Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Sorry, I just have to be snarky. Everyone interested in the outcome of this discussion is likely to already be posting in the discussion.
The Mass Effect guys meant the fusion reactor could be kablooie-d. Disabled. Screwed up beyond working or repair. Caused to be an uncontainable reaction. Eighty-sixed. I'd remove the example all together, but then there wouldn't be anything to quibble about.
:)
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
"This fusion reactor is no more! It has ceased to be! This is an ex-fusion-reactor!"
Since we really haven't got a practical working fusion reactor yet, there are any number of possibilities, e.g., some detail of the construction of an (imaginary) fusion reactor involves a part that really can, literally, melt down, or, as already suggested, the term "meltdown" becomes genericized. It's hard to claim the science is wrong when we don't even know what the right science is. Do warp cores really need flux capacitors? :)
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
Just reverse the polarity. Works all the time.
Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.
In any case, the heat involved with a fusion reactor is very likely to be able to cause the reactor to literally melt down, even that isn't exactly what is meant when talking about a fission reactor's meltdown.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
I posted the following entry to Artistic License – Nuclear Physics:
We got into a discussion
over whether the example counted. Can we get a mod ruling?