Royal Navy nuclear submarine begins five-day visit to Southampton

Daily Echo: HMS Tireless on a previous visit to Southampton HMS Tireless on a previous visit to Southampton

ONE of the Royal Navy’s most celebrated submarines will today make its next stop in Southampton.

Plymouth-based HMS Tireless, which has served in the Arctic and Gibraltar, will be berthed in Eastern Docks during a five-day visit to the city.

The nuclear-powered submarine, launched in March 1984, will welcome visitors from Sea and Air Cadet and Sea Scout units from across Hampshire, as well as sixth form college pupils.

Civic dignitaries and city council chiefs are also set to board the vessel and meet the crew, during its five-day visit.

Among the crew is the vessel’s Commanding Officer, Commander Hywel Griffiths, who is a former pupil at Peter Symonds College, in Winchester.

He said: “Having completed my secondary education and worked in the local area prior to joining the Royal Navy, it is with immense personal pride that I bring HMS Tireless to Southampton under my command.

“It is a welcome opportunity for my ship’s company to meet people and visit the city of Southampton and for local people to visit us so that we may demonstrate how we are engaged day to day in protecting our nation’s interests.”

Last May, HMS Tireless returned from a ten-month deployment to the Middle East, where she conducted several missions to help combat the threat of terrorism.

Related links

Comments (114)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:14pm Thu 1 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Thu 1 Mar 12

B. L. says...

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.
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. B. L.
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Thu 1 Mar 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Thu 1 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
Good afternoon Andy.
.
If you live close by the area where this will be docked you would have received a cautious letter from the Council warning you of the potential dangers and the consequences IF anything was to happen. Some of these include treatment for radiation poisioning and the evacuation of my house. Lets not forget what happened in Fukishima. Now you could excuse me of being a NIMBY but I would be just as concerned for Southampton had I lived in Romsey. The RISK may be small but the HAZARDS are immense. You could potentiall bring Southampton to it's knees. We are not a Military Port, Southampton docks is a commercial port. Portsmouth, Devonport and Faslane are set up for this not Southampton. Although I am not keen on Nuclear Weapons I understand there role within the UK. But I see of no benefit of allowing this sub into the City. The consequences are too great if anything goes wrong although that RISK may be low we all know that disasters can and have happened in the past.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Good afternoon Andy. . If you live close by the area where this will be docked you would have received a cautious letter from the Council warning you of the potential dangers and the consequences IF anything was to happen. Some of these include treatment for radiation poisioning and the evacuation of my house. Lets not forget what happened in Fukishima. Now you could excuse me of being a NIMBY but I would be just as concerned for Southampton had I lived in Romsey. The RISK may be small but the HAZARDS are immense. You could potentiall bring Southampton to it's knees. We are not a Military Port, Southampton docks is a commercial port. Portsmouth, Devonport and Faslane are set up for this not Southampton. Although I am not keen on Nuclear Weapons I understand there role within the UK. But I see of no benefit of allowing this sub into the City. The consequences are too great if anything goes wrong although that RISK may be low we all know that disasters can and have happened in the past. The Salv
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Thu 1 Mar 12

rudolph_hucker says...

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.
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. rudolph_hucker
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Thu 1 Mar 12

ohmywell says...

Hopefully Roy will be visiting again and all of Southampton will be praying that they dont miss this time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
Hopefully Roy will be visiting again and all of Southampton will be praying that they dont miss this time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ohmywell
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Thu 1 Mar 12

freefinker says...

The RN have a quite atrocious record with nuclear sub incidents: -
9 radiation leaks since 1997 – Hansard 14/05/2009.
16 groundings or collisions since 1988 – The Herald 7/11/2010.
234 fires on board since 1987 – Hansard 02/04/2009.

This particular submarine, already passed its sell by date, had a very serious primary coolant leak in 2000 resulting in a year in Gibraltar for repairs and causing diplomatic incidents with both the Spanish and Gibraltar governments.

Then in 2003 managed to collide with an iceberg and followed this up by an explosion in 2007 that caused the death of two crew members.

Add to this the concerns of the Navy’s own nuclear regulator over the lack of a fail-safe shut-down system and a RN assessment that the safety plan for visits to Southampton had several flaws; and perhaps it is not wise to put at risk the flourishing cruise and commercial port businesses that provide so much income and employment just for this unnecessary visit.
The RN have a quite atrocious record with nuclear sub incidents: - 9 radiation leaks since 1997 – Hansard 14/05/2009. 16 groundings or collisions since 1988 – The Herald 7/11/2010. 234 fires on board since 1987 – Hansard 02/04/2009. This particular submarine, already passed its sell by date, had a very serious primary coolant leak in 2000 resulting in a year in Gibraltar for repairs and causing diplomatic incidents with both the Spanish and Gibraltar governments. Then in 2003 managed to collide with an iceberg and followed this up by an explosion in 2007 that caused the death of two crew members. Add to this the concerns of the Navy’s own nuclear regulator over the lack of a fail-safe shut-down system and a RN assessment that the safety plan for visits to Southampton had several flaws; and perhaps it is not wise to put at risk the flourishing cruise and commercial port businesses that provide so much income and employment just for this unnecessary visit. freefinker
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Thu 1 Mar 12

X Old Bill says...

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.
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. X Old Bill
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Thu 1 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
.. you've got to be joking.
She's ancient, ordered in the 1970's and launched in 1984 - technologically, as out of date as they come.
[quote][p][bold]rudolph_hucker[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. you've got to be joking. She's ancient, ordered in the 1970's and launched in 1984 - technologically, as out of date as they come. freefinker
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Thu 1 Mar 12

Shoong says...

I didn't realise I shared a forum with so many nuclear reactor experts.

Life is full of surprises !
I didn't realise I shared a forum with so many nuclear reactor experts. Life is full of surprises ! Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Thu 1 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. absolutely correct. However, that 'small nuclear reactor' is still potentially capable of devastating a large area of Hampshire should the very worse happen. freefinker
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Thu 1 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. absolutely correct. However, that 'small nuclear reactor' is still potentially capable of devastating a large area of Hampshire should the very worse happen.[/p][/quote]Phew, I did my best freefinker to hold the fort. Glad your here. The Salv
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Thu 1 Mar 12

freefinker says...

If you want chapter and verse, I suggest you apologist for these visits take this into account. It’s from the Royal Navy itself.

A report submitted to the Defence Board, a senior decision-making body within the MoD, in November 2009, about the status of plans to replace Trident submarines includes a damning assessment of the safety of CURRENT submarine reactors by the MoD's own senior nuclear safety regulator, Commodore Andrew McFarlane.

"Current UK practice falls significantly short of benchmarked relevant good practice," he warns. The pressurised water reactors that run submarines are "potentially vulnerable to a structural failure of the primary circuit".

This could cause "a release of highly radioactive fission products" and "a significant risk to life to those in close proximity and a public safety hazard out to 1.5km from the submarine", McFarlane says.

"Current designs of UK and global civil power plants have systems for safety injection of coolant into the reactor pressure vessel head and passive core cooling systems," he adds.

"UK submarines compare poorly with these benchmarks, with the ability to tolerate only a structural failure equivalent to a …" Unfortunately the rest of the sentence, along with most of the following two pages, are blacked out in the released document."

These factors are amongst many as to why it is irresponsible to threaten the well-being of Southampton residents and the prosperity of our civilian port operations by bringing these submarines into this city.
If you want chapter and verse, I suggest you apologist for these visits take this into account. It’s from the Royal Navy itself. A report submitted to the Defence Board, a senior decision-making body within the MoD, in November 2009, about the status of plans to replace Trident submarines includes a damning assessment of the safety of CURRENT submarine reactors by the MoD's own senior nuclear safety regulator, Commodore Andrew McFarlane. "Current UK practice falls significantly short of benchmarked relevant good practice," he warns. The pressurised water reactors that run submarines are "potentially vulnerable to a structural failure of the primary circuit". This could cause "a release of highly radioactive fission products" and "a significant risk to life to those in close proximity and a public safety hazard out to 1.5km from the submarine", McFarlane says. "Current designs of UK and global civil power plants have systems for safety injection of coolant into the reactor pressure vessel head and passive core cooling systems," he adds. "UK submarines compare poorly with these benchmarks, with the ability to tolerate only a structural failure equivalent to a …" Unfortunately the rest of the sentence, along with most of the following two pages, are blacked out in the released document." These factors are amongst many as to why it is irresponsible to threaten the well-being of Southampton residents and the prosperity of our civilian port operations by bringing these submarines into this city. freefinker
  • Score: 0

7:17pm Thu 1 Mar 12

SOULJACKER says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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! SOULJACKER
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Thu 1 Mar 12

forest hump says...

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.
Grow up, the pair of you.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. absolutely correct. However, that 'small nuclear reactor' is still potentially capable of devastating a large area of Hampshire should the very worse happen.[/p][/quote]Phew, I did my best freefinker to hold the fort. Glad your here.[/p][/quote]Grow up, the pair of you. forest hump
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Thu 1 Mar 12

TEBOURBA says...

