Author Topic: New russian subs  (Read 3521 times)

Online Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15545
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #120 on: January 29, 2014, 12:22:47 AM »
In the field of fuel processing, there have been a few deaths due to criticality accidents where operators poured liquid containing U-235 into containers that achieved critical mass, resulting in a blue flash of light and physical effects felt immediately by the operators.

In the US, one such accident in the 1960's resulted in 7 Sv (700 rem) dose to the operator, who was incapacitated within about a minute and dead within 49 hours.

In Japan, another such accident in 1999 resulted in 10 Sv and 17 Sv dose to operators who were incapacitated quickly (seconds to minutes).  One died 7 months later and the other 3 months later.  Both were under modern, intensive medical care, without which they would have died much sooner.

Offline MrRiplEy[H]

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11633
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #121 on: January 29, 2014, 12:49:53 AM »
In the field of fuel processing, there have been a few deaths due to criticality accidents where operators poured liquid containing U-235 into containers that achieved critical mass, resulting in a blue flash of light and physical effects felt immediately by the operators.

In the US, one such accident in the 1960's resulted in 7 Sv (700 rem) dose to the operator, who was incapacitated within about a minute and dead within 49 hours.

In Japan, another such accident in 1999 resulted in 10 Sv and 17 Sv dose to operators who were incapacitated quickly (seconds to minutes).  One died 7 months later and the other 3 months later.  Both were under modern, intensive medical care, without which they would have died much sooner.

Wow I wouldn't hesitate to choose the 49 hours one instead of 3 months having your body eaten up inside out.
Definiteness of purpose is the starting point of all achievement. –W. Clement Stone

Offline danny76

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #122 on: January 29, 2014, 02:09:12 AM »
Using "your" when "you're" is called for gives me an equal headache.

I've spelled it out simply for you 2 times now, if you don't like challenging information and then not getting the results you like, that's your problem.  You asked me to provide reference that SSK AIP powered subs transit to operational areas at speeds between 10-15 kts.  I did so.  Twice.

You asked for reference that SSK AIP subs on AIP propulsion can move at 20 kts.  I provided it from 3 sources.  The AIP system which is tied into the electrical/battery powered systems can either cruise at 4-5 kts for 21-30 days on most models, or run at 20kts+ for about 24 hours, before needing to snorkel.  There are tons of power level settings in between, I can't cut and paste the graphs from a pdf, but it should take you less than 1 minute to look at all three in the sources I linked and see that at speeds between 12 to 15 kts, the number of hours each type of SSK AIP listed, about 4 or 5 types listed, varies slightly, and only really effects how often the sub has to snort or surface charge while in transit mode.  They can choose to tie in the fuel cell part of the AIP system, or just run on battery power while transiting, or use both simultaneously.

From source 1:

From source 2:
From source 3: - This paragraph speaks specifically to AIP SSK's transiting at speeds over 14kts, like 15 or slightly higher - the can still stay submerged, but slowing to 6 knts to snorkel and recharge become less efficient than surface charging - they don't HAVE to surface, it just becomes a slightly shorter trip if they choose to.  Point is, it's obvious the SSK's can transit at 10-15 kts from this paper, which is what you seem to be all wrapped up over, humbly demanding proof.  There it is, and this is just the tip of the iceberg from these reports or the dozens of others you can find on google.  I'm not going to hold your hand and cut/paste direct quotes or interpret graphs for you again - if you can't understand them, just ask for them to be explained by PM.  That, or you can PM KillnU, who is a chief with long service on a current SSN out of Hawaii, and see if any of this is wrong, and your opinions/ideas are right.



Where exactly would you like him to use "you're"? From what I can see, everything Rich had written required "your". Just saying :aok
"You kill 'em all, I'll eat the BATCO!"
The GFC

"Not within a thousand years will man ever fly" - Wilbur Wright

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #123 on: January 29, 2014, 07:16:12 AM »
There absolutely no chance that a fuel assembly from a properly shut down reactor is more radioactive than...

