Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum51 Sailors from USS Ronald Reagan Suffering Thyroid Cancer, Leukemia, Brain Tumors After
Participating in Fukushima Nuclear Rescue Efforts
http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/99-pat
"...It looks as though the onboard desalinization systems that take salt out of seawater to make it drinkable, were taking-in radioactive water from the ocean for the crew to drink, cook with and bath-in, before anyone realized there was a massive radiation spill into the ocean.
Charles Bonner, attorney representing sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan said "the crew members were not only going to the rescue by jumping into the water and rescuing people out of the water, but they were drinking desalinated sea water, bathing in it, until finally the captain of the USS Ronald Reagan alarmed people that they were encountering high levels of radiation."
Bonner says that as a result of this exposure, the 51 sailors have come down with a host of medical problems, "They have testicular cancer, they have thyroid cancers, they have leukemias, they have rectal and gynecological bleeding, a host of problems that they did not have before ... people are going blind, pilots who had perfect eyesight but now have tumors on the brain. And it’s only been 3 years since they went in." Bonner pointed out that these service men and women are young people, ages 21, 22, 23 years old and no one in their family had ever suffered any of these kinds of illnesses before...."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)kick
samrock
(590 posts)Are we sure this is a true story???? Why is it not the lead story acrross the country???.. This poor young men/women!!
Make7
(8,550 posts)... to detect events of this nature?
And it did (and it was reported).
This story is nothing but an ambulance chaser making up the best story he can to rake in some settlement. Most of the illnesses he lists aren't even plausibly the result of radiation exposure even at MUCH higher levels.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Although the military has an approach to everything and if the standard procedure doesn't call for checking the water that they take in for desalinization for radioactivity - then unless someone thought to do it, I believe it wouldn't have gotten done.
They certainly should have had the equipment on board. In the army (years ago) we had little badges that changed colors (that as a carpenter I only wore very rarely in NBC training) and I would think everyone on a nuclear vessel would wear something like that, but perhaps not.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)nor is it required for the Majority of the crew. And as far as I remember they monitor the water for contaminates but radiation? I would doubt it but it is possible. However, even the normal drinking water tastes of JP-5 fuel so I have always suspected the water quality to be a little shoddy.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Blanks states
Although the military has an approach to everything and if the standard procedure doesn't call for checking the water that they take in for desalinization for radioactivity - then unless someone thought to do it, I believe it wouldn't have gotten done.
Blanks,
This lawyer-spun story from the Pacific Ocean off Japan SURE SMELLS FISHY.
The actual water discharged by the Fukushima accident wasn't what was radioactive; it was contaminants IN the water.
Just as in salt water; it's NOT the water itself that tastes salty; but the salt that is dissolved IN the water that tastes salty.
The "radioactive water" from Fukushima wasn't radioactive because the H2O molecules were radioactive. The water was radioactive because of radioactive material that was dissolved IN the water just like with the salt.
When you distill salt water; the still separates the water from the dissolved solids. In the case of seawater, the still separates the salt water into water and salt.
In the case of Fukushima water with dissolved radioactive material, the still will separate the water and the radioactive material that was dissolved in it.
It's at THIS point where we find the REALLY BRAINLESS anti-nukes because they will claim that the water "caught radioactivity" as if radioactivity was "contagious". Those anti-nuke have a NON-FUNCTIONAL cerebral cortex since they don't know that radioactivity is NOT "contagious".
I refer all the DUMMIES that might think it is to the book "Physics for Future Presidents" by Professor Richard Muller of University of California - Berkeley Dept. of Physics. There is a section in that book where Professor Muller explains that radioactivity is NOT CONTAGIOUS.
So the USS Ronald Reagan's distillation equipment should have removed the radioactive contamination material with the salt from the ships potable water.
The timescales for these diseases are also suspicious. I would take this story with a good dose of salt; but not salt from the Reagan's still; that might have radioactive contaminants in with it.
PamW
Blanks
(4,835 posts)If the sailors were drinking pure distilled water them certainly there wouldn't be any 'radioactive particles'.
Obviously the water itself didn't catch 'radioactiveness', but I have no familiarity with naval water purification systems. Municipalities frequently use coagulation flocculation (then filters and chlorination) to let solids settle out, so they do not remove ALL of the solids - I figured ships used a similar system which would result in some solids in the water. If it is distilled -then sure, there's no reason to expect the pure H2O will be radioactive.
I agree that this story seems suspiciously like an ambulance chasing scheme, but I don't think we are going to get all the details from one small news story.
bananas
(27,509 posts)"Once the water is made from seawater by a process of reverse osmosis, it is stored in large storage tanks aboard ship, and Howell’s generators have the job of keeping that water purified by killing bacteria and preventing algae formation."
Howell Labs products helping to bring fresh water to Japan’s people
March 24th, 2011
By Gail Geraghty
Staff Writer
A Bridgton business is helping to bring fresh drinking water to the earthquake-beleaguered people of Japan, in the form of water purification equipment that services the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier.
Howe Engineering Company’s “Mixed-Oxidant Elecrolytic Disinfectant Generator” is capable of purifying 400,000 gallons of drinking water a day, and is being used by the U. S. Navy to provide fresh drinking water to earthquake-plagued Japan.
It’s a little-known fact that Howell Laboratories, Inc., just outside downtown Bridgton on the top of Route 117, is one of the top suppliers of water purification technology equipment to the U.S. Navy, and that about half of its business is through government contracts. When the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan was ordered March 12 to lead a task force to help with relief efforts in Japan, it carried in its hold water that was kept purified by four “Mixed-Oxidant Electrolytic Disinfectant Generators” (MEDGs) manufactured by the 60 employees who work at the Bridgton plant.
<snip>
Howell’s generators, which produce a mixed oxidant that purifies the water, are in use on most of the United States’ aircraft carriers, as well as many of the Navy’s Destroyer-class warships and San Antonio-class amphibious transport ships. Howell’s Model 7060 generators are capable of purifying up to 400,000 gallons of drinking water a day — a very large amount indeed.
“One of the features of our equipment that are of appeal in a disaster situation is the fact that they can produce large quantities of fresh drinking water,” Wescott said. In non-disaster situations, the generators are used to keep the water that’s used by those who serve aboard the aircraft carriers pure and ready to drink. Once the water is made from seawater by a process of reverse osmosis, it is stored in large storage tanks aboard ship, and Howell’s generators have the job of keeping that water purified by killing bacteria and preventing algae formation.
<snip>
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)According to the EPA, the following treatment method(s) have proven to be effective in removing radionuclides at levels below their MCLs:
Beta particle and Photon Radiation: ion exchange and reverse osmosis;
(Gross) Alpha Emitters: reverse osmosis;
Radium 226 and Radium 228 (Combined): ion exchange, reverse osmosis, lime softening;
Uranium: Ion exchange, reverse osmosis, lime softening, coagulation/filtration.
