Talk:Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Critisism after the "July 2006 incident"

Can someone write about the great amounts of criticism; drunken staff (that was not allowed into the plant however) et.c, that has surfaced the latest weeks (in Sweden, at least). The full internal (confidential, before it leaked to the press) report from the power plant is available from Sveriges Television here (in Swedish). It shows quite a different picture than previous official statements did. This one is full of self-criticism, for example (freely translated) "any immediate improvements can not be seen directly after the transient [incident], even though that should have been the natural course of action". Kricke 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some expansion on the topic is desirable. However, it should be an objectivised viewpoint. I am not sure the report would be referred to as confidential, but rather restricted (though, this is a question of semantics). Noticing that the ISO definition of confidentiality could really be applied to any document ("ensuring that information is accessible only to those authorized to have access"); by this definition we need to define "who is authorised to have access". In this case, the report is sent to SKI (SSM) which is a government authority and thus governed by the Freedom of information legislation act, so would be publicly available, and anyone should be considered authorised. So, bear in mind, the document is stamped as internal (to the company), generally indicating it shouldn't be available to Contractors, rather than making it secret. The incident with drunk staff is ambiguos, as firstly, the influenced people were obviously denied access to the plant, indicating the access control was working rather than the contrary, and secondly, the people in question were Contractors and not employees. Personally, I would be rather disappointed to see any immediate improvements after the event, as this would be a classical ad-hoc solution mitigating the effects instead of investigating root causes. Nonetheless, it is certain that the reasons for shortcomings should be under scrutiny and mitigated. The report does show the process was started, I'd be rather interested to see how it has been followed up! :ExScientiaVera (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

contradictions with Chernobyl article

Chernobyl disaster article:

> on the morning of 28 April[55] workers at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant (approximately 1,100 km (680 mi) from the Chernobyl site) were found to have radioactive particles on their clothes.

this:

> On April 27, 1986, unusually high levels of radiation were detected in workers' clothing

Chernobyl disaster article:

> the evacuation of Pripyat on April 27, 36 hours after the initial explosions, was silently completed before the disaster became known outside the Soviet Union

this:

> Detection of rise of environmental radioactivity at Forsmark was crucial in leading Soviet authorities, originally attempting to cover up the disaster, to admit that a nuclear incident had taken place in Pripyat. This, in turn, was the immediate trigger for evacuation of Pripyat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcp-ip (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary film, The Battle of Chernobyl, gives the following timeline:

30 hours after the explosion, at 11am 27 April "the first security measures were enforced. More than one thousand buses have arrived [in Pripyat]. (*13:00*)
"At 2pm the army announces the city is to be completely evacuated." (Prior to this, there was no information regarding any danger.) Residents were distributed iodine pills. "To avoid panic, the authorities concealed the seriousness of the situation. The inhabitants are given two hours to gather their belongings, and assemble in front of their buildings." They were told they would be gone 3 days. (*13:10*)
"In three and a half hours, 43,000 people are evacuated tearfully, but peacefully." The film shows the time (as a clock in the bottom-right of the screen) as 5pm, 27 April, and I presume that means that evacuation was complete by 5:30pm, which is 3 1/2 hours after 2pm when evacuation was announced. (*15:20*)
"48 hours after the disaster, the only people left in the ghost town are the military personnel and members of the scientific delegation headquartered at the Pripyat Hotel." (*16:25*)
Between the 26th and 27th April, radioactive clouds drift north over 1000km over Russia, then over Belarussia and the Baltics. (*17:20*)
"On the 28th, they [the clouds] hit Sweden, where the rise in radioactivity is detected near one of their nuclear power plants. Soon after, television news alerts the population. Radioactive dust from Chernobyl rains down on Stockholm. The authorities send a squadron of fighter planes to take readings in the clouds. The level of radioactivity suggests there's been a major accident somewhere" (*17:35*)
"60 hours after the disaster, still no official word has been reported outside the Soviet Union." Hans Blix (in interview) speaks: "The Swedish Minister of Energy informed me on the Monday, and I was in my office in Vienna, and he told me that they had measured very much increased radioactivity near our power-plants in Forsmark in the east of Sweden, and they had concluded that it must have come from abroad. 'Did we know anything about it?' was their question, and we said that no, we did not, but we are ready to contact, ah, others, and we contacted the Poles, who, they didn't have a nuclear power-plant, but if there was anything else that could have happened there; and we contacted the Russians of course." Mikhail Gorbachev (in interview) speaks: "All of this happened: an explosion; a radioactive cloud; serious contamination; it was Sweden that alerted us!" (*18:00*)
"Three days after the accident, while Gorbachev is still trying to gather data, American and European spy satellites turn to the Soviet Union and discover the ruins of the Ukrainian plant. The smoke wafting from the gaping hole shows up clearly in thermal vision."
Hans Blix again: "In the evening of that Monday, the 28th it would be, ah, we had a message from Mr. Petrosian [spelling?] who was the head of the atomic energy commission in Russia, ah, in which he told us about the accident. And about the same time the Russians actually released the information to the world." (*19:15*)

This would all indicate that the Chernobyl disaster article is the more accurate. Hopefully some of this helps, either here or at Chernobyl disaster.

I've indicated video time stamps like this— (*12:34*) —in case anyone wants to check or use these as references. You can find this excellent documentary at http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-battle-of-chernobyl/ . Fuzzypeg ★ 11:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously the CNN report cited in the Forsmark article actually says the early morning of the 26 (not the 27). This seems less likely.--Alcea setosa (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked other sources and all are in agreement. The date given in the article, and the (different!) date in the cited CNN report are both plain wrong. Furthermore, the Swedish discovery could not have prompted the evacuation of Pripyat, because Pripyat was evacuated the day before. There was no citation for that false claim. I've fixed the article and I'll remove the contradiction tag. Fuzzypeg ★ 08:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soviets NPOV

The lede currently says "forcing the Soviet government to publicly acknowledge it after almost a day of hiding it from the world" - This seems to me a very contemporary cold-war black-and-white view of the matter. The way I've heard it in the documentations for the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident, was, that the communication between locals and the state government was flawed, and that the Kremlin was not in the slightest aware of the size of the accident. Maybe it would be more correct to say "forcing the Soviet government to investigate the happenings at Chernobyl" --BjKa (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]