Japan Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. 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: 22:42, February 22, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Photographs for this location (or item located) in Fukushima Prefecture have been requested to improve the article's quality. WikiProject Japan to do list: 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 Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles

Energy Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Energy portal news

Not Wikinews. Stop writing articles based on a day by day current affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.100.14 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does an event stop being "news" and start being "history?" The point is; as long as what is being written isn't just blind speculation or original research, I see no problem with keeping it as long as it's correct to what we know now.--Mackattack1991 02:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the comments at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant may be relevant to work on this article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created a Fukushima nuclear disaster article, it was redirected to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. In the future, it might be needed to convert to a disambiguation page, if the incidents at this plant are severe. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

they are. --92.227.133.144 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to disambiguate Fukushima nuclear accident then. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new article has appeared, Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant → Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant — Formal rquest per discussion at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant#Change title to Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant ... NHK uses this to decrease confusion, as does Wikinews. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support provided that Daiichi is also renamed, otherwise do not rename. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Teyandee (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agree, provided both pages are renamed. 173.206.133.77 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest no further votes the present discussion should yield to the outcome of the daiichi discussion. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removed from page: "On March 15, TEPCO reported that an explosion had occurred in Unit 3, followed by a plume of white smoke, at 11:01 a.m. March 14, with an increase of radiation measured at the site gate. ^[1] This occurred after pressure release measures were implemented. ^[2]"

This appears to be the explosion of reactor 3 at Fukushima I, not II. Rmhermen (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was reported by TEPCO, as part of the Daiini update section. And the explosion time is different than the Diaichi Unit 3 explosion. Given that everyone is focussing very hard on Daichi, it doesn't seem impossible that Daini had one too, but people aren't paying attention, and believing that all the higher radiation levels at Daini are really due to Daichi. In any case, TEPCO reported it. And I haven't seen a correction or retraction. If you have a reference showing they've retracted that report, not a problem. Otherwise.... I do not see any reason not to report what they have reported. (It's at the bottom of the status report, just before the update on measured radiation at the very clearly repeated Daini gate.). To quote:

- At approximately 11:01am, Mar 14th, an explosion followed by white smoke occurred at the reactor building of Unit 3. It was believed to be a hydrogen explosion.

- There was an increase of radiation dose at site boundary measured at the monitoring post of Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station. Accordingly, at 10:07pm Mar 14th and at 12:35am Mar 15th, it was determined that that a specific incident stipulated in article 10, clause 1 (Increase of radiation dose at site boundary) has occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.133.77 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this seems to pertain to daini and should be in (as it lists very clearly typical daini-things (over 100C in the cooling system etc)... L.tak (talk)

I disagree. It exceeds probability that two explosions occurred at two separate nuclear plants, both in the number 3 reactor, both on the same minute of the same day and that only one was covered by any press source in the world.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources for information than what has to be regarded as the dogma in place by the viziers who sit on high at the IAEA or TEPCO. Both are extremely biased in what they represent- Nuclear Power is good

Those who oppose the widespread use of nuclear power are bad.

Bad people can't be heard from

We only talk to good people

So there for we will not talk to you

Good bye

Oh look

See the power plant destroy millions of lives.

Oh look

Let's build more

Look at the people die

See the people grieve their losses

Oh look

````