (a dose). A dose rate multiplied by eight does not equal a dose. One possible edit would say, "The radiation dose rate later fluctuated up to 8,217 microsieverts per hour, two hours after the explosion. That would result, in one hour, in a dose about eight times the normal annual dose." I cannot make that edit however because I do not know if the resulting statement would be true. I am also unable to locate the original source material. Since the text as it stood was not logical, regardless of its source, I have simply removed the incorrect comparison to accumulated annual dose. I stand by to see how this is received. Many thanks. RobertSegal ( talk) 17:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is absolute unreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.200 ( talk) 20:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone to make a chart showing the radiation levels outside the plant over time? BerserkerBen ( talk) 13:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not in the current state of confusion, I don't think. They only number that is consistently released is the measurement at the border of the plant. But it is not released at intervals but only to announce spikes and large drop-offs in radiation. 75.41.110.200 ( talk) 16:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at this PDF ( http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110316e.pdf) there seems to be readings from various measuring stations, but I cannot be sure as it is in Japanese. This could be possible once someone, or the company itself as they seem to be gradually doing, translates it. 99.22.62.94 ( talk) 16:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

YES! I think this is a great idea. I've converted the above pdf into CSV ( http://pastebin.com/uyeZwxXx - main gate location and gamma-ray radiation only), and threw it into a preliminary graph ( http://imgur.com/0544s). It illustrates the major events very well. I'll continue to refine it, but perhaps others can help! Annotations of all sorts would be great, perhaps with an estimate of the total, integrated radiation detected so far. Matt B. ( talk) 17:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a great graph, make sure to label the axis, data-time and uSv/hr(?) put a title and source and post it. BerserkerBen ( talk) 18:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You can get a text translation of the TEPCO PDF using Google Translate - just put http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press in the translation window and choose 'Japanese -> English', then open one of the recent press releases. If the bulletin has a link to a PDF file then all you have to do is click on it - it won't open as a PDF but you'll get the text translated into English. The automated translations of the bulletins themselves are surprisingly readable. It saves waiting several hours for the English version to appear on the TEPCO website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.93 ( talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

someon has put some on the accident article. Sandpiper ( talk) 23:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a more visually appealing version: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Radiation.png (Annotated) and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fukushima-Radiation.png (unannotated), or as SVGs at ttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Radiation.svg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fukushima-Radiation.svg . I don't know how best to incorporate them into the page. Matt B. ( talk) 01:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I say lets go with the unannotated one, except I have a question about the title, what is "Tai-iChi" I can't find that name in the article and I'm sure people will be confused, Personally I think it would be best to stick with English names (or numbers in this case. BerserkerBen ( talk) 03:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is misinformation. CNN actually reported on air that it is a 10km evactuation radius around Daini, not 3 or 6. and if you have been paying attention to NHK-G or NHK World this 10km evactuation around Daini has been since the second day of this, it was declared at the same time Daiichi was increased to 10km. But CNN is just noticing this. Currently according to NHK it is 10km evactuation around Daini and 20km evactuation arund Daiichi with 30km to stay indoors. If there is a source for the US embassy 20 miles for Daiichi and Daini I'd like to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.38.77 ( talk) 18:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

you can track the evacuation announcements from the NISA bulletins which report a sort of formal record of events they have been involved with. Sandpiper ( talk) 23:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am removing this because this is too strong a claim. No breach has been definitively established. Sources, especially Japanese sources, now indicate that the steam at unit 3 is more likely to be from the spent fuel pool as opposed to the core.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we continue using I/II like at the beginning of the article? Dai-ichi and Dai-Ni bear no meaning to westerners and look very similar. I and II works best for written text. When reading, one will likely be confused by "all these dai-somethings" -- 91.32.117.191 ( talk) 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is an English article correct? BerserkerBen ( talk) 21:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just heard on the news, TEPCO President is hospitalized for dizziness and something else. Vote for a small entry in the timeline? roger ( talk) 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Approve. Seems notable, if the one person expected to have greatest knowledge and responsibility is incapacitated at this time, or anything else of that kind. Indeed being widely reported: [6], [7]. Cesiumfrog ( talk) 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This reference to a central spent fuel pool in the introductory paragraph seems to have been added on 2 April. Nothing else about a central spent fuel pool is mentioned in the article. In the separate article "Fukushima 1 nuclear accidents", the central fuel storage pool is mentioned, but that article indicates everything was OK there on 28 March. Everything I have read and viewed about the power plant, and GE boiling water reactors in general, indicates that each reactor has its own spent fuel pond high up in the reactor building. These individual pools are where all the problems I have read about are happening. If the central pool is also having a problem this needs clarification.

