Comments:Crisis at stricken Japan nuclear plant escalates to level of Chernobyl; six killed in aftershock

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Comments from feedback form - "Good."

Good.

67.68.193.235 (talk)00:10, 18 April 2011

Comments from feedback form - "WORST THING IVE EVER SEEN"

WORST THING IVE EVER SEEN

76.173.9.173 (talk)00:24, 16 April 2011

I feel the headline is a tad misleading, it could make it seem that six people have died in an explosion at the plant whereas they died in an unrelated incident in the mudslide.

This did unfortunately make me feel that the article was trying to be like the tabloids. linking in basically unrelated stories of death from the tsunamis in order to increase the perception of absolute carnage at the power plant even though it is absent.

What would have been good is if an investigation in to this severity scale had been conducted. A scale of seven seems very inadequate to me for something so serious and the fact the actual volume of radioactive materials in fukujima is a tenth of chernobyl suggest that the scale is meaningless if they're both rated a seven!

Mcchino64 (talk)08:22, 13 April 2011

Comments from feedback form - "One of the best pieces I've se..."

One of the best pieces I've seen on Wikinew's, thanks for this.

69.246.24.87 (talk)19:51, 12 April 2011

Comments from feedback form - "Why isn't until the 6th paragr..."

Why isn't until the 6th paragraph that the Fukushima plant is actually named in the article? Horrible writing.

76.175.151.139 (talk)17:55, 12 April 2011

The Safety of Nuclear Power Plants

I personally have no fears of nuclear power plants in and of themselves. What disturbs me is electric companies in a hurry to get the plant on line and making money or wanting to increase their profits and decrease the time it takes for a plant to pay for itself by cutting corners. In the early days of nuclear power plants, I believe it was Admiral Nimitz who remarked that there were people running the reactors that he wouldn't have swabbing the decks on his nuclear-powered aircraft carrier; in effect saying that companies were also cutting corners in the training of their employees. I would also like to comment on the fact that protestors against nuclear power plants seem to consist of every occupation except nuclear physicists. When I hear of scientists and physicists saying that nuclear power is unsafe in and of itself, then I will shift my position.

Scarabrae (talk)14:00, 12 April 2011