Reagan sailors press on in radiation lawsuit

[Bonobo]

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20131228/NEWS08/312280004/Reagan-sailors-press-radiation-lawsuit

The lawsuit alleges that TEPCO officials knew how serious the radiation leak was and knew that American troops were heading to Japan to offer relief, but did nothing to warn them of what they were sailing into.

A spokesman for the Navy, which is not a defendant in the case, said Reagan crew members weren’t exposed to enough radiation to cause long-term health effects.

“For perspective, the worst-case radiation exposure for a crew member on USS Ronald Reagan is less than 25 percent of the annual radiation exposure to a member of the U.S. public from natural sources of background radiation, such as the sun, rocks and soil,” spokesman Lt. Greg Raelson said.

Raelson added that aircrews delivering supplies to Fukushima were given medication to stave off thyroid gland exposure to radiation, and the ships were monitored for levels of radioactivity and equipment was washed down to remove radioactive materials.

[RobertEarl]

1. If it was just 25%

Why did they have to wash the ship down?

I think they Navy spokesman is not telling the Truth.

The trial should bring the Truth. Unless it is hidden for national security reasons.

[Bonobo]

2. I think you would want to wash the ship down if it was 25% of annual radiation exposure. nt

[FBaggins]

3. A few reasons

1 - The exposure would go up if the contamination was allowed to remain on deck. Why would you leave it laying around when...

2 - The ship is equipped to clean it up... they didn't need to spend large amounts of time or money - and they have essentially free labor that needs to...

3 - Train frequently. What better environment to train for handling more significant CBR conditions than one in which the success of your efforts is measurable? How many hundreds/thousands of times do they drill for every "real" scenario... yet it is those real situations that teach skills the best.

I think they Navy spokesman is not telling the Truth.

So Navy personnel who actually specialize in the field they are speaking about are liars... but the ones that know nothing at all and speak only out of paranoid fear (and an ambulance chaser's desire for cash) are to be believed without any evidence at all?

Got it.

[FSogol]

4. +1. n/t

[truedelphi]

5. So, here are some things you might ponder -

For starters, just how many Navy personnel were contaminated by radiation during the forties and fifties, due to how the ships were so close to atomic test sites? These people died of radiation-related cancers before they could get any compensation for their situation, with our government personnel denying them that the problem was related to the deliberate contamination of said sailors.

The cesium and other radioactive elements that are of concern can cause health problems immediately. While so much of our Mainstream Media now tries to tell us that "we don't have any data on what radiation does" or there hasn't been any body of research on the effects of radiation (such as article in Time Magazine told the American public, Summer of 2011) - those statements are lies.

We have tons of data, some of which was gathered in Hiroshima and in Nagasaki by researchers and scientists sent by the USA to gather such data in 1945 and 1946. Also we have tons of data relating to what happened to people in Utah and Nevada during the days of our above ground a-bomb tests.

We are also going to be hit terribly by cancers in this country by the massive radiation that hit our shores especially in Alaska, West Coast, and Texas after the Fukushima End Event of March 2011. . Here is one citation:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/09/radiation-detected-in-drinking-water-in-13-more-us-cities-cesium-137-in-vermont-milk/

Anyway, shame on you for saying our Navy personnel are ambulance chasers.

[FBaggins]

13. Ok... let's ponder together.

For starters, just how many Navy personnel were contaminated by radiation during the forties and fifties, due to how the ships were so close to atomic test sites?

Lots and lots. There were also residents of some of the islands that were contaminated.

These people died of radiation-related cancers before they could get any compensation for their situation

"These people"? Certainly not all of them... or even most... or even very many. And those doses were MANY times higher than what the Reagan sailors experienced.

with our government personnel denying them that the problem was related to the deliberate contamination of said sailors.

As above... You don't get to make up your own facts. There are "atomic vets" that many decades later claim their cancers were caused by exposure to radiation... but in most cases, their cancers aren't occurring at greater rates than the general population. So when you see (for instance) a son claim that his long-time-smoker father died of lung cancer because of radiation exposure 60+ years earlier... we can be compassionate, but we can't say that there's a reason to believe his claim is accurate.

The cesium and other radioactive elements that are of concern can cause health problems immediately.

Nope. Not in doses even much MUCH higher than the highest that was recorded. In fact, there hasn't been a single recorded dose (including workers at the plant during the meltdowns) high enough to expect immediate health problems.

While so much of our Mainstream Media now tries to tell us that "we don't have any data on what radiation does" or there hasn't been any body of research on the effects of radiation (such as article in Time Magazine told the American public, Summer of 2011) - those statements are lies.

