On 25/02/2021 16:04, T i m wrote:
On 19 Feb 2021 17:16:09 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

FACT: no reactor has ever exploded *for* *no* *reason*. 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. Large amounts of energy were released in a small amount of time,
and the effect that has is a good definition of an explosion.

All right : No reactor has ever suffered a *nuclear* explosion...nor
ever will...

Well you have to spell it out in words of one syllable for some who would
otherwise mistake the overheard fart made by a plant operator for a nuclear
explosion.

Aww bless, the left brainers slowly catching up and explaining what
I've been saying all along to each other. Awwwww. ;-)

Now you seem to have got that bit, let's try moving the idea on a bit
(I appreciate ideas' aren't your thing, just black / white facts (as
you see them) etc ...).

Now, if a(traditional) explosion happens of power 'x', then anyone
within 'y' meters could be perfectly safe.

Have that same explosion but this time wrap the explosives with nails
and bolts, the people standing at 'y' meters could now be at risk.

(Don't worry, those people aren't you and it wouldn't matter if it was
someone else etc).

That 'damage radius' could be extended to say a couple of thousand
miles or more, if any toxin / pollutant could be carried by the wind
and then settles or washed down onto the ground below.

Which will decay naturally.

Now this is what I call pollution as an alterntaive to nuclear power:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...gest-coal-mine

The issue is having a balanced view on sourcing energy, a bit like
natural balanced diets.