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!
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! TEBOURBA
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Thu 1 Mar 12

forest hump says...

"A large area of Hampshire" and then you say 1.5 Km from th eSubmarine. Hmmmm!
"A large area of Hampshire" and then you say 1.5 Km from th eSubmarine. Hmmmm! forest hump
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Thu 1 Mar 12

A Upton says...

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.
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. A Upton
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Thu 1 Mar 12

opera phantom says...

I think we need Michael Winner for advice on this one.
If you are worried about
Nuclear Danger there is more
potential danger from Nuclear
Power Stations along the North
coast of France
I think we need Michael Winner for advice on this one. If you are worried about Nuclear Danger there is more potential danger from Nuclear Power Stations along the North coast of France opera phantom
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Thu 1 Mar 12

Stevie the saint says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Thu 1 Mar 12

freefinker says...

forest hump wrote:
"A large area of Hampshire" and then you say 1.5 Km from th eSubmarine. Hmmmm!
Ah! Yes, I say 'a large area of Hampshire' followed by 'should the very worse happen'. The very worse being a rupture of the Reactor Compartment (RC) to allow widespread wind dispersal - i.e. as in Chernobyl, but on a smaller scale.

Commodore Andrew McFarlane (and not I) does indeed say 'a significant risk to life to those in close proximity and a public safety hazard out to 1.5km from the submarine'. In this assessment the RN assume the RC remains intact and the risk to the outside world is caused by 'shine' penetrating through the RC.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: "A large area of Hampshire" and then you say 1.5 Km from th eSubmarine. Hmmmm![/p][/quote]Ah! Yes, I say 'a large area of Hampshire' followed by 'should the very worse happen'. The very worse being a rupture of the Reactor Compartment (RC) to allow widespread wind dispersal - i.e. as in Chernobyl, but on a smaller scale. Commodore Andrew McFarlane (and not I) does indeed say 'a significant risk to life to those in close proximity and a public safety hazard out to 1.5km from the submarine'. In this assessment the RN assume the RC remains intact and the risk to the outside world is caused by 'shine' penetrating through the RC. freefinker
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Thu 1 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Thu 1 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
If I remember correctly, you served under Andrew McFarlane.
So, I suppose he should know what he's talking about from hands on experience.
[quote][p][bold]A Upton[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]If I remember correctly, you served under Andrew McFarlane. So, I suppose he should know what he's talking about from hands on experience. freefinker
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Thu 1 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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!
.. if only!!
Even when it was in force, trains with nuclear waste from Winfrith regularly passed through Southampton on their way to Sellafield.
[quote][p][bold]TEBOURBA[/bold] 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![/p][/quote].. if only!! Even when it was in force, trains with nuclear waste from Winfrith regularly passed through Southampton on their way to Sellafield. freefinker
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Thu 1 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
Eight nuclear submarines have sunk as a consequence of either accident or extensive damage.
.
The Royal Navy's HMS Vanguard and the French Navy's Triomphant, were involved in a collision in February 2009.
.
On March 21, 2007 two crew members of the Royal Navy's Trafalgar-class submarine, HMS Tireless were killed in an explosion caused by air-purification equipment in the forward section of the submarine.
.
In November 2002, the Royal Navy's Trafalgar-class submarine, HMS Trafalgar ran aground close to Skye, causing £5 million.
.
12 August 2000, the Russian Oscar II class submarine Kursk sank in the Barents Sea after an explosion. The investigation showed that a leak of hydrogen peroxide in a torpedo led to explosion of its fuel, causing the submarine to hit the bottom which in turn triggered the detonation of further torpedo warheads about two minutes later. This second explosion was equivalent to about 2-3 tonnes of TNT, large enough to register on seismographs across Northern Europe.
.
I could go on and on...
[quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Eight nuclear submarines have sunk as a consequence of either accident or extensive damage. . The Royal Navy's HMS Vanguard and the French Navy's Triomphant, were involved in a collision in February 2009. . On March 21, 2007 two crew members of the Royal Navy's Trafalgar-class submarine, HMS Tireless were killed in an explosion caused by air-purification equipment in the forward section of the submarine. . In November 2002, the Royal Navy's Trafalgar-class submarine, HMS Trafalgar ran aground close to Skye, causing £5 million. . 12 August 2000, the Russian Oscar II class submarine Kursk sank in the Barents Sea after an explosion. The investigation showed that a leak of hydrogen peroxide in a torpedo led to explosion of its fuel, causing the submarine to hit the bottom which in turn triggered the detonation of further torpedo warheads about two minutes later. This second explosion was equivalent to about 2-3 tonnes of TNT, large enough to register on seismographs across Northern Europe. . I could go on and on... The Salv
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Thu 1 Mar 12

The Salv says...

