BoatBanter.com - Question on ...

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?