[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Here is another nit I will pick until it bleeds and scabs over.

You are correct in that the definition of "meltdown" needs to be understood. The term meltdown has different meanings to nuclear engineers and the National Inquirer to give two extreme examples.

A meltdown occurs when there is a break in the containment vessel where the primary cause is high temps where the bottom (usually) of the containment vessel cracks, spalds, decays, melts or otherwise busts due to heat. Containment vessels can break due to other factors but they are not commonly referred to as meltdowns.

A nuclear explosion does not result from a nuclear meltdown because, by design, the geometry and composition of the reactor core do not permit the special conditions necessary for a nuclear explosion. However, the conditions that cause a meltdown may cause a non-nuclear explosion. For example, several power excursion accidents have caused coolant to rapidly overpressurize, resulting in a steam explosion.


You raise an interesting point. After some consideration, I have decided that I will agree with you on this one.

Originally, I was going to split hairs over the definition by positing things like the above quote. However, I see how I am being misleading by not classifying these incidents as meltdowns. Such is the danger of believing what what wants to believe, and why I appreciate good arguments like this.

So, thank you.