Talk:Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant

message: Wow, this is about the most fame any article that I've written will ever get ^^
I can't believe it, but the Japanese version is half protected.  PROTECTED!  How amazingly controversial of a subject could this possibly be?  Honestly, what is there to argue?  The degree of radioactivity that the spent-fuel pool water contains is not something to be discussed here, for the purposes of this article, we don't care.  If we have 
#From where?
#How much?
#Where to?
taken care of, then the severity can be perfectly evaluated by the reader.  Background information is abundantly available.  What part of this do the sensational media and the page-protecting editors stuck up editors not understand?  (sorry, this isn't directed to anyone here at all, there's been nothing but good edits here, I'm talking about other places) -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As is probably obvious, in my opinion there has been a LOT of bad reporting by the major news sources on the events after the 2007 quake.  Needless to say, the only direct source for information regarding this is TEPCO.  The links in External Links can pretty well be used to go to that direct source.  If anyone felt like helping to decipher these, that would be a big help.  I can interpret a little, but a full report of what happened looks pretty intimidating to me. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese fluent editors FYI

message: I just read an interesting bit on the severity of the release here: .  But I think the last editor did an even better job of summing it up, it is as if someone chucked about a dozen smoke detectors into the Sea of Japan.  Oh no, everbody run for cover!
And thinking along those lines, I was kind of protectionist of the company with my early edits, but there was too much that looked like it just wasn't handled well.  In fact, so much so that somehow they managed to loose over 4 billion $ on this.  So yeah, there was no harm done to the environment or any people due to this accident AT ALL.  But that's not the point anymore, somehow millions of people got their pants scared off because of this event, that is NEVER a good thing for the industry.   On top of that, somehow these plants are still not running, which is even worse for them. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's checking it.  You know, blindly believing what people tell you is not a good thing. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes but you know radioactivity is one of those buzzwords that sell news ;) in case the numbers presented here on wikipedia are correct it quite ridiculous amounts (without even checking your sources or calculations). Of course you should allways take into account Bq is not the best way of comparing radioactivity: It does not say what type of radiation it is or how it has affected and what. The only thing worth worrying in the news is that "something leaked", but you'd have to very naive to think you could build a nuclear power-plant where notthing breaks ever. Gillis 16:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They did have shaking of 6.8 m/s2.  That's about the equivalent of someone tilting the ground you're on about 40 degrees, and then doing the same thing in the other direction.  That's the kind of earthquake that topples skyscrapers - I think they did pretty well actually.  And yeah, Bq isn't everything, concentrations can be increased due to fish eating something that ate the radioactive material, and the heavy elements are what stick behind the most.  But still, eating a banana is about the most direct way possible to expose yourself to extra radiation ;-) -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since you seem interested, I calculated that the (mid-range) potassium content of human urine would make it roughly as radioactive as the release from KK. Just think about all the kids on a summer beach... who knew they were a nuclear accident? :-) Joffan (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Severity

message: I'm looking at the natural radioactivity of stuff on a pretty generic site: , which gives the first two columns of this table and I calculated the next: 
Food           	40K pCi/kg	226Ra pCi/kg	Activity per mass (Bq/kg)
Banana         	3,520     	1           	130.24
Brazil Nuts    	5,600     	1,000-7,000 	
Carrot         	3,400     	0.6-2       	
White Potatoes 	3,400     	1-2.5       	
Beer           	390       	---         	14.43
Red Meat       	3,000     	0.5         	
Lima Bean (raw)	640       	2-5         	
Drinking water 	---       	0-0.17      	
If we take density to be about water, then 1 kg = 1 litter.  Then as a comparsion number, beer has about 14.43 Bq/L, or is about 17% as radioactive as the "radioactive water" that leaked.
Is this right?  If it is, that's absolutely ludicrous.  CNN reported this as front page news.  Some brands of beers out there (hey, banana beer) are probably MORE radioactive than what leaked from the spent fuel pool.  By what possible measure could you call that radioactive?  It's not, plain and simple.  There is a point where an exaggeration becomes a boldface lie, and this is it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's checking it.  You know, blindly believing what people tell you is not a good thing. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes but you know radioactivity is one of those buzzwords that sell news ;) in case the numbers presented here on wikipedia are correct it quite ridiculous amounts (without even checking your sources or calculations). Of course you should allways take into account Bq is not the best way of comparing radioactivity: It does not say what type of radiation it is or how it has affected and what. The only thing worth worrying in the news is that "something leaked", but you'd have to very naive to think you could build a nuclear power-plant where notthing breaks ever. Gillis 16:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They did have shaking of 6.8 m/s2.  That's about the equivalent of someone tilting the ground you're on about 40 degrees, and then doing the same thing in the other direction.  That's the kind of earthquake that topples skyscrapers - I think they did pretty well actually.  And yeah, Bq isn't everything, concentrations can be increased due to fish eating something that ate the radioactive material, and the heavy elements are what stick behind the most.  But still, eating a banana is about the most direct way possible to expose yourself to extra radiation ;-) -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since you seem interested, I calculated that the (mid-range) potassium content of human urine would make it roughly as radioactive as the release from KK. Just think about all the kids on a summer beach... who knew they were a nuclear accident? :-) Joffan (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Check my math

