City's nuke sub safety zone cut (From Daily Echo)

Let me get this straight. When a nuclear sub visits the city, about once a year, there is probably a one in a million chance of it having a major accident and even if that did happen, we would get anti-radiation tablets... which are more a placebo than a prevention against the effects of radiation. NON STORY ALERT!!!!!

I bet the "Solent Coalition Against Nuclear ships" has THREE members max. Just another bunch of loons.

Cut it completely, more chance of being abducted by aliens.

But council leader Alec Samuels said: “There is no point in accusing us of not asking questions when the answers are not available.

So how would he know if the answers are not available if he hasn't asked the questions. Typical councillor slippy shoulders. I bet he gets a pill and he lives outside the zone.

It's not so much a non-story but one day maybe a very real danger, but then it WOULD be a end of-story for most of us - in any case it does not end there - What we may not know yet is we become a base for all nuclear submarines and nuclear waste boats - after all Scotland have their submarine bases and northern shores of France are full of nuclear power stations. In any case the Government would sell it's own soul making a few more quodos.

goard

John Vetterlein, from Solent Coalition Against Nuclear ships (SCANS).............
..........get a life you stupid little person.

Mr Vetterlein appears to be a classic rent-a-mob, rent-a-quote protestor. A quick google threw this up...

John Vetterlein (49) was awarded £1,500 and £3,000 legal costs by Hampshire Police for Police Assualt, Unlawful Arrest & False Imprisonment for demonstrating outside McDonalds in Southampton in 1992.

But council leader Alec Samuels said: “There is no point in accusing us of not asking questions when the answers are not available.

even if the answer are not there, you still ask them, because if they cant answer them, then 1/ they are hiding some thing. 2/ they have not done there research right.
if the unforgivable did happen, 2km area would not be enough, let alone 1.5km. wonder if they took in to account that it would be air borne, and all so it would travel up or down with the river.

Yeah Southy, but what is the city councils plan if an asteroid landed on the city eh!?! It's just as likely as a Nuclear incident. WE DEMAND TO BE TOLD AS I'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO PANIC ABOUT SOMETHING TOTALLY OUT OF MY CONTROL!!!!!!!!

southy wrote:
But council leader Alec Samuels said: “There is no point in accusing us of not asking questions when the answers are not available.

even if the answer are not there, you still ask them, because if they cant answer them, then 1/ they are hiding some thing. 2/ they have not done there research right.
if the unforgivable did happen, 2km area would not be enough, let alone 1.5km. wonder if they took in to account that it would be air borne, and all so it would travel up or down with the river.

"if they took in to account that it would be air borne, and all so it would travel up or down with the river."

If you took in to account the prevailing wind comes from the south west which is at ninety degrees to Southampton Water, there is virtually no chance whatsoever that anything would go up or down the river unless it's a perfectly calm day. About as remote a chance as a nuclear submarines reactor blowing up. I realise that you will pass laws to change this when the socialists come in to power and I really don't have a clue.

Accidents can happen. But if nuclear stuff is involved impact could be absolutely enormous, as was the case after accident in USSR/Ukraine due to which even soil in Wales got contaminated. That is why these precautions are put in place. Only scientists with specialist knowledge in this field can assess the possible risks.
But to a lay person like me it appears that in this case cost cutting may be involved. Perhaps in the eyes of penny pinchers price of human life has decreased, after all due to credit crunch some other prices have also crashed..

Having walked along the "mutant mile" its probably pointless issuing tablets...like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted...

And yet most of you live within the blast radius of the "seven sisters" at Esso Refinery and are totally unaware of what would happen if they blew up. RUN FOR THE HILLS!

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Accidents can happen. But if nuclear stuff is involved impact could be absolutely enormous, as was the case after accident in USSR/Ukraine due to which even soil in Wales got contaminated. That is why these precautions are put in place. Only scientists with specialist knowledge in this field can assess the possible risks.
But to a lay person like me it appears that in this case cost cutting may be involved. Perhaps in the eyes of penny pinchers price of human life has decreased, after all due to credit crunch some other prices have also crashed..

