Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:42, 29 April 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Japan: Geography & environment / History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 03:33, December 28, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Geography and environment task force. This article is supported by the History task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Earthquakes High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Energy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Occupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Fukushima I nuclear accidents was copied or moved into Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents with this edit on 19:35, 23 March 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A question of balance

It seems that Chernobyl is mentioned 36 times in this article, which is surprising given that we already have the Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents. I notice that radiation experts Tilman Ruff and Ian Fairlie, who have written much on Fukushima are not mentioned at all. This leaves the article rather skewed and unbalanced. Johnfos (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Date Consistency

While reading this article, I became confused on dating. There are a number of passages where a month by month progression is entered, and the entry is a day/month progression, but no year. The sections often have multiple sequences like this and they do not reference the year. There are more than a few locations where the timeline jumps from 2011 to 2012, then back to 2011 without providing any sense of timeline that is accurate. I know it would be best to provide specific examples, at this time I cannot, but I will attempt to update the sections that need revision soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1600:823F:E532:8F2A:D0A9:BF2F (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there really is no reason not to include the year in every date reference, which is also encouraged by the manual of style at WP:YEAR. Just be sure to add the correct year; you recently changed a 2011 to 2012 inaccurately. VQuakr (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Extraneous "citation needed" tag

@Senor Freebie: re this, a citation has been provided, . Putting the same ref at the end of both sentences is not editorially favorable. Your edit summary appears to express your personal opinion and analysis, which of course is wholly irrelevant. Can you better articulate a policy-based reason for the tag? VQuakr (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, we can probably handle a duplicate callout. I added a second source, , as well. VQuakr (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The source that you added contradicted the un-scientific, un-encyclopedic information you appear to be intent on including in this article. Please discuss this in good faith, and in detail, before proceeding unilaterally. I have trimmed a large amount of baseless and unsourced information, and it's clear that there has been an attempt at providing misinformation here. It's concerning that instead of doing the same, and attempting to improve the accuracy of the article, you have instead insisted that this material is supported.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

From 2nd the source provided: "Although radiation may cause cancer at high doses and high dose rates, public health data do not absolutely establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates — below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv)." You need to get consensus for these removals prior to blanking; your proposed removal has been contested. VQuakr (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WTF

¿Qué coño significa esto? 600 suviets every hour? They cannot even send the robots to take pictures? Even Flexpart stopped to show out data? Please, wise wikieditors of this article, check out this and go deeper than I am able to: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushima-daiichi-radiation-levels-highest-since-2011-meltdown Gracias and best regards. 45.254.247.178 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ~600 Sv/hr has been estimated. That is inside the containment vessel, underneath the pressure vessel near where the fuel melted through. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Actual readings are only ~210 Sv/hr inside Unit 2's containment vessel. The initial ~600 Sv/hr readings were calculated very roughly based on corruption from radiation in photographs, the later reading is from an actual proper detection instrument sent into the same area. Garzfoth (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Beser, Ari (22 February 2017). "After Alarmingly High Radiation Levels Detected, What Are the Facts in Fukushima?". National Geographic Society (blogs). National Geographic Society. Retrieved 9 April 2017.

This article is filled with unsourced, and utterly ridiculous propaganda.

I have done my best to verify the information in it, but the claims are just astoundingly and blatantly false. 1,600 dead from evacuation, and 1,599 dead from the earthquake, with no corresponding source to back those numbers up? Authors opining about accepted science, and attempting to imply that all increases in thyroid cancer are attributable to stress, over radiation? I will be watching this article from now on, and I will be doing my best to recommend administrative action against anyone deliberately attempting to manipulate this article in a non-encyclopedic fashion.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF, etc. VQuakr (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You are removing cited content because it doesn't fit your understanding of the topic.VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. Apologise and retract immediately.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Flailing about and screaming Propaganda! Doesn't make that more ok.VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. Apologise and retract immediately.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:DRAMA. Your accusations are spurious, particularly from someone who just accused another editor of supporting "propaganda". VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, what unsourced material are you contesting? So far you have only removed and challenged reliably sourced information. I did remove , which was sourced but tangential. VQuakr (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The information that was removed. I will detail it piece by piece here. As I have already requested that you discuss these, rather than edit warring, only to be ignored, I don't expect that you will act in good faith, but I now believe that I have to do this in order to demonstrate that you have taken ownership of this article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Presupposing a conclusion is poor grounding for a discussion about article content. VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"A survey by the newspaper Mainichi Shimbun computed that there were 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation, comparable to the 1,599 deaths due to the earthquake and tsunami in the Fukushima Prefecture." This line was allegedly supported by a dead link. No other sources confirm similar numbers for deaths due to the evacuation. Given the enormity of this claim, it would need to be supported by multiple sources.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

