Chernobyl was a different era and mismanaged for days too. If something happened to the Ukrainian power station we'd know about it sooner (the proof of that is the fact that we know enough to have this discussion to begin with) and could react sooner. We've learned lessons from other meltdowns and nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents that have happened since Chernobyl and thus are better equipped and educated to respond. This applies as much to Russia as it does Europe, Japan and America too.
> I never say that I was concerned by an explosion blowing half of the continent, but the effects on Germany for example, were measurable and still last.
Your comment is very misleading then if that's what you meant:
"If it continues for a lot of time any depressed 19yo soldier could say I'm sick of this, decided to suicide and destroy half of the EU with him."
^ that reads to me like a pretty instant cause and effect, which a nuclear meltdown is not. If you were talking about over a prolonged period with no decontamination nor mitigation efforts put in place, then it really was not clear from your comment. And I'd argue that is a result of far more than just the actions of a depressed 19 year old soldier in isolation.
> I think that your prevision of just a few miles, enough to Putin have this safe perimeter, is too much optimistic
You're now conflating accident with intention. If Putin intentionally wants to contaminate half of the EU then that's a whole different argument to an accident happening during a capture of a power station or a depressed solder committing suicide (which was the original context you defined and the context I was responding to)
I'm not trying to dispute that the risk of contamination if one damages a nuclear power station is both significant and worrisome. I'm just saying it's not an instant effect (as your post implies) and thus measures can be taken to contain the worst of it to relatively a localized area.
Anyway, I think we both agree that nuclear power stations don't make good war zones :)
> I never say that I was concerned by an explosion blowing half of the continent, but the effects on Germany for example, were measurable and still last.
Your comment is very misleading then if that's what you meant:
"If it continues for a lot of time any depressed 19yo soldier could say I'm sick of this, decided to suicide and destroy half of the EU with him."
^ that reads to me like a pretty instant cause and effect, which a nuclear meltdown is not. If you were talking about over a prolonged period with no decontamination nor mitigation efforts put in place, then it really was not clear from your comment. And I'd argue that is a result of far more than just the actions of a depressed 19 year old soldier in isolation.
> I think that your prevision of just a few miles, enough to Putin have this safe perimeter, is too much optimistic
You're now conflating accident with intention. If Putin intentionally wants to contaminate half of the EU then that's a whole different argument to an accident happening during a capture of a power station or a depressed solder committing suicide (which was the original context you defined and the context I was responding to)
I'm not trying to dispute that the risk of contamination if one damages a nuclear power station is both significant and worrisome. I'm just saying it's not an instant effect (as your post implies) and thus measures can be taken to contain the worst of it to relatively a localized area.
Anyway, I think we both agree that nuclear power stations don't make good war zones :)