Talk:List of civilian nuclear accidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of civilian nuclear accidents article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] POV and (worse) unencyclopedic

This page has crept into Wikipedia for the most part without sources and without discussion (witness this is the first entry on the discussion page!!). It is a mishmash of rumour and exaggeration with the occasional fact almost buried under a pile of invective and emotion.

Specifically this page represents an anti-nuclear POV. It involves the usual confounding of nuclear power and nuclear weapons incidents, with a few randoms, throwing up any incident no matter how minor. A simple example is the first (X-ray) incident, which is not "nuclear" at all, but is recounted for scary effect.

I am marking it disputed and will be back to clean it up or propose it for deletion, unless the original authors care to start giving the page proper focus and especially proper sources for the more obscure pieces (the majority) that are on here.

Joffan 03:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This article was forked from List of nuclear accidents. See Talk:List of nuclear accidents for older discussions. --Carnildo 07:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The article definitley needs pruning. The 1904 entry is based on an ignorant equation of "radiation" and "nuclear". Although a list of nuclear accidents lends itself naturally to the appearance of anti-nuclear POV, I would argue against deletion of the entire article. It would be appropriate to excise all unsourced and irrelevant entries.--DocS 13:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I checked the precursor talk, thanks for the link Carnildo. It seems that Bcrowell was making much the same observations as I was, that the list is vague in scope and includes many entries that are not accidents. After the fork it also includes many entries that are arguably not civilian either. It may still include accidents that are merely proximate to nuclear material, which really doesn't make them nuclear, although the totally off-topic X-ray entry has gone, thanks DocS.

It is important that articles are focussed, otherwise they are not informative. A jumble of this kind is not information, it's just data, and not very reliable data at that. Witness the fact that, irritated as I am by this entry, I still haven't read it all through.

Joffan 17:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the best first step is to generate a sensible definition of what constitutes a "nuclear accident". I would propose criteria along the lines of:
1) There must be documented and substantial property damage, illness/injuries/fatalities or contamination (this would exclude, for example, spills of nonradioactive heavy water or near-accidents such as Salem 1983).
2) The damage must be related directly to nuclear operations (e.g. the Mihama 2004 incident was a secondary-side, non-radioactive steam accident - not nuclear).
These two criteria alone would cut away a lot of non-relevant entries.
--DocS 19:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As to article focus, maybe this list (once its problems are corrected) should ultimately become an appendix to, or subsection of, a more general discussion on civilian nuclear accidents/safety. --DocS 19:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding entries removed as "unsourced": I am removing entries that are not supported by direct references, linked wiki articles or the "Reference" resources at the end of this article. Exceptions are significant incidents (TMI, Chernobyl), which will instead be revised with appropriate sources. --DocS 16:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You might want to try again on finding a reference for the Lucens reactor meltdown. The reference.com article you've linked to is a Wikipedia mirror. --Carnildo 18:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks, good catch.--DocS 19:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: I removed Windscale as "not civilian" as its primary function as of 1957 was as a source of Pu for nuclear weapons. --DocS 19:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the Windscale entry, including removing a dead link, adding a source and filling in details on the casualty projections. I would still propose moving the entry to the list of military nuclear accidents. --DocS 19:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Windscale's a tossup as to where it should be listed. It was a civilian project operated by the government to produce plutonium for military purposes. --Carnildo 20:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I am moving Windscale to Military. It's sole purpose was plutonium for bombs. pstudier 23:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Now revised and objective?

The specifics that originally caused the article to be marked as anti-nuclear POV appear have now been resolved. Is the article ready for marking as neutral POV now? --Oscarthecat 07:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Although there are still a few marginal entries (e.g. Tsuruga 1981, in which the "accident" consists of a short-term violation of company exposure policy), I think the padding has been largely excised, and the POV language is minimal. I have no objection to the NPOV tag being removed. --DocS 04:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. Joffan 18:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh yes, and huge kudos to you DocS for your continued work on this. I see you're taking on the corresponding military list! Joffan 18:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggest a separate page entitled Nuclear Incidents. Several of these 'accidents' are officially categorised as 'incidents' under the International Nuclear Event Scale JeremyGordon 13:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marginal Entries

Marginal and misleading entry removed (neither of the sources supported the claim in the entry that the leak had contaminated the river); the contamination was on-site and at levels below EPA safe drinking standards (confirmed by NRC). The other new entry (Haddam 2005) is also marginal, and contained factual errors, but has been left in place (with editing) pending more detalied findings.

It takes a fair bit of work to research and correct shoddy entries. Please research thoroughly (and consider the criteria at the top of the article) before adding to the article. --DocS 22:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed tense writing

Is there a specific reason all list entries in this article begin with a present-tense statement? We are dealing with the *past* here, and in many cases the following sentence switches to past tense. I feel each opening verb ought to be changed to past tense to maintain proper grammar and style.

[edit] Grammar and Vocabulary

Could someone please have a look at my entry about the kytschym-catastrophe? I'm not a native English-speaker and I don't want to leave an article with mistakes. Thanks

And maybe it might be useful to oversee other entries as well...

[edit] Editing criteria

The last two entires for the 2000 section seem to fail the criteria listed at the top, the entries read as follows

July 25, 2006 – An electrical fault prompted shut down of the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, Sweden. Although there was no damage to the reactor, no radioactive release and no adverse health consequences, the incident highlighted potentially hazardous flaws in the site's reactor shutdown procedures. [34](in Swedish)[35](in Swedish)[36] November 2005 -- Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station.[37] Later, in March, 2006, Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow announced that they were filing a lawsuit against Exelon because of six such leaks, demanding that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents although no well outside company property shows levels that exceed drinking water standards. The lawsuit is a class-action suit representing two communities roughly two miles away from the plant and not including the closest community to the plant.[1][2] According to the NRC, "The inspection determined that public health and safety has not been adversely affected and the dose consequence to the public that can be attributed to current onsite conditions is negligible with respect to NRC regulatory limits." However, the chairman of the NRC, said, "They're going to have to fix it."

The first is a potential accident with no health, equipment or radioactive damage to speak of. The second is a case that made headlines and was a genuine accident, however nobody suffered health consequences and the low level contamination was well under NRC limits. There was no health damage, no property damage and radiation releases were not substantial, which are listed as criteria for inclusion.

[edit] The Mihama Incident

I notice some reverts going back and fourth regarding the Mihama steam accident. Firstly, I think "See Also" is not the proper place for this. Secondly, it is notable and it does have a place in this series of articles. Granted, such a list could never be comprehensive, as there are LOTS of those kinds of accidents (I mean come on, someone could just drop a hammer on their toe), just like any other industry in the world. But as long as the purpose of the list is clear, I see no problem.

My suggestion is that we should have a list of nuclear industry accidents that were significant blotches on the safety record, but did not involve a release (or a potential release) of radioactivity. I would just presume put such a list in this article, separate from the other events. What does everyone else think? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kariwa nuclear power plant entry

