US Sailors Fall Sick After Fukushima Duty

MaggieD said:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

Click to expand...

In some cases, yes. Are you under the impression they were taken in there against their will and put in danger on a whim?

avatar said:

In some cases, yes. Are you under the impression they were taken in there against their will and put in danger on a whim?

Click to expand...

No, I'm under the impression that they were under orders to offer assistance. Exposing them (if they were, mind you) to cancer-causing doses of radiation is beyond the call of duty, in my opinion. Please understand I'm not taking what's being offered in the OP's article as truth. But if they were indeed exposed to radioactive water on board, etc., that is unacceptable. And that blame lies with command. In my humble opinion, of course.

MaggieD said:

No, I'm under the impression that they were under orders to offer assistance. Exposing them (if they were, mind you) to cancer-causing doses of radiation is beyond the call of duty, in my opinion. Please understand I'm not taking what's being offered in the OP's article as truth. But if they were indeed exposed to radioactive water on board, etc., that is unacceptable. And that blame lies with command. In my humble opinion, of course.

Click to expand...

We are also potentially exposed to bullets, bombs and germs. It is simply part of the job.

And trust me, most members of the military have a serious case of "Code 3 Fever". Often times it is harder for them to weed out those that want to go someplace but they can not take for various reasons then it is to find people to take. I had a buddy who responded to Katrina, and he said they had over 90% of his unit show up, but only spaces for around 50% of them. Some were even offering money if somebody would "get sick" so they could take their place.

So if more then 1% of those involved did not want to be there helping others, I would honestly be surprised.

Oozlefinch said:

We are also potentially exposed to bullets, bombs and germs. It is simply part of the job.

And trust me, most members of the military have a serious case of "Code 3 Fever". Often times it is harder for them to weed out those that want to go someplace but they can not take for various reasons then it is to find people to take. I had a buddy who responded to Katrina, and he said they had over 90% of his unit show up, but only spaces for around 50% of them. Some were even offering money if somebody would "get sick" so they could take their place.

So if more then 1% of those involved did not want to be there helping others, I would honestly be surprised.

Click to expand...

And, that, Oozlefinch, is why we love you.

MaggieD said:

This thread was started pointing out that a number of soldiers were filing suit against Japan for their illnesses. Doesn't sound as though they feel quite the same way you do. But if there is blame to be laid, I lay it at the foot of our military. Allowing personnel to drink radioactive water is not okay.

Click to expand...

I don't think it has anything to do with the drinking water but the contaminated seawater used with the PC gender friendly commodes that have been forced upon sailors in the name of diversity.

APACHERAT said:

I don't think it has anything to do with the drinking water but the contaminated seawater used with the PC gender friendly commodes that have been forced upon sailors in the name of diversity.

Click to expand...

We make drinking water from the same seawater used to flush those toilets. And while it is monitored for contamination, it isn't exactly filtered for it (much more concerned with removing the salt and microbes/algae that could make us sick/kill us). And the suit claimed they were drinking/bathing in contaminated water, not flushing with it. Shower and drinking water is all desalinized water coming from the plants.

US Sailors Sick From Fukushima Radiation File New Suit Against Tokyo Electric Power | Common Dreams

It turns out the Reagan sailed as close as 1 mile to Fukushima, and as long as 5 hours in the downwind plume from the reactor.

New lawsuit filed against Tepco.

Many sick sailors, including the child of a young pregnant sailor. 7 months later child is born with multiple birth defects.

Ship is docked at San Diego, and is perhaps totally contaminated.

Henry David said:

US Sailors Sick From Fukushima Radiation File New Suit Against Tokyo Electric Power | Common Dreams

It turns out the Reagan sailed as close as 1 mile to Fukushima, and as long as 5 hours in the downwind plume from the reactor.

New lawsuit filed against Tepco.

Many sick sailors, including the child of a young pregnant sailor. 7 months later child is born with multiple birth defects.

Ship is docked at San Diego, and is perhaps totally contaminated.

Click to expand...

Your implication is the child's defects were the result of radiation exposure. Prove it.

US Conservative said:

Your implication is the child's defects were the result of radiation exposure. Prove it.

Click to expand...

This is a news article. Not a debate. Get it?

The mother of the child is bringing suit, not I. Is that so hard to understand? I did not claim the birth defects were the result of radiation exposure, the mother is. As are the other claimants, if you bothered to read the article. One young man lost his vision.

Are you aware of the well known fact that fetus in utero exposed to radiation, depending on the type and dose, develop birth defects?

US Conservative said:

Your implication is the child's defects were the result of radiation exposure. Prove it.

Click to expand...

It does not even say what the birth defect is. If it is something completely genetic and hereditary, then radiation is pretty much rules out in the first place.

