I'd actually argue that the RMBK-1000 reactor is not horrifically unsafe, so long as it's operated within its design envelope - which is to say, for example, not overriding the automated safety systems. Had it been built with a containment vessel, I'd even argue it was within the safety margins of western reactors. Chernobyl was incompetent crew largely, taking a design well outside of its normal safety margins by shutting down nearly every safety system the reactor had - these choices compounded the design limitations of the reactor. Under no circumstances should the control rods have been removed all the way from the reactor - this single action caused the meltdown (combined with the graphite tips on the control rods).
We know the risks of nuclear power, if you do it wrong it does kill people, and salts the earth in the vicinity of the unit for generations. This is better in my opinion than killing people who live in the vicinity of a power plant as a course of normal operation.
I'd actually argue that the RMBK-1000 reactor is not horrifically unsafe, so long as it's operated within its design envelope - which is to say, for example, not overriding the automated safety systems. Had it been built with a containment vessel, I'd even argue it was within the safety margins of western reactors. Chernobyl was incompetent crew largely, taking a design well outside of its normal safety margins by shutting down nearly every safety system the reactor had - these choices compounded the design limitations of the reactor. Under no circumstances should the control rods have been removed all the way from the reactor - this single action caused the meltdown (combined with the graphite tips on the control rods).
We know the risks of nuclear power, if you do it wrong it does kill people, and salts the earth in the vicinity of the unit for generations. This is better in my opinion than killing people who live in the vicinity of a power plant as a course of normal operation.