Navy sailors have radiation sickness

homeagain wrote:

Rick wrote: So is this a good enough reason not to use nuclear power anymore or are the risks of expensive energy more harmful to societies than the occasional nuclear fubar? I realize this isn't the actual topic, but I have a feeling this is where this conversation is headed.

Fuel poverty Britain: 24,000 will die from cold this winter and 6m fear they cannot heat their home

How many will die from radiation poisoning verses heat or cold?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rices.html

Just saying there are risks all around us and there is no way to prevent natural disasters 100%

[/b]

The BOLDED is somewhat micro in it's presentation......WHEN you build Nuclear power plants
on KNOWN fault lines and ON a shoreline that has tsunami tendencies.....how SMART is that?

I doubt anyone could have predicted the freakish severity of that whole natural disaster. If you tally the deaths from every nuclear disaster since there have been nuclear energy, it's probably far less most people think. I'm not saying plants should be built on fault lines, on the edges of cliffs, or on floating barges, but given the efficiency and relative safety, I think they save far mor lives then they take.

Does anyone have any solid evidence as to how many people died or gotten cancer from the Chernobyl accident?

You do know that as we speak, oil is naturally leaching from the ocean floor right? And I'm pretty sure knowbody has any idea how much.

An interesting documentary on Chernobyl: [youtube:1wtumwb6][/youtube:1wtumwb6]

Strictly my opinion but the morbid reality of situations like Chernobyl and Fukushima is that the personnel who are on station when the disaster happens have an obligation to do what they can to respond to the emergency. Countless others will follow on behind them to do what they can to make the situation safe, or as safe as it can be. First responders and follow up personnel do the jobs that need to be done, even while they confront the reality that they likely will not survive the immediate challenges or suffer negative effects later in life. Everyone exposed to radiation will suffer and the environment will be damaged for hundreds of years to come.

So, ban nuclear power or accept the risk and do a better job of managing power plants? Run a probability calculation and determine how often life threatening mistakes will happen in a well known, well managed nuclear power plant. My bet is you'll find that well known, well managed nuclear power plants pose less risk than the 100 year occurrence of a natural disaster. When obvious safety risks are ignored then the wrong result is far more likely to occur.

Keep burning the so called "limited fossil fuels" and continue to cause "climate change" or go green and build more nuclear power facilities? I guess that is one of the questions that keeps members of ELF and PETA awake at night...

The fact the the Pacific Ocean is being poisoned doesn't matter. We still have 6 others.

towermonkey wrote: The fact the the Pacific Ocean is being poisoned doesn't matter. We still have 6 others.

It may not be as bad as the media would have you believe. This is just one of many videos that explains the context of the actual "damage".

http://news.discovery.com/tech/videos/f ... -video.htm

BlazerBob wrote: Otis, do you have any CVN time. I wonder if radiation detectors went away with the Cold War, or at least became last priority re: PMS checks. I also wonder why they did not use the salt water wash down system to clear the deck instead of brooms. Not to point fingers I know the Navy I retired from in 1996 has changed a lot. With the continued down sizing, op-tempo keeps going up.

otisptoadwater wrote: I know that there are lots of people who are going to be quick to place the blame on the Navy and the CO of the USS Ronald Reagan for injuries to the crew; let's not forget that the brave men and women who are in our service go where they are ordered to go when they are ordered to go there.

How many more civilians would have suffered and possibly died had the crew of the USS Ronald Reagan and the rest of the ships and boats in the carrier group not responded? BRAVO ZULU to every US service member who participated in the disaster recovery at and around Fukushima, your efforts and sacrifices are recognized by many grateful citizens of Japan and US military veterans.

In the meanwhile there are too many US service men and women who are highly susceptible to high speed lead poisoning, most likely in the caliber of 7.62mm, around the world right now. Most notably those personnel serving in Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Somalia.

The risks come with the job and those who accept their positions and recite the oath to protect our nation from all enemies, foreign or domestic, also accept the potential that they may be injured, handicapped, or die while serving. God bless each and every one of them as they defend our nation and our freedom. Our veterans deserve every bit of what they earned through their service; every service member who is injured while serving has earned all of the care they need to recover, survive, eventually die with dignity, and to be formally recognized and honored for their service.

Bob, I am a carrier sailor, 5 of them. Like you I retired in 96. We did not have radiation monitors mounted around the decks. If we knew we were going into a potential area, then we would done the zuit suits as we called them and go out with the monitors. We trained for this all the time. The battle group commander(if onboard) or the CO would have known this was radioactive snow(or dirty snow) as some call it. Then once they saw what was happening activate the countermeasures washdown system for the ship. Would this of helped, maybe, but it would not get it all. Aircraft onboard would have it on them, areas like missile platforms, would be contaminated, they would have had to shut down the fresh air intakes etc. Shut aircraft elevator doors etc. We would once a year actually activate the washdown system for testing purposes. This was one of my systems that we shared with the DC men.

Thanks 7. I guess buttoning up a FF is orders of magnitude easier than a CVN.

Not to pile on but, what were the other operational circumstances? Aircraft moving around the deck, personnel supporting landings and launches? What was the air temperature and would the use of the deluge system resulted in icing and additional safety and operational issues? Ice the deck and risk dumping birds in the ocean or mop everything down later knowing the crew would suffer? It's a bad situation and there aren't any good answers.

BlazerBob wrote: Now, nearly three years after their deployment on a humanitarian mission to Japan’s ravaged coast, Cooper and scores of her fellow crew members on the aircraft carrier and a half-dozen other support ships are battling cancers, thyroid disease, uterine bleeding and other ailments."...

Yeah cry me a River...It happens everyday in private industry- When you're 55 you get your $1100/month a medicade just like everybody else thats been ruined on the job. Until then, youre on your own

#sorry

crew members were unknowingly drinking, cooking with, and bathing in contaminated water due to the ship's close proximity to the disaster site, according to Bonner. The USS Reagan was ultimately informed of the contamination after a month of living approximately 10 miles offshore from the affected region.

This doesn't add up for me.

I'm not a real expert here - but I do know there's a large number of sailors on a carrier that wear radiation detection devices (same devices your x-ray tech wears at the hospital) ---- which alerts the wearer to large exposure levels. (those sailors are nuclear power techs - who are pretty well versed in nuclear power plant issues)

I think their devices would have warned them in the event that they were exposed to excessive levels through normal bathing and drinking water.

I think there might have been some excessive exposure --- but not from the stuff this red-tie dude is talking about.