Talk:The China Syndrome

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

California: Southern California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force.

Fair use rationale for Image:China syndrome.jpg[edit]

Image:China syndrome.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

security people[edit]

"implication that the company's security people" - should be clarified - the movie implicates the construction company's security, not the power company's security. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldercarb (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not "main water pump"[edit]

I quote from the Plot section, "to delay restarting the reactor until the main water pump can be disassembled and inspected." That is incorrect. There is no such thing as a "main water pump" in a nuclear power plant. You either have a main feedwater pump (MFP) or a reactor coolant pump (RCP) (I'm talking about PWRs). A MFP is part of the secondary side located in the turbine building and takes suction off the main condenser and pumps water into the steam generators (secondary loop). A RCP is used to provide forced cooling to the reactor core by circulating reactor coolant water through the reactor vessel and steam generators (primary loop). In the movie, he was investigating the RCP as he was inside containment. I will leave this discussion up for a while to give others time to comment, then I will edit the article. Gilawson (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.254.33 (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Get a life"?...pffft! I welcome an engineering critique of the film. 184.45.3.233 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WELL SAID: an Engineering discussion is mandatory; just see the evolving situation in the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant after the March 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami caused initial accident. It is the usual stupid people believing "Nothing Happens" which makes serious accidents more frequent than ever. Who were the "brilliant" design team engineers that took the Tsunami Wave prediction data and believed (quite innocently) that the Emergency Diesel Generators were safely located in the basement of the installation, ready to be inundated with a larger Tsunami wave, risking a core meltdown and the release of radiation we have seen in the news. The ignorant person that wrote "get-a-life" clearly does not understand a thing about Nuclear accidents. Regarding the movie, "The China Syndrome" film was not perfectly written or completely accurate, but the timing and purpose were an extremely well aimed shot. As finantial and economic pressures of the actual ultracapitalist world are more and more irrational, the possibility of a money-saving malpractice conducting to an accident is even more probable than in 1979, regardless of so called "Technology Advances". I agree a better depiction of the cooling system failure was in order, few films are truly correct from a technical stanpoint, but they serve the purpose of informing and sometimes, educating the public. amclaussen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.19 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect/misleading information in lede[edit]

The last paragraph of the lede says:

"The title is a shorthand for a nuclear meltdown in which reactor components melt through their containment structures (and then 'melt through the Earth until reaching China' (see China Syndrome), though this is not intended to be taken literally)."

However, this is incorrect. The term is a fanciful phrase coined in the early 1970s to describe one possible result of a severe loss of coolant accident in a nuclear reactor.

It was never proposed that material from such an event would get very far into the ground, much less penetrate the crust of the planet, and saying anything to the contrary is a disservice to our readers.

I'll fix it but I wanted to toss it out here first to see if anyone wanted to say anything before I do. Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my recollection, the theory then, promulgated by the ill informed, was that a complete nuclear reactor core meltdown would melt through the Earth until it hit the water table and generated a massive steam explosion that would then spread the corium over a vast area. I say ill informed because key concepts were that the curium would manage to stay fissioning AND not explosively disassemble AND it would have to also manage to melt through concrete and steel and stone without diluting itself. As was evidenced in Fukushima and Chernobyl, no such event did occur. The corium was diluted by the control rods and structure of the core itself, the pressure vessel components that melted with it, the concrete and criticality never occurred or would occur. One only assumes the worst possible scenario to ensure it could not occur when designing the facility.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The density of nuclear fuel is so high it wouldn't mix with, and be diluted by the concrete, and steel structure. In Cernobyl The hot fuel, described by responders as like lava, was working its way through the ground toward some large water tanks which if it reached them was predicted by the responders to have resulted in an 8 megaton steam explosion. Several men sacrificed their lives to open critical valves to drain the water tanks preventing an even more massive disaster. 98.164.64.26 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]