message: the article says right now
From unit 6, 1.3 cubic meters of water from the spent fuel pool leaked from the pool, and flowed into through a drainage pipe, ultimately into the Sea of Japan. The water contained 80 Bq/L, totaling 90,000 Bq in the release.
If the first sentence is true then simple math gives that the later part should be 80 Bq/L*1300L=104 kBq, not 90.
Some of the other values are also seem a bit suspectable and moreso are the comparisons, some things that really can't be compared are compared.
Gillis 15:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel absolutely free to change 90,000 to 104,000.  That's chump change.  If you want to know, I didn't come up with any of that on my own.  Those numbers actually came from the Japanese version of this page (I also got the info about the Onsen from there).  To me, this just confirms that the numbers are consistent. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your work calculating stuff and formating the units.  I think the discrepancy you point out is probably due to different reports (keep in mind that the numbers seem to change every day).  But significant figures are also a big problem when making claims like this.  For instance, 1,300 * 80 = 104,000 but 1,200 * 80 = 96,000.  It's still not 90, but it's possible that 80 is also an extreme estimate for the radioactivity, as in it could be 90 or 70, and then 90,000 might still be the best estimate for the total activity of the mass. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: information on leakage dose

message: I see four pages of real time monitoring. Can someone who can read Japanese identify these? 199.125.109.73 20:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. They are all as I guessed, but I did not want to assume anything. 199.125.109.46 06:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, here is another question, why are the stack readings one tenth the atmospheric and those one tenth the water readings? Does that seem normal? Are there any other online radiation monitors that you know of? 199.125.109.64 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All radiation detectors have a different efficency, so background will naturally count different for all detectors and you have to calibrate them to do anything useful typically.  I don't know if the ocean detectors are underwater or whatnot, but it's clear that they're using a different kind of detector for the stacks vs. ocean.  There's also the fact that if you're high above the ground you get less background radiation, because that comes mostly from soil and any solid matter. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Incorrect: each is reporting in different units, and one is reporting a different measurement.
The background detectors are reporting a dose reading (nGy/h). The other detectors report in counts per second and counts per minute. Efficiency determination for energies of interest would be needed to be performed in order to convert these readings to dose, though the water detectors are detecting nuclides which are expected to contribute to animal exposures in different ways than the airborne radioactivity. The units for the water detectors are in per minute due to scale differences due to shielding. The background radiation monitoring is helpful to monitor general area radiation during accident conditions and more accurately determined effluent radioactivity under normal operating conditions.216.96.229.48 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

text: They did not take a "field trip" to the plant.  They sent a rapid response team to measure radiation, and important to include in the article. 199.125.109.47 04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They sent a group of people for PR purposes. The plant is equipped with radiation monitoring equipment orders of magnitude more sensitive and accurate than the portable equipment they would have brought.216.96.229.48 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Alright, I won't push it around as it is, but I would consider this to be more appropriately placed in the footnote along with this: .  The Greenpeace page is mostly discussion about the radiation readings around the plant after the quake.  Readings are widely available (hopefully from multiple organizations), and the official readings from tepco are included in the previous link. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real time monitoring 

message: I don't care if Greenpeace takes a field trip to the plant.  Lots of people do, it's nothing notable. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 13:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They did not take a "field trip" to the plant.  They sent a rapid response team to measure radiation, and important to include in the article. 199.125.109.47 04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They sent a group of people for PR purposes. The plant is equipped with radiation monitoring equipment orders of magnitude more sensitive and accurate than the portable equipment they would have brought.216.96.229.48 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Alright, I won't push it around as it is, but I would consider this to be more appropriately placed in the footnote along with this: .  The Greenpeace page is mostly discussion about the radiation readings around the plant after the quake.  Readings are widely available (hopefully from multiple organizations), and the official readings from tepco are included in the previous link. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I said it before and I'll say it again

