Nuclear submarine visiting city (From Daily Echo)

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

That is a particularly ignorant illogical and ill informed post. First you cannot get a "meltdown"in a closed reactor any more than you could get a chain reaction of an exploding petrol tank in a single car in Southampton igniting the petrol tank of an adjacent car leading to an explosion in every other car in the city. Do you lay awake worrying about that rather remote possibility every night? Do you campaign to keep every car 100 yards from every other car to prevent even that remote chance occurrence? Perhaps you should because it's about as probable. As for your other pieces of random information what possible relevance do they have to this visit at this time? There was a shooting in the street the other day - and there wasn't a submarine for miles. The two things are not connected. And what is the relevance about being a military port? The comment is paritucularly odd seeing as "we" are set up for a military port (in Marchwood) though what that has to do with the visit of this boat is beyond me. Perhaps you'd care to apply a bit of maths to any reply.

rudolph_hucker wrote:
Well I for one welcome this great vessel, one of the most technologically advanced of its kind in the world, into our city.
She's the pride of the Navy, and rightly so.

X Old Bill wrote:
I notice that the same ill-informed panic is present here, just as it is in Buenos Aries.

HMS Tireless is a submarine which happens to have a small nuclear reactor built in.
The reactor makes heat which makes steam to drive turbines which turn the alternators which generate the power to run and propel the thing.
The reactor IS NOT A WEAPON!
The boat carries torpedoes and cruise missiles, neither of which are nuclear armed - It does not carry nuclear weapons.

freefinker wrote:

X Old Bill wrote: I notice that the same ill-informed panic is present here, just as it is in Buenos Aries. HMS Tireless is a submarine which happens to have a small nuclear reactor built in. The reactor makes heat which makes steam to drive turbines which turn the alternators which generate the power to run and propel the thing. The reactor IS NOT A WEAPON! The boat carries torpedoes and cruise missiles, neither of which are nuclear armed - It does not carry nuclear weapons.

.. absolutely correct. However, that 'small nuclear reactor' is still potentially capable of devastating a large area of Hampshire should the very worse happen.

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

X Old Bill wrote: I notice that the same ill-informed panic is present here, just as it is in Buenos Aries. HMS Tireless is a submarine which happens to have a small nuclear reactor built in. The reactor makes heat which makes steam to drive turbines which turn the alternators which generate the power to run and propel the thing. The reactor IS NOT A WEAPON! The boat carries torpedoes and cruise missiles, neither of which are nuclear armed - It does not carry nuclear weapons.

.. absolutely correct. However, that 'small nuclear reactor' is still potentially capable of devastating a large area of Hampshire should the very worse happen.

Phew, I did my best freefinker to hold the fort. Glad your here.

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

forest hump wrote:
"A large area of Hampshire" and then you say 1.5 Km from th eSubmarine. Hmmmm!

SOULJACKER wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Are you for real :D

It's a submarine, not a bomb :)))

Mind you I saw it in the TV & while I know it lives in the water .......Sheeeeesh, what a rust bucket she is!

A Upton wrote:
Having been a reactor panel operator and reactor instrumentation maintainer on this submarine for 3 years in the nineties, and never had a report worthy incident, I feel unqualified to comment in this forum of nuclear experts without the experience of being a PWR operator. I wish I was in one of the groups of people being invited on her so that I can remember those happy years on her and her sisters.

TEBOURBA wrote:
With advancing years my memory may deceive me but I seem to recall that some time ago Southampton was declared a "Nuclear Free Zone" perhaps one of your readers could enlighten me.
If I am right, then the submarine has no place in Southampton Water and Southampton City Council has no right in allowing it to be here!

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not.
Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't.
I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces.
Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

freefinker wrote:

SOULJACKER wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Are you for real :D

It's a submarine, not a bomb :)))

Mind you I saw it in the TV & while I know it lives in the water .......Sheeeeesh, what a rust bucket she is!

Indeed, you are right - it is not a bomb.

May I remind you there have been tens of thousands of nuclear bombs built since 1945 with no accidents whatsoever that have caused a nuclear explosion.

On the other hand, there have been fewer than a thousand nuclear reactors built in the same period and a few have caused considerable damage.

Inherently, bombs are MUCH safer than reactors - and it's an ancient reactor with a history of failure that is now in our docks.

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not.
Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't.
I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces.
Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub.

And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear.

Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

SOULJACKER wrote:

freefinker wrote:

SOULJACKER wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Are you for real :D

It's a submarine, not a bomb :)))

Mind you I saw it in the TV & while I know it lives in the water .......Sheeeeesh, what a rust bucket she is!

Indeed, you are right - it is not a bomb.

May I remind you there have been tens of thousands of nuclear bombs built since 1945 with no accidents whatsoever that have caused a nuclear explosion.

On the other hand, there have been fewer than a thousand nuclear reactors built in the same period and a few have caused considerable damage.

Inherently, bombs are MUCH safer than reactors - and it's an ancient reactor with a history of failure that is now in our docks.

How many subs blow up in the harbour.....I never heard of one :D

freefinker wrote:

SOULJACKER wrote:

freefinker wrote:

SOULJACKER wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Are you for real :D It's a submarine, not a bomb :))) Mind you I saw it in the TV & while I know it lives in the water .......Sheeeeesh, what a rust bucket she is!

Indeed, you are right - it is not a bomb. May I remind you there have been tens of thousands of nuclear bombs built since 1945 with no accidents whatsoever that have caused a nuclear explosion. On the other hand, there have been fewer than a thousand nuclear reactors built in the same period and a few have caused considerable damage. Inherently, bombs are MUCH safer than reactors - and it's an ancient reactor with a history of failure that is now in our docks.

How many subs blow up in the harbour.....I never heard of one :D

.. sorry, I need to correct my previous post. There have been well over 100,000 nuclear bombs made since 1945. The USA alone admits to 'more than 70,000, 1945-1990' - and no accidental explosions. ‘How many subs blow up in the harbour’ you ask. There’s always a first time you know. Do you know what; it’s almost a certainty that in the week before Chernobyl went up where was a Soviet official saying something very similar to you. Tsunami!! Don’t be daft; it’s been designed to cope with such eventualities.

PaddyDucks wrote:
Its a trick, its made of plywood. The real one is in the Falklands.

freefinker wrote:

X Old Bill wrote:
I notice that the same ill-informed panic is present here, just as it is in Buenos Aries.

HMS Tireless is a submarine which happens to have a small nuclear reactor built in.
The reactor makes heat which makes steam to drive turbines which turn the alternators which generate the power to run and propel the thing.
The reactor IS NOT A WEAPON!
The boat carries torpedoes and cruise missiles, neither of which are nuclear armed - It does not carry nuclear weapons.

.. absolutely correct.

However, that 'small nuclear reactor' is still potentially capable of devastating a large area of Hampshire should the very worse happen.

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not.
Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't.
I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces.
Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub.

And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear.

Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

Georgem wrote:

freefinker wrote:

X Old Bill wrote:
I notice that the same ill-informed panic is present here, just as it is in Buenos Aries.

HMS Tireless is a submarine which happens to have a small nuclear reactor built in.
The reactor makes heat which makes steam to drive turbines which turn the alternators which generate the power to run and propel the thing.
The reactor IS NOT A WEAPON!
The boat carries torpedoes and cruise missiles, neither of which are nuclear armed - It does not carry nuclear weapons.

.. absolutely correct.

However, that 'small nuclear reactor' is still potentially capable of devastating a large area of Hampshire should the very worse happen.

But you're quite happy to live close to Fawley? Ok....

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
More risk of an A380 falling on you, more danger from the CAT scanner at the General, all danger is relevant, you are more likely to be killed by a motor car than an accident involving a Nuclear Sub. However I recommend that you up your Insurance policy now.

fabcat wrote:
We live in relative peace because we can defend ourselves. 1940 anyone? Poland, Czechoslovakia or France? It is no different now. Additionally, the engineering and skills are transferable and one of the few things we can still sell. Or do you think that the economy runs on selling sandwiches? And Britain is far too small for it to matter where they dock - one strategic attack and we are almost all dead. That leaves terrorism - and there are plenty of targets, such as the London Underground, which would hurt (and cost) more. If you don't want defence - fine. Go live in Tibet, or is their lack of freedom unappealing?
However, the touching faith some have in technology and design is misplaced. These things do have accidents and that includes their reactors - but I risk my life with moronic drivers every day, and that is a far greater risk.
I don't like murder, whether in war or not, but I don't like being a victim and I wish we had a larger submarine force, not smaller, as well as a larger RAF and Army. Perhaps if we improved education and made things again we could afford it!

