It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reports of NUCLEAR submarine on fire at Russian shipyard

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: WineAndCheese9
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

www.independent.co.uk...

enenews.com... e-complexity-and-consequences-yet-disaster-is-not-over-and-c

www.businessinsider.com...


First Source: Opinion Piece with no scientific data to back it

Second Source: Enenews which has had a reputation for crying wolf on several issues.

Thirds Source: A business insider piece which has stated that Fukushima has the POTENTIAL to be worse than Chernobyl.

Japan has had FOUR nuclear incidents in it's life, if you don't count the bombings and a broken arrow incident that the US caused.

How many has Russia had? I'll give you a few minutes to compile the list, since it could take a while.




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Hellas

Well....that picture debunks my theory.

I'd supposed that maybe they had a bar-b-que pit on the deck that got out of control. But that fire is far larger than an outa control bar-b-que pit.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: butcherguy

And the reactor has multiple redundancies, as well as being protected by the shell around it. It would have to be a hell of a fire just to get to it.

There were multiple redundancies engineered into every reactor that has had an accident. Even Fukushima. The tsunami caused the events leading up to the reactors melting down there.... but it was the failure of system after system that caused the meltdowns.

I will go on record as saying that lighting fires that surround the entire reactor is not a good plan.

ETA: the fire doesn't have to get to reactor. The fire just has to cause the cooling water to the reactor to be interrupted.... pumps/piping/valves/electrical......
edit on bu302015-04-07T08:54:46-05:0008America/ChicagoTue, 07 Apr 2015 08:54:46 -05008u15 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: WineAndCheese9
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

oh yeah you really care about Russia

not based on your posts on ATS which anyone can dig and see
So because I'm critical of the Russian government and it's actions, I hate Russia? Russia is beautiful. Their old-world architecture is amazing and the countryside (Minus Siberia, no thanks) is really pretty. I'd love to visit Russia one day.

Sorry, but your attempts at painting me as some "I HATE ALL THINGS RUSSIA" monster won't work.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

That fire actually doesn't look as bad as the one that gutted the Miami.
True. I hope it's not as serious as I think it could be. Russia could do without another Nuclear incident. I also know exactly where fingers will start pointing if this does escalate to a nuclear accident.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

And the Miami had a fire on board that took 12 hours, and 100 firefighters to put out, that caused enough damage they decommissioned her. It never got anywhere near the reactor.

Which is why they have redundancies, which in a small reactor are much easier and work quite well.

Yes I know, they said the N word, so everyone has to freak out and it's the end of the world.
edit on 4/7/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
We can plan for everything.... but something can and usually does go wrong.
The more complicated a system is, the more chances for failure.
Torpedoes are not supposed to go 'hot', there are many safeguards to keep that from happening... but tell that to the sailors on the Kursk. You can't, they are dead.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I'm glad Zaphod came along and injected some reasonable information into the thread. Of course, this early in the accident it's impossible to tell if the reactor will be affected, but I'm crossing my fingers that it doesn't spread to the reactor.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Oh my god, you're right! It's radiation, we're doomed!

The Kursk torpedo didn't go hot, there was a leak in the fuel and it exploded. But you're right, a nuclear reactor is certainly built to the same low standards as a torpedo.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: butcherguy

And the Miami had a fire on board that took 12 hours, and 100 firefighters to put out, that caused enough damage they decommissioned her. It never got anywhere near the reactor.

Which is why they have redundancies, which in a small reactor are much easier and work quite well.

Yes I know, they said the N word, so everyone has to freak out and it's the end of the world.

Ok, how about this?

There is no chance that a nuclear accident can occur and there has never been a nuclear accident in history.
Every nuclear submarine should be surrounded in fire because there have been nuclear subs on fire before and everything turned out great.

All better. You are right.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Trueman

Why? It has nothing to do with the reactor.


How can you be so sure? You are not there to verify that. All you got is same photos and info we all saw here. But I wish you're right Zap, good and wise friend.




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

The odds are a hell of a lot lower than you're trying to say. Instead of "ehrmagerd! Rediaton! Weze dumed!" Try a little research into how they're built and protected as opposed to a land based reactor.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58



But you're right, a nuclear reactor is certainly built to the same low standards as a torpedo.

I am not well versed on the standards of quality in Russian maritime nuclear reactors.
I do know what I heard from fellow US sailors about Soviet nuclear power and their navy.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Trueman

The reactor on a sub is a LOT better protected than a land based reactor. I'll put just about anything you can name on the reactor not being involved and not even noticing the fire.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Hellas

Well, threat of radioactive contaimination aside (and as has been explained, is statistically unlikely as far as previous incidents of a similar sort go), I still would not want to be under the cloud of smoke pouring out of that thing. Like any significant bit of military hardware, there will be all manner of interesting and noxious compounds present in its construction, particles of which I would most certainly not want to be breathing in.

I hope that the situation is resolved without further calamity, and indeed that no one gets sick from the fumes of the burning insulation and other assorted compounds which are being consumed by the fire presently!

Awful business.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: butcherguy

The odds are a hell of a lot lower than you're trying to say. Instead of "ehrmagerd! Rediaton! Weze dumed!" Try a little research into how they're built and protected as opposed to a land based reactor.

You are the one that is going overboard.
I never said that there will be radiation released.
I said there is a chance of it.
Hell, you have to admit that there is a chance that it can happen without a fire..... because it happens!
It would be nice if you could knock off the 'ermagod' BS, because that is not how I am presenting it here..... Just saying that the 'oh nothing can happen here' is a not accurate.
Something could happen.... that is inarguable.


Where the hell did I give odds.... BTW?
edit on b000000302015-04-07T09:12:34-05:0009America/ChicagoTue, 07 Apr 2015 09:12:34 -0500900000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

The K-27 was the only reactor accident they've had. That was in 1968.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: butcherguy

The odds are a hell of a lot lower than you're trying to say. Instead of "ehrmagerd! Rediaton! Weze dumed!" Try a little research into how they're built and protected as opposed to a land based reactor.

You are the one that is going overboard.
I never said that there will be radiation released.
I said there is a chance of it.
Hell, you have to admit that there is a chance that it can happen without a fire..... because it happens!
It would be nice if you could knock off the 'ermagod' BS, because that is not how I am presenting it here..... Just saying that the 'oh nothing can happen here' is a not accurate.
Something could happen.... that is inarguable.
I don't think Zaphod is saying "Nothing will happen". He's saying reserve judgement until we know more.

And I have to agree. Yeah nuclear accidents happen, they've happened in the past and we'll likely have more in the future. What he's saying is that simply the word "Nuclear" being attached to the ship shouldn't be reason enough to get your doom porn motor revving. Give it time.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun


Do you not remember Chernobyl? The worst Nuclear Accident in history?

Ohh, stop. Fuku is much worse than Chernobyl. I understand your bias though, you're in Japan.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: butcherguy

The K-27 was the only reactor accident they've had. That was in 1968.

K-19 melted fuel rods in 1961.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join