![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
International Nuclear Events Scale → International Nuclear Event Scale – The official name has "event" not "events". The NRC, IEA and DOE all use "event". -- Kjkolb 04:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved 17 Jan 2006 (unambiguous correction). Rd232 talk 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
In this article, I see an, in my eye, very problematic comparrison. But since I am just a regular school teacher and english isn't my maiden language, I don't feel that I am the right one to review this article.
The thing I found problematic is this.
"There are many examples of non nuclear accidents of roughly the same magnitude. Depending on the measure used for the damage done by Chernobyl, in the coal industry alone this includes either the 2006 coal mine methane explosion in the Donbass area (at most the fourth severest accident this area during the last 30 years), which left 36 dead; or severities up to the level of the 2000 accident in the same area, with 80 immediate fatalities."
by comparring Chernobyl with coal mine accidents simply based on the number of casualties, is in my view like comparring the running cababilities of a cheetah, with the running cababilities of a sloth only by counting the number of legs they have.
Some of the reasons for this is.
-It doesn't take into account the number of long terms healt effects on Pripyat and Kiev. -It doesn't take into account how close the Chernobyl was to have a massive moore casualties if draining of the water pool bellow the reactor wasn't done.
I urge someone with a suitable backgroud to edit this article.
Best Regards
Ballefras ( talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That was one of my edits to this article. Perhaps it was a bit of a crass comparison.
But it was a vast improvement on the one it replaced (see above talk thread). While the health effects did occur (Which I believe is the case), the articles about the coal mining accidents stick to the facts rather than speculating about health effects. We should really do the same. In fact, to make such a comparison, you would need to consider the health effects of coal from extraction to use (which is not very pleasant).
On your second point - it is not in the mandate of this article to speculate on the draining of the water pool. Furthermore, we could equally speculate on Donbass accidents.
And would you please show how this analogy is true (as analogy is not evidence): "by comparing Chernobyl with coal mine accidents simply based on the number of casualties, is in my view like comparing the running capabilities of a cheetah, with the running capabilities of a sloth only by counting the number of legs they have." What is special about nuclear accident causalities and conventional casualties. It seems to me your view that the less of the former is the same as much much more of the latter. What is this implied difference?
Protectthehuman ( talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Chernobyl disaster article cites the WHO estimate of the death toll at 56 direct deaths plus 4,000 extra cancer deaths from the 600000 most severley exposed people. Shouldn't the information here be similarly inclusive. After all, the off-site impact of a nuclear event is likely to be dominated by longer term radiation effects. -- Phil Barker 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be referenced here if the numbers from another article are used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.25.124 ( talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Where is Three Mile Island on this thing? This is the English Wikipedia and most of the people on this wiki are either Yanks or Brits. It doesn't make sense to not have Three Mile Island here as that was the most serious nuclear-related incident in the US to this date and would help to give the many American readers more perspective. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The phrase ' defence in depth' is linked twice, once at the top of the 'details' section, and (as Defence-in-Depth) in the level 3 incident section. The first leads to an article primarily about military strategy, and the second is (as you can see) red.
In the military article there is a subsection Defence_in_depth#Non-military_defence_in_depth which mentions engineering safety (nuclear) Defence-in-depth, but I think this ought to be a separate article; however, I'm not competent to write it. Anyone up to the job of splitting out the engineering bit from the military article and making a start on it?