freefinker wrote:

fabcat wrote:
We live in relative peace because we can defend ourselves. 1940 anyone? Poland, Czechoslovakia or France? It is no different now. Additionally, the engineering and skills are transferable and one of the few things we can still sell. Or do you think that the economy runs on selling sandwiches? And Britain is far too small for it to matter where they dock - one strategic attack and we are almost all dead. That leaves terrorism - and there are plenty of targets, such as the London Underground, which would hurt (and cost) more. If you don't want defence - fine. Go live in Tibet, or is their lack of freedom unappealing?
However, the touching faith some have in technology and design is misplaced. These things do have accidents and that includes their reactors - but I risk my life with moronic drivers every day, and that is a far greater risk.
I don't like murder, whether in war or not, but I don't like being a victim and I wish we had a larger submarine force, not smaller, as well as a larger RAF and Army. Perhaps if we improved education and made things again we could afford it!

.. well I agree with the 'Britain is far too small for it to matter' bit, even if I have taken a gross liberty with taking it out of context.

Let’s face it; we are no longer the great imperial power where we could just send another gun boat to enforce our will. We are a medium sized nation with under 1% of the world’s population and a crippling debt.

We should start to act as such, just like almost all the other nations in roughly our position who do not feel the need to arm themselves with WMD’s.

Sorry, but in my opinion all these ‘left hand up a bit’ incompetents who run the submarine service should be first in the queue when it comes to public sector job cuts. It is a dangerous ‘luxury’ we can’t afford and actually have little need for.

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not.
Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't.
I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces.
Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub.

And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear.

Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
More risk of an A380 falling on you, more danger from the CAT scanner at the General, all danger is relevant, you are more likely to be killed by a motor car than an accident involving a Nuclear Sub. However I recommend that you up your Insurance policy now.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?

fabcat wrote:
We live in relative peace because we can defend ourselves. 1940 anyone? Poland, Czechoslovakia or France? It is no different now. Additionally, the engineering and skills are transferable and one of the few things we can still sell. Or do you think that the economy runs on selling sandwiches? And Britain is far too small for it to matter where they dock - one strategic attack and we are almost all dead. That leaves terrorism - and there are plenty of targets, such as the London Underground, which would hurt (and cost) more. If you don't want defence - fine. Go live in Tibet, or is their lack of freedom unappealing?
However, the touching faith some have in technology and design is misplaced. These things do have accidents and that includes their reactors - but I risk my life with moronic drivers every day, and that is a far greater risk.
I don't like murder, whether in war or not, but I don't like being a victim and I wish we had a larger submarine force, not smaller, as well as a larger RAF and Army. Perhaps if we improved education and made things again we could afford it!

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?

.. so, no sensible comeback then?

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
More risk of an A380 falling on you, more danger from the CAT scanner at the General, all danger is relevant, you are more likely to be killed by a motor car than an accident involving a Nuclear Sub. However I recommend that you up your Insurance policy now.

I bet you a million pounds that if we were to carry out a risk assesment and worked out the odds that the accident with the Sub would come out more likely than a A380 falling on me. Dont make such daft uneducated comments.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?

.. so, no sensible comeback then?

Just matching my comments on a par with yours.

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?

.. so, no sensible comeback then?

Just matching my comments on a par with yours.

.. you think so, do you?
How about an analytical reply to mine of 9:26am today.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?

.. so, no sensible comeback then?

Just matching my comments on a par with yours.

.. you think so, do you?
How about an analytical reply to mine of 9:26am today.

I don't do analytical, I'll leave that to the intelligent amongst us. I appreciate that if the bullet has got my name on it there is nothing I can do about it, you are aware that the World is predicted to end in December of this year, probably as a result of a Nuclear disaster (Iran?), or may be a black hole created by the Hadron Colider or whatever it is called. Whatever, if it happens after Saints get promoted to the Premier I will be extremely annoyed at missing half of a Season.

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?

.. so, no sensible comeback then?

Just matching my comments on a par with yours.

