breaking news russian nuclear warship set to explode

[Aerophotos]

breaking news it seems .. read it and wonder..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1072264.htm

[Krztalizer]

"I find more order on a small mine-trawler commandeered by a lieutenant."

.....commandeered...? I wonder if that wasn't a wee typo.

What makes Petr any worse than any other broken down, undermaintained ex-Soviet
warship? They are all in this shape. What isn't rusted shut is rusted
through.

G

[Yama]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "I find more order on a small mine-trawler commandeered by a lieutenant."
>
> ....commandeered...? I wonder if that wasn't a wee typo.
>
> What makes Petr any worse than any other broken down, undermaintained
ex-Soviet
> warship? They are all in this shape. What isn't rusted shut is rusted
> through.

Political infighting.
CO of Petr Veliky is the nephew of one of Kuroyedov's biggest critics. Our
good admiral is just firing back. Also, PV is flag ship of the Northern
Fleet, one of the newest combatants and "shop window" ship. Criticizing it
is a sure way to get attention - as we have witnessed today.

It's unlikely that PV is any more likely to "blow up" than any other ship in
the Russian fleet. Basically admiral is unhappy with state of the fleet
(probably for good reason) and wants attention brought to it.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Yama" > wrote in message
...

>
> It's unlikely that PV is any more likely to "blow up" than any other ship
in
> the Russian fleet.

Given what happened to the Kursk thats not very reassuring.

Keith

[Krztalizer]

>
>Political infighting.
>CO of Petr Veliky is the nephew of one of Kuroyedov's biggest critics. Our
>good admiral is just firing back. Also, PV is flag ship of the Northern
>Fleet, one of the newest combatants and "shop window" ship. Criticizing it
>is a sure way to get attention - as we have witnessed today.
>
>It's unlikely that PV is any more likely to "blow up" than any other ship in
>the Russian fleet. Basically admiral is unhappy with state of the fleet
>(probably for good reason) and wants attention brought to it.

What a difference a little time makes. At one time, Petr and his brothers used
to be in my dreams - I wrote a collection of short stories that got passed
around the air dets on other frigates about a post-wwIII scenario where most of
the people of our planet died, and the few exceptions were people on ships out
at sea when the war happened. PV was the wild card - a 'free ship' that sank
all over warships on sight.

We'd sit around the table in the forward berthing compartment on our puny
little warship and brainstorm ways of striking a Kirov - didn't take much brain
power to figure out we would just be chunks stuck in Petr's teeth if we ever
got in its way.

The Kirovs were magnificent ships and I hope that they keep them around in
museums after the are retired. For their era, they were really something.

v/r
Gordon
PS, I agree - I doubt if his material condition would be bad enough to make it
blow up, any more so than any other boat.

[[email protected]]

(Krztalizer) wrote:

>v/r
>Gordon
>PS, I agree - I doubt if his material condition would be bad enough to make it
>blow up, any more so than any other boat.

I doubt that there's much danger of it "blowing up" (as in a
nuclear reaction) but as I understand it there may be a danger of
any poorly maintained Nuclear Vessel to have a failure in some
critical area of the reactor which could heavily contaminate the
vessel making it unfit for human habitation (bigtime). So there
you are...what to do now? How safe is it to 'deep six' such a
vessel?
--

-Gord.

[Michael Petukhov]

Aerophotos > wrote in message >...
> breaking news it seems .. read it and wonder..
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1072264.htm

Russian political games ignite wishfull thinking in West.
No more no less.

Michael

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=9682537

Peter the Great cruiser doesn't threaten Russia's nuclear security
MOSCOW. March 23 (Interfax) - Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Vladimir
Kuroyedov said the situation on the Peter the Great cruiser poses no
threat to Russia's nuclear security.

The nuclear security service on the cruiser "meets all the necessary
requirements," Kuroyedov told reporters on Tuesday. However, "the
living conditions and the condition of the general-purpose quarters
are unsatisfactory and do not meet the requirements of the ship's
charter," he said.

"The media reports that the Peter the Great cruiser is in poor
condition, which may pose a threat, are not true," Kuroyedov said.

So the guy did not really like "the living conditions"...

Michael

[Dave Kearton]

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
| Aerophotos > wrote in message
>...
| > breaking news it seems .. read it and wonder..
| >
| > http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1072264.htm
|
| Russian political games ignite wishfull thinking in West.
| No more no less.
|
| Michael
|
| http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=9682537
|
| Peter the Great cruiser doesn't threaten Russia's nuclear security
| MOSCOW. March 23 (Interfax) - Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Vladimir
| Kuroyedov said the situation on the Peter the Great cruiser poses no
| threat to Russia's nuclear security.
|
| The nuclear security service on the cruiser "meets all the necessary
| requirements," Kuroyedov told reporters on Tuesday. However, "the
| living conditions and the condition of the general-purpose quarters
| are unsatisfactory and do not meet the requirements of the ship's
| charter," he said.
|
| "The media reports that the Peter the Great cruiser is in poor
| condition, which may pose a threat, are not true," Kuroyedov said.
|
| So the guy did not really like "the living conditions"...
|
| Michael





Too much radiation in them ?






Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Bob Urz]

Dave Kearton wrote:
> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> | Aerophotos > wrote in message
> >...
> | > breaking news it seems .. read it and wonder..
> | >
> | > http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1072264.htm
> |
> | Russian political games ignite wishfull thinking in West.
> | No more no less.
> |
> | Michael
> |
> | http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=9682537
> |
> | Peter the Great cruiser doesn't threaten Russia's nuclear security
> | MOSCOW. March 23 (Interfax) - Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Vladimir
> | Kuroyedov said the situation on the Peter the Great cruiser poses no
> | threat to Russia's nuclear security.
> |
> | The nuclear security service on the cruiser "meets all the necessary
> | requirements," Kuroyedov told reporters on Tuesday. However, "the
> | living conditions and the condition of the general-purpose quarters
> | are unsatisfactory and do not meet the requirements of the ship's
> | charter," he said.
> |
> | "The media reports that the Peter the Great cruiser is in poor
> | condition, which may pose a threat, are not true," Kuroyedov said.
> |
> | So the guy did not really like "the living conditions"...
> |
> | Michael
>
> > >
> Too much radiation in them ?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave Kearton
>
>
Some people pay to get that "permanent glow" look.
Those sailors might get it free. What a deal.

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:14:38 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

(Krztalizer) wrote:
>
>>v/r
>>Gordon
>>PS, I agree - I doubt if his material condition would be bad enough to make it
>>blow up, any more so than any other boat.
>
>I doubt that there's much danger of it "blowing up" (as in a
>nuclear reaction) but as I understand it there may be a danger of
>any poorly maintained Nuclear Vessel to have a failure in some
>critical area of the reactor which could heavily contaminate the
>vessel making it unfit for human habitation (bigtime). So there
>you are...what to do now? How safe is it to 'deep six' such a
>vessel?

Several nuke subs have gone down, with no evidence of any
negative impact on the environment (Thresher, Scorpion, unknown
number of Russian boats).

Al Minyard

[B2431]

>From: (Michael Petukhov)

<snip>

>So the guy did not really like "the living conditions"...
>
>Michael
>

Which begs the question have you ever served in the military? If so in what
capacity?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Buzzer]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:43:54 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:14:38 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
(Krztalizer) wrote:
>>
>>>v/r
>>>Gordon
>>>PS, I agree - I doubt if his material condition would be bad enough to make it
>>>blow up, any more so than any other boat.
>>
>>I doubt that there's much danger of it "blowing up" (as in a
>>nuclear reaction) but as I understand it there may be a danger of
>>any poorly maintained Nuclear Vessel to have a failure in some
>>critical area of the reactor which could heavily contaminate the
>>vessel making it unfit for human habitation (bigtime). So there
>>you are...what to do now? How safe is it to 'deep six' such a
>>vessel?
>
>Several nuke subs have gone down, with no evidence of any
>negative impact on the environment (Thresher, Scorpion, unknown
>number of Russian boats).

Hopefully in a hundred years your childrens children will be able to
say the same thing after seawater has had more time to eat away at the
housings of nuclear torpedoes containing plutonium.

[Dave Holford]

Buzzer wrote:
>
>
> Hopefully in a hundred years your childrens children will be able to
> say the same thing after seawater has had more time to eat away at the
> housings of nuclear torpedoes containing plutonium.


Assuming that there really are plutonium warheads in torpedoes on those
vessels; does anyone here know what the half-life of those isotopes
might be? It is my understanding that nuclear and thermonuclear warheads
have to be refurbished on a regular schedule; and I understood that was
due to the radioactive decay of the isotopes used.

I know there are isotopes with half-lives in the thousands of years etc.
But I am asking about those used in weapons.

Dave

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:07:19 -0500, Dave Holford
> wrote:

>Buzzer wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hopefully in a hundred years your childrens children will be able to
>> say the same thing after seawater has had more time to eat away at the
>> housings of nuclear torpedoes containing plutonium.
>
>
>Assuming that there really are plutonium warheads in torpedoes on those
>vessels; does anyone here know what the half-life of those isotopes
>might be? It is my understanding that nuclear and thermonuclear warheads
>have to be refurbished on a regular schedule; and I understood that was
>due to the radioactive decay of the isotopes used.
>
>I know there are isotopes with half-lives in the thousands of years etc.
>But I am asking about those used in weapons.