"Accidents can happen. But if nuclear stuff is involved impact could be absolutely enormous"

The main concern about radiation leaks still comes from sunken or decommissioned vessels of the old Soviet fleet not Royal Navy ships.
With the previous major accident on land almost a quarter of a century ago in a Soviet country whose crumbling nuclear industry was controlled by the state, is it not time to come out from under your bed and stop worrying? France has 59 nuclear plants and they don't glow in the dark. As an aside, the power producing plants in the UK won't be generating enough for our needs within the foreseeable future and the main option is nuclear power. Maybe the odd visit from a submarine won't be such a concern then.

Nothing to say wrote:
Let me get this straight. When a nuclear sub visits the city, about once a year, there is probably a one in a million chance of it having a major accident and even if that did happen, we would get anti-radiation tablets... which are more a placebo than a prevention against the effects of radiation. NON STORY ALERT!!!!! I bet the "Solent Coalition Against Nuclear ships" has THREE members max. Just another bunch of loons.

Dead right.

There's more chance of winning the lottery than contracting radiation.

Nothing to say wrote:
Yeah Southy, but what is the city councils plan if an asteroid landed on the city eh!?! It's just as likely as a Nuclear incident. WE DEMAND TO BE TOLD AS I'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO PANIC ABOUT SOMETHING TOTALLY OUT OF MY CONTROL!!!!!!!!

Well lets hope the asteroid lands on the civic offices with all the councillors within. None of them can do their job properly and have no interest in the welfare of city residents.

It's all about their own high and mighty pillars and pockets and nothing about whats right for this city.

If you care so much about it, why not become a councillor yourself and lead by example?

Nothing to say wrote:
Yeah Southy, but what is the city councils plan if an asteroid landed on the city eh!?! It's just as likely as a Nuclear incident. WE DEMAND TO BE TOLD AS I'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO PANIC ABOUT SOMETHING TOTALLY OUT OF MY CONTROL!!!!!!!!

lol your nuts in a funny nice bout way. but true it is out of your control if it happens it happens not any one can do about it, but to clean up the mess after wards and take care of the sick.
theres 2 plants in the refinery that are more dangerous than the 7 sisters, (deleading and the residfinder plants if they go up they be catching bits of metal 200 miles away).

derek check your charts, southampton water is closer to south west than its is west, the western approach in west solent is very close to being west, so a south westly wind would not be 90% but more 135%, from north you really do need to think longer and harder about things, because all your seeing is a land mass, whitch is not the case, your for getting the river itchen, you also forgetting that subs tend to be in the water. the last nuclear sub accident involve radioactive water being pump in to sea, while moored up along side a dock wall up north. and if it was to blow up then the water the sub is sitting will automaticlly would be comtaminated and would be subject to tidal movement and not so much the wind. and has it takes spring tides to totally change the tidal waters it then comes possable that most of the comtaminated sea water to be hanging around for 14 days, but likely to be much longer than is, because of the river bed will be comtaminated to. i got no problems with nuke subs coming here, but they need to be ready just in case that 7,300,000 to 1 chance it do happen, and they need to have the right system in place just in case, and your not going to find out if you dont ask questions. and its people like you who dont really have a clue, because you will accept any thing that the powers to be, in what they say to be right.

Jammy Donut wrote:
Cut it completely, more chance of being abducted by aliens.

I've been beamed up by little green men! (and women). I'm on some kind of flying saucer thing. Help!

Whatever happened to duck & cover?

Bartonian; how does one 'contract' radiation? Is it carried by birds?

southy wrote:

Nothing to say wrote:
Yeah Southy, but what is the city councils plan if an asteroid landed on the city eh!?! It's just as likely as a Nuclear incident. WE DEMAND TO BE TOLD AS I'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO PANIC ABOUT SOMETHING TOTALLY OUT OF MY CONTROL!!!!!!!!

lol your nuts in a funny nice bout way. but true it is out of your control if it happens it happens not any one can do about it, but to clean up the mess after wards and take care of the sick.
theres 2 plants in the refinery that are more dangerous than the 7 sisters, (deleading and the residfinder plants if they go up they be catching bits of metal 200 miles away).

