US nuclear reactor shielding. - Page 2

08-09-10, 08:35 PM

bump

TLAM Strike · 08-09-10, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Third Man

The containment vessel consists of a verticle containment vessel of 5.5 meter diameter, between two water-tight bulkheads. The control rod drive is situated in a cupola which rests above the reactor chamber. The chamber can withstand a pressure of 15+ atmospheres.

The secondary shielding consists of concrete, lead, and polethyleane positioned toward the top of the containment area. Water, by its nature, contains any nuclear escape to the surrounding area.

A pre-stressed concrete wall of 122 cm surrounds the lower portion of containment. This wall rests upon a HTS cushion. A section of 15.2 cm lead obsorbs the gamma radiation. 15.2 cm of polethyleane is used to slow neutrons. Any space between lead plates is filled with lead wool.

Did you know that the NR-1 had no aft reactor shielding. Radiation containment was provided by a ballast tank filled with 12 feet of water since due to the small size of the NR-1 full shielding would have destabilized the submarine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Damn it Oberon stop taking photos of my house!

08-09-10, 08:46 PM

Did you know that any part of the submarine reactor which is below water is considered safe for the general public? See my original post.

08-09-10, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Did you know that the NR-1 had no aft reactor shielding. Radiation containment was provided by a ballast tank filled with 12 feet of water since due to the small size of the NR-1 full shielding would have destabilized the submarine.

Is that secret info?

It isn't of course but it shows how foolish some can be.

ETR3(SS) · 08-09-10, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Question to those who'd know:

Is the info third man is posting "common knowledge", or is this technical classified info that's been leaked somehow and shouldn't be posted?

EDIT: If its leaked info, id suggest reporting the post to get it removed rather then bumping it.

Well I'll say this, this doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy considering Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information is one of this countries most closely guarded secrets. My John Walker alarm is warming up.

Zachstar · 08-09-10, 09:49 PM

I didn't ask for this info nor do I want it. I know the reactors are safe. Otherwise a major accident would have happened by now. I understand that they are so safe that at times they are given authorization to run at 110 percent for extended periods of time.

As for wikileaks. Leaking this info does them no good. Nobody cares about the info except those in the gov getting more and more ready to face the PR backlash from shutting wikileaks down.

08-09-10, 09:49 PM	#21
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	I didn't ask for this info nor do I want it. I know the reactors are safe. Otherwise a major accident would have happened by now. I understand that they are so safe that at times they are given authorization to run at 110 percent for extended periods of time. As for wikileaks. Leaking this info does them no good. Nobody cares about the info except those in the gov getting more and more ready to face the PR backlash from shutting wikileaks down. __________________

08-09-10, 08:35 PM	#16
The Third Man Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	bump

08-09-10, 08:46 PM	#18
The Third Man Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Did you know that any part of the submarine reactor which is below water is considered safe for the general public? See my original post.