2 ms·

You're literally arguing the same points I made: + It's not the fission material that explodes (like in a bomb) + The explosion is relatively small + Radiati

You're literally arguing the same points I made: + It's not the fission material that explodes (like in a bomb) + The explosion is relatively small + Radiation is then dispersed to the wider area via atmospheric or tidal conditions (like smoke drifting) rather than as a direct result of the explosion All points I was making too. > but the consequences can still be catastrophic and as at Chernobyl the fallout can be similar to that from a nuclear weapon I never said there wouldn't be radioactive fallout nor that it wouldn't be catastrophic. I said it's a slower risk (days rather than seconds), easier to contain (relatively speaking) and it wouldn't take out half of Europe. You're not actually disagreeing with anything I've stated despite phrasing your comment as if it were a correction. Chernobyl was caused by several days of mismanagement. It wasn't something that happened over night. Fukushima took more than 24 hours after the tsunami for the first hydrogen explosion and the others were several days later. And it was a week after the tsunami before the situation escalated into a meltdown too. To be clear: I'm not saying waging a fight inside a nuclear power station isn't a dangerous and stupid thing to do. What I'm saying is it's not comparable to a nuke exploding.

simonh 5y ago
I disagree on the conclusion that damage to a nuclear reactor is a 'slow risk'. The Chernobyl explosion and open rector core fire, which spewed vast quantities of radioactive material into the atmosphere, occurred within a few hours and minutes of the mistakes that triggered them. It's plausible to imagine a few artillery shells into a plant's cooling system could lead to a similar chain of events and a catastrophic explosive contamination event.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  > The Chernobyl explosion and open rector core fire, which spewed vast quantities of radioactive material into the atmosphere, occurred within a few hours of the mistake that triggered them. Chernobyl was a very unique situation though. They almost engineered that disaster to happen with the mistakes that they made. We've learned a lot since then too. That all said, you do make a very strong argument with your next sentence: > It's plausible to imagine a few artillery shells into a plant's cooling system could lead to a similar chain of events. Indeed. That is a very good point.

simonh 5y ago

I disagree on the conclusion that damage to a nuclear reactor is a 'slow risk'. The Chernobyl explosion and open rector core fire, which spewed vast quantities of radioactive material into the atmosphere, occurred within a few hours and minutes of the mistakes that triggered them. It's plausible to imagine a few artillery shells into a plant's cooling system could lead to a similar chain of events and a catastrophic explosive contamination event.

hnlmorg 5y ago
> The Chernobyl explosion and open rector core fire, which spewed vast quantities of radioactive material into the atmosphere, occurred within a few hours of the mistake that triggered them. Chernobyl was a very unique situation though. They almost engineered that disaster to happen with the mistakes that they made. We've learned a lot since then too. That all said, you do make a very strong argument with your next sentence: > It's plausible to imagine a few artillery shells into a plant's cooling system could lead to a similar chain of events. Indeed. That is a very good point.