Not to mention the countless near misses...
Not to mention the countless near misses... The Salv
  • Score: 0

8:37pm Thu 1 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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? freefinker
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Thu 1 Mar 12

SOULJACKER says...

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
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]How many subs blow up in the harbour.....I never heard of one :D SOULJACKER
  • Score: 0

9:23pm Thu 1 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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 The Salv
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Thu 1 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]How many subs blow up in the harbour.....I never heard of one :D[/p][/quote].. 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. freefinker
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Thu 1 Mar 12

PaddyDucks says...

Its a trick, its made of plywood. The real one is in the Falklands.
Its a trick, its made of plywood. The real one is in the Falklands. PaddyDucks
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Thu 1 Mar 12

forest hump says...

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.
Move to the moon! There are no subs there!
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]How many subs blow up in the harbour.....I never heard of one :D[/p][/quote].. 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.[/p][/quote]Move to the moon! There are no subs there! forest hump
  • Score: 0

12:29am Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

12:34am Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

PaddyDucks wrote:
Its a trick, its made of plywood. The real one is in the Falklands.
Wrong, the real one is currently submerged in the River Plate.
[quote][p][bold]PaddyDucks[/bold] wrote: Its a trick, its made of plywood. The real one is in the Falklands.[/p][/quote]Wrong, the real one is currently submerged in the River Plate. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

2:45am Fri 2 Mar 12

fabcat says...

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!
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! fabcat
  • Score: 0

7:09am Fri 2 Mar 12

Georgem says...

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....
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. absolutely correct. However, that 'small nuclear reactor' is still potentially capable of devastating a large area of Hampshire should the very worse happen.[/p][/quote]But you're quite happy to live close to Fawley? Ok.... Georgem
  • Score: 0

7:11am Fri 2 Mar 12

Georgem says...

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....
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.... Georgem
  • Score: 0

9:00am Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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....
I wouldn't say 'happy' but oil refineries and nuclear reactors present different risks.
Fawley blowing up presents an instant danger that lasts hours/days at most. There are very few after-effects for the environment or our health (e.g. Buncefield 2005).
A reactor catastrophe is quite different in all the respects listed above. Need I remind you there are STILL movement restrictions in operation on over 300 farms in the UK as a result of Chernobyl, 2100 km away and 26 years later?
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. absolutely correct. However, that 'small nuclear reactor' is still potentially capable of devastating a large area of Hampshire should the very worse happen.[/p][/quote]But you're quite happy to live close to Fawley? Ok....[/p][/quote]I wouldn't say 'happy' but oil refineries and nuclear reactors present different risks. Fawley blowing up presents an instant danger that lasts hours/days at most. There are very few after-effects for the environment or our health (e.g. Buncefield 2005). A reactor catastrophe is quite different in all the respects listed above. Need I remind you there are STILL movement restrictions in operation on over 300 farms in the UK as a result of Chernobyl, 2100 km away and 26 years later? freefinker
  • Score: 0

9:26am Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
True, but the risks you mention do not have the potential to devastate such a big area for decades and affect such large numbers of people.

Lockerbie killed just 11 people on the ground. Exclusion zones were not required. Trauma it may have caused, but no long term physical health effects or damage to agriculture and the environment. Compare with Fukushima.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]True, but the risks you mention do not have the potential to devastate such a big area for decades and affect such large numbers of people. Lockerbie killed just 11 people on the ground. Exclusion zones were not required. Trauma it may have caused, but no long term physical health effects or damage to agriculture and the environment. Compare with Fukushima. freefinker
  • Score: 0

9:43am Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]fabcat[/bold] 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![/p][/quote].. 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. freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:32am Fri 2 Mar 12

Torchie1 says...

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.
The most worrying thing is how you're going to react when faced with a genuine problem.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fabcat[/bold] 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![/p][/quote].. 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.[/p][/quote]The most worrying thing is how you're going to react when faced with a genuine problem. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

10:59am Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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. The Salv
  • Score: 0

11:05am Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. The Salv
  • Score: 0

11:07am Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?
What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:10am Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?
.. so, no sensible comeback then?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?[/p][/quote].. so, no sensible comeback then? freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:12am Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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!
Yes a far greater risk... but what is the hazard of a car crash and the hazard of a radiation leak? Do i have to keep explaining the difference to people? There is no need for it to be here. If you want to know what its like to be on a sub there is a very safe museum in Gosport.
[quote][p][bold]fabcat[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]Yes a far greater risk... but what is the hazard of a car crash and the hazard of a radiation leak? Do i have to keep explaining the difference to people? There is no need for it to be here. If you want to know what its like to be on a sub there is a very safe museum in Gosport. The Salv
  • Score: 0