The event at Kariwa was caused by a natural disaster, not really falling under the area of "accident" which implies human involvement and some level of screwing up. Should this entry be removed?Worloq 05:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be kept if there was leak of radiation, regardless of the ultimate cause. — Omegatron 15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The leak needs to result in substantial contamination to warrant inclusion on the list. Spilling a drop of gasoline while filling your car is technically a "petroleum spill" but it would be ludicrous to include it within a "list of petrochemical accidents". In the case of Kariwa, the leak was 1/1,000,000,000th of the legal limit spilled into the single largest body of water on the planet. It may technically be a leak, but it is not significant enough to be included on the list. Nailedtooth 16:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
They leaked 1200 liters of spent fuel storage cooling water into the ocean. You are saying they could legally leak 1200 billion cubic meters into the ocean? Im wondering why they dont just store the spent fuel in the ocean. You seem the have a quick hand of declassifying incidents. Maybe discuss it a bit first. The fire in Krümmel (which you pruned) caused problems in the reactor core, with the scram. Arguably this falls under the category of the article. -- 217.64.242.138 10:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The most environmentally unfriendly part of spent fuel storage is the waste heat from the spent fuel not radiation. That's why the leak was so far below the legal limit for radiation. Also, I think you mean 1.2 billion cubic meters, since there's a thousand liters in a cubic meter of water.
The Krummel incident was a transformer fire. The reactor scrammed on backups when the fire caused electrical faults in the main systems; the reactor ultimately worked as designed. The only substantial property damage was the destroyed transformer and whatever the fire damaged directly. Neither the reactor core nor any fuel elements were damaged; there was no damage "related directly to nuclear material". This makes the incident only proximal to a nuclear plant. Note that the criteria specifically exclude such events as they could happen regardless of the presence or absence of nuclear material. There were no substantial health effects due to radiation or nuclear materials and no detectable nuclear contamination. The incident fails under both the first and second criteria.
I am willing to discuss things where there is some kind of ambiguity. See my post below. Incidents that clearly fail the criteria never should have been included in the first place. Nailedtooth 21:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detailed explanation of Aug 22 edit

Removed entries:

  • January 25, 1982 – Ginna plant -- The links provided were dead or did not support this entry's inclusion on the list.
  • February 15, 2000 - Indian Point -- No health effects, no substantial contamination, no substantial property damage. Removed.

Other changes:

  • Provided more information on "April 10, 2003 – Paks"

Also, I'd like discussion on these incidents to decide keep/remove:

  • May 1, 1969 - Ågesta -- Coolant leak that shorted some control pannels. Reactor shut down successfully anyway. This dosent sound like 'substantial ... property damage or contamination" to me. No links for this entry are provided.
  • March 1981 - Tsuruga -- Company exposure limits were breached, but for how long since this would need to lead to "substanial health effects"? The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission allows up to 50mSv per year for nuclear workers.
  • December 17, 1987 - Biblis -- I can't find any really specific information on this incident. The plants wiki page says it was a leak of coolant with no heath effects, property damage or signifigant contamination.
  • November 2005 - Braidwood -- The only criteria this could qualify under is 'signifigant contamination'. However, there isnt any signifigant contamination by any standards away from the plant (also, drinking water standards vary extremely from place to place) and nobody's going to be drinking water from test wells near the plant anyway. No cleanup is warrented and the only action being taken is to prevent further release. The whole issue seems kind of moot.

Nailedtooth 03:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that it has been a month without reply I am removing Agesta 1969 and Biblis 1987 from the list. Both seem to be coolant leaks that did not result in any substantial contamination, health effects or property damage. Nailedtooth 05:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the scope of the article

The article says now the following

On listing civilian nuclear accidents, the following criteria have been followed:
  1. There must be well-attested and substantial health damage, property damage or contamination.
  2. The damage must be related directly to radioactive material, not merely (for example) at a nuclear power plant.
  3. To qualify as "civilian", the nuclear operation/material must be principally for non-military purposes.
  4. The event should involve fissile material, fission or a reactor.

I'm wondering, I think major social unrest following an accident might also be an argument. The biggest problem NPP's are facing is the social (un)acceptance, which is being fed by accidents. Even if there are none of 1-4 impacts, any incident in a NPP, causes a strom of concerns. As it might also have resulted in 1-4 impacts. To dismiss social concerns, the biggest argument in the nuclear debate, as non relevant seems non-npov to me. -- 217.64.242.138 10:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The size or extent of the public reaction to any nuclear incident - included in this list or not - is not neccissaraly related to the severity of the incident. The current criteria differentiate between incidents that cause severe or permanent harm and those that do not. Health damage, property damage and contamination are all tangible and quantifiable effects, public reaction is intangible and unquantifiable by any practical means. Social concern, while relevant to the debate about nuclear technology, is not a reliable criterion by which to classify nuclear accidents.
Exclusion of social concerns does not show a POV problem, it shows the article has a consistent and well defined scope.
Nailedtooth 17:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standardized entry format

I think it would be beneficial if the entries were changed into a standardized format. Right now all the information in the entries except for the date is in different places depending on the specific entry. A table would be too rigid I think as the text format seems to be working well even without standardization. Proposed format:

Day Month, Year - INES level - location - Type(s) of accident
  • Description of the accident and related information. Description of the significant health effects, property damage or contamination that occurred. Description of response to the accident.