derek check your charts, southampton water is closer to south west than its is west, the western approach in west solent is very close to being west, so a south westly wind would not be 90% but more 135%, from north you really do need to think longer and harder about things, because all your seeing is a land mass, whitch is not the case, your for getting the river itchen, you also forgetting that subs tend to be in the water. the last nuclear sub accident involve radioactive water being pump in to sea, while moored up along side a dock wall up north. and if it was to blow up then the water the sub is sitting will automaticlly would be comtaminated and would be subject to tidal movement and not so much the wind. and has it takes spring tides to totally change the tidal waters it then comes possable that most of the comtaminated sea water to be hanging around for 14 days, but likely to be much longer than is, because of the river bed will be comtaminated to. i got no problems with nuke subs coming here, but they need to be ready just in case that 7,300,000 to 1 chance it do happen, and they need to have the right system in place just in case, and your not going to find out if you dont ask questions. and its people like you who dont really have a clue, because you will accept any thing that the powers to be, in what they say to be right.

It's like having a discussion with a two year old.....absolutely no point at all.

Nothing to say wrote:
If you care so much about it, why not become a councillor yourself and lead by example?

I already am.

Nothing to say wrote:
If you care so much about it, why not become a councillor yourself and lead by example?

I already am.

has i though derek you did't think it though rightly can tell that by your comment. think about how and where that nuclear power plant is located in a sub. its below the water line, and the first thing that will get comtamunited with be the water coolers, and then the secondry water coolers and this will happen before it come air borne. it might be a diffrent matter if they was to load nuclear rods on to the sub from the dock quay wall, but they dont, once its in the air it would all ready be in the water, simple logic should tell you that, and if you dont know how the tides work and how it effects the whole local tidal stream say so, water in the river dont get flushed clean with every tide, most of the water go's down with the tide then comes back up with the rising tide. look at it this way take 14 steps forward and then 13 steps back ward.

Emm_Roids wrote:
Whatever happened to duck & cover? Bartonian; how does one 'contract' radiation? Is it carried by birds?

They left with Bob and Weave.

Hey Southy I can buy nuclear materials at Tesco’s in Millbrook. Should we close it??

Derek of Dibden Purlieu. Spat his dummy out of the cot, I see.

stay local wrote:
Hey Southy I can buy nuclear materials at Tesco’s in Millbrook. Should we close it??

what do you think

stay local wrote:
Hey Southy I can buy nuclear materials at Tesco’s in Millbrook. Should we close it??

Thats Nivea... not nuclear!!!

southy wrote:

stay local wrote: Hey Southy I can buy nuclear materials at Tesco’s in Millbrook. Should we close it??

what do you think

No I need the benefit of your omniscient wisdom. Should shops be selling nuclear materials to anyone (there is no age restriction on these items.) just on the shelf ready to be collected they even have wires and batteries nearby.
Should the country be nuclear free to prevent the risk of radiation?

Derek is right, but Southy digs up a load of uninformed irrelevant tripe as always. THe pills are supposed to protect against the impact of nuclear fallout not a slow leak into tidal waters, but of course if the only tool you posess is a hammer you try and turn every problem into a nail, don't you Southy? His knowledge of explosive capability comes from talking to someone in a pub, not from any knowledge of chemistry. "200 miles" away says Southy of Fawley without giving it any thought. Let's all ask him for the calculation of the conventional explosion necessary to do this, and which chemicals at Fawley would be used in such quantities and mixes to produce such an explosion. Go on then Southy, off you go son. Regarding the subs, as it happens I studied Nuclear engineering at Imperial and the chances of any kind of fissile explosive nuclear event are far more remote even than Southy's made up guess. It is not just a question of having nuclear material, there has to be a chain reaction and the probability of that happening are more remote than (by way of illustration) a car in Thornhill running into the car in front, igniting its petrol tank which ignites the car in front of that which ignites the car in front.......all across town to Nursling until every car in Southampton is on fire. Chain reactions are not easy things to produce. So do we ban all cars? No we carry our children in them! This is how ridiculous the assertions of obsessives like John Vetterlein are. So any kind of pills aresimply a waste of taxpayer's money - there are millions of other risks to people that we should be spending our money on reducing instead eg more pedestrian subways, more police, non slip road and pavement surfaces, better drainage, more lifebelts by the water, more dog bins, cycle paths..........shelt
ers against alien abductions, and lastly, iodine pills against nuclear fallout.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Derek is right, but Southy digs up a load of uninformed irrelevant tripe as always. THe pills are supposed to protect against the impact of nuclear fallout not a slow leak into tidal waters, but of course if the only tool you posess is a hammer you try and turn every problem into a nail, don't you Southy? His knowledge of explosive capability comes from talking to someone in a pub, not from any knowledge of chemistry. "200 miles" away says Southy of Fawley without giving it any thought. Let's all ask him for the calculation of the conventional explosion necessary to do this, and which chemicals at Fawley would be used in such quantities and mixes to produce such an explosion. Go on then Southy, off you go son. Regarding the subs, as it happens I studied Nuclear engineering at Imperial and the chances of any kind of fissile explosive nuclear event are far more remote even than Southy's made up guess. It is not just a question of having nuclear material, there has to be a chain reaction and the probability of that happening are more remote than (by way of illustration) a car in Thornhill running into the car in front, igniting its petrol tank which ignites the car in front of that which ignites the car in front.......all across town to Nursling until every car in Southampton is on fire. Chain reactions are not easy things to produce. So do we ban all cars? No we carry our children in them! This is how ridiculous the assertions of obsessives like John Vetterlein are. So any kind of pills aresimply a waste of taxpayer's money - there are millions of other risks to people that we should be spending our money on reducing instead eg more pedestrian subways, more police, non slip road and pavement surfaces, better drainage, more lifebelts by the water, more dog bins, cycle paths..........shelt ers against alien abductions, and lastly, iodine pills against nuclear fallout.

Quality comment

andy i had to stop reading your post, to be truthfull you dont know what your taking about when it comes the refinery, look what happen in the usa in the middle of the desert the plant a residfinder plant sits on its own in the middle of know where, no other refinery plants near by, it blows up killing 6 people that work on the plant and killing 2 more 50 miles away. and they was finding lumps of metal over 200 miles away, and the one in the usa is not has hot and works at a lot lower pressure than the one in the usa and this happen while the one in the refinery was being built in 1989/90. and by the way i was working on that plant in fawley at the time, when the one in the usa blow up.
and yes i do know for a nuclear reactor to blow up is a rare thing, they are more likely to over heat and have a melt down, but even if this do happen it will be subjet to wind direction and tides. and you are all ways better playing it on the safer side, just in case, i know of at lest 2 nuclear accidents in this country in my life time, and we been lucky that they was reasonabily contained.

Moot point possibly, but didn't Southampton City Council spend a fortune some years ago for huge placards up lamp-posts showing a big white dove and the words 'Southampton - a Nuclear Free City'. The irony, is just nuclear free during the months the subs aren't in?

There's absolutely no need for any nuclear subs to come to Southampton. No subs = zero risk of nuclear contamination. Easy.

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:
John Vetterlein, from Solent Coalition Against Nuclear ships (SCANS)............. ..........get a life you stupid little person.

What's the matter diddums, did someone take your favourite toy away?

Unlike you, some of us believe in the democratic right to speak and write in these columns.

What do you mean zero risk? You are at risk from naturally occurring radiation all the time, but because nobody has worked themselves into a state of paranoia over it you don't think about it. If you are thinking of particle radiation do you realise that millions of neutrinos have passed through you and out the other side in the time you have been reading this note? If you feel queasy about that thought then remember they have been doing it since before you were born and you are still here.