There's also an existing disambig page Defence in depth (disambiguation) which would need updating. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Sellafield 1957 was INES 5 and Sellafield 2005 was INES 3. So INES 4 is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.191.199 ( talk) 22:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we get some clarity on the current Japanese rating? The Japanese are saying level 4, the French are saying its level 6. It's currently listed under both categories. What's the consensus? 165.228.6.89 ( talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It needs to be clarified that Japan's nuclear safety agency has rated the situation at Units 1 and 3 as Level 4 and the situation at Unit 2 has not yet been rated.-- Brian Dell ( talk)
At this stage, the level is not clear not indicated by the authority as one of the current levels. Even if we know the rules we are not the people that should apply the rules. As this is an ongoing event it would be simple if the main page says so; this is, remove any associated level, add a link to the discussion page (this page) and apoints the reasons why Fukushima is still not assosiated with any specific level, even, add links to the different agencies prematurely rating the event to specific levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.205.25 ( talk) 10:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I used exact IAEA definitions to describe event levels. -- eiland ( talk) 10:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I cannot find info on the IAEA's site about the rating for this, and I am not sure about looking at other sources as they may very well have put its rating at five based on this Wiki article. Can anyone find it on IAEA's site? Have I missed something? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Three of the level 5 example had no casualties: Windscale, Chalk River#1 and TMI. Since the level 5 criteria is at least one fatality, these are not appropriate examples.There is only one reference and the link is non-functional. Who decided these were level 5's? Rgbutler ( talk) 02:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There is one example of 'Level 6: Serious accident', Kyshtym disaster at Mayak. But, has there been any other level 6 accidents? According to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/world/asia/13accidents.html there has not. I think it should be mentioned. 82.141.116.222 ( talk) 15:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You mean like it says for Level 7? Could work. I think the Level 7 one says that for dramatic purposes to some extent. Also according to the IAEA [2] that's the only one. So you can put that as well. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just lately, the incident at the Fukushima Daishi nuclear power plant in the aftermath of the quake/tsumani disasters in Japan, March 11, 2011 was added as an example of a level 4 incident. It is quite unsuitable to do so for the following reasons:
Therefore, the entry should be deleted again until the situation has stabilized, the incident has been researched by the IAEA, and the scientific discussion reached an objective level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.79.187 ( talk) 16:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Please remove Fukushima Daishi nuclear power plant from the example list 138.232.86.17 ( talk) 13:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Give it's nature, however, it is a guarantee that cannot be disputed that the INES will give a rating of some sort to the incident (though the question is whether only the one plant will receive the rating or the entire post-earthquake/tsunami Japanese nuclear incident). Therefore I think it's fair and correct to reference the incident now, but not under a specific scale. I suggest starting a separate section with a link to the article on the event, and indicate that as of "whatever date March" an official ranking hadn't been issued. This would, in theory, prevent discourage the good faith addition of the event to one of the scale listings prematurely. If we don't do this, someone will have to continually be policing the article because someone will see it as an omission and add it.
68.146.64.9 (
talk) 16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Are there references out there with a complete list of accidents, at least for those of 4 and 4+? Nergaal ( talk) 16:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well then, are the listed ones only level 5 accidents, or have there been more? 'First Chalk River Accident' is the only one not in the IAEA PDF presentation of the scale. And probably therefore it is tagged as [citation needed].
And I found that one level 4 accident which is on the PDF is not listed here (Fleurus, Belgium 2006), not sure if it should be.
85.217.22.66 (
talk) 02:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Level 6 and 7 accidents are named "disaster". Is this deliberate done, instead of naming them "accident"? If yes, would this imply that if the INES level of the Fukushima accident is increased from 5 to 6, it would be renamed to "Fukushima disaster"? Mr. D. E. Mophon ( talk) 09:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, well in other articles it should go by WP:COMMONNAME, to apply disaster to the name there based on the classification scale would be against WP:SYNTH. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Of earthquake related
2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, 3 other Nuclear facilities reported damage due to quake, but not see listed. Is it due to Japan not reporting the level, or not translated?
Flightsoffancy ( talk) 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The reference to "Helmut Hirsh" should definitely state "Helmut Hirsh Of Greanpeace" to indicate POV. The reference is rife with error, with among other things, repeated references to "J-131" (when it should be "I-131"). Further, Kyshtym released up to 2,000,000 TBq and was rated a level 6, so demanding a rating for Fukushima at 7 on the grounds that Fukushima has released hundreds of thousands of TBq is simply ill-informed. At any rate, the statement should at-least be updated for POV, though I strongly suggest it be removed outright. No account, can't change from here. 07/04/11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 ( talk) 11:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
"An example of a non nuclear accident of roughly the same magnitude would be the Bhopal disaster which resulted in thousands of off-site deaths."
