Talk:Three Mile Island accident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Three Mile Island accident article.
Article policies
Three Mile Island accident is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
May 22, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Pennsylvania Portal
Three Mile Island accident is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Three Mile Island accident is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Information from Three Mile Island accident (or a previous version of it) is being actively used in the pool of 'Did you know?' facts on the Energy Portal.

An event in this article is a March 28 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous topics

Diagrams? It's great to hear about valves and pumps, etc., but a diagram will explain a lot that can't be efficiently explained by text... 69.212.106.44 13:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Added a simplified diagram on 11 Aug 2006.−Enterprise Eric 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Removed "the accident was not serious." Granted no one died, but any accident that cost a $1 billion to fix and killed an entire industry strikes me as a big oops.

See comment below re "one excess fatal cancer."

Killed an industry? The US has the largest nuclear generating industry in the world, over 100 reactors producing over 8% of total US output. Hardly dead.

Is it true that no new reactors were ordered after TMI - only in process ones completed? Also "2.5 million curies of radioactive gas" is wrong. Curies measure an amount of radiation - not a volume of gas. Is there a good way to rephrase this? --rmhermen

No new reactors have been made since the 70's for comercial perposes. the thing that really killed it was the desicion in the US to not reprocess the spent fule rods.

Actually, plants were being cancelled en masse even before TMI. The reasons were that vastly increased federal regulations were stretching out construction times horrendously, at a time of double-digit interest rates. Both the regulations and the costs were out of control. Simesa 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a curie measures an amount of radioactivity (not radiation). (The SI unit is the Becquerel). A Becquerel is an amount of radioactive material that produces one decay per second. So this is a correct unit for the answer. --Andrew 20:16, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)


The figure of 2.5 million curies / 90 PBq on this article page has been queried on the talk page for Windscale. Can we have a source for this figure, please? I've seen a figure of 3 x 10^17 Bq (of Xenon 133) quoted in Radiation and Health: The Biological Effects of Low Level Exposure to Ionizing Radiation Edited by Robin Russell Jones and Richard Southwood, published by John Wiley ISBN 0-471-91674-9.Blaise 07:58, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

  • J. Samuel Walker, the NRC's official historian, has written in his new book on TMI that "the accident discharged up to 13 million curies of radioactive noble gases to the environment" (231), but "less than 20 curies" of iodine-131 (238). Hope that is helpful. --Fastfission 12:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


How many square km are 814 acres ? Thanks, it's for a translation into French. Yann

About 3.3 km^2. -- Coneslayer 19:46, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

The phrase "no one died at Three Mile Island" has become almost a slogan. It is an oversimplification. The correct statement is that there were no identifiable deaths. Estimates are unreliable because radiation monitoring was spotty and it is not clear just how much radiation the local population was exposed to, but the official report (below) estimated "one excess fatal cancer." In other words, someone was killed by radiation, we just have no way of identifying who. Mortality among the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident Area: 1979-1992 found statistically significant mortality elevations, but dismisses it as inconclusive. A correlation with radiation exposure and breast cancer was found but assumed not to reflect causality, for reasons I cannot follow.

Certainly the health effects were so small as to be statistical and difficult to detect, but a flat assertion that there were none goes too far.

Authority for the estimate of "one excess fatal cancer:"

Battist L, Buchanan J, Congel F, Nelson C, Nelson M, Peterson H, Rosenstein M. Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Preliminary Estimates for the Period March 28 through April, 1979. Washington, DC:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979.


Dpbsmith 22:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to a study done by the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health (http://www.nei.org/documents/University_Pittsburgh_Study_TMI.pdf) there was no increases of deaths or injurys in the TMI exposed population. _James

[edit] Presidential influence muting criticism voiced in report: citation?

The article says:

According to Admiral Hyman Rickover, the key figure in the development of nuclear power plants and a close confidant of the president, the original report was so critical of the nuclear power industry's safety lapses that if it had been released, all nuclear plants in the US would probably be forced to close. The final version was more muted, at the command of Jimmy Carter.

There really ought to be some reference given for that. Which "report" is being described? The Kemeny report? Kemeny was not part of the government or the military, nor were other members of the panel, and would not have been under "command" of Jimmy Carter," though they might, of course, have responded to Presidential influence.

I'm not doing to do anything about this now, but if I remember to come back in a month or two and if that statement is still in there without any citation or reference, I'll be inclined to snip it. Dpbsmith 00:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the POV implication that President Carter undeniably commanded that the final report be muted. Rookkey 02:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] General public's approval rating for nuclear power?

