galagazombie posted:

Not meaning to derail the thread but I missed it, why has FF disappeared only to be mysteriously replaced by “Guy N’cognito”?

gradenko_2000 posted:

gradenko_2000 posted:

Morbus posted:

Me, very neoliberally: "the second picture. that is the better one"

Orange Devil posted:

It’s not the bullet with my name on it that worries me, it’s the ones labeled “To whomever it may concern”

Let’s buy only shells with names on them for our entire military.

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/PantexPlant/status/1762662630026567754

lol try to google what the Pantex Plant handles

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/PantexPlant/status/1762662630026567754

lol try to google what the Pantex Plant handles

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/PantexPlant/status/1762662630026567754

lol try to google what the Pantex Plant handles

quote:

New Cooking Vehicle + Drone Delivery! Is this still the cooking class I know? 20240221 | Military Fans World

Description: at an altitude of more than 4,000 meters on the plateau, Tibet Military Region integrated security exercises are underway. In order to save time on the mission, the participating cooking class cooked while traveling on the plateau cooking inside the vehicle using high-performance fuel and integrated intelligent technology, greatly reducing the frying and cooking time. When the road ahead was blocked, the cooking class quickly moved out the "secret weapon", and in only 10 minutes, all 100 servings of hot food were delivered in place by the drone!

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

You could just have that as a section within the weapons company and retain the (actually useful) other weapons.


Honestly, our infantry effectiveness dropped like a rock when we got rid of the Big Battalions when 4 CMBG came home. I know the Americans never had that structure, but it's pretty clear to me that having large infantry formations with lots of weapons is self-evidently smarter than not, especially if - this will be hard to imagine - you can't count on replacement weapons and personnel arriving immediately after reporting your losses. You may actually have to operate in a combat zone with casualties.

Also, if I can loop back - On the one hand, they want to break up the CPs. On the other hand, they want to strip away weapons at the level of formation that can still be controlled by one officer and his staff on foot. How does that make sense? If you're worried about an EW environment and everything else, you want as many weapons as possible in the hands of the battalion commander, because Bde will no longer be an easy radio call away.

"Requesting support will be harder"
"Remove organic support"
???

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/PantexPlant/status/1762662630026567754

lol try to google what the Pantex Plant handles

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

I don't even know what to say, you know?

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/PantexPlant/status/1762662630026567754

lol try to google what the Pantex Plant handles

quote:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Because of numerous environmental, safety, and health problems found at other Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities, you requested that we review these conditions at DOE' S contractor-operated Pantex Plant, where our nation' s nuclear weapons are assembled. After subsequent discussions with your office, we agreed to focus the review on (1) examining key safety and health problems at Pantex and (2) determining the need for external safety oversight of the plant.

Although past and present Secretaries of Energy have attempted, through various initiatives, to change DOE' S management and operating philosophy from one that placed priority on production to one that also emphasized safety, safety and health problems continue to persist at Pantex. Pantex has completed fewer than half of the safety analysis reports @AR) needed to help ensure plant safety, reports that should have been completed years ago.' Moreover, Pantex officials plan to com- plete SARS of less hazardous plant facilities before more hazardous ones. In addition, DOE recently identified deficiencies in Pantex' s radiation protection program, such as inadequate staffing, training, and proce- dures designed to protect workers and the environment from radiation. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (0%~) also found 168 violations of worker protection standards at Pantex that had the potential to result in death or serious physical harm.

Because most of Pantex' s SARS have not been completed, DOE cannot ade- quately ensure that the plant is operating safely. Pantex experienced radiation accidents in 1989 and 1990 resulting in workers being exposed to tritium and depleted uranium. Although DOE officials state that the levels of exposure were below DOE'S allowable limit, circumstances sur- rounding the exposures raise questions about the adequacy of Pantex' s attention to safety and health. Further, the plant has one of the highest injury/illness and lost workday rates in ME'S weapons complex.

The persistent safety and health problems at Pantex clearly support a need for external oversight of the plant' s safety. Pantex has the same types of safety and health problems that we found at other DOE facilities throughout the 1980s. These types of problems had prompted us to rec- ommend since 1981 independent, external oversight of the safety of DOE

defense nuclear operations. When the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was established in 1988 to meet that need, Pantex was excluded from the Board' s oversight. Although the establishing legislation and legislative history do not state any reasons for its exclusion, congres- sional staff told us that Pantex was considered a relatively safe opera- tion when the legislation was drafted and that there was concern that allowing outside review of a plant that assembled nuclear weapons would result in security risks. However, these circumstances have changed since 1988 because safety and health problems have surfaced at Pantex and outside agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), OSHA, and the state of Texas, have conducted inspections at Pantex.

coldwarpatriots.org - Wed, 28 Dec 2022 posted:

You asked and we’re answering. You may remember Cold War Patriots asked what subjects you would like to read in our blogs. We received many responses and I appreciate the feedback. One individual requested that the history of Pantex including significant accidents.

Locating a document summarizing the history of Pantex was easy.  The plant was first established in 1942, a few years before the development of the atomic bomb. It was the last of 14 munition plants established to produce conventional bombs and artillery shells to help win WWII.

The day after Japan surrendered in August 1945 the Pantex facility was abruptly closed.  The US government then leased it to Texas Technological College (now Texas Tech University) for $1.00.   The college leased this land for six years.  The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) realized they needed another facility to support the nuclear weapons complex.  The AEC ended the lease to the college and reclaimed the land in 1951.

Image courtesy of the Department of Energy

Pantex was basically the last stop for the nuclear pits.  Pantex would marry the nuclear component produced by other Department of Energy (DOE) sites to the high explosives needed to detonate the bomb.  Pantex was also responsible for monitoring the degradation of the nuclear stockpile in their possession.  Sites such as the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado would remove the americium which is the result of the decay process of plutonium.

Americium recovery and purification operations shut down in 1980, and work was limited to that required to extract americium from plutonium metal in site returns (ChemRisk 1992)  ORAUT-TKBS-0011-2, Rocky Flats Plant – Site Description, Revision 02 (cdc.gov)

The summary states that “Since 1975, Pantex has been the nation’s primary assembly, disassembly, retrofit and modification center for nuclear weapons.”

As you can imagine, the process to connect the nuclear component to the high explosives can be dangerous.  The Pantex facility adopted the use of “Gravel Gerties”, a design developed by the Sandia National Lab, to reduce the airborne contamination in the event of an unexpected explosion.  The design received that name because the researchers thought the bunker looked a little like the character that appeared in the Dick Tracy comic strip with the same name.

I also located another history which I found a little more interesting.  The document is a compilation of the memories of former Pantex workers.  The information includes how much people made per week working at the site and how many people were employed there by year from 1952 to 1991.  It also contains a lot of historical photos of people and places.  While the report is long, it’s definitely worth reading especially by those interested in detailed history.

Don’t miss Part 2 of this blog coming soon which will describe some of the major incidents that occurred at the Pantex Plant.

coldwarpatriots.org - Wed, 26 Oct 2022 posted:

January 20, 2022

CWP

CWP Blog

Part 2 of the Pantex history deals the request from an individual asking for details about significant incidents that occurred at Pantex.  Finding accident reports proved to be quite difficult.  The request is not as bizarre as some may think.  Knowing the details such as where the incident occurred and when can make all the difference in having the Department of Labor (DOL) accept a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program.

Pantex is a covered facility from 1952 to the present. The DOL’s Site Exposure Matrix (SEM) lists ten incidents that occurred at the Pantex Plant covering a ten year period.  Clicking on “Incident Information” in the lower right-hand column will take you to a new page with a drop-down menu.

• Acetone Drum Leak, Pad 11-12, 1976
  
  
• Ethyl Acetate Drum Leak, Pad 11-12, 1976
  
  
• DDT Release, Building 12-35, 1968-1969
  
  
• Explosion of plastic bonded explosives, Building 11-14A, March 1977
  
  
• High Explosives press explosion, Building 11-20, 1969
  
  
• High Explosives reactor explosion, Building 11-36, 1971
  
  
• Methyl Alcohol Drum Leak, 11-12 Pad, 1976
  
  
• Plutonium exposure, Magazine 4-75, 1978
  
  
• Toluene Drum Leak, Pad 11-12, 1976
  
  
• Uranium Release, Firing Site 23, 1986
  
  

The SEM does provide a short summary of these incidents.  I was able to locate a Department of Energy (DOE) document for the fourth incident, the March 1977 explosion in Building 11-14A in which four workers died.

I was able to locate a reference to an incident involving The W48 cracked pit.  Unlike the document on the 1977 explosion, this document is not available to read online and must be ordered.  However, a description of this incident, which happened on November 12, 1992, was included with the Special Exposure Cohort petition 00068 on page 15.

Another source for incidents is DOE’s enforcement letters found on their page for Pantex.  For example, this page has a link to an incident where a worker was over exposed to toluene in 2018.

Unfortunately, this is the only enforcement letter on the DOE Pantex home page.  However, access to other enforcement letters for Pantex and all other DOE sites are available online.  There are 37 pages listing the letters and go back to 1995.

I’m sure there are many more incidents in the 70-year history of Pantex but, trust me, finding them is difficult. There’s also a DOE database for unusual occurrence reports.  Unfortunately, access to this database is not available to the general public because there is a potential for the database to contain sensitive and pre-decisional information.

I hope you found the two blogs interesting and helpful.

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/PantexPlant/status/1762662630026567754

lol try to google what the Pantex Plant handles

Hatebag posted:

liar liar pantex on fire (nuclear)

fits my needs posted:

Beyond shedding gear for a slimmer headquarters, those same units are having to “hide in plain sight,” George said.

That means using netting on vehicles, a widespread practice in the pre-Global War on Terror era, when units faced enemy air threats.

Jon Pod Van Damm posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4vf1wV6oMc

Drones seem useful in this use case.

Officer Sandvich posted:

The military really isn't used to being shot at

I guess I hadn't thought about it but do cooks in combat zones have to wear their armor and helmets?

Mantis42 posted:

do nukes work like firecrackers and just go off if you light them on fire? in metal gear they wouldn't even let you fire your gun in the nuke area

quote:

The Kyshtym disaster, sometimes referred to as the Mayak disaster or Ozyorsk disaster in newer sources, was a radioactive contamination accident that occurred on 29 September 1957 at Mayak, a plutonium production site for nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel reprocessing plant located in the closed city of Chelyabinsk-40 (now Ozyorsk) in Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union.
[...]
On September 29, 1957, Sunday, 4:22 pm, an explosion occurred within stainless steel containers located in a concrete canyon 8.2 m (27 feet) deep used to store high-level waste. The explosion completely destroyed one of the containers, out of 14 total containers ("cans") in the canyon. The explosion was caused because the cooling system in one of the tanks at Mayak, containing about 70–80 tons of liquid radioactive waste, failed and was not repaired. The temperature in it started to rise, resulting in evaporation and a chemical explosion of the dried waste, consisting mainly of ammonium nitrate and acetates (see ammonium nitrate/fuel oil). The explosion was estimated to have had a force of at least 70 tons of TNT.[15] The explosion lifted a concrete slab weighing 160 tons, and a brick wall was destroyed in a building located 200 meters (660 ft) from the explosion site. A tenth of the radioactive substances were lifted into the air. After the explosion, a column of smoke and dust rose to a kilometre high; the dust flickered with an orange-red light and settled on buildings and people.
[...]
The disaster is the second worst nuclear incident by radioactivity released, after the Chernobyl disaster. It is the only disaster classified as Level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES),[4] which ranks by population impact, making it the third-worst after the two Level 7 events: the Chernobyl disaster, which resulted in the evacuation of 335,000 people, and the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, which resulted in the evacuation of 154,000 people. At least 22 villages were exposed to radiation from the Kyshtym disaster, with a total population of around 10,000 people evacuated. Some were evacuated after a week, but it took almost two years for evacuations to occur at other sites.[5]

The disaster spread hot particles over more than 52,000 square kilometres (20,000 sq mi), where at least 270,000 people lived.[6]

Mantis42 posted:

do nukes work like firecrackers and just go off if you light them on fire? in metal gear they wouldn't even let you fire your gun in the nuke area

The Oldest Man posted:

So is the idea here that they're binning the weapons companies because they're planning on all these ibcts getting an attached M10 Booker company making up the difference?

The Oldest Man posted:

So is the idea here that they're binning the weapons companies because they're planning on all these ibcts getting an attached M10 Booker company making up the difference?

Officer Sandvich posted:

https://twitter.com/lawindsor/status/1762624209149120872