On 1/17/2014 9:33 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 9:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:12 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 7:51 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:55:28 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:03:03 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:24:14 -0500, wrote:

Yes it would. Let me know when you finish drinking your product
water and I'll come over with a Geiger counter.

I have to believe they have good radiation detection equipment on any
ship built since the Truman administration.

I wonder if the detection/monitoring system turns on when the Captain
turns the key, or if it must
be turned on when someone gives the order.



If you goggle the following:

radiation detection aboard u.s. navy ships

you'll find plenty of "hits" regarding various U.S. ships and
helicopters "irradiated" by the power plant problems in Japan.

It's interesting that the Navy is so quick to say that the amount of
radiation deposited on various crew members was only equal to a month's
average or several month's average, and so forth. Officialdom, be it
military, corporate or civilian, has a history of grossly understating
the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and workers are
exposed. The United States denied for a long time the impact on
civilians and its own troops of its chemical warfare programs conducted
against the people of Vietnam.


It's certainly possible but would require a coverup of enormous
proportions. The lawyer is claiming about 70 people were affected in
some way, half developing cancer. The remaining crew, numbering well
over 5,000 are apparently radiation disease and cancer free. They drank
the same water, coffee and took showers with the same water.

In order for some crew members to develop cancer or exhibit symptoms of
radiation sickness/poisoning in such a relatively short time period, the
levels of radiation would have to be very high. If that were the case,
wouldn't you expect to see many more cases?

Of 5,000 to 6,000 people in the civilian world how many develop cancer
in some form? I don't know the answer but 35 out of 5,000-6,000
doesn't seem unreasonable.


I don't know that it is a cover up or denial, or anything like that. I
hope not. But the point was that "officialdom," be it civilian,
military, or corporate, often tries to play down the impact of such events.

Do you suppose the entire crew of that ship has been checked out?


I have a hunch that given the media coverage of the environmental
lawyer's lawsuit that the Navy has instituted some additional screening.

Unfortunately there are some ... even maybe many ... who serve in the
military for a minimum period of time (two or four years) and claim a
service related injury or disease before being discharged in order to
receive life time benefits in terms of medical care, disability
payments, etc., that they otherwise would not be entitled to. When I
was nearing the end of my nine year term in the Navy certain people
actually lectured and encouraged me to "fall down" on duty and claim a
back injury or something.

I know of one person who entered the Navy as a drug addict. She managed
to pass all the pre-screening and physical exams but shortly after or
during boot camp her addiction became known to Navy personnel and docs.
Because she was now "government property" she was put in a "hold"
status after only being in the Navy for less than two months. The Navy
then put her through a de-tox and rehab program and then medically
discharged her under honorable conditions. She remains entitled to VA
medical care, federal housing assistance programs and other "bennies"
even though she served a total of 6 months, most of which was spent in a
rehab program.

You are paying for that in your taxes.

On 1/17/14, 9:51 AM, Hank wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 9:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:12 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 7:51 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:55:28 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:03:03 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:24:14 -0500, wrote:

Yes it would. Let me know when you finish drinking your product
water and I'll come over with a Geiger counter.

I have to believe they have good radiation detection equipment on
any
ship built since the Truman administration.

I wonder if the detection/monitoring system turns on when the Captain
turns the key, or if it must
be turned on when someone gives the order.



If you goggle the following:

radiation detection aboard u.s. navy ships

you'll find plenty of "hits" regarding various U.S. ships and
helicopters "irradiated" by the power plant problems in Japan.

It's interesting that the Navy is so quick to say that the amount of
radiation deposited on various crew members was only equal to a
month's
average or several month's average, and so forth. Officialdom, be it
military, corporate or civilian, has a history of grossly understating
the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and workers are
exposed. The United States denied for a long time the impact on
civilians and its own troops of its chemical warfare programs
conducted
against the people of Vietnam.


It's certainly possible but would require a coverup of enormous
proportions. The lawyer is claiming about 70 people were affected in
some way, half developing cancer. The remaining crew, numbering well
over 5,000 are apparently radiation disease and cancer free. They
drank
the same water, coffee and took showers with the same water.

In order for some crew members to develop cancer or exhibit symptoms of
radiation sickness/poisoning in such a relatively short time period,
the
levels of radiation would have to be very high. If that were the case,
wouldn't you expect to see many more cases?

Of 5,000 to 6,000 people in the civilian world how many develop cancer
in some form? I don't know the answer but 35 out of 5,000-6,000
doesn't seem unreasonable.



Ok, I looked up the numbers. New cancer occurrences (of all types) are
463.0 per 100,000 men and women per year.

The Reagan has well over 5,000 crewmembers ... probably closer to 6,000
when you count the deployed air squadrons. So, statistically, the
reported cancer cases (35) on the Reagan are about 10 more than the
national average. Doesn't seem that far out of being normal and
certainly not highly unusual.




That 463 per 100,000 includes people of all ages, and I suspect a lot of
those people are a lot older than Naval crews.

And a lot of those people could be a lot younger than naval crews.
Are you trying to make a point here? If so, what?


I supposed you missed the point, previously stated:

"Officialdom, be it military, corporate or civilian, has a history of
grossly understating the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary
folks and workers are exposed."

Note that I am not singling out "the military," but merely including it
among those institutions that often work hard to minimize the impact of
disasters in which they have had a hand or were the cause.

The impact of "overexposure" to radiation sometimes takes years or
decades to manifest itself.

On 1/17/2014 7:51 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:55:28 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:03:03 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:24:14 -0500, wrote:

Yes it would. Let me know when you finish drinking your product
water and I'll come over with a Geiger counter.

I have to believe they have good radiation detection equipment on any
ship built since the Truman administration.

I wonder if the detection/monitoring system turns on when the Captain turns the key, or if it must
be turned on when someone gives the order.



John, you're kidding of course. This is a nuclear powered aircraft
carrier. It is monitored constantly.

BTW, I was just reading about the precautions taken in the design and
operation of nuclear powered Navy ships and submarines due to the close
proximity of living next to a nuclear reactor for extended periods of
time. The precautions in design are orders of magnitude greater than
that required for a civilian nuclear power plant and the crew on a
nuclear powered naval vessel is actually exposed to *less* radiation on
a daily basis than you and I are exposed to from natural sources. The
hull of the ship itself is a barrier to external radiation exposure.

On 1/17/2014 9:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 9:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:12 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 7:51 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:55:28 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:03:03 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:24:14 -0500, wrote:

Yes it would. Let me know when you finish drinking your product
water and I'll come over with a Geiger counter.

I have to believe they have good radiation detection equipment on any
ship built since the Truman administration.

I wonder if the detection/monitoring system turns on when the Captain
turns the key, or if it must
be turned on when someone gives the order.



If you goggle the following:

radiation detection aboard u.s. navy ships

you'll find plenty of "hits" regarding various U.S. ships and
helicopters "irradiated" by the power plant problems in Japan.

It's interesting that the Navy is so quick to say that the amount of
radiation deposited on various crew members was only equal to a month's
average or several month's average, and so forth. Officialdom, be it
military, corporate or civilian, has a history of grossly understating
the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and workers are
exposed. The United States denied for a long time the impact on
civilians and its own troops of its chemical warfare programs conducted
against the people of Vietnam.


It's certainly possible but would require a coverup of enormous
proportions. The lawyer is claiming about 70 people were affected in
some way, half developing cancer. The remaining crew, numbering well
over 5,000 are apparently radiation disease and cancer free. They drank
the same water, coffee and took showers with the same water.

In order for some crew members to develop cancer or exhibit symptoms of
radiation sickness/poisoning in such a relatively short time period, the
levels of radiation would have to be very high. If that were the case,
wouldn't you expect to see many more cases?

Of 5,000 to 6,000 people in the civilian world how many develop cancer
in some form? I don't know the answer but 35 out of 5,000-6,000
doesn't seem unreasonable.



Ok, I looked up the numbers. New cancer occurrences (of all types) are
463.0 per 100,000 men and women per year.

The Reagan has well over 5,000 crewmembers ... probably closer to 6,000
when you count the deployed air squadrons. So, statistically, the
reported cancer cases (35) on the Reagan are about 10 more than the
national average. Doesn't seem that far out of being normal and
certainly not highly unusual.




That 463 per 100,000 includes people of all ages, and I suspect a lot of
those people are a lot older than Naval crews.


Exactly. Makes you wonder, huh?

On 1/17/14, 10:02 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:33 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 9:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:12 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 7:51 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:55:28 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:03:03 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:24:14 -0500, wrote:

Yes it would. Let me know when you finish drinking your product
water and I'll come over with a Geiger counter.

I have to believe they have good radiation detection equipment on any
ship built since the Truman administration.

I wonder if the detection/monitoring system turns on when the Captain
turns the key, or if it must
be turned on when someone gives the order.



If you goggle the following:

radiation detection aboard u.s. navy ships

you'll find plenty of "hits" regarding various U.S. ships and
helicopters "irradiated" by the power plant problems in Japan.

It's interesting that the Navy is so quick to say that the amount of
radiation deposited on various crew members was only equal to a month's
average or several month's average, and so forth. Officialdom, be it
military, corporate or civilian, has a history of grossly understating
the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and workers are
exposed. The United States denied for a long time the impact on
civilians and its own troops of its chemical warfare programs conducted
against the people of Vietnam.


It's certainly possible but would require a coverup of enormous
proportions. The lawyer is claiming about 70 people were affected in
some way, half developing cancer. The remaining crew, numbering well
over 5,000 are apparently radiation disease and cancer free. They drank
the same water, coffee and took showers with the same water.

In order for some crew members to develop cancer or exhibit symptoms of
radiation sickness/poisoning in such a relatively short time period, the
levels of radiation would have to be very high. If that were the case,
wouldn't you expect to see many more cases?

Of 5,000 to 6,000 people in the civilian world how many develop cancer
in some form? I don't know the answer but 35 out of 5,000-6,000
doesn't seem unreasonable.


I don't know that it is a cover up or denial, or anything like that. I
hope not. But the point was that "officialdom," be it civilian,
military, or corporate, often tries to play down the impact of such
events.

Do you suppose the entire crew of that ship has been checked out?


I have a hunch that given the media coverage of the environmental
lawyer's lawsuit that the Navy has instituted some additional screening.

Unfortunately there are some ... even maybe many ... who serve in the
military for a minimum period of time (two or four years) and claim a
service related injury or disease before being discharged in order to
receive life time benefits in terms of medical care, disability
payments, etc., that they otherwise would not be entitled to. When I
was nearing the end of my nine year term in the Navy certain people
actually lectured and encouraged me to "fall down" on duty and claim a
back injury or something.

I know of one person who entered the Navy as a drug addict. She managed
to pass all the pre-screening and physical exams but shortly after or
during boot camp her addiction became known to Navy personnel and docs.
Because she was now "government property" she was put in a "hold"
status after only being in the Navy for less than two months. The Navy
then put her through a de-tox and rehab program and then medically
discharged her under honorable conditions. She remains entitled to VA
medical care, federal housing assistance programs and other "bennies"
even though she served a total of 6 months, most of which was spent in a
rehab program.

You are paying for that in your taxes.




I never experienced the "delights" of a pre-induction physical, but a
few of my contemporaries told me about their experiences in the mid to
late 1960s. They weren't as exciting as Arlo Guthrie's saga in "Alice's
Restaurant," but I do recall them telling me the pre-induction screening
was minimalist in nature.

When I was living in West Virginia, one of my buddies was an Army
captain and physician who was the "doc" who examined potential enlistees
in Cabell County. I recall him telling me of the great numbers of
wannabes he had to turn down because the ravages of the poverty of their
youth kept them from meeting even minimal standards. It was sad, he
said, because the military would have offered them a way out of their
abject poverty and lack of educational opportunities.

On 1/17/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
That 463 per 100,000 includes people of all ages, and I suspect a lot of
those people are a lot older than Naval crews.

And a lot of those people could be a lot younger than naval crews.
Are you trying to make a point here? If so, what?


I supposed you missed the point, previously stated:

You didn't answer the relevent questions posed to you, as usual.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your previous point was not missed.

I am merely attempting to disambiguate any point you might be attempting
to make with your supposition.

On 1/17/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 9:51 AM, Hank wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 9:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:12 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 7:51 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:55:28 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:03:03 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:24:14 -0500, wrote:

Yes it would. Let me know when you finish drinking your product
water and I'll come over with a Geiger counter.

I have to believe they have good radiation detection equipment on
any
ship built since the Truman administration.

I wonder if the detection/monitoring system turns on when the
Captain
turns the key, or if it must
be turned on when someone gives the order.



If you goggle the following:

radiation detection aboard u.s. navy ships

you'll find plenty of "hits" regarding various U.S. ships and
helicopters "irradiated" by the power plant problems in Japan.

It's interesting that the Navy is so quick to say that the amount of
radiation deposited on various crew members was only equal to a
month's
average or several month's average, and so forth. Officialdom, be it
military, corporate or civilian, has a history of grossly
understating
the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and workers are
exposed. The United States denied for a long time the impact on
civilians and its own troops of its chemical warfare programs
conducted
against the people of Vietnam.


It's certainly possible but would require a coverup of enormous
proportions. The lawyer is claiming about 70 people were affected in
some way, half developing cancer. The remaining crew, numbering well
over 5,000 are apparently radiation disease and cancer free. They
drank
the same water, coffee and took showers with the same water.

In order for some crew members to develop cancer or exhibit
symptoms of
radiation sickness/poisoning in such a relatively short time period,
the
levels of radiation would have to be very high. If that were the
case,
wouldn't you expect to see many more cases?

Of 5,000 to 6,000 people in the civilian world how many develop cancer
in some form? I don't know the answer but 35 out of 5,000-6,000
doesn't seem unreasonable.



Ok, I looked up the numbers. New cancer occurrences (of all types)
are
463.0 per 100,000 men and women per year.

The Reagan has well over 5,000 crewmembers ... probably closer to 6,000
when you count the deployed air squadrons. So, statistically, the
reported cancer cases (35) on the Reagan are about 10 more than the
national average. Doesn't seem that far out of being normal and
certainly not highly unusual.




That 463 per 100,000 includes people of all ages, and I suspect a lot of
those people are a lot older than Naval crews.

And a lot of those people could be a lot younger than naval crews.
Are you trying to make a point here? If so, what?


I supposed you missed the point, previously stated:

"Officialdom, be it military, corporate or civilian, has a history of
grossly understating the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary
folks and workers are exposed."

Note that I am not singling out "the military," but merely including it
among those institutions that often work hard to minimize the impact of
disasters in which they have had a hand or were the cause.

The impact of "overexposure" to radiation sometimes takes years or
decades to manifest itself.


I don't think Hank or myself "missed" your point. The discussion has
been about claims and potential litigation by some crew members aboard
the USS Reagan and led by an environmental lawyer against the owners of
the Japanese power plant that was damaged in a tsunami. Claims have
been made that Japan under reported the amount of radiation leakage and
then some people here questioned the Navy's responsibility in monitoring
radiation levels aboard ship.

You introduced the "point" that "Officialdom" has a history of *grossly*
understating the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and
workers are exposed" .... with no statistics, or proof offered. Your
"point" really has nothing to do with the discussion, but rather an
attempt to slant the flavor of the discussion.

BTW, your statement that "The impact of "overexposure" to radiation
sometimes takes years or decades to manifest itself" can also mean that
the immediate claims made by some crew members as reported by the lawyer
are bogus.

On 1/17/2014 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 9:51 AM, Hank wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 9:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:12 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 7:51 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:55:28 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:03:03 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:24:14 -0500, wrote:

Yes it would. Let me know when you finish drinking your product
water and I'll come over with a Geiger counter.

I have to believe they have good radiation detection equipment on
any
ship built since the Truman administration.

I wonder if the detection/monitoring system turns on when the
Captain
turns the key, or if it must
be turned on when someone gives the order.



If you goggle the following:

radiation detection aboard u.s. navy ships

you'll find plenty of "hits" regarding various U.S. ships and
helicopters "irradiated" by the power plant problems in Japan.

It's interesting that the Navy is so quick to say that the amount of
radiation deposited on various crew members was only equal to a
month's
average or several month's average, and so forth. Officialdom, be it
military, corporate or civilian, has a history of grossly
understating
the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and workers are
exposed. The United States denied for a long time the impact on
civilians and its own troops of its chemical warfare programs
conducted
against the people of Vietnam.


It's certainly possible but would require a coverup of enormous
proportions. The lawyer is claiming about 70 people were affected in
some way, half developing cancer. The remaining crew, numbering well
over 5,000 are apparently radiation disease and cancer free. They
drank
the same water, coffee and took showers with the same water.

In order for some crew members to develop cancer or exhibit
symptoms of
radiation sickness/poisoning in such a relatively short time period,
the
levels of radiation would have to be very high. If that were the
case,
wouldn't you expect to see many more cases?

Of 5,000 to 6,000 people in the civilian world how many develop
cancer
in some form? I don't know the answer but 35 out of 5,000-6,000
doesn't seem unreasonable.



Ok, I looked up the numbers. New cancer occurrences (of all types)
are
463.0 per 100,000 men and women per year.

The Reagan has well over 5,000 crewmembers ... probably closer to
6,000
when you count the deployed air squadrons. So, statistically, the
reported cancer cases (35) on the Reagan are about 10 more than the
national average. Doesn't seem that far out of being normal and
certainly not highly unusual.




That 463 per 100,000 includes people of all ages, and I suspect a
lot of
those people are a lot older than Naval crews.

And a lot of those people could be a lot younger than naval crews.
Are you trying to make a point here? If so, what?


I supposed you missed the point, previously stated:

"Officialdom, be it military, corporate or civilian, has a history of
grossly understating the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary
folks and workers are exposed."

Note that I am not singling out "the military," but merely including it
among those institutions that often work hard to minimize the impact of
disasters in which they have had a hand or were the cause.

The impact of "overexposure" to radiation sometimes takes years or
decades to manifest itself.


I don't think Hank or myself "missed" your point. The discussion has
been about claims and potential litigation by some crew members aboard
the USS Reagan and led by an environmental lawyer against the owners of
the Japanese power plant that was damaged in a tsunami. Claims have
been made that Japan under reported the amount of radiation leakage and
then some people here questioned the Navy's responsibility in monitoring
radiation levels aboard ship.

You introduced the "point" that "Officialdom" has a history of *grossly*
understating the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and
workers are exposed" .... with no statistics, or proof offered. Your
"point" really has nothing to do with the discussion, but rather an
attempt to slant the flavor of the discussion.

BTW, your statement that "The impact of "overexposure" to radiation
sometimes takes years or decades to manifest itself" can also mean that
the immediate claims made by some crew members as reported by the lawyer
are bogus.


The last Para. sounds like a Harryism. ;-)

On 1/17/2014 10:29 AM, Hank wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
That 463 per 100,000 includes people of all ages, and I suspect a
lot of
those people are a lot older than Naval crews.

And a lot of those people could be a lot younger than naval crews.
Are you trying to make a point here? If so, what?


I supposed you missed the point, previously stated:

You didn't answer the relevent questions posed to you, as usual.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your previous point was not missed.

I am merely attempting to disambiguate any point you might be attempting
to make with your supposition.



I think what he was saying was, the numbers for the younger crew on the
ship, is not an equal comparison to the general population.. That's what
I got anyway...

A more fair comparison might be to look at the numbers for 18-50 year
olds, who have full time jobs, pretty good nutrition (available), mostly
in reasonably good physical condition, etc.....

On 1/17/2014 10:14 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
When I was living in West Virginia, one of my buddies was an Army
captain and physician who was the "doc" who examined potential enlistees
in Cabell County. I recall him telling me of the great numbers of
wannabes he had to turn down because the ravages of the poverty of their
youth kept them from meeting even minimal standards. It was sad, he
said, because the military would have offered them a way out of their
abject poverty and lack of educational opportunities.

Why should the Military turn down a well fed, big, strong, intellectual
in favor of a ravaged young man just to lift him out of poverty?