Quote from: AbelsFire on August 16, 2012, 02:59:48 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on August 16, 2012, 02:50:57 PM

My problem is that the people on wikipedia claim that meltdown is impossible, and that is simply not true.

Please explain what a "meltdown" means in the context of a liquid fueled reactor?

nit-picking aside the definition still holds true, that is the reactor is operating on close or above peak output with the cooling inoperable. Once that situation occurs and you can't do anything about it you'll have a meltdown.

What's melting is vital parts of the reactor itself not the fuel. That could be gas for all I care.

Quote from: Skrivitor on August 16, 2012, 02:57:55 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on August 16, 2012, 02:50:57 PM

This is probably safer than the reactors running in current powerplants, but nowhere as safe as conventional power.

Which conventional power is safe? Greenhouse emissions aside, I just heard a story about cows being exposed to the exhaust from Coal fired generators can get cancer. Then when human's eat the cow cancer antibodies and protein (which are not destroyed by cooking) they cause problems. Anyone who thinks there is such a thing as "safe" power is dreaming.

I am speaking of current state of the art, since this is about technology even beyond that I think that is only fair. I doubt this article was about a state of the art powerplant.
Yes there will always be some danger associated with it, but till I see an example to the contrary I maintain my opinion that nuclear power is more dangerous.

The safest commonly used power source is hydropower and while it still is harmful to the ecosystem it has the least impact on human civilization.