An anon added this paragraph to the article:

Another effect, and one usually overlooked, is the physchological impact on the nation and on those who lived near the plant. Before the accident nuclear power was considered one of the great awe inspiring inventions of the twentieth century, and enjoyed an aproximatly seventy percent approval rating. After this accident, support for nuclear power across the country fell to about fifty percent, where it has remained.

I don't think this effect has been "usually overlooked" and nothing is cited to suggest that it was, so I've removed that phrase. I think it was nuclear weaponry rather than peaceful nuclear electricity generation that was "considered one of the great awe inspiring inventions of the twentieth century" so I've removed this phrase too. I've generally toned down the language to read:

Another effect was the psychological impact on the nation. Before the accident approximately seventy percent of the general public approved of nuclear power. After this accident, support for nuclear power across the country fell to about fifty percent, where it has remained.

But I still see a problem with the use of the phrases "seventy percent approval rating" and "support for nuclear power across the country fell to about fifty percent, where it has remained," without any citation of the source or nature of these "approval ratings."

In a general way, I don't think anybody would challenge the statement that the Three Mile Island accident reduced public approval of nuclear electric-power generation in the United States. But I don't like the false precision of the numbers. Unless they are sourced, in a week or so I'll probably rewrite this sentence, too. I'll see whether I can find some objective/authoritative source(s) that can be cited to show the impact Three Mile Island had on public support for nuclear power. If not, the impact is so obvious to anyone old enough to have lived through it that I think a general statement that the TMI accident "caused significant and long-lasting decline in public support for nuclear power" is OK, but no number and percentages if they can't be sourced. Dpbsmith 11:16, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Public support is a vague way to judge the impact. It's simple enough to show that there have been no new plants authorized since 1978. Of the 129 plants authorized to be built at the time of TMI, suggesting a boom during the energy crisis, just 53 were ever completed.

Ohio.com article

It reduced it not only in the US, but all over the world Eric B. and Rakim 00:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It would be wonderful to have actual facts; I am sure that they exist (public opinion polls, numbers of station licenses granted over time, etc.). I'll check some of the sources that might have them (I'm thinking Garwin's _Megawatts and Megatons_ probably does) and if so, add them in... others are welcome to do this as well, of course! --Fastfission 20:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Changed sentence indicating that the quench tank ruptured to say the quench tank rupture disk ruptured which is a design feature of the quench tank. The pressure relief valve for that quench tank had already opened but could not vent the full amount of flow coming from the stuck pressurizer relief valve.

Changed the sentence indicating a hydrogen explosion in the reactor to say a hydrogen explosion in the reactor building. Even that is a probable explanation as no one was in the building and only instrumentation readings and a "bump" felt in the control room lead to that conclusion.

How about some basic geography of the island? I just had someone ask me how long the island was, and I can't find the answer anywhere. --Carnildo 04:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The island is not three miles long but in fact about one quarter of a mile long.Scottfisher
The island is 2.2 miles long, and 0.2-0.4 miles wide. - Anon.

Is that a joke? =) Well, try looking at Mapquest. If they can keep the URL stable for awhile. That's more-or-less centered on the plant. (Pity they don't have the aerial photo anymore. Or is it by subscription or something?)

Also: regarding Rickover's pursuading Carter to whitewash the report and his regret thereof, it may be more accurate to say "according to an affidavit sworn by his daughter-in-law Jane"[1] unless you know of some more direct source. Kwantus 22:57, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Aerial photo of TMI pstudier 05:30, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of clarity in event discription

The event description needs work and may be incorrect or oversimplified. Specifically the sequence of events which led to the partial meltdown. Sources at PBS might be helpful in clarifing this incident.

I agree completely. I'm currently reviewing a book about TMI and will try and brush up the entry a bit. About five discrete things went wrong at TMI (a mix of technical failure and operator error) which should be highlighted. --Fastfission 17:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Blame was placed on plant operators who mis-diagnosed the problems. ...Well, how about the fact that the proper instruments were not available, that the plant operators acted in ways that in the past had always been reasonable and proper? How about the pressure relief valve that failed to close, even though the operator pushed the proper button and even though a light came on stating it was closed? Why was the operator blamed for not checking two more insturments (one on the rear of the control panel) and determing that the light was faulty? (Actually, the operator did check one of them.) Human error? To me it sounds like equipment failure coupled with serious design error" - ISBN 0-465-06709-3
~ender 2007-09-09 13:13:PM MST

[edit] The China Syndrome

I was about to correct the grammar in the section of the article entitled The China Syndrome, but then it struck me how irrelevant the entire section is to the topic. I think maybe this section belongs in another article, perhaps an article about the movie or the actress or activation. Anyone else for chopping this section?

