17 Navy crew washed clean of radiation - they were in a helicopter

[ensho]

guess they had to wash down the copter too.

--------------
from rsoe.com email alert - 7th Navy Fleet moving away from radiation

The U.S. 7th Fleet has temporarily repositioned its ships and aircraft away from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant after detecting low level contamination in the air and on its aircraft operating in the area. The source of this airborne radioactivity is a radioactive plume released from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant. 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. The ship was operating at sea about 100 miles northeast of the power plant at the time. 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. As a precautionary measure, USS Ronald Reagan and other U.S. 7th Fleet ships conducting disaster response operations in the area have moved out of the downwind direction from the site to assess the situation and determine what appropriate mitigating actions are necessary. We remain committed to our mission of providing assistance to the people of Japan.
-----------------------

[xchrom]

1. You can just 'feel' the coming cancer victims. Nt

[FBaggins]

2. From these helecopter crewmen?

Do you get cancer from spending a few minutes in your basement every day?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

4. If something is that far wrong... isn't it worth correcting?

There are enough valid reasons to be worried without getting paranoid about things that simply aren't dangerous.

These guys received incredibly tiny doses. Could they get cancer? Sure! We're all exposed to radiation all the time and any of us could.

But if you increase the amount of radiation you receive by .000001 percent - is that what caused the cancer?

[ananda]

5. Ermm...

We're talking about exposure to increased radiation released by Fukushima power plants.

It's always good to have a healthy respect and fear of radiation. It's better to err on the
side of caution than to suffer radiation sickness and/or cancer down the line.

[FBaggins]

9. And that's why they took a careful shower and disposed of their uniforms.

An excess of caution is warranted. Best to keep your exposure to a minimum whenever possible. That's why they stick a lead apron in your lap for some xrays. There's no real danger, but there's also no significant expense/hassle in taking protective measures.

[madokie]

6. The deal is you cry wolf so much

Hell that statement you replied to needed no correction as you call it, it was only made in passing, not a statement that carried any weight as such.
Why can't you see that, being an intelligent person and all

Or are you a paid nuclear shill?

[FBaggins]

8. There are too many wolves around.

Hell that statement you replied to needed no correction

People need to understand the risks of radiation. There are people out there who refuse to get xrays/mamograms/etc because they worry about the exposure (all while probably sitting in a living room with unremediated radon concentrations).

This was that kind of statement.

it was only made in passing

As was my reply. Yet you felt the need to comment. Can you see the double standard? :)

[Hannah Bell]

30. also, why the need to call anyone who is trying to respect accuracy a nuclear shill?

also why the double standard that the japanese govt is lying when it reports "good" things about the event and telling the truth when it reports bad ones?

lots of double standards.

[FBaggins]

32. Kind of you to say so.

As with most such issues, there's an agenda here. This event gives some people an opportunity to try to advance their agenda. When facts aren't good enough, lean on the fear factor.

But we've seen it in other contexts before. Tell me you didn't spend a few months thinking that I was a shill for charter schools? :)

It goes farther too. After "shill" comes "paid shill". You must KNOW that your position is wrong, but take it anyway for the profit motive. It's impossible for some people to believe that you could possible disagree with them honestly.

[Hannah Bell]

33. did I? link me.

there are 2 baggins here, i get them confused.

was it in the context of you trying to respect accuracy?

[FBaggins]

35. Goodness... I wouldn't have kept a link

I don't let those sorts of things get to me.

there are 2 baggins here, i get them confused.

I'm the one that saved the world from evil. How can you get that confused? :)

was it in the context of you trying to respect accuracy?

That doesn't ring a bell. I recall it as a debate on an issue unrelated to charters (but in Education). My perception was that you assumed that because we disagreed on that (as we have on a few threads) that I must fit the mold of anti-teacher pro-charter interlocutors that you've run into before. It might have been a thread re: the Central Falls teachers... but I don't think it was that long ago.

[KittyWampus]

10. We don't know how much they were exposed to, do we?

[FBaggins]

12. Yes.

I think it was reported, but the treatment alone gives you a good idea of the exposure. Carrier crews are NBC trained and there are protocols that would be followed at given levels.

But all I was saying was that it was incredibly low... it isn't important whether it's 1/100th of the amount that might hurt you or 1/1,000th. Just based on the reported measurement at the plant during their then-worst releases, you can tell that 100 miles away you aren't going to get above that negligible level.

[joeybee12]

13. Don't stop there...tell us how safe the Gulf food is!!! nt

[FBaggins]

15. Did you read what you replied to?

I would only correct something that I felt was incorrect.

To make the comparison relevant. If someone had dumped his oil-change waste of 4 quarts into the gulf... I would agree that this wasn't a great idea and that measures should be taken.

I wouldn't agree with someone who said "Get ready for oil slicks and closed beaches!"

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

24. But apparently not in the science behind them.

their insignificant exposure did raise their chances of getting cancer by a very small percentage point.

Can you tell us what the smallest exposure is that has been associated with an increased rate of cancer?

I promise you it's orders of magnitude below this.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Angry Dragon]

7. ...........

:popcorn:

[ensho]

11. radiation accumulates

in the body. each time a body gets some radiation it is added to what is already there.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. "radiation" is just energy... like light. It doesn't accumulate.

matter itself can "be irradiated"... and your body cna accumulate any number diferent matter.
But the radiation itself does not accumulate. It's just high frequency EM waves.

Your statement, as it stands, is much too broad to be taken as correct or incorrect.

[ensho]

16. you are wrong

nt

[FBaggins]

17. The correct statement is "radiation exposure is cumulative"

It doesn't "accumulate in the body". Once an alpha particle (for instance) hits a cell... the particle is gone. The damage to the cell remains.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. Correct.

Although Alpha and Beta radiation are fairly easily blocked. In fact, you pretty much have to ingest/inhale an Alpha emitter for it to cause damage as simple clothing (even a few cm of air) will stop alpha radiation.

[FBaggins]

23. Even clothing isn't necessary for Alpha (if you're a nudist emergency worker)

Just the layer of dead skin is usually enough. Even were it to strike healthy skin cells, the ones on top are the ones that are about to die. They would be long gone before skin cancer could develop.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. BINGO!

[FBaggins]

25. Your #21 would have been so much more credible if it wasn't followed here.

You really going to go with "radiation accumulates"?

I guess if you leave those alpha particles out there long enough... they find alpha particles of the opposite sex and have babies?

Or maybe they just hang out waiting for others to join the party?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

27. Re-read what you replied to.

The "industry shills" were the ones saying that exposure is cumulative.

The post you "BINGO"'d was the one that had it wrong. "Radiation" does NOT accumulate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. He said it is cummulative

[FBaggins]

31. He said RADIATION was cumulative. He was wrong.

I corrected him that exposure is considered cumulative (it isn't strictly... but it's close enough).

[yawnmaster]

18. The energy to which the crewmen where exposed was what one would get on 2 coast to coast...

flights at 35,000 ft in a modern airliner.
Low level. If they hadn't have washed it still would have been fine.

They received about 25 or so mRems. An astronaut on a spaceshuttle mission receives 25,000.
On a coast to coast flight you receive about 12 mRems.

[Cleita]

20. Where did the soap and water go?

Radiation just doesn't biodegrade like other kinds of contamination.

[Hannah Bell]

28. this is old news, i believe. it happened after either the first or second

explosion, & has been posted numerous times.

not new news. just for clarification.