Talk:China Syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the China Syndrome article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Untitled talk

I was watching the parrot channel yesterday and they said that china syndrome was not the reactor melting, but the result, which is molten hot nuclear material burrowing into the earth and causing radioactive steam to shoot up out of the surrounding area. I attempted to find a website that mentioned this with no luck. I found several sites that mentioned. In my searches though I did find china syndrome as a common phrase that seemed to mean, "bad thing". For example these articles [1] [2]. I'm not certain enough to change the disambig page without seeing the show again but I'd really appreciate some source for the current claim. Vicarious 12:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Perhaps the page name should be “China Syndrome (hypothesis).”--aceslead 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub

Not that it matters much, but why was the stub category changed from technology to science fiction? It's not a science fiction topic. I've reverted the change. Neil916 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Science fiction seems to be a more appropriate stub name. Sense there currently are no scientific sources.--aceslead 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myth Buster's

It is my belief that the so-called “China Syndrome,” which is a hypothesis NOT a theory as far a I understand. Not credibly scientist actually considers this hypothesis as a real danger from a nuclear power plant. The so-called “China Syndrome” hypothesis appears to first originate in Hollywood, though I can’t verify this.aceslead 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • According to an anonymous contributor on Talk:Nuclear meltdown China syndrome was a known term before the film. Irregardless I'm not really sure what you're asking. I think it's pretty clearly stated at all points that this is not a feasible or scientifically accurate idea. Vicarious 06:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The title was used for the film because the term was in common use before it. No one thought for a minute that the material would melt its way through the earth's core and emerge on the other side of the world. They believed correctly that in a severe fuel damage accident, the fuel could melt its way through the reactor vessel and the concrete below it, and continue until it encountered ground water, resulting in steam release bearing dangerous amounts of radiation. The article has a very POV, condescending and non-encyclopedic tone, and is badly in need of revision. Edison 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corium

I've removed the following content which was recently added by an anonymous user: "The phrase arouse from the material corium produced in a meltdown: a mix of uranium oxide, aluminium, steel and other metals and metallic oxides which resembles china (the material)." If someone can find a source I'll recant but this doesn't make sense to me. China is a type of porcelain, the photos I can find of corium [3] don't look anything like porcelain. At best corium looks like the crude slag of china, but certainly not comparable enough to be named such. Vicarious 06:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last sentence

I have twice reverted a change of the last sentence in the article to the following:

Fortunately, no evidence of this occurring has yet been observed. Although there have been several meltdowns of both civilian and military reactors none have resulted in a "China Syndrome" fictionalized or otherwise.

The anonymous editor (129.174.177.126) who made these changes states that 'your version [current] is clearly biased, mine is clearly objective'. I do not see any overt bias in either one, but I have serious problems with their version. What does 'no evidence of this occurring has yet been observed' mean? If a reactor were to melt down in this fashion, it would be rather blatantly obvious to anyone within a very large radius. It is possible that the editor contests the possibility of such a meltdown happening. In that case, I ask the editor to remember physics: if the reactor gets too hot, it will weaken the containment container and the bottom will break. Fortunately, the most common reactor designs are self-limiting, but some are not. With respect to the last clause, 'none have resulted in a China Syndrome fictionalized or otherwise': if a real reactor melts down, it can't produce a fictionalized China Syndrome. Michaelbusch 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag that User:Rmgmu added to the article. This is not a question about the neutrality of the article (note that the two versions say exactly the same thing, merely in different words). It is simply a matter of clarity and grammar. Michaelbusch 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Bias...

I am the "anonymous" editor. I stand behind MY EDIT, and for sake of clairity will show both versions of the last sentence here:

Wiki edit: Fortunately, such an extreme meltdown has never occured, although there have been several meltdowns of both civilan and military reactors.

My Edit: Fortunately, no evidence of this occurring has yet been observed. Although there have been several meltdowns of both civilian and military reactors none have resulted in a "China Syndrome" fictionalized or otherwise.

Now, I know a few nuclear engineers and physicists myself as I'm at a university. The consensus amongst them seems to be that YES a meltdown that results in the fuel melting through the reactor vessel onto the concrete floor is possible. And that it is also possible it could melt through the upper layers of that concrete. HOWEVER, Chernobyl, and to a lesser extent Three Mile Island show that the molten fissile material SPREAD when they hit a spacious flat surface that is relatively heat resistant (ie. a concrete floor beneath a containment building) and become non-critical: that is the reaction causing the meltdown stops. Now, suggesting an "extreme" meltdown has yet to occur is stupid as a meltdown is of course what results (a molten mass of radioactive fuel), once it occurs it is only a matter of whether it breaches the reactor vessel or reactor building (in the case of shoddily built russian plants) and in all cases thus far after breaching the vessel the molten fuel has spread such that it lost its critical nature and thus seems to suggest the molten ball of fuel that a "china syndrome" suggests is nearly impossible.

Thus, I believe it dishonest and incorrect to suggest that some how a "more extreme" meltdown could occur and cause anything remotely like a "china syndrome" (not just the melt to china, but rather melt into the water table) can occur.

Oh, and my version has good grammar and perfect spelling, in his "occured" is a misspelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmgmu (talk • contribs)

In which case, your edit does not at all address your concerns (see my statement above). I also know something of reactor engineering, and note that your assertion that an extreme meltdown is nearly impossible is true given present reactor designs (like the TRIGA, which cannot meltdown). But I still do not understand where there is bias in the article or why your proposed version would help. Following policy, the article will remain as it is until there is consensus from other editors (although I have edited the occurred). Everyone: What say you? Michaelbusch 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The bias is that you are giving validity to an argument that says "an extreme meltdown could occur and molten fuel could burn through the ground to the water table, and thank god it hasn't" when no evidence or event supports the idea of this actually occuring. We need to separate (pardon me for borrowing words) Science from Pseudo-science. Rmgmu
I did not read this implication in the article, but if you did, the article definitly requires clarification. However, I don't think your proposed edits fix the problem (because they say nothing about the unlikelihood of an extreme meltdown). I will consider proper wording. Michaelbusch 21:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added an additional sentence to the current version, clarifying that the designs of current reactors prevent the China syndrome from occuring. Does this address your concerns, Rmgmu? Michaelbusch 23:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I like your edits, it's important to note (though not necessarily in the Wikipedia article) that no operational nuclear power plants in the U.S. employ a reactor design susceptible to China syndrome. I'll withdraw my POV dispute. Thanks. Rmgmu

[edit] Why "China"

I still do not understand why it was name "China Syndrome". Why not India, Thailand, Vietnam, Spain, Italy, Canada, Mexico, Paraguay, Argentina, Japan, Russia, or Brazil? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.39.172.254 (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

The idea is that the reactor would melt through the ground, through the core of the earth, and eventually emerge on the other side of the world. China is regarded as "the other side of the world" to most Americans, although I do not know if this is technically true. I do not believe that it is possible for a reactor to melt its way to the core of the earth. And of course, if this were possible, gravity would prevent it from emerging on the other side. --70.81.251.32 13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the article states: The impossibility of the material actually reaching China is due to the fact that the molten fissile material would have to go both with gravity and then against gravity and a line drawn from the United States through the center of the Earth would emerge in the south Indian Ocean and not China. (JosephASpadaro 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC))
Many years (perhaps decades) ago, it used to be said (jokingly, usually to children), that if you dig a hole in the ground and keep digging deep enough, you'll end up in China. (Geometric/geographic impossibility notwithstanding.) As User:70.81.251.32 pointed out, "China" was (whether true or not) regarded as being on the other side of the world. 24.6.66.193 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why "Citation needed"?

"Despite several meltdowns in both civilian and military reactors, such an extreme meltdown has never taken place.[citation needed]"

Why is this marked as "citation needed"? How do you prove that something has not happened? --J-Star (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] etymology

Some hater be stressin, the claims I be pressin, bout the origin of dat' syndrome, being a conundrum, but I refrenced that sheet, and be prepping my street, to verify da claims, you thow in my game, dat my set and reliable, it aint even be contrivable, you betta check websta, you funky ass jesta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.93.86 (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your skill with rhymes is unfortunately misplaced. This is the wrong context for it. Say again in plain english please?--J-Star (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)