->“\\\'\\\'Radiation is often depicted as ‘die in seconds from going anywhere near it,’ and this is ridiculous; even absurd levels of radiation still result in exposure victims taking weeks to die.\\\'\\\'”
Well, hours actually, having sustained agonizing radiation burns, but you\\\'re close to having sort of a point. The \\\'\\\'{{Doom}}\\\'\\\' example is pretty dubious, since we have no idea of how radioactive it might\\\'ve been (much like \\\'\\\'DeusEx\\\'\\\', for instance,) however Prypiat\\\'s depiction in \\\'\\\'[=CoD:MW=]\\\'\\\' actually is pretty darned silly, so I guess I\\\'ll put this one back.
->“\\\'\\\'The rest is about the supposed inevitability of catastrophic meltdowns; these are actually virtually impossible barring staggeringly poor design and a catalog of errors, as the later portion on the Chernobyl reactor describes.\\\'\\\'”
Except that interlocks fail, people screw up, and sometimes blueprints simply aren\\\'t followed. Just because facilities have gotten less dangerous and there have been very few serious accidents doesn\\\'t mean the things are incapable of catastrophic meltdown. Worse, a lot of this good operating record is probably due to the work of protesters, who tirelessly dog each nuclear project, examine them for negligence, and repeatedly delay or kill flawed ventures.
Regardless, this has absolutely nothing to do with misunderstanding nuclear physics. Extant generator designs going up like a a-bomb? Flat out impossible. Hosing down its surroundings in deadly fallout? Fact for some, inherent danger for all others.
->“\\\'\\\'Nonsense. There is no possible way radiation from anything that could still exist after 24 years could be so lethal as to act as a stage-bordering wall which kills you in seconds.\\\'\\\'”
Heh, of course not, but there are many isotopes that can remain intensely lethal for weeks or months.
->“\\\'\\\'a fusion chain reaction or meltdown (ie runaway chain reaction) is scientifically nonsensical by definition\\\'\\\'”
Unless a functional generator had to be based on contained miniature h-bomb explosions, or synthetic singularities, or something even stranger, all of which have been seriously proposed.
->“\\\'\\\'And this means it should be removed because...? Yeah, no reason. It happens, I just haven\\\'t had time to go through for examples; anything that uses nuclear test stock footage for an actual deployment would qualify by default. Crysis does it, too.\\\'\\\'”
Because it bloats the article. If you can actually find a screenshot of the \\\'\\\'Crysis\\\'\\\' thing, that would make a good link in an example.
->“\\\'\\\'It\\\'s clarifying what actually happened at Chernobyl. This is relevant since it\\\'s often portrayed inaccurately, or as a model of how every reactor is designed.\\\'\\\'”
Like when? If you want to write a Useful Notes article on atomic power that would actually be cogent and interesting enough to avoid the cut-list, go right on ahead. As is, it\\\'s just… Saying that nuclear physics fails itself? The only legit RealLife example, the Lucifer Project one, is of people making \\\'\\\'absolutely ludicrous\\\'\\\' claims.
->“\\\'\\\'It interests me that in the history of the comment you posted in the wrong place\\\'\\\'”
Sheesh, this is probably the first or second time I\\\'ve used the new system. Cut a guy some slack. [=:-p=]
->“\\\'\\\'It also interests me that you insist on changing the intro from saying nuclear systems are simply ‘technical’ to add that they are ‘dangerous,’\\\'\\\'”
Given that nuclear science is the most dangerous thing humanity has invented, ever, I think that\\\'s pretty relevant. It goads writers into writing about it whether or not they\\\'re familiar, because it\\\'s an \\\'\\\'important topic\\\'\\\' that \\\'\\\'catches the [=audience\\\'s=] attention\\\'\\\'!
->“\\\'\\\'Because, you know, them reactors are known for riding out waving their rebel sabres at the slightest thing.\\\'\\\'”
That they do. Look at India, Pakistan, South Africa, South Korea, and Iran. All of those little disasters are the products of “peaceful” nuclear foreign aid contracts (even better yet, two of them are “South X,” and two are somewhat fresh revolutions!).
->“\\\'\\\'I sense someone with an axe to grind and a very poor understanding of the subject matter trying to edit reality to fit his preconceptions about how scary and horrid nuclear power is. Reminiscent of you deciding you could rewrite NATO nuclear policy\\\'\\\'”
Coming from one who thinks heating things up for a “winnable” Cold War would\\\'ve been a peachy keen idea, that\\\'s pretty rich.
->“\\\'\\\'your claims elsewhere that modern American fighters are unmaneuverable because they\\\'re unstable, really.\\\'\\\'”
So you\\\'re saying that fly-by-wire reliance, relaxed stability, super-low stall speeds and high drag are traits of good aircraft produced by a meritorious design process?
[[center:Eric,]]
