| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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/ |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Refinish Deck Question , for sailboat ,, for spring ,, Paint question | Boat Building | |||
| Deck delamination, purchase question, how to do the deal .. question | Boat Building | |||
| Newbie Question: 40' Performance Cruiser question (including powerplant) | Cruising | |||
| Seamanship Question 2 pts plus bonus question. | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
