Except it's not a total meltdown. The last reports I've seen suggest it may be a partial meltdown that is still fairly well contained. And people did not say i

Except it's not a total meltdown. The last reports I've seen suggest it may be a partial meltdown that is still fairly well contained. And people did not say it could not melt down. They claimed that even if it did, it would not be a Cherynobl like event. The claim was that the reactor design includes some form of containment in the event of a meltdown. Unless I'm missing some new news, all these claims have held. Your comment bothers me for another reason. The above comments are based on the claims of the engineers who built the reactors. I don't think any of the commenters here have actually designed the nuclear reactors in question. In other words, you are criticizing people for accepting the experts analysis as being unreasonable. Meanwhile, on what do you base your obvious opinion to the contrary? What analysis have you done? Why should anyone value your input?