Two nuclear incidents? This looks like demoralization, to me.

Or--putting on my tinfoil hat for a moment--maybe it's time to privatize our nuclear deterrent, to have the benefit [cough] of corporate efficiency and quality control. I'm sure that the Christianists at the Air Force academy, whose fingers are on the buttons, would be pleased with that...

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Time for a little Peak Foil theorizing:

Word got through the grapevine that a strike on Iran was in the works, and so they tried to scuttle the Boomer surreptitiously rather than be forced to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

In order for a reactor to produce power it must be critical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass

It's fast supercritical that you need to watch out for.

we're reaping the whirlwind good ol' W sowed for us in 2003.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Regarding the Minot AFB nukes-on-the-loose incident, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne had this to say:

“We are making all appropriate changes to ensure this has a minimal chance of ever happening again,"

“Minimal” being quantitatively different from “Never” leads a person to wonder why, when it comes to misplacing nuclear weapons, wouldn’t Zero Defects be the goal? And if that really truly isn’t practicable, how many 9’s reliability are realistic? For not losing nuclear weapons.

This truly is an administration determined to establish diminished expectations as the norm. What was that quote from Ming the Mericiless describing Earth’s inhabitants after he’s finished raining down destruction? Ah yes –

“Let’s just say, they’ll be satisfied with less.”

The headline was long enough anyhow. At least I didn't say "explode", eh?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

You have no clue about how a submarine engineroom functions. Not even close. However, if you want to advertise your ignorance to the world by rampant speculation, that's one of your first amendment rights that the armed forces protect on a daily basis.

Prince Namor, the poster's S.O., was a submariner. Unlike you, obviously.

Smarter trolls, please.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

You can't have a glow-in-the-dark watch until it's verified that it doesn't glow in the dark due to radium or tritium. "Verification" is a destructive process, so there wouldn't be much point in buying a soon-to-formerly-be-glow-in-the-dark watch.

The version I've heard has them forging the results from an infrequent analysis (I.E. they may have had to do it a half dozen times over the course of a month) that has no relevance to reactor safety, normal reactor plant chemistry controls, or any notable impact on radiological conditions in the plant. It takes about an 45 minutes to complete. At the concentrations being tested, the analysis is functionally a random number generator... your result has more to do with the standard curve than the sample being analyzed.

First of all, your source Prince must not be a “Navy Nuke” if he went to sub school as the nukes do not go to sub school, and therefore would know nothing about the chemistry analysis. The news stories do not say what analysis the sailors missed and covered up, but most likely it is some obscure requirement that did not get accomplished because it was not routine and would have no effect on reactor safety. It is certainly not right for them to cover up their mistake, but to suggest their mistake would cause a nuclear incident is just ridiculous Just for your information, the simple meter that your source quotes for doing a sample is a procedure that takes over an hour and the results are checked and signed for by an officer and numerous enlisted members every day. The fact that only six are being punished shows that it was probably one requirement missed and the Laboratory division tried to cover it up so they are all being punished. The sailors made a mistake and they have been punished for it. Get your head out of the sand and quit attacking those who are protecting you.

Fantasy speculation by coners is what is fueling this nonsense! I know a LOT of people that served on submarines who were completely clueless, especially when it came to the reactor operation! It's not their fault, it is out of necessity to the security of the reactor plant and ultimately the boat itself!

As for "Sabotage," a Fast Attack Submarine (SSN) does not a "Boomer" make (SSBN).

Continue in your blissful ignorance, though! It is quite amusing...

in his grave and, from everything I've heard about him, well on the way to making a comeback to restore some standards to the nuclear Navy he created.

You two realize, "Nuke Submariner" and "MM1(SS) - ELT", that you are defending the right of submariners to fuck up.

I don't care if these guys' offense was failure to perform checks and properly log the number of rolls of toilet paper in the heads, the worst consequence of which could be a increased incidence of piles. The standard the Admiral established was that you do not fuck up nor cover for those who do.

Letting little things slip leads to letting bigger things slip. Letting standards slide, shooting for the "oh well, it's not perfect but it's good enough," starts a downhill slide that even on a pig boat will inevitably lead to loss of government property (that would be your boat, and, of greater importance, the asses of the men unlucky enough to be assigned as your crewmates, and of least importance of all, your asses as well.) At best it will lead to failure to carry out the assigned mission.

