So, in your mind, was keeping Chernobyl operating by lying to the workers and shortening their lives was the right move simply because they eventually stopped coming down with radiation sickness? I dont think so, but you appear conflicted.

Can you link me to your source that the turbines were operational?

Are you saying that the turbines in the hall were still operational after that or are you saying that the hall was rebuilt so the plant could become operational again?

If you look in the lower/mid right corner you should be able to see the holes in the turbine hall roof.

But if you look at the aerial photos you can see where debris from the explosion made holes in the turbine hall roof. Additionally, I dont think its really possible to disagree that the accident made the entire plant impossible to operate properly (aka, without guaranteeing the early death of basically everyone that…

But didn’t the explosion wreck the turbines and render the entire plant impossible to operate safely?

He's ot waiting for 2017, it’s happening July 18-21.

You claim that it’s impossible for a steam explosion to destroy a nuclear power plant, but isn’t that what happened in Chernobyl? I get that the Chernobyl model isnt the same one used by France, but pressurized water seems to offer the possibility of a steam explosion just the same.

Excellent, see how easy that was?

It actually IS material to the discussion because

A zombie argument is any argument relting on a claim that I’ve presented an argument against and you abandoned it rather than form a counterargument. Your very FIRST claim in that post is one! Go run off and construct a counterargument rather than just bleating your claims.

“Said something” is an awfully weak characterization of me repeatedly correcting your misinterpretation of my claim. Even now you STILL repeat it. If you can’t grasp basic English what makes you think you “explained” why my claim is wrong?

Do you think merely writing “and you fail” magically defeats the arguments I used to support my near-immediate clarification of “go boom”? Go read my explanations for “go boom” and then ask an adult how constructing a counterargument works.

7/01/16 9:49am

I can see how you could read it that way, so heres another link for you;

Awesome, you’re ctually LEARNING! Isnt that FUN for you? Now you can scurry off and find the post where I explained to you why “prevention of explosions” is a wildly inaccurate description of what I claimed they were used for. I've only done it about a dozen times here, it shouldnt be too hard for you to find one.

Wasting your time writing a “thorough” response when you very clearly have no idea whats going on is a MASSIVE waste of time. You should have invested that time more wisely rather than writing a string of non sequiturs.

That’s a fascinatingly stupid claim to make considering one of my very first posts rejected your “it doesnt prevent explosions IN the reactor vessel” argument. I’m honestly pretty impressed that no matter how many times something you say gets proven wrong you still pop right back up and expect people to take your…

“Your rebuttal wasnt meaningful” isnt an actual counterargument. Youve also apparently ALREADY forgotten the second type of explosion that I mentioned despite rediscovering it just 42 minutes ago.

The answers to your question and complaint earlier, obviously. Is this some sort of a logic puzzle where you can remember answers or you can remember questions, but you can never remember both?