Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A naval presence in the arctic
Message-ID: <793@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 19:36:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: lsuc.793
Posted: Sat Sep 14 19:36:58 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 19:59:18 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Organization: Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
Lines: 30
Summary: Dumb Question Re Atomic Subs

In article <820@water.UUCP> jbtubman@water.UUCP (Jim Tubman [LPAIG]) writes:
>In article <5952@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Nuclear submarines are very expensive, which is one reason why they are
>>not more widespread.  Another reason is that the few nations which build
>>them have shown no inclination whatever to export them.  Maybe we could
>>convince Britain to sell us some; I'm unsure about the US.
>
>Our nuclear industry doesn't seem to be doing so well these days; perhaps
>getting them to work on a project to produce a reactor for propulsion might
>help the industry *and* make a useful contribution to the Arctic sovereignty
>problem.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>						Jim Tubman
>						University of Waterloo

     One thing that I've wondered about for a while now.  Are Nuclear
subs safe?  Does anybody here know whether they have the problems that
nuclear power plants have had?  Don't they suffer from radiation problems
(being small and not having the design freedom for almost infinite
concrete baffles)?
 
     I don't know.  I haven't heard *anything* about this.
 
                                    Cheers! -- Jim O.

-- 
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura