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.

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?

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, 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 10:14 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?

On 1/17/2014 10:14 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 1/17/14, 10:02 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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.


The physical that I took back in 1968 is a far cry from what is done
today. In our era, they would take virtually anyone who inhaled air and
passed gas.

The military services are far more selective today both in terms of who
they take and who are eligible to remain in and make it a career.

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:14:24 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

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.

You must not have been around during the 'Project 100,000' days. Funny, being drafted and going
through the 'system', and I've never heard of the 'great numbers' turned down because of the
'ravages of poverty' keeping them from meeting minimal standards. I think you were had. Draftees
didn't have to meet very high educational standards. Many could speak only minimal English.

On 1/17/14, 12:25 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:14:24 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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.

You must not have been around during the 'Project 100,000' days. Funny, being drafted and going
through the 'system', and I've never heard of the 'great numbers' turned down because of the
'ravages of poverty' keeping them from meeting minimal standards. I think you were had. Draftees
didn't have to meet very high educational standards. Many could speak only minimal English.


I don't know what "Project 100,000" was.

Let's run through this again.

My friend, the military doctor examining physician in the area of West
Virginia where I lived for a while told me he turned down great numbers
of potential enlistees because the ravages of poverty kept them from
meeting even minimal standards.

Now, ask yourself, what does an examining *physician* mainly look at
recruits?

He looks mainly at their physical health. As in how healthy are they
physically? Upon observation and examination, do they appear physically
healthy enough for military service? Are there indications of problems
because of the ravages of childhood diseases, poor nutrition, et cetera?
How about their teeth?

Now, surely, if a potential recruit was otherwise acceptable but the doc
picked up on a gross mental or emotional abnormality, that might trigger
a rejection, but the doctor mainly was looking for physical conditions.

His comment about lack of educational opportunities was his way of
plugging what was available to these guys once they were in the
military, in that they certainly had few educational venues back home.
They'd likely end up unemployable or working a miserable job in the
mines or driving a coal truck or pumping gas. In the military, at least,
they might learn skills that would serve them in their futures.

I wasn't talking about "high educational standards" they weren't able to
meet.

On 1/17/2014 1:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 12:25 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:14:24 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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.

You must not have been around during the 'Project 100,000' days.
Funny, being drafted and going
through the 'system', and I've never heard of the 'great numbers'
turned down because of the
'ravages of poverty' keeping them from meeting minimal standards. I
think you were had. Draftees
didn't have to meet very high educational standards. Many could speak
only minimal English.


I don't know what "Project 100,000" was.

Let's run through this again.

My friend, the military doctor examining physician in the area of West
Virginia where I lived for a while told me he turned down great numbers
of potential enlistees because the ravages of poverty kept them from
meeting even minimal standards.

Now, ask yourself, what does an examining *physician* mainly look at
recruits?

He looks mainly at their physical health. As in how healthy are they
physically? Upon observation and examination, do they appear physically
healthy enough for military service? Are there indications of problems
because of the ravages of childhood diseases, poor nutrition, et cetera?
How about their teeth?

Now, surely, if a potential recruit was otherwise acceptable but the doc
picked up on a gross mental or emotional abnormality, that might trigger
a rejection, but the doctor mainly was looking for physical conditions.

His comment about lack of educational opportunities was his way of
plugging what was available to these guys once they were in the
military, in that they certainly had few educational venues back home.
They'd likely end up unemployable or working a miserable job in the
mines or driving a coal truck or pumping gas. In the military, at least,
they might learn skills that would serve them in their futures.

I wasn't talking about "high educational standards" they weren't able to
meet.




What are the "great numbers" that your doctor friend turned away? 10?
100? 1,000?, 10,000?



Interesting statistics regarding the Vietnam era from 1963 to 1973 when
the last person was drafted:


9,087,000 Military personnel served on active duty during the Vietnam
Era. Aug. 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975.

8,744,000 GIs Were on active duty during the war. Aug. 5, 1964 - March
28, 1973

Total draftees (1965-73): 1,728,344.
Those who actually served in Vietnam 38%.

25% (648,500) Of total forces in country were draftees.
Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.

76% Of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class
backgrounds

Three fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from
middle income backgrounds.

82% Of Veterans who saw heavy combat strongly believe the war was lost
because of lack of political will.

Nearly 75% Of the public agrees it was a failure of political will not
of arms.

Source: U.S. Government (VA Web Site Stats)

It is interesting to me that most who served during the Vietnam War era
did so voluntarily and were not drafted. I am sure there were many who,
like me, received a draft notice but chose to join a service of choice
instead.

On 1/17/14, 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:14:24 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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.

My induction physical was less inclusive than the one I had to take to
play high school football in DC.


I would have enjoyed spending the afternoon sitting on the "Group W
Bench," if such existed, messing around with all the other litterers,
playing with the pencils and, of course, being in the selective company
of the mother-rapers and father-rapers that Arlo encountered, and
jumping up and down yelling "Kill, kill, kill." Alas, the draft board
never bothered to send me a notice.