I think passive safety is really where the good designs are, but what most people are worried about is a core that can't have any kind of criticality incident.
Oh yeah, totally. I'm just objecting to using the term "meltdown" to describe the typical power-down procedure because of the negative connotations of the term.
I'm good with "criticality incident", "core damage incident", or any other descriptive term that makes it clear that it's a deviation from normal behavior. Using a negative term for a non-critical incident is just stacking the deck against the technology.
