On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:52:33 -0600, dpb, the mentally deficient,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered again:

On 12/10/2018 12:44 PM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:36:44 -0000, dpb wrote:

On 12/10/2018 9:42 AM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
...

Agreed, all I'm saying is they do go wrong.

But _NO_ commercial reactors have "exploded" from the fuel having had an
uncontrolled chain reaction.

Chernobyl was so destructive because the Russky's didn't build a
containment structure to save $$ and so the fire melted the housing
structure (essentially just a "Butler building") and thus let the smoke
plume disperse the gaseous and light fission products.* But, it was a
conventional fire, not a nuclear explosion that was the event.

Would a nuclear explosion have been a lot worse?* Twice as bad?* 50
million times as bad?* Would it be similar to a nuclear weapon?* Or is
there a big difference in yield?

Of course it would have been, but it's pointless to speculate because
commercial reactor design is such that a supercritical mass required to
have a weapons-type reaction is simply physically impossible to occur.

Looks like we still need some more nuclear plants to cause catastrophes so
that even the most senile among you seniles will learn! BG