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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I suggest that we use color code to distinguish events from different reactor units? This would make it easier for readers to track events, while not getting confused with the units. We could use e.g. visual templates from subway systems:
: an event at Unit 1 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 2 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 3 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 4 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 5 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 6 at Fukushima I
Of course we would need further color codes for Fukushima II as well or (alternatively) we separate the timelines by plant, using one for Fukushima I and one for Fukushima II. What do you think? -- spitzl ( talk) 13:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Example
"Unit #" refers to a reactor at Fukushima I (Dai-ichi), unless indicated.
Being curious how it would look like with color codes I just gave it a try. Seeing the result I'd still favor implementing it. It surely gives the reader a visual clue what's happening where, without disturbing the reading experience. Well, judge yourself, here is the result:
-- spitzl ( talk) 18:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
In the 23:20 entry, I would be inclined to drop the claim of an "air flow gauge being accidentally turned off", and simply go with something based upon this link:
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/15_05.html
It just makes so much more sense than the other reports. How can a *gauge* be shut, thus blocking the flow of air? Why would air be in there, anyway? Was no one at all paying attention to the flow rate of the water for the entire time it took for the chamber to completely drain, after the gauge was accidentally turned off? This sounds like yet another malfunction. This time a valve. And not an accident.
In fact, as a general rule, if sources disagree, I'd tend to go with nhk. They've been less clueless than other sources. Sbergman27 ( talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think it's an excellent idea, but it might be better to avoid the use of red, green or black (they could be misinterpreted as being safety status indicators). 82.132.139.212 ( talk) 23:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, less intrusive colors would be better. Maybe there are some volunteers to create such icons. I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute much, since I'll be offline traveling the next few weeks. Let's see if the idea develops further. Cheers, -- spitzl ( talk) 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The actual event is in most cases more important and relevant than the exact part of the plant that it occurred in, although those facts should be noted for the record even when they are not immediately important. A much better approach would be to clean up the language used to refer to respective plants, reactors & structures. That would include consistently using the same descriptions and phrases throughout the page. Bigredtoe ( talk) 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Why are we documenting Australian travel alerts in this article? 65.93.13.60 ( talk) 05:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
March 16, 2011 21:00 AKST (March 17, 2011 15:00? JST) There's recent hearsay on Coast to Coast AM radio beginning news hour with an interview with Linda Moulton Howe obtaining information concerning a current full meltdown of Reactor #4. Her information was sourced from Arnie Gundersen and infrared images? I believe this information is based on speculation but could hold some truth. (I'm interpreting this to mean the rods stored in Reactor #4 to have fully melted down. I always hope information like this is completely incorrect.) Roger.nkata ( talk) 06:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Find an radio broadcast station affiliate of the C2C AM radio to listen to the rebroadcast: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/. Linda's written references are contained here: http://www.earthfiles.com/.
March 17, 2011 08:05 AM ABC Morning News states, "... satellite imagery shows spent fuel rods are red-hot" and then further explicitly states the US request for citizens to evacuate. (In the near future, I'll probably move this section of info to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents discussions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger.nkata ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
We need to document a timeline of the development of this article documenting the Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents. This would be of great assistance, thank you. 130.56.89.71 ( talk) 16:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you folks consider placing the most-recent events at the top of the page instead of at the bottom? It would be a lot more useful for readers like me who refresh the page often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 ( talk) 21:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a little premature to nominate this as this is an-going event and it will likely be quick-failed. I see that User:SunCountryGuy01 has removed the nomination from WP:GAN, but it will be reinserted by the GANbot unless the nomination template on this page is deleted. You may also wish to read the GA criteria at WP:GACR. Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/tsunamiupdate01.html
Unit 4 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 84 °C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 84 °C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: no data Unit 5 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 59.7 °C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 60.4 °C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: 62.7 °C Unit 6 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 58.0 °C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 58.5 °C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: 60.0 °C
Unit 4 13 March, 19:08 UTC: 84 °C Unit 5 17 March, 03:00 UTC: 64.2 °C 17 March, 18:00 UTC: 65.5 °C Unit 6 17 March, 03:00 UTC: 62.5 °C 17 March, 18:00 UTC: 62.0 °C — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeEd ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Why are all the wikinews links deleted? 65.95.15.189 ( talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
See this edit [2] -- the edit summary says nothing of the sort. 65.95.15.189 ( talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any live video coverage of the activities concerning re-hooking of the power lines? NHK World News (English) seems lacking live coverage and rebroadcasting only what they plan to do. Roger.nkata ( talk) 05:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
22:21 3/19 states that radioactive iodine and Cs are found in trace amounts in tap water. I recommend this be removed since radionuclides are almost always present in trace amounts in water. Tom Hubbard ( talk) 00:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sirs BBC Time line report
0832: LONDON TIME The radiation level at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant reached a high of 10 millisievert per hour at one point Wednesday morning, Kyodo reports. Here's a Q&A on the health risks from radiation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
Staff withdrawn from Japan plant
Sorry Zasdcxz ( talk) 09:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sirs ! Would you like PUT MEDIA SOURCE on your date about current radiation level, because your date NOT POSSIBLE VERIFIABLE /my date in commentary- I put
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698 Listen interview,please
You date 3 361 μSv 3 361 microSieivert/hour low as in Press now in hundred, thousand time!!!!!!!! Sorry
600 000- 800 000 microSievert /hour
No illusion Staff withdrawn from Japan plant, because of very very very high level radiation Last time level increase again. Sorry,sorry Zasdcxz ( talk) 11:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of what the Japanese gov is saying those choppers were dumping water on units 3 & 4. No question about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.158.48 ( talk) 01:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a reference from a scientific source with a timeline. Timeline: The Japanese Nuclear Emergency.
Here is a reference from an official source with a timeline. Sequence of Developments at Nuclear Power Stations Affected by the Earthquake. Obankston ( talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Timeline resources:
Obankston ( talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Both tables "Status of Fukushima I at 22:00 on 19 March" and "Status of Fukushima I at 16:00 on 20 March" in cell "Unit 4" / "Integerity of fuel in SFP" read:
Hydrogen from SFP exploded ,
whereas the previous version of the table reads Hydrogen from SFP exposed, and there is no mention about that hydrogen explosion in between, so probably it is a typo error... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.161.20 ( talk) 13:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed the IAEA website has status for "off-site power" and "diesel generators". Status of reactors with power status Roger.nkata ( talk) 12:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is nothing in this article about which reactor contains MOX fuel? Hint: It's reactor #3 that has MOX fuel. 98.204.35.80 ( talk) 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300624909P.pdf
There are such data. Why it's not used in table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.200.245 ( talk) 13:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the intended purpose of the boldface text in some of the cells in the status tables? At first it appeared that it indicated cells that had changed from the immediately preceding table, however that is not the case with the more recent tables. - Dmeranda ( talk) 05:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
In Tuesday Mar 22 the statement "161 µSv/h . ...This level is 1,600 times higher than normal" is incorrect. World wide average is ~0.3 µSv/h, so this is closer to ~500 times higher than normal than 1,600. Cannot edit from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 ( talk) 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
We should add a graph for Fukushima II as well, since it received some damage and radiation leakage. Flightsoffancy ( talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
NHK is reporting that power has been restored, and lights turned on, at Unit #3.
"Power restored to control room of No.3 reactor" : http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/23_02.html
Sbergman27 ( talk) 18:44, 22 March 2011 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I suggest that we use color code to distinguish events from different reactor units? This would make it easier for readers to track events, while not getting confused with the units. We could use e.g. visual templates from subway systems:
: an event at Unit 1 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 2 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 3 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 4 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 5 at Fukushima I
: an event at Unit 6 at Fukushima I
Of course we would need further color codes for Fukushima II as well or (alternatively) we separate the timelines by plant, using one for Fukushima I and one for Fukushima II. What do you think? -- spitzl ( talk) 13:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Example
"Unit #" refers to a reactor at Fukushima I (Dai-ichi), unless indicated.
Being curious how it would look like with color codes I just gave it a try. Seeing the result I'd still favor implementing it. It surely gives the reader a visual clue what's happening where, without disturbing the reading experience. Well, judge yourself, here is the result:
-- spitzl ( talk) 18:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
In the 23:20 entry, I would be inclined to drop the claim of an "air flow gauge being accidentally turned off", and simply go with something based upon this link:
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/15_05.html
It just makes so much more sense than the other reports. How can a *gauge* be shut, thus blocking the flow of air? Why would air be in there, anyway? Was no one at all paying attention to the flow rate of the water for the entire time it took for the chamber to completely drain, after the gauge was accidentally turned off? This sounds like yet another malfunction. This time a valve. And not an accident.
In fact, as a general rule, if sources disagree, I'd tend to go with nhk. They've been less clueless than other sources. Sbergman27 ( talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think it's an excellent idea, but it might be better to avoid the use of red, green or black (they could be misinterpreted as being safety status indicators). 82.132.139.212 ( talk) 23:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, less intrusive colors would be better. Maybe there are some volunteers to create such icons. I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute much, since I'll be offline traveling the next few weeks. Let's see if the idea develops further. Cheers, -- spitzl ( talk) 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The actual event is in most cases more important and relevant than the exact part of the plant that it occurred in, although those facts should be noted for the record even when they are not immediately important. A much better approach would be to clean up the language used to refer to respective plants, reactors & structures. That would include consistently using the same descriptions and phrases throughout the page. Bigredtoe ( talk) 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Why are we documenting Australian travel alerts in this article? 65.93.13.60 ( talk) 05:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
March 16, 2011 21:00 AKST (March 17, 2011 15:00? JST) There's recent hearsay on Coast to Coast AM radio beginning news hour with an interview with Linda Moulton Howe obtaining information concerning a current full meltdown of Reactor #4. Her information was sourced from Arnie Gundersen and infrared images? I believe this information is based on speculation but could hold some truth. (I'm interpreting this to mean the rods stored in Reactor #4 to have fully melted down. I always hope information like this is completely incorrect.) Roger.nkata ( talk) 06:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Find an radio broadcast station affiliate of the C2C AM radio to listen to the rebroadcast: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/. Linda's written references are contained here: http://www.earthfiles.com/.
