[shadowgovt]

Probably not. Reactors generally can't melt down the way Chernobyl did anymore. The most significant risk is a breach of the reactor chamber fragmenting the fuel rofs and spreading radioactive particles around, or a hit to the spent fuel stores doing the same.

Neither are good, but they wouldn't be nearly as bad as Chernobyl or a nuclear weapon strike.

[throwanem]

Nobody builds RBMK-style uncontained graphite piles any longer, but that's a long way from saying meltdowns are no longer possible.

[throwawayboise]

There are 8 RBMK reactors still operating, though all are in Russia.

[nl]

> Reactors generally can't melt down the way Chernobyl did anymore.

a) "the way Chernobyl did" is technically correct (the VVER reactor that Zaporizhzhia is uses a difference containment strategy), but a distinction without meaning - a meltdown is a meltdown.

b) "anymore" - Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant was built between 1980 and 1996.

It's true that it is a safer design than Chernobyl, but yes it absolutely can still meltdown.

> The most significant risk is a breach of the reactor chamber fragmenting the fuel rods and spreading radioactive particles around

Note that this "spreading radioactive particles around" is probably more dangerous to health than a meltdown.

[pdpi]

> Note that this "spreading radioactive particles around" is probably more dangerous to health than a meltdown.

Put in different terms: We're basically talking about the equivalent of a dirty bomb.

[akiselev]

A dirty bomb with as much as 30,000 kg of radioactive fuel and waste.

[marcosdumay]

> a meltdown is a meltdown

I'd say that how much radioactive waste gets expelled or leaked and how much energy goes into it makes all the difference in the world and each meltdown is probably unique.

[mdanger007]

nuclear scientist @CherylRofer is worried about the ongoing fighting around the administrative building. some highly trained people keep that place from melting down and now they've got bullets whizzing by their head and fires breaking out in their offices.

[estro0182]

Ok this is good to know, thanks for clarifying. While not nearly as bad as the two scenarios listed, spreading radioactive particles near a population center of civilians could be grounds to consider this a nuclear war, intentional or not. Not on the same scale as a deliberate nuclear attack of course.

[sabujp]

if it can be bad as fukushima then it's bad