Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue(nypost.com)
nypost.com
Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue
http://nypost.com/2013/12/22/70-navy-sailors-left-sickened-by-radiation-after-japan-rescue/
160 comments
Here's numbers and a primary source [0]:
"For perspective, the maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship's force personnel aboard the ship when it passed through the area was less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun."
Meaning ~300 uSv, or three orders of magnitude short of acute radiation poisoning [1].
"Using sensitive instruments, precautionary measurements of three helicopter aircrews returning to USS Ronald Reagan after conducting disaster relief missions near Sendai identified low levels of radioactivity on 17 air crew members. The low level radioactivity was easily removed from affected personnel by washing with soap and water. They were subsequently surveyed, and no further contamination was detected."
(edit) By the way, [0] says the carrier was 100 miles from Fukushima at the time. Overlay that with the calculated I-131 dose map [2] (from [3]) (I-131 is the largest early dose component); it makes it really hard to believe any of these claims.
The paper [3] is relevant too: it shows off the ability to measure internal I-131 dose, long after the fact. And claims that people far closer to the disaster, with presumed far higher radiation exposures [2], are relatively safe.
[0] http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=59065
[1] http://xkcd.com/radiation/
[2] (figure only) http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120712/srep00507/fig_tab/sre...
[3] (full paper) http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120712/srep00507/full/srep00...
"For perspective, the maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship's force personnel aboard the ship when it passed through the area was less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun."
Meaning ~300 uSv, or three orders of magnitude short of acute radiation poisoning [1].
"Using sensitive instruments, precautionary measurements of three helicopter aircrews returning to USS Ronald Reagan after conducting disaster relief missions near Sendai identified low levels of radioactivity on 17 air crew members. The low level radioactivity was easily removed from affected personnel by washing with soap and water. They were subsequently surveyed, and no further contamination was detected."
(edit) By the way, [0] says the carrier was 100 miles from Fukushima at the time. Overlay that with the calculated I-131 dose map [2] (from [3]) (I-131 is the largest early dose component); it makes it really hard to believe any of these claims.
The paper [3] is relevant too: it shows off the ability to measure internal I-131 dose, long after the fact. And claims that people far closer to the disaster, with presumed far higher radiation exposures [2], are relatively safe.
[0] http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=59065
[1] http://xkcd.com/radiation/
[2] (figure only) http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120712/srep00507/fig_tab/sre...
[3] (full paper) http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120712/srep00507/full/srep00...
If any of them have manage to ingest any of the snow, then they could be subject to long term internal exposure and depending on the type of source, it could be very difficult to scan for.
Once a radioactive source is in your body, even alpha radiation will kill you.
A note about your choice of the word "even" - Alpha radiation will kill you a lot more effectively than Gamma when it's inside you. This is for the same reason it's not damaging outside - Alpha radiation doesn't travel very far before being absorbed.
When held close to skin, the majority is absorbed by the top layers of flesh and only a small amount will penetrate deeper. Conversely, when inside you, only a small amount will escape your body.
When held close to skin, the majority is absorbed by the top layers of flesh and only a small amount will penetrate deeper. Conversely, when inside you, only a small amount will escape your body.
I'm still confused why the snow was radioactive. Snow = water. Did it form around radioactive particles?
Snowflakes, like other precipitation, form around some sort of condensation nucleus -- in other words, dust. Pure snow and fresh rain is actually pretty dirty. You might have noticed how clean windows won't be clean after they get rained on and it dries.
It seems plausible to me that some of the radioactive particles would be a form that could be incorporated into snowflakes, but I'm not an expert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
It seems plausible to me that some of the radioactive particles would be a form that could be incorporated into snowflakes, but I'm not an expert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
Yes, this is what I was thinking might have happened, but I wasn't certain.
I found your username ironic given the discussion of cloud seeding.
Yes, the there aren't any long lived radionuclides of Hydrogen or Oxygen, but their can be radionuclide contamination of water [1]. The question then would be "which ones?" which would be covered in the Navy report on the incident. (and contrary to the article radiation decon drills are actually standard operating procedure according to my Navy friends [2]) The USS Ronald Regan has a complement of over 5,600 souls when steaming with the air wing assigned to it. If the number '70' is accurate then it would suggest that between 1.25 and 2.1% of the sailors exhibited symptoms that might be linked to radiation exposure. In the specific instance of Thyroid Disease some studies [3] have the baseline incidence of this disease in the range of .35% for women and .05% for men. I don't know if the Navy publishes the baseline incident risk for various diseases on their ships and crews.
[1] http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/radionuclides/i...
[2] Remember the USS Ronald Regan has a couple of hundred MW of nuclear power reactors in their hull, so they train for radiation emergencies.
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7641412
[1] http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/radionuclides/i...
[2] Remember the USS Ronald Regan has a couple of hundred MW of nuclear power reactors in their hull, so they train for radiation emergencies.
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7641412
The low on the 13th was 33 around Fukushima. If the humidity was low enough it would not be impossible to have ground level or especially 250ft off the water snow.
EDIT: misread your question. If the steam was radiated it "could" carry that downwind but the nature of decay would greatly reduce the possibility for anything at the size of snow to stay frozen at sea level.
EDIT: misread your question. If the steam was radiated it "could" carry that downwind but the nature of decay would greatly reduce the possibility for anything at the size of snow to stay frozen at sea level.
Right, but to my understanding water can't become radioactive. It can contain radioactive things, but H2O doesn't turn radioactive. So I'm wondering why the snow was radioactive.
It may have nucleated around radioactive particles in the plume.
We're all aware that seems feasible to a non-expert. Right now we're looking for someone who knows how to calculate possible radiation levels of snow.
here ya go - "Tracking Radioactive Fallout from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident in Arctic Snow"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.C33A0632O
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.C33A0632O
wont let me reply, radionuclides can be aqueous check out HTO and free-water tritium(FWT) in google that will get you what you are looking for.
TLDR they bond with organics and other stuff in the water, and snow initiates around particulates.
TLDR they bond with organics and other stuff in the water, and snow initiates around particulates.
Protip: Even if "reply" is missing, just open the "link" to the comment you want to reply to. Viola.
(Now just watch as pg fixes that)
(Now just watch as pg fixes that)
This "bug" has been around for years, so I'm hoping it's intentional :)
>Tokyo Electric Power also knew that radioactivity was leaking at a rate of 400 tons a day into the North Pacific, according to the lawsuit and Japanese officials.
This was my favorite line.
This was my favorite line.
Wow, I didn't realize you could weigh radioactivity!
You can weigh water, you can even weigh radioactive water. You can't weigh radioactivity.
sure ya can, e=mc²
Even worse:
>>“We were probably floating in contaminated water without knowing it for a day and a half before we got hit by that plume,” said Cooper, whose career as a third-class petty officer ended five months after the disaster for health reasons. The toxic seawater was sucked into the ship’s desalinization system, flowing out of its faucets and showers — still radioactive — and into the crew member’s bodies.
Toxic seawater a hundred miles offshore???? You can't make up anything more ridiculous.
>>“We were probably floating in contaminated water without knowing it for a day and a half before we got hit by that plume,” said Cooper, whose career as a third-class petty officer ended five months after the disaster for health reasons. The toxic seawater was sucked into the ship’s desalinization system, flowing out of its faucets and showers — still radioactive — and into the crew member’s bodies.
Toxic seawater a hundred miles offshore???? You can't make up anything more ridiculous.
This source is... less than reliable as they have no idea what they're talking about. It's not hard to find high school students with a better grasp of this subject than this reporter, sadly. Apparently there are still many sources that have yet to figure out that things like dosage, length of exposure and type of radiation matter quite a bit, though oddly enough, it seems like many would be more likely to understand this if it were ordinary toxic chemical exposure.
That said, I wouldn't weigh things too heavily either way, just because these folks are breaking the news. I very much doubt we have the whole story here and I would prefer not to weigh in until all the information is out. Other commentators on HN have noted that this was a nuclear carrier, so there should be proper records of their exposure (not to mention alternate routes of exposure...) which should be properly evaluated before rushing to judgement here, but there are simply too many possibilities to sensibly evaluate them all without more information.
For example, the article makes it sound like they were exposed to radioactive iodine (due to the thyroid conditions), something I would have expected the carrier to detect, and for which we have reasonable counter-measures (iodine pills). I do not have any insight into what went wrong, but I would focus my investigation on their records of exposure, any treatments, etc. My gut tells me that someone screwed up here, but we lack information sufficient to determine who, and everything is suspect.
That aside, radiation sickness is a terrible thing, and hope they are able to recover.
That said, I wouldn't weigh things too heavily either way, just because these folks are breaking the news. I very much doubt we have the whole story here and I would prefer not to weigh in until all the information is out. Other commentators on HN have noted that this was a nuclear carrier, so there should be proper records of their exposure (not to mention alternate routes of exposure...) which should be properly evaluated before rushing to judgement here, but there are simply too many possibilities to sensibly evaluate them all without more information.
For example, the article makes it sound like they were exposed to radioactive iodine (due to the thyroid conditions), something I would have expected the carrier to detect, and for which we have reasonable counter-measures (iodine pills). I do not have any insight into what went wrong, but I would focus my investigation on their records of exposure, any treatments, etc. My gut tells me that someone screwed up here, but we lack information sufficient to determine who, and everything is suspect.