March 17, 2011 08:05 AM ABC Morning News states, "... satellite imagery shows spent fuel rods are red-hot" and then further explicitly states the US request for citizens to evacuate. (In the near future, I'll probably move this section of info to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents discussions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger.nkata ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
We need to document a timeline of the development of this article documenting the Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents. This would be of great assistance, thank you. 130.56.89.71 ( talk) 16:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you folks consider placing the most-recent events at the top of the page instead of at the bottom? It would be a lot more useful for readers like me who refresh the page often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 ( talk) 21:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a little premature to nominate this as this is an-going event and it will likely be quick-failed. I see that User:SunCountryGuy01 has removed the nomination from WP:GAN, but it will be reinserted by the GANbot unless the nomination template on this page is deleted. You may also wish to read the GA criteria at WP:GACR. Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/tsunamiupdate01.html
Unit 4 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 84 °C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 84 °C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: no data Unit 5 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 59.7 °C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 60.4 °C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: 62.7 °C Unit 6 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 58.0 °C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 58.5 °C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: 60.0 °C
Unit 4 13 March, 19:08 UTC: 84 °C Unit 5 17 March, 03:00 UTC: 64.2 °C 17 March, 18:00 UTC: 65.5 °C Unit 6 17 March, 03:00 UTC: 62.5 °C 17 March, 18:00 UTC: 62.0 °C — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeEd ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Why are all the wikinews links deleted? 65.95.15.189 ( talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
See this edit [2] -- the edit summary says nothing of the sort. 65.95.15.189 ( talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any live video coverage of the activities concerning re-hooking of the power lines? NHK World News (English) seems lacking live coverage and rebroadcasting only what they plan to do. Roger.nkata ( talk) 05:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
22:21 3/19 states that radioactive iodine and Cs are found in trace amounts in tap water. I recommend this be removed since radionuclides are almost always present in trace amounts in water. Tom Hubbard ( talk) 00:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sirs BBC Time line report
0832: LONDON TIME The radiation level at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant reached a high of 10 millisievert per hour at one point Wednesday morning, Kyodo reports. Here's a Q&A on the health risks from radiation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
Staff withdrawn from Japan plant
Sorry Zasdcxz ( talk) 09:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sirs ! Would you like PUT MEDIA SOURCE on your date about current radiation level, because your date NOT POSSIBLE VERIFIABLE /my date in commentary- I put
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698 Listen interview,please
You date 3 361 μSv 3 361 microSieivert/hour low as in Press now in hundred, thousand time!!!!!!!! Sorry
600 000- 800 000 microSievert /hour
No illusion Staff withdrawn from Japan plant, because of very very very high level radiation Last time level increase again. Sorry,sorry Zasdcxz ( talk) 11:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of what the Japanese gov is saying those choppers were dumping water on units 3 & 4. No question about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.158.48 ( talk) 01:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a reference from a scientific source with a timeline. Timeline: The Japanese Nuclear Emergency.
Here is a reference from an official source with a timeline. Sequence of Developments at Nuclear Power Stations Affected by the Earthquake. Obankston ( talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Timeline resources:
Obankston ( talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Both tables "Status of Fukushima I at 22:00 on 19 March" and "Status of Fukushima I at 16:00 on 20 March" in cell "Unit 4" / "Integerity of fuel in SFP" read:
Hydrogen from SFP exploded ,
whereas the previous version of the table reads Hydrogen from SFP exposed, and there is no mention about that hydrogen explosion in between, so probably it is a typo error... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.161.20 ( talk) 13:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed the IAEA website has status for "off-site power" and "diesel generators". Status of reactors with power status Roger.nkata ( talk) 12:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is nothing in this article about which reactor contains MOX fuel? Hint: It's reactor #3 that has MOX fuel. 98.204.35.80 ( talk) 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300624909P.pdf
There are such data. Why it's not used in table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.200.245 ( talk) 13:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the intended purpose of the boldface text in some of the cells in the status tables? At first it appeared that it indicated cells that had changed from the immediately preceding table, however that is not the case with the more recent tables. - Dmeranda ( talk) 05:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
In Tuesday Mar 22 the statement "161 µSv/h . ...This level is 1,600 times higher than normal" is incorrect. World wide average is ~0.3 µSv/h, so this is closer to ~500 times higher than normal than 1,600. Cannot edit from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 ( talk) 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
We should add a graph for Fukushima II as well, since it received some damage and radiation leakage. Flightsoffancy ( talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
NHK is reporting that power has been restored, and lights turned on, at Unit #3.
"Power restored to control room of No.3 reactor" : http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/23_02.html
Sbergman27 ( talk) 18:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)