I was wondering what the meaning of the the sentence above is. It does not seem to be true that a disaster with about 50-70 causalities (can find references) is equated to an incident at Bhopal resulting in more immediate and more overall deaths. I have not altered this yet as there may be some official link between scales I am not aware of. Alternatively it may refer to conventional accidents and nuclear accidents in the context of the typical severity in each sector (giving one of the most severe conventional accident against the most deadly nuclear has to offer(which is less deadly)). Perhaps it is compared on the damage that was done to the public image of the two industries. All three of these seem to me to be misleading. Perhaps it is better to compare the accident to the coal explosion at Donbass, Ukraine in 1998, with a similar death toll, although other similar events would do (but it is hard to find statistics that include conventional accidents of as fewer deaths as Chernobyl).
The sentence lacks citations and, more than that, is obviously in error. I would appreciate feedback on this.
Protectthehuman ( talk) 12:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Bhopal is an example of lack of vigilance towards non-nuclear pollution. Bhopal has resulted in severe genetic mutations, ground water pollution that is continuing to spread, thousands of immediate deaths and thousands more in related cancer deaths. 100,000-200,000 people are affected (based on their medical and cognitive tests, not simply detecting poison in their water) and that number will only grow. Yet, there is no "exclusion zone". There is even little monitoring in place.
There is no nuclear incident that is comparable in damage, short of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings. Adam Majer ( talk) 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The incident for the reactors at Fukushima in 2011 needs to be changed - it has been upgraded to a six, evidence: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/japan-earthquake-new-explosion-rocks-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant/story-fn7zkbgs-1226021415043 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.228.180 ( talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is this stuff even on this page? Shouldn't we just remove this section entirely? Sewebster ( talk) 23:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the Fukushima section on the article page. Sewebster ( talk) 23:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think, howewer, that the INES scale should be reviewed. Despite Fukushima accident had over 10Tbq of radioactive release, it is about 10 times lower than Chernobyl accident. So i think that if Fukushima is a Level 7, according to the logarithmic behaviour of the scale, Chernobyl should be rated at a new "Level 8". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.64.232 ( talk) 08:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
english wikipedia gets more and more british yankee bias, its clearly that fukushima should be also part of the top pictures, fukushimas radiation is 2400 while chernobyls is 7000 and yet it isnt over yet, it could be equal on time. Look at this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#cite_note-20 since chernobyl the only serious accidents where japanese and american. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karesu12340 ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh please, it may have been "level 7" but Fukushima is not and is never going to magically become a disaster even remotely the size of Chernobyl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.11.64 ( talk) 11:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like an event worse then Chernobyl is possible. Is there a level8 for china syndrome or somethng like a terror attack?
No what this means is each level is ten times worse, similarly to the Richter scale etc, a effectively limited number of levels is allowed. It may seem weird because there is an absolute limit and integers tend to be used in this scale. This is because it is one of the more subjective of scales. Eg example of such as scale :level 1:1, level 2:10, level 3:100... limited at 7 because it is not very useful beyond it. Also, I think we should just clarify that the 'China Syndrome' is fictional and impossible. Protectthehuman ( talk) 21:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say that there should be a level 8. If an HEU fuelled reactor when meltdown, it may be possible for a nuclear explosion to occur. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 04:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Excellent point, although a level 8 is unlikely, it would be perfect for describing an event where the meltdown is completely uncontrollabe or an event where there has been a nuclear explosion (both having extremely lethal radiation levels of course) the limit (7) shouldnt just be the worst SO FAR, because worse could come —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.206.75 ( talk) 23:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently Fukushima has been rated as a level 8. But do you need some one to even tell you, just compare it cheynoble. Cherynoble is not even in an earthquake or tusnami zone, making a sarcophagus there easy to do, fukushima is on the coast line where that is a problem. Secondly the USSR quickly solved most of the problems at fukushima with in the same year and did not even censor the disaster as much as japan tries to do. THIS DISASTER IS STILL ON GOING THERE HAS BEEN NO RESOLUTION OR EVEN SLOWDOWN! ITS BEEN THREE YEARS!