That aside, radiation sickness is a terrible thing, and hope they are able to recover.
Amazing how you think your claim is better informed than those from a primary source. You're right, the mystery solvent must have been it.
A report as spun by lawyers and the New York Post is a "primary source"?
"Considered safe" for how long? For continuous life exposure? For the length of time it takes to make a medical X-Ray? It doesn't say.
The OP is right. There is zero useful information in that statement.
"Considered safe" for how long? For continuous life exposure? For the length of time it takes to make a medical X-Ray? It doesn't say.
The OP is right. There is zero useful information in that statement.
I'm a little confused here, why are the sailors on the aircraft carrier a hundred miles off the coast suing and not the helicopter crews or the sailors on the destroyers that got closer?
People are bashing the article not because it is from the NY Post but because there is a zero evidence that being on a ship a hundred miles away was more dangerous than actually being at the site or in tokyo. The article is filled with all kinds of misunderstandings about radioactivity that are accepted wholesale by the reporter to drum up a good story.
People are bashing the article not because it is from the NY Post but because there is a zero evidence that being on a ship a hundred miles away was more dangerous than actually being at the site or in tokyo. The article is filled with all kinds of misunderstandings about radioactivity that are accepted wholesale by the reporter to drum up a good story.
You can't argue with some people, perhaps like the original poster.
Even if figures and readings are produced, some will talk about bananas, flying in an aeroplane, and background radiation.
The biggest joke of all has been how the "safety limits" of different types of radiation were all magically raised after Fukushima.
Even if figures and readings are produced, some will talk about bananas, flying in an aeroplane, and background radiation.
The biggest joke of all has been how the "safety limits" of different types of radiation were all magically raised after Fukushima.
If actual measurements of radioactivity were produced rather than measurements in terms of "tons of water (with some tiny unknown percentage of radioactive component)" or "300 times the level considered safe (without saying what that level actually is)", then it would be possible to talk sensibly about how it compares to other exposure sources. Such as eating bananas, living in Colorado, getting a dental x-ray and so on. And it might still be scary if we knew the numbers, but without real numbers we can't know that it's worth worrying about.
You cannot compare eating a banana to ingesting the by-products of man-made nuclear fission.
I'm sorry but you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the nuclear industry's PR / propaganda / talking points.
There are real numbers from the Fukushima disaster. Just because this single NYPost article does not cite that data does not mean it does not exist.
I'm sorry but you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the nuclear industry's PR / propaganda / talking points.
There are real numbers from the Fukushima disaster. Just because this single NYPost article does not cite that data does not mean it does not exist.
Why can't you compare eating a banana to ingesting the by-products of man-made nuclear fission? Aren't both ingestible substances bound by the same laws of physics?
The point is that each of those vectors of exposure carry some obvious context. Which matters a lot: where you are in relation to the radiation matters immensely. Alpha is harmless from without, but deadly within. What are the energies of the decay, and what particles are emitted? Are there secondary/tertiary decays and when? Can the body keep up with the damage? Are we talking sunburns or cancer inducing high energy gamma or high kinetic energy alpha? Nuclear physics earns it's reputation as a complicated science.
Units matter, and context matters. Perhaps we should fear bananas, or use it as a point if reference. Either way, it's a useful, comprehensible comparison, just like the others mentioned. Just think it through, and you don't need to worry about falling for hog wash.
Units matter, and context matters. Perhaps we should fear bananas, or use it as a point if reference. Either way, it's a useful, comprehensible comparison, just like the others mentioned. Just think it through, and you don't need to worry about falling for hog wash.
> Even if figures and readings are produced, some will talk about bananas, flying in an aeroplane, and background radiation
From listening to those people, you might almost think the numbers were factual information to be evaluated thoughtfully!
From listening to those people, you might almost think the numbers were factual information to be evaluated thoughtfully!
It's the New York Post. Don't trust a word it says.
Well, I wouldn't want to walk around outside with levels at 300 times what is "considered safe".
Japan is just lucky that 95% of the radioactive release from the meltdowns was blown out over the ocean, otherwise a much larger fraction of their island would have become useless for agriculture. If the earthquake occurred during the fall, the winds would have been generally off the ocean.
Japan is just lucky that 95% of the radioactive release from the meltdowns was blown out over the ocean, otherwise a much larger fraction of their island would have become useless for agriculture. If the earthquake occurred during the fall, the winds would have been generally off the ocean.
> Well, I wouldn't want to walk around outside with levels at 300 times what is "considered safe".
Wouldn't that depend on how many orders of magnitude of safety margin went into deciding what is "considered safe"?
Wouldn't that depend on how many orders of magnitude of safety margin went into deciding what is "considered safe"?
No, because what is "considered safe" in the first place is not reachet at by scientific consensus aimed at the well being of the population, but by how far private and state interests can raise the "safe dosage" in order to cover their asses and go about their polluting as usual.
Politicians are pretty scared of radiation, they may very well set 'safe' limits far lower than they need to be. It's not one-sided.
"Tokyo Electric Power also knew that radioactivity was leaking at a rate of 400 tons a day into the North Pacific, according to the lawsuit and Japanese officials."
I'm sorry, what? What does that even mean? 400 tons of.. Uranium? Water? Pure radioactive essence?
This article is shocking on many levels, but the lack of journalistic standards is appalling.
I'm sorry, what? What does that even mean? 400 tons of.. Uranium? Water? Pure radioactive essence?
This article is shocking on many levels, but the lack of journalistic standards is appalling.
400 tons of slightly radioactive coolant water, I believe. Or of groundwater that had been mixed with the slightly radioactive coolant water.
Journalists don't seem to realize the more water there is, the less harmful it is per unit volume, or that the sea rapidly dilutes it further into harmlessness.
There's a little more detail on the claim here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/fukushima-radioacti...
Journalists don't seem to realize the more water there is, the less harmful it is per unit volume, or that the sea rapidly dilutes it further into harmlessness.
There's a little more detail on the claim here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/fukushima-radioacti...
We're talking about the NY Post! It would be more surprising if it exhibited any standards at all.
They have standards. They pick a Tumblr at random and say, "I bet we can have higher journalistic standards than that guy." And 50% of the time, they're right!
Of all groups you'd hope to be able to detect and protect their staff against radiation, wouldn't the US Navy be fairly near the top of the list?
Much as TEPCO may be at fault over the actual reactor the sailors being exposed unnecessarily sounds more like Naval negligence.
Much as TEPCO may be at fault over the actual reactor the sailors being exposed unnecessarily sounds more like Naval negligence.
Yeah. It does say that
> By the time the Reagan realized it was contaminated and tried to shift location, the radioactive plume had spread too far to be quickly outrun. > > “We have a multimillion-dollar radiation-detection system, but . . . it takes time to be set up and activated,” Cooper said.
But... if you're on the coast helping deal with the tsunami damage like them and then a nuclear disaster starts, setting it up & activating it seems like a priority task.
> By the time the Reagan realized it was contaminated and tried to shift location, the radioactive plume had spread too far to be quickly outrun. > > “We have a multimillion-dollar radiation-detection system, but . . . it takes time to be set up and activated,” Cooper said.
But... if you're on the coast helping deal with the tsunami damage like them and then a nuclear disaster starts, setting it up & activating it seems like a priority task.
CBS - March 2011:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/radiation-detected-on-us-warship...
The U.S. Seventh Fleet said Monday it had moved its ships and aircraft away from a quake-stricken Japanese nuclear power plant after discovering low-level radioactive contamination.
CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that there were two separate radiation exposures on the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan. The first was to air crews who were swabbed upon returning from search and rescue (SAR) missions, 17 of whom were found to have received the equivalent of a month's radiation and had to be decontaminated.
The second exposure occurred when the carrier's shipboard alarms went off. Since the Reagan is nuclear-powered, it has sensors to detect radioactivity, said Martin, and those went off as soon as the radiation levels went above the naturally-occurring background.
...
The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was about 100 miles offshore when its instruments detected the radiation. The fleet said the dose of radiation was about the same as one month's normal exposure to natural background radiation in the environment, and no one was exposed to levels that would have made them sick, reports CBS News correspondent Celia Hatton.
The power plant and its plume are south of Sendai, so as long as the wind doesn't shift, the Reagan can stay out of the plume and still be in position to conduct SAR missions.
The U.S. Seventh Fleet said Monday it had moved its ships and aircraft away from a quake-stricken Japanese nuclear power plant after discovering low-level radioactive contamination.
CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that there were two separate radiation exposures on the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan. The first was to air crews who were swabbed upon returning from search and rescue (SAR) missions, 17 of whom were found to have received the equivalent of a month's radiation and had to be decontaminated.
The second exposure occurred when the carrier's shipboard alarms went off. Since the Reagan is nuclear-powered, it has sensors to detect radioactivity, said Martin, and those went off as soon as the radiation levels went above the naturally-occurring background.
...
The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was about 100 miles offshore when its instruments detected the radiation. The fleet said the dose of radiation was about the same as one month's normal exposure to natural background radiation in the environment, and no one was exposed to levels that would have made them sick, reports CBS News correspondent Celia Hatton.
The power plant and its plume are south of Sendai, so as long as the wind doesn't shift, the Reagan can stay out of the plume and still be in position to conduct SAR missions.
During the height of the Cold War, US Navy ships were equipped with a "wash down" system to enable operations after sailing through nuclear fallout. I'm surprised to learn that no means of detecting radiation in the drinking water was thought of back then. Then again, many of those systems were thought of as a way of continuing to operate for just a few weeks more. Many of those scenarios would have included the end of civilization.
[deleted]
This has come up several times in the Navy-nuke Facebook group in which I lurk (I used to be one of them). The posters in that group have been, shall we say, scathingly skeptical of these claims of radiation sickness. The group includes a number of current- and former radiological-controls specialists, known as engineering lab techs or "ELTs." Navy-nuke ELTs are a select lot who are trained to face the facts and tell it like it is. As a general rule, they're very good at spotting BS, and they're not especially inclined to just passively accept it when they do spot it. Their skepticism about this radiation-sickness story is worth taking into account.
EDIT: Consider some circumstantial evidence:
- In the Navy nuclear-power subculture, people pay attention to detail (to put it mildly). This is true in general, and especially on the subject of radiation exposure to the crew or the public.
- The commanding officer and executive officer of every U.S. aircraft carrier are nuclear-trained, on top of being senior aviators or naval flight officers; they must successfully complete the full, one-year, very-intense nuke qualification course even to be eligible to hold those jobs. Then before they assume those jobs they undergo still more training to be an XO and then CO.
- On any U.S. aircraft carrier, the chief engineer (who "owns" the evaporators that produce the ship's drinking- and washing water) and the [chief] reactor officer (who "owns" the ELTs) are nukes, of course. They're among the most-senior officers on the ship.
- Unambitious people don't put in the years of stressful work that it takes to get these jobs. It's a safe bet that these senior officers all want to be admirals someday. A radiological "incident" of the kind being described likely would severely impair their chances of ever being assigned to a responsible job again, let alone being promoted to flag rank.
So: We're being asked to believe that, in a non-combat situation, somehow all of these career-minded senior officers aboard the Reagan inadvertently allowed the crew's radiation exposure to get to dangerous levels. Sorry, I just don't buy it. I suppose we can't categorically rule out the possibility, but to me it's another reason to be skeptical of the radiation-sickness claims.
EDIT: Consider some circumstantial evidence:
- In the Navy nuclear-power subculture, people pay attention to detail (to put it mildly). This is true in general, and especially on the subject of radiation exposure to the crew or the public.
- The commanding officer and executive officer of every U.S. aircraft carrier are nuclear-trained, on top of being senior aviators or naval flight officers; they must successfully complete the full, one-year, very-intense nuke qualification course even to be eligible to hold those jobs. Then before they assume those jobs they undergo still more training to be an XO and then CO.
- On any U.S. aircraft carrier, the chief engineer (who "owns" the evaporators that produce the ship's drinking- and washing water) and the [chief] reactor officer (who "owns" the ELTs) are nukes, of course. They're among the most-senior officers on the ship.
- Unambitious people don't put in the years of stressful work that it takes to get these jobs. It's a safe bet that these senior officers all want to be admirals someday. A radiological "incident" of the kind being described likely would severely impair their chances of ever being assigned to a responsible job again, let alone being promoted to flag rank.
So: We're being asked to believe that, in a non-combat situation, somehow all of these career-minded senior officers aboard the Reagan inadvertently allowed the crew's radiation exposure to get to dangerous levels. Sorry, I just don't buy it. I suppose we can't categorically rule out the possibility, but to me it's another reason to be skeptical of the radiation-sickness claims.
I can't claim to know anything about naval nuclear engineering. My intuition tells me that avoiding runaway criticality and avoiding crew contamination are high priorities. Based on this I can think of 4 significant questions off the top of my head:
1. How might they ever know to avoid a massive radiation plume they weren't expecting? Particularly if the plume is very large and expanding faster than they can move the ship?
2. How much of the crew would be informed of such a situation? Would there be a risk of panic or mutiny, if all of the crew were permitted to fully understand such circumstances?
3. Given that this is a military vessel, if they are ordered into harm's way (or perhaps ordered to assist since they've already unwittingly suffered irreparable harm), would they say no? Would careers be protected and defended if orders were obeyed?
4. Would it be possible to fake 70 cases of thyroid polyps, leukemia, testicular cancer and uterine bleeding so bad it requires transfusions?
...and as an aside, given that we're introducing the idea that everything might be a hoax, one more question: Given what we've learned about the NSA and Facebook over the past year, how probable is it that a Navy-nuke Facebook group might be astroturfed into an echo chamber aligned with a particular agenda?
1. How might they ever know to avoid a massive radiation plume they weren't expecting? Particularly if the plume is very large and expanding faster than they can move the ship?
2. How much of the crew would be informed of such a situation? Would there be a risk of panic or mutiny, if all of the crew were permitted to fully understand such circumstances?
3. Given that this is a military vessel, if they are ordered into harm's way (or perhaps ordered to assist since they've already unwittingly suffered irreparable harm), would they say no? Would careers be protected and defended if orders were obeyed?
4. Would it be possible to fake 70 cases of thyroid polyps, leukemia, testicular cancer and uterine bleeding so bad it requires transfusions?
...and as an aside, given that we're introducing the idea that everything might be a hoax, one more question: Given what we've learned about the NSA and Facebook over the past year, how probable is it that a Navy-nuke Facebook group might be astroturfed into an echo chamber aligned with a particular agenda?
> 1. How might they ever know to avoid a massive radiation plume they weren't expecting? Particularly if the plume is very large and expanding faster than they can move the ship?
The crucial assumption here is that the crew supposedly wasn't expecting a radioactive fallout plume. From personal experience I can vouch that the crew is trained to deal with radioactive fallout. Given the Fukushima circumstances, I truly cannot imagine that the ship wasn't on alert for a radioactive plume, and would have either navigated around it or taken appropriate precautions such as setting Material Condition Zebra (closing hatches, buttoning down the ventilation system, and so on); activating the water-wash-down system; etc.
2. How much of the crew would be informed of such a situation?
The down-in-the-weeds details likely would have disseminated to the people who would deal with specific issues.
As to the big picture, I'm confident the CO would have told the entire crew the basics of what was going on -- not least so that they would be able to spot apparent anomalies and report them up the chain of command. Sailors at sea are keenly aware that they're "all in the same boat."
Would there be a risk of panic or mutiny, if all of the crew were permitted to fully understand such circumstances?
No.
(OK, I've been out for a long time, and I didn't know every single person in the Navy even then, so I can't say for certain, but ... no.)
3. Given that this is a military vessel, if they are ordered into harm's way (or perhaps ordered to assist since they've already unwittingly suffered irreparable harm), would they say no?
That's a very imaginative hypothetical question, with no indication that it bears any relationship to the facts. The U.S. Navy has a tradition of doing the needful (as our British friends sometimes say). See, e.g., the self-sacrificing heroism of the USS Johnston, USS Hoel, USS Samuel B. Roberts, and USS Heerman at the Battle off Samar on Oct. 25, 1944 [1].
Would careers be protected and defended if orders were obeyed?
Yes.
4. Would it be possible to fake 70 cases of thyroid polyps, leukemia, testicular cancer and uterine bleeding so bad it requires transfusions?
Probably not -- but that assumes facts not in evidence, namely that there actually were 70 such cases attributable to radiation. One thing I learned in years of doing litigation was not to believe everything you hear or read. For all I know, among a crew of around 5,000, the 70 cases mentioned might conceivably be within the bounds of statistical probability.
...and as an aside, given that we're introducing the idea that everything might be a hoax, one more question: Given what we've learned about the NSA and Facebook over the past year, how probable is it that a Navy-nuke Facebook group might be astroturfed into an echo chamber aligned with a particular agenda?
I doubt it -- U.S. Navy sailors are loyal but independent-minded, with very-sensitive and finely-calibrated bullshit detectors, coupled with a willingness to call bullshit when they encounter it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#The_battle
The crucial assumption here is that the crew supposedly wasn't expecting a radioactive fallout plume. From personal experience I can vouch that the crew is trained to deal with radioactive fallout. Given the Fukushima circumstances, I truly cannot imagine that the ship wasn't on alert for a radioactive plume, and would have either navigated around it or taken appropriate precautions such as setting Material Condition Zebra (closing hatches, buttoning down the ventilation system, and so on); activating the water-wash-down system; etc.
2. How much of the crew would be informed of such a situation?
The down-in-the-weeds details likely would have disseminated to the people who would deal with specific issues.
As to the big picture, I'm confident the CO would have told the entire crew the basics of what was going on -- not least so that they would be able to spot apparent anomalies and report them up the chain of command. Sailors at sea are keenly aware that they're "all in the same boat."
Would there be a risk of panic or mutiny, if all of the crew were permitted to fully understand such circumstances?
No.
(OK, I've been out for a long time, and I didn't know every single person in the Navy even then, so I can't say for certain, but ... no.)
3. Given that this is a military vessel, if they are ordered into harm's way (or perhaps ordered to assist since they've already unwittingly suffered irreparable harm), would they say no?
That's a very imaginative hypothetical question, with no indication that it bears any relationship to the facts. The U.S. Navy has a tradition of doing the needful (as our British friends sometimes say). See, e.g., the self-sacrificing heroism of the USS Johnston, USS Hoel, USS Samuel B. Roberts, and USS Heerman at the Battle off Samar on Oct. 25, 1944 [1].
Would careers be protected and defended if orders were obeyed?
Yes.
4. Would it be possible to fake 70 cases of thyroid polyps, leukemia, testicular cancer and uterine bleeding so bad it requires transfusions?
Probably not -- but that assumes facts not in evidence, namely that there actually were 70 such cases attributable to radiation. One thing I learned in years of doing litigation was not to believe everything you hear or read. For all I know, among a crew of around 5,000, the 70 cases mentioned might conceivably be within the bounds of statistical probability.
...and as an aside, given that we're introducing the idea that everything might be a hoax, one more question: Given what we've learned about the NSA and Facebook over the past year, how probable is it that a Navy-nuke Facebook group might be astroturfed into an echo chamber aligned with a particular agenda?
I doubt it -- U.S. Navy sailors are loyal but independent-minded, with very-sensitive and finely-calibrated bullshit detectors, coupled with a willingness to call bullshit when they encounter it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#The_battle
Rape is covered up every week in the US military, apparently at a massive scale.
You don't think other crimes are covered up as well? Like letting people drink and bathe in radioactive water because it would get the chain of command in trouble if it was reported?
How about the fact they couldn't get a port to accept them - you think the sailors made that up and it couldn't be verified?
You don't think other crimes are covered up as well? Like letting people drink and bathe in radioactive water because it would get the chain of command in trouble if it was reported?
How about the fact they couldn't get a port to accept them - you think the sailors made that up and it couldn't be verified?
can you tell us about the reasons for their skepticism?
> can you tell us about the reasons for their skepticism?
The consensus seems to be that the exposure numbers being reported don't make any sense under the circumstances. (I've been out for years, so I'm not qualified to offer an opinion of my own.)
The consensus seems to be that the exposure numbers being reported don't make any sense under the circumstances. (I've been out for years, so I'm not qualified to offer an opinion of my own.)
How do the people who've reached this consensus react to the statement that the lawyers made that they've got at least 70 sailors who are really sick, half of whom have some kind of cancer? Do they think the lawyers are just making that part up? Do they have some alternate explanation for the illnesses, something that doesn't involve all that radiation?
It's interesting that these people you're describing are so concerned with the part that's hard to prove or disprove. The number of sick people seems rather more significant.
It's interesting that these people you're describing are so concerned with the part that's hard to prove or disprove. The number of sick people seems rather more significant.
> Do they think the lawyers are just making that part up? Do they have some alternate explanation for the illnesses, something that doesn't involve all that radiation?
See the Telephone Game, a.k.a. Chinese Whispers. [1]
It's amazing how stories get distorted in the retelling. I collected lots of examples on my blog. [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
[2] http://www.questioningchristian.com/distortions/
See the Telephone Game, a.k.a. Chinese Whispers. [1]
It's amazing how stories get distorted in the retelling. I collected lots of examples on my blog. [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
[2] http://www.questioningchristian.com/distortions/
Can you say anything about how radiation detection occurs?
I'm specifically interested in the idea that the carrier was in irradiated water for a long time.
Do the radiation sensors in the ship really need to be 'turned on' in a long process? Would there be any geiger counter or something that automatically detects whether the water the ship takes in is tainted?
It seems crazy to me that there wouldn't be an always-on, cheap, sanity check.
I'm specifically interested in the idea that the carrier was in irradiated water for a long time.
Do the radiation sensors in the ship really need to be 'turned on' in a long process? Would there be any geiger counter or something that automatically detects whether the water the ship takes in is tainted?
It seems crazy to me that there wouldn't be an always-on, cheap, sanity check.
That was the part of the article that jumped out at me.
I live in a university town. Various parts of the research arms of the university have various radiological materials on hand for experiments or ongoing work. There's an old, decommissioned nuclear reactor near the airport. ALL of the people who work in these facilities wear dosimeters that change color if an incident resulting in overexposure occurs. ALL of the emergency response teams in the area (campus police, county, city, city fire, and county volunteer fire) have a geiger counter on each truck -- there is a mini one that is just a box on the trucks, and the hazmat trailer with the chem suits has a bigger and more sensitive one with a wand. And this is just a small town research university kind of place, not a big government warship that's designed to fight nuclear wars.
On top of that, I'm 99% sure that distilling water removes the radioactive contaminants.
I live in a university town. Various parts of the research arms of the university have various radiological materials on hand for experiments or ongoing work. There's an old, decommissioned nuclear reactor near the airport. ALL of the people who work in these facilities wear dosimeters that change color if an incident resulting in overexposure occurs. ALL of the emergency response teams in the area (campus police, county, city, city fire, and county volunteer fire) have a geiger counter on each truck -- there is a mini one that is just a box on the trucks, and the hazmat trailer with the chem suits has a bigger and more sensitive one with a wand. And this is just a small town research university kind of place, not a big government warship that's designed to fight nuclear wars.
On top of that, I'm 99% sure that distilling water removes the radioactive contaminants.
I don't know what today's Navy ships have by way of always-on ambient radiation detectors, and to be honest I don't remember exactly what we had in my day; I'm sure I learned it while qualifying, but my day-to-day duties were in other areas.
I can say that even in my day we were constantly monitoring ambient conditions -- and one of the things we constantly drummed into each other was to look for trends, not just instantaneous readings (life isn't a snapshot, it's a movie).
I can say that even in my day we were constantly monitoring ambient conditions -- and one of the things we constantly drummed into each other was to look for trends, not just instantaneous readings (life isn't a snapshot, it's a movie).
the article does a terrible job with facts but I would have thought the carrier would be equipped with dosimeters for the crew?
Would it have been standard operating procedure for them to don the dosimeters given the understanding of the events unfolding in the area?
Would it have been standard operating procedure for them to don the dosimeters given the understanding of the events unfolding in the area?
> I would have thought the carrier would be equipped with dosimeters for the crew? Would it have been standard operating procedure for them to don the dosimeters given the understanding of the events unfolding in the area?
I can't say for sure how things are now, but back in the day the answers would have been Yes and Yes.
I can't say for sure how things are now, but back in the day the answers would have been Yes and Yes.
On its own, I can't treat this article as credible. The compensation lawyer presents the strongest possible case for his clients, and the journalist is clearly glossing over a great deal in order to get the juiciest quotes.
From what little details are given, it sounds like the crew of the Reagan suffered from some kind of gut infection, not radiation poisoning. That would explain why they were denied port entry at Guam, and so on.
I live on the fringe of the area where contamination from Fukushima can be detected. To my knowledge, doctors haven't noticed anything unusual yet, and believe me people are watching. Still, the article sends a chill...
From what little details are given, it sounds like the crew of the Reagan suffered from some kind of gut infection, not radiation poisoning. That would explain why they were denied port entry at Guam, and so on.
I live on the fringe of the area where contamination from Fukushima can be detected. To my knowledge, doctors haven't noticed anything unusual yet, and believe me people are watching. Still, the article sends a chill...
"From what little details are given, it sounds like the crew of the Reagan suffered from some kind of gut infection, not radiation poisoning."
Do gut infections cause thyroid problems, cancers and uncontrolled gynecological bleeding?
Do gut infections cause thyroid problems, cancers and uncontrolled gynecological bleeding?
Keep in mind in any sizeable group of people those things happen. I was a healthy 25 year old male with no issues what so ever. I'm now a 26 year old male who doesn't a have a thyroid and takes a pill every day. In between was an unexplained baseball sized growth on my thyroid that had nothing to do with anything and was thankfully not cancerous.
Shit happens and we don't always know why.
Shit happens and we don't always know why.
I'm talking about the outbreaks of diarrhea, because those are the only symptoms that are clearly epidemologically significant.
From a crew of 6,000, there's nothing that strikes me odd about the occasional case of thyroid or gynecological problems. Shit happens.
From a crew of 6,000, there's nothing that strikes me odd about the occasional case of thyroid or gynecological problems. Shit happens.
The symptoms are credible, but the NY Post is not. It's like claiming the Daily Mail knows what the real effects of immigration are in the UK.
[deleted]
It was much worse than was reported. An online forum of nuclear engineers (I may still have the link) was the most informative source of news about the disaster at the time.
EDIT: found the link.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=8b5b840e5e9217...
I hope I won't offend anyone by saying that some of the reported health problems after radioactive disaster are usually exaggerated to get reparations.
It's a two way street - they're usually dramatically downplayed by authorities and anybody who would otherwise have to pay. If you're not loud and exaggerated, nobody with any ability to do anything listens and powerful people actively want you to not be heard.
For illustration, the official number of deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster is 31.
For illustration, the official number of deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster is 31.
> For illustration, the official number of deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster is 31.
Link to a reputable source contradicting the official death toll please.
Link to a reputable source contradicting the official death toll please.
Eh, that doesn't contradict the official death toll. Did you even read it. It reckons that some people think there might be thousands by 2065... which is a little silly, since there would be thousands dead by then anyway and there is no way to link the deaths to the disaster.
3 out of every 7 people you know will die of cancer. Every single person you know will die of cancer if they aren't taken first by some other illness, accident, murder, or natural cause.
3 out of every 7 people you know will die of cancer. Every single person you know will die of cancer if they aren't taken first by some other illness, accident, murder, or natural cause.
And I hope I don't offend anyone by saying that most of the numbers reported after a radioactive disaster are BS spin in order for the company/state to save face.
Nothing offensive about it. Everybody hates governments and companies when things go wrong.
I disagree. The recent local calamity was the Christchurch earthquake. By and large companies and the government acted well. A few big problems cropped up (dodgy insurance companies, regional government dealing with unsafe land, overwhelmed fire service etc), and things are far from sorted, however I am deeply impressed by what systems were in place. Funds existed to rebuild despite massive devastation, the emergency response was incredible and mostly well organized. There has been little corruption, mostly transparent processes and despite the most obnoxious bunch of cabinet ministers I can remember, the process has gone far better than I could have imagined.
What I meant is not that cursing government and companies is right. Only that it's not offensive in current culture. Like calling Afroamericans N-word was not offensive hundred years ago or so. It was perfectly socially acceptable and so common that no-one thought it was seriously offensive.
I can't even begin to understand this idea.
Do you suggest that cursing government and companies is akin to racism?
Corporations and governments can and do screw up. They also do malicious things with bad intentions (even things that kill people). And when they do so, it's perfectly appropriate to call them on it.
That's not something that will "go out of style".
Do you suggest that cursing government and companies is akin to racism?
Corporations and governments can and do screw up. They also do malicious things with bad intentions (even things that kill people). And when they do so, it's perfectly appropriate to call them on it.
That's not something that will "go out of style".
I'm just saying that what's offensive is a cultural thing. For example in my country it's not offensive to tell that civil servants are basically lazy bums that do no useful jobs at all, come to work to drink coffee and make actually working peoples lives miserable by demanding from them useless paperwork in dishonest attempt to justify their existance. All that on taxpayer payroll. As I understand this might be offensive in US just because US wasn't under communist rule for 40 years and people don't share same vitriolic hatred for government officials. Is it appropriate? Usually not. But it's not considered offensive as it fits general sentiment.
Maybe, but the fake numbers and face-saving are real, not some result of blind hate.
Case in point: in Fukusima, the government and the reactor officials admitted they have lied about the significance of the thing more than once.
Case in point: in Fukusima, the government and the reactor officials admitted they have lied about the significance of the thing more than once.
It's only an assertion without specific evidence. The threads linked above run for tens of thousands of pages and form an important part of the historical record.
This is why I wouldn't let my kids EVER enlist. The government has no regard for its enlisted. Doesn't take a genius to think our navy would be in harm's way during a RADIOACTIVE DISASTER. Reminds me of when soldiers were being electrocuted in showers in Iraq because of totally incompetent contractors wiring electricity near the showers.
These carriers are the most powerful, expensive war asset any nation state has. The weakest, most vulnerable link is the soft fleshy things on board. Yet, they are the most essential component of the system. You cant replace them at sea, you cant replace or fix parts, they are finite and vulnerable. No people, no carrier. Therefor carrier crews are probably some of the best looked after people in the forces. Perhaps not out of humanity, but to protect that vital asset.
I'd go further. I would wager that a US nuclear powered carrier is one of the safest places on earth. After all, it is built to fight in an all out nuclear war and hopefully survive. Perhaps be the last hope if the mainland was devastatingly attacked. It can't possibly be that if its crew are, well, dead.
Also, carriers are kind of isolated. They are societies in themselves. The captains are probably more attached and sympathetic to their crews than many other parts of the military.
I'd go further. I would wager that a US nuclear powered carrier is one of the safest places on earth. After all, it is built to fight in an all out nuclear war and hopefully survive. Perhaps be the last hope if the mainland was devastatingly attacked. It can't possibly be that if its crew are, well, dead.
Also, carriers are kind of isolated. They are societies in themselves. The captains are probably more attached and sympathetic to their crews than many other parts of the military.
The Navy has been having a lot of problems with their officers:
http://www.navytimes.com/article/99999999/CAREERS/302050309
USS Enterprise captain relieved: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/04/navy.videos/
USS Stennis Captain and his boss get into a biggest dick contest: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/rear-admiral-charles-m-...
Pacific commanders: http://nation.time.com/2013/10/03/second-warship-commander-r...
http://www.navytimes.com/article/99999999/CAREERS/302050309
USS Enterprise captain relieved: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/04/navy.videos/
USS Stennis Captain and his boss get into a biggest dick contest: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/rear-admiral-charles-m-...
Pacific commanders: http://nation.time.com/2013/10/03/second-warship-commander-r...
>Reminds me of when soldiers were being electrocuted in showers in Iraq because of totally incompetent contractors wiring electricity near the showers.
The details of which are the showers needed water pumps,and the water pumps were not properly grounded.
The details of which are the showers needed water pumps,and the water pumps were not properly grounded.
Because incompetent electricians never cause death anywhere but in military combat zones?
Umm, most electricians, I imagine, know how to ground a pump. Also, it wasn't isolated (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/28/soldier.electrocutions/inde...). There were 12 electrocutions. After the first one, you would think there'd be an inquiry.
Sure, better let somebody else's kids take care of the shitty work.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I agree wholeheartedly.
There is, of course, the better option. Invade less people and spy on less people and then the number of people needed and the danger they face is decreased. Additionally, using the military as a social welfare system may not be the great system some think it is. My perspective is skewed however, as being a New Zealander the threat level is zero (except from our so-called allies, who have bombed us in the past - thanks France).
"Sure, better let somebody else's kids take care of the shitty work."
Bullshit. That was never implied, let alone said, you simply made it up.
Bullshit. That was never implied, let alone said, you simply made it up.
I was in the Army for a few years and recently got out. The Army is considered to be the service which is the least concerned with its service members.
That said, the Army most certainly DOES have regard for its enlisted. When things like this happen, bad PR follows. Bad PR is bad for a variety of reasons, one of which being that it makes recruiting more difficult. People will be much less likely to join an organization which doesn't care about them, and would thus require more incentives to do so, incentives which cost money. Two: soldiers, airmen, etc go through a pretty intensive training process that lasts several months at a minimum, and that training isn't cheap. By the time you're a full-fledged member of your respective service, your service has a lot of money invested in you, and the more advanced in your career you are, the more valuable you are to them. Soldiers cost more money than you imagine. Three: morale in the military is of paramount importance. Without good morale, operations break down. If a group of soldiers feel that their leadership doesn't care about them, morale quickly goes into the toilet, and that has all sorts of detrimental and pervasive effects.
When I was in the Army, I got sick of having to always go to another meeting about another program that, should we need it, was available to us. Everything from PTSD counseling to going outside of your chain of command if necessary to financial counseling to healthcare to complaining about the food, barracks, or what have you - there were channels galore to address grievances. They not only create these programs, but they force you to be aware that they exist. These aren't programs created just for show; they're programs which are created to be used.
This isn't the Vietnam Era. The military is an all-volunteer force, and unless the draft comes back, it can't afford to not care about its members. In an organization of many millions of people who constantly deal with difficult, dangerous things like this, incidents will occasionally occur, but they are the exception, rather than the rule.
That said, the Army most certainly DOES have regard for its enlisted. When things like this happen, bad PR follows. Bad PR is bad for a variety of reasons, one of which being that it makes recruiting more difficult. People will be much less likely to join an organization which doesn't care about them, and would thus require more incentives to do so, incentives which cost money. Two: soldiers, airmen, etc go through a pretty intensive training process that lasts several months at a minimum, and that training isn't cheap. By the time you're a full-fledged member of your respective service, your service has a lot of money invested in you, and the more advanced in your career you are, the more valuable you are to them. Soldiers cost more money than you imagine. Three: morale in the military is of paramount importance. Without good morale, operations break down. If a group of soldiers feel that their leadership doesn't care about them, morale quickly goes into the toilet, and that has all sorts of detrimental and pervasive effects.
When I was in the Army, I got sick of having to always go to another meeting about another program that, should we need it, was available to us. Everything from PTSD counseling to going outside of your chain of command if necessary to financial counseling to healthcare to complaining about the food, barracks, or what have you - there were channels galore to address grievances. They not only create these programs, but they force you to be aware that they exist. These aren't programs created just for show; they're programs which are created to be used.
This isn't the Vietnam Era. The military is an all-volunteer force, and unless the draft comes back, it can't afford to not care about its members. In an organization of many millions of people who constantly deal with difficult, dangerous things like this, incidents will occasionally occur, but they are the exception, rather than the rule.
> This isn't the Vietnam Era. The military is an all-volunteer force, and unless the draft comes back, it can't afford to not care about its members. In an organization of many millions of people who constantly deal with difficult, dangerous things like this, incidents will occasionally occur, but they are the exception, rather than the rule.