Very good article otherwise, and one of the best sources of info on the Web.

Brownbagbill ( talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The central pool had problems because its cooling pumps run on electric motors. The amount of heat is low enough that a problems have been limited, but it is an area of concern. From today's IAEA log:

Common Spent Fuel Storage Facility: The Common Spent Fuel Pool temperature is stable. TEPCO tested an “anti-scattering” agent (2000 l) on 500 m2 area around the Common Spent Fuel Storage facility on 1st April. The purpose of spraying is to prevent radioactive particles from being dispersed from the plant by winds and rain.

So maybe the lead mention should be expanded in the article. - Colfer2 ( talk) 12:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

why call it the 'Central Spent Fuel Pool' when all references to it by tepco and the iaea use the term 'Common Spent Fuel Pool'? There are references to the area on the IAEA's daily summaries for 18th, 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th and 25th March along with rising temperature readings - in addition Tepco's report of the 23 march mentions 2 workers injured at the common spent fuel pool on 22nd at 10pm and 23rd at 1am. As the common spent fuel pool holds the vast majority of the fuel rods stored at Fukushima Daiichi it may become an issue that gains increasing importance as events unfold. 81.111.39.70 ( talk) 14:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

[Source] Government Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters: News Release (-3/30 19:00), Press conference NISA: News Release (-3/30 15:30), Press conference TEPCO: Press Release (-3/30 16:00), Press Conference

"On 30 March, NISA said that air may be leaking from the Reactor Pressure Vessels of Units 2 and 3 because some of their data show the pressure in the vessels is low, but there is no indication of large cracks or holes in the vessels."

"Air is the name given to atmosphere used in breathing and photosynthesis. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%. While air content and atmospheric pressure varies at different layers, air suitable for the survival of terrestrial plants and terrestrial animals is currently known only to be found in Earth's troposphere and artificial atmospheres." - Wikipedia

Air is not found in Reactor Pressure Vessels. Any gas escaping will be mainly Xenon hopefully 131 from decayed Iodine-131.

Jina 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that this is a mistranslation of the original Japanese word for "Gas". SteveBaker ( talk) 05:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Jina is correct - but failure of the torus (or "suppression pool") may draw in air which can be drawn up into the RPV under abnormal pressure conditions. There is also the issue of stuck or damaged pressure relief values on the torus. There still isn't much definitive evidence about the RPVs, though it is clear beyond doubt that Unit 2's was damaged severely enough to pass large amounts of several fission-product isotopes including iodine. Hence the extremely high radiation levels in turbine building 2 and in the "trench" (tunnel) for the #2 seawater pumps. Ucbuffalo81 ( talk) 19:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If the split is Daini vs Daiichi, the titles should say

Fukushima nuclear accident (Daini site)

Fukushima nuclear accident (Daiichi site)

the Daiichi or Daini naming should replace "I" and "II" which are uninformative; little-known jargon at best, and cryptic to impenetrable to most readers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

DISAGREE

For MOST people the names Daini and Daiichi mean absolutely nothing, while everywhere in the news the discussion is about Fukushima 1 power plant. Funnily enough outside of Japan these plants are better known by their numbers than their names. 91.152.41.58 ( talk) 05:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a tricky situation. Officially, the names are Daiichi and Daini which essentially translate to #1 and #2. However, I have heard both names (Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima I) so I imagine it can be fairly confusing for some. The ideal solution would be to determine which is more prevalent in reports and make that the main name here (possibly with the other name in parenthesis). Just with a rough check on google, I'm getting a huge separation in number of hits. Approximately 4.7 million for 'Fukushima Daiichi', ~7.6 million for 'Fukushima Dai-ichi' or 'Fukushima Dai Ichi', and a whopping ~44 million for 'Fukushima I'. Given that there is a ten-fold increase in hits with the current name, I see no reason to change it. The name 'Dai-ichi' is already specified in the article and it's the first hit regardless of name googled anyway, no chance of missing it. As for the split being 'Daiichi' vs 'Daini', that is a case of the speakers personal preference, for example, I say 'Daiichi' but I mean Fukushima I and would follow that convention. The terms/names in that context are irrelevant. Vindicata ( talk) 11:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you double check that, I think you've made a mistake. 4.7 million pages contain Fukishima and Daiichi, but only 3.2 million contain the exact phrase "Fukushima Daiichi". Similarly not 7.6 but 5.1 million contain "Fukushima Dai-Ichi"/"Fukushima Dai Ichi". Compare this to only 1.0 million for "Fukushima I", or 1.5 million for "Fukushima 1". (Every page containing the pronoun I and the word Fukushima is included in your 44 million, which just isn't relevent here.)

