Jump to content

Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk | contribs) at 16:56, 13 September 2023 (→Requested move 6 September 2023: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 11 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdean10, Dsun20, Palocomitre.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why titled "disaster"?

Why is this article titled "nuclear disaster"? There was a major natural disaster and it caused a nuclear accident that killed 1 person according to the article (or zero according to a comment on the talk page). I can find no other place in Wikipedia where a single death is labelled as a "disaster." They are all called "accidents." Wouldn't it be more accurate and less "political" to title this article "Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident"? user:Davey Hume I agree. It was not a "nuclear" disaster, it is a propaganda and ignorance disaster, and a Loss Of Clean Power disaster ongoing. Evacuations from the Fukushima were clearly unnecessary and harmful, as the people who stayed at the reactor had no casualties. The one cancer death that received "compensation" specifically was NOT proven attributable to radiation. [1] Emissions from fossil fuel to make up for the reactor losses will harm the Pacific ocean, and some of the people of Japan, far more than the small amount of radioactivity released. DaveyHume (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered a disaster due to the large destruction caused. The final paragraph of the lead section states: On 5 July 2012, the National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) found that the causes of the accident had been foreseeable, and that the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), had failed to meet basic safety requirements such as risk assessment, preparing for containing collateral damage, and developing evacuation plans.
It cannot be an accident if it was foreseeable. Therefore it is a disaster. FlowerPetals📪 22:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FlowerPetals📪 22:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many accidents would have been foreseeable in hindsight. Note that NAIIC is an "accident" investigation commission, not a disaster investigation. --TuomoS (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
=== 2000: Tsunami study ignored ===
An in-house TEPCO report in 2000 recommended safety measures against seawater flooding, based on the potential of a 50 foot (15 m) tsunami. TEPCO leadership said the study's technological validity "could not be verified." After the tsunami a TEPCO report said that the risks discussed in the 2000 report had not been announced because "announcing information about uncertain risks would create anxiety." [2]
===2008: Tsunami study ignored===
In 2007, TEPCO set up a department to supervise its nuclear facilities. Until June 2011, its chairman was Masao Yoshida, the Fukushima Daiichi chief. A 2008 in-house study identified an immediate need to better protect the facility from flooding by seawater. This study mentioned the possibility of tsunami-waves up to 10.2 meters (33 ft). Headquarters officials insisted that such a risk was unrealistic and did not take the prediction seriously.[3][4]
Yukinobu Okamura of the Active Fault and Earthquake Research Center (replaced in 2014 by the Research Institute of Earthquake and Volcano Geology (IEVG)], Geological Survey of Japan (GSJ)[citation needed]), AIST) urged TEPCO and NISA to revise their assumptions for possible tsunami heights upwards, based on his team's findings about the 869 Sanriku earthquake, but this was not seriously considered at the time.[5][6]
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned of a risk of losing emergency power in 1991 (NUREG-1150) and NISA referred to that report in 2004, but took no action to mitigate the risk.[7]
Warnings by government committees, such as one in the Cabinet Office in 2004, that tsunamis taller than the maximum of 5.6 meters (18 ft) forecast by TEPCO and government officials were possible, were also ignored.[8]
Can you tell me how this is hindsight? FlowerPetals📪 18:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Part of me thinks it is just due to the collective bias of Wikipedians being from the West/English speaking world (i.e. the reason Three Mile Island is an accident and Chernobyl is a disaster is the same reason why powerful people in Europe/America are "entrepreneurs/politicians" and powerful people in Asia are "oligarchs") in combination with bias among writers being more "anti-nuclear" than "pro-nuclear". I disagree with @FlowerPetals' justification for this name; most things people would call "accidents" are "preventable", and renaming a whole bunch of "accident" pages to be consistent with this rule would not go well. "Disaster" is also a term commonly associated with natural disasters, which is pretty much the opposite of what @FlowerPetals describes. Generally, what I would consider the separation between the two in common use is severity or the very low probability of an event. By this definition, "disaster" is probably acceptable, but only in casual conversation.
Personally, I would support a move to "Fukushima nuclear accident". It is a far more specific and neutral name which is used much more often in literature. Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[9]

