> In magnitude, certainly - but the process (explosion resulting from criticality) is the same. No, this is not true. The uranium isn't enriched enough to do t

> In magnitude, certainly - but the process (explosion resulting from criticality) is the same. No, this is not true. The uranium isn't enriched enough to do this in a nuclear power plant. Check out your own citation above it's a great read. > Your notion that nuclear plant accidents do not cause explosions (they have) I never stated this. In fact we talked about the explosions at chernobyl above in this comment chain. > that those explosions cannot be similar to atomic bombs (they can be) is incorrect. Define similar. The explosions were not similar in that they were not explosions using uncontrolled fission material to cause a reaction in enriched uranium. They were similar in that an explosion occurred that tossed up lots of fission material, similar to what a nuclear weapon would do when exploded but uranium did not itself explode. > especially when the well known details of the highest profile nuclear accident are in opposition to your claim(s). The two well known disasters, chernobyl and fukushima, were very, very old power plants. Fukushima, as far as I can tell, was not fully updated to any of the standard designs in the past 2-3 decades (only retrofitting here and there). Given that I'm not sure what you are referring to or how those two accidents are in opposition to any of my claims.