Clearly it is the transliteration (dai-ichi) that is significantly more commonly used than the translation (numeral one). Furthermore, a quick glance at the TEPCO English webpage [8] demonstrates that the official name in English is the transliteration and not the translation (and the naming of it is surely their prerogative). A quick look at the current BBC news front page story [9] demonstrates that the transliteration is also currently preferred in mainstream world media. Such convergence! Seems there's no excuse left for using the alternative (and worse, it makes the casual reader more likely to confuse reactor unit 1 with the entire daiichi site); I'm compelled to AGREE that the article should prefer the name daiichi. Cesiumfrog ( talk) 13:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not just include both?

   * Timeline of the Fukushima I (Daiichi) nuclear accidents
   * Timeline of the Fukushima II (Daini) nuclear accidents

24.87.51.64 ( talk) 07:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it wouldn't further hide this page from users. I believe it's simply 1 & 2 designations, as in the English language. When you're trying to write something shorthand, or so that it will fit within the alloted space on a piece of equipment, you would use something like "Fukushima 1" or "Fukushima 2". If you have plenty of room, then you would include the "One" (ichi) or "Two" (ni) long term. Hence, just use (@#$@#) parentheses! roger ( talk) 19:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We should probably defer to whatever decision is concluded in the main discussion. You might want to forward your alternative suggestion over there, but personally I think it would depart with a very commonly applied WP policy: usually the title picks just one name rather than inventing a hybrid, and then the lead lists all the main alternate names, and the alternate (but not hybrid) titled pages are made to automatically redirect to the article, therefore anyone who searches by any of the common alternates will still find it and no original jargon needs be invented. Cesiumfrog ( talk) 22:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just keep the long, most informative page names, but at the same time add things like "Fukushima I", "Fukushima II", "Fukushima 1", "Fukushima 2", "Daiichi" and "Daini", as some kind of tags, that would be redirected to the correct pages? 90.191.78.48 ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The timeline entry for Thursday, 31 March states: "Plans begin to implement Chernobyl's concrete sarcophagus solution to Fukushima plant." The citation is inadequate but leads/links to an article in the Augusta Chronicle where Jerry Ashmore of Ashmore Concrete Contractors is quoted: "Our understanding is, they are preparing to go to next phase and it will require a lot of concrete." The use of very large concrete pumps from the same manufacturer (Putzmeister) back in 1986 at Chernobyl is mentioned, but nowhere in this article is any mention of a sarcophagus solution being planned by TEPCO. The article does seem confusing and immediately mentioning Chernobyl is somewhat sensationalistic. Neither TEPCO nor the Japanese regulators JAIF have made any announcements or statements suggesting they plan to implement a sarcophagus solution. TEPCO has been focused on restoring plant electrical systems for the last two weeks. Per the IAEA accident timeline on IAEA's site, power to the control room indicators and control equipment for units 3 and 4 (combined control room) was restored on or about April 6th. The lighting circuits had been repaired earlier for both this and the other control room serving units 1 and 2. Point being, TEPCO is doing a lot of electrical work so they can restore closed-loop cooling. That's not anything like Chernobyl, which was entombed while still hot. And why would they be trying to restore normal plant functions in a facility they intend to entomb? I can see large amounts of concrete being used as extra biological sheilding, but nothing like a complete sacrophagus. See IAEA and TEPCO websites. Secondary source: Atomic Power Review ^[1] A lot of data, especially data about any improvements in plant condition, has not been covered by media in the US. TEPCO is using diesel and electric pumps with backup diesel generators for most of the cooling work. TEPCO is not "struggling" to keep the reactors wet, but they are working very hard to start closed-loop cooling which will greatly improve radiation control. Ucbuffalo81 ( talk) 19:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem correct concerning the media coverage in the US covering the Fukushima incident.  Not much heard here, and I'm in Alaska.  From my knowledge and based on hearsay, they do not intend to entomb the plants as the concrete will deteriorate quickly over time and will prevent cooling, putting ground water at further risk. (per Chernobyl disaster?) The past day's notes [10] iterate this.  However, seems international support has been commencing according to past day's notes [11] concerning pumps transfered from Atlanta via Russian assistance - which is extremely reassuring.  And since you mentioned, I can see them using concrete barriers or ground loop cooling coils, etc, in a partial entombment.  (I've been wondering why dump the water, and just recycle it.  Recool it using nitrogen or something, but maybe it was seawater.)  We'll probably be seeing more distortions as containment on this scale is one big experiment.  roger ( talk) 01:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

TEPCO currently plans to avoid a Chernobyl-like strategy. TEPCO does not project entombing the radioactive material in concrete -- see "TEPCO won't take Chernobyl approach to resolving nuclear power plant crisis," Mainichi Shimbun (Japan). 8 April 2011. If circumstances were to change, the remote-controlled Putzmeister boom pumps could be retrofitted to deliver concrete as was done at Chernobyl. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is basically an overblown daily diary and is not encyclopedic. It is far too long and has become a dumping ground for any little snippet of information that seems to be associated with the topic. The long and sprawling tables are confusing to readers and reduce readability and neatness. Use of dot points interrupts the flow of the text and makes it difficult to read. Johnfos ( talk) 18:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this not reasonable in the context of creating an article about an on-going event?

Yes, we can anticipate that some detail will be consolidated or perhaps removed in the ultimate editing process, but not now. The criteria for overly aggressive conventional editing have not yet evolved.

IMO, the question for editors at this stage of the article becomes: Is a new detail likely to be helpful or unhelpful to those who might consult this article during the course of an unfolding narrative? -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that some detail can be consolidated and summarised as time goes on. And some info can be shifted to other articles where it might be more appropriate. But as for documenting an "unfolding narrative" I don't think that is the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnfos ( talk) 19:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Consider History of Western civilization. The first half of the article covers roughly 500 BC to 1800, and the second half covers the remaining 211 years. I would expect something similar from this article - that is, more detail for the most recent items, and less detail for the older items with the perspective granted by hindsight helping to determine which items to keep or drop. The cascade of events shortly after the earthquake leading to the failure of the cooling systems is particularly important to this article, as is the most recent few days of updates, because people will read this article to find out exactly how things came unraveled and to learn the present situation. The content in between can be pruned as it becomes clear that it's not significant to the situation's development. -- ke4roh ( talk) 19:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnfos -- If "unfolding narrative" is a controversial choice of words, it is easy to strike out the phrase. In general, we are on the same page. IMO, a good example of a table which did not seem helpful is here. However, in the context of WP:AGF, I guessed that it is arguably valuable for someone else? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Material consolidated, using summary from Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Johnfos ( talk) 21:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

When this event can actually be declared over, there will be a great time for pruning - because then, we'll have a good idea of what turned out to be key points in the timeline and what was just chaff. The whole-sale gutting of the article you just performed, however, is just the kind of arrant deletionism that Wikipedia has become so infamous for. -- Kolbasz ( talk) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If material is not encyclopedic, and falls outside of WP policy guidelines, it generally doesn't survive for long on Wikipedia. Johnfos ( talk) 21:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bravo Johnfos! You removed extremely valuable, verified yet still unexplained information (i.e. about raising levels of radiation on April 7th). Are you with TEPCO? That would explain. 23:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.7.50 ( talk)

(edit conflict) As I said at the outset, this page became a dumping ground for all sorts of information in the end. Detailed discussion of radiation levels should be at Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Johnfos ( talk) 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

lol, he is not with Tepco or any pro-nuclear organization, I can tell you that much. - Theanphibian ^{( talk • contribs)} 23:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the first time in my four years on WP that someone has suggested that I work for a nuclear power company :) Johnfos ( talk) 23:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverting overblown copy-edit which was too bold

I would support undoing Johnfos's copy-edit. I understand the intention, but his comments in this thread were not sufficient warning. The cuts were too bold, too dramatic, too extensive.

For example, in the text for just one day -- April 6 -- everything was removed without explanation. In this one instance, the deletion of all text with inline citation support was unjustified. This kind of extensive copy-edit is arguably premature. This edit also removed many inline citations. Johnfos's judgment retains some hyperlinks which are likely to become broken within the coming months, and his decision-making deleted some inline citations (with embedded hyperlinks) which are likely to remain active.

In summary, this was simply too much. There were no redlinks in the citation notes before Johnfos's massive edit, and now they are a problem for someone else to resolve. -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I endorse Kolbasz' comment above here. -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnfos, the problem is that you have removed a great variety of detail which others may consider worthy of inclusion, and because you edited the article so extensively at the same time it is now very difficult for us to diff exactly what (and how many facts) has been removed; basically our only easy recourse is to undo your good improvements along with the bad. (If one example may be representative, I disagree with removal of mention of the US drone plane brought in to help survey, and I'd hate to think that similarly notable details may also be lost.) During any major edit, it is always better for you to quarantine debatable content into minor subsections instead of immediately deleting it in the same go (so less to step on all the other editors toes). Remember, as already mentioned this is the greatest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl and so even decades from now we will likely expect a more substantial quantity of content on WP; the trimming of facts now is premature and subjective. Cesiumfrog ( talk) 03:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that, if you revert, you will be going back to an article that is basically an overblown daily diary and is not encyclopedic. It will still be far too long because it has become a dumping ground for any little snippet of information that seems to be associated with the topic. It will still need cleanup and copyediting because the long and sprawling tables will still be confusing to readers and reduce readability and neatness, and use of dot points interrupts the flow of the text. Johnfos ( talk) 06:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnfos, I am sorry if I was discourteous. Of course I never believed you were a pro-nuclear fanatic. I was just pissed off to see that on the one repository of the detailed story that impacts the planet, the sum of information that has been gathered is simply washed away by the decision of a single person. This article is not a dissertation: it is called "Timeline" and so it is, with as much detail as can be gathered. It may be used by generations in the future. And the chronology of details may be revealing very important information at some point. Where else will you find that? 08:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.7.50 ( talk)

No offense taken. Honestly. And thank you for coming back to talk about this further. I understand what you and the others are saying about possible loss of important details. But my main concern is with the overall quality and integrity of the article from a Wikipedia viewpoint. The shorter version of the article is not perfect, but I believe it is a step in the right direction. Johnfos ( talk) 09:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, whether you are known or not, every few days there are whiners posting here their irrelevant rants that could be obviously considered anti or pro nuclear.  roger ( talk) 09:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC) (This user has the Wiki Award for Powering his house for a full day on one can of baked beans.)

It was exactly for that reason that I opposed the split a few weeks ago. However significant the event, there is just too much "news" here and not enough encyclopaedic content. Time to get the garden shears out, peeps! -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia's purpose is to be encyclopedic and to provide a good summary of a topic. That being said, I personally keep coming back to this page for the "daily diary" and most recent snippets of information. As the event has progressed, the article has reduced this in favor of encyclopedic content. My question is, where can I go to find the daily diary of events? Do any of you know of another single site that provides this information? I don't expect it to all be here, but it would be nice to find somewhere. Thanks. 166.20.224.12 ( talk) 13:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the nuanced comments of Cesiumfrog here + here and Kolbasz here.

Perhaps the words of Cesiumfrog deserve re-visiting:

"... the problem is that you have removed a great variety of detail ... and because you edited the article so extensively at the same time it is now very difficult for us to diff exactly what (and how many facts) has been removed; basically our only easy recourse is to undo your good improvements along with the bad."

This problem is distilled in an English idiom: Throw out the baby with the bathwater. Paraphrasing Johnfos, "the shorter version of the article creates so many problems that it must be reverted even though the intended goal is a step in the right direction" [words in italics added] In other words, as Cesiumfrog explained well enough:

"it is always better for you to quarantine debatable content into minor subsections instead of immediately deleting it in the same go ... [and] the trimming of facts now is premature and subjective."

