Nuclear Cruise Ships
Viable Option or Floating Gold Mine For Terrorists?
By Mike Groves
In a surprising move, Lloyd's Register announced it is researching the feasibility of nuclear-powered commercial ships and which could include cruise ships? But is this really being looked at seriously as a viable option? Well Lloyds Register is the international standards organization for the classification and design of ships and therefore, it would appear the answer is yes.
Currently there are only a few who have the privilege, and the money, to power their vessels with atomic propulsion, the vast majority of these being some of the most powerful military forces on the planet. But there are others out there!
In 2007 Russia launched the NS 50 Let Podedy, the largest (Arkitika class) nuclear powered icebreaker in the world but even she was not the first! She was actually pipped to the post decades before by another icebreaker, the NS Lenin. Launched in 1957, she was the world's first nuclear powered surface ship and the first nuclear powered civilian vessel however, during those early days of the Cold War it would not be to long before the Americans caught up, launching their very own nuclear powered civilian vessel the NS Savannah in 1959.
Nuclear Cruise Ships
Viable Option or Floating Gold Mine for Terrorists?
By Mike Groves QGM
Cruise Bruise Security And Safety Advisor
November 24, 2010
The Savannah was the first nuclear powered cargo-passenger ship ever built and she left her launch on 21 July 1959. But are these options really suitable for cruise ships with so many terrorist incidents being launched by fanatical groups around the world?
Naturally some may say that icebreakers are equally at risk as a cruise ship but are they? Fist icebreakers have a small number of crew, all vetted and more often than not operating in remote locations, whereas a cruise ship has thousands on board.
The very real danger with cruise ships is also their appalling safety record, so would it really be safe to place such a powerful, and to a degree unstable power source, into the wrong hands? Will the cruise industry be willing to invest in qualified and experienced crew and in addition, pay the salaries that they would command? I doubt it. I do not think that many ships Masters would be happy to know that the Reactor Manager is making much more a month than their position could command and furthermore, we have the very real problem of security!
For any cruise operators to contemplate moving into the realms of nuclear power they will first have to cater for an additional, and one would presume highly trained and armed security force to counter any attempts to take the vessel and turn it into the largest ‘dirty bomb’ in the world. It would be fair to say that any terrorist taking a nuclear powered cruise ship would neither have the opportunity or the time to remove key elements from the reactor in order to then get it away from the ship to then sell on or otherwise utilize the components themselves to produce a nuclear bomb. To many security forces will be jumping all over that ship as soon as its taken so their best option would be to cause a successful Three Mile Incident – a complete melt down!
Nuclear accident at sea makes for a very bad cruise!
Long term benefits for the planet are obvious, with current figures estimating that all the worlds shipping account for roughly 5% of global greenhouse gases, going nuclear could be the key? However, this will mean very little if international terrorists, hell bent on mass murder, take a one way trip on a cruise and kill all on board through the instigation of a core meltdown.
One report I picked up during my research into all this stated that even on nuclear-powered military vessels, crew members are required to wear dosimeters at all times to measure radiation exposure / mrem. The question was also poised if this would therefore be acceptable to crew and guests, to wear these on board cruise ships?
In actual fact this would not be required at all, according to one informative post that I picked up from a former nuclear submarine officer regarding perceived exposure -
Dosimetry is only required for access into the engineering spaces aboard US Navy nuclear vessels. My wife went underway with me on my submarine for a "Dependents Cruise" and she did not have dosimetry. The only personnel aboard aircraft carriers that wear dosimetry are those nuclear and non nuclear people who require access to the engineering spaces.
In 10 years of service aboard three different reactor types, I accumulated just under 500 mrem. This is on the high side for non maintenance personnel. To put this in perspective an airline flight attendant in one year receives as much exposure as I did in ten years. Keep in mind I lived within 150 feet of a reactor 24/7 for 6 of those ten years!
So what does this mean to the average man on the street. Well in layman's terms and while referring to my NBCD (Nuclear Biological Chemical Defense) booklet from those military days, the millrem (mrem) is one thousandth of a rem and is more commonly akin to those dosages that you may receive during x-rays. A rem is a large amount of radiation.
