Come on, who cares how many eyes your sashimi had? You're eating it, not having a conversation with it. As long as there's beer involved, 3 eyes is fine by me.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Nuke sub leaked
- Thread starter snake020
- Start date
Sinatra
ALOHA LAMPS
This is exactly how information gets out of hand. The article did not say anything about a "leaking reactor". As a matter of fact it says that water that leaked was not in contact with the reactor.
Just the word "nuclear" is enough to spur up controversy, don't add to it.
IMHO this conversation/thread should be closed much like the one about the recent P-3 incident was.
Too much speculation leads to misinformation. Just because it makes CNN does not mean that it needs to be discussed in an open PUBLIC forum.
end rant
My mistake.
Makes YOUR case, all the more valid, since I would hope that I would have the wherewhithal, if not the explicit knowledge to know better.
I disagree. It's different on several counts.
AFAIK there is no issue of privileged safety investigation information like there is in aviation. Obviously, if the information is classified we shouldn't (won't) be talking about it, but we don't risk ruining the integrity of a safety investigation.
Second, this is an Naval Aviation website, and while on it's face that's a pretty weak argument, we don't have any extra information that the public doesn't have access to. However I am aware of the disproportionate number of former nukes who go aviation. Equally important is that we have no perceived authority or knowledge on the subject. What I mean by that is, if we (AW) are discussing an aviation topic, we automatically appear to be knowledgeable on the topic, whether or not any particular poster is. That extra perceived knowledge/authority increases the chances this website becomes some kind of source for reporters or people with some sort of ignorance of ill will, which puts the website and the webmaster in the spotlight for no good reason.
Closely, but not directly related, Naval Aviation doesn't put on airs of infallibility. NNP advertises the fact it doesn't have "nuclear" accidents/incidents (whatever it is, I am not sure of the correct terminology). In fact, I believe NNP exists outside of all normal federal nuclear regulatory protocols, which is why BNR is a 4 star. From an internal Navy/Fed govt politics perspective, this puts into question the current status quo. Should the Navy be separate from DoE wrt to nuclear power? I don't know, but I am sure there are people asking the question now.
Sinatra
ALOHA LAMPS
Point taken, I'm inclined to agree but feel obligated to throw in my two cents.
They are not separate. Director of Naval Reactors Falls under DOE
http://nnsa.energy.gov/naval_reactors/index.htm
Interesting, thanks for the link.
I would still say that the Navy has more power (no pun intended) in the realm of nuclear power than anyone else who might run a nuke power plant, even another federal agency.
Of course, that third point (in my first post) wasn't exactly pertinent to the argument, and in a way even supports your points.
In any case, I am inclined to leave this open. I believe the webmaster was a bubblehead in his past life, so he may have a different opinion, which would, of course, overrule mine.
People don't read the news. They read headlines. nuke sub leaks radiation is all the majority will take away from this.
that being said, it is a big deal. i get it. even tiny nukey leaky=bad. i'm gonna go out on a limb and say they prolly aren't going to be passing an ORSE anytime soon.
submarinerssbn
New Member
i am a submariner and i can tell you this, not good pr for the navy, but especially for further port calls for fast boats i bet. that sux for that crew, heads are going to roll and there is going to be massive training as allways in the navy!!!!
nook-yah-lur!
I've heard many people in the nuclear field pronounce it this way. IMHO, I think if you can't pronounce the word "nuclear", then you shouldn't be allowed to get your nuclear engineering degree, certification, job or whatever is going to put you into that field.
So does that mean people that say 'PEE-tot' shouldn't be able to fly?
RobNavy929
New Member
I don't know why you would ever want to be on a submarine in the first place!
because of all the available doods running around. duh.
Alright, not to slam the door on the conversation as a whole, (although personally I think its a bit ridiculous) but this type of speculation shouldn't be done, except by those who know what it is that they are talking about. When last I checked you don't.
The reason it should be, is that uneduacated speculations lead to more uneducated speculation and before you know it a bunch of uneducated people making noise get heard. Its like the old adage about banks...tell enough people that their bank is going to fail long enough...and pretty soon it does.
In a way, speculation hits NNP much harder than aviation...for example, take a look at the Greenpeace Nucwatch site...they list and publicize the location of all nuclear power plants so that people can "watch out". Take note that Norfolk, San Dog, Groton, Kings Bay etc...are not on the list. The way that will change when enough people blather on about events (not incidents) like this. Its ALL public opinion and last I checked, NavAir didn't have quite the image problem that Nuc Power does.
Here is the link for those of you who are interested.
http://webthing.greenpeaceusa.org/nuclear_locator/
Xtndr50boom
Voted 8.9 average on the Hot-or-Not scale
Well, at least this takes a little heat of the AF's nuclear problems. At least until the next missile tips over or nuclear-armed bomber inadvertantly flies.
Have fun guys!
Have fun guys!