USS Hartford Fast Attack Nuclear Sub Seaworthy? MAYBE NOT

Just in from Washington Scandal...is the USS Hartford to damaged to be seaworthy? If so, just how safe is the nuclear reactor?

USS Hartford No Longer Sea Worthy? Formal Request For OPEN INVESTIGATION

Naval Inspector General

Attn: Navy Hotline

Building 172

1254 Ninth Street, S.E.

Washington Navy Yard DC

Take Notice of the nice SMOOTH SEALED surface where the Sail joins the Hull.

Notice the vertical/horizontal alignments...compare this to the new CANT.

Dear Inspector General:

As an Anti-Nuclear environmentalist, I have grave concerns when it comes to all things surrounding the Military/Commercial Nuclear Industry...simply stated, there is more than adequate reason not to trust anything put out in the way of Propaganda from the Nuclear Industry (through NEI) or our government through various and assorted agencies (DOD, DOE, NRC, and yes, the US Nuclear Navy).

It does not take a rocket scientist to realize the horrific collision of the USS Hartford with the USS New Orleans was/is far more serious than the Navy is letting on. The few available pictures of the USS Hartford fast attack submarine show SERIOUSLY broken welds around the sail. The Conning Tower is canted from stem to stern, suggesting that periscopes are no longer working.

Further, it is my own belief and allegation that such a significant collision has impinged upon the reactor cores cooling capabilities. It is my belief that any attempts to navigate the USS Hartford back to America under its own power endanger the crew of the USS Hartford, as well as the citizens of the world, and our environment.

It is therefore respectfully requested that your office open up a FULLY PUBLIC investigation of how the accident occurred, and just what damage has been done to both vessels. This investigation should include inspection of the entire nuclear propulsion/cooling system to assure the safety of the world population. Said inspection should take place after the nuclear submarine has been returned back to America using the same technology used to transport the USS Cole. (see photograph)

World public health, the safety of the grew, and the protection of our world oceans should supercede whatever Middle East Agenda the USS Hartford was carrying out. When already we are hearing rumors of water tight doors below deck being incapable of closing, the Navy cannot and must not needlessly risk lives of our American Sailors.

Respectfully,

United States Citizen

Anti Nuclear Activist

PS,,,what environmental restoration work is underway for the TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND GALLONS OF SPILLED DIESEL, and what took the Superior Officers so long in getting a grew out to deal with that end of this accident.

Vice Admiral William E. Gortney

Rear Admiral Thomas A. Cropper

Rear Admiral Scott E. Sanders

Rear Admiral Scott E. Sanders

In Worst Nuclear Accident Since Chernobyl At Least 20 Russian Sailors DIE HORRIBLE NUCLEAR DEATH

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, John McCain routinely LIED about the safety of the Nuclear Navy, deliberately mislead Americans regarding the safety of nuclear energy...well, as we all sit safely in our homes tonight, Russia is hiding the location and name of a naval vessel where 20 sailors have died a horrible nuclear death, with at least 20 others severely injured, perhaps suffering from severe nuclear burns or sure to be FATAL over exposure to radioactive particulates...which raises the question, is the world in the middle of a Naval China Syndrome as a Russian sea going vessel spews its ruptured onboard reactor's nuclear particulates into the world's oceans? Is this the first example of what is to come as America's own aged and brittle reactors give up the ghost and explode when exposed to Thermal Shock? WE NEED DETAILS RUSSIA, NOT COVER UPS!

At least 20 die in accident on Russian nuclear sub

MOSCOW, Nov. 8, 2008 (Reuters) — At least 20 people died and 21 were injured in an accident on board a Russian nuclear-powered submarine, Russian news agencies said on Saturday. ... > full story
http://www.nukestrat.com/russia/subpatrols.htm

Soviet/Russian Nuclear Submarine Patrols 1981-2006

The annual number of patrols performed by Russian nuclear-powered submarines has plummeted from 235 in 1984 to less than 10 today. In 2002, the strategic submarine force did not manage to send a single boat on deterrent patrol. (click on graph to download PDF version)

Patrol Areas

During the Cold War, the patrol areas for Soviet ballistic missile submarines gradually changed as new capabilities were introduced. Most important was the range of the missile, which permitted the submarines to pull back into patrol areas ("bastions") closer to the Soviet Union.

