Talk:Soviet submarine K-19

message: The Range given for K-19 seems odd, namely 35,700 miles at 26 knots but only 32,200 miles at 24 knots (80 percent power). Wouldn't range increase using lower power? Moriori 23:17, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
:Isn't the K19 Nuclear-powered? Why the "short" range? NiceDoggie 12:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Range

message: I suggest to change "collided with USS Gato" to "collided with submarine USS Gato" JanSuchy 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that it makes it more clear, sure, be bold and do it - but what else would K-19 be colliding with, except a submarine, at 60m depth? Pawl 20:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collision

message: Article says: "Even though a nuclear reactor accident cannot produce a nuclear explosion under any circumstances," -- OK, I understand this, but is it not true that a nuclear reactor that goes out of control can explode? Maybe it's not a nuclear explosion in the sense of a hydrogen bomb, but more like a so-called "dirty bomb". Like what happened in Chernobyl. I can imagine the submarine's captain being worried that a reactor explosion could be detected and spark a nuclear war, especially in the absence of radio contact with his superiors. --Smithfarm not logged in.
:However, the worst that would happen is a large relese of radiation into the sea, that would hardly consitute a nuclear explosion. Because of this, I doubt that the captain would even be concerend about the reactor exploding and would be more concerned about the safety of his crew. The point is, reactors, while they can become large dirty bombs, will not become nuclear bombs and would not be considered as a nuclear bomb.
::When a nuclear reactor "explodes", such as in the case of Chernobyl, it's due to a prompt- critical power excursion (see SL-1 for more information on that). In that situation, the chain reaction passes supercritical as large portions of the fuel undergo fission at the same time. The resulting release of energy in the form of heat causes the coolant to flash from liquid to gas instantaneously, and the pressure built up causes the reactor vessel (the part containing the core) to rupture. That was what happened at Chernobyl. The coolant flashed to steam fast enough to blow the reactor's closure head clear out of the containment building housing the reactor, and the highly reactive and radioactive graphite moderator caught fire from the heat and pressure shortly thereafter. There isn't any explosion like a nuclear bomb, per se, but radioactive materials are spread from the breach. As K-19 had already suffered an inisolable fast leak from the primary system, it's unlikely there was much (if any) coolant left circulating through the core to flash to steam. The main danger was the fact that Russian reactors operate with a positive coefficient of reactivity, meaning that as the temperature of the core rises, the fission rate is going to rise proportionally. While a prompt critical event would have occurred, it wouldn't have had any other effect than raising the already lethal background radiation levels even higher. The quickest and safest way to avert that problem would have been to evacuate and scuttle the boat; seawater is a natural moderator of neutrons, and would have slowed the chain reaction to the point where it would not have been able to sustain itself any longer past a certain point. I'm guessing that the decision to save the boat had more to do with politics and how the Northern Fleet would have handled the loss of one of its new nuclear submarines more than any percieved danger of starting World War III. Tspencer227 01:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuclear reactor explosion possibility

message: On the NG site linked to the article, it says eight sailors died shortly after the return to port, not seven.--Cancun771 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction with National Geographic article

message: A couple of inconsistencies should be addressed in the article as it stands right now. Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable enough to do so, nor can I read the Russian source for one.
1) How many died in the aftermath of the 1961 incident?
The "Nuclear accident" section (fourth paragraph) says "seven men ... within a week, and twenty more within the next few years..." The "Crew" section says "... these seven men died between one and three weeks after the accident... other crew members had ... fewer health problems." I would say that dying would be a pretty serious health problem (ahem), therefore the "Crew" section is saying that only seven of the crew died as a result of the incident.
2) When did the seven most contaminated men die?
See excerpts quoted above - within a week or in one to three weeks? (A quibble, I admit.)
3) When did the nickname "Hiroshima" get attached?
In the "Construction and commissioning" section, it states that "During its completion, commissioning, and preparations to get underway ... leading to the K-19's nickname Hiroshima." In the "Nuclear accident" section it states that after repairs were complete (1963?), "K-19 returned to the fleet, now having acquired the additional nickname "Hiroshima"."
It is not an article inconsistency, but the section "Crew" really isn't about the crew of the submarine as a whole, just those who lost their lives immediately after the 1961 incident. It should be expanded or retitled. (If the latter, it should be made a subhead under the "Nuclear accident" section.)
Pawl (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistencies in article

message: I suspect it has been translated quickly from russian to english and there are lots of typos and sentences that doesn't look like proper english.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.212.38 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline part of this article is in bad english and needs an overhaul

message: Article says "Worries about a potential crew mutiny prompted Zateyev to have all small arms thrown overboard except for five pistols distributed to his most trusted officers." Could any one provide a verification link for this claim, please? Alex Row (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Small arms question

message: The section for the accident is completely unsourced, so it's unclear if the information really comes from verifiable sources (or just from the movie). There are some Russian sources which may give a clue, but I can't read them. It would be great if there were some english-language sources available. Even if not, it would be good if someone could attribute the facts at the right Russian source. Averell (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Sources

message: A contradiction tag was put in the article with the following reasoning: "This article or section appears to contradict itself about when the sub was first nicknamed The Widowmaker. ..."  I pray this was taken care of at another time in the history as the only other reference to the name "Widowmaker" in the article is a reference to a 2002 movie and NOT to when the actual submarine was nicknamed.  I've removed the contradiction tag.  If you still feel this article is in contradiction, please feel free to add a new tag and discuss the tag on this page.  Thanks. Kjnelan (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction Tag

message: Why is it that radiation dose for one crew member, Boris Korchilov, is listed in rem, whereas for the others, dosages are listed in röntgen? Jedikaiti (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: List of crew who died following the reactor accident

message: 1. The last sentence in the following paragraph is extremely dubious, as Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously.  It also carries no citation:
"On 1 February, 2006, former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev proposed in a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee that the crew of K-19 be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for their actions on 4 July 1961.[3] In late March 2006, Nikolai Zateyev was formally nominated for the award."
2. Compare the following:
A. "August 2003 The crew makes its last visit to the boat in Polyarny city after which the hull is scrapped save for the sail left for the purpose of forming a burial site for fallen crew members."
B. "In 2006, the K-19 was purchased by Vladimir Romanov, who once served on the sub as a conscript, with the intention of "Turning it into a Moscow-based meeting place to build links between submarine veterans from Russia and other countries." So far, the plans remain on hold, and many of K-19's survivors have objected to them.[5]"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emandel (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Two additional inconsistencies

message: The article claims:
:On 1 February 2006, former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev proposed in a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee that the crew of K-19 be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for their actions on 4 July 1961.[3] In late March 2006, Nikolai Zateyev was formally nominated for the award.
#There is no such thing as "formal nominations" for the Nobel Peace Prize. A vast number of people (such as any parlamentarian of any country, any Norwegian professor etc. etc.) are allowed to submit proposals (hundreds of people are proposed each year), they are not considered "formal nominations", but only proposals. Stalin and Hitler have also been proposed as candidates in the past.
#The Nobel Committee doesn't comment on the proposals it receives, it doesn't make the list of proposals public, and it doesn't confirm or deny whether someone has been proposed.
#The Nobel Peace Prize is never awarded posthumously, so a nomination of dead people is not a serious nomination as it will not be considered.
Gorbachev is free to send a letter to the committee and propose dead people for the award (although he is certain to be aware that the committee doesn't consider such proposals), and he is free to tell the press that he sent such a letter. But there is nothing "formal" about that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.196.63 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobel

message: are completely useless in an incident like this since gamma rays and neutrons are cutting through basically anything than multiple inches of lead.--78.51.176.152 (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  radiation suits 

message: I think the section that discussed the Cuban missile crisis should be removed from the article. It should be included in the article discussing Arkipov himself, but its inclusion in the K-19 article seems out of place. 108.77.65.78 (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Agreed this should be removed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link To The Cuban Missile Crisis - Removal? 

message: The infobox says it has two reactors, 70 MW each, but only 29 MW at the shafts. Where did the other 111 MW go? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Without further research, I'd guess the second reactor is a backup; so the other 41 MW is used internally. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 08:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propulsion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion