we are actively, intentionally, bombing a nuclear power plant.

[Into the Night]

Stop the country, I wanna get off.

You can leave the United States any time you want to, Stooge. No one is stopping you.

This is the stupidest thing in this war so far.

What war, Stooge?

It also pretty much guarantees no "off ramp" for hostilities anytime soon.

Cliche fallacy.

Rosatom says situation at Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant keeps deteriorating

The situation at Iran's Bushehr nuclear ‌power plant continues to deteriorate and attacks pose a direct threat to nuclear safety, the head of Russia's state nuclear corporation Rosatom said on Saturday after another strike near the facility.

www.reuters.com

Some random article. What does have to do with anything in your post?

 

[Into the Night]

It violates US and international law.

No such law in the United States. There is no 'international law'.

 

[Into the Night]

AI Overview



Yes, attacking nuclear power plants is generally prohibited under international law and can be considered a war crime
. Under Article 56 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, nuclear electrical generating stations are protected from attack if such action could release radiation and cause severe losses to the civilian population, even if they are legitimate military targets.

You are not AI.
There is no 'international law'.
War is not a crime.

So, using a nuke in war is okay, but not bombing a nuclear power plant or any other nuclear facility.
Right.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Until it doesn't work and then?

You simply flood the containment building. They're designed for that. Shutdown, a PWR needs only sufficient cooling water circulating to remove the small amount of heat from long-term radioactive decay that is occurring. After 14 days, give or take a few, all the short-term decay has occurred.

The absolute worst-case scenario with a reasonably managed PWR is Three-Mile Island. The core suffers a partial meltdown, remains in the reactor vessel, and everything is inside the containment building.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Trump wants another Chernobyl just like his pal Putin.

This is NOT a possibility with a PWR reactor system. PERIOD!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The fact is that heaving explosives at any part of a nuclear power plant is a Dumb Idea.

Only if you intend to hit it with enough to destroy the reactor itself and subsequently spread radioactive material from it. That would generally require a small nuclear weapon with a PWR.

 

[Crepitus]

You can leave the United States any time you want to, Stooge. No one is stopping you.

What war, Stooge?

Cliche fallacy.

Some random article. What does have to do with anything in your post?

The war we are in right now, Larry. The one tRump started to eat up all the recent news cycles so we will forget about the crimes in the epstein files.

 

[Crepitus]

You simply flood the containment building. They're designed for that. Shutdown, a PWR needs only sufficient cooling water circulating to remove the small amount of heat from long-term radioactive decay that is occurring. After 14 days, give or take a few, all the short-term decay has occurred.

The absolute worst-case scenario with a reasonably managed PWR is Three-Mile Island. The core suffers a partial meltdown, remains in the reactor vessel, and everything is inside the containment building.

Fukushima and 3 mile island were designed for that too. Didn't work out so well for either of them.

I said it once, I'll say it again. Throwing explosives anywhere near a nuclear power plant is a bad idea.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Fukushima and 3 mile island were designed for that too. Didn't work out so well for either of them.

Your statement tells me you know NOTHING about nuclear power plants, NOTHING! Fukushima was a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) power plant that lacked secondary containment. No concrete dome over the reactors. Instead, they were in a big tin shed so-to-speak. Had they been had that secondary containment they would have still melted down but everything would have stayed on site, and all the Japanese had to do initially was flood the containment to take care of the issues. They could have taken their time with the clean up.

TMI was a PWR with a secondary containment. The reactor in question suffered a relatively minor operational issue, an open valve on the pressurizer making it difficult to hold the correct pressure on the reactor primary side. Interestingly, this exact same issue happened at Davis-Bessie in Ohio, an identical plant just a few weeks earlier.

The difference between Davis-Bessie and TMI was that the operators at the former correctly identified the issue, got the valve closed and recovered the plant after they scrammed it for safety. At TMI, the operators were flummoxed and did virtually everything wrong. They completely fucked away the situation. Yet, even though the plant suffered a partial meltdown, the secondary containment kept everything within it. Nobody died. Nobody got cancer from that accident. The clean up was done of a number of years and the total cost was less than that for the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the gulf.

So, Fukushima is not an equivalent example. TMI is the same sort of plant, and given that the reactor and primary systems remain in that containment, nothing is likely to happen even if the rest of the plant is flattened into rubble.

I said it once, I'll say it again. Throwing explosives anywhere near a nuclear power plant is a bad idea.

It depends on why you're tossing them. Wars produce destruction. Taking out the generators at that plant along with the distribution system won't affect the reactor side of the plant.

 

[Crepitus]

Your statement tells me you know NOTHING about nuclear power plants, NOTHING! Fukushima was a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) power plant that lacked secondary containment. No concrete dome over the reactors. Instead, they were in a big tin shed so-to-speak. Had they been had that secondary containment they would have still melted down but everything would have stayed on site, and all the Japanese had to do initially was flood the containment to take care of the issues. They could have taken their time with the clean up.

TMI was a PWR with a secondary containment. The reactor in question suffered a relatively minor operational issue, an open valve on the pressurizer making it difficult to hold the correct pressure on the reactor primary side. Interestingly, this exact same issue happened at Davis-Bessie in Ohio, an identical plant just a few weeks earlier.

The difference between Davis-Bessie and TMI was that the operators at the former correctly identified the issue, got the valve closed and recovered the plant after they scrammed it for safety. At TMI, the operators were flummoxed and did virtually everything wrong. They completely fucked away the situation. Yet, even though the plant suffered a partial meltdown, the secondary containment kept everything within it. Nobody died. Nobody got cancer from that accident. The clean up was done of a number of years and the total cost was less than that for the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the gulf.

So, Fukushima is not an equivalent example. TMI is the same sort of plant, and given that the reactor and primary systems remain in that containment, nothing is likely to happen even if the rest of the plant is flattened into rubble.

It depends on why you're tossing them. Wars produce destruction. Taking out the generators at that plant along with the distribution system won't affect the reactor side of the plant.

And it was supposed to have similar safety features.

Which failed..

Like your other example, where they also failed.

And you're OK with throwing bombs at one.

Which makes you not very smart.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And it was supposed to have similar safety features.

Which failed..

Which plant are you talking about here? The safety features at Fukushima were deficient. A big part of that has to do with Japanese culture. The company and management that owned and ran the plant said it was 100% safe. That meant if there were deficiencies in the design, they lied and that would, in turn, cause them to lose face. So, they wouldn't allow any inspections or discussion of upgrading the plant to make it safer. It was already 100% safe and that was that.

Like your other example, where they also failed.

At TMI, the operators failed. The plant was so well designed that the best efforts of the operators to run it incorrectly and even dangerously failed to cause any threat to public safety. That no one died, and no one suffered some sort of medical illness as a result is proof of that.

At Fukushima the plant design and construction failed. At Chernobyl, deliberate, unsafe, operation combined with a shit plant design and construction caused an unmitigated disaster.

And you're OK with throwing bombs at one.

So long as it is a PWR or BWR with a secondary containment and that containment is not breeched, yes.

Which makes you not very smart.

Says someone (you) who knows NOTHING about nuclear power or nuclear power plants.

 

[Into the Night]

The war we are in right now, Larry.

What war, Stooge?

The one tRump started to eat up all the recent news cycles so we will forget about the crimes in the epstein files.

No, I don't forget about the crimes of Democrats. Trump doesn't either.

 

[Into the Night]

You simply flood the containment building. They're designed for that. Shutdown, a PWR needs only sufficient cooling water circulating to remove the small amount of heat from long-term radioactive decay that is occurring. After 14 days, give or take a few, all the short-term decay has occurred.

The absolute worst-case scenario with a reasonably managed PWR is Three-Mile Island. The core suffers a partial meltdown, remains in the reactor vessel, and everything is inside the containment building.

Water like that will absorb neutrons, not heat. It is the neutrons that you want to stop anyway.
There are two water systems. One to absorb the heat of reaction, and carry that to steam turbans to turn a generator shaft. Control rods work by absorbing neutrons. Water can do the same thing, so an emergency shutdown can occur by simply flooding the reactor.

This is why you can store spent fuel in pools.

Radiation accidents:
Chernobyl, a graphite moderated reactor, exploded due poor maintenance and combined operator error. There was no containment.

