I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/2014 6:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 2:04 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 1:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 12:44 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 12:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
however it seems that the problem was contamination
of the ocean water itself that got into the ship's fresh water
supply.
Again, unfortunate but very likely not anticipated. Sometimes ****
happens.




Leaves me wondering, "how the hell could that happen"? I mean, how
could
something so obvious as contamination of the force water supply be
"not
anticipated"... That's just incomprehensible to me that they could
miss
that..


That's the basis of the lawsuits. According to the lawyers, Japan
under-reported the extent of the radiation leakage. The powers to be
determined that the distance the carrier stayed off shore mitigated any
danger, based on the reported level of radiation leakage.

Turns out the leakage was much more severe than what was reported.



Just blows me away they would even consider any outside info, and not
just be monitoring themselves. This is on Fleet Command, nobody else...


I see. And the commanding officer of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier
is a complete idiot as are the fleet admirals he reports to.

Got it.




Did I use the wrong words... sorry... When I said "Fleet Command" I was
referring to "the complete command structure of the "Force"... And I
still think it's on them as the planners to account for things like
that. Don't you?

I thought I was following this thread ok but now I'm lost. Let the force
be with you. Beam me up Scotty. ;-)

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/2014 6:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 2:04 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 1:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 12:44 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 12:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
however it seems that the problem was contamination
of the ocean water itself that got into the ship's fresh water
supply.
Again, unfortunate but very likely not anticipated. Sometimes ****
happens.




Leaves me wondering, "how the hell could that happen"? I mean, how
could
something so obvious as contamination of the force water supply be
"not
anticipated"... That's just incomprehensible to me that they could
miss
that..


That's the basis of the lawsuits. According to the lawyers, Japan
under-reported the extent of the radiation leakage. The powers to be
determined that the distance the carrier stayed off shore mitigated
any
danger, based on the reported level of radiation leakage.

Turns out the leakage was much more severe than what was reported.



Just blows me away they would even consider any outside info, and not
just be monitoring themselves. This is on Fleet Command, nobody else...


I see. And the commanding officer of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier
is a complete idiot as are the fleet admirals he reports to.

Got it.




Did I use the wrong words... sorry... When I said "Fleet Command" I was
referring to "the complete command structure of the "Force"... And I
still think it's on them as the planners to account for things like
that. Don't you?


I think that the Commanding Officer of a nuclear aircraft carrier is a
hell of a lot smarter, educated and experienced than you or I in matters
related to radioactivity and it's dangers. The "planners" can recommend
anything they want but the buck stops with the CO of a ship. He's
responsible for it and the crew's safety.

There's nothing to suggest that proper monitoring of radioactive
activity was not taking place nor is there anything to suggest that any
dangerous levels were being ignored. In fact, the Navy has stated to
the contrary. It's also noteworthy that the Navy, the Captain or the
Command structure are not being sued. The only one being sued by the
environmental specialist lawyer is the company that owns the Japanese
Power plant.

Having a little knowledge of how the Navy command structure works, my
gut feel is that this whole thing is about a lawyer and a few ex-sailors
looking to cash in. Can't prove it, but that's my hunch.



Reasonable, but I still think the "Force Command" (not commander) should
be responsible for the safety of the Force....

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/2014 6:40 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 2:04 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 1:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 12:44 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 12:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
however it seems that the problem was contamination
of the ocean water itself that got into the ship's fresh water
supply.
Again, unfortunate but very likely not anticipated. Sometimes ****
happens.




Leaves me wondering, "how the hell could that happen"? I mean, how
could
something so obvious as contamination of the force water supply be
"not
anticipated"... That's just incomprehensible to me that they could
miss
that..


That's the basis of the lawsuits. According to the lawyers, Japan
under-reported the extent of the radiation leakage. The powers to be
determined that the distance the carrier stayed off shore mitigated
any
danger, based on the reported level of radiation leakage.

Turns out the leakage was much more severe than what was reported.



Just blows me away they would even consider any outside info, and not
just be monitoring themselves. This is on Fleet Command, nobody else...


I see. And the commanding officer of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier
is a complete idiot as are the fleet admirals he reports to.

Got it.




Did I use the wrong words... sorry... When I said "Fleet Command" I was
referring to "the complete command structure of the "Force"... And I
still think it's on them as the planners to account for things like
that. Don't you?

I thought I was following this thread ok but now I'm lost. Let the force
be with you. Beam me up Scotty. ;-)

Yeah sure....

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 2:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 1/14/2014 2:04 PM, KC wrote:

On 1/14/2014 1:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 1/14/2014 12:44 PM, KC wrote:

Leaves me wondering, "how the hell could that happen"? I mean, how
could
something so obvious as contamination of the force water supply be
"not
anticipated"... That's just incomprehensible to me that they could
miss
that..


That's the basis of the lawsuits. According to the lawyers, Japan
under-reported the extent of the radiation leakage. The powers to be
determined that the distance the carrier stayed off shore mitigated
any
danger, based on the reported level of radiation leakage.

Turns out the leakage was much more severe than what was reported.



Just blows me away they would even consider any outside info, and not
just be monitoring themselves. This is on Fleet Command, nobody else...


I see. And the commanding officer of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier
is a complete idiot as are the fleet admirals he reports to.

Got it.




BTW Scott, so far no lawsuits have been brought against the Navy, the
Commanding Officer of the USS Reagan or any of his superiors. The
lawsuit was initially brought against the Japanese power plant only by
an environmental attorney on behalf of one sailor who claimed medical
injury due to radiation exposure. The claim was quickly expanded to
include 70 former crew members.

The Navy has stated that radiation levels were constantly monitored and
at no time were any of the crew members exposed to long term harmful
levels of radiation. A spokesman for the Navy explained that the
exposure to the crew was equal to the average annual exposure that the
public is exposed to from natural sources. If true, it doesn't square
with the reports of radiation sickness and cancer reported.

I suspect not an ambulance chaser, but a carrier chaser.



You say BTW as if you are telling me something I don't already know...
whatever. Either way, I still suggest that if contaminated water got in
and soldiers are sick, it's the fault of the planners or what I referred
to earlier as "Fleet Command"... which *BTW* you mistakenly misread as
"Fleet Commander"....


Whatever you say, Admiral.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/2014 6:45 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 2:04 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 1:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 12:44 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 12:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
however it seems that the problem was contamination
of the ocean water itself that got into the ship's fresh water
supply.
Again, unfortunate but very likely not anticipated. Sometimes
****
happens.




Leaves me wondering, "how the hell could that happen"? I mean, how
could
something so obvious as contamination of the force water supply be
"not
anticipated"... That's just incomprehensible to me that they could
miss
that..


That's the basis of the lawsuits. According to the lawyers, Japan
under-reported the extent of the radiation leakage. The powers to be
determined that the distance the carrier stayed off shore mitigated
any
danger, based on the reported level of radiation leakage.

Turns out the leakage was much more severe than what was reported.



Just blows me away they would even consider any outside info, and not
just be monitoring themselves. This is on Fleet Command, nobody
else...


I see. And the commanding officer of a nuclear powered aircraft
carrier
is a complete idiot as are the fleet admirals he reports to.

Got it.




Did I use the wrong words... sorry... When I said "Fleet Command" I was
referring to "the complete command structure of the "Force"... And I
still think it's on them as the planners to account for things like
that. Don't you?


I think that the Commanding Officer of a nuclear aircraft carrier is a
hell of a lot smarter, educated and experienced than you or I in matters
related to radioactivity and it's dangers. The "planners" can recommend
anything they want but the buck stops with the CO of a ship. He's
responsible for it and the crew's safety.

There's nothing to suggest that proper monitoring of radioactive
activity was not taking place nor is there anything to suggest that any
dangerous levels were being ignored. In fact, the Navy has stated to
the contrary. It's also noteworthy that the Navy, the Captain or the
Command structure are not being sued. The only one being sued by the
environmental specialist lawyer is the company that owns the Japanese
Power plant.

Having a little knowledge of how the Navy command structure works, my
gut feel is that this whole thing is about a lawyer and a few ex-sailors
looking to cash in. Can't prove it, but that's my hunch.



Reasonable, but I still think the "Force Command" (not commander) should
be responsible for the safety of the Force....

Obviously you don't understand how the Navy chain of command works.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:52:03 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


FLAGGED for the total **** it is!!!!

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/2014 6:48 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 2:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 1/14/2014 2:04 PM, KC wrote:

On 1/14/2014 1:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 1/14/2014 12:44 PM, KC wrote:

Leaves me wondering, "how the hell could that happen"? I mean, how
could
something so obvious as contamination of the force water supply be
"not
anticipated"... That's just incomprehensible to me that they could
miss
that..


That's the basis of the lawsuits. According to the lawyers, Japan
under-reported the extent of the radiation leakage. The powers to be
determined that the distance the carrier stayed off shore mitigated
any
danger, based on the reported level of radiation leakage.

Turns out the leakage was much more severe than what was reported.



Just blows me away they would even consider any outside info, and not
just be monitoring themselves. This is on Fleet Command, nobody
else...


I see. And the commanding officer of a nuclear powered aircraft
carrier
is a complete idiot as are the fleet admirals he reports to.

Got it.




BTW Scott, so far no lawsuits have been brought against the Navy, the
Commanding Officer of the USS Reagan or any of his superiors. The
lawsuit was initially brought against the Japanese power plant only by
an environmental attorney on behalf of one sailor who claimed medical
injury due to radiation exposure. The claim was quickly expanded to
include 70 former crew members.

The Navy has stated that radiation levels were constantly monitored and
at no time were any of the crew members exposed to long term harmful
levels of radiation. A spokesman for the Navy explained that the
exposure to the crew was equal to the average annual exposure that the
public is exposed to from natural sources. If true, it doesn't square
with the reports of radiation sickness and cancer reported.

I suspect not an ambulance chaser, but a carrier chaser.



You say BTW as if you are telling me something I don't already know...
whatever. Either way, I still suggest that if contaminated water got in
and soldiers are sick, it's the fault of the planners or what I referred
to earlier as "Fleet Command"... which *BTW* you mistakenly misread as
"Fleet Commander"....


Whatever you say, Admiral.



You don't have to agree... It was just an opinion.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/14, 9:59 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:48 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 2:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 1/14/2014 2:04 PM, KC wrote:

On 1/14/2014 1:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 1/14/2014 12:44 PM, KC wrote:

Leaves me wondering, "how the hell could that happen"? I mean, how
could
something so obvious as contamination of the force water supply be
"not
anticipated"... That's just incomprehensible to me that they could
miss
that..


That's the basis of the lawsuits. According to the lawyers, Japan
under-reported the extent of the radiation leakage. The powers
to be
determined that the distance the carrier stayed off shore mitigated
any
danger, based on the reported level of radiation leakage.

Turns out the leakage was much more severe than what was reported.



Just blows me away they would even consider any outside info, and not
just be monitoring themselves. This is on Fleet Command, nobody
else...


I see. And the commanding officer of a nuclear powered aircraft
carrier
is a complete idiot as are the fleet admirals he reports to.

Got it.




BTW Scott, so far no lawsuits have been brought against the Navy, the
Commanding Officer of the USS Reagan or any of his superiors. The
lawsuit was initially brought against the Japanese power plant only by
an environmental attorney on behalf of one sailor who claimed medical
injury due to radiation exposure. The claim was quickly expanded to
include 70 former crew members.

The Navy has stated that radiation levels were constantly monitored and
at no time were any of the crew members exposed to long term harmful
levels of radiation. A spokesman for the Navy explained that the
exposure to the crew was equal to the average annual exposure that the
public is exposed to from natural sources. If true, it doesn't square
with the reports of radiation sickness and cancer reported.

I suspect not an ambulance chaser, but a carrier chaser.



You say BTW as if you are telling me something I don't already know...
whatever. Either way, I still suggest that if contaminated water got in
and soldiers are sick, it's the fault of the planners or what I referred
to earlier as "Fleet Command"... which *BTW* you mistakenly misread as
"Fleet Commander"....


Whatever you say, Admiral.



You don't have to agree... It was just an opinion.

Based upon what, pray tell?

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/2014 6:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Reasonable, but I still think the "Force Command" (not commander) should
be responsible for the safety of the Force....

Obviously you don't understand how the Navy chain of command works.



No I don't... But imagine how cool it would be if you would educate
us... When a ship is out in service, who is responsible for the safety
of the crews? For the sake of argument lets say, the reports of
contaminated drinking water are true, who is it that should have been
watching for that, surely it's not the corporation or country we are
going to help??

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/14, 10:06 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Reasonable, but I still think the "Force Command" (not commander) should
be responsible for the safety of the Force....

Obviously you don't understand how the Navy chain of command works.



No I don't... But imagine how cool it would be if you would educate
us... When a ship is out in service, who is responsible for the safety
of the crews? For the sake of argument lets say, the reports of
contaminated drinking water are true, who is it that should have been
watching for that, surely it's not the corporation or country we are
going to help??


The captain of a vessel has sole responsibility for the safety of the
crew and the ship. If something horrific happens, a lower ranking
officer may be faulted if fault is involved, but that officer works
under the direction of the captain. Period.