Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#23
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Straight Military Personnel with HIV... | General | |||
How much do they pay US military officers anyway? | General | |||
Known Risks | General | |||
OT The Military Salute | ASA | |||
( OT ) Albright: 'Our personnel were authorized to kill bin Laden' | General |