Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima

Author Topic: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima  (Read 11062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« on: Dec 06, 2011, 08:37 »
I went to a presentation concerning Fukishima and the help provided by the United States.  A interesting note was Army Nukes versus Navy Nukes.  My understanding was that the Navy Nukes help was not helpful and the Army Nukes were very helpful.  I basically stated that makes sense because Navy Nukes work in mostly pristine conditions on subs and aircraft carriers and anything above that they are not used to dealing with properly.  Army Nukes train with the worst case scenario with multiple nukes going off and dealing with that.  So it makes sense that the navy  nukes would not be that useful in this situation and Army Nukes would be alot more helpful.  Any other thoughts on this?  Not to flame on this and please do not NUKE my KARMA just putting out what was presented.  One story was the Navy trying to frisk out a bus back and forth.

Offline Gamecock

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1202
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 2367
  • Gender: Male
  • "Perfection is the enemy of good enough."
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #1 on: Dec 06, 2011, 08:41 »
Really?? ::)
“If the thought police come... we will meet them at the door, respectfully, unflinchingly, willing to die... holding a copy of the sacred Scriptures in one hand and the US Constitution in the other."

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #2 on: Dec 06, 2011, 08:51 »


Not making this up.  I believe a unbiased person was giving a perspective on what help was provided by the USA.  Just saying what he said, Really Really!!

Offline hamsamich

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Total likes: 138
  • Karma: 1343
  • Gender: Male
  • And did I hear a 9er in there?
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #3 on: Dec 06, 2011, 09:08 »
Maybe if all navy nukes only worked right after they got out of the navy for a year, then yeah, ok.  Most navy nukes who are RP techs have loads of other experience since getting out of the navy, sometimes working with really nasty stuff.  I feel silly pointing this out, but wow, come on.   :o

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #4 on: Dec 06, 2011, 09:46 »
I agree Hamsamich.  I believe  a 5 year RP Tech or RSO who was a Navy Nuke  would have been great in this.  One just off the boat or sub, not so much.   I believe they got them right  off the boat and they did not have the right perspective in this.  Just my opinion.  Army training with high contamination, decon, fallout predictions, aerial surveys etc, would seemed to be more helpful in this situation.   Gamecock, I  noticed John Wayne as a Marine.  The Marines ( the Navy's Army) are trained by the US Army in Nuclear warfare at the Army School when I served.    Probably more practical training for use in incidents such as Fukishima.  


Here is A wiki  of the training.  

Training Facilities
 
The Army CBRN School provides numerous courses for officers, Non-commissioned Officers and Initial Entry Soldiers, ranging from highly technical to the more general in nature. Numerous international officers also send students to train at the CBRN School. Additionally, the US Air Force, US Navy, US Coast Guard and US Marine Corps all also maintain training elements at Fort Leonard Wood who, in partnerships with the Army CBRN School, train their personnel in CBRN operations.
 
Fort Leonard Wood and the Army CBRN School have world-class facilities in which to conduct training. Perhaps the most famous[citation needed] is the Chemical Defense Training Facility (or CDTF) where military students from across the globe train and become familiar with actual nerve agents in realistic scenarios, and also conduct training with radiological isotopes and inert biological agents. The Edwin R. Bradley Radiological Teaching Laboratories is one of the very few radiological teaching laboratories licensed by the NRC in the Department of Defense. It provides a variety of training in radiological and nuclear defense under the supervision of credentialed scientists.
 
The newest facility at the CBRN School is the Lieutenant Joseph Terry CBRN Training Facility. Opened in November 2007, The 1LT Joseph Terry Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) Responder Training Facility occupies approximately 22.5 acres (91,000 m2) and provides a state-of-the-art CBRN Responder Training Campus for Inter-Service and other Agencies as requested. The US Army CBRN School is the lead for all DoD CBRN Response Training. This facility provides unmatched training opportunities in the fields of CBRN Consequence Management, Hazardous Materials Incident Response, Realistic training venues and other CBRN Response arenas as required. The CBRN School also provides training in Sensitive Site Assessment and Exploitation.
« Last Edit: Dec 06, 2011, 09:55 by thenukeman »

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Total likes: 5
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #5 on: Dec 07, 2011, 09:12 »
I have to agree with the original assessment.  Navy nukes have no practical experience in dealing with contamination and radiation levels higher than the lowest scale of the meter.

I still remember the single sentence of advice that a tech gave me when I was fresh off the boat.  He was a former navy nuke too, but with a few years of commercial experience.  He said, "radiation and contamination are allowed here."  From then on, I focused my energy on learning how to work in that environment by controlling it, dealing with it, and keeping it contained rather than banishing it from the face of the Earth.

It is paradoxical that the further you get from the source, the tighter the controls are.  Maybe they ought to put the Army nukes in the middle, and move the Navy nukes out to the outer boundary.  Then each would be in the environment for which they were trained.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Online Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13284
  • Total likes: 537
  • Karma: 5131
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #6 on: Dec 07, 2011, 09:29 »
I have to agree with the original assessment.  Navy nukes have no practical experience in dealing with contamination and radiation levels higher than the lowest scale of the meter.

I still remember the single sentence of advice that a tech gave me when I was fresh off the boat.  He was a former navy nuke too, but with a few years of commercial experience.  He said, "radiation and contamination are allowed here."  From then on, I focused my energy on learning how to work in that environment by controlling it, dealing with it, and keeping it contained rather than banishing it from the face of the Earth.

It is paradoxical that the further you get from the source, the tighter the controls are.  Maybe they ought to put the Army nukes in the middle, and move the Navy nukes out to the outer boundary.  Then each would be in the environment for which they were trained.

   I had 3.5 rem lifetime exposure when I got out after 8 years, I did two overhauls and refuelings and saw plenty of smears that could not be read on a frisker. There are many ex Navy nukes with little or no exposure or experience with high contamination but there are about as many who worked in maintenance/overhaul environments. I don't think you know what ELT's were trained for, one of my instructors responded to the SL-1 accident and we trained in high rad and high contaminatioins areas. The procedures not he training drive they conditions they worked in and the attitude toward radiological controls.
   Trying to put people in a box by personal predjudice rarely allows for the individuals real value or capability to learn.
« Last Edit: Dec 07, 2011, 09:30 by Marlin »

BetaAnt

  • Guest
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #7 on: Dec 07, 2011, 11:10 »
Depends on what the mission was and what the Navy detachment RCA instructed the ELTs to do (officers NEVER make misteaks -  :o :o :o). As for the ELTs on the new vessels, dose rates and contamination are low due to the sharp learning curve of the NNPP. Dose and contamination on the Nautilus, 594s, and 633s (early nuclear vessels) was significantly higher than on the New Seawolf class. As for those tender ELTs covering drydock resin blows (and sometimes sprays), they know high dose and high contamination protocols.  ;)

Again, it leads back to the RCA. What did he instruct the ELTs to do. I am sure that there are no RPT/HPTs out there that have never done a STUPID assignment given by an RPM that only HP experience was back in the college lab.  :) :) :)

Army RPTs are trained to deal with nuclear detonations and RDDs (dirty bombs) and the subsequent conditions. Fukishima is a dirty bomb of sorts - just a long detonation period. Navy nukes deal with operating plants not detonations or RDDs.

DOE HPs are in the same situation. Some are at home in a plastic suit, a REM-ball, T-3 sniffer, and RO-7. Some can be considered friskable junior HPTs. It all depends on what their experience is. Making generalities can be dangerous (i.e. 'We've never had an alpha problem at our plant').  ::)

DOE allows things that would NEVER be sanctioned at a commercial plant (outside CAs with seasonal water flow, unposted RMAs since everyone can clearly see the faded rad material tag, unmonitored natural releases of radionuclides during rainstorms, and the historical CA since EVERYONE knows its contaminated and should stay out.)  :o :o :o

It's the difference between an Old HP and a new HP - just depends.  8) 8) 8)

BA

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Total likes: 5
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #8 on: Dec 08, 2011, 09:14 »
  I had 3.5 rem lifetime exposure when I got out after 8 years, I did two overhauls and refuelings and saw plenty of smears that could not be read on a frisker. There are many ex Navy nukes with little or no exposure or experience with high contamination but there are about as many who worked in maintenance/overhaul environments. I don't think you know what ELT's were trained for, one of my instructors responded to the SL-1 accident and we trained in high rad and high contaminatioins areas. The procedures not he training drive they conditions they worked in and the attitude toward radiological controls.
   Trying to put people in a box by personal predjudice rarely allows for the individuals real value or capability to learn.

Well, there you go.  Your perception that 3.5 REM over an 8 year period is a lot (A VISITOR at a commercial nuke plant can get that much without violating any regulation.  He can get almost that much without even being issued a TLD.) illustrates my point exactly.
We are not talking about High Rad and High Contamination areas.  We are talking about a DISASTER AREA!!!
My 5 years as a LELT should be proof that I do know what ELT's are trained for.  We were not trained for Fukushima.  None of us were.  We might have had the theoretical knowledge and run a few drills setting up a decon in the enlisted head, but in reality and practice we were supposed to keep it clean - not keep it under control.  There is a difference.  The threshold of panic is just a lot lower for Navy nukes than civilian HP's or Army NBC Warfare technicians.
And, regardless of whatever sea story your ELT instructor told you about SL-1, you know better than anyone that you have to divide everything by at least four and translate "I saw" & "I did" to "someone saw" or "someone did".
« Last Edit: Dec 08, 2011, 06:01 by Gamecock »
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Online Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13284
  • Total likes: 537
  • Karma: 5131
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #9 on: Dec 08, 2011, 11:54 »
Well, there you go.  Your perception that 3.5 REM over an 8 year period is a lot (A VISITOR at a commercial nuke plant can get that much without violating any regulation.  He can get almost that much without even being issued a TLD.) illustrates my point exactly.
We are not talking about High Rad and High Contamination areas.  We are talking about a DISASTER AREA!!!

Yes but you are talking about bomb squad experience not nuclear operators, what is their exposure when they get out and how much radiation did they see before getting out. If you are talking about Army operators that would be a differnt story. Bomb Squad is apples and oranges. You didn't get emergency training for potential reactor Accidents? As LELT we were expected to be the experts on that sort of thing, my board had several accident scenarios.