I sincerely hope you are the fakes and phonies which we usually get as trolls, because that's sure what you sound like. If I get a criticism from Bubblehead (whose coverage of this is excellent) or somebody else who actually knows the subject, I will take it seriously and correct as needed. You two? Feh.

On the other hand I believe I made clear that I am not a submariner and do not work with nuclear reactors. As specified I was working with second hand information from somebody whose sub service was circa 30 years ago. Terminology and procedures have no doubt changed somewhat--but when the Prince went through it everybody went through sub school, then on to further training for their specific job. The rule was that everybody knew how to do everything on the boat, because the occasion might arise that they would have to do it.

Lets set the record straight! Nobody is defending these sailors for their lack of integrity. The reason why our military can have multiple operating reactors in some of the most populated and pristine ports is because of the impeccable record, our integrity, and our frequent inspections. Besides not operating at all, a nuclear reactor on a submarine is most stable and safe when it is "critical". The chemistry portion of the reactor plant is solely to help maintain the proper ph to minimize corrosion and also to monitor for fission products that might be indicative of a possible problem with the reactor itself. Since you morons don't understand nuclear power, how a reactor works, or what would actually constitute a problem you assume we were or are on the verge of armageddon. Do us all a favor, do at least a little bit of research before you try to pawn off your totally incorrect theories and hypothesis. I served over 21 years on nuclear subs so yes, I may appear to be a bit biased but I also know that I have probably forgotten more about nuclear power that you yourself could possibly ever learn in the rest of your lifetime. Yes, its insulting to me what those sailors on the Hampton and they have done a dis-service to those that have served before them. I take exception to your ignorant generalizations and find it irresponsible on your part for your inaccurate and very uneducated views on submarine nuclear power processes and procedures. ETCS(SS)

Thank you ETCS. I hope anyone following this story reads your comments. It makes my blood boil when I read comments made by individuals who have no idea what they are talking about. As a former leading engineering laboratory technician on a fast attack submarine (not to mention a chief), I am embarrassed that this happened. However, I would never make rediculous accusations of others mistakes if I did not understand the subject matter of the problem. To those who don't understand nuclear power and the chemistry related with it--Shut UP!

Generally really educated people, those who wish to teach others, don't call prospective students "morons." Trolls, by contrast, among their other disgusting habits, call those who disagree with them "morons" all the time. Goes to credibility, ya know?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

maybe MMC operates on the "like recognizes like" rule?

All of this specualtion about the reactor plant and Engineroom really makes some people laugh. Especially those who have been there. Stop speculating, stop guessing and for god's sake stop denigrating the many who look bad because of 1 or two

Where's the denigration? (Except for trollish behavior). Sweet Jeebus, I want our nuclear submarines to work properly, and I want everything done by the book. Where's the denigration in that?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

these guys want you to believe they're on The Team (or in The Unit, or of The Force). It's important to them to seem Important. Authoritative. In the Know. Double-nought agents. Or something. I used to be like that. Then I grew out of it. (Last week I couldn't spell "authorized personnel; now, I are one" will do it every time.)

So now when I run across something that just looks bizarre as all get out, I don't try to dress it up in 007-speak. We've all seen enough episodes of Sea Hunt and JAG and NCIS already.

That's why I was so sure the stuff on the Buff wasn't there as part of a Plot To Nuke Iran In Secret. Seriously.
But the web was crawling with guesstimates and disinformation and The Force and The Unit and The Team "authoritative voices" saying, yes, yes it must be. (We had some here as I recall.)

The thing is, Occam's razor's pretty sharp -- and carelessness ("familiarity breeds contempt") is a lot more common than malignity, in the military, particularly when there are multiple people involved.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

This reminds me of watching TV specials on cold war sub ops where they quote an E-4 who as basically an admin on a sub 30 years ago as an authoritative voice because they "heard something somewhere."