Southy the only reference I can find to any US petrochemical disaster at that time was the explosion at Phillips HDPE plant in Texas. Yes, it was a disaster all right - killing 26 people and according to the blurb I found the blast registered 3.5 on the richter scale but 200 miles? No. The blast damaged properties within a 6 miles radius which is bad enough for anyone living in Hythe I admit, but people living in Derby and Nottingham can breath a sigh of relief tonight . Do you have more information on your disaster? It seems to me that if you draw a 200 mile radius round anywhere in the US you are going to include millions of people, as it is the equivalent of a blast zone of 1.25 million square miles - rather more than the largest man made explosion in history (The 52 megatonne Soviet Tsar hydrogen bomb). Still I'm sure you will correct me.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Derek is right, but Southy digs up a load of uninformed irrelevant tripe as always. THe pills are supposed to protect against the impact of nuclear fallout not a slow leak into tidal waters, but of course if the only tool you posess is a hammer you try and turn every problem into a nail, don't you Southy? His knowledge of explosive capability comes from talking to someone in a pub, not from any knowledge of chemistry. "200 miles" away says Southy of Fawley without giving it any thought. Let's all ask him for the calculation of the conventional explosion necessary to do this, and which chemicals at Fawley would be used in such quantities and mixes to produce such an explosion. Go on then Southy, off you go son. Regarding the subs, as it happens I studied Nuclear engineering at Imperial and the chances of any kind of fissile explosive nuclear event are far more remote even than Southy's made up guess. It is not just a question of having nuclear material, there has to be a chain reaction and the probability of that happening are more remote than (by way of illustration) a car in Thornhill running into the car in front, igniting its petrol tank which ignites the car in front of that which ignites the car in front.......all across town to Nursling until every car in Southampton is on fire. Chain reactions are not easy things to produce. So do we ban all cars? No we carry our children in them! This is how ridiculous the assertions of obsessives like John Vetterlein are. So any kind of pills aresimply a waste of taxpayer's money - there are millions of other risks to people that we should be spending our money on reducing instead eg more pedestrian subways, more police, non slip road and pavement surfaces, better drainage, more lifebelts by the water, more dog bins, cycle paths..........shelt

ers against alien abductions, and lastly, iodine pills against nuclear fallout.

At least someone understands what the heck it's all about. There are prophets of doom everywhere and probably on every subject, ignorance is bliss sometimes but a little knowledge looked up on google is downright dangerous. Do these SCANS numbskulls and those that follow that line of thinking believe that the RN is run by a complete set of incompetent idiots. There are safety regulations in place that monitor all systems on a submarine by a highly trained crew. All the catastrophic accidents with nuclear subs involved the Soviet Navy whose nuclear safety record was a shade shy of abysmal. Their once large sub fleet lies in a state of disrepair and rotting at the Northern Fleet Base with no concern about the reactors still in the boats. You get more radiation pass through you on a London bus than on a nuclear submarine of the RN/USN. Not going to comment on Fawley because I don't have the knowledge about it, but what it has to do with nuclear safety, I have no idea, which is what the article is about.

Great idea though, ban nuclear submarines from Southampton to give someone a nice warm cozy glow that they have "achieved" something in their sorry little life. Bet they don't ban nuclear US Carriers that visit the Solent now and again, that would mean loss of revenue.

Oh southy, just for info, pretty much everything on a submarine is below the waterline even when it is on the surface.

B. L. wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote: Derek is right, but Southy digs up a load of uninformed irrelevant tripe as always. THe pills are supposed to protect against the impact of nuclear fallout not a slow leak into tidal waters, but of course if the only tool you posess is a hammer you try and turn every problem into a nail, don't you Southy? His knowledge of explosive capability comes from talking to someone in a pub, not from any knowledge of chemistry. "200 miles" away says Southy of Fawley without giving it any thought. Let's all ask him for the calculation of the conventional explosion necessary to do this, and which chemicals at Fawley would be used in such quantities and mixes to produce such an explosion. Go on then Southy, off you go son. Regarding the subs, as it happens I studied Nuclear engineering at Imperial and the chances of any kind of fissile explosive nuclear event are far more remote even than Southy's made up guess. It is not just a question of having nuclear material, there has to be a chain reaction and the probability of that happening are more remote than (by way of illustration) a car in Thornhill running into the car in front, igniting its petrol tank which ignites the car in front of that which ignites the car in front.......all across town to Nursling until every car in Southampton is on fire. Chain reactions are not easy things to produce. So do we ban all cars? No we carry our children in them! This is how ridiculous the assertions of obsessives like John Vetterlein are. So any kind of pills aresimply a waste of taxpayer's money - there are millions of other risks to people that we should be spending our money on reducing instead eg more pedestrian subways, more police, non slip road and pavement surfaces, better drainage, more lifebelts by the water, more dog bins, cycle paths..........shelt ers against alien abductions, and lastly, iodine pills against nuclear fallout.

At least someone understands what the heck it's all about. There are prophets of doom everywhere and probably on every subject, ignorance is bliss sometimes but a little knowledge looked up on google is downright dangerous. Do these SCANS numbskulls and those that follow that line of thinking believe that the RN is run by a complete set of incompetent idiots. There are safety regulations in place that monitor all systems on a submarine by a highly trained crew. All the catastrophic accidents with nuclear subs involved the Soviet Navy whose nuclear safety record was a shade shy of abysmal. Their once large sub fleet lies in a state of disrepair and rotting at the Northern Fleet Base with no concern about the reactors still in the boats. You get more radiation pass through you on a London bus than on a nuclear submarine of the RN/USN. Not going to comment on Fawley because I don't have the knowledge about it, but what it has to do with nuclear safety, I have no idea, which is what the article is about. Great idea though, ban nuclear submarines from Southampton to give someone a nice warm cozy glow that they have "achieved" something in their sorry little life. Bet they don't ban nuclear US Carriers that visit the Solent now and again, that would mean loss of revenue. Oh southy, just for info, pretty much everything on a submarine is below the waterline even when it is on the surface.

Bravo Zulu to that man!

stay local wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Derek is right, but Southy digs up a load of uninformed irrelevant tripe as always. THe pills are supposed to protect against the impact of nuclear fallout not a slow leak into tidal waters, but of course if the only tool you posess is a hammer you try and turn every problem into a nail, don't you Southy? His knowledge of explosive capability comes from talking to someone in a pub, not from any knowledge of chemistry. "200 miles" away says Southy of Fawley without giving it any thought. Let's all ask him for the calculation of the conventional explosion necessary to do this, and which chemicals at Fawley would be used in such quantities and mixes to produce such an explosion. Go on then Southy, off you go son. Regarding the subs, as it happens I studied Nuclear engineering at Imperial and the chances of any kind of fissile explosive nuclear event are far more remote even than Southy's made up guess. It is not just a question of having nuclear material, there has to be a chain reaction and the probability of that happening are more remote than (by way of illustration) a car in Thornhill running into the car in front, igniting its petrol tank which ignites the car in front of that which ignites the car in front.......all across town to Nursling until every car in Southampton is on fire. Chain reactions are not easy things to produce. So do we ban all cars? No we carry our children in them! This is how ridiculous the assertions of obsessives like John Vetterlein are. So any kind of pills aresimply a waste of taxpayer's money - there are millions of other risks to people that we should be spending our money on reducing instead eg more pedestrian subways, more police, non slip road and pavement surfaces, better drainage, more lifebelts by the water, more dog bins, cycle paths..........shelt ers against alien abductions, and lastly, iodine pills against nuclear fallout.

Quality comment

Nicely done Andy!! and Southy... give it a rest please, it's quite obvious to the rest of us that it is you that isn't qualified to know about it! This is a waste of money, there's more likelihood of Saints gaining promotion this year ! I live near the docks, there are risks all around us, just being alive is a risk! You forgot to add at the end Southy, that the Socialist Party promises the pill to all Soton people, no nuclear subs will visit between the hours of 12midnight and 12 midday, and Fawley will be run purely on vegetable oil.

Perhaps Mr Vetterlain should return to the heady days of protesting outside McDonalds. This obviously isn't working ;)! (lol@ nothingtosay for Googling that, priceless!).

if you under stand how refinerys are built, they are designed to push most of the blast wave up wards, and not out wards, its when all those bits come back down it becomes a problem. that Phillips high-density polyethylene plant was a bad one to, it could of been a lot worse if it was of the newer design of higher pressure and hotter temp. but that one only work at at atmospheric pressure, the residfinder plant in the usa is on the nevada azonia boarder, theres only 3 in the world, the last one built was here in the uk at the refinery and touch wood, the only one that not had any problems, the one in italy caught on fire at the heat exchanger, and when they finished repairing theres they waited for the one here to be started up before they would start there's up, because while they was repairing theres was when the one in the usa went up. if a guy named a. jackson was posting on here he be able to tell you more about it. he had the pleasure of driving the big esso boss from the usa about when he came over for a visit to the refinery.

freemantlegirl2 the main thing is that you dont risk the general public health or safety, and when things do go wrong you make sure your able to cope with the worse that can happen. you dont skimp or save on those sort of things.

southy wrote:
freemantlegirl2 the main thing is that you dont risk the general public health or safety, and when things do go wrong you make sure your able to cope with the worse that can happen. you dont skimp or save on those sort of things.

there's far more risk than that, in and around the city in day-to-day life. To be honest, I couldn't give a flying whatsit whether they spend less money, as people have already explained (many times), giving radiation pills is like shutting stable door....... I wouldn't mind nuclear subs coming here more often for sure - all the nice girls love a sailor ;). They are very safe as far as I'm concerned and this is all scaremongering by a has-been, who frankly needs to have better ways to spend his time. It's like worrying whether an asteroid will hit earth after scientists give all these 'odds'.... until it happens, or is about to happen, then frankly I don't want to spend my life worrying about every tiny little event, nor I'm sure to the sensible element of populace in Southampton!

southy wrote:
if you under stand how refinerys are built, they are designed to push most of the blast wave up wards, and not out wards, its when all those bits come back down it becomes a problem. that Phillips high-density polyethylene plant was a bad one to, it could of been a lot worse if it was of the newer design of higher pressure and hotter temp. but that one only work at at atmospheric pressure, the residfinder plant in the usa is on the nevada azonia boarder, theres only 3 in the world, the last one built was here in the uk at the refinery and touch wood, the only one that not had any problems, the one in italy caught on fire at the heat exchanger, and when they finished repairing theres they waited for the one here to be started up before they would start there's up, because while they was repairing theres was when the one in the usa went up. if a guy named a. jackson was posting on here he be able to tell you more about it. he had the pleasure of driving the big esso boss from the usa about when he came over for a visit to the refinery.

Just read this the relaible siurce quoted is..... the driver of the car that one of the esso bosses went around in> Obviously well qualified to give informed advice on how to drive a car, but not on the construction of refineries,or more importantly the risk associated with a well maintained nuclear submarine.

Southy you do need to do better ,have you benn chosen to represent redbridge and Southampton test for your new party or can you not get a quorum!

Thanks Bright Spark for the support, there is only so much cr*p one can read before you have to bring it back it back down to reality. There are some that think they know how a warship operates, there are some that know how a warship operates, and there are those that have absolutely no ****** idea but will still give their "advice" on how it should operate. We are talking nuclear warships here, and yes, they are getting older just like everything else, but the standards are still as strict, safety-wise and crew-wise. It is not some article about a bl**dy dredger or tugboat running around Southampton Water that has the same standards.

"Members of the council’s overview and scrutiny committee have recommended that Tory council leaders tell the Navy that nuclear ships are not welcome in the port."

As for these morons, how the h*ll did they ever get in a position of influence. The Tory council should tell these misguided mental midgets what to do in no uncertain terms.

Rant over, well, till the next meaningful discussion ! :o)

B. L., Springfield not bad post, but my argument is that even lo there is very little risk of an accident happening and very unlikely happening, you dont remove the medical help ie in the case pills that may or may not help, you cover all the corners just in case, that very rare thing do happen,
i have no problems with nuclear ships of any kind, more so with the british navy. because i know how tight the rules are, and are quick to react, but things have gone wrong before that was beyond navy control, even lo this was a one off event, and things change after wards and all it was just a electric board went down and the sub ended up pumping radioactive water in to the sea, the operator was very quick of his feet to shut it down and reroute the water back to where it should of been going and that was to the secondry water heat exchanger, this alone was a one of event and probley will never happen again, even with out the changes.

stay local, the driver was one of the construction drivers, and drivers and passengers talk to one another. plus we all ready knew about the accident in the usa before he arrived in the uk, the reason why this top esso man from the usa came to the refinery was to look at the resid plant, and talk the construction and esso people about the plant, he was not to happy about the resid and the deleading plant being in the same place, has the rest of the refinery.
the media and most people dont get to hear about most accidents that happen in that refinery, they only get told the ones they cant hide, like the 150 foot fireball that happen in late 85, people got to hear about about that cant hide some thing like that, but that same year in may there was an explosion in the polyermer plant, or the number of gas leaks that happens, and there a fair number of those every time theres a turnround program on the go. and people dont get to hear about them.