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

Discussion in 'Submariners' started by soleil, Mar 10, 2011.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Subsunk

    Subsunk Badgeman Book Reviewer

    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.
  2. T-H


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

    Subsunk Badgeman Book Reviewer

    In The Observer this Sunday, they will have a special investigation which will reveal that ducks float on water.
  4. Dit., they have ginormous legs..fact
  5. 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".
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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!
  10. '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.
  11. The pressuriser worked fine, that wasn't the problem but you've proved a point made in the previous posts!!
  12. Lighten up Joe, you sound like a Grumpy Old Man!
  13. 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!
  14. Now I understand why the Admiralty wanted to repair the Tireless in Gibraltar.
  15. 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.

    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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. This is what they say...

    They're saying stuff like
    which kind of makes a point, but not the one you appear to be insinuating.

    By the way, the first comment says
    How ironic then that Rolls Royce cars are so highly regarded.

Share This Page