Another one bites the dust...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Mine too, Dave (sitting in the ditch). There are two kinds of ships - submarines and targets.
 
I don't see any need for a replacement. We spend 17 times as much on defense as the country 2nd on the list. How are we ever going to get out of debt if we keep on wasting our money like this? You'd think out military security would be assured if we spent billions less and had ONLY three times as much military as the next biggest military spender. We bankroll a lot of other countries military hardware like Israel. Stupid Stupid Stupid
 
Recently some retired navy ships to destroyer size have been sunk forming an artificial reef to encourage fish into residence(it does work) rather than dismantling. The green movement ran all sorts of litigation to prevent the sinking fearing toxic paints etc. They are apoplectic at the thought of a nuclear ship,whether being sunk or not. New Zealand just removed a ban on nuclear ship visits, imposed 20+ years
Australia bought 2 used low miles one owner US navy ships couple of years back, seems the rust had been bogged and painted and we didn`t check too well. I think we will be looking for somewhere to sink them too.
I hope no one is dismantling the Missouri. Sydney has great memories of her visit post refit some years ago.
 
BruceK said:
I hope no one is dismantling the Missouri. Sydney has great memories of her visit post refit some years ago.
Click to expand...

October 2009, Missouri was moved from her berthing station on Battleship Row to a drydock to undergo a three month overhaul. The work, priced at $18 million, included installing a new anti-corrosion system, repainting the hull, and upgrading the internal mechanisms. Drydock workers reported that the ship was leaking at some points on the starboard side.http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/#cite_note-38 The repairs were completed the first week of January 2010 and the ship was returned to her berthing station on Pearl Harbor's Battleship Row on 7 January 2010.
 
That's one expensive anti foul.
 
Ssbn/ssn 642 & ssn671
 
We spend 17 times as much on defense as the country 2nd on the list.

Big difference is ships are labor expensive , so $65 an hour for a welder vs $2.00 changes purchase costs .
 
I'll never forget the January morning in 1969; I was in boot camp and the navy chaplain came to get me out of class to tell me a fire had broken out on the Enterprise and my older brother was missing. i had to call home and tell my folks; ugly day. he was an aviation machinist mate and was on the flight deck when the missle blew. He landed in the water, badly injured with about a dozen others. Luckily they were all recovered about 18 hours later. My buddies brother was not so lucky. 27 died that day.
Johnma
MM3
USS Santa Barbara AE28 (plankowner)
now 390 Mainship
 
GFC said:
The reactor cores from the Enterprise will be barged up the Columbia to our area. We have a nuclear area just north of town where they have been burying reactor cores from decommissioned nuke subs for many years.
Click to expand...

yep, lots of room for a potential disaster from that operation unfortunately. I remember when it was ok to dispose of nasty chemicals in deep wells because the gov said it would be thousands of years before they would get into the ground water. That was in the seventies, by the eighties there were drinking water contamination problems in Rancho Cordova California from Areojet General Corporations legal disposal of tri clor and other toxics under ground.
What bothers me is this simple chemical contamination is childs play to what may happen from burying spent reactor fuel.
 
Used to? We still get rid of waste in deep wells.
 
Why is it bad news? Deep wells are in salt water, not fresh. So drinking water sources are not effected. Crude petroleum comes from deep wells. When was the last time you turned on the tap and had 40 gravity oil pour out? Don't believe all the hype you hear from uninformed people.

Ray Muldrew
 
Giggitoni said:
Why is it bad news? Deep wells are in salt water, not fresh. So drinking water sources are not effected. Crude petroleum comes from deep wells. When was the last time you turned on the tap and had 40 gravity oil pour out? Don't believe all the hype you hear from uninformed people.

Ray Muldrew
Click to expand...

so in your opinion its ok to pollute the sea? Pollution always comes back to haunt us, just look around you.
We went through deep well injection problems in the seventies and eighties up untill then most were of the same opinion as you. U can never be sure if and when it will show back up when useing deep injection disposal of toxics. The earth is not static and one can never be sure she hasnt a path right into your drinking water or your garden from that deep well. Out of sight out of mind is not the right thing to do ever with garbage.
 
Groundwater at depth is salt water. Has nothing to do with the ocean. Salt water at depth can be found in Kansas! The water is no use to humans. It is virtually Impossible to communicate between deep injection wells and shallow fresh-water aquifers.

It's not an opinion, it's well known fact. I worked as a geologist in oil and gas exploration for 12 years. I have spent the last 24 years cleaning up hazmat spills in soil and groundwater for the transportation industry. Deep injection wells are used for disposal of hazardous substances routinely. No smoke and mirrors. What other facts do you know?

Ray Muldrew
 
Last edited:
Giggitoni said:
Groundwater at depth is salt water. Has nothing to do with the ocean. Salt water at depth can be found in Kansas! The water is no use to humans. It is virtually Impossible to communicate between deep injection wells and shallow fresh-water aquifers.

It's not an opinion, it's well known fact. I worked as a geologist in oil and gas exploration for 12 years. I have spent the last 24 years cleaning up hazmat spills in soil and groundwater for the transportation industry. Deep injection wells are used for disposal of hazardous substances routinely. No smoke and mirrors. What other facts do you know?

Ray Muldrew
Click to expand...

It is usually easier to answer with emotion instead of logic and reason. Thanks for the facts Ray.
 
Giggitoni said:
Groundwater at depth is salt water. Has nothing to do with the ocean. Salt water at depth can be found in Kansas! The water is no use to humans. It is virtually Impossible to communicate between deep injection wells and shallow fresh-water aquifers.

It's not an opinion, it's well known fact. I worked as a geologist in oil and gas exploration for 12 years. I have spent the last 24 years cleaning up hazmat spills in soil and groundwater for the transportation industry. Deep injection wells are used for disposal of hazardous substances routinely. No smoke and mirrors. What other facts do you know?

Ray Muldrew
Click to expand...


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yes in certain areas that practice countinues, But that dosen't make it right.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So, you are one of those people that believes that if you sweep it under the rug, out of sight and out of mind it is harmless? Ever heard of love canal? Or a multitude of other environmental disasters caused by people sweeping toxic's under the rug. Marin, humans are supposed to learn from their mistakes so why would we desire to make the same mistake again? I understand that history teaches us that man never learns he just makes the same mistakes over and over etc.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Don't you think its time we stopped this practice? Please don't get me started. I already stated more than one reason why deep well injection is not the best answer and it is illegal to do so in many areas of the world including California because of Areojet General Corporation's deep well injection of rocket fuel and other toxic's, i could go on and on but this is a trawler forum not a class in bonehead environmental science.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
The administrators can move this portion of the thread should they feel it is necessary.

Deep injection wells are one viable answer for the disposal of hazardous waste. Obviously Aerojet's methods back in the late '50s and early '60s where not technically correct. Aerojet did not inject the waste stream into a confined stratigraphic layer. The two wells used by Aerojet were drilled into the Ione formation at depths of 940 feet and about 1,600 feet. The overlying rock types were mostly unconsolidated silts and sands which allowed communication with useable aquifers near the surface.

However, other sites, such as Rocky Mountain Arsenal, used injection wells deep into the substrate with multiple confining layers. They injected at a depth of about 12,800 feet below the ground surface. We will never see that material again. It was accomplished correctly.

When I looked at your bio and saw that you are collecting a retirement check from the EPA I didn't know whether to laugh or vomit. You in particular should know that the EPA has developed criteria for the construction and use of deep injection wells. The EPA has divided injection wells into six classes depending on the material injected for disposal. It is a very tedious process to obtain a permit from the EPA for disposal of certain toxics. I know, I've done it! What do you expect humans to do with critically hazardous waste? Store it on the surface where it can enter surface or groundwater? Dump it into a lined landfill and keep your fingers crossed that it won't enter the food chain? What's your alternative? Your kind suggests that we eliminate the toxic stream in the first place. So let's see, we won't have things made of metal. We can forget about anything made from plastic; heaven forbid we would have to drill for oil. Should I go on and on?

I suggest we let this discussion rest and go back to boating where I, for one, can learn about marine systems from knowledgable folks like Al, Eric, Rick, Marin, Ron, etc. I'll let the knowledge I've picked up over the last 37 years solve problems for my clients which, in turn, "saves the environment"...

Ray Muldrew
 
Last edited:
Giggitoni said:
The administrators can move this portion of the thread should they feel it is necessary.

Deep injection wells are one viable answer for the disposal of hazardous waste. Obviously Aerojet's methods back in the late '50s and early '60s where not technically correct. Aerojet did not inject the waste stream into a confined stratigraphic layer. The two wells used by Aerojet were drilled into the Ione formation at depths of 940 feet and about 1,600 feet. The overlying rock types were mostly unconsolidated silts and sands which allowed communication with useable aquifers near the surface.

However, other sites, such as Rocky Mountain Arsenal, used injection wells deep into the substrate with multiple confining layers. They injected at a depth of about 12,800 feet below the ground surface. We will never see that material again. It was accomplished correctly.

When I looked at your bio and saw that you are collecting a retirement check from the EPA I didn't know whether to laugh or vomit. You in particular should know that the EPA has developed criteria for the construction and use of deep injection wells. The EPA has divided injection wells into six classes depending on the material injected for disposal. It is a very tedious process to obtain a permit from the EPA for disposal of certain toxics. I know, I've done it! What do you expect humans to do with critically hazardous waste? Store it on the surface where it can enter surface or groundwater? Dump it into a lined landfill and keep your fingers crossed that it won't enter the food chain? What's your alternative? Your kind suggests that we eliminate the toxic stream in the first place. So let's see, we won't have things made of metal. We can forget about anything made from plastic; heaven forbid we would have to drill for oil. Should I go on and on?

I suggest we let this discussion rest and go back to boating where I, for one, can learn about marine systems from knowledgable folks like Al, Eric, Rick, Marin, Ron, etc. I'll let the knowledge I've picked up over the last 37 years solve problems for my clients which, in turn, "saves the environment"...

Ray Muldrew
Click to expand...
thank you Ray, your right back to boating. However, there is no reason to indicate that injection wells disposal of toxics is any safer than any of the other techniques used in the past. One thing that has proven to be 100% is that every time we try to dispose of toxics without first reconstituting the toxic into a safe form it comes back to haunt us, without exception.
 
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit...! This will be my last contribution to this thread. I apologize to the original poster for the drift away from topic. Good night...

Ray Muldrew
 
FlyWright said:
LOL...no apology needed! :rofl:
Click to expand...

+1

If there is one thing I have learned in all the years I've been learning it's how much I will never learn. It always amazes me when I see even a tiny bit of someone else's field of expertise--- in this case Ray's--- how much more complex that field is compared to my outsider's view of it.
 
Marin said:
+1

If there is one thing I have learned in all the years I've been learning it's how much I will never learn. It always amazes me when I see even a tiny bit of someone else's field of expertise--- in this case Ray's--- how much more complex that field is compared to my outsider's view of it.
Click to expand...


Got that right. When I was 19 I knew everything. Approaching 60 I realize I don't know jack.
 
The Enterprise is a very unique vessel it comes to deactivation. She was a floating prototype and had eight reactors (of five different types at one point). Not to get into the details, but she's going to be a very technically challenging deactivation. A Nimitz class boat only has two reactors and their cores are about the size of a large chest freezer.

She'll be de-fueled and then the reactors removed. The fuel will be sent up to Idaho for conversion / study / re-use, and the vessels (no fuel) sent to Oregon for burial.

This is the first time they've done a carrier, and the time it will take is the reason they do all at the RCOH docks at Newport News. PSNS just isn't designed to do this level of work and not interfere with normal yard availabilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kwmeyer13
Help Fight the Nassau County Fire Marshal
Replies
0
Views
525
kwmeyer13
kwmeyer13

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom