I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

....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/


- - - - -

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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!

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/2014 10:31 AM, 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.


It's not just presidents. Congress in general has a lot to say about
the use of the military.

Someone posted a picture on Facebook recently of a badly injured US
Marine. The text read in part:

"No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women (like
this) serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives
protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay while Politicians hold
their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected
by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after
serving one term. It just does not make any sense.


Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United
States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or
Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the
Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the
citizens of the United States."

I could vote for that!

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/14, 10:47 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 10:31 AM, 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.


It's not just presidents. Congress in general has a lot to say about
the use of the military.

Someone posted a picture on Facebook recently of a badly injured US
Marine. The text read in part:

"No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women (like
this) serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives
protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay while Politicians hold
their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected
by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after
serving one term. It just does not make any sense.


Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United
States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or
Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the
Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the
citizens of the United States."

I could vote for that!



What? Guaranteed high value pensions and healthcare for ordinary
Americans? Congress would never go for that. :)

I have no objections to better retirement programs for *all* Americans,
including, of course, military personnel.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:47:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/14/2014 10:31 AM, 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.


It's not just presidents. Congress in general has a lot to say about
the use of the military.

Someone posted a picture on Facebook recently of a badly injured US
Marine. The text read in part:

"No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women (like
this) serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives
protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay while Politicians hold
their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected
by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after
serving one term. It just does not make any sense.


Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United
States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or
Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the
Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the
citizens of the United States."

I could vote for that!


In a heartbeat.
--

Hope you're having a spectacular day!

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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!

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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..

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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 know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:44:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

What *can* happen is that the fuel rods can produce an abundance of
hydrogen when exposed to regular water. Hydrogen can explode if there's
an ignition source but it isn't a "nuclear explosion" as reported.

===

I believe you can also get steam explosions if the rods come into
contact with pockets of water.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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?

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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 know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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"....

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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 thought I was following this thread ok but now I'm lost. Let the force
be with you. Beam me up Scotty. ;-)

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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....

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/2014 6:40 PM, Hank 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 thought I was following this thread ok but now I'm lost. Let the force
be with you. Beam me up Scotty. ;-)

Yeah sure....

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
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"....


Whatever you say, Admiral.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:52:03 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


FLAGGED for the total **** it is!!!!

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/2014 6:48 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
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"....


Whatever you say, Admiral.



You don't have to agree... It was just an opinion.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

On 1/14/14, 9:59 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:48 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:30 PM, KC wrote:
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"....


Whatever you say, Admiral.



You don't have to agree... It was just an opinion.

Based upon what, pray tell?

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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??

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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...

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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.

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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....

I know military personnel are willing to take risks...
 

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?