The Soviet nuclear submarine Komsomolets, which sank off Norway in 1989, remains under scrutiny after Norwegian researchers reported continuing radioactive leaks from the wreck.

Get today's headlines by email

Wreck Raises Long-Running Concerns

The submarine lies close to 1.7km, or about one mile, below the Norwegian Sea. Its sinking prompted alarm because two nuclear-tipped torpedoes were left on board, containing about 9lb (4kg) of plutonium.

In a 1993 BBC report, Russian Greenpeace activist Dimitri Litvinov warned that the wreck posed an urgent danger if nothing was done. At the time, environmentalists feared plutonium could enter rich fishing grounds, although an international scientific report that year concluded fisheries were unlikely to be contaminated.

Fire And Sinking

Komsomolets was built as an advanced Soviet attack submarine capable of operating at exceptional depths. Nato expected it could be the first of a larger class, but no sister vessels were completed. A 1994 BBC Horizon documentary described it as a submarine designed to cruise and launch nuclear weapons from 1,000m, far deeper than Western equivalents could operate.

A fire broke out on 7 April 1989. The crew brought the vessel to the surface, but it sank after five hours afloat. Forty-two of the 69 crew members died.

As the submarine went down, an escape pod carried five trapped sailors to the surface. Only one managed to get out before the pod filled with water.

When the wreck struck the seabed, an explosion tore open its titanium pressure hull and allowed seawater to reach the nuclear torpedoes. Russian oceanographers later found parts of the hull had shattered in the blast.

Scientists disagreed over the scale of the threat. Igor Spassky, from the Rubin Institute, which designed the submarine, told the BBC in 1993 that the situation was not catastrophic, but said he wanted the wreck raised. He also warned separately that saltwater corrosion could eventually release plutonium from the damaged torpedoes.

Attempts To Contain Material

Deep-sea engineering work in 1995 and 1996 sealed cracks in the hull and closed torpedo tubes to contain radioactive material. The operation ended in July 1996.

Norwegian government investigations have since found the submarine is still leaking. The sealant used in the 1990s was expected to last about 30 years.

A March 2026 report by the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, known as the DSA, said the torpedoes remain sealed but the reactor is deteriorating. Researchers found radioactive material escaping in occasional bursts, including a visible cloud from a ventilation duct, rather than as a constant leak.

Ingar Amundsen, acting director of the DSA's Department for International Nuclear Safety and Security, said current releases from the reactor had so far had little effect on the surrounding marine environment.

Calls For Further Checks

Experts say the risk could change as corrosion continues. Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, told the BBC that radiation levels could be affected by oxygen levels in seawater around and inside the wreck, as well as by the condition of the sealant.

He said shifting currents could influence how radioactive material moves from the wreck and whether it reaches bottom-feeding species and fish. He added that the earlier decision to seal the submarine showed authorities had recognised the risk.

Amundsen said more work was needed to understand the releases and corrosion, but the depth of the wreck made mitigation difficult and there were no known current plans for action. Kristensen said a new expedition should at least assess the submarine’s condition, noting that plutonium in warheads has a half-life of 24,000 years.

Join the discussion?

14 July 2026

View full article

Let's have a bit of a reality check...

While while you are trying to point the finger of the big bad boogie man Russia let's cast a thought to what has been thrown into the Mariana trench by America.... all sorts of atomic waste wrapped in concrete and put inside metal drums..... in due course and probably now the drums have rusted and the concrete is falling to bits ....... it's only just a matter of time before radiation is leaked into the ecosystem far worse than one sub is going to leak.

I'm old enough to remember the USS Thresher which is still down there.

2 hours ago, wombat said:

thrown into the Mariana trench by America.... all sorts of atomic waste wrapped in concrete and put inside metal drums.....

And I've always thought that was an original idea of mine. Far enough down to be of no consequence to anyone.

Seems the Russians don't care to be involved in the process.

In the mid 1970's our US drillers were being recruited to bring a

Russian sunken sub to the surface using the

Hughes Glomar Explorer rig . A secret CIA project ,

costing millions they brought most of it up

1 hour ago, Jim Blue said:

In the mid 1970's our US drillers were being recruited to bring a

Russian sunken sub to the surface using the

Hughes Glomar Explorer rig . A secret CIA project ,

costing millions they brought most of it up

And have any of them since turned into Aquaman, or Octopusman Defender of The Deep?