.. you think so, do you?
How about an analytical reply to mine of 9:26am today.

I don't do analytical, I'll leave that to the intelligent amongst us. I appreciate that if the bullet has got my name on it there is nothing I can do about it, you are aware that the World is predicted to end in December of this year, probably as a result of a Nuclear disaster (Iran?), or may be a black hole created by the Hadron Colider or whatever it is called. Whatever, if it happens after Saints get promoted to the Premier I will be extremely annoyed at missing half of a Season.

.. so, nothing serious to add then.
Still unable to differentiate between risk and hazard.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?

.. so, no sensible comeback then?

Just matching my comments on a par with yours.

.. you think so, do you?
How about an analytical reply to mine of 9:26am today.

I don't do analytical, I'll leave that to the intelligent amongst us. I appreciate that if the bullet has got my name on it there is nothing I can do about it, you are aware that the World is predicted to end in December of this year, probably as a result of a Nuclear disaster (Iran?), or may be a black hole created by the Hadron Colider or whatever it is called. Whatever, if it happens after Saints get promoted to the Premier I will be extremely annoyed at missing half of a Season.

.. so, nothing serious to add then.
Still unable to differentiate between risk and hazard.

Nothing serious to add as there is nothing I can do about it, I guess you have read http://www.largeasso

ciates.com/3185%20SO

TONSAFE/sepg%2046-16

7474.pdf It is all under control.

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not.
Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't.
I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces.
Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub.

And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear.

Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not.
Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't.
I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces.
Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub.

And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear.

Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk.

Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not.
Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't.
I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces.
Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub.

And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear.

Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk.

Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I deal with these issues above: -
9:00am in response to you and Fawley.
9:26am in response to aircraft.

You have not dealt with either of my responses.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not.
Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't.
I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces.
Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub.

And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear.

Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk.

Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I deal with these issues above: -
9:00am in response to you and Fawley.
9:26am in response to aircraft.

You have not dealt with either of my responses.

I apologise, I was not aware it was obligatory to respond to your posts, I am a free thinker too, I disagree with your opinion, what more can I say?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
I am just going out for a walk with my dog, the forecast wind is taking any possible pollution to the North West, so unless armageddon strikes I should be OK for a little while.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
There is a serious risk I might burn my tongue on my cup of tea, the hazard is that I have not let it cool enough before drinking it. Everything has a scale of relevance.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
There is a serious risk I might burn my tongue on my cup of tea, the hazard is that I have not let it cool enough before drinking it. Everything has a scale of relevance.

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

X Old Bill wrote: I notice that the same ill-informed panic is present here, just as it is in Buenos Aries. HMS Tireless is a submarine which happens to have a small nuclear reactor built in. The reactor makes heat which makes steam to drive turbines which turn the alternators which generate the power to run and propel the thing. The reactor IS NOT A WEAPON! The boat carries torpedoes and cruise missiles, neither of which are nuclear armed - It does not carry nuclear weapons.

.. absolutely correct. However, that 'small nuclear reactor' is still potentially capable of devastating a large area of Hampshire should the very worse happen.

Phew, I did my best freefinker to hold the fort. Glad your here.

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
There is a serious risk I might burn my tongue on my cup of tea, the hazard is that I have not let it cool enough before drinking it. Everything has a scale of relevance.

This proves you have no understanding of risk and hazard. I suggest go and looking it up.

B. L. wrote:
As usual, the inevitable posts will begin with all the anti Navy and anti nuclear submarine mob, taking it in turns with the single brain cell.

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote:
Not again.
.
Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them!
.
Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks.
.
The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not.
Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't.
I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces.
Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub.

And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear.

Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk.

Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I deal with these issues above: -
9:00am in response to you and Fawley.
9:26am in response to aircraft.

You have not dealt with either of my responses.

I apologise, I was not aware it was obligatory to respond to your posts, I am a free thinker too, I disagree with your opinion, what more can I say?

I was responding to the contents of Georgem's post - not expecting you to answer.

No problem, however, we can disagree.

B. L. wrote:

B. L. wrote:
As usual, the inevitable posts will begin with all the anti Navy and anti nuclear submarine mob, taking it in turns with the single brain cell.

Qoud erat demonstrandum.

