I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the early Nimitz class all used asbestos. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asbestos, properly handled. In the ship building crash during World War II, when standards were looser, a lot of asbestos was blown in without proper safeguards for workers and handlers.
Once asbestos is installed, it’s harmless. The danger from asbestos is inhalation of airborne fibers. It’s only as an aerosol that asbestos poses any danger. The entire “asbestos remediation” project was a farce, the best thing you can do with installed asbestos is leave it alone. They used to put tiny jars of asbestos in Gilbert chemistry sets.
It’s another example of the triumph of hysteria over facts.
Well-— hysterics and law suits.
Remember when many house were covered with asbestos shingles? Many of them still are, and the shingles covered over with plastic siding now because it costs a fortune to get rid of the shingles.
Not that I’m a naval systems mechanic but the Nimitz is a nuke boat why would she need Asbestos to protect the interior of her reactors?They operate on a totally different principle.
You can argue the safety of asbestos till the cows come home and that doesn’t change the fact that not only did the Navy drop its use but it obviously replaced it with something suitable that isn’t causing any problems with overheating the boilers. I’m just surprised that India and Russia didn’t use whatever the U.S. is using. Unless, of course, the Russian excuse is all BS and the engineering failure is due to sloppy workmanship or poor design. And I’m not willing to discard that possibility either.
I agree asbestos is great stuff.
When we had to take it out of gaskets and brake linings it was a bad deal both cost and performance wise.
I heard from an old brake engineer that it was only smokers who died from asbestosis, that the combination of smoking and asbestos fibers was a huge negative synergy.