I never mastered the English language, I can roughly communicate in English, French and Spanish, but I am only able to fully express myself in Italian or Portuguese, you can pick and choose, and I'll write you the most beautifull and perfect piece of literature.
There may be structural faults in my language, both A and B, but that's because I simply do not have enough time to devote to it.
If you accept to disable your language safety systems, and promise you won't denounce me to the language NKVD, we can stick to the ideas found in between the lines.
You see, the idea is: Something that isn't built to explode and explodes is considered a failure in my book, something that is built to explode and doesn't explode is also a failure.
If you can reproduce the disaster in other nuclear facilities, those designs are a failure too, if you can't reproduce it, they're successfull.
That was the idea, that was my point, that was what led to my words.
For example, if the design of the Titanic was different so that it wouldn't sink under the same circumstances or if it wasn't commanded carelessly, I would consider it a successfull ship, and so on.
I had to base myself on the fact the RBMK reactor design is what allowed for the disaster to occur and also that there are different designs both old and new, that wouldn't allow the same chain of events to occur, not that the original RBMKs are isolated, there are some reactors elsewhere in the world that share some of the same faults, there's a reason why the RBMK's were improved and that's because they were unstable under the same circumstances that led to the disaster (the same test was executed before and the reactor behaved differently), if they were flawless as you say they wouldn't have had to go through so many improvements. But if a word game is what you want, I'd say:
The Chernobyl design was so good, but so good, that the reactor was so powerfull it just didn't want to stop generating energy.
If the British are willing to pay for the construction, I can offer a reactor design to Estonia that is safer than their RBMK, even with the many improvements, not that the same disaster would happen again, it's just that there are other designs easier to control, even if not as good propaganda tools as the first RBMKs were.
|