Discussion History Main / FlyingBrick

This is you inventing a problem out of thin air. 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. No substance that was so radioactive would last more than a few minutes because it would be decaying unbelievably quickly, so the very \\\'\\\'presence\\\'\\\' of such a thing, unless you happen to be standing next to a particle accelerator making the stuff when you encounter it, fails nuclear physics forever. 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.

Also, I\\\'m bemused by your logic here: saying that radiation exposure isn\\\'t as staggeringly dangerous as often depicted is \\\"fallacious\\\" because large doses are lethal? How are the two statements even related to each other?

->\\\'\\\'Unless an example is added where a specific quantity in Grays is falaciously deemed sufficiently dangerous for a knowledgable individual to go out of their way in avoiding it, this sort of nonsense shouldn\\\'t be here.\\\'\\\'

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. Radioactive waste is not weak lava. You\\\'re trying to invent a problem out of thin air so you can remove annoying facts that don\\\'t fit your worldview.

->\\\'\\\'Once again, nobody has built a fusion generator, nobody knows if it\\\'s possible to do so, and our current experiments with tokamaks may thus prove to be a complete dead end. Don\\\'t confuse science fiction with science fact.\\\'\\\'

Nobody is confusing science fiction with science fact. We know how nuclear fusion works. It doesn\\\'t matter if building a real fusion reactor turns out to be \\\'\\\'impossible\\\'\\\'; a fusion chain reaction or meltdown (ie runaway chain reaction) is scientifically nonsensical \\\'\\\'by definition\\\'\\\', and is simply a case of lazy writers assuming fusion is just fission but biggar and using the same terminology for both. Nuclear fusion simply does not work that way.

->\\\'\\\'While this is mildly interesting, it is also trivia with zero examples.\\\'\\\'

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.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, that had nothing to do with the trope at all.\\\'\\\'

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.

It interests me that in the history of the comment you posted in the wrong place, you described the first section as \\\"apologist trivia,\\\" and the Chernobyl section as a \\\"sob story.\\\" It also interests me that you insist on changing the intro from saying nuclear systems are simply \\\"technical\\\" to add that they are \\\"dangerous,\\\" even though this addition makes no sense at all in context; why would their being dangerous \\\'\\\'but\\\'\\\' technical have any more relevance to fiction making errors than their simply being technical? In much the same way, you previously put quotes around \\\"peaceful\\\" in \\\"peaceful nuclear technology.\\\" Because, you know, them reactors are known for riding out waving their rebel sabres at the slightest thing.

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 and your claims elsewhere that modern American fighters are unmaneuverable because they\\\'re unstable, really.

This is you inventing a problem out of thin air. 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. No substance that was so radioactive would last more than a few minutes because it would be decaying unbelievably quickly, so the very \\\'\\\'presence\\\'\\\' of such a thing, unless you happen to be standing next to a particle accelerator making the stuff when you encounter it, fails nuclear physics forever. 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.

Also, I\\\'m bemused by your logic here: saying that radiation exposure isn\\\'t as staggeringly dangerous as often depicted is \\\"fallacious\\\" because large doses are lethal? How are the two statements even related to each other?

->\\\'\\\'Unless an example is added where a specific quantity in Grays is falaciously deemed sufficiently dangerous for a knowledgable individual to go out of their way in avoiding it, this sort of nonsense shouldn\\\'t be here.\\\'\\\'

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. Radioactive waste is not weak lava. You\\\'re trying to invent a problem out of thin air so you can remove annoying facts that don\\\'t fit your worldview.

->\\\'\\\'Once again, nobody has built a fusion generator, nobody knows if it\\\'s possible to do so, and our current experiments with tokamaks may thus prove to be a complete dead end. Don\\\'t confuse science fiction with science fact.\\\'\\\'

Nobody is confusing science fiction with science fact. We know how nuclear fusion works. It doesn\\\'t matter if building a real fusion reactor turns out to be \\\'\\\'impossible\\\'\\\'; a fusion chain reaction or meltdown (ie runaway chain reaction) is scientifically nonsensical \\\'\\\'by definition\\\'\\\', and is simply a case of lazy writers assuming fusion is just fission but biggar and using the same terminology for both. Nuclear fusion simply does not work that way.

->\\\'\\\'While this is mildly interesting, it is also trivia with zero examples.\\\'\\\'

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.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, that had nothing to do with the trope at all.\\\'\\\'

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.

It interests me that in the history of the comment you posted in the wrong place, you described the first section as \\\"apologist trivia,\\\" and the Chernobyl section as a \\\"sob story.\\\" It also interests me that you insist on changing the intro from saying nuclear systems are simply \\\"technical\\\" to add that they are \\\"dangerous,\\\" even though this addition makes no sense at all in context; why would their being dangerous \\\'\\\'but\\\'\\\' technical have any more relevance to fiction making errors than their simply being technical? In much the same way, you previously put quotes around \\\"peaceful\\\" in \\\"peaceful nuclear technology.\\\" Because, you know, them reactors are known for riding out waving their rebel sabres at the slightest thing.

I sense someone with an axe to grind and a very poor understanding of the subject matter. Reminiscent of you deciding you could rewrite NATO nuclear policy and your claims elsewhere that modern American fighters are unmaneuverable because they\\\'re unstable, really.

This is you inventing a problem out of thin air. 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. No substance that was so radioactive would last more than a few minutes because it would be decaying unbelievably quickly, so the very \\\'\\\'presence\\\'\\\' of such a thing, unless you happen to be standing next to a particle accelerator making the stuff when you encounter it, fails nuclear physics forever. 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.

Also, I\\\'m bemused by your logic here: saying that radiation exposure isn\\\'t as staggeringly dangerous as often depicted is \\\"fallacious\\\" because large doses are lethal? How are the two statements even related to each other?

->\\\'\\\'Unless an example is added where a specific quantity in Grays is falaciously deemed sufficiently dangerous for a knowledgable individual to go out of their way in avoiding it, this sort of nonsense shouldn\\\'t be here.\\\'\\\'

Nonsense. There is no possible way radiation can be so lethal as to act as a stage-bordering \\\'\\\'wall\\\'\\\' which kills you in seconds. Radioactive waste is not weak lava. You\\\'re trying to invent a problem out of thin air so you can remove annoying facts that don\\\'t fit your worldview.

->\\\'\\\'Once again, nobody has built a fusion generator, nobody knows if it\\\'s possible to do so, and our current experiments with tokamaks may thus prove to be a complete dead end. Don\\\'t confuse science fiction with science fact.\\\'\\\'

Nobody is confusing science fiction with science fact. We know how nuclear fusion works. It doesn\\\'t matter if building a real fusion reactor turns out to be \\\'\\\'impossible\\\'\\\'; a fusion chain reaction or meltdown (ie runaway chain reaction) is scientifically nonsensical \\\'\\\'by definition\\\'\\\', and is simply a case of lazy writers assuming fusion is just fission but biggar and using the same terminology for both. Nuclear fusion simply does not work that way.

->\\\'\\\'While this is mildly interesting, it is also trivia with zero examples.\\\'\\\'

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.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, that had nothing to do with the trope at all.\\\'\\\'

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.

It interests me that in the history of the comment you posted in the wrong place, you described the first section as \\\"apologist trivia,\\\" and the Chernobyl section as a \\\"sob story.\\\" It also interests me that you insist on changing the intro from saying nuclear systems are simply \\\"technical\\\" to add that they are \\\"dangerous,\\\" even though this addition makes no sense at all in context; why would their being dangerous \\\'\\\'but\\\'\\\' technical have any more relevance to fiction making errors than their simply being technical? In much the same way, you previously put quotes around \\\"peaceful\\\" in \\\"peaceful nuclear technology.\\\" Because, you know, them reactors are known for riding out waving their rebel sabres at the slightest thing.

I sense someone with an axe to grind and a very poor understanding of the subject matter. Reminiscent of you deciding you could rewrite NATO nuclear policy and your claims elsewhere that modern American fighters are unmaneuverable because they\\\'re unstable, really.

This is you inventing a problem out of thin air. 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. No substance that was so radioactive would last more than a few minutes because it would be decaying unbelievably quickly, so the very \\\'\\\'presence\\\'\\\' of such a thing, unless you happen to be standing next to a particle accelerator making the stuff when you encounter it, fails nuclear physics forever. 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.

Also, I\\\'m bemused by your logic here: saying that radiation exposure isn\\\'t as staggeringly dangerous as often depicted is \\\"fallacious\\\" because large doses are lethal? How are the two statements even related to each other?

->\\\'\\\'Unless an example is added where a specific quantity in Grays is falaciously deemed sufficiently dangerous for a knowledgable individual to go out of their way in avoiding it, this sort of nonsense shouldn\\\'t be here.\\\'\\\'

Nonsense. There is no possible way radiation can be so lethal as to act as a stage-bordering \\\'\\\'wall\\\'\\\' which kills you in seconds. Radioactive waste is not weak lava. You\\\'re trying to invent a problem out of thin air so you can remove annoying facts that don\\\'t fit your worldview.

->\\\'\\\'Once again, nobody has built a fusion generator, nobody knows if it\\\'s possible to do so, and our current experiments with tokamaks may thus prove to be a complete dead end. Don\\\'t confuse science fiction with science fact.\\\'\\\'

Nobody is confusing science fiction with science fact. We know how nuclear fusion works. It doesn\\\'t matter if building a real fusion reactor turns out to be \\\'\\\'impossible\\\'\\\'; a fusion chain reaction or meltdown (ie runaway chain reaction) is scientifically nonsensical \\\'\\\'by definition\\\'\\\', and is simply a case of lazy writers assuming fusion is just fission but biggar and using the same terminology for both. Nuclear fusion simply does not work that way.

->\\\'\\\'While this is mildly interesting, it is also trivia with zero examples.\\\'\\\'

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.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, that had nothing to do with the trope at all.\\\'\\\'

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.

It interests me that in the history of the comment you posted in the wrong place, you described the first section as \\\"apologist trivia,\\\" and the Chernobyl section as a \\\"sob story.\\\" It also interests me that you insist on changing the intro from saying nuclear systems are simply \\\"technical\\\" to add that they are \\\"dangerous,\\\" even though this addition makes no sense at all in context; why would their being dangerous \\\'\\\'but\\\'\\\' technical have any more relevance to fiction making errors than their simply being technical?

I sense someone with an axe to grind and a very poor understanding of the subject matter. Reminiscent of you deciding you could rewrite NATO nuclear policy and your claims elsewhere that modern American fighters are unmaneuverable because they\\\'re unstable, really.

This is you inventing a problem out of thin air. 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. No substance that was so radioactive would last more than a few minutes because it would be decaying unbelievably quickly, so the very \\\'\\\'presence\\\'\\\' of such a thing, unless you happen to be standing next to a particle accelerator making the stuff when you encounter it, fails nuclear physics forever. 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.

Also, I\\\'m bemused by your logic here: saying that radiation exposure isn\\\'t as staggeringly dangerous as often depicted is \\\"fallacious\\\" because large doses are lethal? How are the two statements even related to each other?

->\\\'\\\'Unless an example is added where a specific quantity in Grays is falaciously deemed sufficiently dangerous for a knowledgable individual to go out of their way in avoiding it, this sort of nonsense shouldn\\\'t be here.\\\'\\\'

Nonsense. There is no possible way radiation can be so lethal as to act as a stage-bordering \\\'\\\'wall\\\'\\\' which kills you in seconds. Radioactive waste is not weak lava. You\\\'re trying to invent a problem out of thin air so you can remove annoying facts that don\\\'t fit your worldview.

->\\\'\\\'Once again, nobody has built a fusion generator, nobody knows if it\\\'s possible to do so, and our current experiments with tokamaks may thus prove to be a complete dead end. Don\\\'t confuse science fiction with science fact.\\\'\\\'

Nobody is confusing science fiction with science fact. We know how nuclear fusion works. It doesn\\\'t matter if building a real fusion reactor turns out to be \\\'\\\'impossible\\\'\\\'; a fusion chain reaction or meltdown (ie runaway chain reaction) is scientifically nonsensical \\\'\\\'by definition\\\'\\\', and is simply a case of lazy writers assuming fusion is just fission but biggar and using the same terminology for both. Nuclear fusion simply does not work that way.

->\\\'\\\'While this is mildly interesting, it is also trivia with zero examples.\\\'\\\'

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.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, that had nothing to do with the trope at all.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s clarifying what actually happened at Chernobyl. This is relevant since it\\\'s often portrayed inaccurately.

It interests me that in the history of the comment you posted in the wrong place, you described the first section as \\\"apologist trivia,\\\" and the Chernobyl section as a \\\"sob story.\\\" It also interests me that you insist on changing the intro from saying nuclear systems are simply \\\"technical\\\" to add that they are \\\"dangerous,\\\" even though this addition makes no sense at all in context; why would their being dangerous \\\'\\\'but\\\'\\\' technical have any more relevance to fiction making errors than their simply being technical?

I sense someone with an axe to grind and a very poor understanding of the subject matter. Reminiscent of you deciding you could rewrite NATO nuclear policy and your claims elsewhere that modern American fighters are unmaneuverable because they\\\'re unstable, really.

This is you inventing a problem out of thin air. 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. No substance that was so radioactive would last more than a few minutes because it would be decaying unbelievably quickly, so the very \\\'\\\'presence\\\'\\\' of such a thing, unless you happen to be standing next to a particle accelerator making the stuff when you encounter it, fails nuclear physics forever. 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.

Also, I\\\'m bemused by your logic here: saying that radiation exposure isn\\\'t as staggeringly dangerous as often depicted is \\\"fallacious\\\" because large doses are lethal? How are the two statements even related to each other?

->\\\'\\\'Unless an example is added where a specific quantity in Grays is falaciously deemed sufficiently dangerous for a knowledgable individual to go out of their way in avoiding it, this sort of nonsense shouldn\\\'t be here.\\\'\\\'

Nonsense. There is no possible way radiation can be so lethal as to act as a stage-bordering \\\'\\\'wall\\\'\\\' which kills you in seconds. Radioactive waste is not weak lava. You\\\'re trying to invent a problem out of thin air so you can remove annoying facts that don\\\'t fit your worldview.

->\\\'\\\'Once again, nobody has built a fusion generator, nobody knows if it\\\'s possible to do so, and our current experiments with tokamaks may thus prove to be a complete dead end. Don\\\'t confuse science fiction with science fact.\\\'\\\'

Nobody is confusing science fiction with science fact. We know how nuclear fusion works. It doesn\\\'t matter if building a real fusion reactor turns out to be \\\'\\\'impossible\\\'\\\'; a fusion chain reaction or meltdown (ie runaway chain reaction) is scientifically nonsensical \\\'\\\'by definition\\\'\\\', and is simply a case of lazy writers assuming fusion is just fission but biggar and using the same terminology for both. Nuclear fusion simply does not work that way.

->\\\'\\\'While this is mildly interesting, it is also trivia with zero examples.\\\'\\\'

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.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, that had nothing to do with the trope at all.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s clarifying what actually happened at Chernobyl. This is relevant since it\\\'s often portrayed inaccurately.

It interests me that in the history of the comment you posted in the wrong place, you described the first section as \\\"apologist trivia,\\\" the Chernobyl section as a \\\"sob story.\\\" It also interests me that you insist on changing the intro from saying nuclear systems are simply \\\"technical\\\" to add that they are \\\"dangerous,\\\" even though this addition makes no sense at all in context; why would their being dangerous \\\'\\\'but\\\'\\\' technical have any more relevance to fiction making errors than their simply being technical?

I sense someone with an axe to grind and a very poor understanding of the subject matter. Reminiscent of you deciding you could rewrite NATO nuclear policy and your claims elsewhere that modern American fighters are unmaneuverable because they\\\'re unstable, really.

This is you inventing a problem out of thin air. 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. No substance that was so radioactive would last more than a few minutes because it would be decaying unbelievably quickly, so the very \\\'\\\'presence\\\'\\\' of such a thing, unless you happen to be standing next to a particle accelerator making the stuff when you encounter it, fails nuclear physics forever. 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.

Also, I\\\'m bemused by your logic here: saying that radiation exposure isn\\\'t as staggeringly dangerous as often depicted is \\\"fallacious\\\" because large doses are lethal? How are the two statements even related to each other?

->\\\'\\\'Unless an example is added where a specific quantity in Grays is falaciously deemed sufficiently dangerous for a knowledgable individual to go out of their way in avoiding it, this sort of nonsense shouldn\\\'t be here.\\\'\\\'

Nonsense. There is no possible way radiation can be so lethal as to act as a stage-bordering \\\'\\\'wall\\\'\\\' which kills you in seconds. Radioactive waste is not weak lava. You\\\'re trying to invent a problem out of thin air so you can remove annoying facts that don\\\'t fit your worldview.

->\\\'\\\'Once again, nobody has built a fusion generator, nobody knows if it\\\'s possible to do so, and our current experiments with tokamaks may thus prove to be a complete dead end. Don\\\'t confuse science fiction with science fact.\\\'\\\'

Nobody is confusing science fiction with science fact. We know how nuclear fusion works. It doesn\\\'t matter if building a real fusion reactor turns out to be \\\'\\\'impossible\\\'\\\'; a fusion chain reaction or meltdown (ie runaway chain reaction) is scientifically nonsensical \\\'\\\'by definition\\\'\\\', and is simply a case of lazy writers assuming fusion is just fission but biggar and using the same terminology for both. Nuclear fusion simply does not work that way.

->\\\'\\\'While this is mildly interesting, it is also trivia with zero examples.\\\'\\\'

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.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, that had nothing to do with the trope at all.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s clarifying what actually happened at Chernobyl. This is relevant since it\\\'s often portrayed inaccurately.

It interests me that in the history of the comment you posted in the wrong place, you described the first section as \\\"apologist trivia,\\\" the Chernobyl section as a \\\"sob story\\\" and insist on changing the intro from saying nuclear systems are simply \\\"technical\\\" to that they are \\\"dangerous\\\" (even though this addition makes no sense at all in context). I sense someone with an axe to grind and a very poor understanding of the subject matter. Reminiscent of you deciding you could rewrite NATO nuclear policy and your claims elsewhere that modern American fighters are unmaneuverable because they\\\'re unstable, really.

This is you inventing a problem out of thin air. 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. 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.

Also, I\\\'m bemused by your logic here: saying that radiation exposure isn\\\'t as staggeringly dangerous as often depicted is \\\"fallacious\\\" because large doses are lethal? How are the two statements even related to each other?

->\\\'\\\'Unless an example is added where a specific quantity in Grays is falaciously deemed sufficiently dangerous for a knowledgable individual to go out of their way in avoiding it, this sort of nonsense shouldn\\\'t be here.\\\'\\\'

Nonsense. There is no possible way radiation can be so lethal as to act as a stage-bordering \\\'\\\'wall\\\'\\\' which kills you in seconds. Radioactive waste is not weak lava. You\\\'re trying to invent a problem out of thin air so you can remove annoying facts that don\\\'t fit your worldview.

->\\\'\\\'Once again, nobody has built a fusion generator, nobody knows if it\\\'s possible to do so, and our current experiments with tokamaks may thus prove to be a complete dead end. Don\\\'t confuse science fiction with science fact.\\\'\\\'

Nobody is confusing science fiction with science fact. We know how nuclear fusion works. It doesn\\\'t matter if building a real fusion reactor turns out to be \\\'\\\'impossible\\\'\\\'; a fusion chain reaction or meltdown (ie runaway chain reaction) is scientifically nonsensical \\\'\\\'by definition\\\'\\\', and is simply a case of lazy writers assuming fusion is just fission but biggar and using the same terminology for both. Nuclear fusion simply does not work that way.

->\\\'\\\'While this is mildly interesting, it is also trivia with zero examples.\\\'\\\'

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.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, that had nothing to do with the trope at all.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s clarifying what actually happened at Chernobyl. This is relevant since it\\\'s often portrayed inaccurately.

It interests me that in the history of the comment you posted in the wrong place, you described the first section as \\\"apologist trivia,\\\" the Chernobyl section as a \\\"sob story\\\" and insist on changing the intro from saying nuclear systems are simply \\\"technical\\\" to that they are \\\"dangerous\\\" (even though this addition makes no sense at all in context). I sense someone with an axe to grind and a very poor understanding of the subject matter. Reminiscent of you deciding you could rewrite NATO nuclear policy and your claims elsewhere that modern American fighters are unmaneuverable because they\\\'re unstable, really.

This is you inventing a problem out of thin air. 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. 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.

Also, I\\\'m bemused by your logic here: saying that radiation exposure isn\\\'t as staggeringly dangerous as often depicted is \\\"fallacious\\\" because large doses are lethal? How are the two statements even related to each other?

->\\\'\\\'Unless an example is added where a specific quantity in Grays is falaciously deemed sufficiently dangerous for a knowledgable individual to go out of their way in avoiding it, this sort of nonsense shouldn\\\'t be here.\\\'\\\'

Nonsense. There is no possible way radiation can be so lethal as to act as a stage-bordering \\\'\\\'wall\\\'\\\' which kills you in seconds. Radioactive waste is not weak lava. You\\\'re trying to invent a problem out of thin air so you can remove annoying facts that don\\\'t fit your worldview.

->\\\'\\\'Once again, nobody has built a fusion generator, nobody knows if it\\\'s possible to do so, and our current experiments with tokamaks may thus prove to be a complete dead end. Don\\\'t confuse science fiction with science fact.\\\'\\\'

Nobody is confusing science fiction with science fact. We know how nuclear fusion works. It doesn\\\'t matter if building a real fusion reactor turns out to be \\\'\\\'impossible\\\'\\\'; a fusion chain reaction or meltdown (ie runaway chain reaction) is scientifically nonsensical \\\'\\\'by definition\\\'\\\', and is simply a case of lazy writers assuming fusion is just fission but biggar and using the same terminology for both. Nuclear fusion simply does not work that way.

->\\\'\\\'While this is mildly interesting, it is also trivia with zero examples.\\\'\\\'

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.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, that had nothing to do with the trope at all.\\\'\\\'

It\\\'s clarifying what actually happened at Chernobyl. This is relevant since it\\\'s often portrayed inaccurately.

It interests me that in the history of the comment you posted in the wrong place, you described the first section as \\\"apologist trivia,\\\" the Chernobyl section as a \\\"sob story\\\" and insist on changing the intro from saying nuclear systems are simply \\\"technical\\\" to that they are \\\"dangerous\\\" (even though this addition makes no sense at all in context). I sense someone with an axe to grind and a very poor understanding of the subject matter. Reminiscent of you deciding you could rewrite NATO nuclear policy and your claims elsewhere that the F-22 is unmaneuverable because it\\\'s unstable, really.

->\\\'\\\'Aside from the fact that getting tiny (hurriedly summarized) operating details of particular models of nuclear reactor exactly right verges on splitting hairs, saying that small amounts of radiation are perfectly safe ignores the fact that LARGE amounts of radiation are very dangerous, and is thus a meaningless statement.\\\'\\\'