[dsfyu404ed]

>How can you even compare what you just said with an enormous nuclear facility meltdown?

That's how an analogy works. You're comparing the difference between two pairs of things that are not comparable.

> measured right behind fukushima and chernobyl, as the third most serious recorded event.

Trying to use a failure at a 1950s Russian nuclear facility as indicative of nuclear safety today is like considering a medieval scaffolding failure as indicative of modern construction safety.

[intertextuality]

It's an astoundingly unintelligent "analogy" at best. Discussing nuclear meltdowns and what caused them is always relevant, whether or not it happened today or 70 years ago.

Talking about it is still important, especially because like most things, human bureaucracy and politics played into it. Having more intelligent designs does not solve human stupidity, laziness, pride, etc.

And even if nuclear safety is much better today, the consequences of failing are still grotesque. In the case of other meltdowns, the surrounding areas are still affected, even today. Doesn't matter whether it melted down today or 100 years ago, those areas are still toxic.

I think nuclear is our only real solution moving forward, but we need to honestly talk about the incidents that occurred, and fix the issues that went wrong with it. You don't get that by covering things up.

[chomp]

It was a bad analogy. If a kid down the street died while drunk driving, you'd definitely tell your kid about it and teach them safe drinking habits.

If a kid in your neighborhood died from playing with a gun, you'd definitely tell your child about it and teach them about handling firearms.

(Assuming they are mature enough to process that information.)

You're right though that using old models of reactors doesn't contribute much signal to the discussion of safe, modern reactors, but it does provide a sense of scale to what happens when humans cut corners to save costs.