This thread has produced good and sufficient reasons for reverting Johnfos. The general perception can be restated in this way: the massive edit was a faux pas. The revert addresses a wrong step in the right direction. -- Tenmei ( talk) 13:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is the right decision. (Was 87.231.7.50 now under a different IP, sorry). I am still not logged in, which makes me one of these innumerable contributors of lesser importance, who feel they might still bring valuable pieces of info here and there (and to whom WP owes a decent part of its content). I know and understand the guidelines. I am still convinced that the editing is wrong for two reasons: 1) There are several types of pages. Lists, for instance, do not have any "encyclopaedic content", yet they are a major asset in WP. They wouldn't have this considerable space and value in WP, if they were not as complete as possible. Timelines are the same. You may want to hierarchize the content, maybe hide parts, to make them more legible, but not remove verified and important info. 2) You guys have a role in history. WP has become THE reference for hundreds of millions of people. I am still talking of this one small piece of data as an example (I am not even the one who added it): on April 7, radiation was way off the chart in one of the measuring devices of unit 1 and recordings stopped after this [12]. Probably just a faulty device. No one knows. Who can judge until we do? Isn't this worth being on the timeline, at least until we are sure? I am very grateful to you guys for your work, but, please, make sure you "garden shears" are not too fast. -- 90.2.139.147 13:53, 12 April 2011

What next?

Johnfos added headnotes which are arguably on-point. and undisputed. For example, who doesn't agree that yes, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. Who doesn't recognize that yes, this article does require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

No one misunderstood or disagreed with the reasonable goals which were very plain in Johnfos major edit.

The question now becomes "What next?" For example, one of the headnotes poses a timely suggestion, "Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject." A good starting point may be the overview and analysis summaries which Johnfos drafted. Each of the collapsed sections represent Johnfos' attempts to distill what is significant during each week of the first month. Now what? We are still in the midst of the "accident sequence". What next?

1. Perhaps the first four weeks could be developed further as a "1st month" sub-article branching off from this timeline?
2. Perhaps the second four weeks could be developed further as a "2nd month" sub-article?
3. ....?

IMO, it bears repeating that experts recognize that Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is already the long version of a summary which was in the accident article. The summary there has now been deleted because the article became too long. Now someone is suggesting cutting this because it is too long? This is NUTS!. Someone is saying that wikipedia cannot cover these events because they are too complicated.

If it is felt this article is in itself too long, then it might be possible to split it, say by week. Bring in here the summaries which existed from the accident article, perhaps expand them a bit. Then for each week have a sub article with all the detail. (timeline...week1, timeline..week2 and so on)

This is a reference source about the events as they happened. It needs expansion not cutting. Sandpiper ( talk) 08:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposing deletion is just stupid. I'm hear in Alaska and need a reasonable source of reliable info concerning this major life threatening incident. Even though info was hard to follow immediately following the incident, a few weeks ago, news pretty much silenced leaving me (us) almost in the dark, making this Timeline Article the only real source of somewhat reliable and current info. It's amazing how the majority are usually gladly able to easily forget about others. Kudos to the above poster for, again, taking the time to find a peaceful resolution versus simply letting Johnfos do whatever he wants. Of course, feel free to ignore my need for reliable info. Don't come running for me when things get worse. (I support finding middle ground on this Tenmei -- and just now seeing Sandpiper. And once you do, somebody will again complain about the newly found middle ground. Good luck. ... might suggest just deleting/blocking Johnfos account ;-) roger ( talk) 08:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The AfD proposal suggests that I misunderstood what Johnfos was trying to do. I struck out some of my words above. In an AGF context, what are the next steps in a arguably constructive direction? -- Tenmei ( talk) 14:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima nuclear accident log during March 2011

The BOLD copy-edit of Johnfos is now restored in that part of the article which addresses the "accident sequence" or "event tree" in the month of March only. This proposed text can now be examined and revised in the normal course of collaborative editing.

The full log which Johnfos characterizes here as "not encyclopedic" and as "overblown daily diary which is a dumping ground for all sorts of miscellaneous news" is retained in a linked sub-article -- see Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011. These paragraphs and tables are also ripe for further editing and "clean-up".

In due course, some details which are now in the sub-article are likely to be restored to the main article.

Although there was general agreement that the extent of Johnfos' BOLD edit may have "pruned" too much detail, it appears that the summaries that he did prepare were given scant attention.

IMO, Johnfos' draft text does provide a valid and sufficient basis for meaningful discussion and consensus building.

In early May, I would propose to do much the same thing with that part of the article which deals with the unfolding sequence of events in April -- see Fukushima nuclear accident log, April 2011.

This means retaining the BOLD summary text that Johnfos drafted and re-locating the more detailed daily logs to a newly-created sub-article.