Hey... No one said the reactor was shut down, "properly" or at all. Kappa was referring to an open pool reactor and what would happen if you took the water away while standing there looking at it. There would be no Cherenkov radiation and the person would be dead. The reactor would also melt down, but that's beyond the scope of Kappas comment.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #124 on: January 29, 2014, 07:20:32 AM »
Where exactly would you like him to use "you're"? From what I can see, everything Rich had written required "your". Just saying :aok

And you call yourself British... Tsk tsk.

Oh cut and paste the exact paragraphs, and paste the reference. Between your long links that DONT support what you say, and your 1,000 word diatribes, your giving me a head ache.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Sol75

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 773
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #125 on: January 29, 2014, 07:46:34 AM »
It's fully apparent you are not at all acquainted with what happened at Chernobyl and the doses the workers received.

There absolutely no chance that a fuel assembly from a properly shut down reactor is more radioactive than the core of a reactor that ran away to the point of ejecting it's core.

It blew off the 2 million pound upper biological shield and ejected much of the core and burning hot fuel through the roof of the building and onto the roofs of surrounding buildings.

Each piece of fuel the guys pictured are picking up with shovels is radiating 20,000 roentgens per hour and only the guys who spent hours up there actually died and nobody was incapacitated until hours later.

20 years later, the smoking hole that used to be the core is still emitting over 10,000 roentgens.

A couple of guys (sitnikov and pravik) were on top of the roof near the stack looking down into the reactor.

That's about as high a dose as anybody who has ever lived received.

They lived at least a week if not two.




(note removed the images n the quote for sake of not reposting them and cluttering the board)

I seriously doubt every chunk of the fuel was radiating at that level.  The size of the source plays a large role in the radiation levels.. smaller chunk, smaller dose... (if the material is of the same composition, and stage of half-life)...

A tiny piece of Co-60 would be a whole lot less dangerous/damaging than a 5 pound chunk..  I dont doubt one bit that in the pit levels were nearly 20k/hr, but on the roof, while still extremely high, and lethal, they wouldn't compare to what was happening inside the core itself.

As was previously posted, there have been several criticality excursions in the US and abroad, which have given doses lower than the 20k range, and yet those people were incapacitated in minutes, and many dead within hours...

To cite an example of what distance can do to reduce radiation, look to Louis Slotin's incident with the "Demon Core" during the manhattan project.  He was doign something pretty dumb really, and created a burst of supercriticality, which exposed him to over 1000 rads, killed him 9 days later (this @ only 1k rads), however, there were other scientists in the room, only tens of feet away, who recieved less than a lethal dose from the same incident.  Proximity plays a HUGE role...

Quote from an article about the slotin incident below:

On May 21, 1946, physicist Louis Slotin and seven other Los Alamos personnel were in a Los Alamos laboratory conducting an experiment to verify the exact point at which a subcritical mass (core) of fissile material could be made critical by the positioning of neutron reflectors. The test was known as "tickling the dragon's tail" for its extreme risk. It required the operator to place two half-spheres of beryllium (a neutron reflector) around the core to be tested and manually lower the top reflector over the core via a thumb hole on the top. As the reflectors were manually moved closer and farther away from each other, scintillation counters measured the relative activity from the core. Allowing them to close completely could result in the instantaneous formation of a critical mass and a lethal power excursion. Under Slotin's unapproved protocol, the only thing preventing this was the blade of a standard flathead screwdriver, manipulated by the scientist's other hand. Slotin, who was given to bravado, became the local expert, performing the test almost a dozen separate times, often in his trademark bluejeans and cowboy boots, in front of a roomful of observers. Enrico Fermi reportedly told Slotin and others they would be "dead within a year" if they continued performing it.
While lowering the top reflector, Slotin's screwdriver slipped outward a fraction of an inch, allowing the top reflector to fall into place around the core. Instantly there was a flash of blue light and a wave of heat across Slotin's skin; the core had become supercritical, releasing a massive burst of neutron radiation. He quickly knocked the two halves apart, stopping the chain reaction and presumably saving the lives of the other men in the laboratory, though it is now known that the heating of the core and shells stopped the criticality within milliseconds of its initiation. Slotin's body's positioning over the apparatus also shielded the others from much of the neutron radiation. He received a lethal dose of 1000 rads neutron/114 rads gamma in under a second and died nine days later from acute radiation poisoning. The nearest person to Slotin, Alvin C. Graves, was watching over Slotin's shoulder and was thus partially shielded by him, received a high but non-lethal radiation dose of 166 neutron/26 gamma rads. Graves was hospitalized for several weeks with severe radiation poisoning, developed chronic neurological and vision problems as a result of the exposure, and died 20 years later of a heart attack probably caused by complications from radiation exposure.