Daichi plant in Japan, the Ni plant suffered sudden catastrophic damage from a tidal wave. All control to the reactor was lost, including the damping rods. No way to SCRAM it. The core melted and became a twisted mass of metal and nuclear fuel until it solidified underwater. Radiation was limited to the plant, although few high speed neutrons were detected elsewhere. Even fishing wasn't affected much. Japan is big on fishing.

Three Mile Island. A reactor became dangerously low on coolant due to combined indicator failure and operator failure to cross check. Steam was released from the primary cooling system and a pressure relief valve opened in the containment. No radioactive material or other damage to the reactor occured, and it SCRAMed automatically. It was listed as an accident by the Nuclear commission, due to the damage to primary cooling system. Effectively a plant accident, and radiation was limited to the plant site itself. Expensive to repair and re-certify. A movie dramatization was later made, placing the event in California, with obvious intent to scare people about nuclear power plants. To the uneducated (most of the public) about nuclear power, it worked. After that, it became next to impossible to successfully construct a nuclear power plant and get it certified for operation.

The reactor bottles are really pretty tough. To blow it up would take a seriously powerful bomb. Oh, you could bounce it around, but to break it or shatter it would require a lot more and a direct hit. Even then, once the material scatters, all nuclear reactions will stop.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

 

[Into the Night]

Fukushima and 3 mile island were designed for that too. Didn't work out so well for either of them.

I said it once, I'll say it again. Throwing explosives anywhere near a nuclear power plant is a bad idea.

It DID work out for Fukushima (Daichi). The reaction immediately stopped.

 

[Into the Night]

Which plant are you talking about here? The safety features at Fukushima were deficient. A big part of that has to do with Japanese culture. The company and management that owned and ran the plant said it was 100% safe. That meant if there were deficiencies in the design, they lied and that would, in turn, cause them to lose face. So, they wouldn't allow any inspections or discussion of upgrading the plant to make it safer. It was already 100% safe and that was that.

Daichi (Fukushima) systems were quite adequate and designed well. No system is designed to withstand a tidal wave wiping out all the control systems at once. Once the reactor and it's fuel hit the water in a twisted melted mass, the reaction stopped. No significant radiation. The plant, of course, was a complete loss.

At TMI, the operators failed. The plant was so well designed that the best efforts of the operators to run it incorrectly and even dangerously failed to cause any threat to public safety. That no one died, and no one suffered some sort of medical illness as a result is proof of that.

This part is partially true, but a contributing factor was defective instrumentation and operator failure to cross check. The reactor SCRAMed automatically in that event. There was expensive plant damage (the primary cooling system), but no one died or suffered radiation sickness at all.

At Fukushima the plant design and construction failed.

No plant is designed to withstand a direct hit with a tidal wave.

At Chernobyl, deliberate, unsafe, operation combined with a shit plant design and construction caused an unmitigated disaster.

That's the Russians for ya. Build it cheap and put up with the consequences, which in this case, resulted in core material blasted over the immediate area, since they felt it was too expensive to build a containment building of any kind.

So long as it is a PWR or BWR with a secondary containment and that containment is not breeched, yes.

A bomb could breach a containment building, but they are also built pretty tough. You would have to give it a pretty direct hit. The reactor vessel inside is even tougher. You could bounce it around, but breaking it would be much more difficult. Even if you used a bomb and hit it directly enough to break the vessel, the reaction would stop immediate once the material is scattered. No radiation (except enough to increase a Geiger count).

Says someone (you) who knows NOTHING about nuclear power or nuclear power plants.

That is quite obvious. All he knows about nuclear energy he probably watched from the China Syndrome.

 

[Into the Night]

And it was supposed to have similar safety features.

Which failed..

Like your other example, where they also failed.

And you're OK with throwing bombs at one.

Which makes you not very smart.

Let's just say a massive bomb destroyed both the containment building AND the reactor vessel was shattered.
The fuel would be scattered over the area.

The reaction stops immediately.
No radiation (other than an increased Geiger count reading). It's not enough to cause radiation sickness or death.

Nuclear material has to be in close proximity to become critical. Less than that, the reaction stops.