I really don't think many people are lending those kinds of statements a lot of credibility any more.
GE/NRC documents also describe all these multiple layers of containment as an impenetrable defense-in-depth strategy.
Well, it turns out that the outer concrete building is mostly just environmental. The roof blows off and panels blow out. The pressure vessel has an assortment of through-holes for pipes and can't actually be trusted to hold in the temperatures and pressures seen by an actual meltdown. The concrete containment has an achilles' heel in this flimsy toroidial suppression pool.
When it came down to it, none of it was able to hold up to the temperatures and pressures and hydrogen explosions seen in this actual meltdown. Many of us were led to believe that inserting the control rods would immediately "stop the reaction" and prevent a meltdown from occurring.
These reactors melted down, all layers of containment were breached, radioactive materials were released into the environment, rendering a 20km radius uninhabitable for the forseeable future. And this is with the control rods in.
So sorry if people don't simply accept your word that such-and-such "completely contains the nuclear fuel, even during a period of full meltdown". I don't think you really know.
Many of us were led to believe that inserting the control rods would immediately "stop the reaction" and prevent a meltdown from occurring.
I'm not sure how much you were "led" to believe that, given that the control rods became fully inserted immediately after the earthquake, where they did in fact "stop the reaction". The entire crisis revolved around the removal of decay heat, not halting the reactors.
Because explanations to the lay person tended to gloss over the fact that "stopping the reaction" didn't actually stop heat generation and that the core still required months of continuous active cooling until the rate of heat generation was low enough that meltdown.
These reactors were presented as fail-safe systems. It turns out that they do not, in fact, fail into a safe state. They are more like airplanes over the ocean, literally months away from the nearest safe landing spot.
The entire crisis revolved around the removal of decay heat, not halting the reactors.
Perhaps you find that to be a meaningful distinction, but most people do not. Especially when the result is fundamentally similar: a meltdown, containment breach, evacuation, contaminated residential area, etc.
I mean this in the :-) nicest possible way :-), but I don't think you 'get it'.
No, I get it. You're attributing misinterpretation to misinformation, and using that as an excuse to get your facts wrong. It's not that I don't get that, it's that I think that's fallacious, stupid, and wrong.
GE/NRC documents also describe all these multiple layers of containment as an impenetrable defense-in-depth strategy.
Well, it turns out that the outer concrete building is mostly just environmental. The roof blows off and panels blow out. The pressure vessel has an assortment of through-holes for pipes and can't actually be trusted to hold in the temperatures and pressures seen by an actual meltdown. The concrete containment has an achilles' heel in this flimsy toroidial suppression pool.
When it came down to it, none of it was able to hold up to the temperatures and pressures and hydrogen explosions seen in this actual meltdown. Many of us were led to believe that inserting the control rods would immediately "stop the reaction" and prevent a meltdown from occurring.
These reactors melted down, all layers of containment were breached, radioactive materials were released into the environment, rendering a 20km radius uninhabitable for the forseeable future. And this is with the control rods in.
So sorry if people don't simply accept your word that such-and-such "completely contains the nuclear fuel, even during a period of full meltdown". I don't think you really know.