Dr. Fenwick has also released this statement:
"Radioactivity (its sources, the decay process, transmission, protection, and disposal) is an unquestionably complex topic. The information provided here is admittedly, and necessarily, very general. The largest concern in drinking water after a meltdown is likely the presence of Uranium, although there are many additional sources (Plutonium, Radium, Cesium, etc.). We do not specifically test for the reduction of these materials, nor are there NSF standards/ protocols. With that said, heavier radionuclides, like those listed above, are likely reduced with our blocks, specifically those blocks that are certified for lead reduction.
"Three important notes: 1. As always, efficacy and lifetime will depend on several factors (compounds’ unique properties, concentration in the influent water, water chemistry, etc.). 2. In addition to those listed above, several other “daughter” nuclides/ radionuclides (products of the decay process) of various chemistries/ classes will have various reduction efficacies. Commenting on these is not possible. 3. Unlike other non-radioactive contaminants (Lead, Mercury, Arsenic, VOCs, other organics), removal from the water, and thus concentration in the block, may not be sufficient for the radioactive elements/ compounds. They continue to emit radiation even when removed/ immobilized. Based on these issues, and the EPA testing and “endorsement,” reverse osmosis is a more bona fide technology in this case.”
bananas
(27,509 posts)In the discussion you linked to is a link to
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/dw/publications/ontap/2009_tb/radionuclides_DWFSOM45.pdf
which says:
tively removes many inorganic contaminants,
including heavy metals and radionuclides, such
as radium and uranium. RO can remove 87 to
98 percent of radium from drinking water. Similar
elimination can be achieved for alpha particle
activity and total beta and photon emitter activity.
When using an RO system to remove radionuclides,
performance depends on a number of factors,
including pH, turbidity, iron/manganese content
of the raw water, and membrane type. The pre-
treatment design depends on the quality and
quantity of the source water. Existing treatment
plants may already provide much of the required
pretreatment—for example, coagulation/filtration
of highly turbid surface water or iron removal for
well waters. RO can be cost effective for small
systems.
NickB79
(20,329 posts)The symptoms they're reporting would be unlikely to occur in only 3 years even if they were drinking heavily contaminated water.
To expect that, with an 87-98% purification rate from the ship's RO system, they'd have these symptoms pop up this early, and at this high of a rate, is even harder to believe.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)what isotopes, if there are any pretreatment procedures in effect on that boat.
You could than check how dangerous/safe that drinking water was according to the worst case scenario.
87-98% reduction of radioactivity level in drinking water to me looks like excellent result.
For example, lets check it against this article (bolding is mine):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/radiation-fukushima-high_n_4075066.html
Cesium-134 readings were 370 becquerels per litre while Cesium-137 was 830/litre within a silt fence right outside the reactor building. Regulatory limits for Cesium, which emits a strong gamma radiation and is harmful to the human body, is 90 bq/litre for Cesium-137 and 60 bq/litre for Cesium-134.
Assuming worst case scenario as no pre-treatment, water comes from within silt fence with the radioactivity levels from the article:
1200-1200/100*87=1200-12*87=1200-1044=156
90+60=150
Meaning that it's still safe to drink even that water after running it through RO unit.
This is not a "binary" decision - radioactive vs "not radioactive".
The water that you drink at home. The water that you find in a clear mountain stream are RADIOACTIVE to a degree.
It's a "fool's errand" if you think that you can live your life away from radioactivity. Mother Nature makes it all around us.
The question is "How radioactive"; what are the NUMBERS
Without a quantitative determination of the radioactivity, we really can't answer the questions posed.
The above poster, idwiyo; is asking precisely the correct question.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)This exercise of trying to pretend that the only route of exposure was drinking water lacks any credibility at all.
Unless evidence can be presented that they were taking prophylactic and decontamination measures the evidence suggests they were almost certain working, eating, drinking and sleeping in a contaminated environment. The filtering system could be working 100% and that doesn't do squat if contamination is falling off the skin, clothing and hair of the persons preparing and serving the food and water, or the deposition that occurs directly from the unfiltered air into a glass of water.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)anything but water purification. In general, not in a specific instance.
Other sources of contamination were/are discussed elsewhere in this OP.
As per the above, not sure what your outrage is about exactly?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It isn't outrage; it is simple recognition of a red herring when I see it.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Rather than a "red herring"... it's actually an exercise in grasping at straws.
The attorney invented it out of whole cloth as a way to claim that some of his clients could have been exposed to dangerous radiation.
It appears that you don't remember the reporting from the days right after 3/11 and are piecing your understanding together from guesses based on the assumption that the lawyer's fantasy represents reality.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You really need to learn a new trick. You've been using character assassination on anyone that dares challenge the nuclear industry for so long it writes itself for you. Do you have a prepared template where you just substitute the name of the moment?
Here, tell us how corruption, stupidity, confusion, antinuclear bias, and hatred of humankind are behind the opposition to nuclear power of 5 former Japanese Prime Ministers (including one of the architects of Japan's nuclear program).
"So Koizumi's opposition to the nuclear village’s agenda is consistent with the mindset of other former prime ministers once they were out of the bubble of policymaking dominated by vested interests and concerns about their income streams."
In context:
The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 11, Issue 50, No.3, December 16, 2013.
Andrew DeWit
Japan’s former Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro has repeatedly called for current Prime Minister Abe Shinzo to make an explicit decision to get out of nuclear power. Koizumi’s full-scale press conference on this matter, held on November 12 in front of 350 journalists, shook up the Abe cabinet. It continues to do so, judging by the tendentious commentary it continues to attract. Koizumi forced the cabinet to address an item they clearly wanted to finesse for the time being.1 But the substance of Koizumi’s over hour-long event has not yet received the attention it merits. This article puts Koizumi’s talk in context, showing that his position is shared by all the former Japanese prime ministers, including Nakasone Yasuhiro. Most important, contrary to the claim that Japan’s choice is either gas or nuclear, Koizumi highlighted the ongoing deployment of radical efficiency and renewable energy as the proper path forward. And the accelerating rollout of smart cities across Japan suggests that Koizumi and his colleagues are standing on the right side of history.
Koizumi’s motives for speaking out continue to be the subject of speculation in the Japanese media, including a paranoid claim that he must be in hock to the US shale gas lobby.2 But one of Koizumi’s most fervent supporters is PM Abe’s own wife, Abe Akie, a significant political figure in her own right and one very knowledgeable about energy alternatives.3 Koizumi’s anti-nuclear position is also not a sudden development or apparently one driven by pecuniary self-interest. Koizumi has been publicly mooting his concerns about nuclear power since at least 2012, and during early August of 2013 went on a fact-finding mission (with the nuclear engineers of Hitachi, Toshiba and Mitsubishi) to Germany and Finland.4 Koizumi also alienated the 80 establishment firms, including prominent members from the nuclear village, grouped in the Centre for International Public Policy Studies set up in March of 2007 with YEN 1.8 billion of their funding and Koizumi as chairman.5
Nor is Koizumi the odd-man-out, at least in the league of present and former PMs. Rather, Abe is: former Prime Ministers Nakasone Yasuhiro, Hatoyama Yukio, Noda Yoshihiko, and Kan Naoto have all also expressed opposition to nuclear power and declared that that Japan must pursue alternatives. Nakasone's statement was especially surprising, because he was one of the father's of Japan's nuclear effort. Yet at a June 26, 2011 "Solar Economy Kanagawa" conference held in Yokohama, Nakasone declared that "nuclear power damages humankind" and called for a large-scale cultural shift to harvesting energy while co-existing with nature.6
So Koizumi's opposition to the nuclear village’s agenda is consistent with the mindset of other former prime ministers once they were out of the bubble of policymaking dominated by vested interests and concerns about their income streams. What makes Koizumi’s position stand out is the fact that he is enormously popular, even though he left the office of Prime Minister seven years ago. PM Abe is indeed Koizumi's protegé, and leads a party in which there are already widespread misgivings about the commitment to restarts and talk of new reactor construction.7
One core argument of the narrative that would dismiss Koizumi’s intervention as “emotional” is that it offered no alternatives. This assertion is nonsense. ...
http://japanfocus.org/-Andrew-DeWit/4049
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Or was it just more spam?
It isn't "character assasination"... it's an obvious fact. You're making assumptions that clearly imply that you weren't paying attention at the time or simply forgot.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You are trying to minimize the impact on the nuclear industry. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you have evidence to back the slander produce it.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)As always... I'm correcting errors. I've done that for both pro and anti nuclear stories here for years. These are simple factual corrections, not opinion.
"Character assasination" is much closer to your own MO... where the speakers positions drive your perception of credibility.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)To determine that there was a hole in the permeable membrane.
A properly functioning reverse osmosis water purification system keeps out extremely small particles, so is it possible that the 'screen' was compromised in which case it might take a while to detect (depending on the detection method) that it wasn't working correctly. If the detection is done by taste it might take a while before anyone notices a taste difference. Since a huge volume of water is stored it would slowly mix with the existing purified water before anyone noticed. Even if a hole in the permeable membrane was noticed almost immediately - I'd be surprised if they dumped out a slightly diluted mixture of purified water since they have to treat the water for microorganisms anyway (which would be a bigger concern than a lightly salted water supply).
If that's the case, there may be something to this. Of course I'm just speculating, but if there were a hole in the membrane and a mixture of radioactive and fuel/lubricant chemicals were allowed into the water supply even for a brief period of time the combination of toxic chemicals and radioactive materials would compromise the immune system of the host and that would better explain the symptoms that others are saying are not caused typically by radiation poisoning.
Of course if that's the case - the liability really isn't the utility company, but rather the manufacturer of the reverse osmosis machine and the folks involved in maintaining the system.
bananas
(27,509 posts)In growing lawsuit, servicemembers fault TEPCO for radiation-related illnesses
By Matthew M. Burke
Stars and Stripes
Published: July 15, 2013
<snip>
Sailors were drinking desalinated seawater and bathing in it until the ship’s leadership came over the public address system and told them to stop because it was contaminated, Hair said. They were told the ventilation system was contaminated, and he claims he was pressured into signing a form that said he had been given an iodine pill even though none had been provided. As a low-ranking sailor, he believed he had no choice.
The Navy has acknowledged that the Reagan passed through a plume of radiation but declined to comment on the details in Hair’s story.
<snip>
U.S. wasn't fully prepared for radiation risks following Japan earthquake, top general says
By Seth Robson
Stars and Stripes
Published: July 27, 2011
In the first few days of Japan’s nuclear crisis this spring, the U.S. military wasn’t fully prepared to deal with possible radiation exposure to its troops and equipment, the top U.S. general in Japan said Wednesday.
<snip>
“As the (Fukushima Dai-ichi) reactors exploded and they sent some of that radiation out, we had the issue with it being detected off shore by the Navy,” he said. “We had to start dealing with the kind of environment that the U.S. military had not really worked in, so we didn’t have the strictest guidelines on what kind of risk we would take in terms of radiation exposure for our (service) members.”
Servicemembers didn’t initially know what kind of contamination procedures they would have to use for equipment that was going to be exposed to the radiation, he said.
“We had really no idea of the level which that contamination was going to rise to and the radiation was going to rise to,” he said. “The impact it was going to have in the short or long term was uncertain.”
<snip>
Both articles via http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/271-38/21022-us-navy-sailors-sue-tepco-over-cluster-fukushima-snafu
bananas
(27,509 posts)After folding the flag, he went out to eat with his buddy. The two joked about growing extra fingers and toes, Enis said. Talk of a radiation leak had begun spreading onboard, despite being downplayed by officials. On a whim, the friends decided to get checked for radiation. His friend tested clean, but the geiger went crazy on Enis' hands.
"Instantly, we went from smiling to just being nervous and scared," Enis recalled. "No one told me at the time what was going on."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/fukushima-navy-health-problems_n_2855529.html
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Which would mean he almost certainly ingested contaminates.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)US sailors sue Japan's TEPCO for post-quake radiation exposure
Source: NBC News
Dec 28, 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014349678
San Diego sailor angered over Japan radiation exposure
Source: KGTV
Dec 29, 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014350902
U.S. Navy Sailor: Our digital watches stopped working when offshore Fukushima after 3/11 - "We were
Mar 19, 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101658495
valerief
(53,235 posts)
FarPoint
(14,744 posts)This is a good story but a link is essential.
bananas
(27,509 posts)It's a podcast audio interview:
December 10, 2013
Nuclear Hotseat #129: US Sailors Vs. TEPCO Attorney Charles Bonner
<snip>
INTERVIEW: Attorney Charles Bonner, one of the team representing sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan in their lawsuit against TEPCO for the health damages they sustained from Fukushima radiation during Operation Tomadachi, the humanitarian aid mission to Japan immediately after the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
<snip>
bananas
(27,509 posts)Another 20 Navy Sailors: USS Ronald Reagan crew with thyroid cancers, leukemia, brain tumors, bleeding, blindness after Fukushima disaster — Young kids developing problems — Gov’t and Tepco involved in major conspiracy (AUDIO)
Published: December 12th, 2013 at 1:02 am ET
By ENENews
137 comments
Nuclear Hotseat #129, Dec. 10, 2013:
At 27:00 in
Charles Bonner, attorney representing sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan: They’re not only going to the rescue by jumping into the water and rescuing people out of the water, but they were drinking desalinated sea water, bathing in it, until finally the captain of the USS Ronald Reagan alarmed people that they were encountering high levels of radiation. As a result of this exposure, the 51 sailors that we represent right now have come down with a host of medical problems, including cancers and leukemias, all kinds of gynecological problems (...) people who are going blind, pilots who had perfect eyesight but now have tumors on the brain. These service men and women are young people 21, 22, 23 years old and no one in their family had ever (inaudible) any of these kinds of illnesses before.
