This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Mahollis.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Why dont the percentages for the ownership of the plant add to 100%? instead, they add up to 100.1%
I fixed it, SCE owns 75% as stated on their website here: http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs
This section suffers from the same problem that exists with public discussions of nuclear power. There is no understanding of the relative importance of any particular problem that is discovered. Anyone that has worked in an industrial enviroment is aware that there are always equipment problems. Machines break. Nuclear plants hold themselves to a nearly impossible standard and report every minor issue. Their standard though ensures that these minor problems will not develop into meltdowns. Placing this minor problem here (the Events section)is factual, but by itself misleading. I could give you dozens of other situations in the last decade that shut down the plant for minor equipment issues. The point is: they SHUT DOWN, so that they could remain safe and fix the problem. I reccomend removing this section or replacing the event with something more noteworthy. Perhaps the determination a few years back that the emergency sump was designed with too small of a strainer.
1) When did construction begin?
2) When was construction completed?
3) When did the plant begin operating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.77.180 ( talk) 17:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
—WWoods ( talk) 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Some identical edits have been made recently by User:24.43.39.93 and User:Mike B2. I wanted to discuss each of them rather than revert.
I am Mike B2 and I worked for Bechtel Power Corp. for 18 years out of their Norwalk office and have been inside of units 1, 2 and 3.
Bechtel Power Corp. was the CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING company that designed and built the plant.
Local color, and to give the reader an idea that it is not just another ordinary building.
Because it is the truth. Do you want more local color about the plant. I can provide a lot more.
This edit should be removed, and I have already done so twice. Alanraywiki ( talk) 20:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
encyclopedia noun a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: modern Latin, from pseudo-Greek enkuklopaideia for enkuklios paideia ‘all-around education.’
Are you REALLY sure about what belongs in an encyclopedia or is that just your opinion?
Mike B2 ( talk) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I was about to tag this article as disputed. Thank for the education on Wikipedia and how it operates. Mike B2 ( talk) 01:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
We both were wrong about SONGs Unit One. It is now a parking lot. Check it out with Google Earth at 33°22'16.93"N, 117°33'35.54"W.
From a Joni Mitchell song ... "I said, don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise, put up a parking lot"
Mike B2 ( talk) 00:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a comment/report relevant to this discussion:
At the 5/25/11 meeting of the San Diego Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, the speaker from SONGS stated that the site of Unit 1 now contains a spent fuel processing facility which seals spent fuel in glass and stainless steel canisters. She also stated in Q&A that at this time SONGS is designed to handle 0.67g, which corresponds to the maximum credible seismic acceleration that is expected, based on existing studies. Southern California Edison filed a grant application with the California PUC to fund additional studies of a nearby fault which has come to their attention since the completion of existing studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averla ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
If the license expires for the power plant expires in 2222,how many years will it be until it expires again? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ( Shout!) 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
"The July 12, 1982 edition of Time (magazine) states, "The firm Bechtel was further embarrassed in 1977, when it installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards" at San Onofre"
This needs to be located somewhere else on the page. It disrupts the continuity of the paragraph where it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.86.253 ( talk) 07:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that now that the plant is in the news ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42354473/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/42336304 ) in a very controversial situation, that a controversy section should be edited. Basically, the plant is under lawsuit for squashing whistleblowers on safety issues. In light of the Japanese meltdowns, it is now recieving a good deal more media attention. 72.66.253.132 ( talk) 12:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)MJR
What is the correct pronunciation of San Onofre (especially the part "Onofre")? Since this is not obvious for non-native English speakers, this would certainly be a useful information for the article.-- SiriusB ( talk) 10:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
May be a long hot summer here in SoCal -- just announced that the two operating units of San Onofre have been shut down, likely for a long time. "Investigators are currently trying to determine why tubes carrying hot, pressurized, radioactive water inside the relatively new steam generators at San Onofre, are deteriorating at a dangerous and unusual rate." ( http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/03/22/5205/san-onofre/ ) Opus131 ( talk) 01:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a ton of words in this article devoted to a protest that had all of 200 people show up. It goes into way too much detail. I'm going to try to delete some of it and make it more NPOV. Hanxu9 ( talk) 20:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
However, that shouldn't mean that the protest section should be given undue weight within the article. I agree that the article needs to be improved overall, however to make it unbalanced with overly detailed accounts of each anti-nuclear event that maybe related to the subject of this article gives that section undue weight.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is there an entire section devoted to the opinion of one person - most of which is POV against the nuclear industry as a whole, and only in passing about this plant? IMO his comments deserve at most a sentence somewhere in the article. Only the final sentence (about California banning new plants) is relevant to the future prospects of San Onofre. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that only the sentence mentioning San Onofre specifically is relevant to this article. Perhaps merge that sentence into the section above it, which could be retitled "Criticism" or "Protests and criticism" - or possibly into the safety section? The rest of the info can be moved to a more appropriate article. ( Nuclear power in the United States?) Dohn joe ( talk) 02:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.
