Question on ...
 

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

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:24:56 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:38:13 -0500, wrote:



They probably would never know. The fresh water on a ship is
distilled.

===

That's an interesting point. My first reaction was that the whole
thing was impossible and probably trumped up by a lawyer (which may
yet turn out to be the case). However if the drinking water is
derived from distilled sea water, distillation would not remove any
radioactivity, just the salt.

"The radiation" is not radioactive water, it is just radioactive
isotopes dissolved or in suspension in the water.
I bet an R/O would remove most of them because they are so big.
I can't imagine they would survive distillation and would go out with
the discharge.
It would be an interesting experiment tho.


===

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

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

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.

Earlier this week, as a contemporary example, "officials" in West
Virginia said the water in the area near the chemical spill was "safe."
The next day, yesterday, I believe, pregnant women were warned against
using it. The time I spent in The Associated Press in West Virginia was
an eye opener in terms of the efforts I saw being made by those "in
charge" to hide the amounts of pollution of various kinds being inhaled
by workers, their families and others.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/14, 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.

Earlier this week, as a contemporary example, "officials" in West
Virginia said the water in the area near the chemical spill was "safe."
The next day, yesterday, I believe, pregnant women were warned against
using it. The time I spent in The Associated Press in West Virginia was
an eye opener in terms of the efforts I saw being made by those "in
charge" to hide the amounts of pollution of various kinds being inhaled
by workers, their families and others.


Forgot I wanted to add this URL from National Geo on the West Virginia
chemical "problems" :

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...al-spill-coal/

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

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?

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

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.


As one poster here pointed out, officialdom cannot be trusted to tell
the truth. It's best to rely on unofficial sources for the truth,
according to our scholarly adviser.

Question on ...
 

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.

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?

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

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.

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.


Exactly. Makes you wonder, huh?

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

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. ;-)

Question on ...
 

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.....

Question on ...
 

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?

Question on ...
 

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:12:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



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.

Earlier this week, as a contemporary example, "officials" in West
Virginia said the water in the area near the chemical spill was "safe."
The next day, yesterday, I believe, pregnant women were warned against
using it. The time I spent in The Associated Press in West Virginia was
an eye opener in terms of the efforts I saw being made by those "in
charge" to hide the amounts of pollution of various kinds being inhaled
by workers, their families and others.

If you Googly 'krause tax evasion' you'll get over 750,000 hits. That doesn't mean you're a tax
evader.

Where did you find the 'Navy said' stuff? I'd like to see what they actually said. As to the West
Virginia contamination, pregnant women are often advised to partake less of various items acceptable
to the general population - such as fish from Chesapeake Bay.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/14, 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.



There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has
grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its
actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the
U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on
airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military
resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long
has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking
place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many
times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of
Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the
size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying.

Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do
some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it
happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area
leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a
nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the
wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/2014 10:37 AM, KC wrote:


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...


That's not what he said.


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.....

Yes but you need to add several more markers. Even then someone could
point out that the comparison wasn't fairly made.

Question on ...
 

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:11:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

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.




I'm going to start looking for an apartment on an aircraft carrier.

As to the other, I'm sure there are many detection/monitoring devices associated with the power
plant. But, would that include drinking water, the air on deck, airplanes which may have flown
through the stuff, etc. At least one article mentioned crew members with radiation detectors on deck
checking various items. So it would seem there are areas, items, or whatever not normally monitored
for radiation. I don't know, just supposing.

Oh, and do you mean to tell me that the Captain doesn't have an ignition key for that damn thing?

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/2014 10:49 AM, Hank wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:37 AM, KC wrote:


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...


That's not what he said.


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.....

Yes but you need to add several more markers. Even then someone could
point out that the comparison wasn't fairly made.

I suppose... but this is just a usenet, not a courtroom:)

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/2014 10:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 1/17/14, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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.




There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has
grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its
actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the
U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on
airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military
resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long
has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking
place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many
times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of
Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the
size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying.

Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do
some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it
happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area
leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a
nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the
wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one.


I don't doubt that coverups have happened and reports of impacts under-
reported. I think there's almost always two sides of a story though and
the details have to be sorted out.

Example: The Agent Orange claims by Vietnam vets can be difficult to
determine physically or medically. I've actually been encouraged to
file for benefits simply because I "could" have been exposed even though
I have no physical or medical indications of such. Again, as much as I
hate to admit it, many military claims are bogus, just like many injury
claims resulting from a car accident are bogus.

To those who truly have been injured or affected, they should receive
every financial and/or medical benefit available. But unfortunately too
many jump on the bandwagon in pursuit of benefits they don't qualify for.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/14, 11:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 1/17/14, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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.




There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has
grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its
actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the
U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on
airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military
resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long
has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking
place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many
times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of
Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the
size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying.

Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do
some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it
happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area
leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a
nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the
wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one.


I don't doubt that coverups have happened and reports of impacts under-
reported. I think there's almost always two sides of a story though and
the details have to be sorted out.

Example: The Agent Orange claims by Vietnam vets can be difficult to
determine physically or medically. I've actually been encouraged to
file for benefits simply because I "could" have been exposed even though
I have no physical or medical indications of such. Again, as much as I
hate to admit it, many military claims are bogus, just like many injury
claims resulting from a car accident are bogus.

To those who truly have been injured or affected, they should receive
every financial and/or medical benefit available. But unfortunately too
many jump on the bandwagon in pursuit of benefits they don't qualify for.


In regard to Agent Orange, there may be be doubts as to who exactly was
exposed and what the results may have been, but there is no denying that
the chemical was used, that it was extremely dangerous, and that it
caused horrific damage to hundreds of thousands of people, including
U.S. military personnel. *That* it did so was denied for years, and many
who suffered from its impact received a pittance or nothing for their
problems.

I find it interesting that when *we* use chemical warfare or sell
landmines, it apparently is "ok," but when other nations do it, why,
it's just an abomination.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/14, 11:56 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:33:16 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



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 always wonder about this radiation thing. I spent the best part of a
year being radioactive enough to set off a radiation detector at an
airport and that was supposed to be curing cancer.
When the seeds were implanted I was pegging my geiger counter at skin
level on the 300 MR/Hr scale.
This was iodine 125 with a 48 day half life and 6 months later I
tripped the radiation detector in the luggage area of DTW,



I'll look for your glow in the next X-Men movie release.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/2014 11:56 AM, wrote:


I always wonder about this radiation thing. I spent the best part of a
year being radioactive enough to set off a radiation detector at an
airport and that was supposed to be curing cancer.


What? I don't get it... "supposed to be curing cancer" at an
"Airport"... confused....

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:07:55 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/17/2014 10:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 1/17/14, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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.




There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has
grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its
actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the
U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on
airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military
resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long
has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking
place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many
times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of
Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the
size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying.

Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do
some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it
happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area
leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a
nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the
wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one.


I don't doubt that coverups have happened and reports of impacts under-
reported. I think there's almost always two sides of a story though and
the details have to be sorted out.

Example: The Agent Orange claims by Vietnam vets can be difficult to
determine physically or medically. I've actually been encouraged to
file for benefits simply because I "could" have been exposed even though
I have no physical or medical indications of such. Again, as much as I
hate to admit it, many military claims are bogus, just like many injury
claims resulting from a car accident are bogus.

To those who truly have been injured or affected, they should receive
every financial and/or medical benefit available. But unfortunately too
many jump on the bandwagon in pursuit of benefits they don't qualify for.


There is a list of medical problems associated with Agent Orange for which benefits will ensue. The
Army used to publish the Agent Orange Newsletter, which included this:

The following health conditions are presumptively recognized for service connection. Vietnam
veterans with one or more of these conditions do not have to show that their illness(es) is (are)
related to their military service to get disability compensation. VA presumes that their condition
is service-connected.
Conditions Recognized in Veterans
1.
Chloracne (must occur within 1 year of exposure to Agent Orange)
2.
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
3.
Soft tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi’s sarcoma, ormesothelioma)
4.
Hodgkin’s disease
5.
Porphyria cutanea tarda (must occur within 1 year of exposure)
6.
Multiple myeloma
7.
Respiratory cancers, including cancers of the lung, larynx, trachea, and bronchus
8.
Prostate cancer
9.
Acute and subacute transient peripheral neuropathy (must appear within 1 year of exposure and
resolve within 2 years of date of onset)
10.
Type 2 diabetes
11.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia

As one who was exposed to quite a bit of that crap, I've always been very interested. Luckily, none
of those medical conditions have surfaced. It's a damn shame 'Hearing Loss' isn't one of the
conditions listed!

Question on ...
 

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:20:38 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/17/14, 11:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 1/17/14, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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.




There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has
grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its
actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the
U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on
airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military
resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long
has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking
place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many
times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of
Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the
size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying.

Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do
some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it
happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area
leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a
nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the
wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one.


I don't doubt that coverups have happened and reports of impacts under-
reported. I think there's almost always two sides of a story though and
the details have to be sorted out.

Example: The Agent Orange claims by Vietnam vets can be difficult to
determine physically or medically. I've actually been encouraged to
file for benefits simply because I "could" have been exposed even though
I have no physical or medical indications of such. Again, as much as I
hate to admit it, many military claims are bogus, just like many injury
claims resulting from a car accident are bogus.

To those who truly have been injured or affected, they should receive
every financial and/or medical benefit available. But unfortunately too
many jump on the bandwagon in pursuit of benefits they don't qualify for.


In regard to Agent Orange, there may be be doubts as to who exactly was
exposed and what the results may have been, but there is no denying that
the chemical was used, that it was extremely dangerous, and that it
caused horrific damage to hundreds of thousands of people, including
U.S. military personnel. *That* it did so was denied for years, and many
who suffered from its impact received a pittance or nothing for their
problems.

I find it interesting that when *we* use chemical warfare or sell
landmines, it apparently is "ok," but when other nations do it, why,
it's just an abomination.


Agent Orange was never used as a chemical warfare agent. It was used as a land clearing measure. We
sprayed around the Cu Chi base camp to kill the vegetation which the Viet Cong would use to hide in
prior to an attack on the facility.

The only 'landmines' I know that we used were used as a defensive measure around camps or positions.
The most used was the claymore, which was picked up when the unit moved on. I've not heard of the
indiscriminate emplacement of mines by our military since I've been associated therewith.

But, there may have been some of which I'm not aware. Usually, Engineers lay minefields. We had very
strict rules about recording the emplacement of each and every mine, so they could be recovered when
no longer needed.

But, you may know a lot more about US mine laying then I do.

Question on ...
 

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:03:37 -0500, 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.

With good reason. DC high school football players would make most of us Army folk look like a bunch
of pansies!

Question on ...
 

On Friday, 17 January 2014 12:20:38 UTC-4, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 11:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 1/17/2014 10:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:



On 1/17/14, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:





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.









There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has

grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its

actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the

U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on

airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military

resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long

has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking

place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many

times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of

Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the

size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying.



Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do

some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it

happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area

leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a

nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the

wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one.





I don't doubt that coverups have happened and reports of impacts under-

reported. I think there's almost always two sides of a story though and

the details have to be sorted out.



Example: The Agent Orange claims by Vietnam vets can be difficult to

determine physically or medically. I've actually been encouraged to

file for benefits simply because I "could" have been exposed even though

I have no physical or medical indications of such. Again, as much as I

hate to admit it, many military claims are bogus, just like many injury

claims resulting from a car accident are bogus.



To those who truly have been injured or affected, they should receive

every financial and/or medical benefit available. But unfortunately too

many jump on the bandwagon in pursuit of benefits they don't qualify for.





In regard to Agent Orange, there may be be doubts as to who exactly was

exposed and what the results may have been, but there is no denying that

the chemical was used, that it was extremely dangerous, and that it

caused horrific damage to hundreds of thousands of people, including

U.S. military personnel. *That* it did so was denied for years, and many

who suffered from its impact received a pittance or nothing for their

problems.



I find it interesting that when *we* use chemical warfare or sell

landmines, it apparently is "ok," but when other nations do it, why,

it's just an abomination.


There was a lot of press on Agent Orange tested next door in New Brunswick.
The US Army was only too happy to share what they had.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-rep...-gagetown.page

Question on ...
 

On Friday, 17 January 2014 13:15:41 UTC-4, F.O.A.D. wrote:
snip..

Alas, the draft board never bothered to send me a notice.


They were more interested in signing up those southern boys.
Probably was a lot easier to mold their minds. ;-)

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/2014 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:20:38 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

In regard to Agent Orange, there may be be doubts as to who exactly was
exposed and what the results may have been, but there is no denying that
the chemical was used, that it was extremely dangerous, and that it
caused horrific damage to hundreds of thousands of people, including
U.S. military personnel. *That* it did so was denied for years, and many
who suffered from its impact received a pittance or nothing for their
problems.


I think the truth is somewhere between what the government says and
what the lawyers allege


Consider all the TV ads we see everyday featuring law firms that chase
claims for Mesothelioma. Heck, the whole ET shop and Radio Shack on
both ships I was on were wrapped in asbestos because the ship's stack
went up through the middle of them. The way the ads are written, they
make it sound like if you were within 100 feet of the stuff you have a
claim.

Question on ...
 

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.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/14, 12:45 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:20:38 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/17/14, 11:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 1/17/14, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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.




There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has
grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its
actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the
U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on
airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military
resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long
has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking
place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many
times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of
Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the
size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying.

Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do
some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it
happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area
leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a
nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the
wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one.


I don't doubt that coverups have happened and reports of impacts under-
reported. I think there's almost always two sides of a story though and
the details have to be sorted out.

Example: The Agent Orange claims by Vietnam vets can be difficult to
determine physically or medically. I've actually been encouraged to
file for benefits simply because I "could" have been exposed even though
I have no physical or medical indications of such. Again, as much as I
hate to admit it, many military claims are bogus, just like many injury
claims resulting from a car accident are bogus.

To those who truly have been injured or affected, they should receive
every financial and/or medical benefit available. But unfortunately too
many jump on the bandwagon in pursuit of benefits they don't qualify for.


In regard to Agent Orange, there may be be doubts as to who exactly was
exposed and what the results may have been, but there is no denying that
the chemical was used, that it was extremely dangerous, and that it
caused horrific damage to hundreds of thousands of people, including
U.S. military personnel. *That* it did so was denied for years, and many
who suffered from its impact received a pittance or nothing for their
problems.

I find it interesting that when *we* use chemical warfare or sell
landmines, it apparently is "ok," but when other nations do it, why,
it's just an abomination.


Agent Orange was never used as a chemical warfare agent. It was used as a land clearing measure. We
sprayed around the Cu Chi base camp to kill the vegetation which the Viet Cong would use to hide in
prior to an attack on the facility.

The only 'landmines' I know that we used were used as a defensive measure around camps or positions.
The most used was the claymore, which was picked up when the unit moved on. I've not heard of the
indiscriminate emplacement of mines by our military since I've been associated therewith.

But, there may have been some of which I'm not aware. Usually, Engineers lay minefields. We had very
strict rules about recording the emplacement of each and every mine, so they could be recovered when
no longer needed.

But, you may know a lot more about US mine laying then I do.


Please. There is much documentation available on how and why Agent
Orange was used. It was chemical warfare. And my reference to landmines
was to our country's willingness to sell them.