Thank you for a very informative article. I’ve seen it referenced at two other sites and I’m sure it’s being read by a lot of people.
Unfortunately, it appears that we cannot automatically assume the author is right.
I’ve read the whole article at the source blog, including the comments.
There is apparently at least one significant error in the article. The reactors in question do NOT have a feature designed to catch and disperse the material from a core meltdown. That feature is apparently part of newer designs for reactors of this type, but this reactor is too old to have it.
If the comments at the source blog are correct, the author is NOT a specialist in nuclear reactors. He obviously knows more about them than the vast majority of us, but his expertise is limited.
All in all I’d say this an excellent article that adds to the discussion. But, if the comments on the source blog are correct, it cannot be considered authoritative.
I kinda had a feeling that once it was posted on FR, it would be dissected and the parts grouped into relevant and bogus piles. ;)