Steve Thackery wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

As regards the plot, though, it's fiction

Of course it's fiction!! What on earth are you talking about? Nobody has
said it's a documentary!

The "China
Syndrome" was a casual term used in the US nuclear industry at that
time to refer to a meltdown

Got any proof of that?

Here's a quote for you from Wikipedia:

"In 1971, nuclear physicist Ralph Lapp used the term "China syndrome"
to describe the burn-through of the reactor vessel, the penetration
of the concrete below it, and the emergence of a mass of hot fuel
into the soil below the reactor. He based his statements on the
report of a task force of nuclear physicists headed by Dr. W.K.
Ergen, published in 1967.

Then they're all unbelievably stupid, regardless of their qualifications.
Where on earth did they get the idea to which the words China Syndrome are
meant to relate? What were those words meant to convey?



[3] The dangers of such a hypothetical
accident were publicized by the 1979 film, The China Syndrome."

If you (conveniently) don't trust Wikipedia, there are lots more
references around. Look it up for yourself.

It certainly illustrates how the producers' drive for profit can
make the title of a film blatantly compromise the truth.

Norman, you are losing the plot!! It's just a drama about a failure
mode referred to in the nuclear industry by the term "China
Syndrome", and the fundamental theme of the film (indeed, the ONLY
theme) is that the commercial drive for profits may compromise
nuclear safety, possibly even leading to a meltdown.

So, it's fiction, as I said. It bears as little relationship to reality as
the words China Syndrome do. Anyone wanting to rely on it to support their
argument must be pretty desperate.


That's all. Norman, I think you need to chill out a bit!

Thanks for the advice. I don't want to burn right through to New Zealand
now, do I?