On 19 Feb 2021 15:04:03 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 19 Feb 2021 at 12:59:55 GMT, T i m wrote:

On 17 Feb 2021 16:40:11 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

Well the concern would be that a reactor would explode releasing a large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

You mean, just like that and for no apparent reason?

This is the funny thing about left brainers, they can't ever have
'what if' in their thinking.

snip crazy Goblin drool

Just as
reactors don't explode *for* *no* *reason*.

Whoever said they did (so once again your just a left brained babbling
Goblin, making stuff up or trying to twist things I have said (and
even not said))!

Put forward a *reason* why a reactor might explode

snip Goblin drool

I don't need to because they already have (and IDGAF about the reason,
just the consequences).

FACT: no reactor has ever exploded *for* *no* *reason*.

FACT. I nor no one here I've seen has ever said one has
(for_no_reason) ... so any comment on that is just a left brainer
missing the point and flapping their gums.

Actually, some here
have said that no reactor has ever exploded. I wouldn't perhaps go quite that
far in regard to Chernobyl, even if it was a steam and not a nuclear
explosion.

Whatever?

Large amounts of energy were released in a small amount of time,
and the effect that has is a good definition of an explosion.

Yes ... and? Did you actually have a point or is it the meds wearing
off?

Loads of things aren't done or are restricted / limited because of the
*potential* consequences, even though statistically the justification
for doing so is sometimes insignificantly small.

Like, a good few thousand fully Police checked and licensed firearms
holders *had* to give up their legally held equipment because it was
considered that it was 'a risk' to have such thing in the charge of
even checked and approved people, in spite of the fact that the number
of incidents carried out using legally held firearms were very very
small (and specifically by their legal owners).

It's the same as selling knives / fireworks / cross bows to children.
Statistically few use them for bad things but the risks are just too
great (and of course they can get them *illegally*).

So, something that can go wrong will generally go wrong (at some point
or another) and when that happens, the level of concern as seen by
'most people' is generally a function of the range / depth of the
impact / duration of the consequences.

Back to the what if ...

OOI, do you consider the RR SMR's to be 100% perfect? No room for
(safety specifically) improvement whatsoever?

Cheers, T i m