rozdani (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

2° generation of reactor? prime minister of italy istead the power plant in city. in the large house of Berlusconi.

Watcher3223 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

And the problem is, what?So long as a stable, modern reactor design is used and the people who operate the reactor are trained and experienced, there is no problem.I doubt that Italy would ever use an RBMK reactor, which was what Chernobyl was.Further, nuclear waste may not be much of a problem if Italy elects to reprocess spent fuel, which makes the waste useable as fuel again, so it goes straight back into the power plant instead of being buried deep in a desert mountain.

rozdani (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Italy returns of nuclear energy!!

Blunder1248 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Russians built proper rubbish back then, I dont know about now! We have a museum with a Russian Truck built for transporting Rockets and you can see where they tried to copy the Americans! Its worst than those cheap copies you get from China! It looks like it was built by an Apprentice panel beater that just got the job!

dairmoss (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The reason why they kept building them like that, besides how cheap the reactors were compared to the others, but the soviets also had a policy of keeping quiet about the dangers of the reactors. they didnt learn from the first chernobyl reactor meltdown 4 years before.Also, they had a tendency of hiring people that never should've been allowed to touch reactors.

browny232323 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

It is not as simple as 'flipping' a switch to turn it off. The reaction takes a very long time to cool down to a safe level. A few years in fact.

mkarnerfors (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The obvious questions: why did the Soviets build something spupendously unsafe while the rest of the world didn't? Two reasons: 1) It was cheap and simple. The RBMK's was based on 1950's Soviet nuclear technology, and they ran on unenriched uranium. Enriching uranium costs alot. 2) They could produce plutonium. The Kremlin assumed that their nuclear operators would not breach the safety needed to keep this type of reactor in a safe state. This was - of course - what doomed the reactor.

mkarnerfors (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

This documentary does not say anything about the safety of any type of reactor besides the Soviet designed RBMK's. It's not that other reactor types have "become safer". They were always safe. And the RBMK's were always dangerous. In short: the RBMK's could suffer criticality accidents, that is to say you get an exponetially increase in reaction, and thus heat output. No other reactor type in use can suffer this. In other reactors the opposite happens: they shut down.

Kamerunasss (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

My father been here :((

kewikle (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Even when a reactor is turned off (i.e. fission reaction halted), regardless, if the core were breached by attack or natural disaster; yes that would be catastrophic.