Wikipedia

Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident cleanup

(Redirected from Talk:Fukushima disaster cleanup)
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Arlo Barnes in topic release
Learn more about this page
There are discussions related to the nuclear accident both here and at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant

Messy and biased article

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This article is full of bias, as if written by anti-nuclear activists. Many citations are needed, and many incorrect conclusions are drawn. Mentions of terms such as high radiation levels are misused, when describing low levels of radiation. 10 mSv are not high radiation levels. Rational context is needed to bring this article into a NPOV, and explain clearly what is actually happening. Undisputably, this article has become a rambling mess, with a total loss of focus. I believe some sections should be consolidated, and many eliminated. It is hard to understand at all what has happened, or what cleanup is going on. Ottawakismet (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is quite a statement for someone that is not very involved with wikipedia in the first place. Where and what are your contributions ? And what quality did they have after all ?
I suspect you are just a member of the pro-nuclear-lobby
It is quite a mess in Japan, with at the moment a few (may be three) big containers with radioactive waste water leaking. Only the cesium was removed...
Why don't you include that ? see:
Questions arise over whether poor workmanship or design led to leak of radioactive water
Gov't starts pre-survey on candidate site for contaminated soil storage in Fukushima
TEPCO suspects water leak at another storage tank at Fukushima plant
Why all that critics on anti-nuclear activist ? Is there very much positive in that fukushima disaster ?
1947enkidu (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Im not a member of any lobby, I'm a historian. The article was undoubtedly messy, including duplicated information, information that had been proven to be discredited later by further information. Every shred of speculation had been included in the article, any statement by anyone was included, and it was not necessarily true. I am rather involved in wikipedia, I've done like a thousand edits, and the majority with history. Your articles are valid, but they do not contradict any of the changes I made. Apparently, you are keen to attack my character, when you should be discussing the article. The article was lengthy, unorganized and closer to a NPOV issue. Ottawakismet (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC) The Fukushima disaster was messy, and unfortunate but lets not distort the facts. In many ways, it is not a huge disaster in the context of a tsunami that killed 17 000 people and devastated the Tohoku coast. If anything was positive about the Fukushima disaster, its that no one was hurt, and the damage is not as severe as flooded areas. It is lucky as well that the soil contamination was not serious, if it was, the cleanup would be drastically worse. Disposal of radioactive water is not as difficult as managing extensive cleanup of soil. There is a still issue with cleanup, so lets discuss what those issues are. I would invite you to edit the section on the radioactive water with your articles, but be cautious about including speculation, since sometimes those do not come true, and some are later discredited. Wikipedia should be dealing with the facts, and less what is feared to be fact. Ottawakismet (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
do not blame me,
You did start, talking about anti-nuclear activists... And so you place yourself at the other side...
What's more is all the arguments above, that try to minimize the seriousness of this whole event-incident-disaster.
No deaths ? Nobody has taken his or her life, because they did not see any light anymore ? No farmers that cannot sell their crop anymore, no fishermen that cannot fish anymore, how much land can be reclaimed ? How much money will be needed to compensate all refugees? How much money will be needed to clean up this mess (would it be possible at all ? Who can tell ?) When will the leaking be stopped, where do they put all that waste-water ?
Can You answer that ?
1947enkidu (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree that the article is biased, possibly in more than one way, and with statements that bare no sources. Part of it reads like a TEPCO employee wrote it, greatly underestimating human health risks. G90025 (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cleanup outside the reactors

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This material was moved from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. It's natural that the focus has been on the power plant. However there is a significant cleanup effort in the surrounding area which deserves attention to, and has been reported on extensively. To get the ball rolling I'll create a section for the broader cleanup effort. "Cleanup of neighboring areas". Please improve and expand.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unskilled workforce systematically misused on Japanese nuclear powerplants

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Unskilled workforce systematically misused on Japanese nuclear powerplants....

this section was erased from the wiki, because to someone's opinion "it was unrelated to the subject"

Is it not important to know, which people are performing the biggest part of the cleaning ? All those day-contractors were taken away from the plant just after the disaster, but brought in again as soon as all the cleaning started. They are not well informed, no special skills and knowledge, and at some time NISA needed to order TEPCO to give protective clothing to ALL workers.... 89% of all workmen at TEPCO are people like this. In many countries this kind of practice is impossible because the laws forbid it. These people might take in three months a lot of radiation, and are sent away without insurance or check-ups, they just have to vanish... I think this is very relevant, this practice reflects also the quite doubtful safety-culture there at the plants of TEPCO. 1947enkidu (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

