Please note this does not mean the USSR wasn’t that way. Just want to clarify I’m not a tankie, lol.

  • Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 hours ago

    If I recall, Chernobyl wasn’t actually a nuclear meltdown or explosion. It was a pressure vessel explosion.

    • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      You are correct, it was a rapid increase in heat that blew the lid and spread radioactive material everywhere, but the was no nuclear detonation.

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Coolant flow stopped and they pushed the rods in rather than out, compounding the heat buildup. It was a pressure cooker explosion, followed by fissile material melting. It didn’t melt down on its own, it was guided.

    • Rato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Was not a nuclear explosion, sure, reactors can’t really explode in the same way as bombs, but it absolutely was a meltdown. Meltdown really just means that the fuel melted, which did happen shortly after the power peak flashed the coolant to steam and blew open the core.

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yep, just to add, it’s entirely possible to have a melt down without any explosion at all. As you said, It just means the fuel melted through the reactor vessel. It can even happen without the fuel going prompt-critical.