Besides Graves, there were 6 others in the room, who recieved doses that caused long term problems (cancers etc) but had no acute phase...

Distance+shielding+time... makes all the difference...

80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P Secret Association of P-38 Pile-its
In-Game as Castiel
Recently Touched By The Noodle! ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!
Pastafarian for life

Offline icepac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6974
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #126 on: January 29, 2014, 02:53:58 PM »
My entire point is that you simply don't immediately drop dead from high radiation doses as the situation of pulling a spent fuel assembly from the pond.

The highest doses stem from accidents when people are exposed to sources of shorter lived nucleides such as cobalt 60 and iridium 192 used in the medical and food industry in which some people received doses several times of what Slotin got.............but all of them got up and walked away to die or lose body parts later.

I'm sure someone exposed in a high power partical accelerator or a bomb designed for enhanced neutron radiation could kill instantly.

Offline kappa

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1330
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #127 on: January 29, 2014, 03:29:19 PM »
Sol75, you're correct on all points..

icepac,

The fuel assembly I posted was a spent fuel assembly.. I cannot tell you the exact amount as it would vary between remaining fuel/time in the core, but I have been told these fuel assemblies are in excess of 1,000,000Rem levels on contact.. Our fuel pools are 40ft deep.. The assemblies are 12ft long..

Compare that to a new never used assembly that has 0 rad levels.. Perfectly safe..

Here, we enrich fuel to roughly 4-5% compared to the much much smaller cores the navy uses enriched to 99.8ish%.. Commercial plants are refueled every 2yrs replacing 1/3 of the fuel assemblies.. So a fuel assembly should last 6years or 3burns... Navy cores last 20yrs..

Chernobyl had a different type core.. They used graphite for a moderator where we use water.. In our boiling water reactors in an accident scenario of lowering water levels in the core, power goes down (less moderation).. Their core actually increased power as they lost their water level (more moderation).. When they finally got water back into the core the resulting expansion of water (steam explosion) is what blew their containment apart.. Most of the chunks you see in those pictures is actually their concrete containment.. No doubt with some small elements of fuel scattered about.. The Chernobyl accident was massive to say the least and still worse than what happened in Japan.. afaik..   Oddly enough they were testing safety systems and their ability to get water to a core with a loss of offsite power, against the wishes of the actual operators, that the accident resulted from..
- TWBYDHAS

Offline Sol75

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 773
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #128 on: January 29, 2014, 03:58:01 PM »
Kappa:

If I am not mistaken, the accident was technically speaking, caused by Xenon poisoning, which forced them to withdraw the rods too far, then on top of the, a positive void coefficient, AND thier control rods were tipped with Graphite, thus INCREASING the reactivty momentarily, during a SCRAM situation...
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P Secret Association of P-38 Pile-its
In-Game as Castiel
Recently Touched By The Noodle! ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!
Pastafarian for life

Offline kappa

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1330
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #129 on: January 29, 2014, 04:11:31 PM »
Kappa:

If I am not mistaken, the accident was technically speaking, caused by Xenon poisoning, which forced them to withdraw the rods too far, then on top of the, a positive void coefficient, AND thier control rods were tipped with Graphite, thus INCREASING the reactivty momentarily, during a SCRAM situation...

humm..  Xenon does add negative reactivity.. They did have a pos void coefficient..  their scram situation was a low water level. I'm pretty positive they were doing some sort of testing of safety systems.. A loss of offsite power.. Not heard of the control rods tipped w/ graphite.. Hindsight says its a pretty bad design for a reactor.. so who knows!?  hehe
- TWBYDHAS

Offline Sol75

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 773
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #130 on: January 29, 2014, 04:13:31 PM »
My entire point is that you simply don't immediately drop dead from high radiation doses as the situation of pulling a spent fuel assembly from the pond.

The highest doses stem from accidents when people are exposed to sources of shorter lived nucleides such as cobalt 60 and iridium 192 used in the medical and food industry in which some people received doses several times of what Slotin got.............but all of them got up and walked away to die or lose body parts later.

I'm sure someone exposed in a high power partical accelerator or a bomb designed for enhanced neutron radiation could kill instantly.

I wasn't referring to Slotin's incident as an example of "quick incapacitation", rather I was referring to it as an example of the huge difference distance makes.  20k RAD contact, is a WHOLE lot less at a distance.  The distance between CONCENTRATED fuel sources in Chernobyl (the pit), was much greater than the distance between a person standing ont he catwalk above a spent fuel pool, and an exposed fuel element.....thus why the latter could/would be much more rapidly incapacitating..
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P Secret Association of P-38 Pile-its
In-Game as Castiel
Recently Touched By The Noodle! ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!
Pastafarian for life

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #131 on: January 29, 2014, 04:14:52 PM »
The accident was, causally speaking, a result of the inherent ineptitude and corruption of the Soviet political system.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Sol75

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 773
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #132 on: January 29, 2014, 04:15:48 PM »
humm..  Xenon does add negative reactivity.. They did have a pos void coefficient..  their scram situation was a low water level. I'm pretty positive they were doing some sort of testing of safety systems.. A loss of offsite power.. Not heard of the control rods tipped w/ graphite.. Hindsight says its a pretty bad design for a reactor.. so who knows!?  hehe

I'm pretty sure one of the remediations the RBMK reactor type underwent post-chernobyl, was to remove that graphite tip.  It was there due to something having to due with the rod displacing water.. I forget the details, but it was intended to keep the moderation up when the rod was partially withdrawn.. but due to the low water level, when it scrammed, the tip didnt displace any water, it only added moderation, thus reactivity...
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P Secret Association of P-38 Pile-its
In-Game as Castiel
Recently Touched By The Noodle! ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!
Pastafarian for life

Offline kappa

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1330
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #133 on: January 29, 2014, 04:24:32 PM »
I'm pretty sure one of the remediations the RBMK reactor type underwent post-chernobyl, was to remove that graphite tip.  It was there due to something having to due with the rod displacing water.. I forget the details, but it was intended to keep the moderation up when the rod was partially withdrawn.. but due to the low water level, when it scrammed, the tip didnt displace any water, it only added moderation, thus reactivity...

Could be.. as i recall the largest power rise was due to lowering water levels.. They used water as a neutron absorber.. No water meant many extra zoomies flying around to be absorbed by u235... But you're answer sounds much better and most likely more technically correct.. hehe

edit:  i bet you're exactly right.. it was the instantaneous power excursion flashing what water they had to steam resulting in a steam explosion perhaps?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 04:26:08 PM by kappa »
- TWBYDHAS

Offline kappa

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1330
Re: New russian subs
« Reply #134 on: January 29, 2014, 04:27:11 PM »
The accident was, causally speaking, a result of the inherent ineptitude and corruption of the Soviet political system.

humor?
- TWBYDHAS