message: Something is inconsistent here.  The Total is one fifteenth the Net. Is this because of translation from the German Infobox, and it should say "Total generation in 2006" instead of as shown? Also, "Average generation" is not very specific, is that over the last 60 months (up to when?), or is that over the last 5 calendar years? 199.125.109.58 05:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at your numbers. You are saying total generation as of 2006, meaning in my understanding of English, the total generation from day one of operation to the date of December 31, 2006 has been the impossibly low number of 50,791 GWh, and the  Net generation, where Net and Total appear to be synonymous in this context, since there is no loss involved has now mysteriously jumped up from 50,791 to 764,582 in only 6 and a half months of operation.  Is it just me, or does anyone else see this? What I am trying to say is that the captions for the data are wrong. 199.125.109.135 05:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already explained that total generation is for the entire life while the average gen (5 years) is a one year number averaged over 5 years. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not asking about the 5 years caption, which you have already agreed can be improved, and have implemented.  I am asking about the two total numbers, one that says "as of 2006" and looks more like a "most in any one year" or "total last calendar year" number, and the net number, which is also a total number. 199.125.109.58 18:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Here, it is a simple change, I will try to make it myself.  Just change "as of" to "in". 199.125.109.58 18:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I guess that is a bit more clear. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: The lead says the plant supplies ~8GW, enough for ~16M homes. That only leaves 500 W per home. Potatoswatter 06:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Economy of Japan, if you divide the roughly 996 billion kW-h out by the 125,000,000 people in Japan and whatnot, you get an average energy consumption of about 1 kW per person.  Considering that homes don't make up all of the electricity consumption, it very could be an accurate number.  However, i didn't calculate it in the first place, it came from one of the references. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most households have more than one person. ... gtg Potatoswatter 23:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, in fact, I think a Japanese household would have 125/47 people :-O -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 51 TWh from this plant / 996 TWh total * 47 million households = 2.4 million households served. Potatoswatter 20:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Power output at quoted capacity = 72TWh. Potatoswatter 20:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You reverted... does that source do anything to back up the 16 million household claim? Simply dividing the max power output by the number of households only leaves enough power for one refrigerator and nothing else. So it doesn't seem like a good source to me. Potatoswatter 04:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to provide a different source? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 10:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary to find a source quoting a different number for the same statistic. That source doesn't give any reasoning and the statement doesn't seem to hold water. What's wrong with the argument I've given? It's reasonable to say every household runs at least a refrigerator and something else, all the time. And 16 million houses from one power plant seems like more centralization than any grid would actually want. Consider the geographical area that covers! I see no reason to believe that isn't a simple typo. It could be 1.6 million - easy to believe once you factor in industry. Potatoswatter 05:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No calculation for this is going to perfectly "hold water", there is variation and uncertainty.  The number is only for a general qualitative consideration, but I don't consider the calculations that you or I do right here should be favored above some cited number simply because it takes the burden off us for defending it.  If such a number is unacceptable, it should be removed from the article instead of being replaced. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 16 million is an order of magnitude too high, which is what I noticed in the first place. I disagree with your attitude toward math but agree that if nobody is defending that number, it should stay out. Potatoswatter 22:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was saying the numbers you present are not defensible.  I was trying to avoid arguing with numbers, but your claim that it is an order of magnitude off is completely incorrect.  It may be a little high, but not drastically.  Let's look at some of the things you said:
*A refrigerator does not consume 500 W.  A reasonable number is 125 on average.
*My electric bill showed 300 kW-h last month.  That comes out to 416 W.
*Including industry in the computation of the electricity consumption of a home is misleading wording.
You're completely off in your interpretation of these numbers. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Electricity usage depends a lot on climate, but you're still lowballing. 5kW is pretty excessive, but don't forget heating, A/C - 16M homes in winter/summer isn't the same as now. Things add up... Anyway what's the point of talking about how many homes a plant could supply if it were only connected to all the homes in a few cities and nothing else. Pretty clearly outdoor lighting and factories add up to more... If it were a "cornerstone" then being taken out of service would be a disaster in itself. This is getting pretty anal, but whatever. At least we (both) improved the lead in the end. The first paragraph should prolly mention that it's been deactivated for a while. Potatoswatter 04:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that the first paragraph should say that it has been shut down for months now. I read the article and didn't even notice that it had been shut down. It wasn't very clearly stated. That has been corrected now, but didn't appear until very far into the article. 199.125.109.113 04:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read the part about the 2003 Tepco data coverup scandals?  The point is that it's been completely shut down before in it's history and it's happened once again.  I put a lot of effort into showing the way in which these events have impacted the entire performance of the plant.  No body else seems to care about that.  Wikipedia is not a news source.  This is an article about the entire plant, it's entire history, and everything related to it.  Turning the article into a big flashing sign of IT'S SHUT DOWN OH NO! is not acceptable for an encyclopedia article.  This has happened before, it'll start back up with enough time.  While there are many things that make this a one-of-a-kind event and notable, it should be taken for what it is and nothing more. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph is special because it appears as mouse-over text for users with WP:POPUPs installed. And you know very well the significance of the present damage & shutdown. If you feel this is a regular occurrence, that should probably be mentioned early in the lead as well as most giant nuclear facilities aren't subjected to earthquake damage quite so often. Anyway, the lead should serve primarily to introduce the main sections. In this article it's extraordinarily long and detailed. Potatoswatter 07:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just checking, you are aware that if the electricity production from this plant was replaced by solar, it would about double the solar electric production in the world.  Due to the intermittency of the source, in order to fully fully replace this plant with solar power, you would have to double it 4 or 5 times the entire production of solar electric power in the entire world.  For just one plant. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Solar production has already been doubling every 2 years. There is a new plant being built in China right now that doubles production all by itself next year. Now that costs are lower I would expect the rate of increase to increase substantially. Solar is much cheaper than nuclear right now, and hydrostorage, which is already used in Japan, is fairly efficient. 199.125.109.47 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Solar is not cheaper than nuclear, on the maintenance, running or construction basis. 174.113.134.157 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  capacity? 