That link does not say that. There is no evidence that this accusation is widely supported or related to the topic of the cleanup of Fukushima. Rmhermen (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
This is not an accusation, just a plain fact, in many countries all people working in nuclear power-plants are highly trained and educated, here in Japan the practise is just completely different: 80% (and at TEPCO 89% of all workers are low-educated, low payed, and not well informed about the dangers they are in. And when they have taken their year-amount of radiation they are put aside.
Only in this way it can be comprehend, that two workers in the first weeks after the disaster, are sent into a place under the reactors, find water there, end step in the water, no boots, the water goes into their shoes, later is found that they suffered a lot af alpha- and betha- radiation on their feet, no burns, but it is not known how much radiation they took... That's how the leaking water is found there. I leave aside that this place was not explored before these workers were sent into this... and that the dangers there were not fully known...
The fact that we are not informed completely, is not a reason for us to stop thinking. A well informed highly trained man, should have thought ten times before he would have stepped into this water. Besides this, he would have had boots, and other protective clothing. Later the Japanese government ORDERED Tepco to provide protective clothing to ALL workers. The conclusion can only be, that this was not done at all.
I do not provide you all links to this, just look through the articles it is all there. The fact that the majority of workers are unskilled uninformed people in this cleaning up, has huge implications for the whole process. 1947enkidu (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I changed the word "misused" into "employed", I think you were taking this WORD misused as an accusation. In fact it is not, but never mind... I do not want want at all an edit-war on this.
I have worked long enough as a safety-watch and fire-man at Dow-Chemicals and other factories, to know from own experience that the employment of unskilled and untrained people contitutes a huge risk in itself. The possibility that these people find themselves in a more than dangerous situation, you can wait for it. Besides this, those compagnies are cutting there wages down, through underpaiment, these men are gathered somewehre in the morning, in places you could really describe as "slave-markets", after three months they are sacked again, no insurance, no control, as the nuclear powerplants are not concerned anymore about them: they have to vanish... I think this is very near my definition of misuse, I wonder how you might think of all this "habits" 1947enkidu (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Just want to add **k*z* is involved in providing unskilled worker with debt-owning or likewise unfortunate folks, and taking middlemen's cut. A very brave freelance journalist have claimed for now, but not sure if this brave soul is going to get whacked for speaking up, like other Japanese journalist before him. "Roughly ten percent of plant workers there were brought in through the mediation of the **k*z*," said , who has written a book based on his experience at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. "The **k*z* are very much involved in this industry but they are not involved as people working on site," told reporters. "They are in charge of collecting people, finding people and dispatching workers to the site." randomnobody (talk)

undercover story at Fukushima plant

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You all might look at this last newspaper-article in The Mainichi Daily News of 16 December 2011 [ http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111216p2a00m0na002000c.html] Absolutely no progress being made' at Fukushima nuke plant, undercover reporter says

greetings 1947enkidu (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

New definition of the no-entry-zones introduced

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The rating the radiation limit for the no-enty zones as low in the closing paragraph of the chapter is partially based on an metric prefix misunderstanding. It is said that living in a concrete building will lead to an annual exposure of 70 mSv. This value can't be true of course, because it would mean, that living in concrete buildings would be prohibited. The original source for the value is not available any more but i found another source at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp149-c6.pdf saying 70 µSv instead of 70 mSv, just one per mille of the value assumed in this Wikipedia article. Also the exposure from the consumption of potassium is on a completely different scale. My source says 200 µSv while this article says 370 mSv. An annual exposure of 50 mSv is definitely much more than a person is exposed to under normal circumstance. In the long term such a high exposure will raise the chance of health affection significantly. Already an exposure of 100 mSv is connected with a significant increase of cancer cases and brain damages in foetuses: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs371/en/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.171.191 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Storage tanks leaking contaminated water

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am wondering if this section does not need to be broken away and now have a section heading of its own. Right now it is jumbled and hard to follow, as happens when background information is slowly discovered and released. It could possibly lead with the "On 28 August 2013, the NRA decided to raise the severity of the incident with the leakage [of...etc.] to INES-level 3 and to report this to the IAEA" copy, and then fill in the background information. I note that there is a sudden jump in hits to this article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are a huge number of references possible, I just picked a few. If you want I can give you a whole list... But when you look at the site of the Fukushima-diary... You can find a lot more on this subject and other items... This site gives alot of back-ground, but his links they all presume a certain knowledge of the Japanese language. I do not have the time to add every day what I find, but I just make a mirror for myself of all texts I find on the Asahi Shimbun and the Mainichi Shimbun. The Asahi Shimbun hides its content after you have been there a few times, but when you log in along a site to hide your IP-address, there's no problem. Hidemyass.com works perfectly.
All the background, TEPCO is slow in this, because they have a lot to explain. They made a mess of it all, and did not think about the influx of groundwater at all. Now there are plans to freeze all soil around the reactors. Kind of expensive, but I think this might be the fastest solution. Now there are "experts" that advise to dump it all, may be diluted, but this would not minimize the total content of radiation. I think this would be the end of all fishing in the Pacific ocean... I do not think the Japanese fishermen will like this idea.
best wishes 1947enkidu (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rigmarole

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is currently a disjointed swamp of technical readings and jargon (meaningless or meaningful). It is full of cut-paste ramblings and needs to be cut down, with a good summary. Buddhasmom (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree. This article is about an ongoing emergency and it would be expected to read similar to the way it does. When the situation becomes less emergency-to-emergency it can be cut back with a good summary. Of course it can eventually be improved, but it may seem disjointed because there are actually several dangerous situations going on at the same time. As for "cut-paste ramblings", what portions did you have in mind? Gandydancer (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Aftermath"

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure if the last section, "Aftermath" is a suitable heading there. TEPCO, the Japanese government, the nation's people, and the rest of the world are FAR from seeing a conclusion to this disaster. Optimistic estimates hope to have the stations contained in thirty years. That's three decades just to hope to contain the radiation and minimize leakage. Point being, maybe we should come up with a more suitable name for that last section of the article as the true "aftermath" of the disaster won't really begin until at least sometime in the 2040s. The process of cleanup, containment, and such has really just only begun. G90025 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Outdated

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I notice in several places the phrase by the end of 2011. Andrewa (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The whole wiki is outdated.
When newspapers have lost their interest in the matter, soon most players on this site will lay their eyes on other subjects.
That's also the reason why you did not receive any answer on your call. If you want to update the wiki, you sure will need to do it on your own.
The story goes on, the pollution of the pacific goes on, the epidemic of thyroid-desease and cancer is raising, but some japanese doctors say that you can have thyroid-cancer from "stress" alone, but no japanese politician want to admit, that the radioactive outburst of iodine might have something to do with it. Admitting this would cause some finantial problems for sure. The spentfuel-pool nr 4 is almost emptied, that is the only "better" news of the last days. [1].But in whole Japan the people try to put Fukushima out of their thoughts, as much as possible.
Do your best 1947enkidu (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Fukushima disaster cleanup. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Fukushima disaster cleanup. 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 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fukushima disaster cleanup. 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 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Lead rewrite, news release maintenance tags

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article contains good information, and it is not spam. But neither is it an encyclopedia article. The lead section does not introduce and summarize the content; it provides a narrative account. The existence of a "Overview" section is troubling, given that the lead should provide an overview of a concept. (This section appears to give a summary of activities completed March–December 2011). I added the tags to request that editors organize the content in line with Wikipedia policies and WP:MOS. Cnilep (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fukushima disaster cleanup. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Edit proposal: new section "Controversy"?

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion

Essential point I'm trying to get across:

There is myth portraying Namie - and several other towns in Fukushima - as ghost towns with no rebuilding efforts. They're also portrayed to have higher radiation levels than in reality - impression they're part of "red zone" or "no-go" area. This hoax widely reported as genuine story, as you can see below:

Links above are only small part of _English_ news sites. This crap is worldwide and is basically what irresponsible media portrays Fukushima prefecture as(thus influencing social one and overall view) and what those who know better, yet haven't taken any action. Keow Wee Loong has been either damned or praised in his social media account.

There is no much variety in news publication, but some(at least Finnish) list punishment he'll get(perpetuating how brave he was?) and some copy everything to last detail, including the fact nuclear radiation emits scent.

So far, only two articles have been only *updated* ones they published:

Only one person is trying to prove this wrong: http://www.podniesinski.pl/portal/attention-seeking-kid-keow-wee-loong/ ATTENTION SEEKING KID – KEOW WEE LOONG Arkadiusz Podniesiński ..and it hasn't been very successful:

Also

From http://www.podniesinski.pl/portal/about-me/ for Arkadiusz Podniesiński

  • two documentary films Baltic Wrecks [Wraki Bałtyku] and Technical Diving [Nurkowania techniczne].
  • photographic project “Lost Souls – the hidden world of animism”. This six-month study trip resulted in photographic portraits of African tribes that can still be seen in museums and galleries in many countries.
  • He is the author of numerous articles and photographs in the print and online media (including Nature, Der Spiegel, FOCUS Historia, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Stern, CKM, Voyage, Days Japan, Greenpeace Magazine)
  • two documentary films entitled Alone in the Zone (2011, 2013)

His problem with Keow Wee Loong is that Loong deliberately omits details people being present, creating propaganda. "But there was no-one else present in all the photos, just Loong in his gas mask, sandals, and shorts, and 2 colleagues in white masks and long pants."

Another is true, serious photographer while another _claims_ to be one. And this hoax is even harder to dispel since it has been portrayed as genuine story. ※〶 22:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

What exact hoax are you trying to tell us about? Can you find a reliable source that describes it as a hoax? Dbfirs 15:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Read this: http://time.com/4403093/fukushima-exclusion-zone-japan-photos/
Also, there is deliberate trend for not portraying people being present nor cleanup in progress(Fukushima bias?), even Arkadiusz Podniesiński has photographed them several times:

As compared to press:

Thus, this perpetuates social media's myth of Fukushima is "area that government of Japan forgot".... People are boring? ※〶 15:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I still don't see what controversy or hoax you are worried about. Dbfirs 16:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
http://time.com/4403093/fukushima-exclusion-zone-japan-photos/ Keow Wee Loong deliberately didn't pictured people or vehicles.
Daily Mail and Mirror fail to include pictures of people rebuilding their lives, including only brief mentions. Their reporting is heavily tilted towards all damage that isn't yet cleaned up, affecting already overall impression of prefecture(social media thinks whole prefecture is full of harmful radiation and uses it as insult) - and at worst, global tourism.

Social media shares articles for sake of photos, not for text sandwiched between them.

Is Podniesiński's photojournal TL:DR?※〶 17:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see. So your argument is with the papers and social media, not with Wikipedia? Dbfirs 19:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, papers and social media. (almost typoed that as 'medusa', but what difference there is?)
I contacted this photographer and he said he can't do nothing - its journalistic responsibility to write good articles.
  • Is it "responsible" to portray still-recovering areas from limited scope, so they get this Pripyat-like look?
  • .... Is it responsible to not use Google, fail to find page by Arkadiusz Podniesiński(as I said, articles listed above use his photos, so that gives him some merit?) that condemns behaviour of Keow Wee Loong because it may have local backlash against foreigners? (Not on top 3, thanks for social media, but on fir.... nevermind. Too many believe to this. Google the photojournalists name instead.)
  • Time's (PetaPixel is probably not reliable) shoddy effort to correct its blunders was doomed to obscurity because it was mere update instead new article. (The photos itself aren't _main problem_ but, most important, _how_ Loong obtained them - if building door wasn't locked, he simply walked in. This is against Japanese cultural norms and their media reacted appropiately - but it wasn't enough to have article published in Japan Times or any other Japanese newspaper that prints in English. Personally I feel ashamed for missing whole issue, since I browse Japanese NHK now and then, because it has subpages for each prefecture.)
  • As someone who has followed Fukushima's recovery(both affected and non-affected areas) via web cameras, I find this highly disturbing. (Also, I'm worried someone impressed by Loong's exploits may do same for fame(the thing Loong wants, as he said in FB) and try enter actual red zone illegally, risking life in progress. Loong falsely portrayed safe areas from Namie and Tomioka as "red zone".)
He also made some interesting comments on his Facebook account (specifically,https://www.facebook.com/uglykiwi/media_set?set=a.1108392955906984.1073741934.100002088711813&type=3) that made me hard to write this from neutral view because I often watch prefecture's web cameras and Tomioka town has one. *:s is mine and ---consist removed part about eating chocolate.
"Never seen before photo of the fukushima exclusion zone. When i enter the red zone, i can feel a burning sensation in my eyes and thick chemical smell in the air.* before i went ::there the authority told me that i need a special permit to visit this town and it take 3-4 weeks to get the approval from the local council,, well too much bureaucracy bullshit ::for me..so i just sneak in the forest to avoid cops on the road ...AND IT WAS AMAZING !!!!!, I still remember what is like to only have a GPS and google map walking in the wood at ::2am in the morning to get into the town of tomioka, okuma,futaba and namie.
Have you ever wonder what is like in fukushima exclusion zone now ??? . to feel what is like to be the only person walking in the town when you have 100% full access to every shop ::and explore??. ---"
everything is exactly where it is after the earthquake struck this town . the reident started to evacuate the town when tsunami warning came in ....hours later the fukushima daichi ::power plant exploded that lead to harmful radiation leaked.
The radiation level is still very high in the red zone. not many people seen this town for the last 5 years...is like it vanished ... i can find food,money,gold,laptop and other ::valuable in the red zone....I'm amaze that nobody looted this town clean. unlike chernobyl the entire town is been looted clean. this is the difference between chernobyl disaster ::and the fukushima disaster
Well this is the devastating effects of using nuclear energy. resident lives in fukushima will never be the same again... the radiation leak at red zone by the fukushima daichi ::power plant is damaging the environment and marine life🐙🐋🐟 in the pacific ocean , say no to nuclear energy today.
[SHARE THIS PHOTO OUT TO SPREAD THE AWARENESS OF THE DANGER IN USING NUCLEAR ENERGY]
Went in the town with Koji and special thans to Sherena Ng for all her research, could not have navigated in this town without all the route and map she provided ..
  1. fukushima #japan #Exclusionzone #urbex #Urbanexploring
For licensing queries please contact licensing@barcroftmedia.com"

I'm not only worried about pictures, but the Youtube video that can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGXTZxMMflM

Google News returns "About 348 results", some directly relating. This is reported even in Finnish tabloids. Not going to list other languages. Thankfully Yle, state media, hasn't picked this up.

However, I contacted Japan Times, explained whole issue and asked them to write about this whole controversy. If they do that, results will be even more interesting - then this article doesn't need protection and monitoring of edits. Also, informed Snopes. (Neither have replied.)

I'm so disgusted that I can't partake actually working this to article itself. I want, as they say, "see some heads roll". ※〶 20:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it would be appropriate to add your campaign to Wikipedia because this is an encyclopaedia. As I said before, your issue is with the newspapers and social media, so please concentrate your efforts there, not here. Dbfirs 09:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

You misunderstood. This is not campaign. Since social media uses wikipedia for checking... This is similar case to what happened with Chernobyl: Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster#Literature (see "Elena Filatova").

Loong did same thing as her, so it gives some reason to have him listed here-perhaps not this article, but wiki.

The cherry-picking of professionally shot pictures doesn't really matter in the end.

I've tried to ask Daily Mail and Mirror to amend(in short, remove) their articles, but they no longer respond to my mails.

Is it wrong to add something that confirms hoax as hoax so certain towns articles don't get edited back to "ghost towns" by those who don't know better?※〶 15:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is wrong to add your opinion, but if you can find a reliable independent source that says something is a hoax, then you can quote that source. So far, I haven't seen one. Dbfirs 15:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is only one thats reliable: http://time.com/4403093/fukushima-exclusion-zone-japan-photos/ See update, not just main article. Loong deliberately didn't took pictures of traffic or people being present. ※〶 16:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

As we've said before, Time confirms that there was no hoax, and that the photographer achieved what he had aimed to do. You can propose an addition to the Wikipedia article here if you wish, but there is already a neutral point of view in the article, so you should not introduce bias. Dbfirs 16:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
"-enter and photograph the streets and commercial properties of Fukushima was disrespectful to the Japanese who have worked hard to pick up the pieces in the wake of the 2011 disaster;-" (quoted from Time update.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitmince (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Loong portrayed safe area(green zone) as "red zone"("no-go") and "radioactive, with high radiation", even restrictions are soon to be lifted.
He also committed both home and business invasions simply by walking into buildings if door wasn't locked. Thus his "aims" don't matter.
And what comes to final argument of hoax not being hoax, one of the towns he portrayed as "ghost town" was Tomioka, Fukushima.
It has web camera connected to net and I've witnessed traffic. Radiation readings: http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/html/07B/07543.html
Other towns were Ōkuma,_Fukushima(http://www.futabagun.jp/futaba_camera/portal?init=4 - http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/html/07B/07545.html), Futaba, Fukushima(http://www.futabagun.jp/futaba_camera/portal?init=5 - http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/html/07B/07546.html) and Namie(http://www.futabagun.jp/futaba_camera/portal?init=6 - http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/html/07B/07547.html. One with red zone that Loong never visited at first place.).
See this link for screenshot: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B55ilka42oc2Zzk2bi1pN3d5LTg/view?usp=sharing Even he calls himself photographer, no news publication asked him to do this.
If doing all this for personal gain isn't disgusting, I don't know what is. (taken from his own FB account, so it should have some merit.)