And this is not a news article, it is a lawyer's propaganda report in a leftist blog.

As newsworthy as the paper I wipe my bum with.

Henry David said:

]Are you aware of the well known fact that fetus in utero exposed to radiation, depending on the type and dose, develop birth defects?

Click to expand...

I order and interpret xrays daily, so yes I am, and this story stinks to high heaven.

Welcome to "debate politics", btw.

Oozlefinch said:

It does not even say what the birth defect is. If it is something completely genetic and hereditary, then radiation is pretty much rules out in the first place.

And this is not a news article, it is a lawyer's propaganda report in a leftist blog.

As newsworthy as the paper I wipe my bum with.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and the uneducated will tell tales like a bunch of kids at a slumber party.

Henry David said:

US Sailors Sick From Fukushima Radiation File New Suit Against Tokyo Electric Power | Common Dreams

It turns out the Reagan sailed as close as 1 mile to Fukushima, and as long as 5 hours in the downwind plume from the reactor.

New lawsuit filed against Tepco.

Many sick sailors, including the child of a young pregnant sailor. 7 months later child is born with multiple birth defects.

Ship is docked at San Diego, and is perhaps totally contaminated.

Click to expand...

You don't know a lot about this apparently. The ship was decontaminated by the Navy. It in fact was more than capable of changing ports twice since the contamination occurred. There is no plan to "scrap it" or anything of the sort. In fact, the plan is to switch it out with the Washington (which has had Japan as its homeport for about 8 or so years now).

They measured a radiation level on deck of .6 mR/hr, at the time that they moved out of the area. I have personally been in a much higher level of radiation several times myself aboard US Navy vessels due to our reactors onboard.

And no, the child's "genetic defects" were most likely not caused by that radiation. Many people have genetic defects. Without more specifics, it is impossible to know what those defects actually are, how they affect the child, or what actually caused them.

Henry David said:

This is a news article. Not a debate. Get it?

The mother of the child is bringing suit, not I. Is that so hard to understand? I did not claim the birth defects were the result of radiation exposure, the mother is. As are the other claimants, if you bothered to read the article. One young man lost his vision.

Are you aware of the well known fact that fetus in utero exposed to radiation, depending on the type and dose, develop birth defects?

Click to expand...

Are you aware that the level of radiation required for such birth defects to occur is huge? We in fact allow pregnant women working in radiation fields to receive 500mrem of radiation exposure during the pregnancy. It would take radiation levels to be about 100mR/hr while the ship sailed through the cloud for any pregnant woman on the ship to even reach the limit for workers. If she got pregnant afterward, then there is absolutely no way to say that the defects occurred due to the cloud at all.

I love the following comment. It makes me laugh, a lot.

"There are also rumors the Navy is considering deploying the Reagan to a port in Japan, where protests would be almost certain."

First of all, it is in no way uncommon for ships to get relocated, especially ships that have been stationed in overseas ports as their homeport for about a decade, like the Washington.

Second, my ship, the USS Abraham Lincoln, pulled into Japan in 2002. We were the first nuclear powered American aircraft carrier to be allowed to pull into Japan. We did it because the Kitty Hawk (I think?) was about to be decommissioned and she was the last non-nuke aircraft carrier and so the plan was for the Washington to be stationed there and so it opened it up basically for us all. We were met with massive protests while there. They had people out in force, marching, petitioning, in general, protesting us being there because of us being nuclear powered.

There is absolutely no way that we would allow a ship that was as contaminated as this blog wants to claim out to sea. We have our own precautions and limits when it comes to nuclear powered aircraft carriers and there is no way the NRC would allow a vessel to sail/operate that was not safe. Yet she is still commissioned 2 1/2 years after the contamination. Time, distance, shielding. There is no way that the Navy would plan on getting rid of the Reagan over this incident now. If it were truly an issue, it would have been done 2 years ago.

Oh, and I have personally worked at Bremerton since the Reagan went up there. Funny how the shipyard up there wasn't overly concerned about that "excessively contaminated ship".

roguenuke said:

Are you aware that the level of radiation required for such birth defects to occur is huge? We in fact allow pregnant women working in radiation fields to receive 500mrem of radiation exposure during the pregnancy. It would take radiation levels to be about 100mR/hr while the ship sailed through the cloud for any pregnant woman on the ship to even reach the limit for workers. If she got pregnant afterward, then there is absolutely no way to say that the defects occurred due to the cloud at all.

Click to expand...

Thanks for all that information.

Yes, the courts in this country are pretty corrupt, but perhaps the plaintiffs will have more success at justice in the Japanese system. I don't know, as I've never studied the Japanese system. I think it's just an interesting story, that's all.

