Guardian: "Flaws In Nuclear Submarine Reactors Could Be Fatal, Secret Report Warns"

Subsunk

Lantern Swinger
Book Reviewer
#2
I love it when a newspaper instantly goes from total disinterest in the RN in general to sudden subject matter expertise in one niche area. Agree with Witsend, there are a lot of weasel words and conditionals going on here. Still, it makes for a good fear-mongering dit that hinges for best effect on readers not being well-informed on the detail. And maybe that's the point.
 

T-H

Badgeman
#3
So, to summarise: nuclear reactors are dangerous if they break, and submarines that fail to surface could kill the whole crew.
 

Subsunk

Lantern Swinger
Book Reviewer
#4
In The Observer this Sunday, they will have a special investigation which will reveal that ducks float on water.
 
#6
I started reading this report with interest as I have a lot of respect for Andy MacFarlane. As soon as I read comments by John Large and John Ainslie I gave up as these two would never have anything positive to say about "atom-death subs".
 
#7
.... As soon as I read comments by John Large and John Ainslie I gave up as these two would never have anything positive to say about "atom-death subs".
John Large is a tool who knows very little about nuclear engineering, but says the kind of things that journalists love to print, which is why they use him.
 
#8
John Large

From the above link:

"John Large is a nationally and internationally recognised professional, consulting engineer who, not infrequently, contributes comment and opinion on nuclear and technical matters to national and international media."

The man is indeed a grade A tool who will spout a load of half-informed garbage to anyone who asks (pays) him. Because he has some knowledge he is believed by lazy journalists who cannot be arrsed to look anywhere else.
 
#9
During the Tireless repair, Muzza (God rest his soul) had to take Large to one side in Gib, whilst they suspended the meeting, to explain to him how the pressuriser works. We expect young dabbers to have this level of understanding, and many of them have little in the way of formal educational qualifications, so what does this say about the validity of his views?
 
#10
Well lads, it's good to learn of your confidence in me.

And about Tiresome's pressuriser as I recall the problem was not about my understanding of how the pressuriser worked but the fact that it didn't work!
 
#11
Well lads, it's good to learn of your confidence in me.

And about Tiresome's pressuriser as I recall the problem was not about my understanding of how the pressuriser worked but the fact that it didn't work!
'Confidence' is an apt word. In this instance, it should be used in conjunction with the word 'trickster'.

If Tireless's pressuriser didn't work, it would have been breaking the law. Boyle's law.
 
#12
Well lads, it's good to learn of your confidence in me.

And about Tiresome's pressuriser as I recall the problem was not about my understanding of how the pressuriser worked but the fact that it didn't work!
The pressuriser worked fine, that wasn't the problem but you've proved a point made in the previous posts!!
 
#14
Since you're all upset about the pressuriser, it seems to me that you need a shot of something to lower your blood pressure - tune into C4 News tonight, that might just do the job!
 
#16
Lighten up Joe, you sound like a Grumpy Old Man!
I can't see how you have arrived at that conclusion, but reaching logical conclusions based on a sound assessment of the facts doesn't seem to be your thing.

Now I understand why the Admiralty wanted to repair the Tireless in Gibraltar.
What, apart from the fact that it was there? They would have much rather carried out any repair in Devonport, but were caught between a rock and a hard place.
 
#17
Since you're all upset about the pressuriser
Don't see how we're all "upset". You were the one who got it wrong and it seems your not happy about being corrected. I can see now why your articles are badly written, assuming you are John Large of course and not Monty or BR on a wind up.
 
#19
Joe & Wrecker - I see that your American buddies at Bubbleheads have expressed their full confidence in the Royal Navy kit - The Stupid Shall Be Punished: Brit Reactor Design Flaws?
Try reading it yourself, it's a blog with a link to the Guardian story. If your read the comments beneath they (apart from the first one) treat the story with the contempt it deserves.

Hardly scientific proof to back your pressuriser comment is it.
 
#20
This is what they say...


They're saying stuff like
anonymous said:
Before you start with the flag waving and Brit bashing, maybe consider the possibility that the flaws came from parts of the design they lifted from us.
Blah said:
You do realize that this is The Guardian you're quoting, right, Joel...? Pretty tin-foil hat stuff....

....The report is heavily redacted, but the net-net is that THERE IS NOTHING in this report that goes beyond boiler plate LOCA (loss of cooling accident) yadda-yadda that accompanies any PWR design.
which kind of makes a point, but not the one you appear to be insinuating.

By the way, the first comment says
If they design and build reactors like they did their cars then watch out.
How ironic then that Rolls Royce cars are so highly regarded.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top