Talk:Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant

message: Not Wikinews. Stop writing articles based on a day by day current affair.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.100.14 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is wikipedia 

message: Some of the comments at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant may be relevant to work on this article. --A. B. (talk •  contribs)  00:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone created a Fukushima nuclear disaster article, it was redirected to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. In the future, it might be needed to convert to a disambiguation page, if the incidents at this plant are severe. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

text: they are. --92.227.133.144 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to disambiguate Fukushima nuclear accident then. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 earthquake coverage 

message: A new article has appeared, Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents.
184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents"

message: thumb|:File:FukushimaGrid.JPG 
A map has appeared: :File:FukushimaGrid.JPG.
65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the quality of the map is not good enough.  We should be using OSM as a source, not hand-drawn maps. -- 92.225.168.89 (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fukushima map

message: Per suggestion, I merged the "Timeline of the Fukushima Daini nuclear accidents" here. There had been no significant edits since April, thankfully because there have been no ongoing issues. Much of the material was redundant.  It's a short timeline and could be shortened further, with some later information moved into the general discussion. Let's hope that there will be little more to report on this.   Will Beback  talk   10:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline merger 

message: This article places a favorable light on the whole tragic affair and draws on websites that are run by the pro nuclear crowd. " By March 15, all four reactors of Fukushima II reached cold shutdown which remained non-threatening through April." This is patently false. 
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110524006012.htm
Tokyo Electric Power Co. admitted for the first time Monday the Nos. 2 and 3 reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant likely suffered core meltdowns, in addition to a previously acknowledged meltdown in the No. 1 reactor.
The utility made the admission in its report to the government's nuclear safety agency.
I would suggest that this article
#REDIRECT [Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident]], based on sound science, be reviewed by the author and then this whole article needs to be redone. Meanwhile, this page should be taken down as it is pure propaganda for covering over the huge damage done at Fukushima. 
 Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident-
The soils around Fukushima NPP and neighboring prefectures have been extensively contaminated with depositions of more than 100,000 and 10,000 MBq km-2, respectively. Total 137Cs depositions over two domains: (i) the Japan Islands and the surrounding ocean (130–150 °E and 30–46 °N) and, (ii) the Japan Islands, were estimated to be more than 5.6 and 1.0 PBq, respectively. We hope our 137Cs deposition maps will help to coordinate decontamination efforts and plan regulatory measures in Japan.
 Thaddeus0720 (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fukushima Daini (Fukushima II) is a different complex of reactors than Fukushima Daiichi (Fukushima I).  Reactors 1, 2, and 3 in the Fukushima I complex had core melt accidents.  None of the reactors in the Fukushima II complex (which this article is about) did.  The article you're looking for is Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, or more likely Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not impartial 

message: It sounds like the plant is still shut down, and in no condition to be active. For that matter, is there any plans to restarts this one? Flightsoffancy (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is shut down and there's no plan to restart. See , , and . Oda Mari (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  第二 (Dai-ni) plant still shut down? 

message: It's over a year since this page was moved but the lead and infobox both still read Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant not Fukushima Daini.... Fixed.  
Consequently also removed
or Fukushima Dai-ni (dai-ni, characters 第二, means "number two"),
which seemed redundant.
But I'm not entirely confident of the result. There's currently a strange difference between it and the similar lead to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.  What does the 2F in this article mean? 
But it was there before.  So I'm sure that what I've done is better, it's just it may not quite be right yet. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: RM followup

message: This article mentions a radiation level expressed as millisieverts, echoing a practice extant in most news reports. Does this unit actually refer to intensity of radiation, or is it more properly used for the cumulative damage sustained by a biological specimen per kilogram of mass? Would not millisieverts per second be more appropriate for expressing the rate of damage, and hence a reflection of intensity of radiation? Would not millisieverts per second depend on the specimen's distance from the radiation source so that a more meaningful report would state that radiation encountered by, say, a sentinel chicken posted 1 meter away from a radiation source would receive X mSv/sec/kg? In other words would not a distance and test specimen have to be given to afford actual meaning to the statement? I'm not a physicist or a public relations flack so I don't understand. Perhaps this article should be edited to clarify. Myron (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, there are no "safe" radiation levels, all radiation can cause DNA damage, and in this way cause disease, the same applies to all cancer-causes. 1947enkidu (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiation levels?