※〶 16:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fukushima disaster cleanup. 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, 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fukushima disaster cleanup. 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, 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Trillion is not a reasonable quantity

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Trillion bequerel is not a reasonable quantity in an article with scientific background and international audience since it has both the meaning 1,000,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000.

I suggest to use international SI prefixes, either tera or exa, whatever applies here.

Trilemma2 (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I edited the article to correct this issue, although I took it a step further by replacing all mentions of becquerel with the correct SI prefixed version (hopefully not mixing any of them up in the process). My motivation for doing this is two-pronged though, as I believe that the use of "trillion", "billion", etc for these specifically defined SI units is almost purely intended as fearmongering in this context, and ideally all of the Fukushima-related articles should be edited to fix this issue as it occurs the most frequently in those particular articles (although unfortunately there are so many Fukashima-related articles (17 on my watchlist alone, and that doesn't even follow all of them!) that I fear this is not a task that most editors would be willing to undertake, myself included at the moment). I would also like to point out that the use of "trillion" is common in this article when dealing with monetary figures in JPY (¥), so some confusion there is inevitable, and as this is by far the most common and well accepted method of depicting large monetary quantities on Wikipedia (for good reasons too), it isn't an issue that can reasonably be expected to be resolved. Garzfoth (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Fukushima disaster cleanup. 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, 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Effluent: Becquerels

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The statement in the lede reads: "In 2018, Dr. Aoyama of Fukushima University released a report saying that contaminated water was still flowing into the Pacific Ocean, but at a greatly diminished rate of 2 GBq per day." This statement has been repeated in many of the press reports about Fukushima. It does contain an error: the unit of Becquerel is a rate, not an amount, and is defined as disintegrations per second, so Becquerels per day is a non-sequitur. It can be interpreted to mean disintegrations per day or it can mean Becquerels across any time period and the "per day" is meaningless. The latter being a very odd interpretation of the statement, I believe the correct interpretation is the former and have added a note to that effect right after the quote. I'm not happy about that, but the quote's wide distribution requires some sort of acknowledgment and interpretation of the error. The figure of 200 tons per day is an average from the stated amount of stored effluent (920,000 tons, see among others https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/japan-dump-fukushima-nuclear-waste/) accumulated over 11 years. I could add by comparison that the Fukushima radiation is minuscule compared to raw well water in a Finnish study, which concluded it radiated at 220 Bq per liter from its radon content, 20 Bq after treatment, but I'm traveling very close to Wikipedia's WP:NOR requirement as it is. If someone has a better way of stating this than I've used, then by all means edit it. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for noticing this. This article and in general any reporting of the Fukushima/Chernobyl accident is full of misunderstandings, inaccuracies, and other mistakes. A classic is to talk about "radioactive water" without specifying any level of radioactivity. As an example, the 0.02 Bq per liter reported in the article is a ridiculously small amount of radioactivity. I think that after almost 10 years from the accident it is time to clean up all the Fukushima-related wiki articles by considering news articles mostly unreliable and focusing on peer reviewed scientific sources.--Ita140188 (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I was astounded seeing someone actually quote a number for the radiation in the effluent. It sets a record (for myself at least) for being so low a real amount of radiation. 23 kBq in 200 tons of water is .115 Bq per liter. That TEPCO should have to sequester such water is ridiculous. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Unskilled workforce" POV language

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"These people are paid per day, and are hired per day from questionable agencies and firms." This is very strongly POV language and should be changed. This section also needs a cleanup in general. One citation is far too little. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 08:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nothing about the exclusion zone

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Fukushima Exclusion Zone" redirect here, but there is virtually no information about the actual zone itself. David G (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cost of cleanup operations

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This claim

>The total cleanup costs were estimated to be between 50.5 and 71 trillion yen ($470 to $660 billion).[114]

Refers to speculation by a private think tank called the Japanese Center for Economic Research, mentioned briefly in this scientific american article [114]. The Japanese government's estimate in this same article is, for comparison, ~15 Billion USD for the cleanup, and ~60 Billion USD for relocation costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.124.181 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

release

edit
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2845537/fukushima-nuclear-plant-reports-radioactive-water-leak Arlo James Barnes 19:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fukushima_nuclear_accident_cleanup&oldid=1232160232"