I'm curious, is it your view that the Army dealt well with the people who had Gulf War syndrome? (or whatever we're calling it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome
I had a cousin go to war very healthy and come back sick and his experience getting treatment wasn't exactly great. It's nice to think that we're not living in the Agent Orange days anymore but I wonder if the government is really any less inclined to stonewall sick vets whose problems go against the official narrative than they used to be.
edit: you're right that it's important for retention to have good PR and make it look like there aren't serious problems. Damaging the credibility of sick people seeking help is one way the DoD does that.
I'm curious, is it your view that the Army dealt well with the people who had Gulf War syndrome? (or whatever we're calling it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome
I had a cousin go to war very healthy and come back sick and his experience getting treatment wasn't exactly great. It's nice to think that we're not living in the Agent Orange days anymore but I wonder if the government is really any less inclined to stonewall sick vets whose problems go against the official narrative than they used to be.
edit: you're right that it's important for retention to have good PR and make it look like there aren't serious problems. Damaging the credibility of sick people seeking help is one way the DoD does that.
From your link:
>A November 1996 article in the New England Journal of Medicine found no difference in death rates, hospitalization rates or self-reported symptoms between Persian Gulf veterans and non-Persian Gulf veterans. This article was a compilation of dozens of individual studies involving tens of thousands of veterans. The study did find a statistically significant elevation in the number of traffic accidents suffered by Gulf War veterans.[44] An April, 1998 article in Emerging Infectious Diseases similarly found no increased rate of hospitalization and better health overall for veterans of the Persian Gulf War in comparison to those who stayed home.[45]
>Despite these studies, on November 17, 2008, a congressionally appointed committee called the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, staffed with independent scientists and veterans appointed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, announced that the syndrome is a distinct physical condition. The committee recommended that Congress increase funding for research on Gulf War veterans' health to at least $60 million per year.
The DOD is a large, cumbersome bureaucracy, and Gulf War Syndrome was an entirely new disorder which is still controversial today. It took a decade, but the DOD came around, and to my knowledge, people with Gulf War Syndrome are being treated.
>A November 1996 article in the New England Journal of Medicine found no difference in death rates, hospitalization rates or self-reported symptoms between Persian Gulf veterans and non-Persian Gulf veterans. This article was a compilation of dozens of individual studies involving tens of thousands of veterans. The study did find a statistically significant elevation in the number of traffic accidents suffered by Gulf War veterans.[44] An April, 1998 article in Emerging Infectious Diseases similarly found no increased rate of hospitalization and better health overall for veterans of the Persian Gulf War in comparison to those who stayed home.[45]
>Despite these studies, on November 17, 2008, a congressionally appointed committee called the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, staffed with independent scientists and veterans appointed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, announced that the syndrome is a distinct physical condition. The committee recommended that Congress increase funding for research on Gulf War veterans' health to at least $60 million per year.
The DOD is a large, cumbersome bureaucracy, and Gulf War Syndrome was an entirely new disorder which is still controversial today. It took a decade, but the DOD came around, and to my knowledge, people with Gulf War Syndrome are being treated.
Thank you for your comment, hearing from someone involved in these things is excellent so please keep commenting. It's the insider perspectives that makes HN great IMHO. I've just come to this thread after reading the below link on sexual assaults within the military (and yes, I'm way behind on my reading). Do you have any thoughts on it? How can it go in challenged and unaddressed when courses are being offered on trivial things like financial planning? And the PR angle you mention should, at a minimum, have some influence.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21588131-can-new...
Every branch has mandatory sexual assault training (I just attended one three weeks ago), but I agree it's not enough, nor working. Air Force JAG held a summit last week to address this very issue. Part of the problem is the way the military criminal justice system works. Commanders have too much discretion in whether or not to prosecute service members, and the ability to overturn or lessen convictions. A lot of victims don't report attacks out of fear of retaliation from their own command. Prosecutorial authority needs to be taken out of the chain of command for sexual assault cases, if not at the felony level entirely. That alone will have some impact.
There's been some effort to amend Article 60 of the UCMJ within the Senate; however, it's never gotten past committee.
There's been some effort to amend Article 60 of the UCMJ within the Senate; however, it's never gotten past committee.
Wikipedia says the USS Ronald Regan has a total crew of 5,680.
How statistically significant is 70 people out of 5,680 suffering serious health problems over 2.5 years? I'm guessing that most people on board were fairly young and in good health.
How statistically significant is 70 people out of 5,680 suffering serious health problems over 2.5 years? I'm guessing that most people on board were fairly young and in good health.
Radiation overdose is happy to cause you all kind of cancer 50 years down the road. Having been overexposed is really not something you want, even if you don't show symptoms so quickly. The psychological pressure on these people alone must be maddening.
Imagine waking up every day for the rest of your life and wondering if you have cancer today? Not good..
Edit: and let's not talk about the increased likelihood of disfigured offspring.
Imagine waking up every day for the rest of your life and wondering if you have cancer today? Not good..
Edit: and let's not talk about the increased likelihood of disfigured offspring.
> Imagine waking up every day for the rest of your life and wondering if you have cancer today? Not good..
30% of us will have it at some point, also you have chance 1 in 1000-2000 that you'll die next year.
30% of us will have it at some point, also you have chance 1 in 1000-2000 that you'll die next year.
> you have chance 1 in 1000-2000 that you'll die next year.
You have a 1000-2000 chance that you'll die when you are no longer an infant but still young. Your chances of dying next year go up as your get older. If you had only 1 chance in 1000 to die each year that would mean that people would live to be 1000 years old on average.
A good estimate of human mortality rates can be calculated from Gompertz law: http://forio.com/simulate/mbean/death-probability-calculator...
You have a 1000-2000 chance that you'll die when you are no longer an infant but still young. Your chances of dying next year go up as your get older. If you had only 1 chance in 1000 to die each year that would mean that people would live to be 1000 years old on average.
A good estimate of human mortality rates can be calculated from Gompertz law: http://forio.com/simulate/mbean/death-probability-calculator...
> If you had only 1 chance in 1000 to die each year that would mean that people would live to be 1000 years old on average.
Actually it means your chances of living to be 1000 would be 37%.
0.999 ^ 1000 = .37
Actually it means your chances of living to be 1000 would be 37%.
0.999 ^ 1000 = .37
Your chances of living to be 1000 are approximately 1 in e, 37%, yes. But that has nothing to do with the average age people live to. I don't get 1000 as the average lifespan, though, I get 999. Can someone explain where I'm going wrong with this reasoning?
If there is a 0.001 chance of dying every year, the average lifespan will be 0(0.001) + 1(0.001)(0.999) + 2(0.001)(0.999)^2 + 3(0.001)(0.999)^3 + ... , or \sum_{i=0}^\infty (i(0.001)(0.999)^i). The idea is that to live to the age of 0, you have to die in your first year; to live to be three, you have to live through exactly three years and then die, and so on. Then, \sum_{i=0}^\infty ix^i is x / (1-x)^2 .
So the sum of interest is 0.001 times (0.999) / (0.000001), which is exactly 999.
If there is a 0.001 chance of dying every year, the average lifespan will be 0(0.001) + 1(0.001)(0.999) + 2(0.001)(0.999)^2 + 3(0.001)(0.999)^3 + ... , or \sum_{i=0}^\infty (i(0.001)(0.999)^i). The idea is that to live to the age of 0, you have to die in your first year; to live to be three, you have to live through exactly three years and then die, and so on. Then, \sum_{i=0}^\infty ix^i is x / (1-x)^2 .
So the sum of interest is 0.001 times (0.999) / (0.000001), which is exactly 999.
You are both correct. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_distribution
I was guessing the age of the parent given this http://ww.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1t9khp/age_d...
I usually say: I have a chance of 1 in 1000 to die next year. It puts other probabilities in perspective.
I usually say: I have a chance of 1 in 1000 to die next year. It puts other probabilities in perspective.
>If you had only 1 chance in 1000 to die each year that would mean that people would live to be 1000 years old on average.
You're not old, and you're also not an infant. Your chances are much lower than a naive average.
You're not old, and you're also not an infant. Your chances are much lower than a naive average.
You're being rational again. Stop!
A failed multimillion-dollar radiation-detection system. Why didn't they have this activated?
"The toxic seawater was sucked into the ship’s desalinization system, flowing out of its faucets and showers — still radioactive — and into the crew member’s bodies."
"The toxic seawater was sucked into the ship’s desalinization system, flowing out of its faucets and showers — still radioactive — and into the crew member’s bodies."
They could have sidestepped the whole issue with a simple reverse-osmosis water filter. Somehow I get the impression that they did not think the ABC (edit: CBRN) thing through.
A "simple" reverse-osmosis system?
A Nimitz class carrier can produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 400,000 gallons of desalinated (potable) water a day. Desalination is very energy intensive, but energy is something that a nuclear powered carrier has plenty of. There are obviously some consumables involved, but it's mostly just energy, and lots of it.
RO, on the other hand, requires a lot of high quality, small pore filters and membranes that need to be cleaned and changed regularly. RO systems have dramatically lower throughputs than desalination systems of similar size. An RO system capable of producing 400,000 gallons/day (especially one capable of filtering radioisotopes that are (while larger than a water molecule), still quite small) would be very large, and very maintenance intensive.
But hey... you're probably right... The folks who designed the potable water infrastructure for the Nimitz class aircraft carriers were probably idiots...
A Nimitz class carrier can produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 400,000 gallons of desalinated (potable) water a day. Desalination is very energy intensive, but energy is something that a nuclear powered carrier has plenty of. There are obviously some consumables involved, but it's mostly just energy, and lots of it.
RO, on the other hand, requires a lot of high quality, small pore filters and membranes that need to be cleaned and changed regularly. RO systems have dramatically lower throughputs than desalination systems of similar size. An RO system capable of producing 400,000 gallons/day (especially one capable of filtering radioisotopes that are (while larger than a water molecule), still quite small) would be very large, and very maintenance intensive.
But hey... you're probably right... The folks who designed the potable water infrastructure for the Nimitz class aircraft carriers were probably idiots...
Actually, it looks like Ford-class carriers use, or will use (?), reverse osmosis for desal:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657412.pdf
RO is already used in utility-scale desal plants:
http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/DesalinatedWater.aspx
"This plant can produce 30 million gallons of water a day (136, 000 cubic meters) and is one of the region’s largest seawater reverse-osmosis plants."
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657412.pdf
RO is already used in utility-scale desal plants:
http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/DesalinatedWater.aspx
"This plant can produce 30 million gallons of water a day (136, 000 cubic meters) and is one of the region’s largest seawater reverse-osmosis plants."
Yeah, they've done away with many of the steam systems on the new carriers (including the catapult launch system, which is now electric).
If you're trying to minimize energy (particularly steam) usage, then RO starts to make a bit more sense. On the Nimitz class, they have plenty of waste heat from the powerplant, and already had numerous steam distributions systems in place.
If you're trying to minimize energy (particularly steam) usage, then RO starts to make a bit more sense. On the Nimitz class, they have plenty of waste heat from the powerplant, and already had numerous steam distributions systems in place.
> The folks who designed the potable water infrastructure for the Nimitz class aircraft carriers were probably idiots.
You are not an idiot just for doing something stupid. All people, even the smartest ones have capacity to do dangerously stupid things. In this case they probably just weren't ordered to built a system that can provide clean water in case of the ship being covered in radioactive snow. So the people doing stupid things (possibly, but not necessarily, idiots) were the people who gave orders. Still hard to imagine for a country that treats nuclear war sort of seriously.
Of course I think you are totally right about RO being non-easy. I have no idea about RO and desalination systems but my motto is "nothing's ever easy".
You are not an idiot just for doing something stupid. All people, even the smartest ones have capacity to do dangerously stupid things. In this case they probably just weren't ordered to built a system that can provide clean water in case of the ship being covered in radioactive snow. So the people doing stupid things (possibly, but not necessarily, idiots) were the people who gave orders. Still hard to imagine for a country that treats nuclear war sort of seriously.
Of course I think you are totally right about RO being non-easy. I have no idea about RO and desalination systems but my motto is "nothing's ever easy".
>In this case they probably just weren't ordered to built a system that can provide clean water in case of the ship being covered in radioactive snow.
I think it's even more likely that they weighed the advantages and disadvantages of each system, and decided that a waste heat desalination system would be a _much_ better fit then a huge, expensive, high maintenance RO system.
My point was simply that this was almost certainly an informed decision, not an oversight (or just 'following orders').
I think it's even more likely that they weighed the advantages and disadvantages of each system, and decided that a waste heat desalination system would be a _much_ better fit then a huge, expensive, high maintenance RO system.
My point was simply that this was almost certainly an informed decision, not an oversight (or just 'following orders').
It seems like distillation should anyway be leaving behind a great deal of the contamination. I guess that is not sufficient for radioactive contamination, but direct exposure seems likely to be the bigger problem in this situation.
(It also seems to be a possibility that they were using (contaminated) seawater for decontamination procedures, but that is hard find reasonable information about)
(It also seems to be a possibility that they were using (contaminated) seawater for decontamination procedures, but that is hard find reasonable information about)
Out of related curiosity, weren't there efforts to ban Geiger counters in the US post-9/11? Were any laws enacted?
[deleted]
Guam turned us away
That sounds suspicious. Guam is a U.S. Territory.
That sounds suspicious. Guam is a U.S. Territory.
It may be the lack of capabilities to deal with a mass radiation event.
I can't find any references to how many crew are typically assigned to the USS Ronald Regan. Guam doesn't seem like it has a lot of healthcare support for a full-aircraft carrier of irradiated seamen.
I can't find any references to how many crew are typically assigned to the USS Ronald Regan. Guam doesn't seem like it has a lot of healthcare support for a full-aircraft carrier of irradiated seamen.
Right, the notion it turned away an aircraft carrier a hundred miles away from fukushima is ridiculous.
If I were losing 60 or 70 pounds a month due to hyperthyroidism, I'd request that my thyroid be removed and I'd probably then be prescribed levothyroxine. I'd say it's a safe bet the thyroid isn't the root cause here. Thyroid removal is pretty common.
The meaning behind the story is far more sinister than the sad case of some people getting cancer...
it is that TEPCO, which is the organization best suited to know and measure what was/is going on, has been shown to lie, even to its own government, about the situation.
(mentioned in more detail here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/28/world/asia/japan-fukushima-law... )
If it truly the case that TEPCO has been lying about things from the start, then nothing that they have said in the interim, or things that they say in the future, can be taken at face value, and whatever claims they make require independant third party confirmation.
it is that TEPCO, which is the organization best suited to know and measure what was/is going on, has been shown to lie, even to its own government, about the situation.
(mentioned in more detail here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/28/world/asia/japan-fukushima-law... )
If it truly the case that TEPCO has been lying about things from the start, then nothing that they have said in the interim, or things that they say in the future, can be taken at face value, and whatever claims they make require independant third party confirmation.
If there's any government agency that will obfuscate, stonewall, evade responsibility and generally bullshit their way out of helping the people who get hurt on their watch, it's the DoD.
When people sperg out over specific radiation claims being floated in the NY Post (of all places) they ought to keep in mind that if these people are anywhere near as sick as they're described to be they need help, and they're up against a nasty brick wall when it comes to getting that help. Picking a side here ought to be pretty damn easy unless this turns out to be some kind of outright fraud.
When people sperg out over specific radiation claims being floated in the NY Post (of all places) they ought to keep in mind that if these people are anywhere near as sick as they're described to be they need help, and they're up against a nasty brick wall when it comes to getting that help. Picking a side here ought to be pretty damn easy unless this turns out to be some kind of outright fraud.
Related post from NBC (27th of Dec 2012): US sailors sue Japan's TEPCO for post-quake radiation exposure (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/27/16197507-us-sa...). Interesting they used almost the same photo on the article.
We're either a one decade or two from having the necessary robotics technology needed to keep humans out of harm's way in these situations.
http://singularityhub.com/2013/12/20/nasa-unveils-valkyrie-a...
It's really up to us if it's going to be 10 years or 20.
http://singularityhub.com/2013/12/20/nasa-unveils-valkyrie-a...
It's really up to us if it's going to be 10 years or 20.
We already can make simple ones, it's a matter of radiation shielding. They don't have to be huge expensive humanoid ones. Robots were used in the Chernobyl cleanup 25 years ago although they ended up getting fried from the radiation. I haven't done much research on the topic of what exists today regarding workarounds for electronics in radioactive environments (if someone has domain knowledge, please tell!), but I suspect we could fix that.
For some interesting history, look up "Bio-Robots" to see how the Soviet Union dealt with the disaster. Basically they sent up humans in heavy lead suits for no more than 45 seconds at a time. Run up, get three or four shovelfuls (they were clearing radioactive debris from the roof), get out.
For some interesting history, look up "Bio-Robots" to see how the Soviet Union dealt with the disaster. Basically they sent up humans in heavy lead suits for no more than 45 seconds at a time. Run up, get three or four shovelfuls (they were clearing radioactive debris from the roof), get out.
There is much more to it than getting hardened electronics. For example, I was talking with some Westinghouse engineers and the biggest problem with the robots at Fukushima were the cameras. The radiation crazes the lenses and you become blind.
Search and rescue is a hard problem and is terribly underfunded. It is also funded in a way that makes long term improvements hard. There is very little money until there's a disaster, then there is a ton of cash you have to spend right now.
Search and rescue is a hard problem and is terribly underfunded. It is also funded in a way that makes long term improvements hard. There is very little money until there's a disaster, then there is a ton of cash you have to spend right now.
Out of curiosity, do you have anything more on what destroys the lenses? Heat/melting? Some form of radioactive dust?
See the end of
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=711577&page=4
on why it isn't entirely straightforward to send in a robot.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=711577&page=4
on why it isn't entirely straightforward to send in a robot.
Not the most credible publication, and plaintiff's attorneys are clearly the primary sources for the article.
At the TC Disrupt Europe hackathon, there was one team that build a hardware/software hack to crowdsource radioactivity data / warnings. Basically, a Geiger counter attached to your computer that sends readings to a server.
I think it was a really cool hack and one of my favorites, but it didn't go anywhere with the jury (I guess no business model and all :) ).
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/26/open-radioactivity-warning-...
http://techcrunch.com/video/open-radioactivity-warning-syste... (Video)
I think it was a really cool hack and one of my favorites, but it didn't go anywhere with the jury (I guess no business model and all :) ).
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/26/open-radioactivity-warning-...
http://techcrunch.com/video/open-radioactivity-warning-syste... (Video)
I served on the Reagan from 2003-2007 and am lucky enough to have finished my enlistment before the Fukushima incident.
I still have a large network of friends in the military and work in the defense industry in San Diego so I was surprised when I first learned of this incident only a few weeks ago. I thought the post I was reading at the time was a sick hoax at first but have since learned otherwise.
This doesn't surprise me much at all unfortunately, and I wish my fellow sailors the best of luck in not getting screwed by Uncle Sam, which is what I fully expect will happen.
I still have a large network of friends in the military and work in the defense industry in San Diego so I was surprised when I first learned of this incident only a few weeks ago. I thought the post I was reading at the time was a sick hoax at first but have since learned otherwise.
This doesn't surprise me much at all unfortunately, and I wish my fellow sailors the best of luck in not getting screwed by Uncle Sam, which is what I fully expect will happen.
As the reactors have now dumped thousands of tons of nuclear runoff water into the ocean which then drifts to the North American West Coast, is this not something we should be much more aware of and acting to protect against?
Is the US West Coast at danger of increased incidence rates of radiation related illness?
Is the US West Coast at danger of increased incidence rates of radiation related illness?
The answer is no, it is not even close to something we should be worried about.
Unless, of course, you're a homeopath. On a slightly more serious note, I would expect to see a variety of illnesses occurring at a statistically ordinary rate around the variously-projected times of arrival to be blamed on radioactive seawater regardless of the actual concentrations (which will probably be in the high-C, or incredibly powerful because it's incredibly weak, homeopathic dilution range).
>Is the US West Coast at danger of increased incidence rates of radiation related illness?
No.
No.
Remember the US used to do multiple nuclear detonation tests off Pacific islands after WWII. The Pacific Ocean has a lot of water to dilute the effects.
We've been dumping far worse radioactive waste in the Pacific for years.
You would think it would have been a good time to test or at least offer Ex-Rad to the sailors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Rad
"Ex-Rad (or Ex-RAD), also known by the code name ON 01210.Na, is a drug developed by Onconova Therapeutics and the U.S. Department of Defense.[1][2] This newly developed compound is said to be a potent radiation protection agent. Chemically, it is the sodium salt of 4-carboxystyryl-4-chlorobenzylsulfone.[3"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Rad
"Ex-Rad (or Ex-RAD), also known by the code name ON 01210.Na, is a drug developed by Onconova Therapeutics and the U.S. Department of Defense.[1][2] This newly developed compound is said to be a potent radiation protection agent. Chemically, it is the sodium salt of 4-carboxystyryl-4-chlorobenzylsulfone.[3"
Negligence triumphed over excellence this time...
Sad story and and it pisses me off that so many countries denied the carrier to dock up.
> it pisses me off that so many countries denied the carrier to dock up.
Why is that? Countries that don't have the technical expertise to judge how dangerous it could have been for their people are absolutely right to have prevented them from docking.
Their only loyalty is to their own people, as it should be. As long as they don't have the expertise to verify that their is no risk to their own people, they should default to GTFO.
Do you think the US would allow a shipload of people with the SARS coronavirus or Ebola to dock at one of their ports?
Why is that? Countries that don't have the technical expertise to judge how dangerous it could have been for their people are absolutely right to have prevented them from docking.
Their only loyalty is to their own people, as it should be. As long as they don't have the expertise to verify that their is no risk to their own people, they should default to GTFO.
Do you think the US would allow a shipload of people with the SARS coronavirus or Ebola to dock at one of their ports?
This story may or may not be accurate, but anything which comes from nypost is suspect.
The nuclear apologists are out in full force today.
I love how you guys, mostly computer programmers, are so much more informed than experts in nearly every other field of science existing. It must be amazing to be that smart.
I love how you guys, mostly computer programmers, are so much more informed than experts in nearly every other field of science existing. It must be amazing to be that smart.
There is no hard data in the original article.
Useful information that could have been included: Actual radiation measurements, with units. Specific location of the ship over the timeline. What radiation the Navy and the ship in question knew about, and when (news reports indicate the USS Reagan nearby knew very early on when radiation exceeded background radiation since as a nuclear vessel it had good radiation sensors). And, since some of the claimants are claiming thyroid problems, whether the navy issued iodine tablets to sailors in the area, since that's a well known and practically risk-free preventative measure against radioactive iodine uptake. Hell, the standard navy rations probably have supplemental iodine. Table salt often does.
You might also be interested in researching how much radiation is released into the atmosphere from coal plants, and how many health problems are caused by all sorts of conventional energy sources, coal, burning fuel, pollution from batteries, etc.
Disclaimer: not to say that 60's-era nuclear reactor designs are good, even with more precautions being taken since Fukushima; they absolutely should be phased out in favor of new designs that provide passive safety (for several days without power).
Useful information that could have been included: Actual radiation measurements, with units. Specific location of the ship over the timeline. What radiation the Navy and the ship in question knew about, and when (news reports indicate the USS Reagan nearby knew very early on when radiation exceeded background radiation since as a nuclear vessel it had good radiation sensors). And, since some of the claimants are claiming thyroid problems, whether the navy issued iodine tablets to sailors in the area, since that's a well known and practically risk-free preventative measure against radioactive iodine uptake. Hell, the standard navy rations probably have supplemental iodine. Table salt often does.
You might also be interested in researching how much radiation is released into the atmosphere from coal plants, and how many health problems are caused by all sorts of conventional energy sources, coal, burning fuel, pollution from batteries, etc.
Disclaimer: not to say that 60's-era nuclear reactor designs are good, even with more precautions being taken since Fukushima; they absolutely should be phased out in favor of new designs that provide passive safety (for several days without power).
As long as you're going to use amorphous group affiliations to create an ad-hominem attack, let me do the same: "AnotherDesigner"
Even someone with an anti-nuclear stance should look at an article whose primary source is an attorney suing TEPCO and think "this is not adding anything valuable to the conversation."
It is amazing, but the diodes down my left side hurt all the time.
Er, the opinions expressed by the "nuclear apologists" generally line up with those of experts in the field.
It's the fools who talk about "400 tons of radiation" who are committing the sin of hubris in thinking that they know more than the experts.
It's the fools who talk about "400 tons of radiation" who are committing the sin of hubris in thinking that they know more than the experts.
If you want an independent opinion upon the pros and cons of disbanding my field of work, don't ask me.
You have to make up your mind: do we trust experts, or not?
The person I was replying to was clearly on the "yes" side of that.
You can certainly disagree, but then your argument is going to be radically different.
The person I was replying to was clearly on the "yes" side of that.
You can certainly disagree, but then your argument is going to be radically different.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that one should bare this in mind while listening. Keep conflicts in mind and listen.
I'm with you, then. You have to learn and understand these things yourself, not just listen to whatever other people say. But, when somebody criticizes you for thinking you know better than the experts, it's totally valid to point out that the experts say the same thing.
A Geiger counter is a simple, inexpensive device, and several should be present at all significant military installations and turned on at all times. Why wasn't that the case here?
It was. The Reagan is nuclear-powered and is capable of carrying nuclear missiles (and quite possibly was at the time). Unless Navy planning has entirely rotted away, that ship was plastered with radiation detectors, crewed with people trained for nuke decon, equipped with NBC (nuclear/bioweapon/chemical weapon) protection suits, and supplied with potassium iodide tablets for thyroid protection.
Then what really happened here?
I am a CBRN specialist in the Marine Corps. These ships run constant radiation detection, everywhere, especially in the water desal. The only probable cause for these kind of biological responses, would have to be inhalation of radiated particulates, but even that would be extremely difficult given the range from the source. Even the most basic respiratory protection(shirt over face) would prevent most of that type of contamination.
The entire CBRN community was hyper focused on these operations Navy wide, and the possibility of an entire group of ships not taking every precaution is very very very low. I am not discounting the possibility of equipment failure(unknowingly) or execution failure by individuals, but the chances of that with so much attention on the issue would be low.
EDIT: What do people do when they see snow? Think tounge out.
The entire CBRN community was hyper focused on these operations Navy wide, and the possibility of an entire group of ships not taking every precaution is very very very low. I am not discounting the possibility of equipment failure(unknowingly) or execution failure by individuals, but the chances of that with so much attention on the issue would be low.
EDIT: What do people do when they see snow? Think tounge out.
"What do people do when they see snow? Think tounge out."
I thought that as well, especially with the detail in the article about 'billows of metallic-tasting snow'.
I thought that as well, especially with the detail in the article about 'billows of metallic-tasting snow'.
Probably mass hysteria. It seems unlikely that the captain blithley ignored basic safety measures, and the symptoms reported in the article are not typical for radiation sickness.
This doesn't mean anything, its technobabble. How many REM or mSv total exposure?
"I said something complicated and science-y sounding, so you are supposed to be scared right now".
The biggest misfortune is they may even accidentally be correct, just completely incompetent about it.
A big epidemiology problem is identifying the actual cause by symptom, and avoiding the assumption that participation in something big and scary therefore means all problems must be caused by big n scary. Some goofball tipping over a barrel of solvent in the maint bay could cause many cancers later, and is marginally more likely.