On 1/17/14, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 9:51 AM, Hank wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 9:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:12 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 7:51 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:55:28 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:03:03 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:24:14 -0500, wrote:
Yes it would. Let me know when you finish drinking your product
water and I'll come over with a Geiger counter.
I have to believe they have good radiation detection equipment on
any
ship built since the Truman administration.
I wonder if the detection/monitoring system turns on when the
Captain
turns the key, or if it must
be turned on when someone gives the order.
If you goggle the following:
radiation detection aboard u.s. navy ships
you'll find plenty of "hits" regarding various U.S. ships and
helicopters "irradiated" by the power plant problems in Japan.
It's interesting that the Navy is so quick to say that the amount of
radiation deposited on various crew members was only equal to a
month's
average or several month's average, and so forth. Officialdom, be it
military, corporate or civilian, has a history of grossly
understating
the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and workers are
exposed. The United States denied for a long time the impact on
civilians and its own troops of its chemical warfare programs
conducted
against the people of Vietnam.
It's certainly possible but would require a coverup of enormous
proportions. The lawyer is claiming about 70 people were affected in
some way, half developing cancer. The remaining crew, numbering well
over 5,000 are apparently radiation disease and cancer free. They
drank
the same water, coffee and took showers with the same water.
In order for some crew members to develop cancer or exhibit
symptoms of
radiation sickness/poisoning in such a relatively short time period,
the
levels of radiation would have to be very high. If that were the
case,
wouldn't you expect to see many more cases?
Of 5,000 to 6,000 people in the civilian world how many develop
cancer
in some form? I don't know the answer but 35 out of 5,000-6,000
doesn't seem unreasonable.
Ok, I looked up the numbers. New cancer occurrences (of all types)
are
463.0 per 100,000 men and women per year.
The Reagan has well over 5,000 crewmembers ... probably closer to
6,000
when you count the deployed air squadrons. So, statistically, the
reported cancer cases (35) on the Reagan are about 10 more than the
national average. Doesn't seem that far out of being normal and
certainly not highly unusual.
That 463 per 100,000 includes people of all ages, and I suspect a
lot of
those people are a lot older than Naval crews.
And a lot of those people could be a lot younger than naval crews.
Are you trying to make a point here? If so, what?
I supposed you missed the point, previously stated:
"Officialdom, be it military, corporate or civilian, has a history of
grossly understating the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary
folks and workers are exposed."
Note that I am not singling out "the military," but merely including it
among those institutions that often work hard to minimize the impact of
disasters in which they have had a hand or were the cause.
The impact of "overexposure" to radiation sometimes takes years or
decades to manifest itself.
I don't think Hank or myself "missed" your point. The discussion has
been about claims and potential litigation by some crew members aboard
the USS Reagan and led by an environmental lawyer against the owners of
the Japanese power plant that was damaged in a tsunami. Claims have
been made that Japan under reported the amount of radiation leakage and
then some people here questioned the Navy's responsibility in monitoring
radiation levels aboard ship.
You introduced the "point" that "Officialdom" has a history of *grossly*
understating the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and
workers are exposed" .... with no statistics, or proof offered. Your
"point" really has nothing to do with the discussion, but rather an
attempt to slant the flavor of the discussion.
BTW, your statement that "The impact of "overexposure" to radiation
sometimes takes years or decades to manifest itself" can also mean that
the immediate claims made by some crew members as reported by the lawyer
are bogus.
There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has
grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its
actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the
U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on
airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military
resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long
has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking
place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many
times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of
Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the
size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying.
Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do
some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it
happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area
leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a
nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the
wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one.