At 33:00
Bonner: These sailors had none of these kind of medical problems, now they have back pains, memory loss, severe anxiety. They have testicular cancer, they have thyroid cancers, they have leukemias, they have a host of problems, rectal and gynecological bleeding, a host of problems that they did not have before (...) And it’s only been 3 years since they went in. (...) The Japanese government is in a major conspiracy with Tepco to hide and conceal the true facts.
At 34:30 in
Bonner: We’ll be adding approximately 20 sailors, bringing the total number in the lawsuit to 70 to 75.
At 47:30 in
Bonner: 21 and 22 year-olds who are just beginning to start their lives, start their families, and many have little children and now they’re sick. They are going constantly to the doctors, their children are sick — we even have small children as some of our plaintiffs, because they too have developed problems.
Full interview available here
kristopher
(29,798 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)I googled a few of the key words and there were several other sources.
I'd never heard of this site. I always like to make sure someone else is covering a story before I pay it much attention.
this is what I still get.....I'll check the other links provided by fellow DU'ers. I wanted to post on Facebook.
http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/errorhandler?hspart=visicom&hsimp=yhse-lavasoft&type=lavasoft__adawarebp__1_0_1_106__yhse__antiphishing_dn__rp&q=www.turnerradionetwork.comnews99-pat
bananas
(27,509 posts)It links to the enenews article and to the nuclear hotseat podcast - they are all good sites which I recommend:
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/12/13/more-usa-sailors-afflicted-by-exposure-to-fukushima-radiation/
Thank you.
bananas
(27,509 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)<snip>
In a Reddit thread about the case, several sailors who participated in the rescue mission expressed concern that their involvement was not noted in their Navy medical records:
ankyle
What concerns me is that those of us who have transferred don't have anything marked in our medical records.
2 DAYS AGO
I did bring it up, during my last PHA and the doc asked "are you having symptoms?" and I haven't, and didn't, and so he wasn't overly concerned.
14 HOURS AGO
<snip>
FarPoint
(14,744 posts)Damn! Why has the US media ignored this serious crisis? Al Jazeera is doing a great job but has limited respect as of yet with mainstream USA. Maybe if we all keep sharing the information in social media, the US news sources will have to pick it up. 
NickB79
(20,329 posts)And that right there is why this story sounds suspicious.
Almost none of the symptoms they've listed would be present this early after exposure, and some of them are not typical of radiation poisoning. Even thyroid cancers around Chernobyl in children (the most susceptible group) took several years to develop, often not manifesting until they were entering or into their teens.
ninjanurse
(129 posts)Check out Hal Turner on Wikipedia for more background on the Turner Radio Network. I got arrested at Seabrook in 1977, but I don't buy into every right wing conspiracy theorist who happens to run anti-nuclear stories. Read Japanese sites like Asahi Shimbun. The mainstream media coverage is scary enough if you go beyond the US press.
bananas
(27,509 posts)The Nuclear Hotseat podcast seems to be the original source, it's an audio interview with the attorney.
Enenews picked it up, which is where I first saw it.
Nuclear-news.net picked it up from enenews.
None of those are right-wing sites, but a lot of people follow them, left right and center, because mainstream reporting has been so awful.
And with Japan's new secrecy laws, the reporting will just get worse.
penndragon69
(788 posts)seam to think these people are lying and making shit up?
Corporate media will not say anything about it because it would
look bad for the war mongers and corporate profiteers.
Just another example of the wealthy elitist's trhowing
the peasants under the bus to protect their wealth
and power.
Sham on you people.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)They consider it their mission to sanitize any information that reflects poorly on the nuclear industry; they are also diligent in attacking renewable energy as a solution to global warming since that is the primary competition for the industry.
NickB79
(20,329 posts)Some of the symptoms the OP is reporting are not typically associated with exposure to radioactive contamination. The ones that are, typically take longer than 3 years to manifest themselves even at exposure rates far above what these sailors would have been exposed to.
Hell, the adolescents in the USSR that were exposed to fallout from Chernobyl typically didn't start developing thyroid cancer or leukemia until they were in their teens, and they generally had higher overall exposures than these sailors.
jmowreader
(53,155 posts)I posted this in another thread...but these are symptoms of chronic exposure to petroleum products, which an aircraft carrier handles and stores in abundance. Someone needs to look at what parts of the ship these guys frequented (there are pilots in this mix; they certainly go into the aviation spaces frequently) and start looking for signs of badly-wiped-up big-ass puddles of turbine oil, hydraulic fluid and jet fuel.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)yes there are leaks, spills and they are dealt with extremely quick. Believe it or not there is a whole division that runs around looking for these types of safety violations and they don't mess around.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)just like in a car garage, is constantly exposed to this stuff.
Absorbed through skin and breathing, it is deadly.
Either way they shouldn't be getting sick; it's a horror.
A privileged few are allowed to poison this entire planet
with no consequences except maybe eventual extinction
of their descendents, along with everyone else's.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)funny how this one ship has a spike all of a sudden? My experience working on a carrier for over 10 years is not the image you have in your head. It isn't a nasty leaking grease factory. It is actually amazingly clean and tidy. Something about having months on end to eat, sleep, clean and work 12/7 for months on end. Weekly inspections that very few households could pass, and general pride in not living in a dumb that is greasy, nasty. It is home and people don't generally like to have a nasty home.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I'm surprised we're not hearing much more about that.
Well.. not surprised. No need to get all the peasants
worried.
edit to add.. I actually have an image closer to what
you describe.. shiny, spanking clean & orderly.
NickB79
(20,329 posts)An aircraft carrier has an entire division of hardass safety officers watching for puddles of spilled aviation fuel, but no one noticed the water purification system wasn't working properly?
A lot of things aren't adding up in this story.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)so normal readings for bacteria, PH, sediments were most likely adhered to. Considering the volume of seawater pumped in and the ran through electrolysis it would be a closed system and would use electronic monitoring. Considering nuclear waste is not a common element found in the oceans, maybe they thought not to check for it? However now that nuclear waste is becoming acceptable in our oceans and water tables, maybe they can start monitoring it and issue a hardy, hey don't drink that it's not that good for you. Meh. Ok drink it because well there isn't anything else to drink, until we invent Bwando, cause well it's got electrolytes. Or maybe toilet water.
Every department has safety personnel, that report to the division( we were an air group) which has their own complement of safety personnel, which reports to the Carrier or Battle Group which reports to one of the regional Naval Commands, which also has safety personnel. etc etc ad infinitum. Not all are Officers , I think their are probably more enlisted. They don't tend to be hardass, just efficient and good at their jobs.
PamW
(1,825 posts)MyName,
Nuclear waste may be new to the oceans; but certainly NOT radioactivity. There's more radioactivity in the oceans courtesy of Mother Nature than could EVER come from Fukushima. People have to get out of this mode of "thinking" that the oceans and environment is radiologically "pristine".
I've cited here before the article from Prof. Muller that radiation levels in Denver are 3 TIMES HIGHER than those in Fukushima are now.
Radiation has ALWAYS been with us; you just didn't know it.
PamW
So I have a proposal for you.I want to start a fund for a plane ticket to see you swim in the waters right next to the Fukushima plant. Just a nice 1 hour swim. Afterwards I would like for you to submit to a radiation level detection test. What do you say? I am sure we could start this on kickstarter or something.
SO in this image you would swim right in the black part near that pretty violet area. Oh and no protection suits. That's cheating. Afterwards you could maybe catch a fish or two and have the local delicacy of raw fish. Take a spear gun with you.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)It isn't what you think it is.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)other than the location of where the person should swim. It may be some temperature chart or wave chart for all i know. The effect was what I was looking for. But thanks for coming along for the ride.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)simple map that shows location?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Google led me to wikipedia page of Hal Turner
Harold Charles "Hal" Turner (born March 15, 1962) is an American white nationalist, Holocaust denier[1] and blogger from North Bergen, New Jersey. In August 2010, he was convicted for making threats against three federal judges with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to Turner's arrest, his radio program, The Hal Turner Show, was a webcast from his home once a week.
... snippety ...
Turner claims he established a friendship with Sean Hannity,[3] on whose radio program he had once been a frequent presence.[4] In 2008, while Hannity and Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party were debating Barack Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright, Shabazz asked Hannity if he should "be judged by (his) promotion and association with Hal Turner". Hannity began to say that he didn't know Turner, but then said he was someone he had banned from his radio program ten years before. Turner subsequently gave an account of their association on his website, in which he said of Hannity's response: "I was quite disappointed when Sean Hannity at first tried to say he didn't know me. In fact, Sean does know me and we were quite friendly a few years ago."[5][6] Phil Boyce, Program Director of WABC, disputed the account, which described a friendship developing between Turner and Hannity in 1993, three years before Hannity was actually hired at WABC.[7]
much more at page.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner
(not saying this isn't true information about the sailors
but I keep encountering this guy as a source for extreme-
things-the-government-isn't-telling-us.)
MADem
(135,425 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)First let me say that the discussion about water treatment, while relevant, is only a small part of the picture.
The (1990) manual points out many opportunities for bacterial contamination exist throughout the desalinization and distribution process. It doesn't discuss radiological contaminants, so it is unknown whether the procedures detailed are adequate for that problem.
It also states the uses for non-potable water, providing another route of possible contamination.
6. Seawater (non-potable) is used aboard ships in the fire mains and for general sanitary purposes. Since conservation of potable water is a constant requirement, it is impractical to provide potable water for all purposes. Therefore, it is necessary to use sea water under certain controlled circumstances, such as: flushing weather decks, water closets, urinals and garbage chutes; decontamination showers; and laundering. Water in harbors or off-shore from habitations and when operating in fleet strength must be considered polluted and unfit for uses other than in fire and flushing systems and must not be used for other purposes. If it is necessary in an emergency situation to produce water from contaminated sources, the Medical Department must insure that increased surveillance of the system is instituted.
To me, post 11 above is most telling.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112759940#post11
The description of exposure to airborne fallout is unmistakable; as is the lack of a regime for protection and decontamination for those exposed.
The statement describes a clear route for ingestion/inhalation of fallout. That would be extant both during outdoor activities as well as continued exposure to fallout carried by the hair and clothing. Unless the interior of the ship was sealed and operating on purified air before exposure began, it too was contaminated, including living quarters, mess areas, recreational areas and work stations. It isn't that difficult to protect against fallout if you are ready for it and know it is coming, but if you walk into a situation like this blindly all of that is irrelevant.
Many moons ago before the Cold War ended, recurrent training in decontamination procedures was a standard part of military training designed for the laughable goal of surviving a nuclear exchange; I was in charge of a team and its training for a couple of years. Respirators and protective clothing, sealed living quarters working and food prep areas as well as their desalinated water supplies are all relevant and important. I definitely wouldn't want to be these guys if they were in the path of a fallout cloud and were not taking explicit precautions to deal with it.
The real question here is why, if they were in a fallout cloud (and that doesn't seem to be disputed since the Captain of the ship acknowledged it), didn't they know it was there? The answer is we don't know at this point.
We do know, however, that the crew wasn't following decontamination protocols if the description of the retrieval of the flag is accurate. And if they were as blind to the problem as that indicates, then the problem was widespread.
Why did that happen? Well that problem could have its origins in the behavior of the Japanese. They had a system (called SPEEDI wasn't it?) for tracking the route of releases, but didn't warn the Japanese public that fallout was headed their way. It seems extremely plausible, therefore, that the US Navy was similarly kept in the dark and entered the area thinking there wasn't a need at that location to deploy monitoring equipment.
I hope this case is well covered in public media; I'd really like to know what happened.
See also: Onboard systems don't always provide clean, safe water
Sep 23, 2010 CAPT. KELLY SWEENEY
http://www.professionalmariner.com/December-January-2010/Onboard-systems-don-226-128-153t-always-provide-clean-safe-water/
NNadir
(37,944 posts)all the other scary stuff that people who know no science dream up.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)They are probably faking it just to make your nuclear industry look bad. I'm sure the fact that the mainland was saved from the worst of the fallout by fortuitous wind patterns blowing the fallout out to sea where the ship was located has absolutely no bearing on the situation.
Those damned antinuke liberal bastids will do anything just to irritate you, right?
NNadir
(37,944 posts)...you now feel qualified to announce that all liberals are anti-nukes.
One can never be too shocked at what dribbles out of the mouths of anti-nukes, who spend their days trying to prove that someone, anyone, died from Fukushima, so as to justify all the oil, coal and gas they've burned to prove the not provable point.
As for humanism and decency, two things defining the liberal viewpoint:
Each person of course, makes his or her own judgments of what qualifies as decency. For me, decency was always represented by the 25th article of the Declaration of Human Rights, written by Eleanor Roosevelt and approved by the United Nations in 1948, albeit, regrettably, being honored more in breach than in practice.
It reads as follows:
Now, I would wager that someone who has pushed, in service of fear and ignorance, to double the electricity rates in Germany isn't actually working to provide a right to a standard of living adequate to health and well being, at least not for poor people.
...Neither is an oblivious fool of the type who, on a planet where more than 2 billion people have never operated a flush toilet, keeps pushing the world to spend hundreds of billions of euros, hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions of yen and yuan on a faith based solar scheme that can't even produce one exajoule of the 538 exajoules humanity consumed in 2011 (with a higher amount) almost certainly being consumed in 2013...
...we won't even comment about the people living in low lying areas facing the effects of climate change...
...or the more than 3 million people who die each year from indoor air pollution as a result of using "renewable biomass..."
If I were you, I'd stick to hawking $137,500 BMW i8 sports cars for millionaires and billionaires.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112758407
You know as much about liberalism, especially as defined in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as you know about energy and epidemiology, which is not much.
For the record, the inventors of nuclear reactors, men like Fermi, Wigner, Weinberg, Dyson were mostly liberals, all of them smarter - infinitely so - than the little dogmatic scientifically illiterate anti-nukes who populate this space. There is not one anti-nuke on this website who could pass a college level physics course, zero, zip.
Thanks for the comment and for contributing to this festival of fear and ignorance. If nothing else, you're consistent, which would be amusing were it not so dire.
Have a nice evening.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)This is how you betray your true intentions. It isn't important to you that the more than 80% of carbon emissions from the personal transportation sector accounts for more than 3X the carbon than your entire nuclear fleet displaces. So when you deride the most promising solution to eliminating those emissions to take cheap shots, what does that say about your real agenda?
In addition to the potential emissions savings in the transportation sector, moving to electric vehicles dramatically decreases the costs of revamping the electric sector by integrating massive storage and demand response capabilities into the emerging systems of distributed renewable generation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112758909
Your faux concern for the poor and underprivileged also appears to be self serving. It is incongruent with the everything we know and contradicts the movements that you are co-opt as a source of moral authority.
Public document
Policy Brief #2: Recommendations on Energy for the UN General Assembly Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG on SDGs)
The recommendations on energy presented here have been compiled from three civil society consultations conducted by UN-NGLS from 2012-2013: a teleconference-based consultation that resulted in the report Advancing Regional Recommendations on the Post-2015 Agenda; an online consultation on four post-2015 reports to the Secretary-General; and a teleconference and meeting-based consultation on the UN Secretary-General’s Sustainable Energy for All Initiative. This brief also draws on the Women’s Major Group energy recommendations for the OWG on SDGs.
Civil society organizations (CSOs) recognize that several sets of proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have included a goal on energy, often incorporating the three targets used by the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative:
a) ensuring universal access to modern energy services;
b) doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency; and
c) doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
Among CSOs, there is widespread support for including a goal on energy in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. The significant majority of organizations, however, are not satisfied with the proposed goals so far, and advocate for more comprehensive, specific and ambitious targets. Consistent with the prevailing call from CSOs for the post-2015 development agenda to take a human rights-based approach, consultation participants asserted that all energy policy and implementation by the private and public sector must be consistent with existing UN human rights commitments. CSOs resoundingly called for energy targets to include a strong focus on reducing emissions and excessive energy use in the industrialized world. They further advocated that governments must promote development and energy generation that does not result in dangerous by-products, particularly those with the capacity to trigger global-level destruction. Detailed recommendations are presented below, organized according to the following five objectives:
1. Achieving universal energy access;
2. Ensuring clean, safe, and locally appropriate energy generation;
3. Advancing energy efficiency;
4. Enabling effective financing for energy; and
5. Establishing the roles of stakeholders.
1. Achieving Universal Energy Access
a) Address energy access as a common good to be provided as a public service.
b) Agree to a global energy access standard that incorporates civil society definitions of energy access and sustainability, such as Practical Action’s Total Energy Access Standards.
c) Design impact metrics that measure social and economic benefits of energy access, using a participatory approach. Measure progress at least by the number of people able to access energy services that meet or exceed a minimum agreed international standard for lighting, cooking, heating, cooling, and communications.
d) Prioritize access to free energy for the energy-deprived, and modernization of traditionally free and local energy sources. Reduce energy waste to support affordability and maximize availability, through measures such as retrofits to homes and businesses. Affordability must be the fundamental consideration in delivering sustainable energy access.
e) Centre energy access strategies and implementation on equity. Mainstream gender issues and women’s empowerment in discussions about sustainable energy and reducing poverty.
f) Ensure energy access and control over energy choices for people living in poverty, in line with the principle of energy sovereignty. Link the term “sustainable energy” to peoples’ capacity to design, manage, operate, and maintain energy facilities. Fund and support local capacity building to enable the achievement of energy objectives.
g) Promote regional energy access project incubators; build cooperatives to increase impacts of energy projects.
h) Use a variety of efficient energy sources, equipment and appliances at a variety of scales, as the traditional power sector alone will not and cannot deliver an end to energy poverty. On-, off- and mini- grid approaches, and a variety of cooking and mechanical power options, will be required to create universal energy access. 55% of the new generating capacity created over the coming years will need to be mini-grid or off-grid if the goal of universal access is to be achieved by 2030.1
i) Implement climate resilient energy sources to meet the goal of universal access. According to International Energy Agency reports, this will require off-grid renewable solutions.
j) As appropriate, adapt and innovate existing energy solutions to respond to new contexts. Effective business strategies of many “socially-oriented energy enterprises, organizations and financiers that understand the energy needs of low-income consumers in developing countries” are described in the World Resources Institute (WRI) report Implementation Strategies for Renewable Energy Services in Low-Income, Rural Areas.
k) To scale up energy service delivery, implement predictable, supportive and consistent government policy and regulation that prioritizes or incentivizes energy access.
l) Avoid nuclear energy in plans for energy access. Particularly in developing countries, nuclear energy is an impractical and dangerous choice due to its excessive and growing upfront costs; inability to compete with more cost-effective, fuel-free energy sources (wind and solar) and demand- reduction/management strategies; long construction periods (see 2.f below); poor economic performance in terms of cost per job created; legacy costs for management of radioactive waste (hazardous for millennia), decommissioning and environmental remediation; and security costs including protection against nuclear proliferation risk. In addition, the economic impact of nuclear accidents – overwhelming even for the advanced industrial nations – would easily outstretch the economic and technical capacity of most nations. Nuclear generation supply is declining in nearly all nations where the industry is most advanced,2 and recent attempts to revive it have failed primarily due to economic factors. Other environmental trends resulting from climate change – such as surface water warming, drought, and sea-level rise – will exacerbate this trend in the coming years by reducing the generation capacity, reliability, and revenues of nuclear units, while raising their operating costs. Countries building new nuclear reactors are disregarding the economic and safety liabilities. Small modular nuclear reactors must not be promoted as a form of distributed generation as “vendors are cutting corners on important reactor safety features, such as containment structures,” to save capital costs, and any generic defects in mass-produced modular units would spread throughout the entire reactor fleet.3
Lots more - download full text: http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/unnlgsbriefforowgenergynov2013.pdf
NNadir
(37,944 posts)It's 2013. I personally have been listening to crap about solar and wind powered electric cars my whole damn adult life, and I'm not young. Let me ask you: Has all this talk slowed or increased the rate of dangerous fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere?
Don't know? Don't care?
Do you have any clue how many cars operate on this planet?
Any idea about where the lanthanides might come from to replace all them with the dumb electric cars that people burn gas, oil and coal to fantasize about?
