Sometimes people argue by habit, because they think they're doing something good in the name of Sweet Lady Evidence, when they're actually just googling things like a flat Earther would then trying to stand on that

.

> While I am no means an expert in this incident

And yet here you are, all the same, arguing, based on things you found in a search engine, and tricked yourself into thinking were knowledge.

.

> > In reality, the Russians were keeping hot fuel underground, and cooling it with water,
>
> Every single one I've found lists it as a "waste storage tank" that exploded.

Yes. They were keeping hot fuel in storage tanks underground, and cooling them with water, then the water engaged in a steam explosion. This is the same as what I said.

The reason you're confused is that the Russians just use the word "fuel rod" for active fuel or spent fuel, and you're acting on a fifth-hand regurgitated translated piece of material by someone with no training or knowledge in the field, much like yourself.

Science says that the only effective way to discourage this sort of blind argument is to clearly and repeatedly call it out as inappropriate, and why

.

> It's possible you are simply confused here

No, I'm not confused here. You just googled translated materials and assumed, incorrectly, that nothing was lost in translation.

In reality, we both told a story about a steam explosion in an underground tank. You haven't found an objection; you found a rephrasing that was missing details.

.

> If you are going to contradict widely accepted information

I'm not. You're confusing things you Googled up on the spot for "widely accepted information," in exactly the same way that anti-vaxxers and flat earthers do.

Unlike you, I have college training in these matters, and I don't fake my way through knowledge arguments with search engines.

.

> you should start by providing sources

I did.

.

> instead of getting upset

I'm not in any way upset at your belligerence.

.

> being justifiably called out.

You are not in any way justified.

.

> I am a bit of a nuclear history nerd

The flat earthers and anti-vaxxers also describe themselves as "a bit of a nerd" when arguing incorrectly against a credentialled expert, and trying to sound important.

.

> ever since I was got licensed as a reactor operator decades ago.

So far, about 40 people have told me that they were licensed as a reactor operator on HN.

Given that there are only 3900 of them in the country, I just don't believe that any of them were actually telling the truth.

.

> All the energy that caused the explosion came from nuclear decay.

This comment makes it extremely difficult for me to believe that you are, in fact, a licensed operator. Along with the previous statistical observation.

Look, this is like building a huge dam, letting it burst, then saying water caused the deaths, instead of bad dam engineering.

If you can't even get the proximate cause of the disaster right, there is absolutely no way you were licensed. This is a critical component of that test.

I do not believe you.

.

> I care about accuracy, which is apparently a vanishing trait these days.

Cool story. Anyway, if you're asking me to choose between your recounting based on bad translations you found on Google, or the official UN position, please forgive me if I believe the UN over you.

.

> I don't believe allowing more misinformation about nuclear power to spread (positive or negative) does anything to help the discussion.

Cool story. Since you haven't actually found any using documented evidence, provided evidence that says that I'm correct, and loudly demanded that I do something I already did while failing to do it yourself and believing you succeeded, then allow me to be the first to loudly shrug at you.

I have no interest in whether you feel that I am helping the discussion. Your emotional attempt to manufacture an error where none exists, then to elect yourself to the fact ministry to control me, while announcing that you've also somehow made me upset, actually has essentially no effect.

I will continue drinking my coffee, and believing my college professors and the United Nations over some rando on HN who is offering evidence that doesn't agree with him, and doesn't appear to understand that

.

> If you are going to change people's minds, I suggest try citing good sources

That's nice. Your sources don't agree with you and I have no interest in your suggestions.