>>9971244>>9971526(cont)
If an event like nuclear blast from intentional detonation, or an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) went off, from the sun, or military strike, the cooling system for the cores could be disabled as in Fukushima
You can just say 'disaster'. If you're implying a nuclear reactor core can detonate, you're stupid. If you're just talking about an actual nuclear bomb, then a conventional bomb could potentially knock out a nuclear reactor's systems, so why take a nuke as an example?
>leading to a meltdown where the temperature of the core exceeds the surface of the sun and melts downward into the earthIf the core material were actually that hot it would be a cloud of rapidly expanding gas that would rise up into the atmosphere and disperse. In reality the core temperature can never exceed a temperature far beyond its melting point, because the instant the meltdown occurs the nuclear reaction, which is extremely delicate, stops happening. If only a small portion of the core melts, it freezes in place and requires technicians to conduct repairs. In a very serious meltdown enough materials can melt that it could take hours to cool enough to solidify, but even a few minutes after meltdown the decay heat of the isotopes produced from the now dead nuclear reaction wouldn't be able to keep the mass hot enough to stay liquid, so it hardens.
>releasing a toxic cloud of radioactive smoke which will produce "fallout" all over the worldChernobyl produced a lot of contaminated smoke because the reactor control rods were on fire. We know that carbon rods are a bad idea precisely for this reason, and do not use them in any modern reactors. If for example a CANDU reactor melted down catastrophically somehow, there would be no radioactive fire because there's nothing to burn.
>makes the only sane response to never build the capability in the first place.If you actually believe the massive amounts of misinformation about how nuclear is so scary, you're retarded.