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

B. L. wrote:

B. L. wrote:
As usual, the inevitable posts will begin with all the anti Navy and anti nuclear submarine mob, taking it in turns with the single brain cell.

Qoud erat demonstrandum.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote: There is a serious risk I might burn my tongue on my cup of tea, the hazard is that I have not let it cool enough before drinking it. Everything has a scale of relevance.

This proves you have no understanding of risk and hazard. I suggest go and looking it up.

Absolutely correct twice, but am I bovvered? Not a jot. Geiger counter is registering normal amounts of Radio activity.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I deal with these issues above: - 9:00am in response to you and Fawley. 9:26am in response to aircraft. You have not dealt with either of my responses.

I apologise, I was not aware it was obligatory to respond to your posts, I am a free thinker too, I disagree with your opinion, what more can I say?

I was responding to the contents of Georgem's post - not expecting you to answer. No problem, however, we can disagree.

Doesn't mean that you are wrong in any way, if it happens you can say "I told you so".

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again...
.
I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless.
.
As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer.
.
Thanks.

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I deal with these issues above: - 9:00am in response to you and Fawley. 9:26am in response to aircraft. You have not dealt with either of my responses.

I apologise, I was not aware it was obligatory to respond to your posts, I am a free thinker too, I disagree with your opinion, what more can I say?

I was responding to the contents of Georgem's post - not expecting you to answer. No problem, however, we can disagree.

Doesn't mean that you are wrong in any way, if it happens you can say "I told you so".

an incident happened last time around and I got to say told you so.../

freefinker wrote:

B. L. wrote:

B. L. wrote:
As usual, the inevitable posts will begin with all the anti Navy and anti nuclear submarine mob, taking it in turns with the single brain cell.

Qoud erat demonstrandum.

.. oh, a very intellectual contribution I must say.
Hazard v risk - nothing to say?
RN safety record - nothing to say?
Prejudiced comments - much to say.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again... . I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless. . As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer. . Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again...
.
I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless.
.
As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer.
.
Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again...
.
I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless.
.
As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer.
.
Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

.. so, for Iranian peace - nuclear sub essential? Or North Korea? Or is there some double standards surfacing.

And as for Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, Egypt, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, etc., etc., ad infinitum - also essential?
I think you will find over 95% of the planet's nations get by quite well without nuclear weapons and nuclear powered submarines. What makes you think we are different?

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again... . I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless. . As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer. . Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

Geeze... Osprey keep up will you.
.
Where have I said that I am against Nuclear Subs? I understand their strategic importance within the UK as already mentioned.
.
What you need to do is justify the visit with contrast to the Hazard and Risk involved in carrying out.
.
There, I have spelled it out to you.

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote: There is a serious risk I might burn my tongue on my cup of tea, the hazard is that I have not let it cool enough before drinking it. Everything has a scale of relevance.

This proves you have no understanding of risk and hazard. I suggest go and looking it up.

Absolutely correct twice, but am I bovvered? Not a jot. Geiger counter is registering normal amounts of Radio activity.

This does conclude you have lost this discussion as now resorting to silly childish replies.
.
You may go play with the rest of the children in the play ground.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again... . I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless. . As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer. . Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

Geeze... Osprey keep up will you. . Where have I said that I am against Nuclear Subs? I understand their strategic importance within the UK as already mentioned. . What you need to do is justify the visit with contrast to the Hazard and Risk involved in carrying out. . There, I have spelled it out to you.

I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again... . I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless. . As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer. . Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

Geeze... Osprey keep up will you.
.
Where have I said that I am against Nuclear Subs? I understand their strategic importance within the UK as already mentioned.
.
What you need to do is justify the visit with contrast to the Hazard and Risk involved in carrying out.
.
There, I have spelled it out to you.

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again... . I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless. . As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer. . Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

Geeze... Osprey keep up will you. . Where have I said that I am against Nuclear Subs? I understand their strategic importance within the UK as already mentioned. . What you need to do is justify the visit with contrast to the Hazard and Risk involved in carrying out. . There, I have spelled it out to you.

I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.

Nothing wrong with Nimbyism aslong as you can justify it, which I believe has been done throughout this article with absolutely no justification from the likes of you?

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again... . I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless. . As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer. . Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

Geeze... Osprey keep up will you. . Where have I said that I am against Nuclear Subs? I understand their strategic importance within the UK as already mentioned. . What you need to do is justify the visit with contrast to the Hazard and Risk involved in carrying out. . There, I have spelled it out to you.

I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.

Nothing wrong with Nimbyism aslong as you can justify it, which I believe has been done throughout this article with absolutely no justification from the likes of you?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again... . I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless. . As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer. . Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

Geeze... Osprey keep up will you. . Where have I said that I am against Nuclear Subs? I understand their strategic importance within the UK as already mentioned. . What you need to do is justify the visit with contrast to the Hazard and Risk involved in carrying out. . There, I have spelled it out to you.

I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.

Nothing wrong with Nimbyism aslong as you can justify it, which I believe has been done throughout this article with absolutely no justification from the likes of you?

Every thing that is wrong with this country is down to one form of Nimbyism or another, pedantic objections have cost us £billions, prove to me that it hasn't.

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again... . I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless. . As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer. . Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

Geeze... Osprey keep up will you. . Where have I said that I am against Nuclear Subs? I understand their strategic importance within the UK as already mentioned. . What you need to do is justify the visit with contrast to the Hazard and Risk involved in carrying out. . There, I have spelled it out to you.

I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.

Nothing wrong with Nimbyism aslong as you can justify it, which I believe has been done throughout this article with absolutely no justification from the likes of you?

Every thing that is wrong with this country is down to one form of Nimbyism or another, pedantic objections have cost us £billions, prove to me that it hasn't.

Or you can just try and justify why we are allowing to a nuclear sub into Southampton docks...? No to diffulcult?

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again... . I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless. . As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer. . Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

Geeze... Osprey keep up will you. . Where have I said that I am against Nuclear Subs? I understand their strategic importance within the UK as already mentioned. . What you need to do is justify the visit with contrast to the Hazard and Risk involved in carrying out. . There, I have spelled it out to you.

I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.

Nothing wrong with Nimbyism aslong as you can justify it, which I believe has been done throughout this article with absolutely no justification from the likes of you?

Every thing that is wrong with this country is down to one form of Nimbyism or another, pedantic objections have cost us £billions, prove to me that it hasn't.

Or you can just try and justify why we are allowing to a nuclear sub into Southampton docks...? No to diffulcult?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again... . I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless. . As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer. . Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

Geeze... Osprey keep up will you. . Where have I said that I am against Nuclear Subs? I understand their strategic importance within the UK as already mentioned. . What you need to do is justify the visit with contrast to the Hazard and Risk involved in carrying out. . There, I have spelled it out to you.

I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.

Nothing wrong with Nimbyism aslong as you can justify it, which I believe has been done throughout this article with absolutely no justification from the likes of you?

Every thing that is wrong with this country is down to one form of Nimbyism or another, pedantic objections have cost us £billions, prove to me that it hasn't.

Or you can just try and justify why we are allowing to a nuclear sub into Southampton docks...? No to diffulcult?

I don't have to justify anything to you, all I can say is that I welcome it and it's crew, I have great respect for our armed forces, you however have none it would seem.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again... . I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless. . As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer. . Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

Geeze... Osprey keep up will you. . Where have I said that I am against Nuclear Subs? I understand their strategic importance within the UK as already mentioned. . What you need to do is justify the visit with contrast to the Hazard and Risk involved in carrying out. . There, I have spelled it out to you.

I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.

Nothing wrong with Nimbyism aslong as you can justify it, which I believe has been done throughout this article with absolutely no justification from the likes of you?

Every thing that is wrong with this country is down to one form of Nimbyism or another, pedantic objections have cost us £billions, prove to me that it hasn't.

Or you can just try and justify why we are allowing to a nuclear sub into Southampton docks...? No to diffulcult?

and it is easier to justify than your spelling. Not too difficult?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
I give up, white flag flying, I cannot justify it being in Southampton, I won't sleep tonight worrying about what is going to happen.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again...
.
I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless.
.
As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer.
.
Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

.. so, for Iranian peace - nuclear sub essential? Or North Korea? Or is there some double standards surfacing.

And as for Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, Egypt, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, etc., etc., ad infinitum - also essential?
I think you will find over 95% of the planet's nations get by quite well without nuclear weapons and nuclear powered submarines. What makes you think we are different?

Yes they get on fine because they know we are around to keep the peace with our detterent, they don't have to spend any money protecting themselves. Would Argentina be justified in trying to regain the Falklands, after all they have the backing of most of South America, but knowing we have a Nuclear Sub. in the area do you really think that they would try it on?

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freefinker wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again...
.
I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless.
.
As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer.
.
Thanks.

United Kingdom Peace = Nuclear Sub essential. Visit to Southampton = optional but not a disaster, as a PR exercise, good for those involved. Threat to Southampton = minimal.

.. so, for Iranian peace - nuclear sub essential? Or North Korea? Or is there some double standards surfacing.

And as for Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, Egypt, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, etc., etc., ad infinitum - also essential?
I think you will find over 95% of the planet's nations get by quite well without nuclear weapons and nuclear powered submarines. What makes you think we are different?

Yes they get on fine because they know we are around to keep the peace with our detterent, they don't have to spend any money protecting themselves. Would Argentina be justified in trying to regain the Falklands, after all they have the backing of most of South America, but knowing we have a Nuclear Sub. in the area do you really think that they would try it on?

MAD worked when there were two 'enemies' both nuclear armed to the teeth. Didn’t deter 9/11 however. Nor will it against irrational countries - Iran, NK, etc.
And no, a huge number of countries do not ‘get on fine because they know we are around to keep the peace with our deterrent’. Apart from NATO nations we have no other nuclear commitments to other nations. And, anyway ‘we’ rely 100% on the USA for our so called deterrent and have also declared a ‘no first strike’.

As for Argentina, well come on. Galtieri was well aware we had both nuclear weapons and nuclear powered subs. Didn’t stop him though, did it?

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Stevie the saint wrote:

The Salv wrote: Not again. . Where are the lefty liberal militants when you need them! . Why put the citizens of Southampton at risk by allowing this death machine into our docks. . The captain managed to ground one in Scotland, a shooting massacre last time round. The Navy are well known on their incompetence and if there is a meltdown that would be the end of any cruise ships and container ships coming into the city. Get our priorities right. We are not set up for a military port we are an easy target.

Once again the ignorant morons comment on something they know nothing about. Has this idiot ever even set foot on one of these magnificent vessels? thought not. Our subs are always having melt downs, so are the yanks and everyone else......oh no, hang on a minute, no they aren't. I spent 5 yrs on one of these subs and I would trust my life with any member of our fantastic armed forces. Stop bloody moaning and get a life.

So, you spent 5 years on a sub. And that, of course, makes you an expert on all things nuclear. Next you will be telling us you have designed Hinkley C for EDF?

Funny thing is i have over 5 years experience in shipbuilding 2 years in chemical, 10 years in Engineering, ex Navy too, associates degree in Mechanical Engineering and I get called ignorant LOL

You don't automatically stop being ignorant just because you had some education. Assuming you're not simply lying to impress some total strangers that can't see you, from behind an assumed name....

Morning, no why do i need to lie. This is all about hazard and risk. Seeing that i have to do risk assements as part of my job i do not understand why would allow this pointless excersise. This ship has already had leaks and explosions on it. Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont happen. People keep talking about the likelyhood of this happening and there is more chance of this or that. This is known as risk, the hazard are the consequences. This is low risk but the hazard is huge and i dont believe we should be gambling our livelyhoods by allowing floating nuclear reactors into our port. You cant justify it, we are not set up for it.

There is also a risk of a plane exploding over the city, but I don't see anybody campaigning to get the airport closed down. There is also a risk of Fawley combusting, which would be a lot more disastrous than a nuclear sub leaking, but we're all happy to live with that risk. Also, I'm somewhat wary of "wisdom" imparted by someone who makes a point of telling us how clever he is. Appeals to authority carry little water, I'm afraid.