Jgoldst (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Prof. Joshua S. Goldstein, Amherst, MA USA[reply]

This and Chernobyl are the only level-7 accidents according to the International Nuclear Event Scale; both are called "disasters" here in the WP - so there is some consistenty to this. Whether it's worth to change that or not ... well, I personally don't care. --User:Haraldmmueller 13:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jgoldst: accident is a neutral word, disaster is not. TuomoS (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed many times before - a quick trawl through the talk page archives will show you that the title is unlikely to be changed quickly, but you never know. You could try a WP:Requested move, there was one a few years ago that was strongly contested, leaving the article at its current name. For what it's worth, "disaster" has always seemed a little over the top to me. Mikenorton (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the correct name should be accident, not disaster. However, I suspect it would not be easy to reach consensus on a name change for this article unfortunately. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it a disaster because of all the radiation that was released into the air causing Fukushima inhabitable for maybe 200 years or more. But one death isn't a disaster I agree. But let's keep in mind the radiation levels are 50x higher than deemed to be safe. The dust found on abandoned items are highly unsafe to touch due to radioactive particles. It is both a disaster and accident due to the earthquake plus tsunami leading up to the nuclear plant. over 15,00 died due to the natural disaster. But it is also sad to see a beautiful small town abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.255.162 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The town was abandoned because of unreasonably stringent radiation levels requirements from the government. Even now the radiation around the power plant is within the natural background radiation variability in other parts of the world. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not decide if something was a disaster or not. Wikipedia should just describe what happened and what were the consequences, from a neutral point of view. WP:POVNAMING: "titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic". --TuomoS (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say this should be considered an accident. A new book is out further developing this argument. A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.34.48 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title needs rewording. Using the word "disaster" is latching on to the media sensation around the accident, which is wrong. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does somebody have a better idea for a title than "... accident"? If not, I'm going to move to "... accident". --Distelfinck (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally in favour of the change, but I think you should seek consensus first. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/
  2. ^ Richard A. Clarke; R.P. Eddy (2017). Warnings: Finding Cassandras to stop catastrophe. Harper Collins. p. 84.
  3. ^ "Putting tsunami countermeasures on hold at Fukushima nuke plant". The Mainichi Shimbun. 20 October 2018.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference mdn.mainichi.jp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference w was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference AFERC urged to review assumption on Tsunami in 2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fukushima Nuclear Accident - U.S. NRC warned a risk on emergency power 20 years ago was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Fackler, Martin (9 March 2012). "Nuclear Disaster in Japan Was Avoidable, Critics Contend". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 September 2018.
  9. ^ World Health Organization. Health Risk Assessment from the Nuclear Accident After the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, Based on a Preliminary Dose Estimation (Geneva: WHO, 2013).

Plant Design section should come before Accident section

With aircraft crash articles, for example, the aircraft is described before the crash is. And if there is background information, that comes before either. What do you think? Grassynoel (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grassynoel I like that idea and have done it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Fukushima Nuclear Accident"

