Talk:Sellafield/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Sellafield. 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

Early 2003-2005 untitled discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is this supposed to be in the middle of the last pharagraph? "['The worst accident in the world. Chernobyl: The end of the nuclear dream', Observer]"? -- Anon Sep 2, 2004

why is it so controversial? Kingturtle 22:46 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

As an Irish person, I would like to know this: If Britain is so confident about the safety of nuclear power, then why are most of the plants on the more sparsely populated West Coast rather than the southeast (except Sizewell I think)? I also object to the Wylva plant which is only 60km from Dublin. The only chink of light for us is that the prevailing wind on the Irish sea blows from the southwest. I understand that when the Windscale Accident 1957 happened, the radioactive cloud was blown south. But there is no guarantee we will be so lucky next time. (David)

Assuming you want a rational answer, as opposed to just "chest beating", I would imagine the reason most plants are on the more sparsely populated West Coast is that the land is cheaper there, and also more readily available. It would be rather stupid to put a power plant on a piece of greenfield land in Surrey because the cost of the land would be massive, also in the South East the amount of development is already so significant that there would be unlikely to be any room. SM 10/10/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.33.252 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OTOMH, pollution of the irish sea; it's a reprocessing plant, so to be viable at one point the UK was importing nuclear waste from elsewhere (not content with having trouble getting rid of our own crud...); high rate of cancer etc in the children in the area and those of employees. Heck, it's a nuclear plant. That's controversial. -- Tarquin 22:53 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

erm, yeah, i disagree - having lived in Whitehaven most of my life, and knowing a fair few few people who work at Sellafield, as well as others that don't, I would say the rate of cancer isnt very different from the rest of the country. Selphie 09:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Selphie on this one. Have lived in the area for a significant portion of my life and cancer rates are no higher than anywhere else in the country. The reputation comes from an apparent Leukemia cluster centred around the village of Seascale (pop. 2000) where a small amount cases occured. There is much debate over there is a link to sellafield or not. Medical opinion is mostly that it's not.--Stephen 21:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, Windscale still exists. It is a UK Atomic Energy site; the site was split, and part was sold to British Nuclear Fuels and renamed Sellafield.

As for 'similar in magnitude to Three Mile Island'. The amount of radioactivity release (in Curies) was more than a thousand times that of TMI. We just weren't as worried about it back then. DJ Clayworth 21:33, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Three Mile Island page says "It is estimated that 2.5 million curies of radioactive gas were released by the accident." which sharply contrasts with the above and the main text. Anyone got any ideas to resolve? --/Mat 02:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

I've queried the figure on that TMI page (in the talk page) and quoted a source that says it was 3 x 10^17 Bq of Xenon 133. Blaise 08:05, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

From [1] : "The release of fission products from the TMI-2 accident consisted of 2.5 million curies of noble gases, primarily xenon and about 15 curies of iodine-131."

[2] gives values for different materials, indicating that the 20000 curie value for Sellafield refers to iodine-131. So, technically, both seem to be half-correct, but perhaps both pages should be updated to provide the full information.

I don't know enough about effects of radiation... for example, [3] quotes just the values for iodine-131. Is there a reason why a small amount of iodine-131 is more significant than millions of Curies of radioactive gas?

BTW, should the values be quoted in Bq rather than (or as well as) the old Ci?

--David Edgar

I think Iodine is absorbed by the body. I remember nuclear installations having iodine tablets to be taken in the case of emergency, so that the body would have a surplus of iodine and not absorb any more. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Different materials have different half-lives as well. Materials that have short half-lives are generally not as alarming as materials with longer half-lives. But the biggest factor is biological activity. Radioactive xenon just dilutes into the atmosphere and raises the global background radiation levels very slightly. Radioactive iodine sits in the soil and the plants until a human eats some, at which point it is deposited in the thyroid, there to discharge its radiation. --Andrew 07:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't have any special expertise here, but with respect, I thought that it was the shorter-lived species that were more intensely radioactive, though for a shorter period. So, plutonium, with a half -life of 26 000 years, is not that dangerous in the form of a lump of metal. In the Manhatton project the physicist Feynman talked about touching a lump of it and finding it warm to the touch. And Xenon is also a noble gas, so will not become incorporated in the human body but pass in and then out by breathing. Blaise 08:15, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

You are right that isotopes with shorter half-lives are, all other things being equal, more dangerous. My Physics degree was 20 years ago and a bit hazy but I think that radioactive isotopes inside the body present *far* more risk as there is more likelihood of the radiation being absorbed by the body. Isotopes with shorter half-lives will emit more radioactivity whilst in the body.

However Aarchiba is right to comment on biological activity, something that gets absorbed an retained will do more damamge than something that passes through. Something that gets absorbed only in one place is particulary dangerous, iodine is only used in the thyroid gland and is relatively scare in the diet so pretty much all iodine we consume ends up there.

Plutonium as a piece of metal may not be the most dangerous thing that you come across but I would go out of my way to avoid it. Any block of metal sheds particles and plutonium dust in the lungs is not good news. Radioactivity aside, plutonium is a heavy metal and as such is bad for ones health - see [[4]] definition two.

FerdinandFrog 09:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"The facility preceded efforts for peaceful use of nuclear energy.". Not really true. Efforts to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes in Britain date from 1946, before Windscale was established. DJ Clayworth 18:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following: "It has been estimated that about 250kg ['The worst accident in the world. Chernobyl: The end of the nuclear dream', Observer] of plutonium have been deposited in the marine sediments surrounding the site during its lifetime." This is because I can find no reference to back it up, and the bracketed quote makes no sense. DJ Clayworth 15:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that 'is' the reference, not that I have found it... --Andrew 17:59, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

It needs a date to be credible. That way we can find it if we need to. DJ Clayworth 05:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of this book, but there's a 1987 review here: [5]

and this page: [6] gives: ISBN: 0330297430 and Date Published: 1986

It's also dated 1986 elsewhere - for example here: [7] --David Edgar 13:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking up the reference, ISBN 0330297430 gives:

The Worst accident in the world : Chernobyl, the end of the nuclear dream

by Nigel Hawkes, Publisher: Pan Books : W. Heinemann (1986)

I haven't seen the book in person, so perhaps I shouldn't, but I'll put the plutonium claim back with a more specific reference. --Andrew 19:07, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I have to say I'm still suspicious. The only reference we can find for this figure is from a book about a different subject. Nothing shows up on the web; there are plenty of websites giving very detailed and very negative assessments of what is being dumped into the Irish sea, but none mention a quantity for Plutonium. I think we should leave it out unless we have an independnet source. DJ Clayworth 04:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little suspicious too - I'd like a look at the book. The library here seems to have it, so I'll see if I can. But if your concern is the unreliability of the book itself, I think that's been addressed already by the way it's quoted. We're not claiming that any plutonium was dumped: we're claiming that there's controversy over the dumping, and we're giving an example of one of the claims. It would of course be better if we could give an example on the other side as well... --Andrew

I don't think there's any doubt that there's plutonium out there, and most of it got there as a result of deliberate discharges - see the bar chart for discharges of activity in the 1970s that seems to crop up both on anti-Sellafield websites and in BNFL publications - eg the annual report on discharges and monitoring of the environment - tucked away on their website behind the more PR bits. However, it seems to be common ground that the '70s were by some distance the worst period. The BNFL publication shows plutonium alpha discharges separately; if the composition of reactor grade plutonium given in the plutonium article is correct, then during the seventies discharges occasionally went above 10 kg/yr. Clearly that wasn't too clever, but it seems some way short of supporting an estimate of 250 kg of plutonium in Irish Sea sediments rjccumbria

The figure (actually 200kg) is reported in the Quality Status Report published in 2000 by the OSPAR Commission. I have amended the article accordingly. In doing so I removed the subsequent reference to a Bellona source suggesting a figure 60% lower. It would no longer be accurate given the new OSPAR figure, besides which I couldn't find anything in the source that actually discussed such a figure. --FactotEm 12:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

2004 to 2005 leak involved waste

The spilled material was not intended for reprocessing into fuel, but was to be stored indefinitely. See, e.g., £184m aid to private energy firm: "BNFL is paid to take away used fuel and dissolve it in acid to recover the plutonium and uranium. For the privatised British Energy this is an expensive and unnecessary process because it has no use for the plutonium and uranium. BNFL is therefore paid to store it." Myron 13:24:07, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Missing plutonium story should not be split in two

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The plutonium discrepancy of February 2005 was evidence of the leak that had been going on since the previous summer. The missing plutonium was eventually found in the massive spill discovered in the summer of 2005. The February conclusions erroneously explained away the discrepancy as a statistical fluke, delaying proper investigation. If no one disproves this position soon I will reword the article to portray the February events as part of the mismanagement of the overall accident. Myron 23:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is they are seperate. The "Materials Unaccounted for (MUF)" is an annual figure produced since 1977, way before the THORP plant problems. They relate to "losses" throughout the Sellafield site in all the processes. The 29.6kg figure released in Feb 2005 relate to the year 2003/04 and "conform to the pattern over previous years", see http://www.ukaea.org.uk/press/2005/17_02_05.htm For 1998/99 it was a similar 24.9kg (http://www.ukaea.org.uk/press/2000/5may2000.htm) The recent THORP leak is vast compared to the MUF "losses", and probably only started in 2004. -- Rwendland 01:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you. I was wrong. This clarifies the situation. Well, almost. It raises a new issue, though. Is there an annual apparent loss of plutonium at these places, or do some years find an apparent excess? Statistically there should be a random walk, but if there's consistently a bit of plutonium missing that would be worrisome. Myron 04:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I wondered if the "discrepency" was random over years as well, but couldn't track down a list giving all the historical numbers last night. I suppose systematic sampling/measuring flaws over the various processes could explain non-random "discrepency" as well as real "losses". The plutonium is mixed in with large quanities of different solids/liquids throughout the process, with some nuclear decay still going on, so must be hard to measure accurately. I generally have little sympathy with Sellafield/BNFL, but it does strike me that a 0.5% discrepency is perhaps reasonable; in this case some of the news reports do seem to have been reported the issue too simplisticly. -- Rwendland 13:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

caesium 137

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is Sellafield responsible for the Cs-137, or has it come from Chernobyl? The Western side of Britain got alot of radioactive rain after the Chernobyl disaster.

'It has been shown that...' it says in the controversy section. Please cite a reputable source. Thanks.

--Publunch 13:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

First commercial nuclear power station?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to the article nuclear reactor:

According to the Uranium Institute (London, England), the first reactor to generate electricity for commercial use was at Obninsk, Kaluga Oblast, Russia.

Is there a subtle difference in the wording making both correct, or is one wrong? Joe D (t) 23:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think their argument is that Obninsk (at 5 MWe) wasn't commercial but R&D/demo. Calder Hall at 50 MWe per reactor (200 MWe for the 4 reactor power station) and connected to a national power grid was truly commercial in itent from design (glossing over the fact fuel reloading was optimised for weapons-grade plutonium production in the early years), see [8], [9]. This Uranium Institute article [10] doesn't claim Obninsk was commercial, saying it "served as a prototype" and only "produced electricity until 1959 and was used until 2000 as a research facility". Calder Hall produced power all it's long life. But other sources take a contrary view, eg: [11], [12]. Do you think it's worth bringing these alternative views out in nuclear reactor - I doubt there is a clear view all would agree to? Rwendland 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

NB Just noticed Encarta says "the first large-scale commercial reactor generating electrical power was started up in 1956 at Calder Hall, United Kingdom" [13] which is a reasonably reputable source that backs this view. The European Nuclear Society [14] has perhaps a good diplomatic/NPOV view crediting both nicely: "On June 26, 1954, at Obninsk, Russia, the nuclear power plant APS-1 with a net electrical output of 5 MW was connected to the power grid, the world's first nuclear power plant that generated electricity for commercial use. On August 27, 1956 the first commercial nuclear power plant, Calder Hall 1, England, with a net electrical output of 50 MW was connected to the national grid." This IAEA Nuclear Energy history [15] avoids the word "first". Rwendland 12:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Decommissioning

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There seams to be no mention of any decommissioning of the site. This BBC news link suggests that in 10-15 years the plant will be fully decommissioned. I feel it would be good to include some decommissioning time scales in the article as this is a very important part of the plant and its future. Ryanpostlethwaite 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Body Sella-field