I wish you would actually read all the comments before making me repeat myself again...
.
I'll make it quick, Fawley and Southampton Airport = Essential to Southampton. Nuclear Sub -totally pointless.
.
As for my wisdom as you put it, it was actually to do with a comment about ignorance and I was just pointing out that flaw and nothing to do with the spin you put on it as me telling everybody I am clever. I couldnt care less how you took it. Before you respond please read all comments as you may already have your answer.
.
Thanks.

benbow123 wrote:
I tell you what. I have served on this very submarine and 4 other Trafalgar class submarines....

the utter utter hysterical drivel being written by some about these is rather amusing and kind of sad.

absolutely no facts and all opinion

freefinker wrote:

benbow123 wrote: I tell you what. I have served on this very submarine and 4 other Trafalgar class submarines.... the utter utter hysterical drivel being written by some about these is rather amusing and kind of sad. absolutely no facts and all opinion

I'm sure Commodore Andrew McFarlane, RN, will be shocked to hear you dismiss his findings on the inadequacies of the UK nuclear sub reactors as 'absolutely no facts and all opinion'. You and A Upton just offer up anecdotal stories, but this officer actually knows what he’s talking about when he details why the reactors are ‘potentially vulnerable to a structural failure of the primary circuit’. The fact that there actually was a ‘structural failure of the primary circuit’ on this very sub in 2000 is obviously of no concern then? About time you both started to look at the evidence, me finks.

freefinker wrote:

benbow123 wrote:
I tell you what. I have served on this very submarine and 4 other Trafalgar class submarines....

the utter utter hysterical drivel being written by some about these is rather amusing and kind of sad.

absolutely no facts and all opinion

I'm sure Commodore Andrew McFarlane, RN, will be shocked to hear you dismiss his findings on the inadequacies of the UK nuclear sub reactors as 'absolutely no facts and all opinion'.

You and A Upton just offer up anecdotal stories, but this officer actually knows what he’s talking about when he details why the reactors are ‘potentially vulnerable to a structural failure of the primary circuit’.

The fact that there actually was a ‘structural failure of the primary circuit’ on this very sub in 2000 is obviously of no concern then? About time you both started to look at the evidence, me finks.

A Upton wrote:
I beat you Benbow. 26 years on hunter killers (75 to 98 and 00 to 03) and the same as you, only incident reports , not accidents.

SDK1976 wrote:
Aug. 12, 2000 - The Russian Oscar-II class submarine Kursk with 118 crew members sinks to the bottom of the Barents Sea after an explosion triggered a raging fire in the vessel. A 2002 report said a torpedo fuel leak caused the massive explosion.

Feb. 9, 2001 - The nuclear submarine USS Greeneville's rudder tears through the Ehime Maru's lower deck during a fast surface manoeuvre, sinking the Japanese fishing boat within minutes. Nine people aboard die, including students and instructors in commercial fishing. Twenty-six people are rescued.

Aug. 30, 2003 - A Russian nuclear-powered submarine, the K-159 sinks as it is being transported through the Barents Sea on its way to a scrapyard at the port of Polyarny. Nine out of the 10 crew aboard die.

Jan. 9, 2005 - One crewman dies after the U.S. nuclear submarine San Francisco runs aground off Guam in the Pacific Ocean. Another 23 crewmen are injured.

Aug. 1, 2005 - One worker is killed and another seriously injured in an explosion on a decommissioned Victor-III class Russian nuclear submarine docked in the northern shipyard of Severodvinsk for dismantling.

Sept. 6, 2006 - A fire on board a Viktor-III class Russian navy submarine kills two crew. The St Daniel of Moscow was moored in the Barents sea, north of the Rybachiy peninsula near Russia's border with Finland when it caught fire.

March 21, 2007 - Two British soldiers die and another is injured on HMS Tireless during an exercise in the Arctic.

Nov. 8, 2008 - More than 20 people are killed and another 21 injured by toxic gas when a fire safety system misfires on Russia's Nerpa nuclear submarine during trials in the Sea of Japan.

April 8, 2011 - Two Royal Navy personnel are shot, one fatally, on board the Astute, a British nuclear submarine in the southern English port of Southampton. Another sailor is later arrested. The 7,500-tonne vessel is the first of a new class of British nuclear-powered submarines which will be the largest and most powerful attack submarines ever built for the navy. The submarine had run aground the previous October for ten hours near the Skye Bridge and the captain was relieved of his command the next month.

Dec. 30, 2011 - A fire aboard the 167-metre (550 feet) 18,200-tonne Yekaterinburg is extinguished after blazing for nearly a full day and night. Nine people are injured. The submarine is based at the Roslyakovo dock, one of the main dockyards of Russia's Northern Fleet, 1,500 km (900 miles) north of Moscow.