Just wondering.... The current absolutely worst thing that can happen is one reactor blowing up. Now, in Fukushima, we have 3 meltdowns, quadruple containment failure, radiation exposure to the outside in all cases. We had multiple explosions. And in the spent fuel pool of reactor 4 we had an open-air criticality event, an uncontrolled chain reaction releasing massive bursts of radiation, and the roof was already blown away. There are sources that say that there should be a number 8, for an accident with massive radiation release involving MORE THAN ONE reactor. Of course level 8 would include level 7: "Major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures". The difference for level 8 would be that its more than 1 reactor and that the consequences are global. Multiple explosions, one verified detonation shockwave, triple meltdown, containment failure in 4 reactors, and the cherry on top: open-air criticality event in the spent fuel pool of reactor 4.
I say such a devastating event involving multiple reactors warrants level 8. Sources for all i said can easily be uncovered and i will help. 188.104.121.187 ( talk) 10:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If there were pictures in earlier versions of the article, can we please crucify the evil people that removed them? I mean, expose them as evil people and drive them out with torches? Tell them to go away using revolutionary methods? Or do we just have to stare at an article with no pictures because the exclusionists won? 188.104.121.187 ( talk) 10:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bpower-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—
cyberbot II
NotifyOnline 19:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Is Chernobyl really an "example"? I suspect that there have been few enough 5 6 and 7 events that we could just list all of them in each of those sections. — Omegatron 07:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
International Nuclear Event Scale. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on International Nuclear Event Scale. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Do we want to mention that while they are both rated at Level 7, the Fukushima incident has only released about 10% of the radioactive material released by Chernobyl? It seems relevant to mention that there is a distinct difference despite them having the same rating. (source: http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110412-4.pdf and http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima120411.html ) Sorator ( talk) 21:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Japan is raising the Fukushima crisis to Level 7 ( http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html); I haven't the time to change the page, however (sorry to dump and run). Sqlman ( talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. The only thing that matters is what the sources are saying. Our own personal assessments are irrelevant. Plus milk was contaminated, but there wasn't enough to be concerned about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Church Rock uranium mill spill or the meltdown of the Sodium Reactor Experiment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory? Church Rock was at least level 4 if not 5. It released more radiation than Three Mile Island. Randall Bart Talk
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on International Nuclear Event Scale. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ujv.gov.si/nc/en/splosno/cns/news/article/12088/5400/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://200.0.198.11/comunicados/18_12_2006.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www-news.iaea.org/news/topics/topic/erfs/erf/default.asp?VersionNum=1&TopicID=660When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The article classifies the Lucens accident as 5, but the wikipedia page on Lucens Reactor ( /info/en/?search=Lucens_reactor) shows it as 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjpapad ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Added the Russian involvement, is still developing with more news being posted daily on sick Russians. Flightsoffancy ( talk) 19:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The mention of "an eventual death toll of 4,000–27,000" for Chernobyl isn't supported by the sources indicated as references. Has someone confused cancer cases with cancer deaths? Besides, the references are old and/or vague. As far as I understand, the scientific community has abandoned the old linear models for estimating health effects of low radiation doses, so the 2005 WHO 4'000 estimate has been abandoned and newer WHO or UNSCEAR reports typically talk about the 45 or so known deaths. The ourworldindata source makes an estimate of 300-500 and UNSCEAR's "CHERNOBYL 2017 WHITE PAPER Evaluation of data on thyroid cancer in regions affected by the Chernobyl accident" describes roughly 20'000 thyroid cancer cases totally among young in Ukraine and Belarus, and estimate around 25% caused by the radiation from Chernobyl. With a 2-8% death rate for such cancer, that translates to 100-400 deaths. I see no recent, serious sources mentioning anything more than hundreds or so. MagnusLycka ( talk) 20:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Is there a clasification for the 1966 Palomares B-52 crash under the INES? I think it could be a nice addition to the table and from what I've read, it could be classified as a Level 2 incident, but I haven't found sources regarding this. NoonIcarus ( talk) 22:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
International Nuclear Events Scale → International Nuclear Event Scale – The official name has "event" not "events". The NRC, IEA and DOE all use "event". -- Kjkolb 04:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved 17 Jan 2006 (unambiguous correction). Rd232 talk 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
In this article, I see an, in my eye, very problematic comparrison. But since I am just a regular school teacher and english isn't my maiden language, I don't feel that I am the right one to review this article.
The thing I found problematic is this.
"There are many examples of non nuclear accidents of roughly the same magnitude. Depending on the measure used for the damage done by Chernobyl, in the coal industry alone this includes either the 2006 coal mine methane explosion in the Donbass area (at most the fourth severest accident this area during the last 30 years), which left 36 dead; or severities up to the level of the 2000 accident in the same area, with 80 immediate fatalities."
by comparring Chernobyl with coal mine accidents simply based on the number of casualties, is in my view like comparring the running cababilities of a cheetah, with the running cababilities of a sloth only by counting the number of legs they have.
Some of the reasons for this is.
-It doesn't take into account the number of long terms healt effects on Pripyat and Kiev. -It doesn't take into account how close the Chernobyl was to have a massive moore casualties if draining of the water pool bellow the reactor wasn't done.
I urge someone with a suitable backgroud to edit this article.
Best Regards
Ballefras ( talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That was one of my edits to this article. Perhaps it was a bit of a crass comparison.
But it was a vast improvement on the one it replaced (see above talk thread). While the health effects did occur (Which I believe is the case), the articles about the coal mining accidents stick to the facts rather than speculating about health effects. We should really do the same. In fact, to make such a comparison, you would need to consider the health effects of coal from extraction to use (which is not very pleasant).
On your second point - it is not in the mandate of this article to speculate on the draining of the water pool. Furthermore, we could equally speculate on Donbass accidents.
And would you please show how this analogy is true (as analogy is not evidence): "by comparing Chernobyl with coal mine accidents simply based on the number of casualties, is in my view like comparing the running capabilities of a cheetah, with the running capabilities of a sloth only by counting the number of legs they have." What is special about nuclear accident causalities and conventional casualties. It seems to me your view that the less of the former is the same as much much more of the latter. What is this implied difference?
Protectthehuman ( talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Chernobyl disaster article cites the WHO estimate of the death toll at 56 direct deaths plus 4,000 extra cancer deaths from the 600000 most severley exposed people. Shouldn't the information here be similarly inclusive. After all, the off-site impact of a nuclear event is likely to be dominated by longer term radiation effects. -- Phil Barker 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be referenced here if the numbers from another article are used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.25.124 ( talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Where is Three Mile Island on this thing? This is the English Wikipedia and most of the people on this wiki are either Yanks or Brits. It doesn't make sense to not have Three Mile Island here as that was the most serious nuclear-related incident in the US to this date and would help to give the many American readers more perspective. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The phrase ' defence in depth' is linked twice, once at the top of the 'details' section, and (as Defence-in-Depth) in the level 3 incident section. The first leads to an article primarily about military strategy, and the second is (as you can see) red.
In the military article there is a subsection Defence_in_depth#Non-military_defence_in_depth which mentions engineering safety (nuclear) Defence-in-depth, but I think this ought to be a separate article; however, I'm not competent to write it. Anyone up to the job of splitting out the engineering bit from the military article and making a start on it?
There's also an existing disambig page Defence in depth (disambiguation) which would need updating. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Sellafield 1957 was INES 5 and Sellafield 2005 was INES 3. So INES 4 is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.191.199 ( talk) 22:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we get some clarity on the current Japanese rating? The Japanese are saying level 4, the French are saying its level 6. It's currently listed under both categories. What's the consensus? 165.228.6.89 ( talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It needs to be clarified that Japan's nuclear safety agency has rated the situation at Units 1 and 3 as Level 4 and the situation at Unit 2 has not yet been rated.-- Brian Dell ( talk)
At this stage, the level is not clear not indicated by the authority as one of the current levels. Even if we know the rules we are not the people that should apply the rules. As this is an ongoing event it would be simple if the main page says so; this is, remove any associated level, add a link to the discussion page (this page) and apoints the reasons why Fukushima is still not assosiated with any specific level, even, add links to the different agencies prematurely rating the event to specific levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.205.25 ( talk) 10:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I used exact IAEA definitions to describe event levels. -- eiland ( talk) 10:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I cannot find info on the IAEA's site about the rating for this, and I am not sure about looking at other sources as they may very well have put its rating at five based on this Wiki article. Can anyone find it on IAEA's site? Have I missed something? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Three of the level 5 example had no casualties: Windscale, Chalk River#1 and TMI. Since the level 5 criteria is at least one fatality, these are not appropriate examples.There is only one reference and the link is non-functional. Who decided these were level 5's? Rgbutler ( talk) 02:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There is one example of 'Level 6: Serious accident', Kyshtym disaster at Mayak. But, has there been any other level 6 accidents? According to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/world/asia/13accidents.html there has not. I think it should be mentioned. 82.141.116.222 ( talk) 15:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You mean like it says for Level 7? Could work. I think the Level 7 one says that for dramatic purposes to some extent. Also according to the IAEA [2] that's the only one. So you can put that as well. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just lately, the incident at the Fukushima Daishi nuclear power plant in the aftermath of the quake/tsumani disasters in Japan, March 11, 2011 was added as an example of a level 4 incident. It is quite unsuitable to do so for the following reasons:
Therefore, the entry should be deleted again until the situation has stabilized, the incident has been researched by the IAEA, and the scientific discussion reached an objective level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.79.187 ( talk) 16:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Please remove Fukushima Daishi nuclear power plant from the example list 138.232.86.17 ( talk) 13:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Give it's nature, however, it is a guarantee that cannot be disputed that the INES will give a rating of some sort to the incident (though the question is whether only the one plant will receive the rating or the entire post-earthquake/tsunami Japanese nuclear incident). Therefore I think it's fair and correct to reference the incident now, but not under a specific scale. I suggest starting a separate section with a link to the article on the event, and indicate that as of "whatever date March" an official ranking hadn't been issued. This would, in theory, prevent discourage the good faith addition of the event to one of the scale listings prematurely. If we don't do this, someone will have to continually be policing the article because someone will see it as an omission and add it.
68.146.64.9 (
talk) 16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Are there references out there with a complete list of accidents, at least for those of 4 and 4+? Nergaal ( talk) 16:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well then, are the listed ones only level 5 accidents, or have there been more? 'First Chalk River Accident' is the only one not in the IAEA PDF presentation of the scale. And probably therefore it is tagged as [citation needed].
And I found that one level 4 accident which is on the PDF is not listed here (Fleurus, Belgium 2006), not sure if it should be.
85.217.22.66 (
talk) 02:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Level 6 and 7 accidents are named "disaster". Is this deliberate done, instead of naming them "accident"? If yes, would this imply that if the INES level of the Fukushima accident is increased from 5 to 6, it would be renamed to "Fukushima disaster"? Mr. D. E. Mophon ( talk) 09:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, well in other articles it should go by WP:COMMONNAME, to apply disaster to the name there based on the classification scale would be against WP:SYNTH. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Of earthquake related
2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, 3 other Nuclear facilities reported damage due to quake, but not see listed. Is it due to Japan not reporting the level, or not translated?
Flightsoffancy ( talk) 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The reference to "Helmut Hirsh" should definitely state "Helmut Hirsh Of Greanpeace" to indicate POV. The reference is rife with error, with among other things, repeated references to "J-131" (when it should be "I-131"). Further, Kyshtym released up to 2,000,000 TBq and was rated a level 6, so demanding a rating for Fukushima at 7 on the grounds that Fukushima has released hundreds of thousands of TBq is simply ill-informed. At any rate, the statement should at-least be updated for POV, though I strongly suggest it be removed outright. No account, can't change from here. 07/04/11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 ( talk) 11:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
"An example of a non nuclear accident of roughly the same magnitude would be the Bhopal disaster which resulted in thousands of off-site deaths."
I was wondering what the meaning of the the sentence above is. It does not seem to be true that a disaster with about 50-70 causalities (can find references) is equated to an incident at Bhopal resulting in more immediate and more overall deaths. I have not altered this yet as there may be some official link between scales I am not aware of. Alternatively it may refer to conventional accidents and nuclear accidents in the context of the typical severity in each sector (giving one of the most severe conventional accident against the most deadly nuclear has to offer(which is less deadly)). Perhaps it is compared on the damage that was done to the public image of the two industries. All three of these seem to me to be misleading. Perhaps it is better to compare the accident to the coal explosion at Donbass, Ukraine in 1998, with a similar death toll, although other similar events would do (but it is hard to find statistics that include conventional accidents of as fewer deaths as Chernobyl).
The sentence lacks citations and, more than that, is obviously in error. I would appreciate feedback on this.
Protectthehuman ( talk) 12:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Bhopal is an example of lack of vigilance towards non-nuclear pollution. Bhopal has resulted in severe genetic mutations, ground water pollution that is continuing to spread, thousands of immediate deaths and thousands more in related cancer deaths. 100,000-200,000 people are affected (based on their medical and cognitive tests, not simply detecting poison in their water) and that number will only grow. Yet, there is no "exclusion zone". There is even little monitoring in place.
There is no nuclear incident that is comparable in damage, short of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings. Adam Majer ( talk) 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The incident for the reactors at Fukushima in 2011 needs to be changed - it has been upgraded to a six, evidence: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/japan-earthquake-new-explosion-rocks-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant/story-fn7zkbgs-1226021415043 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.228.180 ( talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is this stuff even on this page? Shouldn't we just remove this section entirely? Sewebster ( talk) 23:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the Fukushima section on the article page. Sewebster ( talk) 23:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think, howewer, that the INES scale should be reviewed. Despite Fukushima accident had over 10Tbq of radioactive release, it is about 10 times lower than Chernobyl accident. So i think that if Fukushima is a Level 7, according to the logarithmic behaviour of the scale, Chernobyl should be rated at a new "Level 8". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.64.232 ( talk) 08:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
english wikipedia gets more and more british yankee bias, its clearly that fukushima should be also part of the top pictures, fukushimas radiation is 2400 while chernobyls is 7000 and yet it isnt over yet, it could be equal on time. Look at this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#cite_note-20 since chernobyl the only serious accidents where japanese and american. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karesu12340 ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh please, it may have been "level 7" but Fukushima is not and is never going to magically become a disaster even remotely the size of Chernobyl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.11.64 ( talk) 11:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like an event worse then Chernobyl is possible. Is there a level8 for china syndrome or somethng like a terror attack?
No what this means is each level is ten times worse, similarly to the Richter scale etc, a effectively limited number of levels is allowed. It may seem weird because there is an absolute limit and integers tend to be used in this scale. This is because it is one of the more subjective of scales. Eg example of such as scale :level 1:1, level 2:10, level 3:100... limited at 7 because it is not very useful beyond it. Also, I think we should just clarify that the 'China Syndrome' is fictional and impossible. Protectthehuman ( talk) 21:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say that there should be a level 8. If an HEU fuelled reactor when meltdown, it may be possible for a nuclear explosion to occur. 184.144.160.156 ( talk) 04:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Excellent point, although a level 8 is unlikely, it would be perfect for describing an event where the meltdown is completely uncontrollabe or an event where there has been a nuclear explosion (both having extremely lethal radiation levels of course) the limit (7) shouldnt just be the worst SO FAR, because worse could come —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.206.75 ( talk) 23:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently Fukushima has been rated as a level 8. But do you need some one to even tell you, just compare it cheynoble. Cherynoble is not even in an earthquake or tusnami zone, making a sarcophagus there easy to do, fukushima is on the coast line where that is a problem. Secondly the USSR quickly solved most of the problems at fukushima with in the same year and did not even censor the disaster as much as japan tries to do. THIS DISASTER IS STILL ON GOING THERE HAS BEEN NO RESOLUTION OR EVEN SLOWDOWN! ITS BEEN THREE YEARS!