For example

30 September, 1999 - INES Level 4 - Tokaimura, Japan - Accidental Criticality
  • Workers put uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to neutron radiation in excess of the allowable limit. Two of these workers died. 116 other workers were exposed to over 1 mSv though not in excess of the allowable limit.

Additions? Subtractions? Substitutions? etc? Nailedtooth 21:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many disaster pages

Does anybody else think that there is a better way to quantify all the disasters/ tragedies in Earth's history. I think there needs to be like one huge trunk section, or maybe even a whole portal, and all articles would stem off from that. There are so many pages that represent the information in a slitely different perspective, and the biggest problem is that they do not share a high level of consistency with their facts!! It's hard to quantify the historical significance of disasters with the jumble of related information that we currently have.

If you have any ideas on how best to arrange it, please put your ideas, uh... idk where to put them. Here I guess? I'm sorry I have much to learn. Rallen7753 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] change of criteria

I rewrote the criteria so that they are not criteria, but describing the attributes of the listed accident. I aslo want to posose the following

  • The damage is related directly to radioactive material, not merely (for example) at a nuclear power plant.

into

  • The damage is related directly to radioactive material, or crucial safety systems.

The latter part of the sentence should be deleted and only on the talk page, but I thought that needs some discussion. But beyond, I think that accidents which impair crucial safety systems - eg Forsmark back-up power not starting, opening the way to a meltdown, INES 2 - also an 'encyclopedic' civilian nuclear accident. -- Eiland (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Use the discussion page before making major changes.
As for "opening the way to a meltdown": This page is for events that have happened, not for speculation about what might happen. Furthermore, please keep entries as a neutral descriptions of events. This article should neither laud nor demonize civilian nuclear power. Nailedtooth (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ordering from recent event to last events is IMHO no major change. And could you explain a bit more why you removed the pre-1950 issues? -- Eiland (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
All the other nuclear events lists are in chronological order earliest - latest. There's no real reason to change it either. Nailedtooth (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There is, as the recent radiological accidents are way more relevant then the historical ones :) -- Eiland (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a form of systematic bias called recentism and it is against Wikipedia policy. Nailedtooth (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be deleting the 1950 disasters you mean? Now, and far into the fture, people will alwazs be more interested in recent nuclear accidents then in 50 year old ones. But the fifty year old ones are still there, just more below. Theres nothing recentistic about that. -- Eiland (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The deletion of the 1950s was an error caused in part by the need to revert your pointless edits. I restored the 1950s when it was pointed out, but you have ignored this. The reasons you have stated for inverting the order of the entries are exactly what recentism is. Recent events are not more important than earlier ones. The fact that some people may be more interested in recent events is irrelevant.
Furthermore, your edits to the criteria require far more discussion than you have given the subject. Nailedtooth (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STOP

This article has been mangled by the edit warring over the last few days. Without assigning blame, this is not an acceptable outcome. Multiple parties committed edit warring over the article. Please, everyone - stop, talk about it on the talk page here (remember assume good faith) and let me and others fix the contents. Work to find a common consensus agreement on what order the list should be in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert any attempts to change the criteria under which material may be added to this page. What was there was put up to prevent people from adding frivolous garbage that has nothing to do with a nuclear accident. Jtrainor (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asco, Spain

Now that it has been restored, I propose removing the 2007 Asco, Spain event because it does not meet the required criteria for substantial contamination, health effects or property damage. As stated by the CNS (Spanish Commision for Nuclear Safety), the leak was well below the legal limit for release[1]. In addition the total amount of material released was tiny. One gram of radium-226 is equal to 37 giga-becquerels, so a leak of 235,000bq is only equivalent to 6 micrograms of radium-226. Detectable, but not significant.Nailedtooth (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)