Jdbartlett 20:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would agree. There should be a mention and a link, but the section probably belongs elsewhere. --Millsdavid 23:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The China Syndrome was essential to the reception of the TMI accident, most because of its timing but also because of some of its similiarities (stuck valves, vibrations, faulty or unhelpful indicators, human errors in the assumption of the level of the coolant, etc.) in the accident itself. If anything I think more ought to be written on it, if we are really going to talk about the "aftermath" (more should be written on the attitudes towards nuclear power before TMI as well, considering an almost duplicate accident had happened two years earlier and was dismissed as a freak occurrence). All of these things added up to the reception of the accident both by the public but also by the politicians, the NRC, etc. --Fastfission 17:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then "The China Syndrome" should, at most, be a subsection of "Aftermath". I certainly agree that we should discus the manner in which people reacted to it in relation to the TMI accident, but I believe its plot and lead actress should be detailed in a "China Syndrome" article, not in this one. For the purpose of this article, the plot can be described succinctly as a movie that raised awareness of the nuclear safety issue.
  • I would like to continue to see The China Syndrome included. I find it most interesting that the movie was released (Within a week) prior to the accident. What a coincidence. I was living in Lancaster, Pennsylvania at the time, 30 miles away, and distinctly remember the local radio station saying there were a bunch of cows dead. I had to take a ride out to see this and found no dead cows, LOL. Interesting Scottfisher
  • China Syndrome should be removed from the Three Mile Island section. I just finished reading the Chernobyl section and there is no mention of the China Syndrome there, although two men in wetsuits relieved the accumulated water from underneath the reactor floor where, if the burning material had penetrated, a thermal explosion would have resulted.Robert 18:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It's about the movie not the "idea". The China Syndrome movie came out right before the TMI accident and played a major role in the perceptions of the accident in the USA. It did not play a major role at all in the Chernobyl accident, which is why it is no surprise that it isn't mentioned there.
  • Is the role of the movie being overstated? Perhaps a more general discussion of public reaction might be better. This could include China Syndrome, and the general media reaction, etc. (if good sources can be found). -MrFizyx 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
A section called Context before the details of the accident might make sense, with the section on The China Syndrome becoming a sub-section. I'm not familiar with the previous similar accident (refd above) but details should be included for if available. Mtpt 19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Most books on TMI discuss the China Syndrome in particular and give it a pretty prominent role (Walker's Three Mile Island, for example). I think it could be integrated into a large context/aftermath section, sure. The similar accident which happened earlier was at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station near Toledo, OH, on September 24, 1977. Hopefully I'll get some time to add to any context section that comes up, but otherwise, that should give people something to go on...--Fastfission 19:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If the movie The China Syndrome played a noticeable role in shaping the public consciousness and discussion about the accident, then it forms part of the history of the incident, and that fact, together with info about how and to what extent it did shape the public mind (and-or the aftermath), should continue to be part of the article. Brief mention of the nature or content of the movie are useful here, while most details about the movie could be in a separate article.Palmleaf (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] location

where exactly is three mile island?

Next to Goldsboro, Pennsylvania. Three Mile Island on Google Maps. --Fastfission 22:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scotty August 10, 2005.

[edit] PORV

Reverted section about PORV. IIRC, the PORV exhaust line was always hot because it had a cronic leak. Don't have a reference handy. pstudier 19:20, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

[edit] Secret report?

I removed the following changes by an anon:

A report comissioned by President Carter concluded that nuclear power plans in the US were inherently unsafe and should all be shut down. Later, after pressure from the nuclear power lobby, a toned-down report was released about the incident.
... Over the years, journalists who have tried to find this earlier report have been rebuffed by Jimmy Carter and/or the editors they work for. Some have been threated with violence to themselves and their families.

I'd really like to see such information cited if you are going to make claims that former U.S. presidents have been threatening people's families. Additionally -- if the report was made secret, how do we even know it existed or was real? Again, citations needed so this sort of thing can be verified and NPOVed if necessary. --Fastfission 29 June 2005 23:38 (UTC)

[edit] Image correctness

An anon recently changed all captions of pictures of TMI, switching left and right, foreground and background. I find this unlikely: in Image:Three Mile Island.jpg, the cooling towers for the reactor on the right indicate that it is active, whereas the anon's claim is that it is the one that melted down. --Carnildo 03:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The captions are all correct now. TMI-2 utilized the two southernmost cooling towers. The photo taken from the west is an old one and shows the plant prior to the 1979 accident. In more recent photos (and in the Google Earth / Google Maps imagery) it's easier to tell the difference. The "fill" and outer skirts of the TMI-2 cooling towers have been removed, and you can see the ground beneath them. Scott Johnson 15:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

This article appears to be about the Three Mile Island accident, rather than about the locality. I propose to move it to that name, currently a redirect with no significant history. Not quite sure where the resulting redirect should go for the moment, but just so long as this article and Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station prominently (maybe a bit more prominently) link each to the other it's not all that important IMO. Comments? Andrewa 18:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. The redirect should go to the accident. Simesa 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiation Released

Just pointing out an aparent contradiction to the current text. According to a web-site run by Dickinson College the actual amount of radition released was somewhere closer to 9 million curies.

Three Mile Island 1979 Emergency: What Went Wrong

Flame12121 00:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for bringing this up. I checked over a reliable resource and found that the upper estimate is even higher than that, so I put it in with a reference. --Fastfission 02:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

- - - -

The article's claim on radiation released is, to my best understanding, an official pronouncement. It's probably bogus to my best guess. Herds of cows reportedly dropped to the ground with radiation sickness right after the biggest release.

It reminds me of a recent claim by a nuclear power proponent that only 75 people have died worldwide as a result of commercial nuclear power, and most of them were Chernobyl nuclear plant workers. However, I believe that the Ukranian city of Pripyat lies completely empty not purely for precautionary reasons, but more likely because perhaps 50,000 citizens were already fatally poisoned or dead, and officials had no other choice but to abandon a valuable city.

Scientists should have nothing to do either with furtive attempts to cover up evidence or to furtively erase evidence from the community's mind. If an issue remains sincerely in dispute, the arguments of both sides of the debate should be laid out, that third parties may see the arguments and weigh them. For example, if the people who want to pooh-pooh global warming want to advance their theories, let them try! Science by political fiat is unacceptable. For this reason, I ask that the question of radiation exposure and aftermath remain an open question in this article, at least until the scientific community reaches consensus. you can reach me at: dontuspam3 (aatt) netscape .net

[edit] picture caption question

There is a picture of the Three Mile Island complex with the caption "Viewed from the west, Three Mile Island currently uses only one nuclear generating station, TMI-1, which is on the left. TMI-2, to the right, is permanently off-line."

If the reactor on the right is offline, why then is steam coming off its cooling towers? Is this a case of a mistaken caption, or a picture that has been flipped from right to left? --Tachikoma 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

if you look at the other images it is easy to see that the image has not been flipped, according to the alignment of the towers and water border, along with some of the larger buildings that can be seen. one image says it only suffered a partial-meltdown. I'm thinking this picture was either taken before the disaster (good chance) or this was taken just after the meltdown, where all of the towers were shut off (why the main two aren't functioning) but the two that had suffered the meltdown were still emitting smoke, possibly from flames. I can't be sure though, so I'll leave the caption until somebody else figures it out. --Zeerus 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
if you search for Three Mile Island at [2] then this image will show up, though no date is provided. It can be seen though that the image wasn't flipped, as there were no technologies at that time (I believe) that could do that. --Zeerus 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Umm you can flip an image by just putting the negative in the enlarger upside down though can't you?! Plugwash 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The pictures and captions are all correct as of today when I looked at them. TMI-2 is the southernmost of the two containment structures and used the southernmost pair of cooling towers. Tachikoma points out that there's steam coming from the southern cooling towers; this is due to the photo predating the accident. Scott Johnson 15:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Returned to Prior levels?

The recent edit by Ggb667 states that support for nuclear power has returned to prior levels. The article referenced (Three Mile Island shows US nuclear risks, rewards Jon Hurdle/Matthew Robinson http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060420/lf_nm/energy_nuclear_usa_dc_4) does not make this ascertation, nor does this article cite any quantitative data on public support for nuclear power. I have reworded the article to reflect a rise in support rather than a return to previous levels. --Matthew 18:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that three mile island is a very interesting subject. It seems to me that it was not as deadly as the accident near Chernobyl, but it is still very important subject matter to address. I think that nuclear power plants are much safer than they were back then, and many safety modifications have been made to them so there is less chance of a nuclear meltdown in the future. there have also been safety modifications made to them that helps to cut down on the level of nuclear waste that they create, and they also help to improve the efficiency of the power plants. i think that nuclear power is much better of a power source than fossil fuel power plants such as coal, gas, and oil. the burning of coal produces uranium and thorium which are radioactive. i learned that a bunch of scientists did some research and proved that people living near a coal power plant are exposed to more radiation than people living near a nuclear power plant. i think that is a very interesting fact and i think that more research should be done to help promote this fact, so the general public can become more educated about nuclear power. fossil fuel plants also relases sodium oxide and nitrogen oxide into the air, which floats up into the atmosphere and comes down in the form of acid rain. fossil fuel power plants also produce carbon dioxide into the air, which is a green house gas and contributes to the problem of global warming.

I learned that in france 78% of their energy is created by nuclear power plants. i also learned that nuclear power is viewed widely as a positive thing in france, and there is a lot of public support for it. some people have nuclear power plants that are practically in their own backyards and they do not worry about it unlike americans. the problem with americans is that they have watched too many movies and television shows that portray nuclear power as an "evil" thing that causes disasters and kills people, when in reality fossil fuels release toxins into the air that kill many more people than nuclear power ever did. i think that people need to open their eyes and become a little more educated on nuclear power. nuclear power has a bad reputation with everybody in america, when around the world people do not worry about it as much because they are not as thick-headed as americans.

another issue that i am going to tackle right now is natural power. natural power is a very interesting subject. there are many issues that need to be taken into consideration when going over the subject of this intriguing type of power. i

[edit] Bam

if you want more information about nuclear power than please visit some of the websites thare listed below

Shouldn't the Viva La Bam episode with this be mentioned? 216.56.38.130 12:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • From what I can tell, its existence doesn't add much to our understanding of Three Mile Island. --Fastfission 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] worlds worst nuclear accident (pre chernobyl)

The opening paragraph states that Three Mile Island was "considered" to be the worlds worst accident, according to the wiki article on "Sellafield" particularly the Windscale fire incident highlights that published figures show that radiation levels were worse for the windscale incidident.

I'm not sure which was conisdered as the worst accident but even if three mile island was "considered" wouldn't it be better to add "(although infact the windscale incident was more damaging)"

[edit] Move of Article?

shouldn't this article be on the "Three Mile Island" page with a redirect here? that makes a lot more sense. -- preschooler@heart 05:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I gather that the title is to distinguish this article from Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station. I think the move was a good idea. -MrFizyx 06:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worth noting

I think it is worth noting that not far from the area is the Hershey Park conglomeration, and that in the nearby hotels, an emergency evacuation plan is given in hotel nightstand drawers.-Andrewia 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

They seriously have an evacuation plan in hotel nightstands? What a joke, the entire thing is a joke. The way people talk about Three Mile Island would lead one to think that it was a major disaster with thousands of deaths to its name, instead, it was more likely to have had a beneficial effect.
Most people know that TMI was not itself a major disaster. However there were many points at which it could have become close to a major disaster had things gone differently. For that reason evacuation plans are not totally ridiculous, and the entire thing is not, and was not, a joke. Taking seriously the risks of nuclear power plants is the first step towards persuading people that you have it under control and the risk is worth taking. --Fastfission 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that its true the TMI was not a major disaster and had a huge benefical affect on the nuclear power industry and safety at nuclear power plants. The fact that the evacuation plan is availible in the hotel nightstands is a great thing that is certainly indicitive of the effects TMI had on the United States. In a way I almost wish that all hotels near nuclear power plants were required to provide evacuation plans to guests. So the anonymous user and Fastfission both have really great points. --Matthew 19:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "split scienists" claim in article?

An unregistered user posted the following explanation for content they added to the aritcle:

The article's claim on radiation released is, to my best understanding, an official pronouncement. It's probably bogus to my best guess. Herds of cows reportedly dropped to the ground with radiation sickness right after the biggest release.
It reminds me of a recent claim by a nuclear power proponent that only 75 people have died worldwide as a result of commercial nuclear power, and most of them were Chernobyl nuclear plant workers. However, I believe that the Ukranian city of Pripyat lies completely empty not purely for precautionary reasons, but more likely because perhaps 50,000 citizens were already fatally poisoned or dead, and officials had no other choice but to abandon a valuable city.
Scientists should have nothing to do either with furtive attempts to cover up evidence or to furtively erase evidence from the community's mind. If an issue remains sincerely in dispute, the arguments of both sides of the debate should be laid out, that third parties may see the arguments and weigh them. For example, if the people who want to pooh-pooh global warming want to advance their theories, let them try! Science by political fiat is unacceptable. For this reason, I ask that the question of radiation exposure and aftermath remain an open question in this article, at least until the scientific community reaches consensus. you can reach me at: dontuspam3 (aatt) netscape .net

I'm kind of sketchy on whether any reliable sources support these claims. I have not removed the content from the article, but I think it should be discussed whether this content belongs in the article without sources or whether it can be sourced. I have e-mail this unregistered user at the address they provided, but haven't gotten a response yet.

The changes this user made can be seen on the diff page: [3] --Matthew 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Wing's Study

The following is excerpted from a now deleted webpage:

Dr. Steven Wing, associate professor of epidemiology at the UNC-CH School of Public Health, led a study of cancer cases within 10 miles of the facility from 1975 to 1985. He and colleagues conclude that following the March 28, 1979 accident, lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher downwind of the Three Mile Island (TMI) reactor than upwind.
A paper Wing and colleagues wrote appears in the January issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, scheduled to appear Feb. 24. They first presented their findings last July at the University of Portsmouth in Portsmouth, United Kingdom, at the International Workshop on Radiation Exposures by Nuclear Facilities.

Simesa 21:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roulette by Springsteen

The following text was recently added to the article:

Bruce Springsteen recorded a song titled Roulette about the Three Mile Island Incident.

This statement definitely needs a citation, as the lyrics of the song do not make this readily apparent, though the lyrics could certainly be interpreted as referring the TMI. According to our very own Wikipedia the song Roulette was included on Tracks in 1998:

"Roulette" – 3:57 Recorded at The Power Station on 4/3/79 (From Tracks (album) on Wikipedia)

The TMI accident, according to Wikipedia, occurred on March 28, 1979, so it is conceivable the song could refer to the TMI accident. Anyways, if anyone could find a source for this statement that would be great, I've turned up nothing so far. --Matthew 08:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, this source in passing states that "We're forced to wonder what stopped Springsteen from playing "Roulette" -- inspired by the Three Mile Island incident -- at 1979's "No Nukes" concerts.", but this source is hardly particularly credible. --Matthew 08:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
One more, from an interview with Mark Hagen found on TheBoots.net:
(Interviewer) Roulette was the very first song you recorded for what became The River. It would have been a very different album had you put Roulette on it.
(Mark Hagen) It was the first song we cut for that record and maybe later on I thought it was too specific, and the story I started to tell was more of a general one. I may have just gotten afraid - it went a little over the top, which is what's good about it. In truth it should have probably gotten put on. It would have been one of the best things on the record and it was just a mistake at the time - you get oversensitive when you're going to release the things.
Anyways, this is closer to a reliable source, but it doesn't say anything conclusive. --Matthew 08:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A small change under vs over estimation

In the section "The China Syndrome", I have changed "operators overestimating" to "operators underestimating" I do not have a citation from the movie, but from the incident, the operators overestimated (or misread) the coolant level, the operators did not underestimate the coolent level.209.42.179.144 14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)01/07/2007 09:24 Nick

[edit] Removed a line of text

"Anabanana and kittykat wrote this" I hope its ok for it, I dont think it contributes to the Three Mile Island SACP 06:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trivia -> in popular media

As per WP:TRIVIA, the article doesn't need a trivia section, but the content is good, s I'm Being Bold and changing the title of the section. --RedHillian 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R. William Field's paper

This paper is only available by subscription. For a journal, the one-time cost is $128. We may not have permission to quote from it. I have written to the publisher.

I am concerned that not all of what is in the paragraph came from the paper. Radon does NOT impart a one-time dose of 16,000 mrem - that comes from smoking 1.5 packs of cigarettes for a year [4]. That kind of dose concentration in the open air would certainly have had some other environmental consequences.

The statement that the three surrounding counties had the nation's highest levels of radon is also suspect. Radon is a noble gas and doesn't deposit - radon in the ground seeps upwards from mineral deposits. {Radon#Occurrence may also have to be amended.)

All-in-all a very suspicious set of statements, made by Tinsman on December 30, 2006. Simesa 04:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background Radiation level

"The average person in the US gets about 360 mrem per year from background sources." [5] Simesa 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The image

The image of the reactor is quite interesting, but I wounder if the diagram found in volume 1 of the “Rogovin report.”, which is an exapnded version fo the same diagram would not be more meaningful. It shows some things like the sump pump and Auxilury building. It shows the block and saftey valves properly.

But it's use would mean some of the article text ought to be corrected. Like the 4:15 event being merged into the 4:11 event, as they are actually the same event. The quench tank could not overflow, but what did happen was the rupture disk (diaphragm) broke, letting the radioactive coolant ount into the containment building, which pooled in the sump, and triggered the alarm. (The rogovin report does not mention this alarm though, and says the time was 4:14).

Also the phrasing about the Emergency core cooling pumps should clarify that the pumps where the HPI pumps that were injecting water from the BWST tanks.

To be honest that report is quite interesting reading, despite the terrible OCR done on the PDF copy I was reading. I did notice that while the sump pumps where turned off shortly after they turned on, they must have been restored (or the presure in the containment building must have acted like a pump), because the tank that pumps pumped the coolant to in the Aux building eventually overflowed. This was noticed by the flooding occurring the the AUX building shortly before the site emergency was declared.

I also find it ironic that everything *except* secondary cooling system was shut down by the declaration of the site emergency (the HPI pumps, the primary coolant pumps, and finally the PORV leak shut down via the block valve), when the secondary cooling system was the original problem (but was now running fine via the emergency feedline pumps).

The other important fact is that *Either* of knowing the PORV was stuck open, or having a way to measure water level in the core could have prevented the accident, and instead make the system a routine shutdown for repair of the PORV and main feedwater pumps, or even just fixing them while the system was running. The key was to have the PORV block valve closed, and to have the emergency feedwater pump running the secondary system.


Also, While the report explains how even after the PORV block valve was shut, the radiation levels in the AUX building continue to climb (the reason being that radiation in the primary cooling water was so high that it leaked through the pipes, it did not explain why the readiation levels in the contaiment building where climbing. I'm guessing it was for the same reason. There was annother way in which the Aux building radion level increased, but that one could not have affected the contaiment building.

Whoa... Sorry for the rant. Hope somebody finds it interesting. 66.254.241.199 08:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Doyle?

As far as I know, William Zewe was shift supervisor the night of the accident. Craig Faust and Ed Frederick were the operators on duty. Fred Scheimann was also working as an operator that night. None of these people are referenced, but this "Mike Doyle" is. Michael_F._Doyle does appear to be a Congressman from Pennsylvania. Is this vandalism? Scott Johnson 15:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Saw no objections, so I've fixed this. Scott Johnson 14:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalize the "A" in accident

Isn't it correct to capitalize titles? 72.139.241.181 08:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Tom Homer - Middle of the Night, Beginning of June

moved comment to bottom of talk page
No, it's not: see MOS:CL and WP:NC. Phaunt 11:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why didn't they SCRAM it?

Why did the operators kept trying to fix what was goig on, instead of immediately SCRAMming the reactor? I imagine they believed they knew what they were doing in the beginning, but some time they must have given up... Was it impossible to stop the reaction by full insertion of control rods at this point? (Was it possible in the design, to begin with?) I imagine that the partial melting of the core made this impossible... But didn't they try it?

In other words, this accident is different from the Chernobyl and the SL-1 disasters because it was not an explosion that happened by surprise. They could have scrammed the reactor. The term should be mentioned somewhere in the article! -- NIC1138 02:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It was probably SCRAMed in a matter of seconds after the first event, the failure of the feedwater pump. Everything after that has to do with the decay heat. Even if a reactor is 100% off (which it was in this case) it will still produce about 7% of the heat. This number will decrease as time passes, but even after a day or two, it is an incredible amount of heat. If you let the heat build up with no means to remove the heat, it doesn't matter that it's not producing that much. Decay heat can still melt through any container in the universe given enough time. -Theanphibian (talk •

contribs) 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation!... So, when the article mentions that the "nuclear reactor automatically shut down", this means a SCRAM operation, that is, the full insertion of control rods?... I would like to put that in the article.
Yes. The reactor was scrammed within seconds after the feedwater system tripped. All rod groups were quickly inserted, bringing the reactor subcritical. As other editors have pointed out, though, there was considerable decay heat to be removed. In the nuclear power industry's vernacular, this is generally called a "reactor trip" rather than a SCRAM, although the terms mean the same thing. Scott Johnson 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
So, the problem was that the SCRAMmed core still needed cooling, but the coolant was unavaiable... Now I guess I started to understand the thing... -- NIC1138 02:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. There was no feedwater for some time, so no heat could be removed from the primary system. This caused a pressure rise which exceeded the setpoint of the PORV and caused it to open. The PORV then failed to close and operators failed to notice, resulting in a small break loss of coolant accident (SB-LOCA.) There is a very accurate description of the events at my site on the topic: http://kd4dcy.net/tmi ... I have not put the link on the article due to self-promotion concerns. Scott Johnson 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Relevant?

"It is a common misconception that the water in the cooling tower comes directly from the reactor, and that the visible vapor that often emanates from the cooling tower is contaminated or radioactive."

This is contained in the section "A note on understanding pressurized water nuclear reactors" (A title that could be improved). This is an attempt to debunk a common misconception about nuclear power and whilst true, does not seem relevant to the article. This section would be greatly improved by providing a link to the article on Pressurized_Water_Reactor which deals solely on the relevant technology.--Marmite disaster 10:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And more... If this is relevant it needs to be explained why it's relevant and what the actual construction times were: "The two shortest nuclear power plant construction projects were in this same volatile period, River Bend and St. Lucie-2." •Jim62sch• 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ditto [In experimental "fast breeder" reactors (see also LMFBR), media such as liquid sodium are used for heat dissipation.] •Jim62sch• 22:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ditto bis: [In seaside plants such as San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, cooling towers are not used; salt water is instead pumped in from the ocean to absorb the waste heat and is then pumped back into the ocean where the heat dissipates.] •Jim62sch• 22:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babies' teeth

The parenthetical remark "(a study on babies' teeth is yet to be done)" appears under the section "Health effects and epidemiology". The source is a press release on the website of an advocacy organization. Shouldn't a press release be considered "self-published" and therefore not be used as a source (except in articles about the organization that published the press release)? Leehach 01:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undo of User:Karenjb27's edit explained

Karen's edit was good in that it simplified the explanation. However, the page was showing an error message due to the removal of several ref tags which interrupted the sequence and broke the references. Also, some accurate information about the possibility of water entry into the instrument air system was removed; that possibility is mentioned in the Rogovin and Kemeny commission reports as well as "The Warning" and other published works chronicling the event. I think that information should stay in. No offense intended. Scott Johnson 20:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Btmi3.jpg

Image:Btmi3.jpg 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) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] radiation release numbers added to first paragraph

OK, based on the "Being Bold" wiki editing directive... It seems to me that the tenor of the introductory paragraphs sounds overly reassuring, as if it had been edited by someone in the nuke industry PR department (apologies and all due respect of various authors of the page). Included are phrases like "no immediate deaths or injuries", and "public reaction to the event was probably influenced..." [implied to mean "worsened" or "made more severe than appropriate"] "... by ... the release ... of a popular movie called 'The China Syndrome' ". And, the introductory paragraphs fail to include mention of the actual radioactivity release to the environment, which was significant. Therefore I have taken the liberty of copying to the first paragraph information which appears later in the page, about "It is estimated that a maximum of 13 million curies (480 petabecquerels) of radioactive noble gases were released by the event, though very little of the hazardous iodine-131 was released."; from a note in the discussion page, the I-131 quantity is believed to be under 20 curies (= ~ 740 gigabecquerels); I have mushed all this together into one sentence in the first paragraph. because of the significant radioactivity release to the environment (even if it is true that there were no *human* casualties - and this is somewhat in dispute), this deserves to be mentioned right away in the introduction. hope you all agree. (lanephil, 2/25/2008). Lanephil (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TMI March 1979 eye witness account

I was there. I was 14 and I was in high school the day the reactor started melting down. The sky was hazy and yellowish, the air tasted and smelled like metal. My mother was pregnant and my parents came and pulled me out of school and we evacuated to DC that day. I will NEVER forget the air, the smell and the taste of radiation. I was 15 miles from the plant at the time. You cannot tell me that the central PA population only received mild radiation that day, I was there I saw it I smelled it, I tasted it. My uncle was the only one who did not evacuate, he was 10 miles form the plant at the time of the beginning of the melt down and he died 5 years later of a a rare form of pancreatic cancer. TMI was a huge cover up by thornberg and company, they did nto want to admit they were careless and sloppy and had no real plan to evacuate the community. They lied to us about the core melting down, we found out later how close we all came to being toasted. They never talked about the contaminated fish and crabs that were sold to the public afterwards-- where do you think all that contamination went? Hello Chesapeake bay -- downriver from harrisburg btw!

I do nto know how much radiation I was exposed to during that time but now that it has been over 30 yearsand I am only now starting to relax. BTW I live less than 10 miles from that plant now. First sign of trouble and I am out of here for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.42 (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd... I traced your IP and it indicates you are nowhere near Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.17.18 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Navy IT service is rather centralized, and there's a Navy logistics facility in New Cumberland, PA, FYI. Acroterion (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evacuations

Pregnant women and children within 5 miles of the plant were advised to evacuate on March 31 (Jane Roberts, The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events (1981), p. 195. This would seem to be a worthwhile addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)