Is this a reasonable short-term plan? What do you think? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Think I mentioned in the past the status tables seemed redundant data as they're published on another site, seen within the references. And, more recent published tables are usually already posted. Might post just the most recent table, or post a link to where the most recent table can be gotten in bold at the top of the article. Just a suggestion and the only thing I can think of right now as I'm completely exhausted. Think the brief logging we're doing is great -- for us, and likely the news media trying to stay up-to-date with reliable data. shrugs. (I'm guessing, if something else doesn't blow-up unexpectedly, things should mellow out for a month or so, and then we'll likely see some new stuff finally breaking news -- such as they find large pools of radiation, or the rods magically disappeared from their containers, etc.) roger ( talk) 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the missing information for march and frankly do not understand what is going on. The result of the deletion debate was quite clear that all the information should be kept. Not summarised. This is important information and many people want it to remain on display. It can not be removed from here unless someone comes up with a better idea of how to display it. Sandpiper ( talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

ah, no, reverted myself. I see what you are doing. splitting by month and summarising here. yes, that may work. Sandpiper ( talk) 01:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it astounding to see the note that this page is being considered for deletion.

This page is an invaluable resource to view the unfolding events.

By all means tell the story as a proper history after the event, whenever that might be, but please do not in the interim delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.77.110 ( talk) 13:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it is not too early to begin to grapple with copy-editing issues like the ones which have attracted Johnfos's interest and attention, but we must take great care not to throw out the baby with the bathwater -- Tenmei ( talk) 13:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This page has had better information than any other source. Don't delete it! 131.107.0.81 ( talk) 19:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Ksnow

Please do not delete this page, at least untill after the situation at Fukushima is resolved and then the information here can be restructured properly into articles, but as it stands it is vital source for incidents, events and reliable sources in a rapidly changing major world event 94.168.210.8 ( talk) 22:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The article says "A steam-driven turbine located in Unit 3 provide cooling to Units 1, 2 and 3.[4] Later, reports indicate that only the generator for Unit 6 remained working in full operational capacity." 11 march 15:01. This is junk. it has a reference but it is wrong. Each reactor is separate so it is impossible for equipment in 3 to affect 1 and 2. The steam driven turbines use steam from that reactor to pump water through that reactor. Check the tepco reports and they say which units still had what cooling systems still operating. The generators for unit 6 were also knocked out by the tysunami. Again, the tepco reports say when they were repaired. which was quite a while later although first one and then the second generator of that pair were the first power restored on the plant. Sandpiper ( talk) 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The disputed sentences are removed from the article, and they are relocated here:

• With the loss of power from the grid and the damage to the generators, the plant has become "dark." A steam-driven turbine located in Unit 3 provide cooling to Units 1, 2 and 3.<:ref> http://www.oecd-nea.org/press/2011/NEWS-04.html Timeline for the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident</ref> Later, reports indicate that only the generator for Unit 6 remained working in full operational capacity.

This is an easily resolvable problem. -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

actually, i think this may be a misunderstanding of the source, which says '. The steam-driven reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) systems and high-pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system (unit 3) provide cooling to units 1, 2 and 3. An evacuation order is issued for persons within 3 km of the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP.' It may be they intended this to mean HPCI was used on 3 and RCIC was used on 1 and 2, but I am not saying this would be correct without checking the original statements. The original tepco statements refer to cooling and are probably true, but not necessarily complete. They say different things about the three units. They do also infer that the operators did not know at that time what was working due to near total power failure. Some of these systems might have worked even on only the emergency battery power, but I have not seen a clear statement that even batteries operated correctly. They too might have been flooded. Someone on the accident article has already brought up the question of when exactly grid power failed and I am unsure about this too. It is possible that it never did fail, although the equipment necessary to get power from the grid certainly did. Some of the initial reports of power failure might just mean fukushima itself stopped generating thus no power, but considering the general destruction and shutdown of a number of power stations, there would have been blackouts. Sandpiper ( talk) 22:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have seen suggestion that hydrogen might simply have leaked from the reactor because of the very high pressures inside which were well above working levels and therefore exceeded levels at which a leak might be expected. So although the official line is that hydrogen was vented which unfortunately caught fire, it may be that it escaped by itself. I also read that hydrogen being light might have built up in the roof space wherever it originated to dangerous levels. Sandpiper ( talk) 22:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)