I was a US Navy Nuclear Operator and Recruiter. Ask Me Anything.

[sjard]

1: Are you happy not to have to use the showers on a steam cat flattop any more?

2: Any truth to the SCA Urban legends about SCA groups doing fighter practice on the flight deck?

 

[Dalisclock]

1: Are you happy not to have to use the showers on a steam cat flattop any more?

2: Any truth to the SCA Urban legends about SCA groups doing fighter practice on the flight deck?

1.I am quite happy not to use the communal showers anymore. They had stalls and curtains, but you still had to wait in line to shower. It's also nice to not have to wait 5 hours to get a load of laundry done or sleep in a bed barely larger then I am with only a curtain for privacy.

2. I didn't see it but I had coworkers who said they saw guys play-dueling with swords on other ships. Apparently the CO saw it and was pissed.

 

[sjard]

1: Are you happy not to have to use the showers on a steam cat flattop any more?

2: Any truth to the SCA Urban legends about SCA groups doing fighter practice on the flight deck?

1.I am quite happy not to use the communal showers anymore. They had stalls and curtains, but you still had to wait in line to shower. It's also nice to not have to wait 5 hours to get a load of laundry done or sleep in a bed barely larger then I am with only a curtain for privacy.

2. I didn't see it but I had coworkers who said they saw guys play-dueling with swords on other ships. Apparently the CO saw it and was pissed.

I was thinking more the stories I've heard of showers going from freezing to steam clean in seconds due to the catapult system.

The story for the SCA is probably just a story, and is cold war era. About the captain actually calling for them to hold fighter practice when they were in sight of a Russian ship. So they'd be easily visible on deck with swords and shields and armor...

 

[Dalisclock]

I was thinking more the stories I've heard of showers going from freezing to steam clean in seconds due to the catapult system.

That never happened to my knowledge and if I remember correctly, the water that went to the catapults was an entirely different system then the water we used for cooking, cleaning, drinking, washing, etc(which needed additional purification to be drinkable, a process we didn't bother with for catapult water). If there were temperature problems with a shower, it was due to a water heater somewhere nearby being on the fritz.

I was actually asked once about the possibility of radioactivity getting into the shower water and I had to explain that it pretty much wasn't possible, or would require several serious radiation leaks to happen in the right places because of how the system is set up(the catch being that even if it did, we'd know about it long before it became a drinking water issue because we'd have radiation alarms going off in the plant).

 

[Strazdas]

2.One of those answers I have to be careful about because of National Security, etc.

thanks for the answers. I understand the need for secrecy due to national security reasons here (even though i dont agree it should be a national security issue, but thats another topic). Thanks for saying as much as you did, it allowed me to understand how these work a bit better. I was always a big proponent of atomic power and as such i enjoy learning how they work (even if i am nowhere close to being a, as you call it, nuke). Its good to hear that the ratios remain somewhat constant as i heard rumors about attempts to phase out all of the nuclear ships because of chernobyl scare.

Something interesting you said there though. you said the reactors could self-regulate for days. The impression i got from the civilian nuclear engineers was that it should be years instead. Perhaps you are right in that civilian one is just much more automated.

Also its so damn refreshing to finally see someone that knows what happened in Fukoshima. it seems like everyone i talk to seem to think it was a second chernobyl.

 

[Dalisclock]

Something interesting you said there though. you said the reactors could self-regulate for days. The impression i got from the civilian nuclear engineers was that it should be years instead. Perhaps you are right in that civilian one is just much more automated.

Also its so damn refreshing to finally see someone that knows what happened in Fukoshima. it seems like everyone i talk to seem to think it was a second chernobyl.

I don't know as much about the civilian plants as I'd like to but I'd be quite interesting in learning if that's true. I wonder if there was a "under ideal conditions" caveat in there somewhere.

Part of the problem with the Fukashima disaster was the fact the Japanese government was being really tight lipped about it,no doubt because of some really embarrassing revelations since the accident that their Nuclear Regulatory Agency(whose name escapes me at the moment) had more or less colluding with the power industry, because a government officials who didn't rock the boat too much could look forward to getting lucrative jobs in the Power industry once they left their civil service positions. It was known as "Ascent to Heaven".

Despite this, The most interesting thing I've heard about it(and I haven't had a chance to fact check this yet) is that like 3 mile island, there have been no attributable deaths or even significantly higher risks of cancer among the local population, despite the fuel meltdowns that occurred. 3 mile island I can believe because there wasn't a containment breach, Fukishima I'm a little more skeptical about.

It's kind of sad that everyone uses Chernobyl as the go to for nuclear accidents considering it was effectively the worst case scenario and really, really should never have happened in the first case. The fact it took a perfect storm of design and human error to make it possible speaks to that, when numerous other accidents are far less damaging and far more contained. The US Army ran their own nuclear reactor program for several decades and even managed to have their own nuclear accident which killed 3 people(SL-1). Most people have never heard of SL-1, or even know the Army ran 9 other nuclear reactors until the 1980's when the program was shut down(more or less without further incident).

 

[Strazdas]

I don't know as much about the civilian plants as I'd like to but I'd be quite interesting in learning if that's true. I wonder if there was a "under ideal conditions" caveat in there somewhere.

Part of the problem with the Fukashima disaster was the fact the Japanese government was being really tight lipped about it,no doubt because of some really embarrassing revelations since the accident that their Nuclear Regulatory Agency(whose name escapes me at the moment) had more or less colluding with the power industry, because a government officials who didn't rock the boat too much could look forward to getting lucrative jobs in the Power industry once they left their civil service positions. It was known as "Ascent to Heaven".

Despite this, The most interesting thing I've heard about it(and I haven't had a chance to fact check this yet) is that like 3 mile island, there have been no attributable deaths or even significantly higher risks of cancer among the local population, despite the fuel meltdowns that occurred. 3 mile island I can believe because there wasn't a containment breach, Fukishima I'm a little more skeptical about.

It's kind of sad that everyone uses Chernobyl as the go to for nuclear accidents considering it was effectively the worst case scenario and really, really should never have happened in the first case. The fact it took a perfect storm of design and human error to make it possible speaks to that, when numerous other accidents are far less damaging and far more contained. The US Army ran their own nuclear reactor program for several decades and even managed to have their own nuclear accident which killed 3 people(SL-1). Most people have never heard of SL-1, or even know the Army ran 9 other nuclear reactors until the 1980's when the program was shut down(more or less without further incident).

Well yes, the years of service was idea conditions scenario of nothing breaking. but even assuming worst case scenario the plant would self-shutdown according to them. (note that the question involved dissapearance of people without any physical damage to the plant, which isnt applicable in cases like the Fukoshima tsunami damage)

I think a big reason for the scare was that the accidentas rating angency whos name also escapes me rated the disaster as 7/7 - the same rating chernobyl recieved, despite it being nowhere close to that (but being worse than 6/7 3 mile island). The scale is a bit broken there but it tricked a lot of people into thinking Fukoshima was more than it was. That and the fact that it actually released irradiated coolant out and people are afraid of that. of course the existence of actually physically impossible images [http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/fzz1.jpg] doesnt help the public perception.

There were no known attributable deaths or even anything that could be considered seriuos radiation poisoning. The radiation released into the ocean contained the type of particles that had a short half-life (i think the biggest part of it contained particles with half-life of 24 minutes) was very low to the point where regular pilots have much higher exposures than people would from that release. while its too early to count cancer statistics, so far what we know shows absolutely no impact, even among the emergency workers.

This guy made a few videos about the more crazy myths about fukushima, just to show how much panic it actually caused
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3XqXOw5PuRrM0Zg8YDkRPL

 

[SmugFrog]

Actually, you're the first person I've ever talked to who has even seen one of those things. I thought they were an urban legend.

Ha! I guess I'm just an old salt. It's funny how some of these things or events turn into urban legends over time. Here's a picture of it - I can never forget the stupid frowny face that was on it:

http://www.wearethemighty.com/truth-behind-basic-training-stress-cards-2015-09

The Army one was like a mood ring for your fingerprint. I remember an Army recruiter telling me about theirs trying to convince me to join.

 

[EvilRoy]

The Nuclear Navy had it's own cheating scandal around the same time, where one of our training facilities essentially did the same thing. The training instructors(Navy Nukes who were on shore duty, training the "Baby Nukes" before they hit the fleet) had to take similar exams and so did the students, but apparently some(how many, reports don't say) of the students knew what tests they were getting and asked the instructors for the cheat sheets. 34 instructors were kicked out of the Navy for violating integrity standards. What makes it disturbing is that I was a student at that same command when the cheating was going on and I sure as hell don't remember seeing or hearing anything like that, so apparently it was fairly limited at the time.

Isn't that the shittiest feeling though? On one hand you're happy you weren't involved because you would have been caught, on the other, 'fucking, what about me? Not good enough to be in the cheating crew?' Thanks for the answers anyway, its pretty interesting stuff.

For some reason I assumed the exams would be harder, but in hindsight it makes sense the way it is done. Just standard repeated exams, just like everybody else.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I'm actually coming to a bit of a crossroads in my life in terms of employment and reading this thread has been... interesting..

The salary and what not... How long do you have to stay enlisted? Whats the age limits and physical requirements? I probably wouldn't make it being not very fit (Though I could possibly get myself into shape)

Were you ever afraid of seeing actual combat? What are the real risks of some assholes in a sub sinking your ship?

 

[Rosiv]

What education did your job require? Was it a Engineering degree or was it "on the job"? Also, are there job prospects for Biology majors in the military? I was told the only work for them was few and far between,and only with the Navy doing conservation work. Aside from medical jobs.

 

[Atmos Duality]

As some of you know, I served in the US Navy for 9 years. During that time, I was trained as a Nuclear Power Technician, was assigned to a Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carrier and did several deployments to the Middle East in Support of Operations Iraqi/Enduring Freedom(AKA the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Huh. My dad had the same exact job 40 years ago, on the original Nimitz as original crew.

Are the air dales still obnoxious?
And have you ever done operations through a hurricane?

 

[Dalisclock]

Are the NRC's yearly limits for TEDE rigorously enforced? Did you ever feel that you worked in an unsafe environment as a result of the reactor?

How do you theoretically deal with a SCRAM? If you kill your reactor at sea, aren't you potentially screwed beyond all belief? Did you have some tiered system to SCRAM in a recoverable way, or was it just an all or nothing thing like a landbound reactor?

The dose limits were enforced and in fact the Navy limits were lower then the NRC ones. It wasn't difficult, considering a majority of US never got close to the limits. I still have printouts of my dose readings in my medical record and they're not even close to hitting a 1 REM over my entire nuclear career. I felt the reactor plant was fairly safe.

SCRAMs were a known and practiced emergency procedure, as in when we did drills several times each week, at least one of the drill sets each night would involve a reactor SCRAM. As weird as it sounds that made it one of the more simple and routine drill sets we did. In general, our response would be to cross-connect the reactor plants so the operating plant would shoulder the load for the one that had just dropped until we can fix what caused the SCRAM and restart the reactor.

Which is why Carriers have 2 Nuclear Reactors. It allows us to continue operating normally with one of the reactors offline(though it's not how we prefer to operate). If we would lose the sole operating reactor, then we're in what's called "Dead In the Water" or "Dual Down" and we would occasionally train for that too. We have emergency diesel generators but those are pretty much enough to keep vital power on(So no catapults or propulsion). I believe most civilian nuclear plants operate more then one reactor, so they have similar options

 

[Dalisclock]

I'm actually coming to a bit of a crossroads in my life in terms of employment and reading this thread has been... interesting..

The salary and what not... How long do you have to stay enlisted? Whats the age limits and physical requirements? I probably wouldn't make it being not very fit (Though I could possibly get myself into shape)

Were you ever afraid of seeing actual combat? What are the real risks of some assholes in a sub sinking your ship?

Enlistments for the Navy were dependent on the job you chose/were chosen for when you joined. A majority of enlistments were 4 or 5 years(and you'd know before you signed. In fact, the information is freely available on the net) with Nuke and Special Forces have 6 year enlistments due to the long training pipelines of around two years(give or take a few months). Nukes also have the option of reenlisting at their 2 year point for an additional 2 years, which pushes the contract out to 8 years. The reason this is offered, and many nukes take it, is because they come in as an E4 and that re-enlistment(called STARR re-enlistment) is an automatic promotion to E5 and whatever the re-enlistment bonus is at the time(Which has been hanging out around $90-100K. There's also the unspoken fringe benefit of being eligible for housing allowance(Money to cover rent) if you're unmarried once you hit E5. Considering that's another several hundred dollars a month untaxed on top of your base pay, getting it early adds up.

Age Limits were 35 for Active Duty and 40 for Reserves. Physical requirement are a little more complicated as they tend to depend on your gender and age group, while allowable weight it dependent on gender and height. This isn't an official navy page but it seems accurate as to fitness standards as far as I can tell. http://www.navy-prt.com/index.html

One caveat is health issues. If you're on prescription medications(anti-depressants, ADD/ADHD,etc), you're not eligible. Not at the moment, anyway. If you were on them, you need to have been off them for about 2 years. Your doctor had to take you off them, so you can't just stop taking them and call it good as far as medical documents are concerned. If you've had hardware installed in you(pins, screws, metal plates in your body), that could be problematic but not a deal breaker. Joint problems can be one though, because if your knees or ankles are messed up that might disqualify you. If you need an inhaler, it's not gonna happen. There's a lot more but I'm thinking of common issues I saw.

I don't know if that answers your questions. If you have a more specific question that you don't feel comfortable posting on an open forum, feel free to PM me. I might be able to provide more specific answers.

I wasn't really worried about getting shot at. An aircraft carrier is one of the most well protected things on the planet, between having a small air force on board, a missile defense system(that presumably works) and having a ring of escorts around it. Since we're not currently at war with anyone who has a Navy worth speaking of or anti-ship capability, it wasn't something I stressed over. I know that a Carrier is a big, fat target but the fact we're not in a "shooting war" makes it far less likely someone is gonna try to sink it.

What education did your job require? Was it a Engineering degree or was it "on the job"? Also, are there job prospects for Biology majors in the military? I was told the only work for them was few and far between,and only with the Navy doing conservation work. Aside from medical jobs.

To join as am enlisted nuke, I needed a high ASVAB score. I had college(in fact, I dropped out of college to enlist) but it wasn't required. Nukes goes through a training pipeline that's about 2 years long, including boot camp. The other stages are: "A" School(which is Navy Speak for "Here's the basic training to do your job"), Nuclear Power School(where we learned the theory behind nuclear power) and Nuclear Prototype, which was a hands on, self paced training regimen on a operating nuclear plant, using a combination of computer based courses, standing watches and a lot of study. There's also optional extra schools for certain people, such as the Engineering Lab Techs(essentially Navy chemistry and Radcon).

The self paced thing is both good and bad, because with anything self paced, if you fall behind the progress curve, the military likes to push you....which may mean you just don't go home for a long time. In the nuclear navy, it's a common punishment to put you on "hours", as in "You do your full workday and then another 1 to 4 hours before or after work". You're not getting paid any more for the extra time you're working, btw.

After the training pipeline, training is pretty much on the job, though with more self paced study and many of the same caveats. Occasionally people will get sent to special schools like Firefighting, flood control, etc.

People with Bachelor degrees and above are eligible for officer programs(though not all graduates go officer). Sometimes the degree doesn't matter, though some of the more specialized degrees are required for Engineering or Medical fields, IIRC. Aside from medical fields, I can't think of any Navy programs that would specifically utilize a biology degree. However, officer recruiting is a bit different and more complex then enlisted recruiting and I never really dealt much with it. If I found someone who sounded eligible for officer, usually my next step would be to refer them to the officer recruiter(sometimes getting them on the phone while the applicant was sitting in front of me) and letting them discuss if that was the path they wanted to pursue.

So in this case, if you are really interested, I'd recommend getting in contact with a local recruiter and seeing what options are open to you.

 

[Dalisclock]

Huh. My dad had the same exact job 40 years ago, on the original Nimitz as original crew.

Are the air dales still obnoxious?
And have you ever done operations through a hurricane?

Some of them were, though that applies to anyone. I didn't have the disdain for them that some of my coworkers did.
Never went through a Hurricane, though we hit some rough seas going down to Australia.

Isn't that the shittiest feeling though? On one hand you're happy you weren't involved because you would have been caught, on the other, 'fucking, what about me? Not good enough to be in the cheating crew?' Thanks for the answers anyway, its pretty interesting stuff.

For some reason I assumed the exams would be harder, but in hindsight it makes sense the way it is done. Just standard repeated exams, just like everybody else.

Yeah. Granted, apparently it started in 2006 and I was there in 2007, so maybe it hadn't gone beyond a few people at that time. Since we also had 5 shifts running on two training ships, it might have been happening on the other shifts and we didn't know about it.

The other thing that gets me is that if I hadn't gone recruiting, I would have had to go instruct there. Since there's a New York facility and a South Carolina facility, there's a 50% chance I would have ended up at the one that got hit by the cheating scandal and possibly caught up in it.

The exams were mostly well written, but one thing to keep in mind is that they were all Essay questions and you got a majority of points from explaining and supporting your answer. So a question might be "You're standing watch and you see the following things. What situation(we called them "Casualties") are you in, what are your actions and why?" or "List the safety features of System X, what their set-points are and why". If people notice that nukes have a tendency to explain everything verbosely, this is part of the reason.

To contrast, the standard Navy promotion exam is multiple choice bubble sheet tests.

 

[EvilRoy]

Huh. My dad had the same exact job 40 years ago, on the original Nimitz as original crew.

Are the air dales still obnoxious?
And have you ever done operations through a hurricane?

Some of them were, though that applies to anyone. I didn't have the disdain for them that some of my coworkers did.
Never went through a Hurricane, though we hit some rough seas going down to Australia.

Isn't that the shittiest feeling though? On one hand you're happy you weren't involved because you would have been caught, on the other, 'fucking, what about me? Not good enough to be in the cheating crew?' Thanks for the answers anyway, its pretty interesting stuff.

For some reason I assumed the exams would be harder, but in hindsight it makes sense the way it is done. Just standard repeated exams, just like everybody else.

Yeah. Granted, apparently it started in 2006 and I was there in 2007, so maybe it hadn't gone beyond a few people at that time. Since we also had 5 shifts running on two training ships, it might have been happening on the other shifts and we didn't know about it.

The other thing that gets me is that if I hadn't gone recruiting, I would have had to go instruct there. Since there's a New York facility and a South Carolina facility, there's a 50% chance I would have ended up at the one that got hit by the cheating scandal and possibly caught up in it.

The exams were mostly well written, but one thing to keep in mind is that they were all Essay questions and you got a majority of points from explaining and supporting your answer. So a question might be "You're standing watch and you see the following things. What situation(we called them "Casualties") are you in, what are your actions and why?" or "List the safety features of System X, what their set-points are and why". If people notice that nukes have a tendency to explain everything verbosely, this is part of the reason.

To contrast, the standard Navy promotion exam is multiple choice bubble sheet tests.

That sounds about right. MC exams are about rote memorization, and/or reasoning to an exact and known solution. Essay exams have more to do with testing adaptability and memory under pressure without worrying about 100% precision start to finish.

I've been interested into getting into nuclear stuff for a while, but it would be a lot different for me. The stuff I work with usually doesn't move or radiate, so I would be focusing in on housing. I would be curious to see how the designs of subs and civilian nukes differ (beyond the obvious) as far as safety goes. I know the civilian structures are built to take a full on 747 impact, but I'm guessing there are more pressing concerns for a sub.

 

[Dalisclock]

Since it looks like everyone has finished asking questions, I want to thank everyone for asking good questions and keeping this classy.