Do you have any clue that there are billions of people on this planet for cars are completely irrelevant, because they're more concerned about owning a clean glass of water?
No? You don't know about any of these things?
Why am I not surprised?
I have an idea. Why don't you express your obliviousness, and inability to have an original thought by posting even more cut and paste crap that no one actually reads.
Have a nice afternoon. Take that wind and solar powered Tesla out for a spin, and be sure to throw quarters at poor people as you speed by.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,117 posts)Posts 8, 9 and 36 all provide alternatives. Hal Turner is a despicable human being (see posts 14 and 27) who should not be linked to under any circumstances. He lies, and he wants people to visit his site to spread hatred and make money.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Holy shit, why is this crap allowed to be posted here?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The fact that it is a repost by a site some consider disreputable is dealt with in the thread by showing a number of other places it was posted as well as tracking it back to the original.
Haven't looked at the turner site myself because I trust the comments enough to not want to fund it, but, here are some alternative places to read about the story from bananas in the thread above:
Post 8 by bananas
It's a podcast audio interview:
http://www.nuclearhotseat.com/nuclear-hotseat-129-us-sailors-vs-tepco-attorney-charles-bonner/
December 10, 2013
Nuclear Hotseat #129: US Sailors Vs. TEPCO Attorney Charles Bonner
<snip>
INTERVIEW: Attorney Charles Bonner, one of the team representing sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan in their lawsuit against TEPCO for the health damages they sustained from Fukushima radiation during Operation Tomadachi, the humanitarian aid mission to Japan immediately after the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
<snip>
Post 9 by bananas
http://enenews.com/another-20-navy-sailors-uss-ronald-reagan-crew-with-thyroid-cancer-leukemia-brain-tumors-bleeding-blindness-children-becoming-sick-after-responding-to-311-crisis-japan-govt-and-tepc
Another 20 Navy Sailors: USS Ronald Reagan crew with thyroid cancers, leukemia, brain tumors, bleeding, blindness after Fukushima disaster — Young kids developing problems — Gov’t and Tepco involved in major conspiracy (AUDIO)
Published: December 12th, 2013 at 1:02 am ET
By ENENews
137 comments
Nuclear Hotseat #129, Dec. 10, 2013:
At 27:00 in
Charles Bonner, attorney representing sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan: They’re not only going to the rescue by jumping into the water and rescuing people out of the water, but they were drinking desalinated sea water, bathing in it, until finally the captain of the USS Ronald Reagan alarmed people that they were encountering high levels of radiation. As a result of this exposure, the 51 sailors that we represent right now have come down with a host of medical problems, including cancers and leukemias, all kinds of gynecological problems (...) people who are going blind, pilots who had perfect eyesight but now have tumors on the brain. These service men and women are young people 21, 22, 23 years old and no one in their family had ever (inaudible) any of these kinds of illnesses before.
At 33:00
Bonner: These sailors had none of these kind of medical problems, now they have back pains, memory loss, severe anxiety. They have testicular cancer, they have thyroid cancers, they have leukemias, they have a host of problems, rectal and gynecological bleeding, a host of problems that they did not have before (...) And it’s only been 3 years since they went in. (...) The Japanese government is in a major conspiracy with Tepco to hide and conceal the true facts.
At 34:30 in
Bonner: We’ll be adding approximately 20 sailors, bringing the total number in the lawsuit to 70 to 75.
At 47:30 in
Bonner: 21 and 22 year-olds who are just beginning to start their lives, start their families, and many have little children and now they’re sick. They are going constantly to the doctors, their children are sick — we even have small children as some of our plaintiffs, because they too have developed problems.
Full interview available here
Post 11 by bananas
After folding the flag, he went out to eat with his buddy. The two joked about growing extra fingers and toes, Enis said. Talk of a radiation leak had begun spreading onboard, despite being downplayed by officials. On a whim, the friends decided to get checked for radiation. His friend tested clean, but the geiger went crazy on Enis' hands.
"Instantly, we went from smiling to just being nervous and scared," Enis recalled. "No one told me at the time what was going on."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/fukushima-navy-health-problems_n_2855529.html
Post 31 by bananas
US sailors sue Japan's TEPCO for post-quake radiation exposure
Source: NBC News
Dec 28, 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014349678
San Diego sailor angered over Japan radiation exposure
Source: KGTV
Dec 29, 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014350902
U.S. Navy Sailor: Our digital watches stopped working when offshore Fukushima after 3/11 - "We were
Mar 19, 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101658495
Post 36 by bananas
It links to the enenews article and to the nuclear hotseat podcast - they are all good sites which I recommend:
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/12/13/more-usa-sailors-afflicted-by-exposure-to-fukushima-radiation/
Post 61 by bananas
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/the-stream-officialblog/2013/12/16/uss-reagan-sailorsreportcancersafterfukushimarescuemission.html
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Easy, no?
Or shall we just make DU an advertising place for RW nuts, racists, homophobes (oh wait, we already do with pope), white supremacists, etc, etc, etc, simply because one of their websites managed to post something that is true?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Send Diane in Sf a PM, she doesn't post much but she's been posting on DU for 8 years and is well liked. When she realizes she's used website some people don't like I'm sure she'll update the OP.
Methinks you protest too much given your participation in the efforts to misdirect readers about the content of the actual story upthread.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)for water treatment (removal of radioactive solids in this instance) and calculation of remaining radioactivity level after the treatment is an attempt to "misdirect readers"?
Did I get you right or is there some other specific complaint on your part in regards to what I posted?
PS I believe I and others already addressed the link problem by posting in this tread where OP will see the objection as soon as they log into DU.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I made a mistake. There are other long term pronuclear posters with a history of trying to minimize anything reflecting poorly on nuclear power who chimed in at the beginning of that subthread, just a bit above you, and I thought you were responding to that. You were directly on topic with your responses and I'm out of line to point the finger at you like I did.
My apologies.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)when discussing some topics. 
muriel_volestrangler
(106,117 posts)though she did post on DU about 12 hours ago, so either hadn't read the responses in this thread, or hadn't reacted yet.
"website some people don't like" - 'some people'? Every thinking person doesn't like it, when they know. Yes, the link is despicable. The site is despicable.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I do, however, take your word for it.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)The reporting is accurate to the extent that there is an attorney who does have clients that he claims have certain conditions... and further claims that they were caused by radiation.
If by "the story" you instead mean that it's true that sailors were exposed to dangerous amounts of radiation and have health consequences from it... then no - it isn't close to "accurate" (or even particularly plausible)
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It is motivated completely by your unwavering dedication to protecting an amalgamation of corporations that have proven themselves no more reputable than the coal or petroleum industry.
The only defense you can muster is to attack the character of any perceived threat.
That pretty pathetic when you get right down to it. I almost feel sorry for you.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Some of us actually understand enough of Navy procedures to poke holes in the lawyer's story (and your assumptions based from that story). Some of us have been aboard that class of ship and can tell that you don't have a grasp on the measures in place.