message: Did anyone else notice the radiation anomoly on 9/28/2007? and 199.125.109.113 12:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the bar above the graph that says 感雨.  That indicates when it was raining.  I do not think that a major and completely unannounced radiation leak occurred in perfect timing with rainfall (which also increases the readings) while the plants aren't even operating. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was looking for. Not understanding Japanese doesn't help. All I see is ??. And no those aren't kanji, they are question marks. 199.125.109.113 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 感雨 is displayed in a gif image on the site: .  If you don't have the fonts installed you won't be able to read it on this page, but you can see it on the page itself.  I mean, not that this helps you, but the point is that the bar with the blue parts shows when it's raining. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats what I figured. So where is all that radiation coming from to get into the rain? 199.125.109.135 06:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know your going to get mad at me for posting another link to a japanese page, but: .  It says that snow blocks radiation from the ground, and rain adds more active materials to the ground that are preset in the air.  From my background, I can understand the snow thing a lot better.  Water is made of light, stable elements, and most of the radioactivity it does have is probably due to substances dissolved in it, it's more likely to block radiation from other substances rather than increase counts on it's own.  Rain, on the other hand, I don't understand as well, but you apparently do get a larger dose when you're in the rain than when you're elsewhere. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rain collects dust from the air, which (like soil) is mildly radioactive. Joffan (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiation monitoring

message: I have removed the following text from the lead section, as it makes little sense to have it there until the plant is re-opened. Johnfos (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving text from article

message: Plz add someone with better english as me this news. About a blocked Valve in NPP KK since 05/06. Thanks.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/valve-at-kashiwazaki-kariwa-nuke-plant-not-working-properly-tepco
TaoBayBay (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Last news 05/06/2011

message: An image used in this article, File:Kashiwazaki-Kariwa monitoring2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Kashiwazaki-Kariwa monitoring2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Article not clear what has happened since the 2011 earthquake. When were any units restarted ?
According to this report none restarted by Nov 2012. - Rod57 (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What plans for restart since 2019 ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which units operational since mid 2011, or planned for restart 

message: Did earthquake trigger an automatic shutdown or was it a government edict days or weeks later ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Article now says it was not due to the 2011 earthquake, but not allowed to restart after a scheduled shutdown (for refuelling) - when ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about a year late to the party, but I've found an article that includes a timeline from 2007-2021: Nuclear Power in Japan: Safety at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Remains an Issue | Nippon.com. The timeline itself is under the heading, "Recent Events Affecting the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station." RossEugene (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did reactors shutdown in/after 2011 

message: Reactors section suggests units 6 and 5 are the newest, but disagrees with the table of dates directly below.
: Removed unsupported "Newest".  It looks like unit 5 was built 2nd. Units 6 & 7 are newest dates and technology. - Rod57 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect info on which are newest ? 

message: Quick question: anyone know how heavy the reactors are?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.127.223 (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much does it weigh?