Uss Houston

cyrusdvirus

CNN wrote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Water with trace amounts of radioactivity may have leaked for months from a U.S. Navy nuclear-powered submarine as it traveled around the Pacific to ports in Guam, Japan and Hawaii, Navy officials told CNN on Friday.


The USS Houston arrives in Pearl Harbor for routine maintenance, during which the leak was found.

The leak was found on the USS Houston, a Los Angeles-class fast attack submarine, after it went to Hawaii for routine maintenance last month, Navy officials said.

Navy officials said the amount of radiation leaked into the water was virtually undetectable. But the Navy alerted the Japanese government because the submarine had been docked in Japan.

The problem was discovered last month when a build-up of leaking water popped a covered valve and poured onto a sailor's leg while the submarine was in dry dock.

An investigation found a valve was slowly dripping water from the sub's nuclear power plant. The water had not been in direct contact with the nuclear reactor, Navy officials said.

Officials with knowledge of the incident could not quantify the amount of radiation leaked but insisted it was "negligible" and an "extremely low level." The total amount leaked while the sub was in port in Guam, Japan and Hawaii was less than a half of a microcurie (0.0000005 curies), or less than what is found in a 50-pound bag of lawn and garden fertilizer, the officials said.

The sailor who was doused, a Houston crew member, tested negative for radiation from the water, according to Navy officials.

Don't Miss
U.S. Navy boots captain after fire on carrier
Since March, the Houston had crisscrossed the western Pacific, spending a week in Japan and several weeks in both Guam and Hawaii, Navy officials said. See a timeline of the sub's movements »

The Navy on Friday notified the Japanese government of the leak, the officials said, and told them it was possible the ship had been leaking while in port in Sasebo, Japan, in March.

While Japan has agreed to allow U.S. nuclear-powered ships in Japanese ports, the decision was a not popular in Japan.

The Houston incident comes at a time when the Navy is trying to smooth over a problem with a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

The USS George Washington was due to replace the aging, conventionally powered USS Kitty Hawk this summer as the United States' sole carrier based in Japan.

While en route to Japan this May, a massive fire broke out on the George Washington, causing $70 million in damage. The fire was blamed on crew members smoking near improperly stored flammable materials.

There was no damage or threat to the nuclear reactor, but the ship was diverted to San Diego, California, for repairs. It now is expected to arrive in Japan at the end of September.


The Navy this week fired the captain and his deputy, saying an investigation into the fire led to a lack of confidence in the leadership of both men.

Just two weeks ago, thousands of Japanese protested the pending arrival of the George Washington.

I never heard anything about the GW...anyone else?

dogmatix

Not sure - there is an nuclear powered aircraft carrier called the george washington. Or it might refer to an old Polaris SSBN of the same name?

cyrusdvirus

dogmatix wrote: »

Not sure - there is an nuclear powered aircraft carrier called the george washington. Or it might refer to an old Polaris SSBN of the same name?

She's the sixth Nimitz class ship, CVN 73

dogmatix

I'd love to see one of those huge nuclear carriers visit Ireland on a flag waving visit but i'd doubt the green lobby would ever let it (and i'm speaking as a lightweight greenie myself).

The JFK was at dublin a number of years ago but she was not nuclear powered. I remember seeing her at anchor in dublin bay from the three rock - looked mightily impressive. Is the JFK still in commission?

cyrusdvirus

Nope, she was decommissioned in august last year
I was lucky enough to get aboard her when she was here that time. I remember the tender taking us out, was bobbing around a fair bit, but when we got on board, not a jot of movement.

I remember thinnking that at that stage the carriers were part of SIOP and that there was no way on Gods green earth that they'd unload the non conventional weaponry before dropping anchor. Couldn't find a sailor who'd confirm it for me though!!:D

Fratton Fred

dogmatix wrote: »

I'd love to see one of those huge nuclear carriers visit Ireland on a flag waving visit but i'd doubt the green lobby would ever let it (and i'm speaking as a lightweight greenie myself).

The JFK was at dublin a number of years ago but she was not nuclear powered. I remember seeing her at anchor in dublin bay from the three rock - looked mightily impressive. Is the JFK still in commission?

That was 9 months before the "mixed race baby boom" in Dun Laoghaire right:D

Tenger

dogmatix wrote: »

Not sure - there is an nuclear powered aircraft carrier called the george washington. Or it might refer to an old Polaris SSBN of the same name?

USS Nimitz CVN-68
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69
USS Carl Vinson CVN-70
USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71
USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72
USS George Washington CVN 73
USS John C. Stennis CVN 74
USS Harry S. Truman CVN 75
USS Ronald Reagan CVN 76
USS George H. W. Bush CVN 77

dogmatix

They named carriers after Reagan and Bush? Bush senior isn't even dead yet and he is not exactly the most highest rated president ever so why have the honour of having a carrier named after him?

Either the republicans are in control of however decides the names of ships or there is just a lack of imagination on someones part. If Bill clinton does not get a carrier named after him then it must be the republicans! I can't understand why they did not resurrect famous carrier names like Lexington, Yorktown etc for new Carriers.

cyrusdvirus

dogmatix wrote: »

They named carriers after Reagan and Bush? Bush senior isn't even dead yet and he is not exactly the most highest rated president ever so why have the honour of having a carrier named after him?

Either the republicans are in control of however decides the names of ships or there is just a lack of imagination on someones part. If Bill clinton does not get a carrier named after him then it must be the republicans! I can't understand why they did not resurrect famous carrier names like Lexington, Yorktown etc for new Carriers.

Reagan was behind the 600 ship navy, so the USN deciding to honour him by naming a ship after him( And she was christened before his death) isn't that unusual.

And Bush was a naval officer as well as commander in chief, so maybe that's why he was honoured in this way.

I don't remember clinton having too much navy involvement to be honest.

But i agree with you about bringing back the 'lady lex' and her ilk

Tenger

gatecrash wrote: »

Reagan was behind the 600 ship navy, so the USN deciding to honour him by naming a ship after him( And she was christened before his death) isn't that unusual.

And Bush was a naval officer as well as commander in chief, so maybe that's why he was honoured in this way.

I was under the impression the HW Bush was a former naval pilot himself. And he was a president who actually won a war (Desert Storm)

I think it strange that Jimmy Carter got a Seawolf classs sub called after him rather than a carrier,definitely politics here from Republicans.

cushtac

Carter was a Naval officer who spent most of his career in submarines.

cyrusdvirus

How many former Presidents have served in the navy? Never knew that about Carter.

cushtac

Bush Sr. (Naval aviator), Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, JFK.

dogmatix

cushtac wrote: »

Bush Sr. (Naval aviator), Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, JFK.

Somehow I don't think we will be seeing the carrier USS Richard M Nixon anytime soon, no matter which party controls the ship naming in the US navy!