Template:Did you know nominations/Fukushima nuclear accident

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Royiswariii talk 00:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Fukushima nuclear accident

(

)

The Town of Namie (population 21,000) was evacuated as a result of the accident.

... that residents evacuated in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident were exposed to so little radiation that radiation-induced health effects are likely to be below detectable levels?

Source: "Outside the geographical areas most affected by radiation, even in locations within Fuku-

shima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer

above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated" page 8: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/78218/9789241505130_eng.pdf;jsessionid=5D2A9C6FCDE7BA3C9686CED940B05E3A?sequence=1

- ALT1: ... that during the Fukushima nuclear accident officials were told not to use the phrase "core meltdown" in order to conceal the meltdown until they officially recognized it two months after the accident? Source: " Tepco asked a third-party panel to investigate the matter and the panel released a report on 16 June saying the company’s then-president, Masataka Shimizu, had instructed officials not to use the words "core meltdown"." https://www.neimagazine.com/news/tepco-concealed-core-meltdowns-during-fukushima-accident-4931915/
- ALT2: ... that the Fukushima nuclear accident was foreseeable and preventable? Source: "The accident "cannot be regarded as a natural disaster," the panel's chairman, Tokyo University professor emeritus Kiyoshi Kurokawa, wrote in the report. "It was a profoundly manmade disaster -- that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response."" https://www.smh.com.au/world/fukushima-nuclear-accident--manmade-not-natural--disaster-20120705-21jrl.html
- Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Czarking0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Czarking0 (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC).

@Czarking0: I'll start by addressing WP:DYKNEW. This article last appeared at In the news on 12 April 2011, and the on this day on 11 March 2023. This was over one year ago, so it can go on the main page again.

The article recently became a good article so it is eligible for DYK. Earwig's is not working so i'll assume good faith when it comes to copyvios. QPQ not needed.

I'll review ALT0 (I think it is the most interesting). The hook matches the article.

I'm worried about the source for this hook because it is a preliminary report, which uses predictions of health effects rather than observations. It also doesn't say about the evacuations and also says In the highest dose location ... For leukaemia, the lifetime risks are predicted to increase by up to around 7% over baseline cancer rates in males exposed as infants However, a 2020 source says that No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the FDNPS accident. So I'll approve, with caution. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Panamitsu I worded ALT0 this way because claiming that there will never be health effects has been contentious. Follow up studies have not found health effects directly attributable to the radiation from the accident. However the cleanup remains on going and many children born in the years after the accident are still young. Additionally, increased thyriod cancer rates have been found but it is hard to directly attribute these to the accident.Czarking0 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Panamitsu, in light of the possible issues with ALT0, could you review the other hooks? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure. ALT1:

Is in the article, is interesting, and is verified by the source.

ALT2:

Is in the article, is intersting, and is verified by the source.

Both ALT1 and ALT2 look good. I would prefer to use these over ALT0 due to the issues I mentioned previously. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)