As someone who had to do these chemistry analyses for qualification, I can confirm what my nuke brethren above have said. Its about controlling corrosion, not controlling the reactor, and its quite a bit more complicated than "reading a meter". The comments by xan, relayed via the "Prince" are substantially inaccurate. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing....the comments have portions that are correct and glaring errors, mixed in a way that sounds reasonable to those without knowledge. While everyone on the boat receives training about how things work, no one in the front end of the boat (e.g. non-nuclear trained) has much of a clue about how the reactor works, just as most nukes couldn't tell you the details of sonar propogation. It would be like saying you speak Spanish because you can order in a Mexican restaurant. Anyone onboard who isn't nuclear trained and a lab tech (ELT) or a supervisor doing quals (like the senior enlisted members who have posted above) has no first hand experience with performing this analysis. Certainly, no non-Nuke has a clue what is being measured and how it is performed.

I think the performance on Hampton embarasses any current or ex-Nuke. Its beneath the standards we worked to uphold during our careers. The gripe is about remarks like those from xan which may be well intentioned, but are highly inaccurate and paint the a totally distorted picture. The statement that there was no danger to the crew is accurate. Comparing this to the screwups in Minot is inaccurate. I won't even start with people who don't understand the difference between a nuke weapon and a power plant, but they are the reason that these types of stories always have the safety disclaimer: people don't know enough to realize that something like this was not a short term nuclear risk.

To Xan and others on that side of the fence I do apologize for the "non-professional" remarks. I guess my angst gets the best of me at times because this incident in no different than the multitude of other things that happen in this world today where a story breaks and the people making the most noise about it are the ones that don't truly know the story, the facts, or the signifcance of it. Happens all the time. Prior to retirement the missions my subs went on were very important and never once did I ask "why are we doing this?"...because we (the crew) were "in the know". Now, after retirement I'm no longer "in the know" and I caution myself to question the actions of our leaders as they assign our brave servicemembers to "apparently" insignificant or senseless missions. Truth is...unless I'm there I try to reserve judgement until I talk to someone who has been there. The Hampton situation is one where those not "in the know" should listen to those that are or have been and leave it at that and maybe walk away from it thinking "wow yeah, those sailors really screwed up but its not what I originally thought..." Again, sorry for the mud-slinging. ETCS

(Thanks, proud nuke and former nuke LT, for revising and extending your remarks.)

But from the 30,000 foot level, Minot and the USS Hampton look the same to me: Nuclear materials* plus sloppy handling equals increased potential for disaster. (And we all know this; that's why the procedures are there in the first place.) And in the case of the Hampton, the dog seems to have eaten the paperwork. And these two incidents are the ones that got in the papers; how many are there?

One incident is a blip; two incidents are cause for concern; three incidents are a pattern. Fortunately, we only have two! So, what I tend to wonder in such cases is this: Is there anything systemic going on that could possibly be causing such incidents? Budget cuts? Privatization? Politicization? (In other words, everything that has gone on everywhere else in this administration?)

This line of questioning has nothing to do with bravery or respect** or anything like that. And, unfortunately, "trust the experts" isn't a viable strategy in today's world, where our trust has been violated in so many ways. (Nobody gets any deference here--except, of course, for The Fellows Of The Mighty Corrente Building--if that's an issue, but avoiding deference is a matter of principle with us.)

NOTE * I do know that a bomb is not the same as a reactor. And if I did know all the technical details about how a reactor operates, that would be really bad, right?

NOTE ** One thing that military people who comment here sometimes don't understand is that there's a very strong strain in the blogosphere--although I can't speak for everyone, even here--that is driven absolutely crazy because they feel that our (volunteer, highly trained) military was and is misused in the current mission in Ira[q|n?]. (There's the Smedley Butler "war is a racket" strain of thinking, but that's not what I'm getting at.) It's as if Chosin Reservoir or, oh, the Battle of Midway were fought not as part of the Korean War or World War II, but as part of the Opium War in China. The whole Clusterfuck is like the charge of the light brigade or something. Who wouldn't want to stop that? We'd be derelict in our duties as citizens if we didn't.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Xan...True, sometimes "blips" can be indicative of more deeply rooted and systemic problems. Personally, I can't understand how the whole nuke flyover the Air Force did could have possibly happened. Complancency? Rush? Who knows? Had the NPEB (nuclear propulsion examining board) not reported the integrity violation, the "missed" samples would not have even made a letter written home to mom. I guess there are two ways to look at it depending on your viewpoint. One way is to say that "they" are just "throwing us a bone" to appease us so we don't dig and find out more horrific things. The other way (which is my belief) is that since there is never anything to report due to the impeccable record, when ANYTHING is reported its big news...such as this. One thing for sure though is I'm sure the nuclear community is doing some sole searching right now regarding integrity. I'm sure that what used to be 6 hours of log taking will now be 6 hours of log taking followed by 6 hours of training...LOL. ETCS

... but the chemical analysis Prince Namor remembered is for when the reactor has been shut down for months with major maintenance going on, and the reports say the samples of interest were missed when the submarine was at sea, with the reactor therefore critical. Please don't consider this as "criticism", but rather as a helpful suggestion from a lowly sub-blogger interested in getting realistic information out about submarines whenever they show up in the press. Since xan sent people over to my place, that's all I can ask -- those interested in learning as much as they can (within the bounds of classification of course) can come visit if they want.

... I'm lambert (and vice versa).

We don't mind "criticism." How else is the truth to be arrived at?

As far as the big picture, here, though, "we stand by our story," this being my takeaway, which is the quote from the original story:

Sailors on the submarine USS Hampton failed to do daily safety checks on the ship’s nuclear reactor for a month and falsified records to cover up the omission, a Navy investigation shows.

That feels to me like a systemic problem.

And as long as I'm not Xan, I should also say that "critical" in the headline is mine. I changed it to make the post more of a hit magnet, 'cause it's all about the hits! Sorry...

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Lambert...boy do I feel stupid. Sorry for refering to you as the guy you quote. What a putz I am. The only thing I can say about the news release you included is that the people to write that and print those types of things don't know the slightest thing about what they are writing. "Daily safety check..." makes it seems as if the ship and anything within 1000 miles was in peril due to their ommission. Again, had the Hampton rogered up to missing the check, taken their inspection lumps, and moved on NONE of this would have even made it past the squadron level, let alone national news. It would have been a comment on the inspection report that "such and such sample was missed for such and such many days and was not identified by the crew...." The Div-O and division would have had to do some explaining and upgrading and maybe a "heads-up" message sent to each submarine identifying the lack of proper documentation and sampling that each crew would spend 15 minutes on discussing. At worse, each chemistry division would probably have some internal audit done on their own records to identify if it in fact it was a fleet systemic issue or isolated. Sorry for mis-naming you. See, nuclear power is bad..all those "zoomies" affects my reading ability. However, I do manage to correctly add the two numbers together to certify my post. ETCS

I can speak for the Fellows this much: no one at Corrente is doing "gotcha" work on this story or trying to use the reports regarding the Navy investigation to put down USN personnel.

The story -- just like the Minot/Barksdale cruise missile "miscue" story -- rings alarm bells with the Fellows when it gives us (or anybody else) the impression that added to the strains and rigors of military life, our uniformed personnel are now being pressed to do more, longer deployments and use old or inadequate or even unsafe equipment while on duty.

Our beef, in other words, isn't with the submariners, the sailors, marines; or with the pilots, missile maintenance crews, or SP/LE troops watching the WSA. It's with the people higher up the line who have created really insupportable situations for the personnel at the sharp end of every stick in Uncle Sam's reach.

Step back. Look hard.

If the checks aren't done, why aren't they done?
Is it a matter of lacking the time? Lacking the know how?
Lacking the training? Lacking the understanding of the need for the checks to be performed? What kind of commander puts personnel on the decksole in an environment like that? Shouldn't somebody be held accountable?

A submarine is very little different from a coal mine -- (It moves. It's under water instead of under ground. Otherwise it's very similar:) hardworking people of mostly modest means risking their lives to accomplish difficult, highly-dangerous work in a hostile environment where paying attention to the details, no matter how mundane they may seem at a given instant, might be the difference between not just one crewmember's life and death, or finishing the mission or not, but losing all hands *and* the works!

We've seen a number more coal miners killed through mismanagement/ carelessness in the last six years than we have submariners, and while the miners' deaths are no less tragic, we don't want to see any more deaths -- miners, submariners, innocent bystanders on foreign-flag vessels sundered by surfacing subs.

I'm not sure what the numbers are, but the old USSR sank/lost around a dozen sub reactors (not counting whole subs) and the US has had some incidents as well. Personally I'm all for not further poisoning the seas/polar ice with radioactive materials, and I'd just as soon NOT have a sea-born Chernobyl incident arising from poor maintenance aboard a nuclear sub.