11:12am Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?[/p][/quote].. so, no sensible comeback then?[/p][/quote]Just matching my comments on a par with yours. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:16am Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
There is more chance of Portsmouth Football Club surviving than a Nuclear accident, if you have got a spare million pounds that might help to sway the odds.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]There is more chance of Portsmouth Football Club surviving than a Nuclear accident, if you have got a spare million pounds that might help to sway the odds. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:16am Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?[/p][/quote].. so, no sensible comeback then?[/p][/quote]Just matching my comments on a par with yours.[/p][/quote].. you think so, do you? How about an analytical reply to mine of 9:26am today. freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:24am Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?[/p][/quote].. so, no sensible comeback then?[/p][/quote]Just matching my comments on a par with yours.[/p][/quote].. you think so, do you? How about an analytical reply to mine of 9:26am today.[/p][/quote]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. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:27am Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?[/p][/quote].. so, no sensible comeback then?[/p][/quote]Just matching my comments on a par with yours.[/p][/quote].. you think so, do you? How about an analytical reply to mine of 9:26am today.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. so, nothing serious to add then. Still unable to differentiate between risk and hazard. freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:43am Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?[/p][/quote].. so, no sensible comeback then?[/p][/quote]Just matching my comments on a par with yours.[/p][/quote].. you think so, do you? How about an analytical reply to mine of 9:26am today.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. so, nothing serious to add then. Still unable to differentiate between risk and hazard.[/p][/quote]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. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:46am Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

11:50am Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
Yes, have read it and also the RN's nuclear regulator’s criticisms of its inadequacies.

SotonSafe is all based on a MINOR sub reactor incident. It is incapable of dealing with a major incident.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: What is the risk of a tree hugger being killed by a bough falling off the tree?[/p][/quote].. so, no sensible comeback then?[/p][/quote]Just matching my comments on a par with yours.[/p][/quote].. you think so, do you? How about an analytical reply to mine of 9:26am today.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. so, nothing serious to add then. Still unable to differentiate between risk and hazard.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Yes, have read it and also the RN's nuclear regulator’s criticisms of its inadequacies. SotonSafe is all based on a MINOR sub reactor incident. It is incapable of dealing with a major incident. freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:52am Fri 2 Mar 12

Georgem says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. Georgem
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. freefinker
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]I was responding to the contents of Georgem's post - not expecting you to answer. No problem, however, we can disagree. freefinker
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
You should be OK.
The risk is minute.
But the hazard is catastrophic.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]You should be OK. The risk is minute. But the hazard is catastrophic. freefinker
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]This proves you have no understanding of risk and hazard. I suggest go and looking it up. The Salv
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]This proves you have no understanding of risk and hazard. I suggest go and looking it up. The Salv
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
.. see, you need us 'lefty liberal militants' after all.

(the name change helped StE!!)
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote].. absolutely correct. However, that 'small nuclear reactor' is still potentially capable of devastating a large area of Hampshire should the very worse happen.[/p][/quote]Phew, I did my best freefinker to hold the fort. Glad your here.[/p][/quote].. see, you need us 'lefty liberal militants' after all. (the name change helped StE!!) freefinker
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]This proves you have no understanding of risk and hazard. I suggest go and looking it up.[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct twice, but am I bovvered? Not a jot. Geiger counter is registering normal amounts of Radio activity. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Fri 2 Mar 12

B. L. says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]B. L.[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Qoud erat demonstrandum. B. L.
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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".
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]I was responding to the contents of Georgem's post - not expecting you to answer. No problem, however, we can disagree.[/p][/quote]Doesn't mean that you are wrong in any way, if it happens you can say "I told you so". OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
"nil carborundum illegitimi"
[quote][p][bold]B. L.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B. L.[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Qoud erat demonstrandum.[/p][/quote]"nil carborundum illegitimi" OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

I have just remembered what they said on the fire course, a hazard is something that can cause harm, the risk is the chance that the hazard will cause harm, or something like that. I just burnt my tongue, but the tea is lovely.
I have just remembered what they said on the fire course, a hazard is something that can cause harm, the risk is the chance that the hazard will cause harm, or something like that. I just burnt my tongue, but the tea is lovely. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]B. L.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B. L.[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Qoud erat demonstrandum.[/p][/quote].. 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. freefinker
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]This proves you have no understanding of risk and hazard. I suggest go and looking it up.[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct twice, but am I bovvered? Not a jot. Geiger counter is registering normal amounts of Radio activity.[/p][/quote]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. The Salv
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.../
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]I was responding to the contents of Georgem's post - not expecting you to answer. No problem, however, we can disagree.[/p][/quote]Doesn't mean that you are wrong in any way, if it happens you can say "I told you so".[/p][/quote]an incident happened last time around and I got to say told you so.../ The Salv
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.../
Proved that the human element was far more dangerous than the Nuclear Threat, your turn.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]I was responding to the contents of Georgem's post - not expecting you to answer. No problem, however, we can disagree.[/p][/quote]Doesn't mean that you are wrong in any way, if it happens you can say "I told you so".[/p][/quote]an incident happened last time around and I got to say told you so.../[/p][/quote]Proved that the human element was far more dangerous than the Nuclear Threat, your turn. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Fri 2 Mar 12

B. L. says...

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.
Thank you for the confirmation. :)
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B. L.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B. L.[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Qoud erat demonstrandum.[/p][/quote].. 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.[/p][/quote]Thank you for the confirmation. :) B. L.
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. 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? freefinker
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. 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?[/p][/quote]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? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
Hoity toity, you have ruined the next post.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]This proves you have no understanding of risk and hazard. I suggest go and looking it up.[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct twice, but am I bovvered? Not a jot. Geiger counter is registering normal amounts of Radio activity.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hoity toity, you have ruined the next post. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
Hazard = plausible. Risk = negligible, right?
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hazard = plausible. Risk = negligible, right? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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?
Where is your back yard?
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]Where is your back yard? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Or you can just try and justify why we are allowing to a nuclear sub into Southampton docks...? No to diffulcult? The Salv
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Or you can just try and justify why we are allowing to a nuclear sub into Southampton docks...? No to diffulcult?[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

4:57pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Or you can just try and justify why we are allowing to a nuclear sub into Southampton docks...? No to diffulcult?[/p][/quote]and it is easier to justify than your spelling. Not too difficult? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
LOL so you cant justify it then.
.
You do realise you can have a great respect for the armed forces and still disagree about an unjustifiable risk to the city of Southampton.
.
I few more moronic comments please and we get this into the most commented on stories of the week.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Or you can just try and justify why we are allowing to a nuclear sub into Southampton docks...? No to diffulcult?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]LOL so you cant justify it then. . You do realise you can have a great respect for the armed forces and still disagree about an unjustifiable risk to the city of Southampton. . I few more moronic comments please and we get this into the most commented on stories of the week. The Salv
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Fri 2 Mar 12

moulefanggoule says...

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?
Salv - I have been reading with interest the whole stream of ramblings above and I whole heartedly agree with you. I'm also educated degree mech engineering level and have over 10 years experience in industry. One of the things I regularly deal with is risk and hazards. What you're saying is spot on and no one is really understanding your point. There is no reason for it to be in Soton as there are better places for it what are equipped for it. It doesn't benefit Soton in anyway so how do they back it up. Keep up the bashing!
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I don't recall you saying that you were personally against them, you just don't want one on your doorstep, right? Classic NIMBY.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Or you can just try and justify why we are allowing to a nuclear sub into Southampton docks...? No to diffulcult?[/p][/quote]and it is easier to justify than your spelling. Not too difficult?[/p][/quote]Salv - I have been reading with interest the whole stream of ramblings above and I whole heartedly agree with you. I'm also educated degree mech engineering level and have over 10 years experience in industry. One of the things I regularly deal with is risk and hazards. What you're saying is spot on and no one is really understanding your point. There is no reason for it to be in Soton as there are better places for it what are equipped for it. It doesn't benefit Soton in anyway so how do they back it up. Keep up the bashing! moulefanggoule
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

5:16pm Fri 2 Mar 12

The Salv says...

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.
Excellent, thanks for seeing the point. All you need to do is contact your local MP.
.
As a fellow Sotonian we really dont want to put at risk our cruise and container terminals and also the wellbeing of our locals and marine wildlife.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Excellent, thanks for seeing the point. All you need to do is contact your local MP. . As a fellow Sotonian we really dont want to put at risk our cruise and container terminals and also the wellbeing of our locals and marine wildlife. The Salv
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. 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?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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? freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

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?
Absolutely right in every respect, I cannot fault your logic, keep up the good work.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. 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?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]Absolutely right in every respect, I cannot fault your logic, keep up the good work. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Fri 2 Mar 12

Georgem says...

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.
Nothing says "I don't care what you think" like repeating the thing you're not supposed to care what I think about it. Err.
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie the saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Nothing says "I don't care what you think" like repeating the thing you're not supposed to care what I think about it. Err. Georgem
  • Score: 0

6:52pm Fri 2 Mar 12

benbow123 says...

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 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 benbow123
  • Score: 0

7:17pm Fri 2 Mar 12

A Upton says...

Totally agree with you benbow. I was an RPO on 6 hunter killers including this one. I wish the handbagging would stop so that they can boff up on the differences and different roles of the SSN versus the SSBN, hunter killers and bombers to the uninitiated. BUFFS and get your FOTP!
Totally agree with you benbow. I was an RPO on 6 hunter killers including this one. I wish the handbagging would stop so that they can boff up on the differences and different roles of the SSN versus the SSBN, hunter killers and bombers to the uninitiated. BUFFS and get your FOTP! A Upton
  • Score: 0

8:59pm Fri 2 Mar 12

forest hump says...

The risk assessment process is not well understood by most. Risk is a function of probability and consequence. Using this, you will find you are more likely to get injured driving to the shops or crossing the road. So I say to all of you who have concerns of a Nuclear Sub in Southampton....stay in bed or go live on the Moon.
The risk assessment process is not well understood by most. Risk is a function of probability and consequence. Using this, you will find you are more likely to get injured driving to the shops or crossing the road. So I say to all of you who have concerns of a Nuclear Sub in Southampton....stay in bed or go live on the Moon. forest hump
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Fri 2 Mar 12

A Upton says...

You will get more radiation from natural sources (sun and rocks) sitting on a Cornish beach drinking Brazilian coffee than you would on one of these underwater frigates. When I left after 33 years I had only accumulated 39% of my total lifetime dose allowance of radiation from all sources. The largest components of the RC are the biological shield elements, which kept me and Joe public safe.
You will get more radiation from natural sources (sun and rocks) sitting on a Cornish beach drinking Brazilian coffee than you would on one of these underwater frigates. When I left after 33 years I had only accumulated 39% of my total lifetime dose allowance of radiation from all sources. The largest components of the RC are the biological shield elements, which kept me and Joe public safe. A Upton
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Fri 2 Mar 12

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]benbow123[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

10:22pm Fri 2 Mar 12

forest hump says...

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.
If I were you Sir, I would either see a Psychiatrist or write a book about "How to scare the pants off of people using totally improbable theories"
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benbow123[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]If I were you Sir, I would either see a Psychiatrist or write a book about "How to scare the pants off of people using totally improbable theories" forest hump
  • Score: 0

10:39pm Fri 2 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

I think it is time we had one of those US Navy aircraft carriers back for some R&R, always a good source of revenue in the Solent Area.
I think it is time we had one of those US Navy aircraft carriers back for some R&R, always a good source of revenue in the Solent Area. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

10:55am Sun 4 Mar 12

benbow123 says...

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.
you know what, I may as well end myself, incase I spontaneously combust. the thing is man made. of course there is a risk. its probably up there with a airplane falling from the sky due to complete engine failure and crashing on southampton common.

dear god, I bet you dare not leave your house incase you get hit by lightening.

you know what, in 20 years on Nuclear powered subs...you know how many nuclear accident I have witnesses/been involved in....


NONE
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benbow123[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]you know what, I may as well end myself, incase I spontaneously combust. the thing is man made. of course there is a risk. its probably up there with a airplane falling from the sky due to complete engine failure and crashing on southampton common. dear god, I bet you dare not leave your house incase you get hit by lightening. you know what, in 20 years on Nuclear powered subs...you know how many nuclear accident I have witnesses/been involved in.... NONE benbow123
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Sun 4 Mar 12

A Upton says...

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.
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. A Upton
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Sun 4 Mar 12

forest hump says...

Ignore the lot of them. They will soon be back to the caves and campfires if their philosophies were followed
Ignore the lot of them. They will soon be back to the caves and campfires if their philosophies were followed forest hump
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Mon 5 Mar 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Did it actually turn up? I haven't seen any further news about it.
Did it actually turn up? I haven't seen any further news about it. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Mon 5 Mar 12

B. L. says...

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.
Now you know that you are not allowed to confuse the issue with facts and experience. There are "Nuclear" experts on here that know far more than you. Furthermore, you will have to learn to comment from the opening under your nose, not the one at the other end of your body. :)

Diving Stations !!
[quote][p][bold]A Upton[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Now you know that you are not allowed to confuse the issue with facts and experience. There are "Nuclear" experts on here that know far more than you. Furthermore, you will have to learn to comment from the opening under your nose, not the one at the other end of your body. :) Diving Stations !! B. L.
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Tue 6 Mar 12

A Upton says...

