This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Low‑importance 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. Environment Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This important and recent source, http://www.miller-mccune.com/science_environment/50-years-after-nuclear-meltdown-1438 has been removed from the article, see [1], and generally the article downplays the whole accident. Johnfos (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In particular, I find the 'comparison to other nuclear accidents' section problematic. The IAEA has not issued a INES value for the SRE partial meltdown, and it is inappropriate for a speculative value of 3 to be listed, especially as it seems downplay the severity. The advisory panel of scientists created in 2001 spent 5 years researching the incident and concluded that it likely released 459 times as many curies of radiation as the Three Mile Island disaster and resulted in 260 cases of cancer in the surrounding population, see http://www.ssflpanel.org/.

I am removing the invented value of a Level 3 INES classification.--IBrow1000 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads like a power company press release on valium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.52.75 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many more references are needed in this article. Six paragraphs have no citations and many other points are unreferenced. The lead needs references too, see WP:LEAD#citations. Also, there is too much reliance on the Jarett interim report. A wider range of sources would be good. Johnfos (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on BORAX-III, Arco, Idaho was powered for one hour on July 17, 1955. Little info is available. I am not sure if that was continued for more experiments, or whether the power grid was used, or what. In either case, this is way before SRE was even fueled. On another note, I think there is a Soviet claim to this, also, which predates Arco. I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author(s) evince a thinly-veiled (easily pierced) Bias towards Nuclear power -Deferring to naive 50'd Standards over Current Knowledge.

In one paragraph Author(s) conflate 'No Data' with 'Non-Occurrence' - which reappear later: "The document states that only radioactive xenon-133 and krypton-85 were found in the cover gas. Attempts to detect radioactive iodine-131 were unsuccessful; this was not explained by Atomics International at the time."

Next para, cite Non-Public '60s docs to portray Now- Verboten dumping of "Hot" gasses to air

"Internal Atomics International memoranda show the gases were removed from the reactor following the incident and stored in tanks, where they were allowed to decay and then slowly released into the atmosphere."

As a last example, author(s) dryly allege that " "A contrasting viewpoint, based on the technical analysis prepared for Boeing, was not presented at the hearing."

...implying (sans foot-notes) that the only possible explanation was that Boeing had been unfairly deprived of its opportunity to present 'exonerating evidence'. 172.250.69.244 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meltdown of fuel elements is not a core meltdown as stated in the following edit. The editor cited a long part of Nuclear meltdown article, missing the closing point: "It has been defined to mean the accidental melting of the core of a nuclear reactor." Fuel elements meltdown is not a core meltdown. Here also a layman definition from the Encyclopædia Britannica.
And I would like to remember to avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates over the content, where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors. And avoid long summaries: for discussions use the talk page. Robertiki (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources in the article body use the term "meltdown". It seems important summary information to include in the lead. meltdown of fuel elements is not a core meltdown is a novel opinion which we ignore per WP:NOR. VQuakr (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link a reputable sample ? --Robertiki (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Are you so lazy or incompetent that you can't even do a simple text search of the article yourself? A simple text search shows FOUR sources use the word "meltdown" in their title. Please read WP:CIR. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Let's keep the term "meltdown" to mean a damaging, unintended melting of the core, as happened in this experiment. I think what you are trying to say is that not all melting events should be called "meltdowns". Metal-fueled reactors, like the IFR, rely on melting of the fuel without damage to the cladding, to provide inherent safety when the core gets too hot. David MacQuigg 11:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]