On 1/14/14, 11:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:31:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/14/14, 10:21 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:52:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

...but this risk seems far above and beyond the call of duty.


70+ USS Ronald Reagan Crew Members, Half Suffering From Cancer, to Sue
TEPCO For Fukushima Radiation Poisoning

After U.S. Navy sailors on the USS Ronald Reagan responded to the 2011
Fukushima disaster in Japan for four days, many returned to the U.S.
with thyroid cancer, Leukemia, brain tumors and more.

At least 71 sailors—many in their 20s—reported radiation sickness and
will file a lawsuit against Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), which
operates the Fukushima Daiichi energy plant.

The men and women accuse TEPCO of downplaying the danger of nuclear
radiation on the site. The water contaminated the ship’s supply, which
led to crew members drinking, washing their bodies and brushing their
teeth with contaminated water. Paul Garner, an attorney representing 51
sailors, said at least half of the 70-plus sailors have some form of cancer.

“We’re seeing leukemia, testicular cancer and unremitting gynecological
bleeding requiring transfusions and other intervention,” Garner told New
York Post.

Senior Chief Michael Sebourn, a radiation-decontamination officer
assigned to test the aircraft carrier, said that radiation levels
measured 300 times higher than what was considered safe at one point.
Meanwhile sailors like Lindsay Cooper have contrasted their initial and
subsequent feelings upon seeing and tasting metallic “radioactive snow”
caused by freezing Pacific air that mixed with radioactive debris.

“We joked about it: ‘Hey, it’s radioactive snow!” Cooper said. “My
thyroid is so out of whack that I can lose 60 to 70 pounds in one month
and then gain it back the next. My menstrual cycle lasts for six months
at a time, and I cannot get pregnant.

“It’s ruined me.”

Cooper said the Reagan has a multimillion-dollar radiation-detection
system, but the crew couldn’t get it activated quickly enough.

“And then we couldn’t go anywhere,” she said. “Japan didn’t want us in
port, Korea didn’t want us, Guam turned us away. We floated in the water
for two and a half months.”

San Diego Judge Janis L. Sammartino dismissed the initial suit in late
November, but Garner and a group of attorneys plan to refile on Jan. 6,
according to Fox 5 San Diego.

Though publications like The Washington Times have wondered if the Navy
and/or National Security Agency might have known about the conditions
the sailors were heading into two years ago, Garner and the attorneys
say the lawsuit is solely directed at TEPCO.

“We’re suing this foreign corporation because they are doing business in
America,” co-counsel Charles Bonner. “Their second largest office
outside of Tokyo is in Washington, D.C.

“This foreign corporation caused harm to American rescuers, and they did
it in ways that give rise to jurisdiction here in this country.”

http://ecowatch.com/2013/12/27/ronal...ima-radiation/


- - - - -

No, the president is willing to take risks with military personnel.
--

Hope you're having a spectacular day!


Well, that is true of just about every president.

Yup, some do it with good reason, some don't. Afghanistan is an example of the latter, as was the
employment of the USS Ronald Reagan without taking appropriate safeguards.
--

Hope you're having a spectacular day!



The list of senseless military "adventures" undertaken without good
reason probably is endless.

On 1/14/2014 11:32 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 1/14/14, 11:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:


Yup, some do it with good reason, some don't. Afghanistan is an
example of the latter, as was the
employment of the USS Ronald Reagan without taking appropriate
safeguards.
--

Hope you're having a spectacular day!



The list of senseless military "adventures" undertaken without good
reason probably is endless.


I don't see the deployment of the USS Ronald Reagan in response to the
earthquake and resulting tsunami in Japan as being "senseless". It was
an act of humanitarian aid to a natural disaster.

If the reports of radiation sickness and cancer affecting some of the
crew are true it is indeed unfortunate and they should receive the best
medical care possible. However, being in the military involves risks.
Your safety and life are not guaranteed. It's part of the job.

I recall that the Reagan stayed well off shore to limit any exposure to
airborne radiation 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.

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..

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.

On 1/14/14, 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.



Japan apparently is still underreporting the impact of those radiation
leaks.

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...

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.

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.

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?

On 1/14/14, 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 would think the captain of a nuclear supercarrier would be in charge
of the operations of his ship, and the safety of his ship and crew, and
that he has on board officers well-trained in matters nuclear, and that
they coordinated with the Japanese and others as deemed necessary. Do
you really think the Navy's Pacific Command told the captain where to
park the ship, as it were?