They were talking less about disaster response and more about the ability to mobilize and utilize resources in response to an urgent need.
While the cracking dome is an issue that should be of high priority, calling it critical or urgent is a disservice to those words and to critical or urgent disasters.
Where as the dome issue in the south Pacific can still be neglected or ignored for years, possible decades, without dramatic impact, the Chernobyl disaster required a response on the order of days or weeks to prevent massive negative consequences to the surrounding environment. By trying to draw parallels to the Chernobyl disaster you're minimizing the immediacy and criticality of Chernobyl level disasters.
If such parallels go unchallenged, when we have another Chernobyl level disaster, the "we ignored the dome for 60 years" argument becomes valid.
While the cracking dome is an issue that should be of high priority, calling it critical or urgent is a disservice to those words and to critical or urgent disasters.
Where as the dome issue in the south Pacific can still be neglected or ignored for years, possible decades, without dramatic impact, the Chernobyl disaster required a response on the order of days or weeks to prevent massive negative consequences to the surrounding environment. By trying to draw parallels to the Chernobyl disaster you're minimizing the immediacy and criticality of Chernobyl level disasters.
If such parallels go unchallenged, when we have another Chernobyl level disaster, the "we ignored the dome for 60 years" argument becomes valid.