[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.