Talk:Tihange Nuclear Power Station

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tihange Nuclear Power Station. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604114210/http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=BE&sort=&sortlong=Alphabetic to http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=BE&sort=&sortlong=Alphabetic

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

editing with a pro=nuclear point of view

In the wiki was mentioned that the nuclear waste is piling up the site, whether this is outside in the open air, or in a special building, this is still the case. And the references you give, those could be a lot more specific. Now I need to spent some hours to read it all, and 99,9% is not connected to the things you like to add.

This wiki has a few people, that would like to rewrite it all, for pro-nuclear reasons. That has nothing to do with the neutral position of Wikipedia.

Your accusations, they do not have any meaning or value.

I do not read only media and anti-nuclear propaganda, but here there are a few people who like it the other way. I even worked as a scientist with isotopes. I have more knowledge than you ever can know.

Whenever the wanted valves are installed, you will be able to mention it, it present the valve are not there, and the installation ? When will it be there ? These are quite expensive valves, the very reason why they are still not there.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually there is more waste at these plants than only the used nuclear fuel bars. There is a lot more, small stuff, and those were treated, chemical reactions occurred in the barrels, and the content was spilled. This was the reason why deMorgen had this item.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Why should I discuss ? I tried that so long...

Mr MVvarial...

Whenever an addition is added, about the protests against the reactors, why is that not acceptable ?

The people living around the Belgium reactors are to their mind at risk. These reactors are outdated, a new director from French origin is appointed in Tihange, to improve the safety-culture at the plant... Should not this be unneeded in the first place.

You are just busy promoting nuclear power, is this in line with the principles of Wikipedia ?

best wishes

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all you expect me to discuss every edit I make on these articles while you're not doing so yourself.

I will and have respected your wish, I demand the same from you.

As for your current edit in particular; the organisation claims 50 000 people no independent source has confirmed that.

In fact the organisation itself expected 35 000 people and had to buy banners to fill up the gaps. Even with those banners the human chain was not complete.

Second what Peer thinks is frankly not relevant for this article whatsoever.

If you want to make an piece of the public unrest about these powerplants you can bundle a bunch of actions or news articles toghetter to illustrate negative media reporting on the plant.

However as this is a neutral article one should also publish the counter arguments to these claims.

For example the organisation in question demanded the closure of D3 en T2 in particular although all research shows these reactors form no danger.

During the protest they demanded the closure of all plants worldwide and the expansion of renewables.

Furthermore they refused to meet with the board of directors of the plant.

MCvarial (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You are taking any edit away, without any discussion at all. With lots of arguments like: this newspaper is not good enough, whatever. You are not the owner of wikipedia?

Neutral? You try to take away all information about the social protests against nuclear power. Is that neutral ?

Information that is incomplete is not neutral at all.

What do you have against these protesters, are they insane ? They were there. And even the plant is listening to them !

Those reactors are old, the only reason they are still there, is the dependence of Belgium to nuclear power, it would be so expensive to built a new reactor, whenever possible at all.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Why should I start a discussion, whenever I would like to add something to the wiki ? You are taking away anything I add. without any dscussion...

Those reactors in Fukushima and Chernobyl were considered o so very "safe" until "something" happened. To ignore the fact that this could happen here too, is just an insult.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your vandalism is not appreciated, if you're not willing to have an adult discussion I will have to report you.

You are using subjective arguments to argue on an objective topic.

I'm giving you a very clear advise on how to proceed future editing yet you just continue vandalising the article.

MCvarial (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I have left the objective, worthwhile content in your paragraph. Now tell me is this information even worth a paragraph?

MCvarial (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wie is hier de vandaal ? Hoe durf je zo hoog van de toren te blazen? Jij, die telkens de jouw ongevallige informatie weghaalt zonder enig overleg ? Die kranten die deugen niet toch ?

Who is here the vandal ? How do you dear to call me this. While it is you, all that time deleting my edits, when you find the information not positive to nuclear power.

The people around Tihange and Doel see all those troubles too, these old reactors keeping them alive will add to the pile of nuclear debris. And whenever there would be a more serious nuclear disaster, it would be impossible to live in a large area.

Would the belgian government in a position to compensate for damage in full ?

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

With every single post u make u show your true colors. You're simply a anti-nuclear crusader looking to vandalise any article regardless of objective truths.

This is why u have no place on Wikipedia. A source of information that targets to be neutral. There's absolutely no evidence of trouble, nor the reactors being old.

This is, and excuse my language, utter bullshit.

MCvarial (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

In wat je weglaat, blijkt des te meer je attitude: de mensen weigerden niet, maar vonden het tijdstip ongelukkig gekozen...

In what is left out by you, we find your true attitude: the protesters did not refuseto talk, but they found the time not sutable chosen...

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

So they did infact refuse.

Time after time you're proven wrong. How that doesn't trigger an attitude change on your part is beyond me.

MCvarial (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)