You'll have to provide examples of that claim... because it certainly isn't true of media coverage in general. Instead, the media was publishing (within days) LOTS of "data on what radiation does". The government(s) also put this out frequently... while the anti-nukes tried to scare people without data to back it up. See below.

We have tons of data, some of which was gathered in Hiroshima and in Nagasaki by researchers and scientists sent by the USA to gather such data in 1945 and 1946. Also we have tons of data relating to what happened to people in Utah and Nevada during the days of our above ground a-bomb tests.

Exactly right. We have TONS of such data (including hundreds of thousands of cases of very specific exposures used as medical treatments)... and an entire branch of medical science (health physics) dedicated to studying the health effects of radiation. The problem you have is that this science speaks VERY clearly that statements such as your "We are also going to be hit terribly by cancers in this country by the massive radiation that hit our shores" are ridiculously wrong.


Here is one citation

Read it again. Your citation proves my point. The reported contamination was barely about the level where ongoing exposure year-round would still not add an appreciable dose. And since it was almost entirely Iodine... they knew that it would be gone within days/weeks (and it was). Nothing anywhere close to "massive radiation to hit our shores"... not by orders of magnitude.

Anyway, shame on you for saying our Navy personnel are ambulance chasers.

Again... you're not entitled to your own facts. I never said anything of the sort. The two lawyers who went fishing for most of these sailors are the ambulance chasers.

[truedelphi]

16. Yesterday's update on the Navy Sailors and their situation:

Please note the cancers listed in the section of text that I emboldened. Some thirty five sailors having such cancers in the aftermath of the Fukushima event either indicates that something was seriously wrong with allowing these personnel to be exposed, or else the work environment of the Navy ship is deplorable.

Also you don't seem to have an understanding of what went on. Yes, there was radioactive iodine released by Fukushima. But there was also cesium and strontium released. how do we know this? On account of monitoring stations i New England that in late April or May 2011, found those isotopes in the milk!

BTW, if there is radioactive iodine in the environment, it is essential that a person have adequate iodine in their system, so their bodies don't take in the radioactive stuff. This is why iodine tablets are always offered for anyone who is going in to situation where such radioactive iodine might be occurring.

As far as the Time Magazine citation, you can check back copies of Time magazine for yourself. It would have been in an issue of June or July 2011. I read the article in my dentist's office waiting room. I have pretty much avoided keeping citations because after 20 years of research into such matters, my garage can't handle another banker box of such proof. But it is in the library and if you want to get it, you can. Or you can just attack. Your choice.

"Reagan Sailors to Refile Suit For Fukushima Radiation Poisoning"

by Source on January 1, 2014 · 2 comments

in Environment, Health
At least 71 sailors from San Diego-based carrier have reported radiation sickness and will file a lawsuit against Tokyo Electric Power Co.
US Navy Photo

US Navy Photo

By Brandon Baker / EcoNews

After U.S. Navy sailors on the USS Ronald Reagan responded to the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan for four days, many returned to the U.S. with thyroid cancer, Leukemia, brain tumors and more.

At least 71 sailors—many in their 20s—reported radiation sickness and will file a lawsuit against Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), which operates the Fukushima Daiichi energy plant.

The men and women accuse TEPCO of downplaying the danger of nuclear radiation on the site. The water contaminated the ship’s supply, which led to crew members drinking, washing their bodies and brushing their teeth with contaminated water. Paul Garner, an attorney representing 51 sailors, said at least half of the 70-plus sailors have some form of cancer.

[Union Scribe]

17. Thank you.

Rational examination of this situation is depressingly rare on DU.

[RobertEarl]

6. You are coming along

FBaggins: ""The exposure would go up if the contamination was allowed to remain on deck. Why would you leave it laying around""

That has to be the first time you admit that the exposure keeps going up as the contamination is left "laying around".

So what about the contamination of the fallout across the US as admitted to by the EPA? Was any effort made to clean it up? Was anyone warned?

Seems the military was concerned, somewhat, for its sailors, but citizens here are just told to suck it up?

I remember now... the EPA told us: "No immediate danger". Glad to see that you finally are coming around to the Truth that "leaving it laying around" is NOT a good idea, because exposure just goes up. Finally. Good for you.

I wonder how many people are still being exposed, since some of the contamination is still laying around? Care to take a stab at that question?

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Time distance (which is true)

That said, at the height I still find it curious that the EPA turned off a bunch of Geiger counters.

But time-distance should be the expected answer here.

Oh and don't forget those bananas.

[RobertEarl]

10. Dose

Problem with getting dosed is most nuclear contamination is not a one time event. If not cleaned up nuclear doses can continue to contaminate for 100's of years. And Fukushima keeps emitting more everyday.

Time and distance is not so much a factor after periods of initial release because the long lived materials keep being distributed through the food chain.

As for the USS rr, I wonder if the crews' quarters were cleaned up? IOW, was the whole ship scrubbed, or just the deck? Air supply systems? Water supplies?

This points out the unique problems with nuclear contamination. Maybe this trial will help get the Truth out?

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I know

But our friend is that predictable, why I offered the answer, time distance. If you want to keep it simple, that is the answer. He is also the origin of what has become a DU institution, the humble banana.

[RobertEarl]

12. Yes, of course

I welcome the opportunity to have discussions about these matters. FB has been a great nuke-strawman builder and so has helped keep the discussions going. People are learning the Truth, partly because of him and his ilk.

Now that we have blown away so many nukers we are almost just preaching to the choir anymore.

[Union Scribe]

18. I don't think one person (you)

repeatedly trying to force into existence a meme of something you misunderstood can be called a DU tradition. Your crunchy news on the other hand...

[FBaggins]

15. Unfortunately... you aren't.

That has to be the first time you admit that the exposure keeps going up as the contamination is left "laying around".

Hardly.

So what about the contamination of the fallout across the US as admitted to by the EPA? Was any effort made to clean it up? Was anyone warned?

Why would anyone need to be "warned"? There wasn't anything even close to being a danger. What you keep ignoring is that when you're talking about radiation... the amount matters. If there's enough contamination to give someone a month's dose in a short period of time... then you don't want to leave it there if you can easily clean it up.

There is something called an "intervention level"... an amount of contamination that calls for cleanup or remediation of some sort. The fallout across the US as reported (not "admitted to&quot by the EPA was orders of magnitude below that amount. The vase majority of it was radioiodine which does not need to be cleaned up because it disappears pretty quickly on its own.

I remember now... the EPA told us: "No immediate danger".

Nope. They reported correctly that there was no danger at all. And there wasn't.

I wonder how many people are still being exposed, since some of the contamination is still laying around? Care to take a stab at that question?

The exposure in the US is essentially indistinguishable from zero. The experts at Berkeley haven't found anything in a long time. Feel free to check for yourself.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling

[zappaman]

7. +1

Nice to see someone correct the bullshit and endless fearmongering!

[RobertEarl]

9. Saying they are not telling the Truth is not calling them liars

Fbaggins asks: "So Navy personnel who actually specialize in the field they are speaking about are liars..."

The Navy has not always been forthcoming with the Truth. Especially concerning nuclear exercises. Everyone knows that. Duh!

And it is good for you to admit that you have no: "...evidence at all". Because if you did, you'd be the first to share, wouldn't you? After all, you are not constrained by the Navy, or anyone. All you have is what a Navy spokesman has told us, and it is not evidence, it is merely PR.

Evidence would be the exact amount, the particulate material, and the gamma, beta and alpha counts. Since the Navy is prepared for all those types of occurrences it should be able to testify, at trial, for the benefit of its, as you describe them, "essentially free labor" sailors. It is the least they can do for its labor, eh?

[FBaggins]

14. Sure it is.

When they're the ones measuring the exposure and reporting on it - and are the ones trained to do so (so they can't be ignorant)... they're either lying or telling the truth. If you don't believe them... you think they're lying.

The Navy has not always been forthcoming with the Truth. Especially concerning nuclear exercises. Everyone knows that. Duh!

The radiation (and estimated doses) was reported immediately - so you can't accuse them of not being forthcoming. They reported the plume and the doses years before anyone claimed that they were injured.

And it is good for you to admit that you have no: "...evidence at all".

You continue to have a reading comprehension problem. The ones that don't have any evidence at all are the attorneys and their claims.

Evidence would be the exact amount, the particulate material, and the gamma, beta and alpha counts.

Nope. Nothing so specific is necessary. What was reported is far more than the nebulous "I think I was exposed to radiation and now I have symptoms that my lawyer says were caused by that radiation." The Navy reporting on the highest doses and the fact that such low doses have never been associated with most of the reported symptoms is good enough.

Since the Navy is prepared for all those types of occurrences it should be able to testify, at trial, for the benefit of its, as you describe them, "essentially free labor" sailors.

The Navy isn't a party to the case and has already been preparing more specific dose estimates for all personnel in the region at the time. But the Reagan sailors was already told at the time that they weren't exposed to anything close to the levels that could result in health issues. What else is there to add?