Just wondering.... The current absolutely worst thing that can happen is one reactor blowing up. Now, in Fukushima, we have 3 meltdowns, quadruple containment failure, radiation exposure to the outside in all cases. We had multiple explosions. And in the spent fuel pool of reactor 4 we had an open-air criticality event, an uncontrolled chain reaction releasing massive bursts of radiation, and the roof was already blown away. There are sources that say that there should be a number 8, for an accident with massive radiation release involving MORE THAN ONE reactor. Of course level 8 would include level 7: "Major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures". The difference for level 8 would be that its more than 1 reactor and that the consequences are global. Multiple explosions, one verified detonation shockwave, triple meltdown, containment failure in 4 reactors, and the cherry on top: open-air criticality event in the spent fuel pool of reactor 4.
I say such a devastating event involving multiple reactors warrants level 8. Sources for all i said can easily be uncovered and i will help. 188.104.121.187 ( talk) 10:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If there were pictures in earlier versions of the article, can we please crucify the evil people that removed them? I mean, expose them as evil people and drive them out with torches? Tell them to go away using revolutionary methods? Or do we just have to stare at an article with no pictures because the exclusionists won? 188.104.121.187 ( talk) 10:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bpower-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—
cyberbot II
NotifyOnline 19:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Is Chernobyl really an "example"? I suspect that there have been few enough 5 6 and 7 events that we could just list all of them in each of those sections. — Omegatron 07:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
International Nuclear Event Scale. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on International Nuclear Event Scale. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Do we want to mention that while they are both rated at Level 7, the Fukushima incident has only released about 10% of the radioactive material released by Chernobyl? It seems relevant to mention that there is a distinct difference despite them having the same rating. (source: http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110412-4.pdf and http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima120411.html ) Sorator ( talk) 21:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Japan is raising the Fukushima crisis to Level 7 ( http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html); I haven't the time to change the page, however (sorry to dump and run). Sqlman ( talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. The only thing that matters is what the sources are saying. Our own personal assessments are irrelevant. Plus milk was contaminated, but there wasn't enough to be concerned about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Church Rock uranium mill spill or the meltdown of the Sodium Reactor Experiment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory? Church Rock was at least level 4 if not 5. It released more radiation than Three Mile Island. Randall Bart Talk
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on International Nuclear Event Scale. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ujv.gov.si/nc/en/splosno/cns/news/article/12088/5400/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://200.0.198.11/comunicados/18_12_2006.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www-news.iaea.org/news/topics/topic/erfs/erf/default.asp?VersionNum=1&TopicID=660When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The article classifies the Lucens accident as 5, but the wikipedia page on Lucens Reactor ( /info/en/?search=Lucens_reactor) shows it as 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjpapad ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Added the Russian involvement, is still developing with more news being posted daily on sick Russians. Flightsoffancy ( talk) 19:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The mention of "an eventual death toll of 4,000–27,000" for Chernobyl isn't supported by the sources indicated as references. Has someone confused cancer cases with cancer deaths? Besides, the references are old and/or vague. As far as I understand, the scientific community has abandoned the old linear models for estimating health effects of low radiation doses, so the 2005 WHO 4'000 estimate has been abandoned and newer WHO or UNSCEAR reports typically talk about the 45 or so known deaths. The ourworldindata source makes an estimate of 300-500 and UNSCEAR's "CHERNOBYL 2017 WHITE PAPER Evaluation of data on thyroid cancer in regions affected by the Chernobyl accident" describes roughly 20'000 thyroid cancer cases totally among young in Ukraine and Belarus, and estimate around 25% caused by the radiation from Chernobyl. With a 2-8% death rate for such cancer, that translates to 100-400 deaths. I see no recent, serious sources mentioning anything more than hundreds or so. MagnusLycka ( talk) 20:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Is there a clasification for the 1966 Palomares B-52 crash under the INES? I think it could be a nice addition to the table and from what I've read, it could be classified as a Level 2 incident, but I haven't found sources regarding this. NoonIcarus ( talk) 22:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)