Delta IV Class Ballistic Missile Submarine

Russian nuclear submarines are spending most of their life at pier side.

Nuclear Navy Hides Mishaps...NO KIDDING

I just love it when people send articles our way that back up allegations we have made previously here on GNB...The head of the NEI loves spreading the lie as a former Admiral in the nuclear navy that the United States Nuclear Navy has never had a nuclear vessel accident...I'll call the man (Skip Bowman) a freaking liar right to his face. Despite the Navy's best attempts at keeping their nuclear mishaps out of the public arena, there have been accidents, and some fairly significant ones at that. Anyway, one of our news hounds sent the below article to us, and we thought we would share it with you.

More From The Mississippi Press Subscribe To The Mississippi Press

OPINION

United States Navy has had nuclear incidents

Monday, January 21, 2008

I wish to take issue with Rep. Gene Taylor's assertion that the United States Navy has, in the words of The Mississippi Press' Jan. 18 editorial, "been using nuclear power for decades without incident." In making this statement, both Rep. Taylor and The Mississippi Press are in error. The actual list of "incidents" includes:

1. In 1961, the USS Theodore Roosevelt was contaminated when radioactive waste from its demineralization system blew back onto the ship after an attempt to dispose of the material at sea.

2. On Dec. 12, 1971, approximately 500 gallons of radioactive coolant water was spilled into the Thames River near New London, Conn., during a transfer from the submarine USS Dace to the submarine tender USS Fulton.

3. In 1975, the nuclear-powered submarine USS Guardfish was contaminated with radioactive waste from its reactor coolant water system during disposal at sea.

4. Sometime during October to November of 1975, the submarine tender USS Proteus discharged radioactive coolant water into Apra Harbor, Guam, contaminating two of the harbor's public beaches with radiation 50 times the allowable dose.

5. On May 22, 1978, the nuclear-powered submarine USS Puffer mistakenly released up to 500 gallons of radioactive water near Puget Sound, Washington.

This list does not include the losses of the nuclear-powered submarines USS Thresher and USS Scorpion. While their losses were unrelated to nuclear propulsion, their reactors are still sitting on the ocean floor, making it a matter of time before radioactive material is released. This list also doesn't include accidents involving nuclear weapons or incidents at shore-based facilities.

Finally, Rep. Taylor's assertion does not take into account the U. S. Navy's policy of not releasing information on incidents involving nuclear power. For example, OPNAVINST 3040.5B instructs naval commanders they "may not need to contact all the relevant authorities" if an incident occurs in a foreign port. This is in direct contradiction to the U. S. government's "Standard statement on the operation of U.S. nuclear powered warships in foreign ports" which states, "the appropriate authorities of the host government will be notified immediately in the event of an accident involving the reactor of the warship, during a port visit." In other words, knowledge of any "incidents" may not be in the public domain.

It is true that the U. S. Navy has operated nuclear-powered vessels for over 50 years (beginning with the USS Nautilus in 1954) without a reactor meltdown or a catastrophic release of radioactive material. This is due in large part to the design of their reactors and the rigorous training of their personnel. It is also a wise strategy to legislate the next generation of surface combatants be nuclear-powered to reduce our navy's vulnerability to disruptions in the oil supply. But it is misleading at best to declare U.S. naval operations involving nuclear power have been without incident.

Rep. Taylor should know better than to make such a statement and The Mississippi Press should know better than to repeat it without verification.

