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.

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??

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.

On 1/14/2014 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 Commanding Officer has the responsibility.

You are assuming that:

1. He didn't do what he was supposed to do and:
2. The lawsuit filed has any merit.

I repeat again ... to date the Navy, the CO, any of his crew members or
any of his superiors have *not* been named in the lawsuit.

On 1/15/2014 12:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 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 Commanding Officer has the responsibility.

You are assuming that:

1. He didn't do what he was supposed to do and:
2. The lawsuit filed has any merit.

No I didn't

I repeat again ... to date the Navy, the CO, any of his crew members or
any of his superiors have *not* been named in the lawsuit.



Completely irrelevant to the question I asked which was simply, if so,
"who is responsible"?

Please read again... I never assumed either. I simply stated an opinion,
that you questioned, mocked, and then I asked a question. You are the
only one assuming anything...

On 1/15/2014 1:13 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 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 Commanding Officer has the responsibility.

You are assuming that:

1. He didn't do what he was supposed to do and:
2. The lawsuit filed has any merit.

No I didn't

I repeat again ... to date the Navy, the CO, any of his crew members or
any of his superiors have *not* been named in the lawsuit.



Completely irrelevant to the question I asked which was simply, if so,
"who is responsible"?

Please read again... I never assumed either. I simply stated an opinion,
that you questioned, mocked, and then I asked a question. You are the
only one assuming anything...


You stated (above) that the "Force Command" (whatever that is) is
responsible for the safety of the "Force" (whatever that is) and in a
previous post questioned the lack of monitoring of radioactivity on the
carrier insinuating that the only data relied upon was that provided by
Japan. You then stated that "it's on the "Force Command" which I
interpret as being your conclusion that whatever problems crew members
are reporting are due to "Force Command" failures.

I simply disagreed with you, mainly because you don't have a clue what
you are talking about.

It's hard sometimes to decipher many of your comments and they can
certainly be misunderstood. It's too bad that you feel you are being
"mocked" just because someone doesn't agree with your opinions and
hastily derived conclusions.

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:11:07 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:

It's hard sometimes to decipher many of your comments and they can

certainly be misunderstood. It's too bad that you feel you are being

"mocked" just because someone doesn't agree with your opinions and

hastily derived conclusions.

And it's too bad you're a stupid **** who keeps responding to your new master, krause.

SMARTEN THE **** UP.

On 1/15/2014 2:11 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/15/2014 1:13 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 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 Commanding Officer has the responsibility.

You are assuming that:

1. He didn't do what he was supposed to do and:
2. The lawsuit filed has any merit.

No I didn't

I repeat again ... to date the Navy, the CO, any of his crew members or
any of his superiors have *not* been named in the lawsuit.



Completely irrelevant to the question I asked which was simply, if so,
"who is responsible"?

Please read again... I never assumed either. I simply stated an opinion,
that you questioned, mocked, and then I asked a question. You are the
only one assuming anything...


You stated (above) that the "Force Command" (whatever that is) is
responsible for the safety of the "Force" (whatever that is) and in a
previous post questioned the lack of monitoring of radioactivity on the
carrier insinuating that the only data relied upon was that provided by
Japan. You then stated that "it's on the "Force Command" which I
interpret as being your conclusion that whatever problems crew members
are reporting are due to "Force Command" failures.

I simply disagreed with you, mainly because you don't have a clue what
you are talking about.

It's hard sometimes to decipher many of your comments and they can
certainly be misunderstood. It's too bad that you feel you are being
"mocked" just because someone doesn't agree with your opinions and
hastily derived conclusions.



You are just looking to irritate.. Sorry I keep forgetting why you are
here....

On 1/15/2014 7:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/15/2014 2:11 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/15/2014 1:13 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 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 Commanding Officer has the responsibility.

You are assuming that:

1. He didn't do what he was supposed to do and:
2. The lawsuit filed has any merit.

No I didn't

I repeat again ... to date the Navy, the CO, any of his crew members or
any of his superiors have *not* been named in the lawsuit.



Completely irrelevant to the question I asked which was simply, if so,
"who is responsible"?

Please read again... I never assumed either. I simply stated an opinion,
that you questioned, mocked, and then I asked a question. You are the
only one assuming anything...


You stated (above) that the "Force Command" (whatever that is) is
responsible for the safety of the "Force" (whatever that is) and in a
previous post questioned the lack of monitoring of radioactivity on the
carrier insinuating that the only data relied upon was that provided by
Japan. You then stated that "it's on the "Force Command" which I
interpret as being your conclusion that whatever problems crew members
are reporting are due to "Force Command" failures.

I simply disagreed with you, mainly because you don't have a clue what
you are talking about.

It's hard sometimes to decipher many of your comments and they can
certainly be misunderstood. It's too bad that you feel you are being
"mocked" just because someone doesn't agree with your opinions and
hastily derived conclusions.



You are just looking to irritate.. Sorry I keep forgetting why you are
here....

Boys...Boys...Boys. Play nice. It's obvious there's just a little
misunderstanding here. Some don't understand what force and force
command means as it applies to this situation. I think I read somewhere
that the on board radioactivity monitoring equipment wasn't operating at
the onset of this mission. One has to wonder if not, why not?