Severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents Likely Every 10 to 20 Years - New Max Planck Institute Study

[FBaggins]

18. I'm sorry, but you've just admitted to be true that which I claimed.

You really do think that all reactors are essentially the same in terms of how often you could expect one to fail.

That's ridiculous in the extreme.

Moreover, just because the article doesn't mention that the scientists studied new reactors doesn't mean they didn't,

Actually, it does... particularly when it explicitly says that they didn't.

The Mainz researchers did not distinguish ages and types of reactors, or whether they are located in regions of enhanced risks

I seem to remember operator stupidity was actually what caused Chernobyl

That's correct. It's also relevant to this conversation... because the same stupidity at a western reactor could not have had anything like the same result. To use your wording, there were "inherent design flaws" that do not exist "in any fission reactor"

It might give you confidence, but that method is also invalid due to shorter operation times.

You may be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the newest designs being better than the older ones (though they are). I'm just refering to differences between existing reactors. As has been pointed out here many times, the simple fact that US reactors (of the same period and basic design) have their backup generators in waterproof vaults very likely would have meant that Fukushima would never been more than a week-long news story. The hardened vents that most have could have avoided the hydrogen explosions. You could go on and on before you even come to the fact that very few reactors sit low on a tsunami-prone coastline or where record-sized earthquakes occur.