I don't care whether it's a fast-attack boat or a combat-strike aircraft, if nuclear weapons or nuclear power plants are part of the equation I want the personnel to be top notch, well rested, properly supported, superbly trained, and competently commanded -- and I damn sure want them doing the job right.
If you feel that that puts me in a position of denigrating those personnel, well -- maybe you need to reconsider your position.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

The captcha works not only against spammers but against trolls, because trolls can't do basic arithmetic (along with whoever, if anyone, is handling fiscal policy for the Republican Party). Maybe it takes two hands to do arithmetic....

I'm going to bow out of this discussion, now. I just wanted to make sure the discussion didn't get personalized or stuck at the level of individuals. (Readers, believe me: We know how to do personal. There won't be any doubt when we do.) I think Sarah's coal mine metaphor is brilliant. And we can argue detail all the day long, and we're sure to get that wrong. But on the big picture? I think we're right. Onward!

NOTE For geeks (in a good way!) there's a lot of commentary on the logging issue here. I can't translate most of the acronyms, but the message I get is "How could this happen?" Which is the same question we're asking, in our own way. And Bubblehead has converted to the Democratic Party at the state level, so he's educable [lambert dodges... No, it's not a zucchinni. It's a large, Navy-style wrench. How odd.]

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

I am Proud to call myself a Submariner.I have probably spent more time underway than most of you.

I am embarrassed with all that I've read about our new navy. Major problems at Annapolis with cadets in trouble, even their instructors. Submarine officers not meeting the Navy's high standards. We as submariners have done some silly things......Blue Nose, ShellBack,and international dateline, initations. we even have half-way dinners complete with wine or beer. but we never compromised the safety of the boat. If we forgot to do something we owned up to it right away.

I AM ASHAMED AT THE HAMPTOM CREW. I CAN"T BELIVE THEY DIDN"T SEE THIS COMMING. one can only hope the 08 checks the cone, and weapon's logs too.

PS I was shocked this last summer when I visited the Groton Submarine Base It Looked Like Crap.

Look, these guys deserved to be fired -- a disgrace to the Navy. But the facts don't support a conclusion that there was any danger to the ship or the public. The issue is that these sailors lied and can't be trusted, not that there was any imminent danger. The idea that the reactor was going to go critical / supercritical is preposterous. I was an engineer officer (and probably the only liberal on my crew) so I see both sides of this -- and the posters here from the Navy aren't trolls -- they're just calling it right.

Read the whole thread:

1. When people call us "morons," I tend to think they're trolls. That got clarified by subsequent Bubblehead commenters, thanks very much.

2. As far as the technical issues, heck, I'm sorry about the word "critical." But we didn't just make shit up, and we did rely on someone with submariner experience (albeit distant). How about I said extremely non-trivial? Or mission-critical?* After all, regardless of the term of art, the Navy took this very seriously, right? Again, this has been discussed and clarified by Bubblehead commenters.

3. The issue, as I think we all agree, without any hysteria at all, is that there's some sort of systemic problem here. Here's the state of play right now:

Portland's demotion brings to 10 the number of people relieved of duty on the submarine in the wake of the misconduct probe.

Six personnel have been punished for forging inspection records for the cooling system, the Navy officials said Monday. Those six -- one officer and five enlisted personnel -- received a "nonjudicial punishment" after other Navy personnel discovered their actions, the officials said.

The Hampton remains in port in San Diego, California. In all, the $900 million vessel's crew includes 13 officers and 116 enlisted personnel.

So, let me get this straight: 10 of 129 (7%) of the personnel in an extremely complex, extremely expensive, nuclear-powered, nuclear armed strategic weapons system get involved in records falsification scheme, right?

What emotional stance would you recommend besides hysteria? (Leaving aside the etymologically and otherwise feminizing subtext of "hysterical")

Relaxed acceptance? (We liberals sing kumbayah a lot less than is commonly thought).

Analytical detachment? (My preference, albeit leavened with snark)

Rage at what's happening to the Navy?

Denial?

Help me out, here....

NOTE * Or since the cooling system is involed, should I say "overheat"? Somehow I don't find the picture of a nuclear reactor overheating very reassuring...

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

per CNN.

Prince Namor relieved as well.

For the record, I would never have posted this item had the Prince not brought the matter to my attention and ranted about it for long enough to make me understand why this was a Big Deal.

My thanks to all who have commented, for good or ill, and particular thanks to Bubblehead for stopping in. All those who have faced the grease gun deserve respect, and deserve good commanders most of all.

I know you guys (sub service is still all male and that's what we're talking about here, but this applies to all services and all genders serving) rate the opinions of civilians just slightly lower than above-average pond scum, but that's okay. We still appreciate the job you do. At the same time we sign yer paychecks and every job deserves to have the good rewarded and the bad smacked when they have it coming. So we kinda like to feel like we owe ya--the good guys-- to keep your backs, see?

Reading the hysterics from people who nothing about nuclear power and nuclear reactors. I also find it interesting that you 100% believe that we were seconds from Chernobyl based on nothing but your politics...but dismiss all the people with first hand knowledge as trolls.

You will find that each and every one of your concerns has been specifically addressed--and by commmenters from Bubbleheads, I might add.

Some people read only to have their preconceptions reinforced. It's sad.

Regarding "hysteria": As I asked--and got no answer--above, what emotional stance would you suggest when 7% of a nuclear submarines personnnel join in a records-falsification scheme to conceal the fact that they haven't been maintaining the reactor's cooling system?

Should I sing kumbaya? You certainly seem to be singing your own version of it!

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

..is that people have a tendency to use them as a reason for anything that happens.

I've read in several posts people wondering if it was a systematic error, administrative, or if people were just too tired to do it. I can honestly say that it was 99.9% likely that it was anything other then laziness. If anything, we as Nukes have a lot of extra time on our hands really for the type of job that we do. While something exciting is going on in the cone, and everyone is scrambling around, we are sitting back in the engineroom doing the same job that we do every day, so it can't be because we are tired. If it was systematic or administrative, we would have definitely heard about it on other boats before now.

As for the "Prince," not to doubt his integrity or anything, but I highly doubt that he was ever in the program, even from the early days. I'm currently serving on the USS Daniel Webster, SSBN 626, originally built in 1964, and I have no clue what it is that the "Prince" is talking about, especially since I am on one of the earliest built nuclear subs.

Apparently he was a coner attempting to remember something about the reactor plant chemistry. That's taken from one of the links on the blog you pointed me too. That is why there are such glaring errors, at least to us Nukes, but it is good of him to attempt to add to the article, though I would suggest that he from now on prevent himself from speaking of which he does not know.

While I am one that values discussion, I'm going to suggest that this article be taken down, for the simple fact that to those of us who know the subject in detail, it makes the writer seem ignorant, aside from the fact that it spreads an entirely wrong message about the Nuclear Navy as a whole. Yes, some sailors did something stupid. Trust me, we all have at some point in our careers. But we are not perfect, and all we can do is learn from those mistakes. We as nukes are EXTREMELY proud of the fact that the Nuclear Navy has been running for almost 60 years without a single Nuclear accident, and that no vessel has been lost because of simply an issue with the plant, unlike some other countries. But we take mistakes seriously, such as this, and I have no doubt that briefs will be held Navy wide on the subject, especially to the ELTs.

The most damage that could come of what those sailors did is that the life of the plant will be shortened, if even. We, as Nukes, know that if any type of nuclear accident actually occurs on our watch, its the end of the Nuclear Navy, which won't just put us out of a job, it will be detrimental to Nuclear Power as a whole, when it is just coming back into focus as a good, cheap, and above all, safe, form of energy.

Thank you for responding, current. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Two hydrogen atoms are sitting in a bar.
One says to the other, "I've lost my electron".
"That's terrible.", says the other, "Are you sure?".
The first one sez: "Yeah, I'm positive."
Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Lambert,

Your comments are well taken, but you need to consider that from 30,000 feet, everything looks a lot alike and if that's the only level where people pay attention, they don't see that the root cause and potential consequences are totally different and require different solutions. I haven't read as much about the Minot incident, but it would appear to be a case of carelessness where Hampton is one of willful disregard of a rule. Having said that, Hampton wasn't skipping all of their sample, just one analysis of about 10 on the same sample... an analysis which wasn't implemented until the last decade, I'm not positive exactly when. (Since I got out. This is from chatter on a sub board or two.) The nuke program survived without this analysis for 40 years, so this isn't the safety issue people may fear.

