This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the China syndrome (nuclear meltdown) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/022006/02042006/165527 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.65.243 (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 nuclear physicist and author of "Atomic Awakening", Dr. James Mahaffey, the "China Syndrome" was an inside joke in nuke circles, started during the cleanup of the Fermi I meltdown in Michigan, 1967. It pertains only to fast breeder reactors and is mythical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.226.61.96 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
I have twice reverted a change of the last sentence in the article to the following:
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)
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)
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)
Bottom line: a longstand meme in the USA is "digging a hole to China", imagining that China was directly opposite the States. Beyond this, it refers the supposed difficulties of comprehending a Spherical Earth -- "So, people in China are walking upside-down!?" -- and it went from there. Beyond that, "China Syndrome" sounds exotic and scary (Ironically, despite the "leftism" of many of the major actors in this movie, "China Syndrome" certainly has a hint of racism to it -- but I digress.). Again, bottom line, its from the meme of a Spherical (Spheroid, I suppose) Earth, and a yokel's (or child's) concept that one could thus "dig a hole to China" (where people walk upside-down, and hamburgers eat people.) :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.56.24 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
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).
"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)
Also, why is a citation needed here?
"If radioactive slag reached the water table beneath the reactor building, the resulting steam could throw radioactive material into the air, producing fallout.[citation needed] "
Is there any doubt that hot radioactive material hitting water would create radioactive steam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.56.26 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
Responding to the Wiki China Syndrome article and the comments below, and looking up Wiki article on the "Earth's inner core" I note the comment that "the Inner core may be hotter than the sun's surface". Taking that into consideration, gravity and where China is at any given point is the least of our worries!! I don't mean to cause a panic, but if it is possible for reactor material to reach the core of the earth, we're all in BIG trouble!!
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.
Quickcomment (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This article should have a scientific explanation. The continuous removal of this information by Johnfos makes the presented information bias, as is shown by his interest in 'anti-nuclear movement' on his profile. The technical information provided is accurate, cited, and an uneducated man should not be using Wikipedia as a source of social propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsougia2 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Here to offer a third opinion. I think this sentence, now being reverted and replaced, "This concept and reference however is a phrase limited to the popular understanding of nuclear power and has no technical or scientific bearing whatsoever," should remain where it is, perhaps with a tweak or two, to balance the lead. Without it, the "China Syndrome" might seem a scientific theory. RomaC (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
An error in the science section of this article. "...by convection throughout the mantle, which is in any case kept liquid by natural nuclear decay. " The mantle is not liquid (not even the asthenosphere), it is solid-plastic. This sentence should be changed to be,"...kept hot by natural nuclear decay." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgressett (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not too thrilled with the second sentence of this article which states "The origin of the phrase is the fact that molten material from an American reactor..." Later in the article, this sentence appears: "The China syndrome becomes fictional in the hypothesis of it boring a hole from the United States to China..." The article itself makes it clear to a reader that it is not a 'fact' that a core could melt through the core to China, and the first paragraph should reflect this. Fact should be changed to "Conjecture", or something that does not imply truth. Cythro (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The last parts of the text look like they were edited by a 2-year old. Please fix that.2.80.211.205 (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Some comments on the anonymous, uncited edits I'm reverting:
1) It's made pretty clear by the lede that the scenario is hypothetical. We don't need to add "fictional" and "fictitious" to a bunch of subsequent sentences.
2) Fuel melting may occur when part, or all, of the fuel produces more heat than is being removed--this is simple physics. Whether or not the control rods are uncovered is irrelevant. In fact, in many reactor designs, the coolant is also the moderator, loss of which will stop the fission reaction.
3) There is no such thing as a "solid molten mass".
4) If the molten material stops within the containment vessel or building, is is not a "China syndrome" event, and thus outside of the scope of this article. You may reference the WP article on "meltdown" but this one is not such.
5) Please don't add empty sections ("== Scientific explanation of why this is not possible ==").
Let's remember, please, that this entire article is about a sort-of-silly figure of speech coined years ago by a reporter. Let's not let it grow out of proportion to its purpose.
Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 15:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks to me like the headings 'scientific explanation' and 'scientific explanation of why this is not possible' were added by someone who thought there should be such an explanation rather than someone able to give one. I removed the second heading which had no text and retitled the first to make it more neutral. In general sections that have to describe themselves as scientific are probably not. The section itself is a mess, lots of unsourced heresay.
The real point being made in the term is rhetorical. Once the reactor vessel is breached, there is nothing to stop a catastrophe. It is a question of what the catastrophe will be, not whether. If the reactor did actually melt down it would probably burn a hole in the bottom of the vessel and then the pressurized steam built up would explode out the bottom sending the containment vessel upwards like a rocket. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.39.121 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The section of the article pertaining to the hydrogen explosions at this site by no means hold any relevance to "china syndrom". It is simply hyperbole that is disingenous at best. I am deleting this section; as this kind of topic does not need a "concern" section relating to every nuclear reactor. In short: there is no evidence of any nuclear explosion or meltdown at Fukushima and thus no grounds for "concern" relating to a hypothetical analogy from the 1970s.
Also, it appears the 3-Mile Island "was not" section was created days ago in some kind of attempt to legitimise the creation of 'Fukushima'. I feel slightly compelled to omit this irrelevance too; but as it is a historically documented (actual) nuclear incident, and the time of that event; I believe is hold just enough relevance. 119.161.71.12 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)M0F0truez
Update: "Architect of Fukushima Daiichi Reactor 3, Uehara Haruo, the former president of Saga University," said on Nov. 17 2011 thyat "China syndrome is inevitable" at Fukushima. http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/11/architect-of-reactor-3-warns-massive-hydrovolcanic-explosion/ Clearly, he's not talking about radiation burning through to the Earth's core, but to the extent he used the term China Syndrome, then it appears that some nuclear reactor experts believe the term can be applied to a phenomenon currently occurring at Fukushima. ZanesDad (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Since the article asserts that people think China is on the other side of the world, it's useful to explain what actually is on the other side of the world. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we require a reference for the assertion that many Americans believe that China is the US' antipode? I don't know that there's any survey to that effect (!) and my hunch (which I can't reference either) is that "China = other side of the world" is also widely used by people who know full well that it's incorrect but still find it fun to use. I've seen it used in Germany and France. Pichpich (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The china syndrome is a work of science fiction, it is a 100% impossible senario. I am a nuclear controls engineer, I know what I am talking about. It is a FAR less likely senario that the scenario proposed by the movie 'the day after tomorrow' which is also ficticous.
This article is being edited by those with an interest in spreading propaganda about nuclear. This is blatantly obvious due to the nature of the finely tuned wording which misleads the reader into thinking this is a feasible senario without blatantly lieing... i.e. propaganda. This is science fiction, not science fact [period]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.2.156 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, you seem to be a very reasonable person so I appoligize if I was rude. But this article needs to make clear that this is a ficticous scenario. Right now, as I read it, I would get the impression this is a possible and likely result of a nuclear meltdown. You might want to add additional details about the origins of the scenario which actually claimed that the core could melt through the earth and create a radio active volcano. I've actually seen this claimed as fact on a couple PBS documentaries from the 80s. I am a little pissed at the moment yes, 20,000 people are dead in Japan from a quake and tsunami, and those in power take it as an opurtunity to push a no nuke agenda by covering a meltdown far more than the tsunami. The meltdown will never have 1/1000th the devestation caused by this natural disaster...(citation needed) i.e. the plant was designed very well; to build something to the point where, when failure occurs, the effects of the cause of the failure will be far greater than the failure itself, you cannot ask for any better a design. Sorry again, but seriously, make it clear this is fiction... its not even hypothetical. I don't have time for the next month because I am moving, but would like to add an entire section devoted to why this is an impossible senario, with sources. You ok with this? I would LOVE to see a section refuting this if anyone honestly thinks this, or anything along these lines, can actually happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.2.156 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, this thing seems to creep out of it's topic box faster than kudzu growing during an Atlanta summer. I've been editing here with the understanding that the article is about the (fanciful, fictional, made-up; pick one) term (see above) and nothing more. It's especially not a catch-all for all things radioactive, hot and/or gooey.
So, here's the question: It ain't my article and I certainly don't want to go against consensus but, on the other hand, I feel really strongly that this article should remain short and factual--especially now, considering current events.
What do y'all think? Let's discuss it. (But let's stay calm--that's really the only way to get things done here.)
Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I definitely agree. 119.161.71.12 (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)M0F02018
I took a little shot at getting the text back into design spec. Any comments? — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought this phenomenon was called the China Syndrome because the nuclear core could possibly burn right through the earth through the planet to the other side, not because it could just break it's containment vessel, isn't that what it means? Not that it could happen, but isn't that where the term comes from? And, I wonder if it could why they cover the core with sand, concrete, why not launch into space/the sun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.38.183 (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)