As I recall, Rand learned to operate submarine reactors on the desert in
southern Idaho. In fact, the first prototype sub reactor was built here and
then used for training after the testing was done. We had several of the
engines here but not the whole damn boats. Shipping one to the interior of
Canada seems really stupid. Funding could be used much more effectively for
other things. /jim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Rand E
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:19 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] OT: Naval museums now
Jim,
You seem to object mainly to the removal of the reactor from the
submarine. I find this interesting. Would you rather that it still had
the reactor in it on arrival ? If the reactor core has any operating
time on it, it will also have very significant amounts of fission
daughter products like strontium and yitrium-90 as well as a bunch of
cobalt-60 and a host of other delectable little critters in great
profusion. Even if they welded the reactor compartment shut, a
terrorist (you've heard of them right ?) could just place a n explosive
charge on the outside and spread these critters all over your back yard.
Don't get me wrong, I also think that it's a terrific waste of money
also. Only I question why you are getting a submarine in the first
place. But I think that that is something that you should take up with
your local politicians who requested and fought for the thing in the
first place.
Having lived and worked in submarines for over 14 years and operated
and maintained the nuclear plants for longer than that, I can't
understand why anybody would want one. But, if you were so inclined, I
sure would recommend that it did NOT have a nuclear plant in it !
Rand E.
MMCM (SS) USN (ret)
Lama-Jim L'Hommedieu wrote:
>Speaking of naval museums, our beloved Federal Government is moving a
nuclear submarine to a new (planned) museum in Cincinnati.
>Unfortunately we don't have money to improve education but we *DO* have
money to remove the nuclear reactor from inside a submarine
>(which was not designed to have it removed- DUH!), then transport the huge
vessel across the Rocky Mountains and more than a dozen
>states.
>
>School kids in 2015 may not be able to do algebra but they will be able to
tell they're penniless ancestors that they once toured a
>nuclear submarine.
>
>The new museum will be within sight of our new 4-lane bridge that our
beloved Federal government built, despite the Federal experts
>who said no such bridge was warranted. It replaced a 2 lane bridge that
saw almost no traffic. We don't have the money to replace
>the fatal 8-lane Interstate bridge that's within sight of the 4 lane bridge
but at least "we got something".
>
>We call this pork-barrel politics in the US.
>
>All the best,
>Lama
>
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
>
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|