Talk:Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station

Slight wording problem

From the infobox: "Total power generation in 2007 11,227 GW·h " GWh is a unit of energy not power. I don't know how to edit an infobox so someone please take care of it.Leonffs (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with bare links for references

I have have replaced the bare links used as sources for this article with full citations. Hyperlinks frequently break, and without data like news article titles or website page titles, it is often impossible even to know where to look for a replacement source. Archive sites like the Wayback Machine or Google sometimes help, but often do not. For example, the following link from "External links":

• http://www.nukeworker.com/pictures/thumbnails-110.html

now returns an "error 404" (page does not exist), Google can't find it, and the Wayback Machine is offline as I write this. I have therefore removed the link.

In short, bare links should be never be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. You don't necessarily have to create a fully filled-out citation, but at least include basic title and/or descriptive information (date, author) with the reference. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC) - Ageekgal (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding proposed split

Would the person who added the proposal tag to split the article into a (non-existant, at this time) new article entitled 2008 Florida Power blackout please include their rationale for that proposed split here? The fact that there is no article for the blackout yet on Wikipedia (that I'm aware of), and the fact that this article is both very undeveloped and does not contain that much information specific to today's blackout, seems to point to not splitting the article at this time, and without your rationale for tagging it we're left without much to go on. - Ageekgal (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that this should be split. The event was a large scale issue and was not confined to a single plant. Further, there is a lot more information to cover, including effects, causes, fear of terrorism, and investigation. --Kri77777 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is not enough to merit a split. When the section on the blackout reaches a good size, call back. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've added two sources and sentences on the technical details of the blackout, I would like to revisit the decision not to split. Do ​​​you think the section is splittable now? (IMHO it was splittable into a stub even before my edits, but that's clearly not consensus.) Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Surrounding population

I don't understand what makes including the surrounding population relevant to this article. It seems like a random piece of information to put in. --24.26.42.89 (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It appear non-WP:TOPIC. Student7 (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is entirely encyclopedic informtion. Nuclear power plants, unlike many other businesses, have emergency planning zones and evacuation plans. How many people live within certain distances from the plant is certainly relevant, and often the subject of news articles, and we now have authoritative information from the 2010 census data to answer the question. You mentioned coal-fired plants in an earlier editing comment, but those do not have emergency planning zones and evacuation plans. Nor do dry cleaners or fast food restaurants. But nuclear power plants do. It would be appropriate for this information to be in the infobox for every nuclear power plant, but for now it's only in the article text.Extremely hot (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

But the population living 10–50 miles away isn't part of those plans. If you want to make some comparison with Fukushima #1, maybe you can come up with an estimate of the number of Japanese tourists within that area?

—WWoods (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the population within 10 and 50 miles is part of those plans. The population within 10 and 50 miles are the people who will be evacuated. The standard evacuation planning area around nuclear power plants in the U.S. is 10 miles. (See the source article as referenced.) And that zone can be expanded as events require. (See the source article as referenced.) The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recommended that Americans in Japan evacuate an area of 50 miles around Fukushima Dai-ichi. (See the source article as referenced.)Extremely hot (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We have more deaths from hurricanes and tornadoes. We have evacuation plans for hurricanes. Are you suggesting that these plans should be included in all threatened place articles? No real plan for tornadoes. Just a lot of deaths when they strike.

All cities have evacuation plans for terrorist attacks/emergencies. Should those go into articles as well?

Again, why do evacuation plans for any area have to be included in it? Since authorities haven't seen fit to publish them, why must Wikipedia? I suggest that it is because the authorities have decided that it would be silly when their plant has a 1 in 10,000 chance of failing.

There are a lot of things that are "required" for any business. There is probably, somewhere, a plan for earth pollution from a dry cleaner or gas station or chemical spill, requiring the evacuation of an area, but Wikipedia is not required to publish this. Same for drinking water pollution, which every area has. Furthermore, many areas have to periodically boil their water. This is not a "required" subsection in Wikipedia.

In Florida, there is a "pretty good" chance that an area will have to evacuate every five years for a hurricane. Not in place articles, though.

Having said this, there is no reason that a generalized evacuation plan type article could not be included everyplace. But it would include all threats, not merely be restricted to one. And it would be a forked article for places. Maybe a "see also" for chemical plants, nuclear plants, natural gas plants, etc. A "homeland security" type article. Student7 (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This sort of long political diatribe calls into question why one would not want population figures to be in Wikipedia. If you want to defend nuclear power, find another soapbox. That's not the role of Wikipedia. Relevance of this information has been established by the source cited and by events. I am confident that most editors, not blinded by a political view, will see this.Extremely hot (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The source is just playing with numbers. The 10 mile zone may be relivant since it would fall within the evacuation plan. The 50 mile one isn't.©Geni 03:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

From the NRC: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission defines two emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants: a plume exposure pathway zone with a radius of 10 miles (16 km) (concerned primarily with exposure to, and inhalation of, airborne radioactive contamination), and an ingestion pathway zone of about 50 miles (80 km) (concerned primarily with ingestion of food and liquid contaminated by radioactivity).Extremely hot (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Student7, while posting notes asking for clarification, saying you want to know why this information is needed, you're also posting contrary notes, saying that this information is a "no nukes" argument. No. This information answers a straightforward question: How many people live near the plant. Its relevance has been established by the source cited and others: Nuclear power plants have evacuation zones. (I'm on the belief, and it's just a belief, that you understand this.) Please don't let your political views blind you to the addition of relevant facts.Extremely hot (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm updating this page based on the moderated discussion at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Feezo#Surrounding_population, and then will update the other nuclear power plants accordingly.Extremely hot (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Make up your mind

"On February 26, 2008, both reactors were shut down due to the loss of off-site power during a widespread power outage in South Florida, affecting 700,000 customers.[12]

At least 2.5 million people were without power."

Was it 700k, or 2.5 million? --Golbez (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The customer is the person who pays the bills. There's four persons in my household. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent scrams

Is there a reason this article fails to mention the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station's recent problem of multiple scrams? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)