As a former submariner (a nuke, not a puke!), I appreciate your addition. It will be interesting to see how all of this pans out. Given that they are estimating one reactor has 70% of the rods damaged and another at 30%, it will be extremely difficult to get that close to defuel...if they are able to physically do that at all. It will depend upon the damage to the fuel assemblies. If they can't be removed (defueled) that will be all she wrote. The reactor vessel would not be able to be removed then. As a note, I was part of the first commercial decommissioning in the US and without removing the fuel assemblies one cannot legally (in this country) remove the reactor vessel for disposal under current law. That is the reason I mentioned entombment. I hope that I am incorrect in the amount of damage that I have calculated given the radiation levels that they reported (again, those levels could be suspect).

Al,

I was too young to understand Chernobyl when it occurred and we studied it as a lesson in failure of design, safety and fundamental knowledge. It's going to be interesting to watch this in real time with forehand knowledge and effects. At your estimate, entombment seems probable, though I'd be interested in the extent of the damage and the effects of all the efforts they've done to maintain control of the heat and radioactivity. Even in real time, there's not enough information (and goes to show how little the news networks understand what they report).

Ken