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"....