[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=Arraya]From what I have read due to the reactor design an international radioactive release is very very low probability. [/quote]
I’m not so sure about that. There is a lot of spent fuel on site that needs a continuous supply of water to keep cool. Radiation around the site is getting so high that all the workers were forced to evacuate. If they can’t figure out a way to keep the spent fuel cool, then there probably won’t be an explosion, but it could all melt over the course of many months with the radiation contaminating an ever wider area.
From what I’ve read, I get the sense that this has the potential to be worse than Chernobyl due to the large amount of spent fuel.[/quote]
Sure lots of spent fuel but it needs a dissipation mechanism. Chernobyl had a large nuclear explosion. Which is not likely due to design. A complete meltdown at these reactors would not cause the kind of explosion. This is not to say the local contamination can’t be severe. But you need a mechanism to eject it. I suppose a combination of the proper wind flows and a monster fire could do some damage but we are getting into the less and less probable.
Heck, when Chernobyl blew radiation alarms in Sweden were going off, almost immediately