"half-life for plutonium-239 is 24,000 years"

google +submarine +torpedo +plutonium +"24,000"
Cut off the 24,000 for more hits..

I believe the refurb is for the tritium trigger.
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd67/67nr04.htm
google +tritium +trigger +nuclear

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Dave Holford > wrote:

I'm not a weapon designer, nor do I play one on tv. (College, and my
partial physics minor, was 30 years ago...so why should I stop now?)

> Assuming that there really are plutonium warheads in torpedoes on those
> vessels; does anyone here know what the half-life of those isotopes
> might be?

The plutonium part of the devices is Pu239 (~93%), Pu240 (~6.5%), and a
trace of Pu241 (~.05%). Their half-lives are, respectively; 24,110 yrs,
6,537 yrs., and 14.4 yrs.

IIRC, some current weapons may use Tritium (hydrogen with two neutrons
in the nucleus, slightly radioactive, sometimes used in things like
night sights for pistols, or wris****ch backlights) as part of a trigger
to boost the efficiency of fission-fusion bombs, it has a half-life of
12.3 years. (More may use LiD as a more convenient source of hydrogen;
neutrons from the fission "fuse" convert some of the Lithium to
deuterium and a bit of tritium, which will enhance the yield of the
overall reaction.)

> It is my understanding that nuclear and thermonuclear warheads
> have to be refurbished on a regular schedule; and I understood that was
> due to the radioactive decay of the isotopes used.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dave Holford" > wrote in message
...

>
> I know there are isotopes with half-lives in the thousands of years etc.
> But I am asking about those used in weapons.

It is the tritium used to create a population inversion prior to detonation
that limits the lifetime of the trigger, but plutonium will burn quite
violently as soon as it finds oxygen.

[Ad absurdum per aspera]

> Hopefully in a hundred years your childrens children will be able to
> say the same thing after seawater has had more time to eat away at the
> housings of nuclear torpedoes containing plutonium.



Plutonium can be dreadful stuff if it's in a highly bioavailable
chemical state and/or a physical form that gets into the body,
especially the lungs, and lodges there. Whether macroscopic hard
integral shapes of plutonium metal are nearly as big a deal is
another question (especially deep underwater, rather than exposed to
the atmosphere.

The worry quotient depends also upon where they are in the ocean:
depth, hydrologic and geologic activity, and proximity to land.
Remember, the various nuclear-armed nations have actually fired quite
a number of weapons for test purposes, some of them quite large
(multimegaton), under and just above the ocean. This in addition to
all the chemical dumping, agricultural runoff, oil spills, etc. that
have occurred and continue to occur. If only man had stunk up the
sea so *little* that the innards of the odd "broken arrow" made a big
contribution!

Anyway, quite a bit of thought has gone into the problem of disposing
of high-level waste, and much of it is applicable to intact or broken
weapons shapes from the arms control effort and thus is first cousin
to lost weapons. Nonproliferation as well as short- and long-term
environment, health, and safety issues are considered there.


One of these methods is sub-seabed disposal in hydrologically and
geologically quiet areas where the bottom is covered with deep mud.
(This should not be confused with an older, apparently abandoned idea
involving deliberate introduction of the materials into deep-ocean
subduction zones.) Admittedly these ideas envision either drilling
or kinetic penetration so as to emplace the materials some meters into
the mud; and also some form of containment. See for instance page 200
et seq. of
http://books.nap.edu/html/plutonium/0309050421.pdf
However, it goes to show how the deep ocean can under some
circumstances be regarded in this context.

See also
http://www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/
regarding what happens to plutonium in water (albeit with an emphasis
on relatively shallow fresh water; salt water under many many
atmospheres of pressure might be different).


Finely divided plutonium and/or plutonium dispersed in a fire is a
much bigger deal to those who get caught in the plume -- in the
atmosphere. The reason is that plutonium has the interesting property
of being a lot more reactive in small pieces than large. This is part
of the reason why physically energetic weapons accidents (e.g., bombs
lost from aircraft) present a special risk, and why insensitive
explosives were eventually developed for use in nuclear weapons.

Anyway, the reactor plant found in most of the same subs and ships is
probably a lot more significant as a hazard than are the weapons pits,
as long as the stuff is presumptively out of the reach of terrorist
organizations and aspiring nuclear states. On that subject, the
ability to find and salvage such an item in deep water far from land,
even if you start with a decent general idea of where it is, is not a
technically or economically trivial task.

In my personal opinion, if you are so unfortunate as to lose custody
of either a weapon or a reactor, losing it intact in the deep ocean
seems not nearly as bad as some of the other possibilities.

Cheers,
--Joe