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The corpse-maiming scandal is now back in the press with a new government inquiry ordered. Perhaps merits to put the "on-going event" tag on the article's top

BTW, could someone please tell us if there has ever been a TV or movie film made about this story? I think it is highly likely, as I cannot imagine Hollywood would skip such a great story for a B-category atom-body snatcher horror flick - complete with rural british manors and celtic witch-ghosts who haunt the reactor because their sacred trees were cut down to make place for the power-station. 82.131.210.162 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added an article issues tag for the Controversy section (which violates the latest community consensus on these matters, see WP:MOS. However, I notice two thing: a) I added the plural template when I meant the singular one, and b) I'm late for work. Hope somebody fixes this for me .. lol Eaglizard 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Calderhall.jpeg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image:Calderhall.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

First NPP

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article says that 'Calder Hall was the world's first commercial nuclear power station'. According to the article, it was commissioned on 17 October 1956. At the same time, similar claim is presented at the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant article. According to that article, the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant was connected to the grid on 26 June 1954. It seems that in this case Calder Hall can't be the world's first NPP and this claim should be removed from this article.Beagel (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant included in text, sourced. The book cited is very specific. I hope that this is sufficient--Old Moonraker (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

Renaming

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a resident of the US, I was perplexed by the name change from Windscale to Sellafield not being addressed in this article, other than in the 'other' section. Can knowledgeable persons clarify this for me (us)? 05:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The renaming is briefly addressed in the 'Ownership and facilities' section. alchemagenta 09:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian fish

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently the text contains the following sentence: "Fears for the reputation of Norwegian fish as a safe food product have been a concern of the country's fishing industry, though the radiation levels have not been conclusively proved as dangerous for the fish." I would have thought that the concern was not for the fish, but for the humans consuming them, which is not the sense implied by the sentence at the present time.Jimjamjak (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Journalists given undue weight in the cancer section

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So I have edited the page to reflect that many of these 'sources' are journalist nonsense and not scientific medical studies. Are other editors claiming that these journalists not be described as such? I have also described the medical studies conducted by the COMARE as epidemiology studies.

Here~~The following~~ is my edit that was recently reverted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs)

In this diff you deleted text based on a certain source and your flawed reason in the edit summary was

" For reinserting the opinion of Stephanie Cooke a journalist in a cancer risk section, she is [not a] Doctor therefore her opinion on cancer is not WP:RS."

I restored that text and source with an edit summary giving my reason as

"Apparently you don't know what WP:RS means; take this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you must"

You then removed it again, and made other changes, in this later diff where your edit summary reads

"This is not a tabloid, but an encyclopedia. Cooke should be removed from the cancer section as she's not a doctor nor in the British Government, so its all just conjecture and conspiracy nonsense she's spewing. Where is the evidence?"

I reverted that because there is nothing in RS that requires one to be a doctor or in the British Government in order to investigate and then publish an RS that is critical of the British Governement's alleged handling of this issue. We are not the arbiters of truth. We only report what RSs say. Your assessment of the truthiness of what they say is not how we demarcate an RS from a non-RS. So I reverted because you are editing on the basis of your claimed expertise instead of on the basis of wiki policy such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Please note my previously-stated reason for reverting in the edit summary to this diff, which read simply "Per WP:NOTTRUTH"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Links

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

>> UK nuclear plant detects elevated radiation(Lihaas (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)).

old Obninsk issue revived

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

In article there is following sentence: It is also the site of the remains of Calder Hall, the world's first commercial nuclear power station.... How Calder Hall can be the first commercial nuclear power station in he world? The first commercial (civilian) nuclear power station in the world is Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant !! So this information is wrong. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it depends what we mean by "commercial". Does an experimental, prototype reactor that fed just 5 MW into the grid count as commercial? Harumphy (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Commercial" means not military. Here it's like synonym of civilian. So, Obninsk was commercial (civilian) since it's first days (it was never been military). 217.76.1.22 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The pages says Calder Hall was the first to deliver "commercial quantities" of electricity. As it had 4 x 60 MWe reactors, then seems a fair point compared to the 5MWe "semi-experimental" Obninsk reactor. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nick, Obninsk was the first to transmit small amounts of power to the grid but wasn't commercial, rather it was a research plant at the Obninsk Institute for Nuclear Power Engineering Calder Hall was the first full-scale nuclear power plant.Twobells (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Why everyone here writes that Obninsk was experimental or reserch? It was not ! Can you show me at least one sourse about it? Just one ! Since the creation Obninsk was producing power for usual population. So, it was civilian nuclear plant. Maybe it was not very powerfull (just 5 MW), but it's not matter. 46.71.60.1 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Q: "Can you show me at least one source about [Obninsk being experimental or research]"
A: "Although utilisation of generated heat was going on, and production of isotopes was even enhanced, the main task was to carry out experimental studies on 17 test loops installed in the reactor." ^[1] Pol098 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This wording may be less contentious, and follows reference (first "industrial scale"): [later note: the text in the article has been changed and sourced, see the article for current wording] Calder Hall was the world's first power station to generate electricity on an industrial scale (capacity four 60MWe reactors) from nuclear energy;^[2] a 5 MWe prototype reactor at Obninsk in the Soviet Union had been connected to the public supply in 1954. Pol098 (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the wording under "Calder Hall nuclear power station" has been sufficiently tidied to be acceptable. I've removed the claim from the "Ownership and facilities" section as it is unnecessary there, and consequently the tag. Chris55 (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

^ Nuclear Engineering International: Obninsk - number one, by Lev Kotchetkov, who was there at the time
^ "Calder Hall Power Station". The Engineer. 5 October 1956. Retrieved 27 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Obnisnsk never produced any net energy for decades and wasn't ever intended to, it always required more energy put in than came out, so is it really a power station ? Experimental reactor sounds perfectly appropriate. For all intents and purposes, Calder Hall was the first non-commercial nuclear power station. 86.20.159.169 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to check the archive before flying into a heated discussion? --BjKa (talk)

Windscale Piles

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can anybody add how high was the thermal power which had to be dissipated per pile? --BjKa (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Sellafield. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100804025857/http://www.nuclearmanagementpartners.com:80/about-company-profile.html to http://www.nuclearmanagementpartners.com/about-company-profile.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819040238/http://www.defra.gov.uk:80/rwmac/reports/reprocess/16.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/rwmac/reports/reprocess/16.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628235010/http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=GB to http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=GB
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307231514/http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=778 to http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=778
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nautilus.org/archives/pub/ftp/napsnet/papers/hayes1193.txt
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001192111/http://www.sellafieldsites.com/what-we-do/featured-projects/wagr to http://www.sellafieldsites.com/what-we-do/featured-projects/wagr
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uclan.ac.uk/carlisle/cred/files/economy/sept05/Major
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiochem.org/paper/JN41/j041Tagami.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/021211a.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britishnucleargroup.com/content.php?pageID=31&nID=706

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) 20:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

hehhehheheheh

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ardnacr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.220.223 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sellafield

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sellafield's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

From Nuclear power in Taiwan: Lee, Min. Nuclear Energy Development in Asia Problems and Prospects (Energy, Climate and the Environment Series ed.). Palgrave. pp. 166–167. ISBN 978-0-230-22150-5.
From France: The last sacre was that of Charles X, 29 May 1825.
From UK miners' strike (1984–85): Strike: 358 Days that Shook the Nation. London: Sunday Times. p. 104. ISBN 0-340-38445-X.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Sellafield. 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) 01:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

'Northern powerhouse'

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"For the economic Northern powerhouse, see Northern Powerhouse." - why does this appear at the top of the article? Northern powerhouse doesn't link to Sellafield, and it's not mentioned anywhere in the article. -Taras (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Took the freedom to remove it. Doesn't seem to have any relevance to Sellafield, much less as disambiguation link. BjornVDM (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Sellafield. 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) 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

hehhehhehehehe

ardnacr

[1] Nuclear Engineering International: Obninsk - number one, by Lev Kotchetkov, who was there at the time

[the-engineer-2] "Calder Hall Power Station". The Engineer. 5 October 1956. Retrieved 27 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[1]

[2]