This is a short article. It needs to be developed and expanded rather than have material removed from it. The anti-nuclear issues relating to San Onofre are not isolated events and receive wide media coverage and so are quite notable, and deserve adequate coverage here. The same is true of the future prospects issues. If you believe that there are significant views that have been published by reliable sources, which have not been included, then add them in. Johnfos ( talk) 12:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the two paragraphs to the future prospects section. They don't appear to be direct responses to anti-nuclear criticisms, and do discuss possible future uses of the plant. I also agree that we should continue to look for more balanced info. The past few days has already turned up some good stuff... Dohn joe ( talk) 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I have tagged the In popular culture section. If anybody wants to keep any of the trivia, let's ensure it is referenced to valid third-party references in, say, the next week. -- John ( talk) 18:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
News is just beginning to come out that the operators of San Onofre are applying to restart Unit 2. The actual cause of the steam generator tube failures has apparently been traced to dynamic instability, i.e., vibration, which allowed adjacent tubes to rub together, causing holes to appear. This sounds far more reasonable than the earlier reports of theories that the alloy used to fabricate the tubes was incorrect. The "2012 Shutdown" section needs to be amended to downplay the earlier Fairewinds Associates report blaming alloys and highlight the true cause of the failures. — Quicksilver T @ 19:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I have added sourced material in a new section regarding an extremely serious matter: a call by Senator Barbara Boxer of California for the U.S. Department of Justice to criminally investigate the events leading up to Southern California Edison's installment of steam generators whose prematurely worn steam tubes have closed the SONGS facility since January of 2012. The section and some of the content have been deleted, and I have reverted the deletion. I ask both in my edit summaries and here that the material not be edit-warred over, and that we instead discuss the material on the merits and seek consensus. Thanks. Jus da fax 19:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
reduced content per WP:UNDUE and moved to appropriate section, reworded to meet WP:NPOV; this article need not devolve into an WP:ATTACKPAGE regarding its subject
However, I wont for the sake of starting a discussion, and while this discussion is active, I ask others to not edit the content until consensus can be determined.In May, 2013 Boxer asked that the United States Justice Department investigate possible malfeasance by Edison officials, and released a 2004 letter by an Edison executive that expressed worries that the new steam generators, which though similar, would not be "like for like" replacements and could lead to the same kind of potential "disastrous" issues that in fact led to the plant's shutdown in 2012.
In making the request, Boxer's statement said "This correspondence leads me to believe that Edison intentionally misled the public and regulators in order to avoid a full safety review and public hearing in connection with its redesign of the plant. ...Given this new information, it is clear to me that in order for this nuclear plant to even be considered for a restart in the future all investigations must be completed and a full license amendment and public hearing process must be required."
This looks like consensus to trim the information. Further, I note that four days later there does not appear to have been any follow-up or reaction to Boxer's call that I can find, thus decreasing its apparent notability/significance. I will go ahead and remove the new section and instead put a paragraph into the section 2012 Shutdown. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The current order of sections does not make a lot of sense. "2012 shutdown" comes after "Safety issues" and before "Environmental risk and mitigation"; then comes "Anti-nuclear protests", and then "Plant closure". Clearly the "shutdown" and "closure" sections should be together, and the "Safety issues" and "Environmental risk" sections should be together. I solicit opinions about which should come first. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Melanie, I've created some sub-sections in the shutdown/closure sections. It's not ideal, somewhat loose sub-sections. Please rv if you don't like it. Rwendland ( talk) 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like a victory piece of environmentalists over nuclear power in Souther California, as such I will be tagging this article until it meets WP:NEU. A large portion of this article is dedicated to environmental groups efforts to shut down the plant, while verified, IMHO is given undue weight and can be better summarized.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says, without attribution, "Upgrades designed to last 20 years were made to the reactor units in 2009 and 2010 at a cost of approximately $2.1 billion." The sourced paragraph I just added says that the cost of the new steam generators was $671 million. Should the $2.1 billion figure be removed, or is it talking about some broader project than just the new steam generators? If that's the case, can we find a source to support it? -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"however, both reactors had to be shut down in January 2012 due to premature wear found on over 3,000 tubes in the recently replaced steam generators."
This statement is grammatically somewhat obscure. Was the unexpected wear found in the original ( 25 year old ) heat exchangers removed from the reactor, or in the new ones ? Tallewang ( talk) 22:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? - Yes. From what I can tell, each fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. Furthermore, the references cited are publications from reputable sources such as the LA Times, the NRC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? -Yes. I clicked through many of the citations and the links do work. The article seems to do a good job of summarizing the information that is found in the references without plagiarizing or paraphrasing.
Mahollis ( talk) 20:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the content could be restructured into an "incidents" section / timeline. https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/ml18332a357.pdf
rhyre ( talk) 20:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Mahollis.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Why dont the percentages for the ownership of the plant add to 100%? instead, they add up to 100.1%
I fixed it, SCE owns 75% as stated on their website here: http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs
This section suffers from the same problem that exists with public discussions of nuclear power. There is no understanding of the relative importance of any particular problem that is discovered. Anyone that has worked in an industrial enviroment is aware that there are always equipment problems. Machines break. Nuclear plants hold themselves to a nearly impossible standard and report every minor issue. Their standard though ensures that these minor problems will not develop into meltdowns. Placing this minor problem here (the Events section)is factual, but by itself misleading. I could give you dozens of other situations in the last decade that shut down the plant for minor equipment issues. The point is: they SHUT DOWN, so that they could remain safe and fix the problem. I reccomend removing this section or replacing the event with something more noteworthy. Perhaps the determination a few years back that the emergency sump was designed with too small of a strainer.
1) When did construction begin?
2) When was construction completed?
3) When did the plant begin operating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.77.180 ( talk) 17:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
—WWoods ( talk) 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Some identical edits have been made recently by User:24.43.39.93 and User:Mike B2. I wanted to discuss each of them rather than revert.
I am Mike B2 and I worked for Bechtel Power Corp. for 18 years out of their Norwalk office and have been inside of units 1, 2 and 3.
Bechtel Power Corp. was the CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING company that designed and built the plant.
Local color, and to give the reader an idea that it is not just another ordinary building.
Because it is the truth. Do you want more local color about the plant. I can provide a lot more.
This edit should be removed, and I have already done so twice. Alanraywiki ( talk) 20:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
encyclopedia noun a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: modern Latin, from pseudo-Greek enkuklopaideia for enkuklios paideia ‘all-around education.’
Are you REALLY sure about what belongs in an encyclopedia or is that just your opinion?
