This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
A news item involving Fukushima nuclear accident was featured on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to
participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project, participate in
relevant discussions, and see
lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 00:04, April 30, 2024 (
JST,
Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
earthquakes,
seismology,
plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
oceans,
seas, and
bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from
Aral Sea; check
La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from
MS Estonia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
I think it's fair to say that for Wikipedia standards, the page is a bit long. However, I think it's also fair to say that a power station accident on this scale should not be held to the standard of a celebrity biography page. I don't believe the section describing the series of events can be meaningfully shortened without significantly reducing the quality of the information. Also, in my personal opinion, the description of the event should probably take priority on the main page over the following political fights and whatnot, which are similarly long.
For now, I have removed the discussion template from units 1-3 to improve readability but discussion should continue here.
Inanimatecarbonrobin (
talk) 16:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Most such events are described in a very detailed way as they unroll and shortly after, with lots of speculations and little details that seem important at that time. After 10 years, most of that is completely irrelevant and can be removed or summarised, and whole paragraphs can be compressed to one sentence.
Cloud200 (
talk) 19:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Death count and fatalities
In the article it lists 2,202 deaths from evacuation in the info box, unfortunately I cannot check the sourced article due to a paywall but the number aligns closely to the 2,220 patients and elderly under the Fatalities section.
Following the source provided in the Fatalities section, it does not state that they died, just that those were the number of hospital inpatients and elderly people in nursing facilities in the surrounding area before the evacuation. Rather the death numbers listed were 12 of a group of 27 severe patients and later reported more than 50. Which matches the number of 51 given by the government elsewhere in the article.
The article says specifically 2,202 deaths "from evacuation stress, interruption to medical care and suicide" according to the government's Reconstruction Agency, and that "[t]he wider death toll from the quake was 15,895, according to the National Police Agency." 1,984 of the deaths were over 65, again according to the Financial Times, so take from that what you will.
Reconrabbit (
talk|
edits) 21:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Fatalities of evacuation in summary
I think a total of 50 or so are attributed to the evacuation. Not 2000+
BoNiLi (
talk) 20:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I was confused based on what the article said about this as well but the 2200+ number checks out from multiple sources. Source for the 50 number in the article text doesn't seem accessible but it seems like it's from a very limited set of people in hospitals or nursing homes while the 2200+ number is the entire population within the evacuated zone. Leaving the mention of the 50+ number in the article but I've added a mention of the wider number. – Stuart98 (
Talk •
Contribs) 09:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply