3 ms·
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
by 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.