False, the archive link works fine. Whether the original is (or ever was) online is not relevant; "verifiable" is not synonymous with "available online". A quick check online shows additional sources ie , but why exactly do you find this claim so exceptional? VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a circular reference. They are referring to the dead link, and since that is cited here, it's quite likely it's due to this article, not the actual content.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The citation needed tag, with the following text; "Life expectancy dropped across the entire former Soviet Union, not just at Chernobyl." that you removed without discussion refers to information found in an interview, where someone is giving their opinion, and is therefore not encyclopedic. Unless you can find a better source for this information, which directly attributes that drop in life expectancy to the disaster, that segment is getting removed too.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The citation needed tag is for unsourced content. The section you mention is sourced; the tag was invalid. We provide a quote, with attribution of the quote. This is how quotes work. Shunichi Yamashita was born in 1952 in Nagasaki and is a recognized expert on radiation, public health, and Chernobyl; he is a stellar source for this information. VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The citation needed tag was the links being drawn between the quote, and the paragraph above. He did not explicitly state that the life expectancy of Chernobyl evacuees dropped because of relocation. He seems to imply it, but the paragraph above, makes a giant, uncited leap. "In the former Soviet Union, many patients with negligible radioactive exposure after the Chernobyl disaster displayed extreme anxiety about low level radiation exposure, and therefore developed many psychosomatic problems, including radiophobia, and with this an increase in fatalistic alcoholism being observed."--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph that begins with; "According to the Japanese Government, 180,592 people in the general population were screened in March 2011 for radiation exposure and no case was found which affects health." includes references that are not verifiable. The line; "It is believed that the health effects of the radioactivity release are primarily psychological rather than physical effects." in particular appears to be entirely conjecture, and the opinion of the editor, rather than encyclopedic and does not align with any of the information from any of the sources cited after it.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

False, that is taken directly from the sources, primarily , which states in the byline, "After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan kept people safe from the physical effects of radiation — but not from the psychological impacts." and later goes on to say, "...the chaotic nature of the evacuation makes it difficult to assess how long and severely each person was exposed. The few attempts made so far, however, have generally shown minimal risk. The health survey’s latest assessment suggests that the dose for nearly all the evacuees was very low, with a maximum of only 25 millisieverts (mSv), well below the 100-mSv exposure that has been linked to an increased risk of cancer..." and "For Fukushima evacuees, says Bromet, 'There’s going to be a tremendous amount of health-related anxiety and it’s not going to go away easily.' Yabe says that “radiophobia” remains a major problem among the Japanese refugees.".

If Nature and the NRC aren't adequate sources for this information, what possibly is? VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue I have here is not the quality of the sources. It is the content of the Misplaced Pages article. It simply draws conclusions that are not in the articles. That you are still pushing those conclusions, even while quoting the sourced material is troubling.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What specific conclusions in the article were not drawn by the sources provided? You have made a few claims precise enough to respond to specifically, and I have done so using direct quotes from the existing sources that you have repeatedly and inaccurately claimed do not contain that very information. VQuakr (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph that begins with; "Experts on the ground in Japan agree that mental health challenges are the most significant issue." Which experts? The source never once uses terms like these, and this clearly reflects an attempt to include someone's subjective opinion. This segment needs a rewrite to reflect the actual source material, and should not be included until this is done.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

False, this is cited to Scientific American, . "Experts on the ground in Japan agree. 'Mental health is the most significant issue," notes Seiji Yasumura...' VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You really like using the word false don't you?

The context in which that quote is made is not clear in the article. The Misplaced Pages page again draws conclusions that are simply not in the source material. Again, I think it's worth noting that you are pushing those conclusions.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Typical of all of these, you are making no attempt to explain why you find the cited content above unsuitable. You keep claiming it isn't verifiable, but that has been demonstrated, with quotes from the source, to be untrue. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"The relationship between mental health disorders—such as anxiety and depression—and thyroid disorders is well known in the medical community." This segment is utterly irrelevant and clearly conjecture.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not conjecture, but I agree that it is irrelevant. Why did you restore it then? VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The link that is being made here is the conjecture. I restored it in error.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, we are agreed on this one. Progress. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Unknown-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class Japan-related articles
• High-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• C-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles
• High-importance WikiProject Earthquakes articles
• WikiProject Earthquakes articles
• C-Class energy articles
• Unknown-importance energy articles
• C-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• C-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles
• Mid-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles
• WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles