US Navy Sailors Sue TEPCO Over Cluster-Fukushima Snafu

[unhappycamper]

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/53253/us-navy-sailors-sue-tepco-over-cluster-fukushima-snafu

"Why has this not made national headlines??? The Aircraft Carrier Ronald Reagan is nuclear powered. Radiation detection equipment did not pick up on this?? Why have these sailors and marines medical records been removed from permanent tracking. Criminal implications galore. This should be all over mainstream media. Someone please forward all these ene reports to the media…. Tepco is the lowest of snakes. Hari Kari for the lot of em!!"
— Comment on enenews, August 15, 2013, by "timemachine2020"

US Navy Sailors Sue TEPCO Over Cluster-Fukushima Snafu
by William Boardman | December 19, 2013 - 9:12am

The story referred to in the enenews.com comment above has had some coverage by Energy News, Tuner Radio Network, Stars and Stripes and a few others, but coverage, if any, by mainstream media is scant to none. All the same, it's a real story, with real villains (TEPCO, Japanese government, U.S. Navy for starters), and real victims (a growing number of American service personnel put in harm's way and abandoned by their government when things got tough).

The core of this story is the lawsuit filed December 21, 2012, by attorney Paul C. Garner of Brooks & Associates of Encinatas, California, on behalf of nine plaintiffs (including a one-year-old), all of whom "were among the members of the U.S. Navy crew and attached to the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), whose home port was San Diego, California, when they were exposed to radiation off the coast at Fukushima prefecture, Japan, whereat the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant is located, on and after March 11, 2011, during the mission known as 'Operation Tomodachi.'" The complainant seeks a jury trial, but the case is still in the pre-trial stage. The plaintiffs are seeking $40 million each in damages as well as a fund of more than a billion dollars to be used for their future medical expenses.

The U.S.S. Reagan is a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a crew of about 5,000 that arrived off the coast of Fukushima the day after the tsunami with other ships as part of Operation Tomodachi, or "friend" in Japanese.

On March 11, 2011, an earthquake near Fukushima caused a tsunami that killed an estimated 19,000 people and swamped the Fukushima nuclear power plant. In the aftermath of the tsunami, three of the six reactors at Fukushima melted down, releasing radiation into the air, ground, and water. The precise sequence of events remains unclear, but the Japanese government and TEPCO (the Tokyo Electric Power Company, a wholly owned public benefit subsidiary of the government of Japan) were not being fully forthcoming about the danger as the disaster developed.

[PamW]

1. We've covered this....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=59940

The comment from enenews wondering about why the radiation detection equipment didn't pick up on the radiation is ill-informed.

The USS Ronald Reagan, her officers and crew knew about the radioactivity and radiation long before the ship arrived in Japanese waters. The US Government's own radiation tracking system was detecting and plotting the progress of the radiation and radioactivity.

As a US warship, the USS Ronald Reagan, her crew and officers are trained in how to operate in radioactive environments, and entered the radiation zone knowingly. It wasn't Japanese negligence that resulted in them being there; the USS Ronald Reagan was ordered into the area to lend assistance.

If anything, it would be the culpability of the US Government; but the US Government is protected against lawsuits by its citizens by the concept of "sovereign immunity" unless Congress has specifically authorized such lawsuits.

PamW

[kristopher]

2. "We covered this" = that's the official version = probable coverup

You are settling the case before it is adjudicated and you can't do that with any degree of credibility.

For example calling into question the official version is the anecdote (with numerous witnesses) regarding the sailor taking in the flag. That episode demonstrates categorically that the official version is false. There are also a number of contradictions raised by the official version; starting with this, if they knew of the fallout cloud in advance, why was there even "minor" exposure for the ship. It they didn't know of the fallout in advance, then the issue becomes filled with blame for why not and what might have been done to sweep a series of mistakes under the rug.


1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.



Primary reference:
The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;

[PamW]

3. Reading Comprehension Problem Flaring Up Again???

kristopher,

You really need to do something about that bad case of Reading Comprehension Problem...

I was not saying the case was "adjudicated" or anything of the sort.

I was merely advising the OP that there was already a discussion underway on the topic; and perhaps the OP would like to chime in there rather than proliferate another thread on the same topic.

Where you got the "idea" ( term used loosely ) that I was saying anything was "adjudicated" is beyond me.

I wonder where the bad link in the chain is. Does something happen to the photons between kristopher's screen and his eyes to introduce this type of distortion into the post?

Do his eyes register an accurate image of the post?

Does the information get distorted traversing the optic nerve....

Or does something go badly wrong after that.....

Tell me how the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy are; so I can let Dr. James Hansen know next time I see him at a scientific conference.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

4. Right. You didn't try to create a false impression with 100% declarative sentences

Right.

[PamW]

5. NOPE!!!

kristopher,

EVERY sentence is an objectivelyTRUTHFUL statement.

PamW