Bo Alawine

Ocean Springs

Thanks To Pro Nuclear Votes of Hinchey, Lowey and John Hall, We Are Step Closer To Nuclear Navy

Over a month ago, FUSE USA had major internal problems because we outed Congressmen John Hall, Maurice Hinchey, and Congresswoman Nita Lowey for voting for a ALL NUCLEAR NAVY. Thanks to their sell out of their principles, thanks to their selling out the people they are sworn to protect, our nation sadly has moved one step closer to putting hundreds of floating nuclear reactors on the Earth's oceans in the name of military might. We here at the Green Nuclear Butterfly challenge any one of these elected officials to come to this blog and explain themselves, explain their PRO NUCLEAR NAVY VOTE, explain and justify their acceptance of nuclear tainted campaign funds. Seeing as both Congressman John Hall, and Congresswoman Nita Lowey stood up with State Attorney General Cuomo and Commissioner Andy Spano and called for the closing of Indian Point, it seems the least these two could do is step forward and explain their HYPOCRISY.

Measure would require future surface warships to be nuclear

A change might mean more work for the atomic-capable Newport News shipyard.

BY DAVID LERMAN 202-824-8224

December 9, 2007

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-news_cruiser_1209dec09,0,310389.story

WASHINGTON - House and Senate negotiators have agreed on a defense policy bill that would require the Navy to design all future classes of major warships with nuclear power — a decision that potentially opens up more work for Northrop Grumman Newport News.

The Newport News shipyard is one of only two nuclear-capable yards in the country and the only one with a history of building large surface combat ships.

The only nuclear ships in the Navy's fleet today are aircraft carriers and submarines.

But the new policy — if given final approval by Congress, as expected in coming days — would require new classes of surface warships to go nuclear.

The policy would have an immediate effect on the next-generation cruiser, the first of which is set to get under construction in 2011.

A study of design options for the ship is nearing completion in the Pentagon.

The new congressional language would require the cruiser to be nuclear-powered unless the secretary of defense notifies Congress that a nuclear system "is not in the national interest."

Navy officials have long expressed interest in nuclear power because of the endurance that it provides ships at sea by forgoing the need for refueling.

But in testimony to Congress this year, they warned that nuclear cruisers would be costly, perhaps adding $600 million to $800 million to the price of a ship.

Lawmakers acknowledged the cost but said the United States had a national security interest in building toward a nuclear fleet.

From our friends at Jeff Rense...

US Navy's Floating Coffins

China Sub's Rubber Coating Made It 'Invisible'

Unseen China Attack Sub Surfaces Near US Supercarrier

Neocons To Sacrifice 5th Fleet - New Pearl Harbor

Navy Admits Carriers Dead Ducks - Stops Production

Has Anti Nuclear Rocker John Hall Sold His Soul To Nuclear Devil?

Making news all over America in the past couple of weeks was the reemergence of MUSE as stalwarts in the music industry Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and others launched a new movement to stop the $50 Billion Loan guarantees slated for the Commercial Nuclear Industry as they push for a Nuclear Renaissance here in America. With great fanfare a petition drive was launched, complete with a new web site and organization as Congressman John Hall's friends in the music industry rode into town on their white steeds. (http://www.nukefree.org) It was a start, and many of us in the anti nuclear movement were anxiously awaiting ACT II...would MUSE finally do something to oppose the wrongful license renewal of 104 again reactors such as Entergy's aging Indian Point? Would the music industry step up to bat, and beat back a wrongful Nuclear Renaissance, oppose the license renewal of trouble plagued plants, and oppose all new build applications being filed with the NRC...so many questions as we enjoyed the new video, as 120,000 anti nuclear folk poured out of the wood work to rush off and sign the petition!



The movement seemed to stumble at a Press Conference when everyone but Jackson Browne seemed to stumble...the most noticeable stumble came from Congressman John Hall, perhaps the most NOTABLE Anti Nuclear musician of his time, who ran on the promise of CLOSING DOWN INDIAN POINT. When asked if he would SUPPORT Pro-Nuclear Presidential Candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama if they win the nod to carry the Democratic banner, he said he would support them! WHAT! wait a minute, say it ain't so John!

Whispers rushed through the grassroots here in New York, telephones rang as conversations on this revelation began...with a certain sadness the consensus seemed to be that John Hall had to play politics, and was just doing what he had to do to keep his ducks in a row inside the beltway. With tears in our eyes, and a bit of doubt in our hearts, it was decided to give John Hall the benefit of the doubt. After all, he is only a Freshman, and besides, LOOK at what he is making happen with MUSE...120,000 signatures is NOTHING TO SNEEZE AT. Further, he, Nita Lowey and Maurice Hinchey are all in favor of shutting down Indian Point, they have told us so, have stated they are against NUCLEAR ENERGY.

Shaken, but reassured, we moved forward, taking solace in Jackson Browne's comments, and the incredible list of Music Titans who had signed onto the petition such as Herbie Hancock, Musician/Activist, David Crosby, Musician/Activist, Pearl Jam, Musicians/Activists and even Melissa Etheridge. Even more assuring at the time was the fact that long time environmentalist and anti nuclear legend Paul Harvey was in charge of the new web site.



Imagine the resurgence in our ranks as we began believing we had friends in high places who were TRUE TO OUR CAUSE, would carry our anti nuclear message into the Halls of Congress, work with us to stop the wrongful license renewal of trouble plagued nuclear reactors like Indian Point, Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim, Diablo Canyon and others.

Then, the other shoe dropped when I was reading and article today about the Defense Appropriations bill passed by Congress for 2008. The House-passed measure that would require the Navy to make its future fleet of surface combatants nuclear powered. WHAT? OH MY FREAKING GOD, a major expansion of nuclear propulsion cruising around the worlds oceans! Thinking it was a mistake, I ran off to do some research into the bill.

GovTrack.us. H.R. 1585--110th Congress (2007): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)

Sure as God makes little green apples it was true! From hence forth if the Congress has its way, all Naval ships will be floating Nuclear Reactors! My first thought was, "Does John Hall know about this?" My second thought was, "How did our anti nuclear members of Congress (Lowey, Hinchey and John Hall) vote on this? OH MY FREAKING GOD! All three members supported this bill, voted in favor of AN ALL NUCLEAR NAVY!

Such a vote, showing support for a bill that calls for a all Nuclear Navy is nothing short of treason to the Nuclear Movement. The very people we are counting on to help close down Indian Point, to stop the plants leaking of tritium and strontium 90 into the Hudson River voted to have all future war ships powered by nuclear reactors!

Are Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt, Bruce Hornsby and Harvey Wasserman aware of this betrayal? Stay tuned as the Green Nuclear Butterfly investigates this story further.

A Good Reason To Boycott Rolls Royce...Their Support of Nuclear War Machine

Just home from a weekend of camping, was browsing the Internet searching for news stories when I came across a report that the Rolls Royce company is intimately, even incesstually involved in Brittains Nuclear Navy. Seems they just signed a new 10 year, $1 Billion pound contract to continue their involvement in, and contribution to the NUCLEAR WAR MACHINE. Seems like a good reason for the rich and beautiful people of the world to start a boycott. Another example of the closed cycle of warmongering/commercial nuclear power.

Rolls-Royce to maintain the Navy’s nuclear powered subs

http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk/content/7747/Rolls-Royce_to_maintain_the_Navy’s_nuclear_powered_subs

Manufacturing News, Source : TheManufacturer.com
Published : 26 Jul 2007 9:46

Rolls-Royce has won a new £1 billion contract to provide through-life support for the reactors for the Royal Navy's current fleet of nuclear powered submarines for the next ten years.

The contract covers the reactors and equipment that translate the massive power of the nuclear fission plant into the high pressure steam that drives the submarine's turbines, providing electrical power to the boat's systems and powering its propulsion system. Not only will Rolls-Royce be working on the 13 Swiftsure, Trafalgar and Vanguard submarine models, but also the new Astute class submarines currently being built by BAE Systems, the first of which was launched in June this year.

Rolls-Royce has been supplying nuclear steam raising plants to the Royal Navy for almost 50 years from its production site at Raynesway in Derby, and this new contract will help secure the future of staff working in this part of the business.