I’ve repeatedly posted the same explanation for what sort of boom I meant. I kindly suggest that you learn how to read and stop whining about how I haven’t explained what sort of boom I was referencing.

I don’t care about your “perspective,” I wrote what I wrote. If you didnt read it properly or chose to take it out of context so it became nonsensical that’s on you, not me. If you merely wanted me to provide more details you should have ASKED rather than declaring my statement to be nonsense.

I LOVE LAMP!

Whether the plant is inoperable as a result of the explosion is a major portion of the statement that you claim doesnt make sense. Changing the scope of your argument with me would probably result in you no longer arguing against what I wrote - as we saw earlier when you tried to change it to preventing all explosions…

Obviously the containment failure would start at the weakest point, but I’m going to need something other than your mere opinion that it would result in a static fissure rather than explosive decompression that produces a debris field. The same goes for your claim that the volume of water is insufficient to allow for…

The explosive decompression I’m referencing wouldn’t be caused directly by the explosions themselves, itd be caused by a buildup of pressure that exceeds the design limits of the containment unit. How would the concrete make it more likely that the result would be venting rather than explosive decompression?

A boom certainly means an explosion, but the physical and radioactive consequences of the explosion still result from the explosion. What design features or experts can you point me towards that support your claim that failed containment of an overpressurized environment is unlikely to result in explosive…

A containment failure of pressurized gas seems to me that it would generate a potentially catestrophic debris field via explosive decompression. Even ignoring that potential, a power plant rendered completely inoperable because of excessive radiation seems to me that it would fall under the heading of destroyed.

A boom that destroys the entire power plant rather than just the reactor. Jesus fucking christ, that was the entire point of #2 in the list I posted earlier.

Your grasp of the English language is aparently too weak to realize that I NEVER said “thermal imaging could help keep a REACTOR from ‘going boom.’” The various incorrect meanings that youve been arguing against are wholly the creation of your own mind, I’m not at all responsible for your poor grasp of the English…

You can repeat those narrow conclusions of yours as much as you want, they won’t magically turn into an actual argument that I’m wrong. Just because you said something stupid and dont want to admit it doesnt mean you need to keep repeating it rather than either admitting you’re wrong or slinking off.

I should have known that you would struggle to comprehend the obvious. I’ll try to break it down for you;

Exactly!

That would be an excellent argument if individual nuclear reactors were the entirety of a nuclear power plants. Spoiler: They’re not!

Merely posting conclusions rather than providing any basis for those conclusions is a really stupid way to try to have a discussion or win an argument. It forces me to guess at your rationale and just plain makes you look unintelligent.

At no point have I ever said that it “did something to prevent a boom” I’ve stated from my first post to the explanation that I keep posting for you that they help prevent explosions FROM DESTROYING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. I've pointed this out to you a few times now, but you seem to find that distinction to be…

Are you aware that the final sentence of your post agrees with my claim that containment structures play in preventing steam explosions from destroying nuclear power plants? You keep posting shit like “They do nothing to prevent explosions” as if my claim isn't about what they prevent steam explosions FROM DOING.

If you have an actual argument for why you think my explanation of their role is wrong, feel free to provide it. Ignoring it doesnt make it go away or mean that it’s wrong. Here it is, yet again;

Are you seriously asking me to explain why explosions make a booming noise? No wonder my original post didn’t make sense to you.

You should consult a primer on ad hominems, that post was based on your declaration that my response didn’t make any sense. “You must be confused because you dont think what I wrote makes sense” is not ad hominem, ad hominem is more along the lines of, “Your argument doesn’t make sense BECAUSE you’re confused.”