And, regardless of whatever sea story your ELT instructor told you about SL-1, you know better than anyone that you have to divide everything by at least four and translate "I saw" & "I did" to "someone saw" or "someone did".

I don't think Sea Story is appropriate as he used the SL-1 film and provided eye witness commentary he was our civilian instructor.

Online Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13284
  • Total likes: 537
  • Karma: 5131
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #10 on: Dec 08, 2011, 11:57 »
And, regardless of whatever sea story your ELT instructor told you about SL-1, you know better than anyone that you have to divide everything by at least four and translate "I saw" & "I did" to "someone saw" or "someone did".

By the way this whole thread was started by an "I heard"

bigdog46

  • Guest
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #11 on: Dec 08, 2011, 03:40 »
From now on in this thread the opening line in each post should be:

"Now this is a no shi**er"

Then the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth will really be told.

wlrun3@aol.com

  • Guest
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #12 on: Dec 08, 2011, 04:45 »

The book, Atomic America, by Todd Tucker describes the differences at the National Reactor Test Site in Idaho when, almost within sight of each other, the Army's SL1, the Navy's S1W and the Air Force Nuclear Aircraft Project competed for funds.

The book begins with a great description of the SL1 accident and very convincing conclusions about the more controversial issues involved.

But much more interesting is the story of the progress of the three services in reactor development and application.

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #13 on: Dec 08, 2011, 07:46 »
 The C in Nuclear Biological Chemical is the most scary  with the live Nerve Agent test facility.  A no Shi**er!!!!   ;D
« Last Edit: Dec 08, 2011, 07:47 by thenukeman »

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #14 on: Dec 08, 2011, 07:50 »
 A no Shi**er!!!!   ;D

unless you get a skin absorption, then it's a Twitch 'n $hi**er

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Total likes: 1
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #15 on: Dec 08, 2011, 08:14 »
This brings up  happy memories of NBC songs!!!    

Enemy soldiers in the street!!

VX2 at their feet!!!

Jerk Twitch Jerk and Twitch!!!

Bury their bodies in a ditch!!!

Enemy soldiers in the street!!!

Nuclear  Bomb at their Feet!!!

1 million, 2 million 3 million 4 !!!!

Drop another and kill some more!!!!!


Below is   a OH  Shi**er, hundreds of nukes hit the USA. The fallout prediction is shown  A real Oh  Shi**er!!!
« Last Edit: Dec 08, 2011, 09:32 by thenukeman »

Offline GLW

Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #16 on: Dec 09, 2011, 06:44 »



So,......

Central West Oregon was the place to live during MAD?!?!?!?

I had pondered on that back in those days,...

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #17 on: Dec 09, 2011, 08:42 »
So,......

Central West Oregon was the place to live during MAD?!?!?!?

I had pondered on that back in those days,...

Many small survivalist groups without national prominence set up to the Williamette and Rogue river basins in the 1960s for that very reason. Ever had a Mountain House freeze-dried meal while camping? Oregon Dry Foods makes them, and is the world's largest facility and company in the business started in Albany OR. Other survival prep companies sell Cresson Kearny's books and various supplies. There are also a lot of naturopaths, hemp farmers and a couple communities of the Klan in that area, all avoiding urban snivelization and enjoying the pine trees, Class 3 firearms and monoculture of the area ;)

The economics of the fake real-estate bubble of the 90s to 2007 screwed up that good deal for newcomers. In 1988 I was negotiating on 40 acres of second-growth timber about 10 miles west of Jacksonville, OR. Had an artesian spring on the side of a hill, that ran to a well-constructed cabin built by a squatter. There were about 3 or 4 building sites on the lot. After the freaks from Frisco bought everything up to build summer homes, I coulda resold the place, and be living off of interest income and daytrading today....

Offline GLW

Re: Navy Nukes versus Army Nukes in Fukishima
« Reply #18 on: Dec 09, 2011, 09:24 »
Many small survivalist groups without national prominence set up to the Williamette and Rogue river basins in the 1960s for that very reason. Ever had a Mountain House freeze-dried meal while camping? Oregon Dry Foods makes them, and is the world's largest facility and company in the business started in Albany OR. Other survival prep companies sell Cresson Kearny's books and various supplies. There are also a lot of naturopaths, hemp farmers and a couple communities of the Klan in that area, all avoiding urban snivelization and enjoying the pine trees, Class 3 firearms and monoculture of the area ;)

The economics of the fake real-estate bubble of the 90s to 2007 screwed up that good deal for newcomers. In 1988 I was negotiating on 40 acres of second-growth timber about 10 miles west of Jacksonville, OR. Had an artesian spring on the side of a hill, that ran to a well-constructed cabin built by a squatter. There were about 3 or 4 building sites on the lot. After the freaks from Frisco bought everything up to build summer homes, I coulda resold the place, and be living off of interest income and daytrading today....

How is it that I am not surprised you readily know all these details,....

:P :P ;) ;) :) :) ;D ;D 8) 8)

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?