Of course, but that's not what happened here. For a pressurized water reactor, there are maintenance and procedural questions about why the rod was dropped. People will likely get fired over this. But from a standpoint of reactor and radiological safety, this is largely the design operating correctly and prioritizing radiological containment.
replyand for the curious who didn't what Chernobyl on HBO, other types of reactors have brief criticality increases on rod insertion, which is somewhere between bad, BAD, and OMFGWTFBBQVERYBAD. In the Chernobyl's case, they entered a criticality region known as "prompt criticality" which is where power doubling can happen at prompt neutron rates (e.g. milliseconds or faster). Very very bad. In the case of pressurized water reactors, this isn't what happens. Every moment of control rod descent is reducing criticality.
reply> Of course, but that's not what happened here
replyThey dropped rods and had to scram, unclear what part of that you think is not relying on a safety feature. Why do you think they scrammed?
>this is largely the design operating correctly and prioritizing radiological containment.
Is that largely what is was, or entirely what it was? Im not sure what your point is.
> there are maintenance and procedural questions about why the rod was dropped.
I agree, that's why I said it.
> People will likely get fired over this.
I dont know why youre telling me this, you're the one that called this a nonevent
The entire point of critical safety features is to turn events into non events.
reply[flagged]
replyExcept no bot would write "chernoble", unless it's manually edited after the fact
replyOr "fukashima", which I think also rules out an AI editing pass at the end. That said, the smell of Claude specifically is pervasive in that comment. Perhaps someone who's ingested a bit too much Anthropic output?
reply"I was in the US nuclear navy, now I work in IT."
reply