Just think for a moment about how these ships were designed to fight in a nuclear warfare environment.
Hilarious... BTW... to read these posts and see that you have the guts to accuse anyone else of character assasination.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)in the Air Force. I'm well acquainted with how the command structure functions and what weaknesses exist during the confusion of one off crisis such as the one at Fukushima.
You have no evidence at all to support your claim - you never do. And, you have a long, long, long, long, long history of making such baseless claims - for example you accuse renowned ethicists of being unethical and insist that highly competent and extremely well regarded researchers of engaging in malicious attacks on nuclear because the findings of their research are not to your liking. You run around making these types of claims over and over again with zero evidence to support them.
That is character assassination; and so are your charges against the lawyer.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)I encouraged you to go back and actually review the stories from that first week or two after 3/11. The carrier was frequently in the news and it doesn't match the story that you're spinning off of the faulty yarns they're trying to sell the rest of us.
You're telling me that you were in the AF for eight years and don't know that our premier military assets have comprehensive CBR defenses - including constant overpressure so that radioactive particles aren't contaminating crew spaces? And that's hardly the only error:
For instance... you went and posted "Unless evidence can be presented that they were taking prophylactic and decontamination measures the evidence suggests they were almost certain working, eating, drinking and sleeping in a contaminated environment." as if were reasonable to make that assumption. Yet how many seconds does it take to google news about the ship from that period? Or actually read some of the prior articles on these same claims where other sailors talked about everyone getting checked every time they left the deck? (or the videos Arnie put up showing the decon stations)?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/uss-carrier-ronald-reagan-moved-detecting-radioactive-plume/story?id=13129409
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/23/6328076-the-uss-ronald-reagan-aircraft-carrier-gets-washed-to-remove-radioactive-contamination
kristopher
(29,798 posts)When they entered the cloud they were unaware of it or they would have not been in it. Certainly they have the capability to operate in a contaminated environment, but there was no reason known to the Captain for those extremely cumbersome procedures to be in effect. That includes the "constant" overpressure.
As for the assertion about the amount of exposure, I don't place a great deal of faith in them being forthcoming about that in press releases. I've seen them spend hundreds of millions of dollars on unneeded radio encryption equipment to frustrate the media because of an incident involving a damaged nuclear equipped missile - and that had far fewer chances of negative blowback than admitting they had inadvertently exposed 3200 crew members to harmful levels of radioactive fallout.
Your trust is touching.
BUT - I'll admit you have a basis for an argument. I don't think a press release in this circumstance is much to challenge the effects the crew members are experiencing, but it is more than you had when you starting hurling accusations.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)... if after insisting on links... you actually read them?
When they entered the cloud they were unaware of it or they would have not been in it... there was no reason known to the Captain for those extremely cumbersome procedures to be in effect.
From the article - "the radiation was first detected by air particulate detectors aboard three helicopters located 60 miles away from the shoreline. The helicopters were returning to the carrier from a relief mission to the quake and tsunami ravaged city of Sendai. "
there was no reason known to the Captain for those extremely cumbersome procedures to be in effect
I also pointed out that anti-nuclear sources for this story that they were in effect... so it's moot whether or not you think the captain had a reason to do it... or think that it's "cumbersome". Enis himself says that the ship was locked down and they were told to carry "gas masks".
As for the assertion about the amount of exposure, I don't place a great deal of faith in them being forthcoming about that in press releases.
Why? They had no potential liability (despite your "blowback" claim) to guard against and it's consistent with the releases at the time and the distance from the plant. If the entire area were far more contaminated... they still would have been performing rescue operations. That's what they do. They risk dying right now... they don't cringe at a slightly greater chance of a thyroid problem in a couple decades.
On the other hand, it's entirely reasonable to question this ambulance chaser when he's trying to get a cut of a big government settlement.
but it is more than you had when you starting hurling accusations
Not really. The first assertion was enough. This doesn't pass the smell test. The claimed (and entirely undocumented) health effects that could potentially be radiation related (cancers) wouldn't appear this early even at far FAR higher exposure rates... and the non-cancer effects of radiation (bleeding, etc) don't last for three years - let alone appear after three years (and only occur an doses so astronomically higher than are plausible here that we can be certain they're unrelated).
Other obvious issues with his claims:
The ship wasn't a mile or two from the plant (as Enis claims)... it was over 100 miles. That's huge. Look at the contamination on land for the worst parts of the plume that stayed over Japan. There are places where you can't live 24/7... but nowhere that getting wrapped in an exposed cloth and then having that contamination thoroughly washed off shortly thereafter would leave you with any kind if significant dosage... and this was much farther away.
The Navy wouldn't have them sign away their rights to sue... because even if the story were true and the exposure were much higher... they wouldn't have the right to sue.
There isn't any evidence at all for the water supply being contaminated. It's just the attorney's way of making an exposure for most of his clients seem plausible. They aren't part of the rescue operations... they don't even go on deck... how can he make their headaches part of his case?
Plim clims in her interview that they didn't know for weeks about a radiation leak... and the ship didn't go on lockdown for a month. Yet you can see that I've provided photos of comprehensive cleanup reported from well before that point.
On edit - Look... this isn't anything new. Let's ask a hypothetical question. There's a radiation release in the news at a local nuclear power plant. In a population the size of the downwind town... you would expect (absent any radiation at all) ten cases of thyroid cancer per year. This entirely expected result (ignoring expected increases due to the effect of better diagnostic equipment) actually occurs and thirty people are diagnosed with thyroid cancer over the next three years.
Question - How many of those thirty people will assume that their cancer was caused by the radiation release?
PamW
(1,825 posts)kristopher states
When they entered the cloud they were unaware of it or they would have not been in it.
100% WRONG AGAIN
The progress of the Fukushima accident was being monitored and calculated from the very early times of the accident by NARAC - National Air Release Advisory Capability at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
http://str.llnl.gov/JanFeb12/pdfs/1.12.2.pdf
NARAC was calculating wind direction and fallout deposition and was informing US assets in the area including the US Navy.
This monitoring and modelling started WAY BEFORE the USS Ronald Reagan arrived in the Japanese waters.
When the USS Ronald Reagan was going in; she was well informed of the potential for airborne fallout, and that is why the Reagan had her helicopters with radiation detectors out scouting for the radioactive fallout.
As per usual, kristopher makes his normal UNINFORMED prognostications that the USS Ronald Reagan just blindly went into harm's way and it was only after getting caught in the fallout did anyone think to check for radioactivity.
As per usual, nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, truth has nothing to do when the prime directive is spinning anti-nuclear propaganda.
Even, when FBaggins gives kristopher the link to read what happens; kristopher still doesn't have the accurate story.
NARAC information was passed to the USS Ronald Reagan, and the officers and crew were EXPECTING the radioactive fallout plume.
PamW