• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Right, it was a test that was conducted as opposed to normal operation of the reactor itself.

    • smegforbrains
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Tests will always have to be conducted to ensure normal operation. That’s nothing out of the ordinary.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        The question is how you conduct the tests, and of course we have learned a lot since that time. Modern reactors incorporate these lessons making them much safer.

        • smegforbrains
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I agree that newer reactors are more safe than old reactors but there’s still a significant risk involved. See Fukushima.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Fukushima is a reactor design from the 70s, and the risk with that design were identified at the time. Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing – the Mark 1 – was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident. The problem with Fukushima was caused by capitalism.

            https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fukushima-mark-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist/story?id=13141287

            • smegforbrains
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              So your saying the reactor was not safe and should have never been built that way? I agree.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                And by extension I’m saying that it has no relevance when discussing modern reactors which do not have the problems Fukushima reactor had. Meaning that you’re trying to use a disingenuous argument to make your point.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    I know you don’t agree. I’ve repeatedly stated that this discussion is pointless because we’re not changing each other’s minds here. It seems like you just want to keep restating what you believe over and over. I don’t know to what end however. As the link I provided in the other reply shows, biosphere is doing just fine after nuclear incidents. If anything, it’s actually doing better in Chernobyl than it did before the accident because humans are now gone from there.