Requested move 6 September 2023

Fukushima nuclear disaster → Fukushima nuclear accident – This event is most commonly referred to as the "Fukushima nuclear accident" in literature. Additionally, "accident" is a far more neutral word; the purpose of this page is to not be an editorial. The "disaster" colloquialism should probably still be mentioned as an AKA, as it is commonly used (as we have seen from the numerous discussions on this topic). Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Likewise, Chernobyl disaster is also more appropriately to be renamed and moved to Chernobyl nuclear accident at the same time. In which article, it says "It is one of only two nuclear energy accidents rated at seven" in the lead section. — Jojoyeet@lk 08:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I definitely agree on your point regarding the Chernobyl page, I fear there may be a lot of opposition from other editors due to it being an accident in the USSR and being generally well-known. Perhaps fixing up other accident page names to "(x) nuclear accident" will give more legitimacy to such a change? For example, Three Mile Island accident could be changed to Three Mile Island nuclear accident Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's stay on topic here, we are talking about Fukushima, not Chernobyl. The case for renaming Chernobyl is much weaker in my opinion. Ita140188 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both are related anyway. I don't quite understand why one is better called a disaster and the other an accident, yet both accidents are rated the same at seven. This may reflect what Inanimatecarbonrobin has said is true to a certain degree in this section: "Part of me thinks it is just due to the collective bias of Wikipedians being from the West/English speaking world..."  — Jojoyeet@lk 01:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    INES has a very specific way of rating accidents, and both of them happen to meet the requirements for level 7. However, these are very different events. Chernobyl was not caused by any external factors, and there have been many deaths directly attributed to the accident. For Fukushima, the disaster was the earthquake and tsunami, the plant accident was a result of this (and there have been many other serious accidents at industrial facilities such as refineries on the coast due to the tsunami). There are no deaths attributed to the accident specifically, while the tsunami caused almost 20,000 deaths. Ita140188 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think severity is a good reason for the use of that word, especially when the accident at the Fukushima plant (I would argue) was much worse in terms of the resulting loss of human life. Honestly, trying to compare two events like this isn't very neutral. Also, your point about Chernobyl not having any external confounding factors is simply incorrect, and the Touhoku earthquake was not the only "cause" of the accident (see: Fukushima No. 2 station). It's important to keep in mind that reality is radically simplified to be communicated to the public. Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the accident at Fukushima "much worse in terms of the resulting loss of human life"? There are literally no deaths directly attributed to it. Also if you think that one of the largest earthquakes and tsunami ever recorded in history was not the immediate cause of the accident, I am not sure what we are talking about here anymore Ita140188 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of immediate loss of life to ARS, the one at Chernobyl is the clear "winner" (or if you just average all of the popular estimates), but I view these two events in a more nuanced framework involving things such as the human response to the accident. For example, the loss of life resulting from evacuation/displacement or resulting public perception of nuclear energy use (See: Mayak). Also, consider that "attribution" is disputed (numbers vary from dozens to tens of thousands for both events). In fairness, I am also somewhat biased to consider the accident at Fukushima to be worse in general as the result of a greater number of failures than the accident at Chernobyl purely from a technical/design/organizational aspect.
    As for the cause, are you not very familiar with the events which occurred? The earthquake and tsunami are only part of it. For example, other power stations experienced the same (or greater) impacts from the earthquake and tsunami, yet they did not result in similar accidents (See: Onagawa nuclear accident). Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents. If Chernobyl was rightfully a disaster and not an accident, is the title of the article to be renamed as Comparison of the Chernobyl disaster and Fukushima nuclear accident for consistency? — Jojoyeet@lk 01:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    INES is mostly a rating system used to communicate what types of immediate emergency response is warranted; it's not some sort of precise historical or archival rating system. If you must compare the two events, this should be done with specifics. Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for neutrality -- NotCharizard 🗨 09:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference Despite our support, this commission considered it as a manmade disaster. "Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster—that could and should have been foreseen and prevented.”—Kiyoshi Kurokawa, “Message from the Chairman, ”The Official Report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission [Onagawa: The Japanese nuclear power plant that didn't melt down on 3/11]  — Jojoyeet@lk 05:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that most of us here would also consider it a disaster; I know I do. Doesn't make it a good article title though. Also, I think it is interesting that "accident" is used over 300 times in that report, but "disaster" is used ~59 times.
    It is also important to consider what the chairman is trying to communicate through that statement though. Essentially he is stating that the event was not so much caused by the touhoku eq/tsunami, but by anthropic factors. (relevant to @Ita140188) Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fukushima_nuclear_accident&oldid=1175236449"