12 hours ago, wombat said:

Let's have a bit of a reality check...

While while you are trying to point the finger of the big bad boogie man Russia let's cast a thought to what has been thrown into the Mariana trench by America.... all sorts of atomic waste wrapped in concrete and put inside metal drums..... in due course and probably now the drums have rusted and the concrete is falling to bits ....... it's only just a matter of time before radiation is leaked into the ecosystem far worse than one sub is going to leak.

What a load of untrue gibberish.

AI overview "The U.S. has never intentionally dumped packaged atomic waste directly into the Mariana Trench."

AI continued "Research shows that radiocarbon (Carbon-14) from 20th-century U.S. atmospheric nuclear bomb tests has settled into the Mariana Trench. This radioactive material did not fall as dropped waste; rather, it was absorbed by surface marine life, which died, sank to the ocean floor, and was consumed by deep-sea crustaceans."

Leave it be

10 inches of water provides the shielding equivalent of 1 inch of steel.

That's why they put spent fuel rods from reactors into what looks like a deep swimming pool, cheap shielding

So that's why my goldfish turned green and died !

15 hours ago, wombat said:

Let's have a bit of a reality check...

While while you are trying to point the finger of the big bad boogie man Russia let's cast a thought to what has been thrown into the Mariana trench by America.... all sorts of atomic waste wrapped in concrete and put inside metal drums..... in due course and probably now the drums have rusted and the concrete is falling to bits ....... it's only just a matter of time before radiation is leaked into the ecosystem far worse than one sub is going to leak.

The issue of the Russian nuclear torpedoes is that it is in a prime fish stock area and in proximity of the Norwegian coast. It is closer to the Norwegian archipelago Svalbard and Bear Island. Should there be a leak, the contamination will harm Norwegian territory. This isn't about blaming Russia, but of having it take responsibility for the harm it caused. As Greenpeace used to say, Make the Polluter Pay. The onus is on Russia to clean up its mess. The Russians should go and collect their torpedo and dispose of it safely. It is not up to anyone else to do it for them or to assume the cost of doing so. The torpedoes are Russian. The nuclear submarine reactor is Russian.

The decades long refusal to clean up the mess is typical of the Russians. One need only look at their Siberian oil pipelines. The pipelines leak and regularly rupture leaving vast areas of the Siberian region polluted with hydrocarbons which have polluted the water table and killed local fauna.

Your comment providing an unsubstantiated claim of dumping in the Mariana Trench has no relevance. Educate me, do you have any documented evidence to support your claim? You have confused a proposal with actual events, because the USA did not follow through with a proposal to store waste in the Mariana Trench.

8 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Your comment providing an unsubstantiated claim of dumping in the Mariana Trench has no relevance. Educate me,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste

Your wish is my command

Edited July 15Jul 15 by wombat

11 hours ago, Priorexpat said:

What a load of untrue gibberish.

AI overview "The U.S. has never intentionally dumped packaged atomic waste directly into the Mariana Trench."

AI continued "Research shows that radiocarbon (Carbon-14) from 20th-century U.S. atmospheric nuclear bomb tests has settled into the Mariana Trench. This radioactive material did not fall as dropped waste; rather, it was absorbed by surface marine life, which died, sank to the ocean floor, and was consumed by deep-sea crustaceans."

I guess you couldn't get your foot further down your throat if you tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste

On 7/14/2026 at 11:45 AM, Two Plus Two said:

I'm old enough to remember the USS Thresher which is still down there.

The USS Thresher which sank in 1961, losing all 129 hands aboard, including my high school friend, was a nuclear attack submarine. It imploded at 2,560 metres, well past its collapse depth. After all this time, there’s a good chance it’s leaking, too.

8 hours ago, wombat said:

I guess you couldn't get your foot further down your throat if you tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste

The word "Mariana" as in the Mariana Trench appears nowhere in your link.

14 hours ago, wombat said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste

Your wish is my command

Ok, you provided a wikipedia reference. Where in the reference does it provide evidence that there was nuclear waste dumped in the Mariana Trench? The accusation wa smade that the USA had dumped waste in the Mariana Trench.

Worse is that the reference you provide shows a very different scenario than was intended. The USA stopped disposing of small amounts of nuclear waste in 1970. Russia was still dumping waste into the 1990's. The sad reality is that Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea are all alleged to have continued dumping waste without declaring it. The historic record of dumped amounts available shows;

Soviet Union -39,243 TB units

UK 35,088 TB units

Switzerland-4,419 TB units

USA - 3,496 TB units

The USA makes an easy target to point a finger. Yes, dumping of radipoactive waste was wrong, but considering the era and the ignorance, the US position was significantly less aggressive than that of the Russians, UK and Switzerland. Yet, no mention of the fact that the Russians dumped at least 10X more declared radioactive waste or that Switzerland dumped more waste than the USA. The USA never left an unexploded nuclear torpedo off of a bnation's coast has it?

9 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The USA makes an easy target to point a finger. Yes, dumping of radipoactive waste was wrong, but considering the era and the ignorance, the US position was significantly less aggressive than that of the Russians, UK and Switzerland. Yet, no mention of the fact that the Russians dumped at least 10X more declared radioactive waste or that Switzerland dumped more waste than the USA. The USA never left an unexploded nuclear torpedo off of a bnation's coast has it?

Having been proved wrong, you now try deflection?

16 hours ago, John Drake said:

The word "Mariana" as in the Mariana Trench appears nowhere in your link.

16 hours ago, John Drake said:

The word "Mariana" as in the Mariana Trench appears nowhere in your link.

Give it up you're only digging yourself a big hole that you'll never get out of

Sorry Wombat but you're a damn fool imbecile. You posted up nonsense, then people called you on the nonsense, sorry broskie, you lose.

14 hours ago, wombat said:

Having been proved wrong, you now try deflection?

You did not "prove" me wrong because the claim that the US dumped radipoactive waste in the Mariana trench is unsubstantiated.

14 hours ago, wombat said:

Give it up you're only digging yourself a big hole that you'll never get out of

You have not presented anything to support the claim that radioactive was intentionally dumped in the Mariana Trench. Please show us the supporting evidence or link to the evidence. You provided a wikipedia link which does NOT say anything about the Mariana trench other than a passing reference to possible atmospheric debris. Much of the world has had to contend with the atmospheric radioactive debris due to the low quality defective Chernobyl reactor meltdown, but you are not mentioning that, which presents more of a risk.

Edited July 16Jul 16 by Patong2021

On 7/15/2026 at 7:09 AM, unblocktheplanet said:

The USS Thresher which sank in 1961, losing all 129 hands aboard, including my high school friend, was a nuclear attack submarine. It imploded at 2,560 metres, well past its collapse depth. After all this time, there’s a good chance it’s leaking, too.

How do you know there is a good chance it is leaking? Unlike Russia, this wreck is monitored and there is public disclosure of the data. The analysis shows that the nuclear reactor shut down automatically once a water leak was detected. Do you have any evidence to show otherwise? There are no reports from the USN or private sources that show a radiation leak. More importantly, the submarine is located off the coast of the USA. It is a US concern and exposure. The USA has accepted respponsibility for the site. The Russian nuclear torpedoes are off the coast of Norway and Russia has refuse to take full responsibility for dealing with the mess it created.

I recall something about the US losing some nuclear armaments near to Gibraltar a while back, don't know if that has been remedied.

I'm so glad the perfect people from Europe would never dump anything in the ocean.

Between 1946 and 1990, over 200,000 barrels of radioactive waste were dumped by multiple

European countries in the international waters of the Abyssal Plains in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean,

at a depth of over 4,000 metres. These barrels contain waste embedded in asphalt or cement.

https://www.cnrs.fr/sites/default/files/press_info/2025-05/CP%20EN_CNRS%20RADIOCEAN%20NODSSUM.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

3 hours ago, bendejo said:

I recall something about the US losing some nuclear armaments near to Gibraltar a while back, don't know if that has been remedied.

The incidents are referred to as "Broken Arrows"

And there's been a LOT

Broken Arrows: Nuclear Weapons Accidents | atomicarchive.com

There have been 32 officially recognized Broken Arrow incidents since 1950.

A Broken Arrow is defined as an unexpected event involving nuclear weapons that results in the accidental launching, firing, detonation, theft, or loss of the weapon, but does not create a risk of nuclear war https://www.bing.com/th?id=ODF.G_0qdNmYYWlIA7HWFZlvsQatomicarchive.com+1. These incidents include aircraft crashes carrying nuclear bombs, accidental weapon drops during handling, electrical or arming failures, fires and explosions, weapons lost at sea, transportation accidents, missile mishaps, and other handling errors https://www.bing.com/th?id=ODF.9vbo3dcIjJzq6983MO6RgQcommonplacefacts.com.
Of the 32 incidents, six nuclear weapons were lost and never recovered, highlighting the potential dangers of these accidents https://www.bing.com/th?id=ODF.G_0qdNmYYWlIA7HWFZlvsQatomicarchive.com+1. Notable examples include the 1961 Goldsboro, North Carolina incident, where a B-52 bomber broke apart midair, dropping two hydrogen bombs, one of which nearly detonated with only a single safety mechanism preventing a nuclear explosion https://www.bing.com/th?id=ODF.UbV3pcdxOljbJce5WiTeYwnewspaceeconomy.ca.
While 32 incidents are officially acknowledged, declassified documents suggest that hundreds of other, less severe nuclear mishaps occurred, often classified under different categories such as Bent Spears or Dull Swords, which involved minor accidents or safety deficiencies https://www.bing.com/th?id=ODF.UbV3pcdxOljbJce5WiTeYwnewspaceeconomy.ca. These events underscore the risks associated with the handling and transportation of nuclear weapons during the Cold War and beyond.
In summary, 32 Broken Arrows have been officially recorded, with additional unclassified incidents

Edited July 16Jul 16 by Cave Johnson

13 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

You have not presented anything to support the claim that radioactive was intentionally dumped in the Mariana Trench. Please show us the supporting evidence or link to the evidence. You provided a wikipedia link which does NOT say anything about the Mariana trench other than a passing reference to possible atmospheric debris. Much of the world has had to contend with the atmospheric radioactive debris due to the low quality defective Chernobyl reactor meltdown, but you are not mentioning that, which presents more of a risk.

On 7/16/2026 at 10:39 AM, Priorexpat said:

Sorry Wombat but you're a damn fool imbecile. You posted up nonsense, then people called you on the nonsense, sorry broskie, you lose.

personal insults are the best you can do to deflect from a topic?

I have one rule on the on the net I never argue with idtents they wear me down and win with experience.

On 7/16/2026 at 1:00 AM, Patong2021 said:

Ok, you provided a wikipedia reference. Where in the reference does it provide evidence that there was nuclear waste dumped in the Mariana Trench? The accusation wa smade that the USA had dumped waste in the Mariana Trench.

Worse is that the reference you provide shows a very different scenario than was intended. The USA stopped disposing of small amounts of nuclear waste in 1970. Russia was still dumping waste into the 1990's. The sad reality is that Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea are all alleged to have continued dumping waste without declaring it. The historic record of dumped amounts available shows;

EasternEuropeans

Soviet Union -39,243 TB units

UK 35,088 TB units

Switzerland-4,419 TB units

USA - 3,496 TB units

The USA makes an easy target to point a finger. Yes, dumping of radipoactive waste was wrong, but considering the era and the ignorance, the US position was significantly less aggressive than that of the Russians, UK and Switzerland. Yet, no mention of the fact that the Russians dumped at least 10X more declared radioactive waste or that Switzerland dumped more waste than the USA. The USA never left an unexploded nuclear torpedo off of a bnation's coast has it?

Politics

On 7/16/2026 at 1:00 AM, Patong2021 said:

Ok, you provided a wikipedia reference. Where in the reference does it provide evidence that there was nuclear waste dumped in the Mariana Trench? The accusation wa smade that the USA had dumped waste in the Mariana Trench.

Worse is that the reference you provide shows a very different scenario than was intended. The USA stopped disposing of small amounts of nuclear waste in 1970. Russia was still dumping waste into the 1990's. The sad reality is that Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea are all alleged to have continued dumping waste without declaring it. The historic record of dumped amounts available shows;

EasternEuropeans

Soviet Union -39,243 TB units

UK 35,088 TB units

Switzerland-4,419 TB units

USA - 3,496 TB units

The USA makes an easy target to point a finger. Yes, dumping of radipoactive waste was wrong, but considering the era and the ignorance, the US position was significantly less aggressive than that of the Russians, UK and Switzerland. Yet, no mention of the fact that the Russians dumped at least 10X more declared radioactive waste or that Switzerland dumped more waste than the USA. The USA never left an unexploded nuclear torpedo off of a bnation's coast has it?

Politics

Thresher? Too deep to rescue or even investigate.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/military/veterans/the-atomic-sailors/2157927/

"Small amounts", hm.Too many barrel dumps to list search, "radioactive waste dumped in ocean".

Who cares who dumped it? Who cares about the f-ing Mariana Trench?

Human poison the world. That's the fact.

17 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

How do you know there is a good chance it is leaking? Unlike Russia, this wreck is monitored and there is public disclosure of the data. The analysis shows that the nuclear reactor shut down automatically once a water leak was detected. Do you have any evidence to show otherwise? There are no reports from the USN or private sources that show a radiation leak. More importantly, the submarine is located off the coast of the USA. It is a US concern and exposure. The USA has accepted respponsibility for the site. The Russian nuclear torpedoes are off the coast of Norway and Russia has refuse to take full responsibility for dealing with the mess it created.

EasternEuropeans

Really?!? How do you know this? The sub was armed, and sank in 1961. When did the Soviet sub think. Everything corrodes in the ocean. Why do you think the Thresher is immune?

"Monitored"? Again, you know this how? References, please.

220 miles off Cape Cod. Are the Kennedys worried? You'd think the health secty would be on this.

"Russia has refuse to take full responsibility". Emphasis on "full". So what is Russia doing or not doing? References, please.

6 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Really?!? How do you know this? The sub was armed, and sank in 1961. When did the Soviet sub think. Everything corrodes in the ocean. Why do you think the Thresher is immune?

"Monitored"? Again, you know this how? References, please.

220 miles off Cape Cod. Are the Kennedys worried? You'd think the health secty would be on this.

"Russia has refuse to take full responsibility". Emphasis on "full". So what is Russia doing or not doing? References, please.

You never miss an opportunity to push your recycled bankrupt 1960's political sloganeering and agenda. Like your politics, it has no value. You have made multiple claims. It is your obligatiion to support the allegations. You have not provided anything to support your position other than perhaps something you scraped off one of your leftist websites or wikipedia.

Fact: The USN USS Thresher documents are available through the Archives Branch, Naval History and Heritage Command, Washington, D.C.

Fact: The USN is subject to Congressional oversight. The Thresher radiation exposure reviews are in the Congressional record.

Fact: The US Department of Energy released multiple reports over the years as did the USN that summarized the radiation monitoring. Visit page 3 of the attached reference to see an example of the monitoring over the years. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Subnet.com_USS_Thresher_15_August_2000.pdf

Have you even bothered to read the report from 2020?

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/07/f77/NT-20-1.pdf

There are no available Russian reports or disclosures on the radiation hazard and potential leaks from the Russian torpedos. The Russians have refused to pay for the monitoring or to disclose the information that they have on their nuclear submarines.

A submarine nuclear reactor is built to withstand the environment in which it operates. Although it can degrade over time, the process is significantly longer than that associated with items not built for purpose.

A nuclear torpedo is not intended for long term use, nor exposed to the operating conditions of a nuclear reactor. It is an item that is meant to explode. It defies common sense that you would consider a nuclear reactor built for long term use under harsh conditions as similar to a torpedo with a nuclear explosive.

Edited July 17Jul 17 by Patong2021

11 hours ago, wombat said:

personal insults are the best you can do to deflect from a topic?

I have one rule on the on the net I never argue with idtents they wear me down and win with experience.

You still have not substantiated your claim that the USA dumped nuclear waste in the Mariana Trench. You are all over the place in your desperate attempt to divert. Now you are off on a tangent about insults. I see the person's the comment as justified and an accurate description of your attempt to present inaccurate and misleading information.