I managed the division on my boat that did such chemistry checks for a year. No one whoworks in this group gets to the boat without knowing how to do these and what they mean. My guys, and nukes in general, were/are exceptionally hard workers and wouldn't skip this because they were "slackers". (I say tbis after 12 years in high tech industry as a grounds for comparison.) By the same token, its not the Bush adminmistration's fault that procedures which have been in place for 40 years (Hampton and Minot) were not followed. Its not an admiral or general's fault either. These are not policy issues, they are execution issues and each command needs to be evaluated to determine if the command environment (that's usually a colonel or navy commander and lower) was the problem. It would appear that this contributed heavily on Hampton. I can't speak to training in the USAF or their procedures. I can't imagine a nuke disregarding something that was truly reactor safety...and certainly not 5 bad eggs in one division. There's something larger at play here, but its at the command level and its an organizational behavior issue.

On the surface, the issue at Minot looks more like attention to detail, which I find a bit scarier, given potential consequences of loss of control. (Flying nuke weapons over America is not a concern in my eyes...they did it all through the cold war without issue.)

We agree it's systemic, as you write:

but its at the command level and its an organizational behavior issue.

(Although OB involves everybody--7% of the ship's crew, including an officer, remember.

However, you write:

On the surface, the issue at Minot looks more like attention to detail, which I find a bit scarier, given potential consequences of loss of control.

I find records falsification a lot scarier than accident, actually.

Nor do I see a reason to minimize the failure to take the test; as the Navy, to its credit, did not:

The nuke program survived without this analysis for 40 years, so this isn’t the safety issue people may fear.

Well, either the Navy put the test in for a very good reason, or they didn't. Which is it? (And surely it's possible that as technology evolves, new tests get put in place?

Oh, and as far as "root cause"--if the problem is systemic, then the system needs to be addressed. For me, the "system" is the military as a whole, not one branch of a service, or one of the services. For example, OpTempo is increasing for everyone, not just the Army. OTOH, so far as I know, only the Army's functions have been outsourced to mercenaries. Will that change? And so on and forth.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

training and policy, and yes, we did fly nuclear weapons across the States all during the cold war. What happened at Minot is different in scale but not consequence from what happened at Fairchild in 1994:

At 07:30 local time (Pacific Time Zone) on June 24, 1994, at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, a USAF B-52H bomber crew stationed at Fairchild prepared to practice an aircraft demonstration flight for an upcoming air show. The crew consisted of pilots Arthur "Bud" Holland (46 years old), Mark McGeehan (38), Robert Wolff (46), and weapon systems officer/radar navigator Ken Huston (41). Holland was the designated command pilot for the flight, with McGeehan as the copilot and Wolff designated as a safety observer. Holland, McGeehan, and Huston were Lieutenant Colonels and Wolff was a Colonel. Holland was the chief of the 92nd Bomb Wing's Standardization and Evaluation branch, McGeehan was the commander of the 325th Bomb Squadron, Wolff was the vice commander of the 92nd Bomb Wing, and Huston was the 325th Bomb Squadron's operations officer.

That was a command-level local failure: Holland had been repeatedly reported for unsafe flying, but kept getting away with it.

This issue of falsifying records is a self correcting issue. I can tell you this; I would not want to be an ELT (or any rate) on a boat right now. I can guarantee that ever record on every boat is being reviewed as we speak. I can see it now, the LELT, CRA, Engineer, XO and CO are combing through their boats respective records. And after they get through with the RL Div's records they will move on to the other divisions, nuke and non-nuke alike. When the Operational Reactor Safe Guard exam comes around the inspectors will have calibrated their fine tooth combs and will be scrutinizing every record for authenticity. So sleep well, the spirit of Rickover is alive and flows through the veins (of most) US Navy nukes and the culture created by Rickover will not rest until this issue is resolved.

PS: Let’s remember that this issue was discovered during a routine inspection by Naval Reactors.

critical information about things like nuke subs, you're not as smart as you think you are. just sayin.

...i assume you know how wiki "works." if you don't, look it up! then you'll understand why i trust sarah, and not wiki, on this issue.

This issue is obviously an integrity issue, a type of accident could have occurred possibly, but the reason we are allowed to operate is because of our integrity and "questioning attitude", thats why these guys are no longer with us.

The guy said basic reactor theory, and wikipedia is nice because of the way it works, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized... and if you dont like that just google Reactor Theory and you can find some published books about it for free that are on the internet and know more than you ever wanted to know, what he was saying is its not hard to find the answers yourself instead of trusting something someone said that they heard from someone else the other week about a guy they met once.

And another for the record the routine Record reviews, are just that, some records get reviewed monthly some less often but hardly is it ever just a glance, its intense thats why this was found, the people who do the job know the job and know the loopholes, we should have the integrity not to use the loopholes.

"I know you guys (sub service is still all male and that’s what we’re talking about here, but this applies to all services and all genders serving) rate the opinions of civilians just slightly lower than above-average pond scum" - Xan

LOL while funny, and i cant speak for everyone, but honestly i think thats wrong, the average person in the world could join the navy ace the ASVAB and become a nuke and do awesome. All it takes is some effort. Someone else also said something about they want us to be well rested, supported, trained, and supervised ... so i beseech you, join us ... we are undermanned and bedridden for the most part, when senior people who know stuff get out, at an alarming rate, new young and sometimes incompetent people move up in rate, you dont make rate by being smart or doing an awesome job, you do it by looking awesome and having a good attitude and getting seen at least looking like you are doing stuff by the people in charge. For the most part.

All in all its a big deal because our trust is in question and when we are out to sea all we have is us, and you have to trust us to do everything "by the book" on our own. If you want to think of this incident in another way think of a fish tank, you monitor things on it, (pH, salt levels, temperature, so on and so forth) lets say you dont look at your salt levels for a month, but you can see that because of the temperature of the water some is evaporating away, the salt stays in the water so you can assume that its getting more concentrated. We KNOW how the plant operates and responds to different situations because thats our whole job, these guys cant prove that the plant was fine on paper and lied about what they did, so theyre fired.

How should you react to this news ? honestly if it was back in the day and i was an ignorant civilian piece of scum (i think im gonna have to use that more often) i might have freaked a little, and had no clue why but thought i knew that the reactor would explode unless they shut it down and not bothered to look anything up on my own just like you, probably made a story up too ... not much of a blogger though.

Seems to be the point a lot of commenters are making, boiling it all down.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

that's pretty telling. how about you don't bother with "service" anymore, and just move to a country where the military gets to kill "scum" openly and without prosecution, like iraq. or, here, i guess, if bringiton has his way (just funnin with you, bro).

seriously- civvies are your bosses, in case you forgot. CIC, anyone? or the DoD, which is traditionally headed by a civvie? (don't remind me about rummy)

i suppose you probably enjoy raping little girls and killing niggers too.

you shame the services, if you ever did in fact serve, by such a statement.

doesn't count for crap in the Air Force, and looking like you're doing stuff when the seniors are around is called "shining it on," which was done by people who didn't know sh!t from shinola and thought they could 'rate' by looking cool.

It didn't fly in the service in the '70s and '80s.
Knowing your job and doing it is how you get ahead. That's where I trained, and how I worked.

Unless Rummy totally corrupted the entire uniformed services (and that's a possibility, although I would have thought it would take longer to completely screw up the senior enlisted personnel), you're shining us on.

Stop it.

That is correct...Civilians are our bosses. The command I'm current at, NPTU Charleston, is actually run by Bettis and Naval Reactors, by civilians, despite the fact that the Navy provides all of the training personnel. The problem with that is a lot of the civilians have no more training on our reactors then what is given to them through Power School and Prototype. I still think it is hilarious when I hear a civilian say "Well, on a real boat..."

And obviously faking log books does matter, hence why the sailors involved are no longer Nukes.

really. you don't impress me. you've already revealed your contempt for the people who pay your salary, whom you are supposed to be "defending." muling and bitching about how they don't really understand anything because without navy training they'd be lost...my god how stupid can you be?

hint: it wasn't the navy that invented nukes. you know that, right? weak, soft, non-murdering civvies did that, and stressed over it, because they knew people like you would eventually control those weapons.

look, i'm beyond tolerant. i welcome trolls here, unlike many of my blogmates. but you make me sick. i don't want you to cease posting here, but i want to make it clear, as a third generation service member: you shame all of us who understand what the uniform is really about. i'm trying to help you understand that, and why your attitude has killed representative, Constitutional democracy in this country. hopefully, my anger won't prevent you from thinking about what i mean.

if i were religious, this would be the time i would ask (god of your choice) to forgive me for my outburst. but i'm not.