It's entirely possible that all those mendacious sailors, including the pregnant ones, are making all that up. Time will tell.

roguenuke said:

I love the following comment. It makes me laugh, a lot.

"There are also rumors the Navy is considering deploying the Reagan to a port in Japan, where protests would be almost certain."

First of all, it is in no way uncommon for ships to get relocated, especially ships that have been stationed in overseas ports as their homeport for about a decade, like the Washington.

Second, my ship, the USS Abraham Lincoln, pulled into Japan in 2002. We were the first nuclear powered American aircraft carrier to be allowed to pull into Japan. We did it because the Kitty Hawk (I think?) was about to be decommissioned and she was the last non-nuke aircraft carrier and so the plan was for the Washington to be stationed there and so it opened it up basically for us all. We were met with massive protests while there. They had people out in force, marching, petitioning, in general, protesting us being there because of us being nuclear powered.

There is absolutely no way that we would allow a ship that was as contaminated as this blog wants to claim out to sea. We have our own precautions and limits when it comes to nuclear powered aircraft carriers and there is no way the NRC would allow a vessel to sail/operate that was not safe. Yet she is still commissioned 2 1/2 years after the contamination. Time, distance, shielding. There is no way that the Navy would plan on getting rid of the Reagan over this incident now. If it were truly an issue, it would have been done 2 years ago.

Oh, and I have personally worked at Bremerton since the Reagan went up there. Funny how the shipyard up there wasn't overly concerned about that "excessively contaminated ship".

Click to expand...

No way the NRC would let that happen? My Goodness, you're either naïve or simply uninformed.

As for NRC coverups, consider the story from Simi Valley and I think the 'something' Susana sodium-cooled reactor back in about 1959. It was just covered on Modern Marvels last night. By sheer chance I happened upon it.

They lied through their teeth and the radiation in that area has caused all manner of birth defects and other sicknesses.

At least there are no more sodium cooled reactors.

Henry David said:

No way the NRC would let that happen? My Goodness, you're either naïve or simply uninformed.

As for NRC coverups, consider the story from Simi Valley and I think the 'something' Susana sodium-cooled reactor back in about 1959. It was just covered on Modern Marvels last night. By sheer chance I happened upon it.

They lied through their teeth and the radiation in that area has caused all manner of birth defects and other sicknesses.

At least there are no more sodium cooled reactors.

Click to expand...

I worked in nuclear power for the Navy for 10 years. (Hence the "nuke" in my name.) I know exactly what kind of crap we put up with. Things are not covered up. We go through hell for the littlest things. The Navy would have a valid case against Fukushima/the Japanese government if something was really that bad.

Bringing up a case from the 1950s does absolutely nothing to help you. We have made a lot more stringent guidelines since then when it comes to nuclear power.

Henry David said:

Thanks for all that information.

Yes, the courts in this country are pretty corrupt, but perhaps the plaintiffs will have more success at justice in the Japanese system. I don't know, as I've never studied the Japanese system. I think it's just an interesting story, that's all.

It's entirely possible that all those mendacious sailors, including the pregnant ones, are making all that up. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

The pregnant sailor shouldn't have been on the ship(every woman onboard an aircraft carrier gets tested after about 2-3 weeks out to sea to see if she is pregnant (when we go out across the ocean) since there is no way to care for a pregnant woman out to sea, so that means if she was pregnant when the exposure happened, then she was having unprotected sex out to sea).

As for the other sailors, I'd say that they are being duped by lawyers looking for a major payday. Many of them don't have any clue and will believe whatever they are told or, like many other Americans, are convinced that radiation is much worse than it is. I have personally seen sailors on an aircraft carrier (from other departments besides Rx) believe that everyone in Rx are issued invisible radiation shields that we activate right before going into the plant to protect us from the radiation. Or convinced our shipmates that we weren't really nuclear powered but squirrel powered and that the barrels we were transferring were food for them.

We receive lots of radiation as nukes (acute doses much higher than .6mrem in an hour at times, particularly when we have to go near the reactor itself and depending on which ship you are stationed on), and the thing we see the most is more daughters born to male nukes (radiation kills off Y sperm first before X sperm, or at least that's the theory). Now, sure there is a slight increase in certain things, such as an increased chance of cancer by 0.04% (note that really is 4/100ths of a percent increase). But sailors get cancer. Sailors have children with genetic problems. Sailors have strange things happen to their bodies. Sailors get erectile dysfunction and even lower sperm counts or problems having children without exposure to radiation. Just like the rest of the population. Being a sailor doesn't make us immune to those things unless we are exposed to radiation.

Some of those may actually have a valid complaint, but they would have had more success simply bringing up those issues and the exposure to the VA or Navy medical than bringing this lawsuit. And I have a huge issue with embellishment or lying or even just misleading or not doing enough research to get it right when it comes to what the claim is being made. The lawsuit that I saw when this first came out claims that there was radiation sickness being experienced by some of these sailors. Radiation sickness is something that comes from very high acute doses of radiation, well above any recorded readings (and we do have detectors onboard our ships) and is very noticeable right away. This would have happened while in the cloud or just after leaving it, not months or years later.

Henry David said:

No way the NRC would let that happen? My Goodness, you're either naïve or simply uninformed.

As for NRC coverups, consider the story from Simi Valley and I think the 'something' Susana sodium-cooled reactor back in about 1959. It was just covered on Modern Marvels last night. By sheer chance I happened upon it.

They lied through their teeth and the radiation in that area has caused all manner of birth defects and other sicknesses.

At least there are no more sodium cooled reactors.

Click to expand...

So his first hand knowledge is trumped by your leftist hand wringing? Please.

US Conservative said:

So his first hand knowledge is trumped by your leftist hand wringing? Please.

Click to expand...

Never mind the absolute and complete history fail at work here.

This was Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experiment was covered up by the NRC in 1959? Absolutely amazing.

Especially since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not even exist until 1974! A full 15 years after the date he gave (which is in itself wrong, the experiment lasted from 1957-1964).

And the cover-up was not about the accident, or by the United States Atomic Energy Commission (the forerunner of the NRC), but the US Department of Energy, which was responsible for the cleaning of the site.

This is why I do not take any of his claims seriously at all. He hears about something somewhere, and can't even bother to do any kind of research to verify his claims. The fact that the NRC did not even exist in 1959 is so incredibly easy to discover, that it shows his complete lack of any kind of even basic research capability.

Oozlefinch said:

Never mind the absolute and complete history fail at work here.

This was Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experiment was covered up by the NRC in 1959? Absolutely amazing.

Especially since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not even exist until 1974! A full 15 years after the date he gave (which is in itself wrong, the experiment lasted from 1957-1964).

And the cover-up was not about the accident, or by the United States Atomic Energy Commission (the forerunner of the NRC), but the US Department of Energy, which was responsible for the cleaning of the site.

This is why I do not take any of his claims seriously at all. He hears about something somewhere, and can't even bother to do any kind of research to verify his claims. The fact that the NRC did not even exist in 1959 is so incredibly easy to discover, that it shows his complete lack of any kind of even basic research capability.

Click to expand...

Facts are an unnecessary impedance to making his point. He's a true believer-no facts needed-just emotion.

roguenuke said:

I worked in nuclear power for the Navy for 10 years. (Hence the "nuke" in my name.) I know exactly what kind of crap we put up with. Things are not covered up. We go through hell for the littlest things. The Navy would have a valid case against Fukushima/the Japanese government if something was really that bad.

Bringing up a case from the 1950s does absolutely nothing to help you. We have made a lot more stringent guidelines since then when it comes to nuclear power.

Click to expand...

You might be right about that, and I fervently hope that you are.

However any blanket statement by anybody suggesting that a government agency does not cover its ass is suspicious right off the bat. Understand it's nothing personal.

For example, when Obama tells me that the NSA is just like Paul Revere, all I can do is laugh, rolling on the floor. There are so many examples of government deception and cover up that I've lost track a long time ago.

Oozlefinch said:

Never mind the absolute and complete history fail at work here.

This was Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experiment was covered up by the NRC in 1959? Absolutely amazing.

Especially since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not even exist until 1974! A full 15 years after the date he gave (which is in itself wrong, the experiment lasted from 1957-1964).

And the cover-up was not about the accident, or by the United States Atomic Energy Commission (the forerunner of the NRC), but the US Department of Energy, which was responsible for the cleaning of the site.

This is why I do not take any of his claims seriously at all. He hears about something somewhere, and can't even bother to do any kind of research to verify his claims. The fact that the NRC did not even exist in 1959 is so incredibly easy to discover, that it shows his complete lack of any kind of even basic research capability.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction Snoozle, on AEC.

Henry David said:

You might be right about that, and I fervently hope that you are.

However any blanket statement by anybody suggesting that a government agency does not cover its ass is suspicious right off the bat. Understand it's nothing personal.

For example, when Obama tells me that the NSA is just like Paul Revere, all I can do is laugh, rolling on the floor. There are so many examples of government deception and cover up that I've lost track a long time ago.

Click to expand...

No government agency would have a need to coverup anything for Fukushima though. Any problems would have been the company's responsibility. If anything, our government would have a case against them and bring up all that happened if it were truly serious. There would be no need not to. We were there to help.