Talk:List of civilian nuclear accidents

message: The specifics that originally caused the article to be marked as anti-nuclear POV appear have now been resolved.  Is the article ready for marking as neutral POV now? --Oscarthecat 07:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and done. Joffan 18:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, and huge kudos to you DocS for your continued work on this. I see you're taking on the corresponding military list! Joffan 18:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now revised and objective? 

message: Marginal and misleading entry removed (neither of the sources supported the claim in the entry that the leak had contaminated the river); the contamination was on-site and at levels below EPA safe drinking standards (confirmed by NRC).  The other new entry (Haddam 2005) is also marginal, and contained factual errors, but has been left in place (with editing) pending more detalied findings.  
It takes a fair bit of work to research and correct shoddy entries.  Please research thoroughly (and consider the criteria at the top of the article) before adding to the article.
--DocS 22:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marginal Entries 

message: I notice some reverts going back and fourth regarding the Mihama steam accident.  Firstly, I think "See Also" is not the proper place for this.  Secondly, it is notable and it does have a place in this series of articles.  Granted, such a list could never be comprehensive, as there are LOTS of those kinds of accidents (I mean come on, someone could just drop a hammer on their toe), just like any other industry in the world.  But as long as the purpose of the list is clear, I see no problem.
My suggestion is that we should have a list of nuclear industry accidents that were significant blotches on the safety record, but did not involve a release (or a potential release) of radioactivity.  I would just presume put such a list in this article, separate from the other events.  What does everyone else think? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mihama Incident

message: Removed entries:
*January 25, 1982 – Ginna plant -- The links provided were dead or did not support this entry's inclusion on the list.
*February 15, 2000 - Indian Point -- No health effects, no substantial contamination, no substantial property damage. Removed.
Other changes: 
*Provided more information on "April 10, 2003 – Paks"
Also, I'd like discussion on these incidents to decide keep/remove:
*May 1, 1969 - Ågesta -- Coolant leak that shorted some control pannels. Reactor shut down successfully anyway. This dosent sound like 'substantial ... property damage or contamination" to me. No links for this entry are provided. 
*March 1981 - Tsuruga -- Company exposure limits were breached, but for how long since this would need to lead to "substanial health effects"? The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission allows up to 50mSv per year for nuclear workers. 
*December 17, 1987 - Biblis -- I can't find any really specific information on this incident. The plants wiki page says it was a leak of coolant with no heath effects, property damage or signifigant contamination.
*November 2005 - Braidwood -- The only criteria this could qualify under is 'signifigant contamination'. However, there isnt any signifigant contamination by any standards away from the plant (also, drinking water standards vary extremely from place to place) and nobody's going to be drinking water from test wells near the plant anyway. No cleanup is warrented and the only action being taken is to prevent further release. The whole issue seems kind of moot.  
Nailedtooth 03:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that it has been a month without reply I am removing Agesta 1969 and Biblis 1987 from the list. Both seem to be coolant leaks that did not result in any substantial contamination, health effects or property damage. Nailedtooth 05:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Detailed explanation of Aug 22 edit

message: I think it would be beneficial if the entries were changed into a standardized format. Right now all the information in the entries except for the date is in different places depending on the specific entry. A table would be too rigid I think as the text format seems to be working well even without standardization. Proposed format:
:Day Month, Year - INES level - location - Type(s) of accident
::*Description of the accident and related information. Description of the significant health effects, property damage or contamination that occurred. Description of response to the accident. 
For example
:30 September, 1999 - INES Level 4 - Tokaimura, Japan - Accidental Criticality
::*Workers put uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to neutron radiation in excess of the allowable limit. Two of these workers died. 116 other workers were exposed to over 1 mSv though not in excess of the allowable limit.
Additions? Subtractions? Substitutions? etc? Nailedtooth 21:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized entry format 

message: Does anybody else think that there is a better way to quantify all the disasters/ tragedies in Earth's history.  I think there needs to be like one huge trunk section, or maybe even a whole portal, and all articles would stem off from that.  There are so many pages that represent the information in a slitely different perspective, and the biggest problem is that they do not share a high level of consistency with their facts!!  It's hard to quantify the historical significance of disasters with the jumble of related information that we currently have.
If you have any ideas on how best to arrange it, please put your ideas, uh...  idk where to put them.  Here I guess? I'm sorry I have much to learn.  Rallen7753 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many disaster pages 

message: This article has been mangled by the edit warring over the last few days.  Without assigning blame, this is not an acceptable outcome.  Multiple parties committed edit warring over the article.  Please, everyone - stop, talk about it on the talk page here (remember assume good faith) and let me and others fix the contents.  Work to find a common consensus agreement on what order the list should be in.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP 

message: An editor has brought up the question of whether incidents in the United Kingdom should be listed as happening there or in one of its historic interior divisions (England, Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland). I think the larger encompassing country should be listed if it's a choice between the two, or the country should be listed as well as the interior division. Obviously, this would apply to listings for the United States and Canada as well.
Are there Wikipedia guidelines on this? Nailedtooth (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it generalizes well. We name states with the United States because (a) it's not unambiguous otherwise, (b) it's standard practice and (c) it's helpful for our readers. I believe the same holds true for Canada. OTOH, I've never seen province names with French cities, and don't expect that they'd be useful. The UK is in an unusual situation where you could actually use England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales without United Kingdom without a problem. (You might make that argument about the US, but there's a lot more states and they're a lot less politically independent.) But yes, hopefully there are more general guidelines about this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that the interior names of the UK could be used without a problem. People outside the British Isles tend to be very, very foggy about what names refer to what parts. Great Britian, England and Britian are all used to refer to the United Kingdom when the first doesn't include N.Ireland, the second is only one part of Britian and the third is just another name for the first. I don't want to simply sound contrary, but if anything, using the interior names instead of the United Kingdom will perpetuate these misconceptions, which is the opposite of what we're trying to do. That's why I suggested using the country name as well as the interior name. Nailedtooth (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to handle countries with interior divisions? 

message: Would David Hahn's fast breeder reactor technically qualify for this list?
The list requires 4 points. 2, 3 & 4 are clearly covered.  Point 1 is most likely covered because EPA deemed his back yard a Superfund sight for clean up.  So there was property damage/contamination, but would it be classified as substantial?
Djsolie (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think David Hahn's experimentation can be accurately described as an accident. He was negligent and irradiated himself, but it wasn't an accident per se. Nailedtooth (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Hahn 

message: Where do the radiatioin accidents go, like the Fleurus accident  (Ines 3), the previous one there in 2006, Ines 4,  - or the Goiânia accident, to name a few? -- eiland (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: List of civilian radiation accidents. Nailedtooth (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: rrright. I think its time for a Nuclear accidents template, but I'm not apt for designing such things. --eiland (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiation accidents 

message: This page I found seems to suggest there were over 200 child deaths as result of three mile island why is this not paid attention too. Can someone explain why this is? Are only one side of the argument allowed to be made? 
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO14.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.124.156 (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had time to read it all but the page you link to seems to be little more than a collection of anecdotes about health problems near the TMI plant with correlational statistics thrown in once in a while. It's really not useful as a source because anecdotes are not useful data and correlation does not equal causation. Is there a section of that page you were referring to more specifically?Nailedtooth (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Three Mile Island infant Mortality rates

message: If we must keep Windscale 1957 in this 'civilian' list surely we should say it operated to produce nuclear weapons materials ? Rod57 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windscale 1957 was for weapons ie military 

message: I've read up (and heard) quite a few things on Chernobyl catastrophe having more than curiousity, given that I live in Kiev and remember that day well.  When happening to mention a "human error" on one specialist forum regarding Chernobyl, I was suggested to "go read Dyatlov", which was subsequently done.
His memoires (in Russian) are merging very well with what I remember, and he tells that there was NO difference in outcome with any source of emergency shutdown -- be it manual (which was executed) or automatic, the source of the problem was in "enhanced" control rods that were given lower-absorbing addons "for economical reasons".  When the rods would be almost fully up and then displace water while going down, for some period of time absorption would go DOWN instead of increasing -- thus the reactor went overcritical while being shut down.
For the record, the height of RBMK-1000 active zone is roughly 7 meters, and the travel time for rods was about 20 seconds (the slow neutron fission delay is seconds to tens of seconds, to put it in perspective).  So those who were actually in charge for designing such a beast did their best to put the blame on those who operated it.  And there were several similar states, with Leningrad nuclear power plant almost reaching the same state in 1975. --Gvy (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chernobyl, 1986 

message: There is no way the incident in Chalk River was a level 5. It was a 4 at max.
I suggest that whoever put the CR incident in do some more research.
Source: I work at Chalk River Labs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.152.202 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chalk River incident rated too high 

message: The citation that Fukushima II ('Dai-ini') is INES level 7 speaks solely about Fukushima I (Dai-ichi). Given that the text about Fukushima II makes no mention of any radiation release from that site, let alone a large-scale release with widespread and enduring impact, calling it level 7 is clearly erroneous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.37.202 (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fukushima II - Source does not support level 7 

message: Both entries on german events in this list are seriously flawed.
The Greifswald incident incorrectly states that fuel melted. That was not the case. The given source (antenna.nl/wise/) doesn't say anything about melting fuel in the 1976 incident. 
It says something about fuel melting in a separate 1989 incident but that is also wrong. In fact there were some defect fuel elements leaking gaseous fission products, which stayed in the primary coolant. While undesirable this is not such a uncommon occurance and definately not a reason for a high INES rating, but no actual molten fuel. The prosaic description given by antenna.nl on both events are inaccurate and confused at best. The source shouldn't be used at all.
The THTR incident description is even more frivolous. Whoever thought this is an INES levle 3 to 5 is out of his mind. The question was actually whether the allowed daily emission level during normal operation was surpassed at all (difficult to measure due to chernobyl fallout and faulty measuring equipment in the exhaust stack of the plant). If it was surpassed it still would be INES 0. I will now edit both of those entries. --81.173.135.30 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Further musing about those incidents leads me to the question whether these incidents shuold be included at all. Greifswald, while not to be underestimated from a safety point of view, did not result in any radioactive release at all. And in the THTR case the release was so trivial that you could include the daily operation of some reactors, if the activity is considered. By no means a hazard to the health of the public. --81.173.135.30 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  German entries on this list 

message: Why is Idaho Falls not on this list? Criticality accident three fatalities. Research reactor. Ottawakismet (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: SL-1 was a US Army reactor staffed by military personnel, which is why it doesn't go on a list of civilian nuclear accidents.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idaho Falls 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of civilian nuclear accidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320023235/http://www.csirc.net/docs/reports/la-13638.pdf to http://www.csirc.net/docs/reports/la-13638.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uic.com.au/nip52.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312035923/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2029958 to http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2029958
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051211151722/http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/ to http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222055940/http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ne/neap1.htm to http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ne/neap1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of civilian nuclear accidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520224636/http://www.kare-uk.org/magnoxes.htm to http://www.kare-uk.org/magnoxes.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121220247/http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/htgr/abstracts/abst_29059905.html to http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/htgr/abstracts/abst_29059905.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313034051/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_06.html to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_06.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051211151722/http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/ to http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The paper referenced for the "5" appears to rank only the 1952 incident as level 5. The 1958 incident is mentioned, but described as less severe. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/zerkalov1/docs/mukhopadhyay.pdf
My guess is that the 1958 incident was level 4, but I have not been able to find any source that gives it an INES level. KaiaVintr (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second (1958) Chalk River incident likely has incorrect INES Level