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 2:47 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"....

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 1/14/2014 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.