It is much hard than it sounds reading about it.

Aren't most of the reactors shutdown. Not all 6 are operating.

Unless there is extensive damage to the site, including the cooling and fuel ponds. it's much hard to put it into meltdown with explosives.

Unlike Fukushima which was fully operational when the Earthquake caused extensive damage to it. It isn't.

There are a few more issues on the cooling ponds and the water supply. After the dam. Waste war and cooling water levels these were dropping after the dam, and needed a regular flow. If they drop extensively, mined reportedly, which they aren't, then it can eventually trigger meltdown if not supplied and possibly an easier target than the cores. Any cores needing sustained direct hits.

I think it's been hyped and it's far more problematical, due to the inception and comparison to other reactors and disasters, where it presents a much bigger risk on whoever holds it in a conflict. Because it still generates power for both. At one point 20% of the national supply.

But unless it's fully targeted by directed strikes. Who knows?

After reading. The biggest danger is the site becoming completely inoperative, where with its radioactive materials, can cause much bigger problems if significantly disrupted. It has been hyped, where unless it's directly targeted, the danger is largely its output in a conflict. A site operating under threat, housing the potential for larger disaster.

There are fewer ways it is goes into critical mass. The water flow becoming disrupted, not accessed, and possibly leaking waste. Direct strikes causing significant damage, or prolonged damage. It's not Chernoboyl and isn't operating at the same capacity as Fukushima.

The hype is it operating by a hostile side that can potentially cause disaster if it becomes completely inoperable and if waste materials escape?

It is much hard than it sounds reading about it.

Aren't most of the reactors shutdown. Not all 6 are operating.

Unless there is extensive damage to the site, including the cooling and fuel ponds. it's much hard to put it into meltdown with explosives.

Unlike Fukushima which was fully operational when the Earthquake caused extensive damage to it. It isn't.

There are a few more issues on the cooling ponds and the water supply. After the dam. Waste war and cooling water levels these were dropping after the dam, and needed a regular flow. If they drop extensively, mined reportedly, which they aren't, then it can eventually trigger meltdown if not supplied and possibly an easier target than the cores. Any cores needing sustained direct hits.

I think it's been hyped and it's far more problematical, due to the inception and comparison to other reactors and disasters, where it presents a much bigger risk on whoever holds it in a conflict. Because it still generates power for both. At one point 20% of the national supply.

But unless it's fully targeted by directed strikes. Who knows?

After reading. The biggest danger is the site becoming completely inoperative, where with its radioactive materials, can cause much bigger problems if significantly disrupted. It has been hyped, where unless it's directly targeted, the danger is largely its output in a conflict. A site operating under threat, housing the potential for larger disaster.

It is much hard than it sounds reading about it.

Aren't most of the reactors shutdown. Not all 6 are operating.

Unless there is extensive damage to the site, including the cooling and fuel ponds. it's much hard to put it into meltdown with explosives.

Unlike Fukushima which was fully operational when the Earthquake caused extensive damage to it. It isn't.

There are a few more issues on the cooling ponds and the water supply. After the dam. Waste war and cooling water levels these were dropping after the dam, and needed a regular flow. If they drop extensively, mined reportedly, which they aren't, then it can eventually trigger meltdown if not supplied and possibly an easier target than the cores. Any cores needing sustained direct hits.

I think it's been hyped and it's far more problematical, due to the inception and comparison to other reactors and disasters, where it presents a much bigger risk on whoever holds it in a conflict. Because it still generates power for both. At one point 20% of the national supply.

But unless it's fully targeted by directed strikes. Who knows?

It is much hard than it sounds reading about it.

Aren't most of the reactors shutdown. Not all 6 are operating.

Unless there is extensive damage to the site, including the cooling and fuel ponds. it's much hard to put it into meltdown with explosives.

Unlike Fukushima which was fully operational when the Earthquake caused extensive damage to it. It isn't.

There are a few more issues on the cooling ponds and the water supply. After the dam. Waste war and cooling water levels these were dropping after the dam needed a regular flow. If they drop extensively mined reportedly then it can eventually trigger meltdown. It's an easier target than the cores.

I think it's been hyped and it's far more problematical, due to the inception and comparison to other reactors and disasters, where it presents a much bigger risk on whoever holds it in a conflict. Because it still generates power for both. At one point 20% of the national supply.

But unless it's fully targeted by directed strikes. Who knows?

It is much hard than it sounds reading about it.

Aren't most of the reactors shutdown. Not all 6 are operating.

Unless there is extensive damage to the site, including the cooling and fuel ponds. it's much hard to put it into meltdown with explosives.

Unlike Fukushima which was fully operational when the Earthquake caused extensive damage to it. It isn't.

There are a few more issues on the cooling ponds and the water supply. After the dam. Waste war and cooking water levels.

I think it's been hyped and it's far more problematical, due to rgd inception and conparison to other reactors and disasters, where it presents a much bigger risk on whoever holds it in a conflict. Because it still generates power for both. At one point 20% of the national supply.

But unless it's fully targeted by directed strikes. Who knows?