Mike B2 ( talk) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I was about to tag this article as disputed. Thank for the education on Wikipedia and how it operates. Mike B2 ( talk) 01:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
We both were wrong about SONGs Unit One. It is now a parking lot. Check it out with Google Earth at 33°22'16.93"N, 117°33'35.54"W.
From a Joni Mitchell song ... "I said, don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise, put up a parking lot"
Mike B2 ( talk) 00:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a comment/report relevant to this discussion:
At the 5/25/11 meeting of the San Diego Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, the speaker from SONGS stated that the site of Unit 1 now contains a spent fuel processing facility which seals spent fuel in glass and stainless steel canisters. She also stated in Q&A that at this time SONGS is designed to handle 0.67g, which corresponds to the maximum credible seismic acceleration that is expected, based on existing studies. Southern California Edison filed a grant application with the California PUC to fund additional studies of a nearby fault which has come to their attention since the completion of existing studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averla ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
If the license expires for the power plant expires in 2222,how many years will it be until it expires again? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ( Shout!) 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
"The July 12, 1982 edition of Time (magazine) states, "The firm Bechtel was further embarrassed in 1977, when it installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards" at San Onofre"
This needs to be located somewhere else on the page. It disrupts the continuity of the paragraph where it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.86.253 ( talk) 07:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that now that the plant is in the news ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42354473/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/42336304 ) in a very controversial situation, that a controversy section should be edited. Basically, the plant is under lawsuit for squashing whistleblowers on safety issues. In light of the Japanese meltdowns, it is now recieving a good deal more media attention. 72.66.253.132 ( talk) 12:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)MJR
What is the correct pronunciation of San Onofre (especially the part "Onofre")? Since this is not obvious for non-native English speakers, this would certainly be a useful information for the article.-- SiriusB ( talk) 10:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
May be a long hot summer here in SoCal -- just announced that the two operating units of San Onofre have been shut down, likely for a long time. "Investigators are currently trying to determine why tubes carrying hot, pressurized, radioactive water inside the relatively new steam generators at San Onofre, are deteriorating at a dangerous and unusual rate." ( http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/03/22/5205/san-onofre/ ) Opus131 ( talk) 01:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a ton of words in this article devoted to a protest that had all of 200 people show up. It goes into way too much detail. I'm going to try to delete some of it and make it more NPOV. Hanxu9 ( talk) 20:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
However, that shouldn't mean that the protest section should be given undue weight within the article. I agree that the article needs to be improved overall, however to make it unbalanced with overly detailed accounts of each anti-nuclear event that maybe related to the subject of this article gives that section undue weight.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is there an entire section devoted to the opinion of one person - most of which is POV against the nuclear industry as a whole, and only in passing about this plant? IMO his comments deserve at most a sentence somewhere in the article. Only the final sentence (about California banning new plants) is relevant to the future prospects of San Onofre. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that only the sentence mentioning San Onofre specifically is relevant to this article. Perhaps merge that sentence into the section above it, which could be retitled "Criticism" or "Protests and criticism" - or possibly into the safety section? The rest of the info can be moved to a more appropriate article. ( Nuclear power in the United States?) Dohn joe ( talk) 02:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.
This is a short article. It needs to be developed and expanded rather than have material removed from it. The anti-nuclear issues relating to San Onofre are not isolated events and receive wide media coverage and so are quite notable, and deserve adequate coverage here. The same is true of the future prospects issues. If you believe that there are significant views that have been published by reliable sources, which have not been included, then add them in. Johnfos ( talk) 12:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the two paragraphs to the future prospects section. They don't appear to be direct responses to anti-nuclear criticisms, and do discuss possible future uses of the plant. I also agree that we should continue to look for more balanced info. The past few days has already turned up some good stuff... Dohn joe ( talk) 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I have tagged the In popular culture section. If anybody wants to keep any of the trivia, let's ensure it is referenced to valid third-party references in, say, the next week. -- John ( talk) 18:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
News is just beginning to come out that the operators of San Onofre are applying to restart Unit 2. The actual cause of the steam generator tube failures has apparently been traced to dynamic instability, i.e., vibration, which allowed adjacent tubes to rub together, causing holes to appear. This sounds far more reasonable than the earlier reports of theories that the alloy used to fabricate the tubes was incorrect. The "2012 Shutdown" section needs to be amended to downplay the earlier Fairewinds Associates report blaming alloys and highlight the true cause of the failures. — Quicksilver T @ 19:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I have added sourced material in a new section regarding an extremely serious matter: a call by Senator Barbara Boxer of California for the U.S. Department of Justice to criminally investigate the events leading up to Southern California Edison's installment of steam generators whose prematurely worn steam tubes have closed the SONGS facility since January of 2012. The section and some of the content have been deleted, and I have reverted the deletion. I ask both in my edit summaries and here that the material not be edit-warred over, and that we instead discuss the material on the merits and seek consensus. Thanks. Jus da fax 19:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
reduced content per WP:UNDUE and moved to appropriate section, reworded to meet WP:NPOV; this article need not devolve into an WP:ATTACKPAGE regarding its subject
However, I wont for the sake of starting a discussion, and while this discussion is active, I ask others to not edit the content until consensus can be determined.In May, 2013 Boxer asked that the United States Justice Department investigate possible malfeasance by Edison officials, and released a 2004 letter by an Edison executive that expressed worries that the new steam generators, which though similar, would not be "like for like" replacements and could lead to the same kind of potential "disastrous" issues that in fact led to the plant's shutdown in 2012.
In making the request, Boxer's statement said "This correspondence leads me to believe that Edison intentionally misled the public and regulators in order to avoid a full safety review and public hearing in connection with its redesign of the plant. ...Given this new information, it is clear to me that in order for this nuclear plant to even be considered for a restart in the future all investigations must be completed and a full license amendment and public hearing process must be required."
This looks like consensus to trim the information. Further, I note that four days later there does not appear to have been any follow-up or reaction to Boxer's call that I can find, thus decreasing its apparent notability/significance. I will go ahead and remove the new section and instead put a paragraph into the section 2012 Shutdown. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The current order of sections does not make a lot of sense. "2012 shutdown" comes after "Safety issues" and before "Environmental risk and mitigation"; then comes "Anti-nuclear protests", and then "Plant closure". Clearly the "shutdown" and "closure" sections should be together, and the "Safety issues" and "Environmental risk" sections should be together. I solicit opinions about which should come first. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Melanie, I've created some sub-sections in the shutdown/closure sections. It's not ideal, somewhat loose sub-sections. Please rv if you don't like it. Rwendland ( talk) 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like a victory piece of environmentalists over nuclear power in Souther California, as such I will be tagging this article until it meets WP:NEU. A large portion of this article is dedicated to environmental groups efforts to shut down the plant, while verified, IMHO is given undue weight and can be better summarized.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says, without attribution, "Upgrades designed to last 20 years were made to the reactor units in 2009 and 2010 at a cost of approximately $2.1 billion." The sourced paragraph I just added says that the cost of the new steam generators was $671 million. Should the $2.1 billion figure be removed, or is it talking about some broader project than just the new steam generators? If that's the case, can we find a source to support it? -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"however, both reactors had to be shut down in January 2012 due to premature wear found on over 3,000 tubes in the recently replaced steam generators."
This statement is grammatically somewhat obscure. Was the unexpected wear found in the original ( 25 year old ) heat exchangers removed from the reactor, or in the new ones ? Tallewang ( talk) 22:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? - Yes. From what I can tell, each fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. Furthermore, the references cited are publications from reputable sources such as the LA Times, the NRC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? -Yes. I clicked through many of the citations and the links do work. The article seems to do a good job of summarizing the information that is found in the references without plagiarizing or paraphrasing.
Mahollis ( talk) 20:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the content could be restructured into an "incidents" section / timeline. https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/ml18332a357.pdf
rhyre ( talk) 20:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)