[redprince]

PWR is a "Pressurized Water Reactor" using (light) water under pressure as the primary coolant. The Chernobyl block #4 RBMK-1000 was certainly a PWR.

While the precise mechanism by which the #4 reactor in Chernobyl was destroyed in 1986 was rooted in the flawed design combined with unsafe operation, this does not mean that other reactor designs cannot fail catastrophically with loss of containment and release of radioactive material. Particularly when operated outside of their specification through operator error, accidents or a combination thereof.

[beefman]

RBMK is not considered a PWR because it is graphite-moderated. Most reactors are classified first by their moderator. PWRs and BWRs are both LWRs, moderated by light water, as opposed to HWRs moderated by heavy water, or graphite-moderated reactors like RBMK, or fast reactors which have no moderator at all.

Any reactor can fail and any can be operated safely. The reactivity coefficients of RBMK made it harder to control, perhaps, than a PWR. Modifications made after the Chernobyl accident have improved this.

The main issue with Chernobyl 4 was its lack of a containment building. Even so, the response was an over-reaction that made the situation worse.

[hef19898]

RMBKs are an unsafe design. Chernobyl No. 4 was build in an unsafe manner and operated in an unsafe manner.

Not sure which response to the accident was an over-reaction in your opinion so.

[lupusreal]

RBMKs are not PWRs, full stop. You're completely wrong. These terms have clear, precise established meanings, you cannot redefine them willy nilly to suit your rhetorical needs.