"Control - Manouevring. Closed up at diving stations aft of 58 bulkhead. 3 and 4 main vents un-cottered. Lined up vent state green aft. EPM opened up ready for running. Plant is in the half power state, full power available."
"Control - Manouevring. Closed up at diving stations aft of 58 bulkhead. 3 and 4 main vents un-cottered. Lined up vent state green aft. EPM opened up ready for running. Plant is in the half power state, full power available." A Upton
  • Score: 0

10:46pm Tue 6 Mar 12

B. L. says...

Roger Manouevring.

Control - Manouevring. Um, you don't have any leaking thingys back there do you, I mean, you would tell us wouldn't you ?
Roger Manouevring. Control - Manouevring. Um, you don't have any leaking thingys back there do you, I mean, you would tell us wouldn't you ? B. L.
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Tue 6 Mar 12

B. L. says...

Spot the deliberate mistake !
Spot the deliberate mistake ! B. L.
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Wed 7 Mar 12

JayneMetcalfe says...

If it is safe enough for my partner to spend 10 months of his life on at a time, then I think its safe enough to be in Southampton docks for 5 days. I understand after what happened last year everyone was a bit worried, but why drag the fact that its a nuclear sub into it? Theres 130 men onboard that sub and they sleep next to it every day and night they are deployed. Get over yourself's, there the ones who have their life put in danger. Another thing I don't understand is why it is only ever bad press about subs and to be fair the navy in general! They may be the secret service, but I think its about time they had the appreciation they deserve. Like the appreciation we show our Soldiers. They are after all putting their lives in danger for Queen and country.
If it is safe enough for my partner to spend 10 months of his life on at a time, then I think its safe enough to be in Southampton docks for 5 days. I understand after what happened last year everyone was a bit worried, but why drag the fact that its a nuclear sub into it? Theres 130 men onboard that sub and they sleep next to it every day and night they are deployed. Get over yourself's, there the ones who have their life put in danger. Another thing I don't understand is why it is only ever bad press about subs and to be fair the navy in general! They may be the secret service, but I think its about time they had the appreciation they deserve. Like the appreciation we show our Soldiers. They are after all putting their lives in danger for Queen and country. JayneMetcalfe
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Wed 7 Mar 12

A Upton says...

Submarines are referred to as the Silent Service Jayne, not Secret Service, although a lot of our literature for operating a reactor is classified as Confidential Atomic, it is on a par with Top Secret.
Submarines are referred to as the Silent Service Jayne, not Secret Service, although a lot of our literature for operating a reactor is classified as Confidential Atomic, it is on a par with Top Secret. A Upton
  • Score: 0

10:20pm Wed 7 Mar 12

SDK1976 says...

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.
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. SDK1976
  • Score: 0

9:31pm Thu 8 Mar 12

B. L. says...

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.
Besides your confirmation of the appalling safety record of Soviet nuclear submarines, your point is ?
[quote][p][bold]SDK1976[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Besides your confirmation of the appalling safety record of Soviet nuclear submarines, your point is ? B. L.
  • Score: 0

10:12am Fri 9 Mar 12

A Upton says...

The incident on Tireless March 21, 2007 that SDK1976 refers to was a non nuclear accident that killed 2 submariners, not soldiers. It involved an oxygen generator at the forward end of the BOAT, used for submarine escape scenarios, and are only run for Part 3 training purposes or in the case of a defective electrolyser, which produces oxygen from water. If the electrolysers cannot maintain the oxygen in the BOAT at 21% for any reason, the O2 generators are used to assist. All RN submarine accidents reported are normally of a non-nuclear nature, like casualties caused by falling periscopes (fatal). Our NSRP (nuclear steam raising plant) on these BOATS have incident reports, but no accidents (Dusky1 or Rotor 1) to my knowledge. That is due to the design (Rolls Royce & Associates) and the operator training.
The incident on Tireless March 21, 2007 that SDK1976 refers to was a non nuclear accident that killed 2 submariners, not soldiers. It involved an oxygen generator at the forward end of the BOAT, used for submarine escape scenarios, and are only run for Part 3 training purposes or in the case of a defective electrolyser, which produces oxygen from water. If the electrolysers cannot maintain the oxygen in the BOAT at 21% for any reason, the O2 generators are used to assist. All RN submarine accidents reported are normally of a non-nuclear nature, like casualties caused by falling periscopes (fatal). Our NSRP (nuclear steam raising plant) on these BOATS have incident reports, but no accidents (Dusky1 or Rotor 1) to my knowledge. That is due to the design (Rolls Royce & Associates) and the operator training. A Upton
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree