• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    You said catastrophic failure in the same context as loss of life and land. That is what I was responding to, and it is incorrect.

    • Cosmic Cleric
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      You said catastrophic failure in the same context as loss of life and land. That is what I was responding to, and it is incorrect.

      No, I didn’t. Three Mile Island was a catastrophic failure, but it didn’t explode in the same way that Fukushima or Chernobyl did.

      Catastrophic means a complete and utter failure of the machine. How that failure manifests and effects can be different under each case. Again, Three Mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, all had catastrophic failures, all manifested and affected differently.

      You made an incorrect assumption, a presumption on your part based on a single word, and then you’re tried to force that on me, as words that I actually said which is wrong, as that’s not what I said.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        So, again, if those three examples are what you mean by catastrophic failure, then my assumption was correct. None of them were due to maintenance failures or being in service too long. Catastrophic failure is not a failure mode for a modern reactor past its service life.

        • Cosmic Cleric
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          Catastrophic failure is not a failure mode for a modern reactor past its service life.

          Catastrophic failure is an engineering term, and also general language term, to describe when a device that breaks down completely, or breaks down in such a way that it’s completely unusable.

          You’re assuming I use that word just to explain a huge explosion and loss of life, which is possible as a side effect of catastrophic failure, but not necessarily, like 3 Mile island.