Its a matter of scale. My comments on the idea under discussion were that complete loss of a reactor wouldn't work for the target audience, nor would long-term, irrevocable radiation.
However if, through difficulty, trial, cleverness and design a player could potentially segregate his reactor into isolated pieces, (four quadrants, etc), such that it was still a single reactor for the purposes of chain reactions, but you could conceivably lose a part without losing the whole, I'd be left without much grounds for argument. I don't know how you would conceive and implement a design where meltdowns are contained but neutrons are not. SCRAM-initiated barriers perhaps? Loss of efficiency perhaps? Both are good.
On the other hand, if you could only isolate the entire reactor itself from the environment, I'd consider it a battle lost for my personal goals, but still a boon to many players of many playing styles. In this case it wouldn't be a vindictive decision to not use the reactor, it just wouldn't work for my purposes. That said I'd be very happy for the experience it provides for current and future players and consider it a victory for the mod regardless of whether I personally played it.
On the contrary: I've said a few times that segregation and cleansing could work. You've stipulated the scenario perfectly, plasmasnake. I'm not disputing the merits of this idea, I'm correcting the detractors of the config idea.
