E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
TV21 via Reuters
Firefighters work to extinguish the blaze on a nuclear-powered submarine at a shipyard in Murmansk, Russia, on Thursday.
MOSCOW - Russia tried to submerge a burning nuclear submarine at a navy shipyard on Thursday after battling for hours with helicopters and tug boats to bring the raging blaze under control.
There was no radiation leak, authorities said.
Television pictures showed a giant plume of smoke above the yard in the Murmansk region of northern Russia as over 100 firemen struggled to douse flames which witnesses said rose 30 feet above the stricken vessel.
Emergency workers said efforts to partially sink the submarine at the dock had failed to fully extinguish the fire. A defense ministry spokesman quoted by state news agency RIA said the blaze, which began at 1220 GMT (7:20 a.m. ET), was under control more than eight hours later.
Russia said the nuclear reactor had been shut down and all weapons had been removed from the Yekaterinburg, which launched an intercontinental ballistic missile from the Barents Sea at a firing range thousands of miles away in Kamchatka as recently as July.
"Radiation levels are normal," a spokeswoman for the emergencies ministry said. "No one was injured."
After hours of trying to put out the flames, officials decided to partially submerge the hull of the 18,200-tonne submarine at the Roslyakovo dock, one of the main dockyards of Russia's northern fleet 900 miles north of Moscow.
Local media reports were vague, but the blaze was believed to have started when wooden scaffolding caught fire during welding repairs to the submarine, which had been hoisted into a dry dock.
The submarine can carry 16 ballistic missiles, each with four warheads. Its nuclear reactor was not damaged in the fire and Russian navy submarine reactors are built to withstand enormous shocks and high temperatures.
"The reactor has been shut down and does not pose any danger," Interfax news agency quoted a source at navy headquarters as saying.
Russia's worst post-Soviet submarine disaster occurred in August 2000 when the Kursk nuclear submarine sank in the Barents Sea killing all 118 crewmen aboard.
More from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Egyptian forces raid activists' offices
- Samoa skips Friday as it switches time zones
- $6.5 million in gems, silver, cash found in storage unit
- Syrian opposition criticizes Arab League observers' chief
Leave a Comment:
Great, almost forgot how inept they are.
Doug, read the news every day and you will find almost daily a representative sample of that ineptness!!
Kettle calling the pot black I would say. How are those billions of gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico working out for ya? I can go on and on and on.....
Mark,
Please do go on, it will be interesting to see how you can connect s Russian Submarine and an Oil Spill separated by thousand of miles and the passage of over a years time. Oh and no using Kevin Bacon!
He uses his magic wand.
Sometimes some of your people really work hard at helping other countries dislike you, with smug comments like that, as if nothing ever goes wrong in your land.
And what do you call the worst ecological disaster in America's history? I call them not only incompetent to the nth degree, but also a bunch of liars. But, really, the people who brought this nation three mile island, the love canal and many tsunamic disaster should throw stones at others? Me thinks not. And what about those we never know about? Pre 9/11 "preparations" are still embedded in secrecy and no one, not congress, not the president, nor the courts, nor the relatives of the victims of 9/11, not America at large want to know the truth, becasue to be fair, the whole world already knows the truth. Admitting a crime, a tragedy or not doesn't have any thing to with the truth, but politics and we play them better than Stradivarius the violin.
@ Hell no 'Worst ecological disaster in America's history?'
I'm sorry the episode you are speaking of wasn't even the worst disaster in the United States history, though that probably was your implied meaning. To convey my point better, it was not the worst Gulf of Mexico oil spill in the last 50 years. BTW the waters and beaches are recovering at an astounding rate, thanks for your concern. Exactly who got hurt at three mile island? Remember we are talking legitimate history not X-men movies. And when you mention a Stradivarius, the violin would already be implied. Not necessary to state it.
Do some research. Maybe open a book and look at the lettering as well as the pictures this time. When you are done you may come back to the internet to spout off more unbelievable hateful rhetoric you pick up from media matters or ron paul's websites.
Mark-1219747
"Kettle calling the pot black I would say. How are those billions of gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico working out for ya? I can go on and on and on....."
Nice exaggeration Mark. Approx 28 million gallons were spilled. That is a far cry from billions.
you did mean Barrels didn't you?
Iam with Red 212 on this one pretty shure it was around four billion barrels.
It was 1.5 billion gallons, or better known as 28 million barrels.
Well, it's almost 2012, what else could go wrong?....
For Leeroy. You can have your opinion, but not your own facts. Let me cut and paste something that might indicate you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Remember, my meaning of the comment was hypocrisy, I'm not the one saying. W/o further ado, here it goes:"The
Gulf of Mexico oil spill is unquestionably the biggest spill in U.S.
history, far surpassing the Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska in 1989. Another source, puts Three Mile Island at number 5 and Love Canal lower, but the main point I was trying to make and obviously you missed was "We can't throw stones when we live in glass houses. If that is too much for you to take and being an obvious tea partier, let me quote Jesus: ""Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
I haven't read, seen articles from Russia that brings our tragedies to their forefront while we try to hide our war crimes, and trying to minimize our tragedies, ecological disasters. I've seen the infomercial put out by BP of how the Gulf of Mexico has recuperated, but ever since I was a child, I was told to check the source. You believe what BP says? If you do, please let me know ASAP, I have bridge for sale. It's unfathomable to think that any one, not with a hidden, special agenda can believe what they say, specially after the many lies, crimes that they tried to cover up. You strike me as a planted BP stoogie. Also, since it is obvious you are sooo misinformed, many people in the ecology industry said during that BP disaster that Alaska, America hasn't even recovered from the Exxon Valdez disaster. Also, and how convenient, you also forgot, thanks to your selective Alzheimer's that even today BP has not told anyone what was in those chemicals put to make the oil "disappear." It disappear, alright, from our eyes, but it didn't just "disappear" but sank to the bottom where is almost impossible to see. Now, I'm not a chemist, not a rocket scientist, but I did learn that matter can't be created, nor destroyed and that is no bull, that is a law. Your ridiculous and stupid comment is dismissed. Of course, you can keep any money that BP payed you for saying such stupidity. Your choir might ignore the facts, but not I, not I.
Service in the Russian navy must be a real joy these days. If we keep letting our Congress promote themselves instead of taking care of the country, our military will be cut back to this level of ineptness and we'll have similar inicdents -- of course Congress will immediately castigate the military for their lack of safety and management control, censure careers out the window, vote themselves a pay raise and go golfing.
That's funny, when did you go to NPS and NNPTU? Our training has only become more advanced as years go on, even when we cut back.
Don,
It's already happening. You should be able to verify the extent of military reductions. Sad part is that those kids coming back from Iraq are going to get turned around to be used as Afghan fodder.
the power being cut from the reactor was a standard procedure. those ship fires can be real nasty. i work in a shipyard, and in the shipe people work in pairs and teams, due to the high risk.
I am old school Jim...NFAS and NNPS Orlando Florida. Our reactors have not strayed far from the designs of Adm Rickover and are bulletproof.
The reality is the same for us as the Russians. Fire is the most heinous enemy of a seafaring vessel....even in drydock. If this submarine was in drydock...guess what? Its reactor was shutdown (scrammed) already.
I will agree with that, fire is the major hazard on ships in general. I am newer school btw, NFAS, NNPS Charleston. There are several reasons why our reactors are safer, among them are the sailors and officers who man them.
Probably a welding torch got too close to the wooden scaffolding. If it's on the outside of the sub, there really is no danger from radiation leakage.
what ship yard's use wooden scaffolding ??
Note that it was the scaffolding that caught fire, not the reactor itself. Big difference between the two!
amazing isn't it? there is NEVER any radiation leak, or the level are normal, till their kids come out with 2 heads, and 3 arms. i'm just waiting to see what the defects are from the japan mess in march, way to soon to tell how that "normal shut down" will effect future generations.
Two heads are better than one and they'll never be lonely. Human DNA deals with low levels of radiation damage all the time. Not to worry.
joe
A 2006 National Academy of Sciences report found that there was no significant increase in birth defects even after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, PAQ is correct, low level radiation under 5 rem has not conclusively proven to increase cancer risks. The Linear Hypothesis of radiation-cancer correlation has also been proven inconclusive.
Who ever said the shutdown at Fukushima was "normal" either? It was called a "cold" shutdown.
joe, do you even know what radiation is? i'll give you a hint on its effects: godzilla was a 100% fiction movie... and the scaffolding caught fire, not the reactor. read the story, not just the stupid titles msn gives their article to get their agenda across.
We need to cut back on our own military. Atleast on the army side. we have way to many people in the army and not anough wars to pay them army guys. Hey russia would you start checking your subs before they leave port, and russia that could have been a bad thing nuke sub in the artic, we are losing ice everyday having a nuke blow up in the artic is risky. stop missle testing in the artic. you got the most land in the world use your own land. maybe russia is the reason the polar bears are dieing.....smeark smeark.
Septimus...
The arctic is part of Russia's continent within the arctic circle. Anarctica itself, belongs to no country. Actually, Anarctica is share by US and Russian scientist. Kind of like the International space station.
That wouldn't be the first time Russia blew up the Arctic. Russia actually holds the title for detonating the largest nuclear bomb ever called the Tsars Bomba.. or known as the AN602. The shockwave revolved around the earth 3 times.
The bomb was originally designed to have a yield of about 100 megatons of TNT, but the yield was reduced to 50 megatons in order to reduce nuclear fallout.
Septimus,
Did you even read the article? The sub was not at sea, but was in dry-dock. There was absolutely NO risk to the reactor from a scaffolding fire on deck. Try to pay a little attention before you spout off.
Septimus,
Ignorant is as ignorant does. God help us with nitwits like you in the world. F!@#$%^^ dumbass!
What a BS story. They just use the words nuclear and reactor in the title to grab people's attention, then report a dockyard fire in some scaffolding. Way to use fear to sell news msnbc.
A wonderful sensationalist story. A fire outside the submarine in a dry dock. As a normal precaution the reactor is shut down.
Big deal. How about some responsible journalism once in a while?
It was reported correctly, the readers are the ones who flunked reading comprehension. It is also news worthy, at least as news worthy as most of the drivel written about every day.
yeah, radiation levels were "normal" at Cherynoble too. they even got to have a parade.
wouldn't surprise me if that reactor melts down through the hull and causes a nuclear steam explosion.
lol. geez.
I don't think you understand nuclear reactors or the physics behind them, do you?
Studies have shows that many people that are afraid of nuclear energy are indeed unaware of the real workings of a nuclear reactor. This is nothing new. Rothman points it out quite clearly.
of course i do. it's called a fuel-coolant interaction. if that core melts down, and it's sitting on a body of water, once the molten reactor core reaches the water it causes it to superheat generating a powerful explosion expelling all of that friendly radiation into the atmosphere for our thyroids to absorb.
it'll be a great time for all of earth's kiddies. yes sir'ree.
Except that the reactor was not at risk? In order for a core to "melt through" it would first need to not be able to properly cool itself. Seeing as these reactors cool themselves by using the ocean as a heat sink, I think that we're fine.
if you want to believe the Russians when they say it's not at risk, that's your choice. i'll be eating iodine tabs. lol.
Understandable that you don't trust the russians, but just don't eat any banana's the next few days and you will get less radiation that way.
Why do the Russians bother keeping up their nuclear subs? Are they really afraid we'll decide to invade them one day? Note to Russians: We can't afford the cost of our involvement in Afghanistan. If we ever did invade you, we'd go so broke that Canada would take over the world, and threaten our way of saying "about".
Aboot the best one yet. By the way MSNBC., I just heard from Henny Penny that the sky was falling. You might want to check that out and run a story. We are also not sure it was the sparrow that killed Cock Robin. Never know where you might find a good story line!!!!
The sub was in dry dock so the reactor would have been shut down already.
who realy KNOWS ??
is.fi reports that according Russia Today channel- the nuclear submarine Jekaterinburg is on the dry dock in Murmansk. The wooden scaffolding caught fire- fire only on the outside of the sub- never inside. They shut the nuclear reactor before drydocking and removed 16 nuclear ballistic missiles from the Delta 4 nuclear submarine.,which was built in 1984. Anybody ever see the turn of 20th century dry docks?
Wooden scaffolding? Come on Russia, crawl out of the dark ages. Steel scaffolding has been around for decades.
You see, this is what happens when you stop giving a proper desert after dinner. The scaffolding catches fire every time.
once again bsnbc's inept reporting comes through.
wow, that jounalism school really paid off.
cant afford steel bracing and trusses?
sounds a lil funny to me
especially that its a military sub
you think russia would use the best of equipment
and not wooden scafolding
very puzzling
Use the best equipment Made in China!! Whoops!!
I saw a news report from China several years ago that showed a number of construction sites, even some hi-rise sites, using bamboo scaffolding. Their construction workers must have bigger cojones than American workers.
We use wood too.
Russia sure has frequent problems with it's ships. Must be all that rust.
Hmmm...I recall similar statements from the Russian government prior to the Chernobyl meltdown. Hopefully this time they are not hiding the truth.
That must have been one heck of a scaffold!
Yeah, I like the headline also. Like maybe "Fire NEAR Russian nuclear submarine; reactor shut down as precaution." Must be too much to ask for a little clarity.
I doubt the reactor was up and running to begin with. That is a big risk getting cooling water when the sub is on a Dry Dock.
This is very troubling. They claim they have rules in place and yet they use combustible material in bulk to interface with the active vehicle while creating extreme temperatures in close proximity.
Are you kidding me? And we trust these fools to work with us in a $200 billion dollars space station and transporting our astronauts to and from ISS?
Maybe the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not detailed enough to cover incompetence?
Really? You, THINK that that the former soviets have the tech to move 4ward? Lets fly F34s.
This appears to be another case of Russian Recklessness. It must be those fermented potatoes.
Famous last words in Russia..
Have no fear! Radiation levels are normal! - Chernobyl 1986
Have no fear! Radiation levels are normal! - Murmansk 2011
WTF?-Why are people freaking out. I normally do not make a big fuss about the way MSNBC reports its news, but this was a horrible title for this story. There was no nuclear reactor on fire. There was a wooden scaffolding on fire on a drydock near a submarine. The sub's reactor was shut down as a precaution, as it should be. The sub was probably never in contact with any flame at all. Even if it was, that reactor is a pressurized water reactor, which will automatically shut itself down if power is lost, and the sub's hull is extremely thick - it would be difficult to melt down one of these reactors to say the least.
Submarine reactors are shutdown is before the boat even enters drydock.
Yes, I forgot about that! The reactor control rods are even lowered at sea when subs dock w/ a submarine tender. Also, in the event of a power failure due to fire aboard the actual sub, the control rods, which are held by electromagnets, will automatically drop into the reactor and shut down the reaction, negating the need for further cooling. The chance for a meltdown of this reactor type would be remote at best if the coolant pumps failed. In this scenario, the sub was not even involved in the fire. In fact, the submarine should not even be part of this story! The headline should be: "Scaffolding catches fire on Russian dry dock"