Skip to main content

Harvey Wasserman, Common Dreams . . .

A stunning new report indicates the U.S. Navy knew that sailors from the nuclear-powered USS Ronald Reagan took major radiation hits from the Fukushima atomic power plant after its meltdowns and explosions nearly three years ago.  Many of the sailors are already suffering devastating health impacts, but are being stonewalled by Tepco and the Navy.

The $4.3 billion carrier is now docked in San Diego. Critics question whether it belongs there at all. Attempts to decontaminate U.S. ships irradiated during the Pacific nuclear bombs tests from 1946-1963 proved fruitless.

Still radioactive?

aircraft carrier ronald reagan photo: US Navy 1-119.jpg

(stock photo)

Stars and Stripes  . . .

When the March 11, 2011 disaster struck, the Reagan was on its way to Korea, according to Reagan sailors who participated in Operation Tomodachi. They turned around and immediately made their way for the Japanese mainland, passing through a sea of debris.

Sailors told Stars and Stripes that they believe they were as close as five miles off the coast of the stricken plant that spewed radiation into the air and sea.

Sailors who were onboard the Reagan have claimed that they were drinking contaminated desalinated seawater and bathing in it until the ship’s leadership came over the public address system and told them to stop because it was contaminated. They claim the ventilation system was also contaminated. Furthermore, some claim they were pressured into signing forms confirming they had been given iodine pills when none had been provided.

The ship's ventilation system might have been contaminated?  What other systems might have been contaminated?

The US Navy's "investigation" of the turret explosion on the USS Iowa doesn't give me much confidence that we'll be told the truth about conditions aboard the USS Reagan during its exposure to Fukushima radiation, or about what action has been taken to decontaminate the $4.3 billion dollar carrier.  

Wasserman . . .

In the midst of a snow storm, deck hands were enveloped in a warm cloud that came with a metallic taste. Sailors testify that the Reagan’s 5,500-member crew was told over the ship’s intercom to avoid drinking or bathing in desalinized water drawn from a radioactive sea. The huge carrier quickly ceased its humanitarian efforts and sailed 100 miles out to sea, where newly published internal Navy communications confirm it was still taking serious doses of radioactive fallout.
Still taking serious doses of radioactive fallout.

For how long?

Wasserman . . .

Tepco and the Navy contend the Reagan did not receive a high enough dose to warrant serious concern. But Japan, South Korea and Guam deemed the carrier too radioactive to enter their ports.
Tepco and the Navy are insisting that all is well.

Yeah.  Thanks for looking into this, keep up the good work!

Originally posted to JusticeSeeker68 on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:08 AM PST.

Also republished by Nuclear Free DK and Japan Nuclear Incident Liveblogs.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (280+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus, tobendaro, jayden, leftykook, Joieau, Rejoinder, 313to212, cotterperson, jbob, DRo, catly, leeleedee, whenwego, dawgflyer13, pajoly, J M F, Just Bob, onionjim, greenbastard, PhilJD, northerntier, snoopydawg, IB JOHN, dougymi, OLinda, peacestpete, PatriciaVa, sodalis, old wobbly, pfiore8, pyegar, viral, billybam, Siri, marleycat, Lefty Coaster, weck, camlbacker, flycaster, Wheever, No one gets out alive, susakinovember, cskendrick, Bob Johnson, roses, devis1, zerone, dewtx, copymark, Knucklehead, cocinero, radical simplicity, mollyd, Tunk, Aureas2, kevinpdx, doingbusinessas, kharma, ColoTim, joynow, suspiciousmind, WisVoter, wader, JVolvo, Empower Ink, stlsophos, fb, native, Ice Blue, emmasnacker, seefleur, Buckeye Nut Schell, Horace Boothroyd III, Josiah Bartlett, FarWestGirl, S F Hippie, Jim P, AoT, DeminNewJ, berko, VTCC73, davehouck, IndieGuy, sponson, afisher, owlbear1, britzklieg, Betty Pinson, The Rational Hatter, Steveningen, jasan, fixxit, Shockwave, Cassandra Waites, greycat, slowbutsure, Da Rock, wilderness voice, Loudoun County Dem, PeteZerria, Sun Tzu, Fishtroller01, protectspice, jm214, Gorette, 2thanks, rbird, cybersaur, chimene, Alfred E Newman, Sandino, gfv6800, zmom, mookins, Buckeye54, elziax, edsbrooklyn, Hanging Up My Tusks, marina, Bluesee, LillithMc, MufsMom, bnasley, mudslide, Miss Jones, nuclear winter solstice, parse this, rapala, Subterranean, davidincleveland, HedwigKos, rage, RJP9999, cwsmoke, plan9pub, o76, ehavenot, AllanTBG, Pakalolo, also mom of 5, 3rock, Ree Zen, Halfton81, kaliope, myrealname, shortgirl, eeff, AZ Sphinx Moth, terremoto, pat bunny, ChemBob, monkeybrainpolitics, Cofcos, markdd, la urracca, JesseCW, Matilda, HeyMikey, Geenius at Wrok, Steven D, tofumagoo, AlwaysDemocrat, where4art, NinetyWt, BobTheHappyDinosaur, tmay, wintergreen8694, Toyotabob7, Susipsych, US Blues, Grandma Susie, profundo, Debs2, CharlieHipHop, chmood, YaNevaNo, seesdifferent, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, WakeUpNeo, pickandshovel, Rosaura, middleagedhousewife, tahoebasha2, eyesoars, GeorgeXVIII, oldpotsmuggler, KenBee, RandomNonviolence, 207wickedgood, Jollie Ollie Orange, Alumbrados, scurrvydog, mauricehall, lotlizard, psnyder, greengemini, JClarkPDX, Oldowan, 2dot, CIndyCasella, Thunder, Nebraskablue, greenbird, Kombema, eru, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, decisivemoment, Ironic Chef, prfb, KJG52, Wino, Agathena, RUNDOWN, RichterScale, misterwade, offred, blueoasis, OleHippieChick, get the red out, joanil, Floande, Lisa Lockwood, Statusquomustgo, basquebob, oofer, oortdust, StrayCat, toom, live1, NJpeach, Sylv, filby, OrdinaryIowan, Liberaltarian, ladywithafan, river0, groupw, TKO333, dksbook, molecularlevel, SherrieLudwig, unclebucky, peace voter, DavidinWY, GrannyRedBird, bluesapphire48, bill warnick, jludwig, nottheonly1, thanatokephaloides, bethann, miango113, maybeeso in michigan, msazdem, SeaTurtle, VirginiaJeff, Arkenstark, Casper46, fritzrth, skyounkin, phrogge prince, salliezoo, thewhitelist, RJDixon74135, LOrion, FDRfan, enhydra lutris, politically indigo, rja, Yamara, wilywascal, chickeeee, ptressel, agincour, SharonColeman, PipeUp, paradise50, isabel, CaffeineInduced, walkshills
    Hidden by:
    campionrules
  •  These GIs are absolutely fucked. (93+ / 0-)

    The Navy has been denying that anyone has been injured, the sailors can't sue them for their injuries incurred thru negligence, AND they don't have standing to sue TEPCO, GE, Japan, or anyone else...

    What's next? The VA denies their disability?

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:30:34 AM PST

    •  Only the engineering department (12+ / 0-)

      personnel are provided dosimeters and have their radiation exposure monitored; that's SOP on nuclear powered vessels... but I would bet they kept those sailors from having too much exposure since their radioactive exposure is, by Navy regs, monitored and logged in their medical records...

      Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

      by awesumtenor on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:08:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  radiation safety has a mission (9+ / 0-)

        to monitor for a nuclear attack,

        but when people report that metallic taste, it's
        radioactive iodine.

        •  Really now? (9+ / 0-)

          It's an interesting claim that radioiodine has a detectable flavor, but one that appears suspect as soon as some background numbers are looked at.  Basically, if you can taste this stuff, you're dead a couple times over.

          The taste threshold for elemental iodine is 0.15 mg / l in water (http://www.who.int/...), and thus saliva, of which we have an average of 1 ml residing in our mouths at any one time (via Google).  You could reasonably expect to barely taste 150 ng of iodine were it to land in your mouth. The specific activity of I-131 works out to 1.25E+8 mCi / g, meaning you could barely taste an activity of 20 millicuries.  If you had enough I-131 in your mouth to taste it, what could would this mean for your health?  According to the NRC's ALI table, the oral ingestion of 90 microcuries of I-131 produces 5 rem of committed effective dose equivalent (http://www.nrc.gov/...).  Thus, at the threshold for tasting I-131, you'd have well in excess of a lethal dose in your mouth:  You'd have so much I-131 in your mouth at that one instant that you could reasonably expect more than 1000 rem (10 Sv) of radiation dose, all of it coming in the next few days because of the isotope's short half-life.  They'd have to stick a fork in you, because you'd be well-done.

          Clearly, the sailors of the Reagan lived to see another day and (for some) to embark on a lawsuit.  So any metallic taste they noticed would not have been reasonably attributable to radioactive iodine.  

          Ironically, a side-effect of a common prophylactic against radioiodine uptake, potassium iodide (KI), CAN cause a "metallic taste", see http://www.fda.gov/....  

          •  and yet credible reports come in (8+ / 0-)

            so either all these people are lying,
            or
            the mechanics don't work the way you think

            •  uh.... (11+ / 0-)

              or the metallic taste didn't come from iodine.

              You armchair "experts" are absolutely killing the internet.

              "The right is correct on one thing...we really are a bunch of easily outraged nitpickers."

              by potato on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:17:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  lets see. (4+ / 0-)

                right now, we have 75 sick sailors on a 5,000 crew ship.

                That's about 1.5% of what should be an extremely
                healthy population.

                See,  you got a bunch of sick sailors,
                and you have a "Observed condition",
                so it's not like it's some mystery.

                You tell me why there are 74 excess illnesses in this community?

                •  Lots of explanations (6+ / 0-)

                  would be more plausible than radiation exposure.  Check again through the list of ailments in the lawsuit: it's clearly not one "observed condition" but a wide-ranging assortment of claimed conditions that range from tiredness and malaise and weight gain or loss and diarrhea, all the way to tumors.  For those of us who attended classes and passed exams on the subject of human radiobiology, it's straightforward to see that the observations are not consistent with radiation as a single cause.  Not by any informed stretch of the imagination.

                  I think it is in the interests of the people suffering from disease to obtain a correct diagnosis and to look at causes that plausibly relate to their particular symptoms.  It is not in anybody's legitimate interest to speculate about the causes from an uninformed position.  The link to radiation is highly speculative, and the folks peddling this speculation are too arrogant to acknowledge that.

                  •  can you cite the studies (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Gary Owen, Damaged262, salliezoo

                    that show what human health effects come
                    from reactor waste product release?

                    •  I'm gonna do you a huge favor (6+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ozy, sagesource, jqb, acornweb, fluffy, JerryNA

                      and temporarily suspend my disbelief that you possess a serious interest in learning about this subject.  You'll have to forgive my suspicion...your false dichotomy upthread kinda sends the signal that this discussion is not about logic or facts, right?  Not to mention that tasting-the-iodine doozy...while we're on the subject of citing studies, I'd be interested to know where you picked up that chirce nugget of wisdom.

                      Anyway, I recommend you get started with Herman Cember's "Introduction to Health Physics," now in its fourth edition.  This common text explains the established methods for external and internal dosimetry and has a variety of tables useful for these calculations.  Cember also provides very extensive bibliographies in his chapters, which lead the interested reader to primary sources and sources with a lot more detail.

                      •  there aren't a lot of studies on internal doses (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Gary Owen, Damaged262

                        that's a problem, and there aren't a lot of studies on
                        reactor by products.

                        •  Says who? (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          jqb, Gary Owen, acornweb

                          What is your metric for "a lot of studies?"  

                          •  how do you do Human studies on Reactor byproducts (1+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Damaged262
                            Hidden by:
                            fluffy

                            Given Dr Mengele was shot at Nuremberg,
                            you can't do controlled studies,

                            So Japan and Chernobyl have been uncontrolled studies.

                          •  Seriously? Really? You asked this question? (7+ / 0-)

                            This makes absolutely no sense. Of course you have 'controls' for the studies, the general population that wasn't accidentally exposed to reactor materials.

                            I'm not even really sure what to say here, this is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

                            Everything doesn't have to happen in a lab, where you have person A deliberately exposed and person B is not.

                            How do you think they do climate science, or evolutionary studies, or astronomy?

                          •  you don't have good dose data (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            luerwulf

                            and the population moves around a lot.

                            how many people stayed in pripyat
                            for longer then a week?

                            how many people moved around the Ukraine?

                            that's not an easily measured population.

                            it's not like studying rats.

                            and even so, all there really is is chernobyl, Fuku
                            and a few smaller incidents.

                          •  are you proposing keeping people in rad zones? (0+ / 0-)

                            thats human experiments

                          •  Now you're trolling. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            luerwulf

                            And deserve an HR for it.

                          •  This comment should be HR'd (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            acornweb, fluffy

                            Comparing someone to Dr. Mengele in a discussion like this one should absolutely be the end of the line, as it is an unambiguous proclamation of bad faith.  Recommending a comment like this also reflects very poorly on the person recommending it.

                            As an aside, history is clearly a weakness for Patbahn in addition to radiation biophysics.  Mengele was not "shot at Nuremburg"; he escaped to South America.  Google is your friend...

                          •  you can't do controlled studies (0+ / 0-)

                            because it is human experimentation.

                            If you want to do human experimentation on rad waste exposure, then you are a nazi.

                            we don't encourage that, so, it's very hard to have
                            any human data.

                          •  You don't understand (0+ / 0-)

                            the difference between observational and experimental methods, and you don't acknowledge the techniques that bring rigor to the observational methods found in epidemiology.  That bull-headed and fundamental lack of familiarity is your own problem.

                            Nazis and Dr. Mengele should not be part of discussions that aren't concerned with genocide and mass murder, the cause of their notoriety.  Face it...there's no connection.  

                          •  observational requires good metrics (0+ / 0-)

                            It's hard to be getting good data if you
                            don't have good metrics on the population

                          •  You clearly (0+ / 0-)

                            don't understand the different kinds of research. You don't have to do "experimentation" to achieve "controlled studies." Observational study is just as valid, and can still be controlled by examining people who were not exposed to the subject of research (i.e. compare sailors on the Reagan to sailors on a similar warship stationed elsewhere at the same time - gives you case-matched controls). You obviously don't understand what a research control is.

                          •  Real Issue ? (0+ / 0-)

                            Gentlemen ? I think before we get into a pissing contest here we should go back to the story. These people on "The Reagan" were ORDERED to report to the affected area. Pretty sure there weren't any "sorry big guy, you'll have to cover me on this one" responses to the orders. With that in mind, since there are only 75 sailors filing the lawsuit, why not examine each one, searching for a commonality in their medical problems ? The fact that the Navy refuses to even look into the matter seems the real question here.
                              So much of the distrust and animosity that the military creates could be solved by simply doing even a minimum investigation into the allegations. God forbid we should actually take care of the people who VOLUNTARILY choose to serve our country.

                          •  Seems a small amount of "research" was (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sandino

                            done on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Seems like, the navy has a number of ships similar to the Reagan, without matching numbers of issues like those in the radiation zone. This amounts to comparison data.  You really aren't pretending that illnesses related directly to radiation occuring upon crew, exposed to radiation, are NOT possibly caused by said radiation, because there haven't been any lab studies, ARE YOU?  That, sounds like climate change deniers, telling us that since we haven't gotten lab results back, proving every detail as fact, we should ignore the issue, and just keep steaming toward disaster, until the actuality is in our face and irreversible.

                          •  doctors trial (0+ / 0-)

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/...

                            yeah, mengele escaped, but i had him confused
                            with the ones who were tried.

                          •  Depends (0+ / 0-)

                            on your definition of "controlled." Placebo-controlled double-blind? Of course not. But you can get plenty of retrospective case-matched cohort-controlled data in a natural experiment like this.

                          •  Let's set the bar real high (0+ / 0-)

                            Whatever the nuclear industry says it is, obviously.
                            Clearly this person is not familiar with the field.

                        •  Maybe you are not looking (0+ / 0-)

                          in the right places.  Try
                          Dr. Alexey Yablokov, Drs. Vassily and Alexey Nesterenko.  Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment.  

                          •  Not a good source (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            acornweb, fluffy, JerryNA

                            Disputed (read the publisher's reviews), and none of the articles are peer-reviewed.  From the publisher's listing:

                            Importantly, the translated volume has not been formally peer‐reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences or by anyone else.  Under the editorial practices of Annals at the time, some projects, such as the Chernobyl translation, were developed and accepted solely to fulfill the Academy’s broad mandate of providing an open forum for discussion of scientific questions, rather than to present original scientific studies or Academy positions. The content of these projects, conceived as one-off book projects, were not vetted by standard peer review.
                            http://www.nyas.org/...

                            I mentioned the Herman Cember textbook earlier as an introduction to the standard, scientifically-accepted, consensus practices in radiation dosimetry.  In these discussions I also frequently cite Eric J. Hall's textbook "Radiobiology for the Radiologist," similarly well-known and respected.  For people unfamiliar with an expert subject area, a widely-circulated current textbook with bibliographies to peer-reviewed sources (a "reference of first recourse") is a reasonable place to start.  One cherry-picks solitary publications at his peril.

                            -Carl

                          •  I will play devil's advocate for a moment (0+ / 0-)

                            and point out that textbooks are generally considered secondary sources at best - they are frequently at least 3-5 years behind the data when published, and often loaded with "expert opinion" without excleent research data.

                          •  True for fields that are dynamic (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tarkangi

                            and at the front line of research.

                            Radiation health and safety? Not quite as much, especially for large full body dose effects, though certainly there is research still on going.

                            For example, recent results from LBL providing data that linear low dose risk is overstated.:

                            http://newscenter.lbl.gov/...

                            However, as slow as textbooks are to update, federal safety guidelines even less so.

                          •  All information sources have potential weaknesses (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ozy, tarkangi

                            Yes, textbooks lag the frontier and are secondary sources.  However, the good ones are transparent about their primary sources by offering a comprehensive bibliography.  The ones I mention have excellent bibliographies.

                            There is real risk, particularly in a sensationalized subject, when laypersons jump directly into primary sources, which may number in the hundreds of thousands.  There is the oft-noted tendency to "cherry pick" (confirmation bias), misinterpret, or not properly contextualize the information in single sources.  This risk is lessened through the responsible use of secondary sources that interpret the trends and common observations throughout the original research.

                            This particular discussion is about how someone unfamiliar with the scientific basis for radiation dosimetry would get an introduction to that.  And a widely-circulated current textbook with bibliographic references is the best source I can think of.  It's notable that this diary and its comments have not cleared the threshold of basic understanding in radiological science.  It's like a Southern Baptist youth group discussing evolution or sex, with predictably ridiculous results. We are nowhere near the point where contributors have the temperament or maturity, to say nothing of the background, to be interpreting primary sources.

                          •  Responsible use of secondary sources (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ozy, Skanner

                            IMHO you have nailed it with this one fragment.
                              Well done.
                            In a situation where there is a lot of shouting, and a lot of conflicting claims, and a wide spread lack of trust, how is the interested non-expert to gain an introduction to the essentials?

                            Generally the primary literature will be opaque even to educated experts in non-allied fields, as the topical experts presume presume familiarity with the fundamentals so they can leap to discussion of the frontier points in dispute.

                            And the tertiary literature will be potentially unreliable, the information having passed through chains of korean whispers with the whirr of grinding axes in the background.

                            Which leaves the secondaries, informed by the primary literature but geared towards the sincere and educated student.  My experience with taking up new subject areas is that the hardest part is unlearning all the trash that I have thoughtlessly picked up along the way, which turns out to be either incorrect or distracting from comprehension of the correct material.

                            So responsible is exactly the right word for this, and it's damned hard to do during a pie fight.

                            In closing, my further experience is that the internet is convenient for refreshing my memory on the details of subjects that I know but less than useless for learning something de novo.  I tend to ignore belligerent demands to cough up a link, particularly when the other guy could do the five second google search as fast I can.
                             

                            o caminho d'ouro, uma pinga de mel: Parati

                            by tarkangi on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 07:37:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As a hospital-based physician (0+ / 0-)

                            in a tertiary, academic medical center, much of what I need to know (and teach) is dynamic. Hence my mild disdain for textbooks - we tend to ignore them after medical school.

                            As to your final point, I'm a big fan of lmgtfy.com (which stands for Let Me Google That For You). You feed it your search term, and it gives you a URL. When your irritant opens the link, it "types" that same search term into a search box, "clicks" Google Search, then flashes "Was that so hard?" before bringing up the relevant Google page. Effortless snark.

                  •  Who says radiation is the only issue? (6+ / 0-)

                    Radiation from the plant may not have been the only containment they were exposed to, and so the resulting mix of symptoms in the population would include symptoms that are not associated with radiation as well. There was probably a pretty good mix of toxic waste in that tsunami debris. Some of which could have gotten into the water supply.

                    Still, the crew of that ship was most likely exposed to more radiation than they should have been, and most certainly should get ongoing monitoring.

                    Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles. It is by the picket line and direct action that true freedom will be won, not by electing people who promise to screw us less than the other guy.

                    by rhonan on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:06:32 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thank you! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Damaged262

                      I made a similar point in another comment.
                      I personally spoke to some Fukushima survivors who also reported experiencing a metallic taste in their mouths - I'm guessing something other than radioactivity accounts for the metallic taste - I'd say it's highly likely that radiation exposure due to the Fukushima meltdowns is only one of the contributing factors causing the serious health problems the sailors are experiencing.


                      `````
                      peace


                      "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people." — Howard Zinn

                      by peace voter on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:54:36 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  cwillis (0+ / 0-)

                    Who sponsored or taught that radiobiology course--the military, government, etc?

                    MsParanoid, who is Right

                •  I'm really not sure where (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  acornweb, fluffy

                  you get your belief that this is an extremely healthy population.  Maybe right after they get out of boot camp they might be in good shape but I think you're overestimating the requirements to be or stay in the military.  I know a bunch of sailors and happen to be married to one and none of them would qualify as extremely healthy.

                •  75 sick sailors on a 5,000 crew ship is a pretty (0+ / 0-)

                  normal day. If the ship were a small town, then about that many people would go to the doctor for routine illnesses. See:
                  http://www.nationmaster.com/...
                  Not to mention the fact that an aircraft carrier is a dangerous work environment, not a cruise ship. (And even a cruise ship has a doctor who sees patients.)

                  It's not up to other people to show why those people got sick and disprove your assertion. You are the one making the unusual claim. You have to show that those people were sick from radiation poisoning instead of the colds, accidents, fights, etc. that happen in a huge floating town/airport.

            •  Here's some free help with your logic, Pat (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jqb
            •  I know we're told that radiation has no taste... (0+ / 0-)

              But I've spoken to a few people from Fukushima who told me that they also had a persistent metallic taste in their mouths after the meltdowns.

              Perhaps there was something else in the air/plume released that caused the metallic taste.

              I certainly wouldn't dispute reports by so many.


              ````
              peace

              "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people." — Howard Zinn

              by peace voter on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:41:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't doubt that anyone experienced (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tarkangi

                a metallic taste in their mouths. I just don't believe it was due to 131I. As clearly explained above by cwillis (with excellent reference to data sources), if it was 131I, the dose large enough to be detectable as a taste would have been many times larger than the fatal dose - all those reporting it would have developed radiation sickness within days. There has to be some other explanation for the symptom reported.

          •  Survivors of Hiroshima noticed (0+ / 0-)

            that metallic taste, too.  So did the brave folks who fought the fires at Chernobyl.

          •  Finally, a little sanity. The taste of iodine, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            acornweb, JerryNA

            like that of all chemicals, is the SAME whether radioactive or not, as chemical reactions in taste receptors do not distinguish isotopes.  
            Radiation is extremely easy to measure, all US military is equipped with measuring devices.  What does the record show?  

        •  I don't believe radioactive idiodine (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kickbass, jrooth, kurt, jqb, acornweb, JerryNA

          tastes any different from non-radioactive iodine. Chemically,  they are the same.

          Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

          by AaronInSanDiego on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:25:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  they may have standing to sue GE (4+ / 0-)

      but through a long arm statute.

      They can't sue the US Govt, that's long standing
      doctrine.

      The SecNav ordered them in, that was that.

      It's much like ordering Commander Scott's Nephew
      to stand at stations in the engine room, while the
      cooling conduits leak.

      It's up to the VA now.

    •  they'll blame teh gays n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Damaged262

      fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

      by seesdifferent on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 07:06:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Those personnel on that ship are cooked. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leftykook, Damaged262

      It'll never be formally acknowledged. Ever.

      "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes
      Teh Twitterz, I'z awn dem.
      Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

      by OleHippieChick on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 05:03:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Took the words rightout of my mouth. . . (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leftykook, Damaged262, acornweb

      These poor heroes. These sailors. . .

      They need a voice. Thank you for bringing this to the fore.

      "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." ~ James Danforth Quayle

      by Loraxe on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:19:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are so right (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leftykook, Damaged262, acornweb

      Unhappily these sailors will PROBABLY be screwed by the VA. Between the abandonment by the VA for our troops having served in Iraq, and now Afghanistan  and the incompetent Congress addressing these issues I wouldn't encourage anyone to enlist. Imagine if the Republiclowns had got off their dead asses and got behind a real jobs bill. The military would probably not be able to make muster.  But maybe that was their plan all along. Keep the dollars flowing into the military/industrial complex.

    •  Why rely on rumors? All US military have devices (0+ / 0-)

      to measure radiation - ionization chambers, etc, and they surely have records sampling radiation all over the ship.  Just insist those records be made public.  

    •  First, let's review what form the contamination (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      acornweb, fluffy, JerryNA, luerwulf, wilywascal

      was.
      "Attempts to decontaminate U.S. ships irradiated during the Pacific nuclear bombs tests from 1946-1963 proved fruitless."

      Erm , first, there's a really big fucking difference between having a nuke go off right on top of the ship and a ship that is at sea getting in the plume from a melted nuclear power plant.
      First, there is direct irradiation from hard neutrons, which activate the metals and cause them to become radioactive. Needless to say, you can't decontaminate a radioisotope! Then, you get the fallout from the bomb itself, as well as whatever got dragged into the fireball. That falls, heavily neutron activated, causing even more neutron activation of the metal of the ship.
      That is what happens when a nuke goes off near a ship.

      The Reagan would have been exposed to iodine-131, cesium-134 and 137. Xenon anything can be ignored, it's a noble gas and won't react or stay around.
      Iodine-131 is a beta and gamma emitter. No neutron activation there, its half-life is 8 days. We'll suffice it to say that decontamination for that isn't necessary. It is a major health risk for the crew if they did not get iodine tablets and thyroid cancer can be expected.
      Even money, they'll get VA coverage for it after 60% of the exposed crew are deceased, if we use history of such exposures as a benchmark.
      Cesium-134 is a bigger deal, half-life of 2 years. Cesium-134 is a beta emitter. No neutron activation there.
      Well, that leaves cesium-137. Also a beta emitter, half-life of 30 years. No neutron activation there.
      Now, iodine is easily reacted, as is cesium. They tend to become tightly bound, chemically, making them a little easier to clean up. Well, assuming you strip the paint off of the entire exposed surface of the ship.

      Now, what is really baking my noodle is this:
      US Navy combat vessels have an NBC protection system. Filtering the air and water, airtight seals, etc.
      How in the Samuel H. Hell didn't the system:
      1: raise merry hell when radiation was detected?
      2: Wasn't activated in order to protect the crew?
      3: Howinhell didn't the operations team and Captain not know the wind direction and hence, stay out of the plume? By their very nature, wind direction is key to aircraft carrier operations and aircraft operations!

      Somehow, many, many errors occurred and the Captain royally screwed the pooch on this one!
      Knowing the military as well as I do, courtesy of a near 28 year military career, even money, he got promoted.

      •  Thanks for the info on the isotopes and elements. (0+ / 0-)

        I was thinking the same thing about this. By all means, let's provide humanitarian aid, but let's do it in a manner that keeps our service personnel as safe as possible. How could a nuclear-powered ship not have the means to do so when they were knowingly going into an area where a nuclear meltdown or possible nuclear meltdown was occurring? Well obviously, they would have had the means, so WTF were they thinking? Or, were they just not thinking?

    •  Then there's the TPP which will likely (0+ / 0-)

      make it impossible for anyone outside of Japan to sue for damages.

    •  What's next?! None should have kids! (0+ / 0-)

      Had pAtient who spent month in Nagasaki after bombing .. He made it to age 90 . But 7 of 10 kids had various disorders.

      Proud to be part of the 21st Century Democratic Majority Party of the 3M's.. Multiracial, Multigender and MiddleClass

      by LOrion on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 07:55:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please label photo as stock. (35+ / 0-)

    The photo is of the USS R. Reagan entering Apra Harbor, Guam and not anytime during or after the disaster.  Photo is from 2009.

    Don't want people to think the ship was at Guam right after the relief work.

  •  Glad to have this out (44+ / 0-)

    its a terrible thing. The US military always tries to weasel out of taking care of their own.

    Look how long it took for then to admit PTSD was real.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:48:26 AM PST

  •  Nice to find out I live about 15 miles... (42+ / 0-)

    from the anchorage. San Diego being told in a timely fashion. Wonder if Issa will hold a hearing on this? After all, it's only his home district.

    "I'm gonna dance between the raindrops"

    by IB JOHN on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:50:52 AM PST

  •  For an idea of the time frame to expect on this, (69+ / 0-)

    the government in 2011 finally agreed to start paying for the cancers caused by polluted drinking water back to 1956 at Camp LeJeune.  And the drinking water contamination was known for years before they bothered to change wells.

    And in 1990 the "atomic veterans", troops who were marched through an area immediately after a nuclear blast to see what happened to them right after WWII started receiving medical compensation if they hadn't already died from radiation poisoning.

    But we "love our troops".  So much in fact that many of them are on food stamps, at least pending additional cuts to the program.

  •  Bullshit meter seriously moving (46+ / 0-)

    A ship with nuclear power has radiation detectors everywhere, which would have been going off continuously if the ship was using contaminated water for routine activities. it wouldn't have needed someone going over the PA to announce it, everyone would have known.

    Which is, in fact exactly what happened. Three choppers detected the radiation plume 60 miles out, and they and their crews were decontaminated on the ship.

    http://abcnews.go.com/...

    Also notice the "100 miles away"? Also notice this was a story when it happened?

    And odd, isn't it, that there's been no reports for any of the other ships in the battlegroup, all of which would have been in the same area using the same water?

    All the reporting on this has been taking a small grain of truth and pumping it up into a horror story that has little semblance to reality.

    •  Said from the comfort of your chair (8+ / 0-)

      So are the sailors lying or do you really trust your government as currently constituted that much?

      I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

      by pajoly on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:03:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reports from other ships in the group (24+ / 0-)
      The original eight complainants were on the USS Ronald Reagan, but the suit has since expanded to include those who served aboard the USS Essex and USS Germantown
      http://www.stripes.com/...

      Of course, anybody can bring suit and doing so doesn't say anything about the facts, or the conclusions that will eventually be reached, but it seems sailors from other ships have similar concerns or observations.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:05:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  From NYPost.... (28+ / 0-)
      Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

      By Laura Italiano and Kerry Murtha

      December 22, 2013

      http://nypost.com/...

      The tall 24-year-old with a winning smile didn’t know it then, but the snow was caused by the freezing Pacific air mixing with a plume of radioactive steam from the city’s shattered nuclear reactor.

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

      “We joked about it: ‘Hey, it’s radioactive snow!’ ” Cooper recalled. “I took pictures and video.”

      But now “my thyroid is so out of whack that I can lose 60 to 70 pounds in one month and then gain it back the next,” said Cooper, fighting tears. “My menstrual cycle lasts for six months at a time, and I cannot get pregnant. It’s ruined me.”

      I'm not arguing that the servicemen should sue.

      But the government should ensure that they get the best care possible.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:06:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Radiation sickness symptoms are immediate. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tarkangi, Kalex, trumpeter, emelyn, melfunction

        What you describe are not radiation sickness symptoms.

        Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

        by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:19:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Define "immediate" (15+ / 0-)

          I'm guessing you mean over 72 hours or so? Perhaps a week at the outside?

          Because it's non controversial that at least Some sailors were overcome immediately and others charged with decon scrubbing may have in their own turn.

        •  There are lots of radiation problems that don't (23+ / 0-)

          manifest themselves until months or years after the exposure.  I'm not able to link right now but there have been plenty of investigations and payment compensations at nuclear facilities here in the US (Rocky Flats) and in areas close to where there were nuclear detonations in the western US deserts.

          I'd be interested in hearing your qualifications on radiation sickness symptoms if you're going to be diagnosing these sailors.

        •  Please provide your certification in radiation (5+ / 0-)

          safety? Or medicine?

          Different radiation types affect the body differently and at different rates.

          •  Present yours? (9+ / 0-)

            I've taken several courses in radiation safety as well as shielding. I have to refresh my training each year.

            Radiation sickness is a quick onset occurrence from a large acute dose. It's not something you typically recover from intact. And if they were complaining about radiation-induced diarrhea, then they got an enormous dose, and we're talking 50-100% mortality rates within weeks.

            Similar symptoms can indeed show up months or years later in cases of a large chronic dose (but below the acute threshold) that continues for a long period of time. This is exceedingly rare, and I don't think anyone is claiming that the sailors were being irradiated for weeks or months.

            And of course, there is increased risk of cancer from even lower doses than these, but nobody calls this cancer 'radiation sickness'.

            How's this for a supposition: The crap they breathed in had a lot of nasty shit in it, which caused health issues completely independent of any radioactivity. I don't think first responders at Ground Zero encountered any radiation, and many got sick just the same.

            •  So you're saying that if you don't get sick from (12+ / 0-)

              radiation immediately, radiation won't cause sickness. What a relief! How many hours did it take to become the expert in... well, it can't be radiation and health, it must be rhetoric, semantics, or weasel words?

              The links for the following are in another comment

              All the while crew members had been suffering from excruciating diarrhea.
              “People were s- -tting themselves in the hallways,” Cooper recalled.

              The sailors describe rectal bleeding and other gastrointestinal trouble, unremitting headaches, hair loss and fatigue.

              What would you call that? Bad sushi?


              Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

              by Jim P on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:48:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Read what I wrote. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cheminMD, cwillis, melfunction, Walt starr

                The acute radiation dose required to induced heavy diarrhea is HUGE. It would have killed 50-100% of them.

                What would I call it? I don't know, inhalation or exposure to a thousand or million other things on this earth that could cause diarrhea, especially in areas of natural disasters. Or maybe, you know, the flu or other transmissible disease. What would you call it?

                But thanks for deriding my expertise with your, well it can't be logic. Let's call it idiocy.

                It's simple

                Acute exposure large enough to induce the radiation sickness described in your quote would have caused an extremely large increase in DEATH, within weeks.

                Doses small enough to cause cancer wouldn't have exhibited symptoms in the time (< 2 years) until they filed the lawsuit.

                If you want to call all health problems exhibited by anyone exposed to any amount of radiation 'radiation sickness' by all means spread your propaganda. Just don't be expected to be taken seriously.

                On the other hand, if you want to document actual exposure rates and discuss increased risks, feel free to do so instead of spreading crap and attacking people who disagree with you. You can start by, from your own link:

                The estimated doses were closely reviewed by the Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction and by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements who both agreed that the methods used to calculate the estimates were appropriate and the results accurate. In addition the dose estimates were consistent with the estimates made by the Japanese government and by the World Health Organization.”
                explaining why all of the listed organization are in on the conspiracy.
                •  You can find several hundred reports assuring (7+ / 0-)

                  that Agent Orange, Asbestos, Tobacco, Vioxx, etc etc are completely safe and the methods are sound.

                  The prime statistic is 'how much funding/income/job security do the conductors of any given study receive and from whom?" This has a decades-long track record.

                  "Estimated" of course, is the weasel word in this. Estimates come from assumptions, not actual measurements. If you read those studies you know they picked areas and averaged them. But as we saw in Fukushima, you can have a SPEEDI monitor getting practically nothing, and 10 meters away a massive amount.

                  Your claim that a dose to make you have the symptoms of radiation poisoning is so high that it must kill you is simply a lie. Talk to the survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Take a look at the photos of those who didn't die, but lost their hair, bled from their orifices etc.

                  You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about. But I do think you know about propaganda, and how to use it.


                  Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

                  by Jim P on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:42:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ah yes, (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    melfunction, Walt starr

                    Agent Orange, Asbestos, Tobacco, Vioxx...

                    and then I counter with references to anti-vaxxer CT and we descend into a spiral of insults.

                    Or we could just evaluate the arguments based on what we know instead of speculating.

                    Take a look at those who didn't die from Nagasaki and Hiroshima? You mean like the other 50% from a 50% mortality rate?

                    Seriously man, that's fucking stupid. Where do you think they GOT a lot of the mortality statistics for acute radiation exposure. The mere fact that you can't even make the connection between talking about 'survivors' of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and the FACT that there was NO sailor mortality when you would have expected a significant amount from their symptoms should have set off a red flag for you.

                    They made actual measurements, they actually MONITORED the sailors for radiation exposure. So no, it wasn't 'estimates', it was measurements. They talk about these measurements IN THE LINK that you posted, FFS.

                    So tell me, are you really accusing all of those organizations that confirmed the MEASUREMENTS as corrupt? Because that sure sounds like CT to me.

                    I've seen nothing from you but insinuations and insults.

                    Pull out your data, pull out your sources.

                    Don't go around calling people liars and insulting them when you have NOTHING to back up your arguments.

                    •  there are 5,000 sailors on a carrier. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Joieau, Damaged262

                      How many of them wear a dosimeter every day?

                      •  The ones during the Fukushima rescue?` (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        melfunction, JerryNA

                        Enough to provide accurate dose estimates for the entire crew, not to mention the radiation assays for internal exposure, according to the DoD and the multiple organization providing oversight.

                        Probably all of them, if the DoD was operating using normal safety guidelines in a situation like this.

                        Do you have any data otherwise?

                        •  so you have no knowledge or data (6+ / 0-)

                          thank you.

                          •  I'm not sure what data you're looking for, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            melfunction, JerryNA

                            but the link JimP posted indicated that the DoD directly monitored internal and external exposure for 8,000 sailors.

                            Do you have any knowledge or data otherwise?

                          •  how many personnel were in theater (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            chmood

                            at the time?

                          •  ? All of those 8000 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JerryNA

                            were in theater, that's why they were being monitored.

                            Or do you mean, what fraction of those personal were 8000?

                            Not sure, but if you knew how many carrier and support ships there were you could make a reasonable estimate.

                            1/2? 1/3?

                            They likely were monitoring the ones most likely to be exposed to the highest doses.

                          •  Are you sure? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau

                            How many were in Yokusuka?

                            In things like this you want the details.

                          •  ? Considering we're talking about the (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            melfunction, JerryNA

                            sailors on the USS Ronald Reagan who are filing the lawsuit, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

                            The question is, were the dose calculations for those sailors accurate. Review by independent organizations on the data collection and methodology claim yes.

                            What reason do you have to claim otherwise?

                          •  were the 8000 dosimeters (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sandino, Joieau, Damaged262

                            solely from sailors on the reagan?

                            If you listen to Joieau,  lots of these reports
                            get all sorts of stuff, averaged in.

                            And I'm not a big believer in what "Dosimeter"
                            safety standard reports say.

                            I worked one summer with my Brother at Argonne National Labs in the early 80s.

                            Now, ANL is an old rad lab from the Manhattan project.

                            Lots of dirty stuff, lots of old experiments everywhere.

                            Now I was 17.  Where was my duty station for 2 weeks?
                            Sitting next to a out of service Synchrotron tunnel.
                            The Radiation meter on the wall, had the needle kicked up
                            indicating it was a Rad field.  I asked "Hey, shouldn't i have
                            a film badge?"  "No, you are under 21, and nobody
                            under 21 is allowed to work in a rad area.". I point to the
                            meter on the wall and they say "Ignore that".

                            So was I ever part of any rad safety or Enviro Health
                            database?  Nope.

                            So if you don't mind i take a real jaundiced view of most
                            of these studies and claims and reports.

                        •  "According to the DoD" (6+ / 0-)

                          Which, thankfully, has no record of lying about health threats to which service personnel have been subjected.

                          Welcome to the Whole Foods of the blogosphere.

                          by JesseCW on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:19:23 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Why do people stop quoting (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            melfunction, Walt starr, JerryNA

                            when convenient for them?

                            The data was reviewed by two oversight organizations, and was consistent with independent calculations from the World Health Organization.

                            Are you claiming conspiracy?

                          •  Are you insisting the DoD is a credible source? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Damaged262

                            That's the only question at hand.

                            I know that baseless accusations of "conspiracy theory" are the  once again the go-too bully boy move here, but you've got to find a better grade of whole cloth to use in your strawman construction project.

                            Welcome to the Whole Foods of the blogosphere.

                            by JesseCW on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:21:29 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm insisting that the DoD (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JerryNA

                            data and methodology that was reviewed by two other organizations and validated by independent measurements and calculations by the WHO is more credible than people claiming that all of them are lying.

                            If it were only the DoD that was responsible for the information, you might have a point, though even then it would have been speculative.

                            With the existence of external confirmation and validation, then yes, you are entering conspiracy theory territory by definition because you are proposing that all of the other organizations are in on the conspiracy.

                            What else should we call it?

                        •  And since you know so much, Ozy, (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Damaged262

                          please provide us with the results of all that monitoring as well as the assays for internal exposure. I read the FOIAs from NRC Op-Center, those figures must be in the 'redacted' black pages.

                          The one concentration level that WAS reported from 100 nautical miles - airborne particulate concentration - was 2.5 x 10^-9 microcuries per milliliter. Which is damned gnarly for any radioactive particulate matter, without even going into what isotopes were in those particulates or their decay energy levels/types of radiation. We can presume the levels were correspondingly higher when the ships were closer to the coast. Just on the general level - assuming the particulates emitted only medium range gamma as 'shine' - that's dose limit in 10 hours. How long were the ships in the plume? These sailors say close to a week...

                          I'm sure the public as well as all these sailors and their doctors and lawyers would welcome the truth from you (since you claim to know it), since the US Navy, the Japanese government, and TEPCO have all declined to be honest about any of it.

                          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                          by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:22:23 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Joieau, it's not that I 'know so much' (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JerryNA

                            though your not-so-subtle derision is noted, it's that I know enough to understand what I'm reading and put it into the proper scientific context.

                            For example, that 10 hour dose limit reported by your link included the very important qualifier: general public

                            What does this mean in context? Not that the dose limit the sailors were exposed to was high, it's 30x average background, but rather that the allowed dose for the general public is VERY low.

                            The dose limit is 50x higher for workers that encounter radiation as part of an occupation hazard, which would seem much more appropriate for sailors on a nuclear carrier performing a rescue misssion to Fukushima. This turns your 10 hour time limit into 500 hours, far greater than the time spent in the plume.

                            So no, that 30x background is not 'darned gnarly', it's low. Far too low to be the cause of the immediate 'radiation sickness' claimed by the sailors, and far too low to cause the sicknesses claimed in the lawsuit.

                            Your claims about 'dishonesty' need to be extended also to the Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction, the National Council on Radiation Protection, and the World Health Organization which confirmed the analysis by the DoD.

                            I suppose when UNSCEAR comes out with their report in April, you can add them to the list of conspirators as well.

                          •  The 'allowed' public dose (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Damaged262

                            limit is one specific to radiological event planning and means the public would have to be evacuated if they were to be in a radiation field of this intensity for 10 hours or more (projected). In an accident situation, the public is 'allowed' to receive a projected thyroid dose (alone, I131) of 20 Rem.

                            But of course, this level of particulate contamination is not in the FOIA documentation quantified per isotopic concentrations. The sailors spent ~96-120 hours in the plume. No PK, no respirators. But that's neither here nor there per your dismissal of the very idea that any of them are sick at all.

                            All I can say to that is to remark on how fortunate you are that it's not happening to you.

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:27:38 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)
                            But that's neither here nor there per your dismissal of the very idea that any of them are sick at all.
                            Where did I say this?

                            What good is it engage in discussion with someone who needs to blatantly misreport my position?

                            Is yours really that weak? 30x background includes the particulate load, this is consistent with a 10 hour limit for the general public allowed annual dose.

                            All of these things have clear and consistent meaning that is incompatible with your claims.

                            I'm sorry, but the report numbers, confirmed by multiple agencies, just don't support your narrative.

                          •  Not to butt into an already crowded field of (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau, peace voter

                            voices.  But I have the honor of being a veteran and a former employee at a nuclear power plant.  I got the wonderful disease of hep C while serving as an Army medic (a large volume of medics were getting hep C, but they had no test for it then).  What I know is, the Army won't take responsibility for the disease I got while serving, I was diagnosed with non A-no B hep.  

                            I also know that every single employee at the Ganea wore a dosimeter whether you were working near nuclear material or not.  (I can't recall the exact spelling, it was a temp job in the mid 80's.  I was only there a few months).  It was in Ontario, NY, in case anyone else can recall. I was in the banana suit a few dozen times, but I wore that dosimeter no matter where I was working.  It's just a piece of camera film contained in a opaque housing, there is not excuse in the world why every single sailor and employee upon that and all nuclear ships shouldn't be wearing one ever day and all day.  Just in case.

                            Haven't we cut enough food stamps to pay for these tiny tags?

                            I'm damaged and I like it, it made me what I am! BTW, my avatar is as stollen as my father's retirement fund, the old man died almost penniless. Bankers don't go to prison for breaking our laws, they buy bigger yachts.

                            by Damaged262 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:38:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Next time I'll proof read (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau, peace voter

                            But you can infer what I was getting at, nobody takes responsibility until it's too late and the damage is done.  Then, it's denial and finger pointing time.

                            I'm damaged and I like it, it made me what I am! BTW, my avatar is as stollen as my father's retirement fund, the old man died almost penniless. Bankers don't go to prison for breaking our laws, they buy bigger yachts.

                            by Damaged262 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:48:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Willful refusal to accept clear evidence is (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      CharlieHipHop, Sandino, Joieau, Damaged262

                      the stock in trade of the tiny group of pro-nuke Dead Enders, not those who reject the massive and pointless risks you wish to subject millions to.

                      If there's an Anti-Vaxxer in this conversation, it's the one claiming "Nuclear power never killed anyone"

                      Welcome to the Whole Foods of the blogosphere.

                      by JesseCW on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:18:23 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No (4+ / 0-)

                        rejection of SCIENCE is stock in trade of the Anti-vaxxers, and the claims of the diary.

                        The science is quite clear about the effects of radiation, the symptoms of acute exposure, and the associated mortality rates. You are willfully rejecting this science.

                        If you want to strawman your way out of the issue, fine.

                        But I'll notice you haven't brought any facts of your own to the table. Thanks for the non-contribution.

                    •  What about the people in Japan who were exposed? (0+ / 0-)

                      What kind of problems are they having? How do the health problems of the people in Japan who were exposed compare with those of the exposed sailors?

                •  Because you are wrong (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Damaged262

                  - notably so on several levels here - I'll just mention that I am not impressed with your claimed "expertise" in radiation and its health effects from your "several courses" in "radiation safety" and "shielding."

                  The hygenist at my dentist's office who takes the x-rays took "several courses" in "radiation safety" and "shielding" too, over the course of her training at the local Community College prior to certification. That does not make her qualified to opine on the actual doses (of what types of radiation) sailors on the Reagan received off the coast of Fukushima in 2011, or the nature of health effects they may be exhibiting years later. The very idea is absurd, and anyone whose knowledge goes beyond how to set the Co60-sourced machine and where to put the lead blanket when they step out of the room to push the button would know that.

                  There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                  by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:05:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Somehow I'll get over (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JerryNA

                    your lack of being impressed.

                    I'm not 'opining' on the dose they received, I'm noting it from the material THAT YOU POSTED, and that has been confirmed by multiple NGO agencies.

                    But the literature is quite clear on the health effects of radiation, notwithstanding your inability to understand them. You can use the wiki, or you can go right to the primary sources posted by cwillis.

                    Your uninformed speculation isn't worth very much.

                    •  Oh, come now Ozy. (0+ / 0-)

                      I am very interested in your evaluation of my relative 'expertise' on the subject of health physics and melted/blown up reactors, per how it might stack up against your "several courses."

                      By all means, please proceed...

                      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                      by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:08:49 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        JerryNA

                        Is that what you want to do?

                        Ok: undergraduate in Applied Math and Engineering Physics with an emphasis on Nuclear Engineering.

                        Masters Degree in Nuclear engineering

                        PhD in Engineering Physics specializing in fusion research.

                        Currently employed by a university and stationed at a national laboratory for fusion research with strict radiation safety training and protocols.

                        So, not only did I learn about this stuff throughout my decade of university training, I stay on top of the material as part of my job.

                        My specialty is diagnostic design and measurement and radiation, specifically X-ray detection, though I've plenty of experience with radiation detection and measurement of gammas and neutrons. I've been at my job for over 10 years. I'm published, I've given invited talks at national conferences and seminars at overseas fusion research facilities.

                        Did you really think I was a dental X-ray tech?

                        Your turn.

                        •  Heh. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Damaged262

                          And what gnarly radioactive isotopes do you routinely deal with in the course of fusion research, Ozy? Last I heard, they use little bitty 'target capsules' of tritium. Has that changed? I'm really curious on that, given the decades' worth of pie-in-the-sky wax rapsodic praises of the not-ready-for-prime-time erstwhile 'technology' that doesn't use or generate any of the nasty isotopes fission is so notable for.

                          As to my bona fides... naw. If you were anybody on the professional apologist end, you'd already know.

                          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                          by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:42:26 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Mostly just incidental activation (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cwillis, JerryNA

                            of material by neutron radiation. Doesn't get hot enough to exceed dose limits, though we do have to implement an entry and survey protocol after an experimental run.

                            Otherwise mostly isotopes for diagnostic and calibration purposes, like Fe-55, some gamma emitters, a few neutron emitters. These are tightly controlled, obviously, and require a pretty serious job hazard analysis and safety protocol for use, so most people find other ways.

                            Fusion will not be ready for decades yet. It's just too hard for our current level of understanding, and we haven't developed the materials we need to handle the heat flux combined with the radiation environment.

                            Maybe a breakthrough will change this, but you can't predict those.

                            The tritium capsule stuff is laser (inertial) fusion, which is even worse off for energy production potential. It's primarily for bomb research.

                            It is kinda rude to ask for credentials, and then beg off your own.

              •  If you are exposed to radiation, your risk of (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Naniboujou, melfunction, JerryNA

                contracting cancer increases.

                That's it.

                If people were shitting themselves as a consequence of the radiation exposure, you would expect hundreds to thousands of dead sailors from the event. When diarrhea is a symptom of radiation sickness, the exposure levels are so high that nearly everybody who experiences it WILL DIE.

                Where are the dead bodies?

                Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

                by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:42:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But it's just fine in smaller doses, right? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sandino, Damaged262

                  Risk of cancer goes up.  Big deal, right?

                  Is that what you're saying?

                  Let me ask you a simple, direct question:

                  Are you for or against the nuclear industry?  There is no in-between here, no equivocating.  Do you or do you not think that we should be using nuclear power?

                  They tell me I'm pretty amusing from time to time working with 140 characters or less.

                  by CharlieHipHop on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 07:22:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'll equivocate (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Damaged262

                    I'm against all existing commercial (2nd generation) reactors but believe some IFR reactor designs could help save the planet from global warming without mining any more uranium.

                    "The right is correct on one thing...we really are a bunch of easily outraged nitpickers."

                    by potato on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:44:03 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  From a reference of first recourse (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ozy, melfunction, Walt starr, JerryNA

                in the subject of diarrhea and radiation:

                Prolonged diarrhea, extending for several days, usually is regarded as a bad sign because it indicates that the dose received has been more than 10 Gy, which is inevitably fatal.

                Hall, Eric J. Radiobiology for the Radiologist, 5th Ed. p. 126.  

                This book, now in its seventh edition, is probably the single most common textbook used in radiology, radiation oncology, and biophysics classes at the intro graduate level.  It's written clearly and concisely, with loads of references, and it is easy to find and quite inexpensive.

                Or there's the table of symptoms on Wikipedia, with substantially the same information:
                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                When people assert or imply--as Jim P has here, with his diarrhea and radiation link--a phenomenon that is fundamentally contradictory and unknown to the accepted references of first recourse in a subject, they can expect to have that assertion challenged, perhaps scorned if the fault is egregious and seems to implicate a willful lack of attention toward accuracy.

                The same evidence-based scrutiny should be applied to the Reagan sailors' claims linking possible radiation exposure to gynecological bleeding, blindness, impotence, fatigue, polyps, weight loss / gain, thyroid malfunction, and yes, even the cancers.  Most of these have no accepted causal link to radiation.  Cancer is an exception, but cancers have many causes, and most cited in this suit have a long latency period.  

                The amount of pseudo-expertise, speculation, and sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing that we see on DKos relating to this topic is quite concerning, and I would suggest as a remedy that folks have the humility to admit when they are speculating, and perhaps have the good will to darken the door of a classroom, crack the cover of a book, or even just use Wikipedia to raise their awareness before jumping on the bandwagon.

                •  You are also merely speculating from available (0+ / 0-)

                  information.

                  •  Read more carefully (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Ozy

                    If you actually read my comment, you'll note I am pointing out (by citing reliable information from my professional field) the rather gaping flaws in someone else's speculative hypothesis. To reiterate, my point is that if one assumes the health-related allegations of the Reagan lawsuit to be fact, there is no basis consistent with established knowledge for concluding that radiation is the cause.

                    I hate having to summarize and repeat myself.  My belief is that a progressive community should have higher standards for information literacy than the Michele Bachmanns and Jim Inhofes and Todd Akins of this world, and this whole thread is a sad counter-exhibit to that expectation.

                    -Carl

                    •  "I hate having to summarize and repeat myself." (0+ / 0-)

                      No you don't. You can't let a single comment go by.

                      My belief is that a progressive community should have higher standards for information literacy than the Michele Bachmanns and Jim Inhofes and Todd Akins of this world, and this whole thread is a sad counter-exhibit to that expectation.
                      Name calling doesn't really help you argument, though it might make you feel superior.
                      if one assumes the health-related allegations of the Reagan lawsuit to be fact, there is no basis consistent with established knowledge for concluding that radiation is the cause.
                      You are basing your hypothesis on second hand information sourced through government institutions. The WHO is a government institution, the Japanese government is a government institution, and of course there is the Navy.

                      These institutions all have a vested interest in the outcome, which prejudices the sources. There is also the well established practice of such institutions to cover-up, if not out-right lie.  The Navy has a particular history with this. This is historical fact. While this might not be true in this case, the fact that the Navy has not been forthcoming suggests otherwise.  The Navy has the facts about the contamination. If it would help their case, then they would release all of the information. So why haven't they.

                      I would think as a scientist, you would actually want to study the claims. There is more unknown about the effects of radiation on biology than is known. I know how science works. It is supposed to be open ended, It works with inductive logic. You are treating it as a purely deductive exercise, but that is not how science really works. Your blanket claim that the sailors have not suffered from radiation because their situation falls outside the generally accepted parameters without any detailed studies on the sailors themselves lacks the verification of your hypothesis. If the Navy has the studies, then the Navy should release them. If the Navy didn't do anything to monitor the crewmen who were exposed after knowingly bringing them in harm's way, then the Navy has been negligent.

                      •  Read it again, this time for comprehension (0+ / 0-)
                        if one assumes the health-related allegations of the Reagan lawsuit to be fact, there is no basis consistent with established knowledge for concluding that radiation is the cause.
                        There's my point.  The longer version had trouble permeating your cerebral cortex.  The shorter version had trouble permeating your cerebral cortex.  Perhaps making it shorter again will help it penetrate your cerebral cortex.  You do have one of those, don't you?

                        In making this point, I require nothing from the WHO, the Navy, or the Japanese government.

                        As to my tendency to respond to the barnyard noise in some of my comment threads, it's because I hate seeing stupidity get the last word even more than I hate having to summarize and repeat myself.  And, to be clear,

                        I hate having to summarize and repeat myself.
            •  Confusing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Damaged262

              Thanks for stating your credentials - you've taken several courses & you refresh your training - good for you - but you speak so authoritatively - are you ruling out radiation exposure as a contributing factor to the symptoms and illnesses experienced by the USS R. Reagan sailors?


              peace
              `````


              "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people." — Howard Zinn

              by peace voter on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:33:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There are three primary issues at play (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JerryNA

                which casts doubt on the claims of the diary.

                1) the measured total dose to the sailors was low

                evidence: Data and calculations were performed by DoD, and reviewed by two other organizations, also matched separate independent measurements by the World Health Organization

                2) the 'immediate radiation sickness' claimed by the sailors, including heavy diarrhea only occur if you have a large acute dose of whole body radiation

                evidence: a large enough dose to cause diarrhea would have killed >~50% of the sailors, therefore these symptoms couldn't have been from a large acute dose, low radiation doses don't cause these symptoms.

                3) longer term sicknesses, such as thyroid cancer, testicular cancer, etc... have a much longer latency time than <2 years.

                evidence: we know from Chernobyl that the shortest time these cancers show up is ~3 years for leukemia, and more like 10-15 for other cancers.

                So, what caused these problems? We can never know for sure. Maybe something like the flu for the immediate effects:

                http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...

                maybe breathing in nasty chemicals or other toxins from the disaster.

                Some of them will of course be 'natural' in the sense that we humans don't need radiation exposure to get cancer and thyroid diseases. In fact, thyroid disease is pretty damn common (~1/8 incidence in women).

                •  The sailors drank radioactive contaminated water. (0+ / 0-)

                  What kinds of studies have been done on that?

                  •  What evidence do you have (0+ / 0-)

                    that they drank contaminated water?

                    Shipboard reverse osmosis filtering would remove even the low levels reported by the airborne monitors.

                    So, when you state facts like 'the sailors drank radioactive contaminated water' you should back it up with actual evidence that this is so. They are far more likely to have inhaled much more dose than they ingested, though again that 'much more' dose is still well below safety thresholds.

                    Secondly, of course there have been studies regarding ingestion of radioisotopes, though typically inhalation hazards are considered much more dangerous. So, what kind of data are you looking for? Does ingestion of low level radioactive food cause massive diarrhea, fevers, headaches? No.

                    Does an acute and generally lethal dose of whole body radiation cause massive diarrhea, fever, headaches? Yes.

                    So does the flu.

                    •  What about the announcement on the ship that (0+ / 0-)

                      they were to stop using the water because it was contaminated.

                      •  I don't particularly doubt (0+ / 0-)

                        that this order could have been given as an additional safety precaution. As I've said, people tend to be extremely conservative when it comes to radiation safety.

                        I do have doubts that it actually was contaminated given the type of system that it was (reverse osmosis).

                        You can't make the water molecules themselves radioactive (except for tritium), you can only have dissolved or particulate radioactive material in the water. This material wouldn't be able to pass through the osmotic membrane. The same barrier that keeps the sodium and chlorine ions out would keep out the much bigger I, Cs, and other radionuclides.

                        Does this mean it would be impossible for the water to somehow be contaminated? Perhaps not, if there was a leak or breach in the membrane, or otherwise compromised plumbing. It seems unlikely.

                        If the water was contaminated, then there should be reports on the dose rates by the onboard HP. Someone should ask for them via FOIA.

                        •  I don't know whether it is a closed system or not, (0+ / 0-)

                          but it would seem that in order for the water to flow, there would have to be some type of venting. If that is the case, then it is possible that the water was contaminated after it was desalinized. Trying to deal with vacuums in a plumbing system doesn't make much sense, neither does a pressurized system.

                          •  True (0+ / 0-)

                            there could be a vector from the contaminated air. However, the ingested load would be orders of magnitude less than the inhaled load. You simply wouldn't get much dissolution of the radionuclides into the water from the low concentrations in the air, and the volumes of water ingested would be far lower than the volumes of air inhaled.

                            Which still leaves us with the issue that if the radiation ingested through contaminated water were high enough to cause the claimed massive diarrhea and headaches, the sailors would be getting a mostly fatal dose.

                            This is the fundamental problem with the claims of the diary. The immediate symptoms are not consistent with non-fatal, lower level radiation exposure, and the long term systems are appearing for too soon to be attributed to low level radiation exposure.

        •  Maybe the wrong term? (6+ / 0-)

          Thyroid damage is definitely an exposure effect even if "radiation sickness" only applies to acute exposure symptoms.

          Anyone considering a dog for personal safety should treat that decision as seriously as they would buying a gun.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:23:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If these people experienced thyroid damage (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            melfunction

            from the exposure to radiation those on the helicopters experienced, every regular business traveler in the nation should have thyroid damage because everybody who flies at 30,000 feet experience a high level of background radiation in those flights than the members of the navy who were on the helicopters experienced.

            Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

            by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:40:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you are mixing apples and oranges as to (9+ / 0-)

              tissue exposure vs. whole body radiation exposure by talking about the comparison in this way.

              Not all physical exposure pathways have the same potential for harm.

              Inhalation of hot particles to the lung is a different type of exposure than whole body exposure to radiation in a jet airliner, which is again different from inhalation or ingestion exposure of radioactive iodine or cesium or deuterium.

              Your airline exposure did not include exposure that primarily affected specific organs through the action of human body biochemistry or through the physical action of a hot particle as a transuranic element embedded in human lung tissue.

              •  Hot particle theory (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                melfunction

                would indicate that inhaled particles would be primarily confined to, and do damage to the lung.

                You are right to criticize his comparisons to cosmic ray, full body doses, but it still doesn't lend any support to the claims made by the sailors. Especially when their immediate symptoms are 'full body dose' symptoms, like heavy diarrhea, and their long-term effects are thyroid issues.

                FYI, you probably meant to say tritium, since deuterium is non-radioactive.

              •  Someone who insists that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Damaged262

                whole-body gamma exposure is precisely the same thing as internal deposition of fission products from melted/exploded reactors is not smart enough to argue anything related to radiation exposures or health effects.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:29:16 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Who insisted that? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JerryNA

                  Do you have to invent stuff to make your arguments sound credible?

                  Of course whole body dose isn't the same as internal deposition.

                  However, the immediate symptoms that people here are insisting were caused by radiation, such as the heavy diarrhea ARE a symptom of a large whole body acute dose (and a pretty deadly dose at that), not of inhalation of particulates at 30x background.

                  Understand?

                  •  Depends entirely on (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Damaged262

                    the particulates being inhaled, Ozy. Any hp would know that.

                    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                    by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:26 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No it absolutely doesn't. (0+ / 0-)

                      If the particles they inhaled were emitting radiation of high enough energy to affect the gastrointestinal track and cause massive diarrhea, then most of them are on a fast track to the morgue, no matter what the Atomic symbol says.

                      However, at 30x background, it doesn't matter what the isotope, there's no way it causes the immediate symptoms listed.

                      You can't get away with saying phrases like "Any hp would know that" without actually producing your credentials. If you want to make assertions to authority, then go to an actual credible source and support your claim.

                      Find one radiation textbook that claims you can get diarrhea from a 30x particulate background by inhaling I, or Xe, or any isotope.

                      It's simple, there is no way to attribute to radiation the immediate symptoms of the sailors without invoking a large acute dose that would have killed many of not most of them.

                      Any radiation safety textbook could tell you that.

                      •  And you know this because you read a book about it (0+ / 0-)

                        Would you be willing to drink and bathe in the water for the same duration that the sailors did and breath the particulates in the plume for the same amount of time that they breathed. I'm sure that the Navy has the composition of the contamination and it could be replicated. Since the radiation is not dangerous as you say, then you would be doing the Navy a service. The experiment would have to be done by a third party to lessen any bias. All of the detractors on here could join in the study.

                        •  No (0+ / 0-)

                          I know this because my undergraduate, graduate, and professional careers is involved with measuring and detecting radiation, and understanding their effects.

                          I posted my 'CV' earlier if credentials matter that much to you.

                          What the fuck is it with people on this site, who have such a disdain for people that actually are EDUCATED on the matter? People who think that CT paranoia somehow rises to the equivalence of 20+ years of education and experience.

                          It's starting to really piss me off. What are your credentials that you feel you can cast derision on 'reading a book'. Have YOU ever read a book regarding Radiation Safety and Health effects?

                          If not, kindly fuck off with your condescending tone.

                          I DO routinely enter areas that have a higher level of radiation than background, FOR MY JOB. Granted, it's not much higher and doesn't even register on my personal dosimeter, but then...that's because levels like 30x background JUST DON'T MATTER. It's not very useful as an 'experiment' as you suggest, because it doesn't actually do anything to me. I don't have massive diarrhea every day, my hair doesn't fall out, and my headaches are due to answering twits on the internet rather than radiation exposure.

                          This stuff has been studied using people that DIED in a nuclear explosion dropped by our country. Your snarky comments regarding radiation safety and health effects insults their memory.

                          •  Thank you for your professionalism. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't think using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a baseline is appropriate. I see people extrapolating the data from those cases to this, but the situations are not exactly parallel.

                            I have no scientific credentials and I suppose that disqualifies me in your eyes to make comments in a public forum about a scientific matter. I ask questions and make statements because I want to know. I would think a scientist would welcome inquiry. Sometimes I am provocative, but if you think that all of your statements have not been, I think you should reconsider. Furthermore, I never asked you to produce your credentials, but you gladly provide them at the least opportunity, and I am happy for you to have been able to accomplish so much.

                            My point is that unless you go through what the sailors have gone through yourself, you are not in a position to judge. Your experience with low levels of radiation is commendable, but I notice you didn't say you would volunteer for the experiment with the actual levels of contamination experienced.

                            I think that your callousness towards the sailors is more egregious than my "derision" of your attitude. My concerns are perhaps emotion based, but something doesn't smell right here, and your analytical approach, while very self-edifying, does nothing for them. It really boils down to the obvious fact that you are for the government, and I am for the sailors. I have more in common with them. If that's a joke to you, then so be it.

                          •  I return politeness and professionalism (0+ / 0-)

                            when I encounter it. And it's always the initial default response. For snarky uninformed condescension, I've lost too much patience to muster up polite responses anymore. Though I also don't hold grudges. In a different diary, or even a different thread, polite comments or questions will receive the same response.

                            I'm not sure what you mean by 'baseline', but Hiroshima and Nagasaki are used because there was a large population exposed to varying levels of both immediate acute exposure, as well as radioactive particulate load. There simply hasn't been another incident, thankfully, that has exposed such a large population to that range of exposure. However, the size of the population studied is large enough to provide confidence in the statistical results.

                            Of course we have accidental and occupational exposures that have also been tracked and studied, such as Chernobyl, which has provided again a large statistical population to work with, as well as the plutonium ingestion and inhalation by workers on the Manhattan project in 1945, which suggests low level exposure may not be as serious as projected from the bomb data, but despite what people like you think, radiation safety is ultraconservative when it comes to dose limits, and therefore adheres to the LNT hypothesis.

                            You didn't 'ask questions', except in a Glen Beck-ish kind of way, you tried to discredit expertise and credible sources of information. Do I really need to go back and quote your responses to demonstrate this to you? It wasn't just your responses to me, you treated cwillis the same way.

                            I have no problem with scientific ignorance, or ignorance in general. It's the default state. I welcome honest questions and discussion. It's when people use their ignorance as either a shield or weapon against expertise that I have a problem. You see it in other denialist exercises, such as Creationism, anti-AGW, AIDS denialism, and anti-Vaxxers:

                            the scientists weren't there
                            it's just a theory
                            science doesn't know everything therefore they don't know enough
                            it's a government conspiracy
                            you can't trust the scientists to report the data correctly
                            and one of your 'buddies' upthread: it's not real science unless you can do it in a lab (gee, where have we heard that before)

                            You never asked for credentials, but others have even though they declined to reciprocate. And your snarky comments about reading source material deserved the slap it got. As I said previously, I don't think credentials should matter, but apparently just having access to credible scientific knowledge, which we all do thanks to the internet, isn't enough for some. There have been some posters here who are notoriously bad at trying to understand what they are reading. Though it can actually be somewhat difficult to determine what is and isn't a credible source without some personal expertise to begin with.

                            As far as 'the actual conditions experienced', I may already have experienced 30x background at my job. I don't pay too much attention to the day to day levels because our health physics people are so paranoid that any level that would actually ping our dosimeters would be surrounded by so much tape and barriers I couldn't even get close to it. If people are really interested, I can check with the HP group to see what a canonical 'hot' level is inside our test cell after an experimental run. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it were higher than the levels reported in the links.

                            I don't know what you mean by 'callousness' for the sailors. I have derision regarding the lawsuit and the ambulance-chasing lawyers, but I think the government should take care of ALL of its veterans, regardless of what causes their health problems. How is that callousness?

                            I believe that they are mistaken if they think it was radiation causing their problems. How is that callousness? In my opinion, the people who convinced them otherwise, as well as the people who jump on these false claims for their own political agenda, i.e. many people in this thread, are displaying a far higher level of callousness.

                            Do they really care about the sailors? Are they going to donate to their health care? Or do they see this as a way to push an anti-nuclear agenda, using these sailors as pawns.

                            The tone and content of the majority of responses makes the answer plain to me.

                            Someone could use the exact same line about 'callousness' in an Anti-vax discussion. "Why do you show such callousness to autistic babies?!?!?! Why are you insisting that their condition wasn't from vaccines?! Why are you on the side of the government instead of the babies?! How can you be sure that it wasn't from the vaccinations, science doesn't know everything!!!"

                            Same emotional appeal, no difference in scientific accuracy. How do you feel about that situation?

                            I have no problem showing concern and compassion for the sailors, but that certainly wasn't the focus of the diary, nor of the discussion thread.

                            I am not 'for the government', I'm for scientific credibility and accuracy. The fact that some people can't seem to tell the difference between scientific facts and government conspiracy is not on my head.

                          •  I knew that you would say you were for the truth. (0+ / 0-)

                            However, your hypothesis is only based on prior knowledge and the limited data that has been made public which conforms to that knowledge base. It is not based on the actual total data that must be available though the Navy, the Japanese government and TEPCO. Once that data has been independently verified and analyzed according to the relevant science, then I will accept your conclusions; otherwise, your claims are merely speculation. For example, an Oncologist uses his expertise to diagnose a cancer, but still does a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis.

                            You are expecting people to accept your diagnosis without corroborating proof. How is that science? A scientist would want that proof. Why don't you. An uncorroborated claim smacks of propaganda and not true science. What you are passing off as the truth would in a court of law be a half truth, although it is a complex enough half-truth to fool most people. It is a sad indictment of our courts that they would accept this type of half-proof. That is the real tragedy of our scientific illiteracy.

                            As a scientist, I would think that you would want all of the data before you so finally drew your conclusions. You admit that the historical data is limited, so it is conceivable that every cause and effect is not accounted for. I can easily imagine that people's exposure to radiation can vary widely. Take the effect of the sun, a more benign form of radiation. Some people burn easily after limited exposure and others simply tan. Prolonged exposure can cause cancer in some people. Why isn't this true of other forms of radiation.

                            I am not anti science, but science, like ever other human endeavor, is often used in the service of an agenda. All the Navy and other involved parties have to do is release the data. Like you, I'm interested in the truth, and it is not the sailors who are hiding something, and our government and its various agencies have too many black marks for me to think they are always acting in good faith.

                          •  There is no such thing as 'proof' (0+ / 0-)

                            in science.

                            There is only evidence. And you have to use the evidence you have to draw your conclusions. I will never have access to the raw data necessary for ME to perform the analysis, so I must trust that the DoD methods and data collection, which were subject to oversight from two independent organization was sufficient, and the numbers that have been published regarding radionuclide concentrations are not lies.

                            This evidence is bolstered by the fact that it was validated by comparison to separate independent measurements and analysis by the WHO. There will be another report coming out next month by UNSCEAR that I expect will also be consistent with the other reports given the previews I've seen, but we can revisit the topic if it shows any significant differences.

                            So, at this point you have two options. You can accept this evidence as valid, or you can posit scientific malfeasance involving many scientists at multiple independent organization.

                            Climate denalists have no problem proposing the latter, though hopefully Mann's lawsuit will reduce public accusations of scientific fraud. However, I reject their conspiracy theory denialism, and I reject the same in this case as well. If you want to buy into this type of conspiracy, then nothing I say will obviously make much of a difference.

                            I didn't 'admit that historical data was limited' I said the historical data we had covered LARGE populations of people and provided a LARGE range of exposures, so it should be extremely scientifically and statistically valid. Based on that data set, the claims of this diary are inconsistent, i.e. wrong.

                            The only weakness in the historical dataset is for extremely low exposures, which may not be as damaging as predicted, and that weakness further undermines the claims of the diary. Exploring how and why this may be the case is extremely interesting, and deserves a diary topic to itself.

                            Ionizing radiation damages cells in a very specific manner, by breaking DNA chains. Cancer and other diseases occur when cellular repair can't keep up or fix the damage. This is such a low level cellular function, that speculating that some group of people are 'naturally' more resistant or sensitive in any significant sense, is the realm of science fiction.

                            To realize why, you have to understand that these DNA breakages occur naturally, from background radiation, internal natural radiation (K-40), but mostly from chemical processes, to the tune of 1000s to 100000s per day. Eat some burnt toast, you just damaged some DNA strands.

                            So, if a person or group of people had deficiencies in their cellular repair mechanism such that the radiation levels in this diary could have caused the indicated damage, these people would have been dead or sick from the everyday background damage that constantly occurs.

                            And indeed, this is exactly what happens if their repair mechanism is damaged: http://en.wikipedia.org/...
                            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

                            The resistance of some groups to damage from the sun evolved over thousands of years in the presence of an actual environmental pressure, different sunlight intensities, and is due to real physical differences in things like melanin that shield the damage. This isn't a scientific mystery.

                            Proposing that a group of people could have similarly evolved in an extremely low or high radiation environment such that they would either extremely sensitive or extremely resistant to radiation just doesn't make any sense? Where? How? Who?

                            I appreciate the questions.

                          •  I was using "proof" in a colloquial sense (0+ / 0-)

                            rather than a scientific one. In one sense of the word it is a synonym for "evidence." In science the word is considered a more definitive form of evidence. As you admit, the data you have is limited and you may never have the actual data needed to substantiate your claims. Therefore, all of your claims are merely informed opinion relying on the trust of the DoD.

                            That's all very well and good, but the DoD could simply release all of the pertinent data and help clear things up. That is how real science is done. The data is made public. How else can their claims be verified otherwise. And since the data set is not public, we do not know whether the DoD released all of the proper information to the other agencies dealing with this matter.

                            I'm glad you have faith in the DoD, but our government has a long history of abusing the public trust. How did we get into Iraq again? That is just the most egregious of recent examples.

                            Your claim that this is an either or situation is a fallacy. Asking for a full accounting and for the information to be made public is merely a request that the facts be made known. Do the sailors deserve anything less. If you were in their position would you want anything less. Is the Navy actually doing this? No.

                            According to your statement

                            the historical data we had covered LARGE populations of people and provided a LARGE range of exposures, so it should be extremely scientifically and statistically valid.
                            Does this data suggest why some people who were similarly exposed survived while others died from the same exposure. People have different biological, physiological and genetic make-ups and react differently to the same hazards. This is what my example using solar exposure tried to address.
                            The only weakness in the historical dataset is for extremely low exposures, which may not be as damaging as predicted, and that weakness further undermines the claims of the diary. Exploring how and why this may be the case is extremely interesting, and deserves a diary topic to itself. (emphasis added)
                             You concede that not a lot is know about "extremely low exposures." You qualify by saying that it "may not be as damaging as predicted," but it also may. I don't see how a supposition such as that "undermined the claims of the diary." In fact, the Navy, at the urging of Congress is launching a study on the effects of low exposure radiation.
                            The scientific community is divided on the effects of low-level radiation.

                            A World Health Organization report released earlier this year said those located outside the most affected areas have little increased risk for cancers or thyroid problems and those within the areas have only a slight increase of risk. However, the report states that the assessment could change over time, because not enough is known about low-level radiation.

                            “Because scientific understanding of radiation effects, particularly at low doses, may increase in the future, it is possible that further investigation may change our understanding of the risks of this radiation accident,” the report said. (emphasis added)

                            The ship had monitoring devices which should all be logged. All of the sailors who had medical problems have medical files, not to mention all of the various reports that personnel would have to file for any incident. All of that information should be available. While you pretend to make your claims from a scientific perspective based on partial second-hand information, this incident is being handled from a legal perspective, and those two perspectives are for the most part diametrically opposed. The legal approach tries to exclude information, but the scientific approach must include all information and bad data must be accounted for.
                            The U.S. military has refused requests from Stars and Stripes for detailed information about the types of toxins and the levels that personnel were exposed to during Operation Tomodachi. U.S. Forces Japan has said samples collected from areas where troops deployed near Sendai were analyzed for hundreds of environmental contaminants, but they have not released information about how many samples were taken in the disaster zone or how many sites were surveyed.
                            The cure for conspiracy theories is transparency and neither the Navy, the Japanese government nor TEPCO has been openly forthcoming. To me getting to the bottom of what happened rather than mitigating the damage to the institutions involved is what is important.
                          •  No (0+ / 0-)
                            Therefore, all of your claims are merely informed opinion relying on the trust of the DoD.
                            For the nth time in the discussion, my claims do not solely rely on trusting the DoD. Discussion about dosages rely on the DoD + oversight panels + confirmation with the WHO numbers.

                            Why is this point consistently (deliberately) overlooked?

                            If the panels didn't see the data, they couldn't have validated the results, which they did. Again, to say otherwise is conspiracy, not a false dichotomy. These oversight panels went on record validating the data and methodology from the DoD. To say otherwise is proposing a conspiracy involving multiple organizations.

                            But besides that, I don't even need the dose numbers from the DoD to apply what we already know about radiation dose and health effects. The claims in this diary go against our existing scientific knowledge. Full stop.

                            Making claims that the 'science isn't settled' is again a denialist talking point that is unacceptable every time it shows up, this diary is no exception. If you have actual counter scientific evidence, fine present it. Otherwise you're just engaging in the same scientific smokescreen that shows up in evolution-deniers, AGW-deniers, vaccination-deniers, HIV-deniers, ... well you get the point.

                            Does this data suggest why some people who were similarly exposed survived while others died from the same exposure.
                            Of course it does! Radiation damage and failure to repair is a random process. That's why cancer risk is expressed in percentages. This is a fundamental property of radiation and health risk. Please don't be offended if I suggest that this comment shows, perhaps understandable, ignorance on this subject, but that it does make it a bit hard to cram semesters worth of knowledge into a quick back and forth on the internet.
                            People have different biological, physiological and genetic make-ups and react differently to the same hazards. This is what my example using solar exposure tried to address.
                            There is no scientific support for such an idea with regard to ionizing radiation. Other than pathological cases where a genetic disorder prevents proper DNA repair, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that a certain population or ethnic group is significantly more or less 'immune' to ionizing radiation.

                            The fact that background radiation and internal radiation is roughly within a similar range for the entire earth's population would call into question as to how any evolutionary pressure would result in your speculated result, unlike the situation with solar radiation.

                            Seriously, it's like invoking 'aliens' or 'magic'. And I thought I went through all of this in my last reply...

                            You concede that not a lot is know about "extremely low exposures." You qualify by saying that it "may not be as damaging as predicted," but it also may.
                            I qualified it because that's what current research is showing:

                            http://newscenter.lbl.gov/...

                            It's not conclusive yet, but it makes sense both phenomenologically and seems to be indicated by results that are hard to explain otherwise, such as the lack of statistically significant mortality or cancer rates of populations exposed to low level radiation, such as the plutonium workers in the 40's.

                            You should realize that the qualifications you're seeing are not in the direction you think. The research, so far, indicates low-level radiation effects are lower than the LNT model, there is no research or data showing that it is higher than the model.

                            The legal approach tries to exclude information, but the scientific approach must include all information and bad data must be accounted for.
                            This just simply isn't true for all claims. I don't need your medical history to scientifically disregard a claim that you are 200 years old. When claims contradict a solid bit of scientific knowledge, such as health effects from radiation, I don't need their dosage reports to debunk it.

                            For example, I will absolutely NOT claim that these sailors will never have any increase in health risk for cancer. It is entirely possible that somehow they received a higher dose than what is currently estimated, and that 10 or 15 years from now there will be a small excess of cancers. I indeed would need to see the data and reports to make this scientific assessment, one way or the other, or trust that the DoD + oversight was reporting the dosages accurately.

                            However, I do not need this data to say, with certainty, that the immediate effects they were attributing to radiation exposure were not. Why? Because I know as much as I know any piece of scientific knowledge, that such effects in their situation would only be produced by a highly fatal dose of whole body radiation.

                            There is just no getting around this fact. It's as solid as saying CO2 traps heat, regardless of the complexities of climate modeling. Denying this fact is just as silly.

                          •  All the Navy et. al. have to do (0+ / 0-)

                            is publicly release all the data. If they have nothing to hide and the evidence is as plain as claimed herein, they will be vindicated.

                            I wasn't claiming that people are "immune" to radiation, only that different people have different constitutions and therefore react differently to low dose radiation. As far as the historical data, you don't really know how many people had diarrhea or a nose bleed and waited for it to stop and it did, so they didn't seek help for it. It was the people for whom it didn't stop who sought treatment and some of them lived after treatment. Or people who died without treatment who were later discovered to have succumb to radiation with the accompanying symptoms. The ship's population is confined in a way that a land based population isn't, so if someone is temporarily sick it is noticed in a way that it might not be otherwise. Just because they had diarrhea doesn't disprove that they were suffering from radiation, especially since you don't know how much or what kind, and the effects of low or moderate dose radiation are not well studied.

                            It would also seem that crewmen were differently exposed. People above deck were more exposed than people below deck. People working with the "nuclear snow" were more exposed than someone working in the laundry room below deck.

                            I don't know what the duties of the sailors were or where their duties placed them on the ship, but if they represent a cluster, then that indicates that there may be a related cause to their health issues. The data from other aircraft carries not involved in Operation Tomodachi from the same time period to the present could be used as a sort of control. The health incidents of the different populations could be compared. If the USS Reagan has more health incidents of a certain type than the others, then this is statistically significant.

                            As to cause, it could be the low or medium doses of radiation, the other contaminates in the plume and water, or a combination of these.

                            Shinzo Kimura, a professor at Dokkyo Medical University in Japan, had been collecting radiation contamination data and studying the radiation exposure risks from Chernobyl. He was the first scientist on the ground in Fukushima after the disaster, and he said he was compelled to take readings because he didn’t trust Japan’s government.

                            “My heart breaks greatly that those servicemembers, who worked for Japan during Operation Tomodachi, suffered radiation exposure,” he said.

                            Even though some say low-level radiation exposure is harmless, Kimura said some studies have suggested that low-dosage radiation exposure could increase the risk of cancers. However, the risk depends on the amount of radiation that person was exposed to, and with little accurate data, he believes the servicemembers’ case may be hard to prove.

                            Kimura said the levels were so high around the plant that his dosimeter was unable to measure the radiation — the level was off his device’s scale.

                            He said the winds were blowing out toward ships off the coast in the days after the disaster.

                            In addition to Kimura’s claims, a Japanese government study released in February found that more than 25 times as many people in the area have developed thyroid cancer compared with data from before the disaster.

                            Kimura said the effects of ingesting radiation-contaminated water aren’t known.

                            “There are many things that are unknown about how internal exposure effects human body,” Kimura said. “So, the effects [it could have] can’t be completely denied.” Link

                            What the sailors were exposed to, at what concentrations and for what duration have not been released. Why aren't there maps showing this information over the ocean with the location of the ship at hourly or at least daily intervals of time. MEXT supposedly has fallout data for the ocean, but I haven't seen any maps of it.
                            3500 terabecquerels of caesium-137 from the plant entered the ocean between 11 March and late May. The pollution was exacerbated in April by problems locating a persistent leak of contaminated water and a decision by TEPCO to dump contaminated water at sea. A further 10,000 terabecquerels of caesium-137 is thought to have found its way into the ocean after escaping as steam from the facility. Link
                            If the contaminants were in the form of steam then they first were in the air over the ocean. How much of this did the USS Reagan encounter and how concentrated was it? Most of the steam was released shortly after the quake and during the subsequent explosions of the reactor buildings while the Reagan was off shore.

                            The ship has been reported as being as close as two miles to the reactor, which some commenters deny but that would make sense because this was originally a rescue mission for tsunami survivors. It is also something that the Navy could verify through navigation logs. How close was the ship when the hydrogen exploded in the reactor buildings. The fact that they felt warm air when it was snowing suggests that they were directly down wind from the power plant, and not very far away, although the super heated steam may have allowed the heated air to travel farther than regular steam.

                            In any case, the ship moved first 50 then 100 miles away from the shore even though that would make the rescue effort more difficult, time consuming and expensive. Why do that if there was really no danger? If the ship's water wasn't really contaminated or not dangerously so, why take time and suffer the inconvenience of replacing it if there was no danger. If the water was contaminated, what was it contaminated with. Did the Navy keep a sample to be analyzed so that they would know what they were dealing with? If they did, what was in it? If they didn't, they are negligent. The power plant was leaching tritium into the ocean.  How dangerous is tritium contaminated water? At what concentrations? What are its effects?

                            When the decks were decontaminated, they were washed with contaminated sea water? What is the cumulative effect of all of this exposure?

                            The Navy has calculated an estimated exposure for the USS Reagan, but where does this estimate come from. Where were these measurements taken? How many? When? How often? Why is it only an estimate? If they didn't take actual readings while they knew there was a nuclear emergency, isn't that negligent? The military loves to take measurements and log everything, so they should have something to show. People affected by this incident deserve answers. If the institutions involved have those answers, they should be forthcoming.

            •  do you know anything about Physics? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW, Sandino, Joieau, Damaged262

              please list your credentials and background?

              because you are dangerously close to Lying openly here.

            •  Bullshit. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sandino, Joieau

              You're certified in the field, but you've never heard of radioactive iodine?  

              Politics means controlling the balance of economic and institutional power. Everything else is naming post offices.

              by happymisanthropy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 08:55:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Being certified to operate (0+ / 0-)

                an x-ray machine in a doctor or dentist's office or hospital is not the same thing as being certified in health physics and working with actual reactors/systems.

                There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:35:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Utterly misleading comment. (0+ / 0-)

              Conflating radiation dose from altitude (an EXTERNAL exposure) with exposure from INTERNAL sources is simply dishonest- though undoubtedly they received an external dose as well.

              These Sailors inhaled a variety of isotopes, and apparently bathed in and ingested water that was contaminated. They were literally engulfed in the cloud of steam formed from the explosion and/or direct venting of nuclear reactors. Do you recall that the ENTIRE facility inventory or radioactive Noble gasses was released?

              Next, you'll probably try to tell us that it was no different than eating a banana or sleeping next to someone.....

              Shooting wolves from planes is to hunting, what hiring a prostitute is to dating.-Shannyn Moore

              by zzyzx on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 08:10:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  This is what they do (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chmood, Sandino, OleHippieChick, Joieau

            They latch on to some minor thing and derail the thread.  Technically, he's right.  It's not radiation sickness.  It's radiation-induced sickness.  

            But he latches on to "It's not radiation sickness!" and suddenly we're not discussing ways to save the planet from death by nuke.  It's very effective rhetoric/propaganda/bullshit/call-it-what-you-will.

            They tell me I'm pretty amusing from time to time working with 140 characters or less.

            by CharlieHipHop on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 07:25:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  So the sailors were lying? All of them? (8+ / 0-)

          Of course, you certainly know that many sicknesses don't happen immediately, but can happen a year, ten, and even forty after exposure.

          All the while crew members had been suffering from excruciating diarrhea.
          “People were s- -tting themselves in the hallways,” Cooper recalled.
          The sailors describe rectal bleeding and other gastrointestinal trouble, unremitting headaches, hair loss and fatigue.
          What? Oh, I know, they all coincidentally ate bad tacos. Couldn't be radiation-related, right?
          ra·di·a·tion sick·ness
          noun
          1. illness caused by exposure of the body to ionizing radiation, characterized by nausea, hair loss, diarrhea, bleeding, and damage to the bone marrow and central nervous system.
          So you have a conspiracy theory that all these 20 year-old sailors got together with crooked doctors and lawyers to besmirch poor harmless Radiation, is that it?


          Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

          by Jim P on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:39:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, all of them lied (3+ / 0-)

            If they were shitting themselves over radiation sickness, then help was too late and they should ALL BE DEAD.

            Any exposure level of radiation that causes immediate diarrhea is too sever for any medical hep to resolve and is 100% fatal.

            Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

            by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:42:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your Crazy CT about lying soldiers and doctors (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW, Joieau

              will probably not fly around here.

            •  Don't be an idiot, (4+ / 0-)

              You clearly don't know what you're talking about.  There is a continuum of symptoms dependent on the radiation dose.  What these sailors reportedly experienced falls within that continuum.  It is possible.  

              I don't know if it's true, but it certainly bears further investigation.

              "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

              by Subterranean on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:27:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, it doesn't. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                melfunction

                What they reported is consistent with a full body radiation dose having a mortality rate of 50-100%, the lower end with treatment, which nobody got.

                While you can find more detailed primary sources, the wiki is probably good enough for this purpose:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                Look at the table for the described symptoms and the associated mortality rate.

                Even if only a few sailors had these symptoms as a result of direct acute exposure, many of them would have died within weeks.

                •  Please read your own wiki citation (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sandino

                  It does not say what you claim it says.

                  •  Yes, it did. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    melfunction, JerryNA

                    And immediately shitting themselves in the hallways after exposure has the highest potential mortality rate.

                    Where are the dead bodies to back up the claims?

                    Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

                    by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:55:56 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You sure? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    melfunction, JerryNA

                    There are reports of heavy diarrhea, people literally 'shitting in the hallways'.

                    If we check out the table we see this correlates with a whole body absorbed dose of 6-8 Gy, or at least 2-6 Gy if we assume that this includes mild diarrhea.

                    We look further down the table and we see mortality rates between 5-50% on the low end with treatment up to 95-100% mortality rates without on the high end.

                    Given that the sailors didn't undergo radiation therapy treatment, a range of 50-100% seems appropriate.

            •  what's your threshold dose figure, here? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              numbers, not opinion.

              •  To immediately start shitting themselves? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                melfunction

                More than 30 Gray units.

                Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

                by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:56:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  'Immediate' is fuzzy. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  melfunction

                  No indication that they had diarrhea 'within minutes', so a lower bound of ~2-6Gy would seem appropriate.

                  •  lots of things cause diarrhea. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau

                    Do you think the sailors are lying in their lawsuits?

                    Do you think chemical exposure may enhance
                    radiation toxicity?

                    do you think internal exposure is worse then external
                    exposure?

                    What human calibration for rad exposure do you think
                    exists?

                    •  I don't think they are lying. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      melfunction, JerryNA

                      I just don't believe that their diarrhea was caused by a whole body acute dose of radiation based on the fact that 50% of them didn't drop dead weeks later.

                      They were monitored for internal exposure. These measurements were reviewed by multiple organizations. How much more data do you require?

                      What do you think is more likely, they somehow all survived radiation dosage that should have killed a good number of them, or a bunch of them caught the flu?

                      You said it yourself in an earlier post, disasters kick up all sorts of nasty stuff, why invoke radiation if the chemicals themselves can cause the problems, especially when the radiation monitoring doesn't support the symptoms?

                      Why do people seem so quick to jump on the "Oh, you're claiming that they are all liars!!! OMG!!!" bandwagon.

                      Have they never heard of just being mistaken?

                      •  well, the government lacks transparency (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sandino, Joieau

                        and has a bad history here.

                      •  Another deceptive tangent. (0+ / 0-)

                        They were in a plume of particulate reactor particles. Sure, there was 'shine' from the gamma emitted by some of those particulates, but unless the entire crew were wearing full respirators the entire several days they were in the thick of the plume, the bulk of their most damaging exposure was internal, not external.

                        Then again, you don't know the difference, do you?

                        There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                        by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:41:23 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  What are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          JerryNA

                          The calculated dose includes internal exposure. From JimP's post, they were monitoring the sailors for internal as well as external exposure.

                          Why do you insist on believing that all of the previous discussion is only about gammas? It isn't, it's about total absorbed dose, from gammas, neutrons, alphas, betas, and so on. The total absorbed dose, both from external and internal sources, was determined to be insignificant by multiple independent organizations.

                          Your claim that the dose was serious to cause illness has NO EVIDENTIARY support, none. It is pure conspiracy theory that requires all of the agencies to be deliberately falsifying their reports. You have no actual evidence for your accusations.

                          And yet you persist. Take a step back, man. Re-assess the available information with an objective eye cause you're in the weeds on this one.

                          •  Garbage. There is no "monitoring" (0+ / 0-)

                            for internal exposure, there are only projections based (rather loosely, I might add) on 'averages' and specific to the isotopic concentrations in the particulate plume. Notice you didn't give us those figures. Is it because those aren't publicly known?

                            The body scanning occurred later, elsewhere. And since it took weeks for the ship to even be granted port, well after the bulk of internal exposure from iodine (plus some) to have decayed. The xenon exposures wouldn't even show up on those, and the xenon component of the plume was very high, as would be damage to lung, throat and bronchial tissues.

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:36:34 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Radiobioassay (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JerryNA

                            and I would agree with you regarding damage to lung, throat, and bronchial tissues, if they encountered large doses of Xenon.

                            But even if all of the measured dose was attributed to Xenon, it would still be too small for such effects.

                            So, I'm not sure why you care so much about the isotopic distribution, when you're only 30x expected background, it doesn't much matter what the mix is, it's too low to matter.

                            We already have the numbers for the particulate dose concentration

                            2.5 x 10e-9 microcuries per ml

                            and since you seem to care about credentials so much, maybe now is the time to demonstrate yours.

                            Assume any mix you want of Iodine or Xenon using that concentration and give the total dose to the thyroid or lungs assuming the sailors were in the plume for a week.

                          •  Joieau-why would they have to wait for monitoring? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ozy

                            Bigger Navy ships have detectors to check internalized radioisotopes. Carriers are the biggest and best equipped for this. Their health physics people could test crew the same day, even before they left the area. Your claim of unnecessary delay does not make sense.

                          •  So, you're saying they (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sandino

                            body-scanned 6,000+ people while they were in the thick of the plume? Really? They didn't even give 'em PK to save their thyroids, or coveralls and respirators when they were ordered to decontaminate the helicopters and decks. The hps and officers and pilots got PK before they turned toward Japan, and they had dosimeters too. The crew did not.

                            Somehow, I think you believe the US military (as in Navy) gives a shit about what happens to their wholly owned cannon fodder. I have never seen any indication of that, and I spent a large part of my life with the Navy. Some of the stories are positively creepy, even more so than stashing the body of some poor grunt who died of untreated appendicitis while on patrol in the meat locker for three months before bothering to report it...

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 10:56:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What the hell is PK? (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you mean KI?

                            You do realize that dosimeters don't 'protect' you from radiation, they monitor it. How on earth would specific members of the crew be exposed to a uniform airborne radionuclide concentration without affecting people wearing dosimeters?

                            That's assuming what you say is even factual regarding who was or wasn't wearing a dosimeter.

                            Why am I even bothering when you didn't even bother to acknowledge your mistakes regarding the engine room continuous monitors.

                            You're short on facts, short on reading comprehension, and long on unsubstantiated speculation.

                  •  8000 sailors in the task force. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    melfunction, JerryNA

                    6000 on the USS Reagan alone.

                    Even if there was treatment at ~2-6 Gy, and there was precisely ZERO treatment of sailors for radiation sickness, at least 300 sailors would be dead in a best case scenario on the USS Reagan alone at that exposure level.

                    Where are the bodies?

                    Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

                    by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 07:18:20 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  How many sailors on a carrier? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LakeSuperior

            From what I recall, about 6000, but maybe someone can correct me on that. 75 out of 6000, then each of those sailors would have to be on the flight crew or on the decon teams. Folks below deck should not have a problem. I would assume they have filters in case of CBRN operations?

        •  Crafty strawman (5+ / 0-)

          you said 'Radiation Sickness'. You should understand that it is not the same as the after effects of internal contamination. But if you understood that, then your remark would like a disinformation tactic.

        •  we have relatively poor studies on rad sickness (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, Ozy, middleagedhousewife

          plus the tohuko quake was not just
          radiation but hundreds of thousands of tons
          of chemical waste from fires and leaks.

          •  An important point that often is missed. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            patbahn, middleagedhousewife, JerryNA

            There are lots of chemical carcinogens and other nasty things that show up during natural (or man-made) disasters for exactly the reasons you note.

            There was no excess radiation in NY City at Ground Zero, but many first responders were affected by the nasty stuff in the air. A good friend of ours was a volunteer first responder and came down with Hodgkin s lymphoma.

          •  Baloney (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            melfunction, JerryNA

            We have very good information on radiation sickness as a consequence of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

            The science is very intricate in this matter. We know almost precisely what happens and at what levels of exposure.

            Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

            by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 07:56:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Early Radiation sickness symptoms include... (4+ / 0-)

          (in mild exposure): Nausea and vomiting within 6 hours...

          ...Diarrhea within 8 hours; headache within 24 hours; Fever within 3 hours...

          Later symptoms of radiation sickness** (Adapted from Radiation exposure and contamination. The Merck Manuals: The Merck Manual for Healthcare Professionals.):

          Dizziness and disorientation: Within 1 wk (severe exposure); Immediate (very severe exposure).  Weakness, fatigue, within 4 weeks, (mild exposure)...

          Lindsay Cooper...then an aviation bosun's mate...
          ...describes sailors vomiting and losing bowel control as skin rashes appeared..."It was a real big problem. We thought gastroenteritis was going around the ship..."
          While at this point it would be difficult to prove whether the  symptoms described were due to radiation exposure or gastroenteritis, or both, or neither, is not possible for any of us to state with certainty--that's for the medical people, and the scientists to evaluate.  I personally believe that these sailors are due the respect of  believing that they felt ill as they described, and they receive thorough, objective medical evaluation and follow-up, as well as objective re-examination of their claims.  

               

          •  Look up the exposure rates (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            melfunction, JerryNA

            If the descriptions described by Lindsay Cooper were real and not fabricated, where are the dead bodies, because to have those symptoms as a result of radiation exposure, the exposure rate was so high PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED.

            Show me the bodies.

            It is far more believable that Lindsay Cooper is a liar.

            Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

            by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 06:13:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You've just been proven wrong (4+ / 0-)

              Read the source.  "Mild" radiation exposure causes diarrhea.  The dead bodies pile up over time and over a great distance, making it easy for the nuke industry to deny responsibility.

              They tell me I'm pretty amusing from time to time working with 140 characters or less.

              by CharlieHipHop on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 07:32:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And results in a MINIMUM of 5% deaths (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                melfunction, JerryNA

                And that's with treatment while no treatment was given.

                In a population of sailors on the USS Reagan alone, that means 300 people SHOULD HAVE DIED.

                Even at your low levels, people would have died.

                Show me the bodies.

                Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

                by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 07:40:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I'd be a bit careful jumping the gun like that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                melfunction, JerryNA

                because the 'source' says nothing of the sort. It confirms the data from Wikipedia.It says diarrhea comes from 'moderate' exposure, 2-6 Gy (diarrhea within 8 hours).

                This has a significant mortality rate within a few weeks.

                I'm not sure if the OP who posted the link just screwed up the formatting, but you should have seen this if you had followed the link.

        •  Tell that to the children that are concieved after (0+ / 0-)

          their Father or Mother comes home.
          I can't speak about facts, when everything I read or hear about this incident is conjectural.
          I can say one thing for sure, the "panels of experts" that swore,' Agent Orange was innocuous' and the vet who was seeking medical help and disability was not affected by handling, breathing or having Dioxin sprayed on them almost daily, never spent a day in jail for lying and anyone whitewashing any contamination issue will not suffer any consequences.

          However, part of the job of the Military is to place men and machines in harm's way. But more and more the Military doesn't take care of those harmed, yet alive.

          "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

          by Cruzankenny on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:36:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The New York Post is about as credible as (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        melfunction

        Newsmax Media.

        "Disturbances in society are never more fearful than when those who are stirring up the trouble can use the pretext of religion to mask their true designs." -- Denis Diderot

        by terremoto on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:25:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo.. (6+ / 0-)

      My bullshit meter is pegged at full on bullshit over this.

      Working towards the end of nuclear power will not happen so long as too much woo about radiation and events like Fukishima are promoted by those who wish to end nuclear power. The truth is a far more powerful weapon and the woo only serves to have rational people disregard those who promote it.

      Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

      by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:18:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This should fairly easy to solve, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Publius2008, middleagedhousewife

        A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

        by onionjim on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:19:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're also useless (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tarkangi

          if you do not understand radiation.

          Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

          by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:20:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They are certainly not useless. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            middleagedhousewife

            They have been using them in Japan and they work fine. WTF?

            A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

            by onionjim on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:19:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Used by people who understand radiation. (0+ / 0-)

              I saw one used by a guy in a Youtube video claiming Fukishima radiation had made it to the West Coast of California. It was complete bullshit. He showed as he got closer to the water's edge, the radiation levels actually went down, but as he went further away from the water on the beach, radiation levels skyrocketed.

              What he failed to understand was, the sand beach had higher levels of radiation than much of the background because it was in an area of geology with high Polonium levels.

              Here is the idiot's video in question. Note the highest levels are about 4 times background but as he moves to the water (where the Fukishima radiation would be coming from) the radiation levels drop dramatically:

              Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

              by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:34:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The only thing (0+ / 0-)

                that stops an idiot with a Geiger counter is a scientist with a Geiger counter!

                A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                by onionjim on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:39:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yup! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  melfunction

                  And the Fukishima disaster points to horrible deficiencies in US reactors. Local ecological disasters are possible on a large scale if similar conditions happen here.

                  California reactors are probably less susceptible to earthquake damage than reactors in the midwest and the East coast.

                  Think about East coast reactors and the possibility of a tsunami from the Atlantic. Are they likely to be capable of sustaining such a strike? I highly doubt it.

                  The Fukishima disaster could be used to demonstrate our vulnerabilities in the US and even that does not go to the issues surrounding spent fuel and radioactive decay of those spent fuel rods.

                  There's so much more important to talk about related to the Fukishima disaster than these wild stories about the USS Ronald Reagan, but that never let an internet forum fail to distract itself from the real issues.

                  Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

                  by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:57:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Unfortunately for your diversion, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    politically indigo

                    your preferred subject matter is not the subject matter of this diary. Instead of being a dick here, why not write your own diary on the subject matter you prefer?

                    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                    by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:52:00 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Haven't gotten into the back and forth (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, middleagedhousewife, melfunction

          but don't naval vessels have geiger counters on them and shouldn't there be a record of their readings if they do?

          And it would seem anyone could go to San Diego with a hand held and see if they get a reading.

          "So listen, oh, Don't wait." Vampire Weekend.

          by Publius2008 on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:24:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well, the shio has geiger counters (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice, JesseCW

      So there shouldn't be an issue releasing the data. It would be an easy way for the government to deal with these claims if there is really no substance.

      If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

      by AoT on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:43:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you actually follow the links (8+ / 0-)

      an interesting tale is told. The OP linked to this story by Wasserman:
      https://www.commondreams.org/...

      and Wasserman linked to this story from NukeFree.org:
      http://www.nukefree.org/...

      and NukeFree sourced this story from Russia Today:
      http://rt.com/...

      and Russia Today sourced this atricle by Cleveland:
      http://japanfocus.org/...

      ... which finally tells us, based on a FOIA-released phonecall transcript between the US embassy in Tokyo and Adm. Donald of PACOM, that the actual amount of radiation detected by the continuous monitors aboard the Reagan when it sailed through the Fukushima plume was:

      2.5 x 10e-9 microcuries per ml.

      The average human lung capacity is about 6000 ml, so a person breathing air like this would be getting 1.5 x 10e-5 microcuries continuously, internally. Assuming this all to be Cs-137, and that lung tissue was exposed from a distance of 1 mm, that would amount to about .04 microSieverts per hour of exposure.

      Radiation sickness begins at about 1 Sievert, or 1 million microSieverts. So for this amount of contamination to cause even the mildest symptoms of radiation sickness, you would have to have been in that plume for about 2800 years.

      We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty. -- G.K. Chesterton

      by Keith Pickering on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:13:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obviously you didn't read the content of the link. (8+ / 0-)

      Nor check the links within the link.

      Cunningham writes that transcribed conversations obtained through the Freedom of Information Act feature naval officials who acknowledge that even while 100 miles away from Fukushima, the Reagan’s readings “compared to just normal background [are] about 30 times what you would detect just on a normal air sample out to sea.”

      On the nuclear-powered carrier “all of our continuous monitors alarmed at the same level, at this value. And then we took portable air samples on the flight deck and got the same value,” the transcript says.

      You detect bullshit? He who smelt it dealt it.


      Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

      by Jim P on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:22:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thirty times a low number (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jrooth, Simplify, Ozy, Bonsai66, melfunction

        is still a low number.

        We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty. -- G.K. Chesterton

        by Keith Pickering on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:24:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pegging the monitors (5+ / 0-)

          - all of them at the same level, which is the setting to which they'd all been calibrated - doesn't mean what you want us to believe it means.

          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

          by Joieau on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:08:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pegging the monitors? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cheminMD, melfunction, jrooth

            It said they alarmed at the same level, which given they were measuring the same volume in the engine room is what you would have expected, no?

            There's no way those monitors in the engine room of a nuclear carrier would have been 'pegged' at only 30x background.

            Further more, in the quote directly above you, this value was confirmed with a portable system on the carrier deck.

            Where did you get this idea about 'pegging the monitors' from?

            I don't think the statements mean what you seem to think they mean.

            •  Of course they would, (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              patbahn, JesseCW, oldhippie, Sandino

              if your equipment is set to alarm at a .01 or .001 read-level all over the ship, and you sail into a 10X or even 100X level plume of radiation. Just lets you know the plume is here and it's reading high. That tells you to re-set and take a decent reading at whatever level that requires, immediately. And keep on reading if you or the plume are moving.

              Your lack of knowledge about equipment and SO procedures doesn't change the technology.

              Unfortunately, whole sections and pages of the transcript have been redacted so aren't being told what the real dose levels were, on deck or in the bowels of the ships. We do know the US Navy and NRC have it on record. i.e., THEY know what the real levels were, along with the ETs who did the readings. I don't think we've heard from them. Or will.

              There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

              by Joieau on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:57:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Pretending others lack knowledge (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                melfunction, jrooth

                doesn't make it so.

                The monitors are more then capable of providing an accurate reading at levels higher than the alarm set point. I'm beginning to think that you know a lot less about these types of things than you claim.

                There was no indication that anything was 'off the scale' of the detectors, merely that they exceeded the alarm level, and that they all read the same measured value, which is what you would expect from a large plume.

                Why would you ignore the fact that they took portable systems up on deck and measured the same value as the monitors in the engine room? That wasn't redacted. Nor were the measurements of rad levels already discussed in this thread.

                So, where exactly did you get the idea that the monitors were 'pegged', it was not mentioned at all that I could find in the document you linked.

                •  it also means radiation was in the air systems (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JesseCW, Ozy, Joieau

                  going down below.

                •  Dumb, that was. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sandino

                  You just reiterated my point. That's just what I SAID.

                  A standard level alarm setting on all monitors. The alarm sounds on all monitors when the plume is encountered, meaning the levels must be huge or the below-decks alarms wouldn't have sounded at the same time at the same level as the on-deck monitors. At which point you take the real [but redacted] readings. Duh.

                  There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                  by Joieau on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 05:34:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Why do you say [redacted] readings? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    melfunction, jrooth, JerryNA

                    They told you what the readings were, 30x background. They told you that the above deck readings were the same as the engine room. None of this was redacted.

                    Why do you say that the 'levels must have been huge'? All you need is air circulation to equalize the levels below and above deck.

                    I'm really confused as to where you're getting all of this information since the link you yourself posted doesn't confirm any of what you're saying. The meters weren't 'pegged' at all.

                    Ah wait, I think I might know the source of disagreement.

                    It's my reading, from your link, that all of the continuous monitors that 'alarmed' were all in the engine room. Check out page 88:

                    The automatic detectors are 'in the plant' running continuously, and it was after the engine room detectors alarmed that they went above deck and got the same reading with a separate portable monitor.

                    From your statements, it sounded like you thought there were detectors all over the ship that all alarmed at the same time and at the same levels, which I agree would be pretty odd. I don't believe this to be the case, however, reading the dialog on page 88. It seems pretty clear to me. Thoughts?

    •  They were ordered into the plume (9+ / 0-)

      to monitor it. There's several pages of transcripts from the NRC Op-Center FOIAs of phone calls between the Admiral in Japan and Op-Center about the plume heading our way. That was when DoE started trying to project doses for Midway, the Aleutians, Hawaii and the west coast. Some of those calculations projected thyroid dose to infants/small children in California of 10 Rem.

      The Reagan reported in from 150 nautical miles off Fukushima that 'sky shine' (gamma from the contamination plume) was high enough on deck to exceed limits in 10 hours. They remained in the plume for days, were first refused berth in western Japan, then were refused again and again wherever they tried to pull in. Too contaminated.

      Given the known record of government/military on all things harmful they do to people who have no choice in the matter, I wonder how on earth you can be so confident everything was peachy keen off the coast of Fukushima Daiichi in March of 2011.

      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

      by Joieau on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:18:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There ya go. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LakeSuperior, melfunction

      The ships that 'couldn't be decontaminated' after open-air nuclear bomb tests in the South Pacific were anchored at or near ground-zero and received point-blank exposure to warhead detonation.

      But, hey. It's exactly the same thing, right?

    •  the Reagan was conducting flight ops. (0+ / 0-)

      It puts the hangar deck up and open, and
      has lots of crew on the deck.

      The other ships mostly weren't so they could button
      up, turn on the filters and pressurize.

    •  I'd have to see MUCH better sources before (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melfunction, JerryNA

      buying into this story.  Wasn't this story already pretty thoroughly debunked more than once here?

      No way in hell a Nimitz-class super-carrier was five miles from shore (unless going into port).  That's one tip-off, IMO.  I never served on a carrier, but I spent a year as a sheet metal mechanic helping to build the Nimitz itself, so I know a little about carriers.

  •  But no one wants to hear about Fukishima (26+ / 0-)

    Anyone who dares mention it is blasted with the CT label. Media at large won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Like most things in America today, it is just much more comfortable to pretend things are fine and our companies pay to make sure our population is fed the BS needed to keep us mollified and meek.

    "News"? There is no real news left in traditional media.

    Rampant police corruption? Oh, it's just a few "bad apples."

    CEO's raping wealth? Oh, you're fostering class warfare.

    Right wing constant lies? Let's grant them credence; it's not our job to call them out.

    or about the horrible physical and psychological maiming of our service personnel. I travel a fair bit and limbless young men and the occasional woman are just part of the American landscape, with passerbyers looking the other way or nudging each other, "Such a pity!"

    Posh. We own this rot that is our country, but we've been propagandized into Stepford citizens by not just a complicit media, but by one with specific intention to distract, disassemble and divide us.

    Dominionists among us? Call the "conservatives" to prevent being labeled as "anti-Christian."

    Hillary as just another foil in the long line of corporatists presidents? She's a Democrat!

    Millions in the "middle class" and below forgoing basic medical and dental care because they can't afford it -- even if insured? Let's run a program on about how Americans don't save enough for retirement. (save WHAT? WTF is left after keeping the heat on and avoiding being thrown into the street?)

    NSA? Stop being paranoid, plus, it's for your own safety.

    Americans falling behind in every meaningful quality of life metric? Check out the latest Kardasian photos.

    Is it any wonder the few journalists left with any shred of integrity are bailing to new, independent ventures?

    I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

    by pajoly on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:00:01 AM PST

  •  I want more info about the sailors. (5+ / 0-)

    I read that their lawsuit was dismissed without predjudice, and they are planning to re-file. More sailors have fallen ill since the initial lawsuit, I read. Hard to confirm their current situation. Does anyone have an update on the cancer cases?

    Mix the blood and make new people!

    by Yonkers Boy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:02:52 AM PST

    •  From the Ecologist (9+ / 0-)

      Background on the case being brought by Charles Bonner on behalf of the USS Ronald Reagan plaintiffs.

      Charles Bonner is leading a class action lawsuit against TEPCO, the regulator/owner of the Fukushima nuclear energy plant.

      He's unlikely to lose it, because he represents 75 sailors who came down with a host of medical problems, including cancers and leukemias, all kinds of gynaecological problems, and tumors on the brain.

      These service men and women are mainly young people in their early to mid twenties, and no one in their family had ever any of these kinds of illnesses before. Just since Bonner took the case, another 21 sailors have begun to show the same dire symptoms ... of radiation sickness.

      Their common link? They were all serving on board USS Ronald Reagan during a brief visit to the waters around Fukushima three years ago. As the Ronald Reagan desalinates all its water from the sea for drinking, bathing and other cleaning purposes, all the sailors were multiply exposed to radiation from the Fukushima accident.

      Calmed by the bollocks being put out about how "harmless" the radiation leakage was, these 75 service men and women now face death.

      I've just been to eighteen internet sites. I have verified who Bonner is, checked the case credentials ("Cooper et al v. Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc. et. al. case number 3:2013cv00773, filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of California") - and confirmed the case's existence with Bonner's law firm.

      This is not left-of-centre urban myth: this is the best indication so far, in my view, of just how serious the Fukushima disaster is going to be.

      Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. Frank Zappa

      by Da Rock on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:25:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  c'mon. isn't this paranoia meeting crazy??? (7+ / 0-)

    /snark

    (still a bit annoyed at that meta diary by kos re: operatives trolling sites like dKos... like the very idea of it was totally ridiculous)

    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

    by pfiore8 on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:10:43 AM PST

  •  Navy Brass will do anything they think they can (7+ / 0-)

    get away with, which is a lot.

    "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:22:30 AM PST

  •  I suggest consulting a real scientist (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tarkangi, Kalex, mamooth, tlf, Bonsai66

    This guy is a real scientist who is also VERY liberal and who calls bullshit on these Fukishima/USS Reagan stories:

    Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

    by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:23:19 AM PST

    •  Damned embedding n/t (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      antooo, Kalex, mamooth, tlf, Bonsai66, melfunction

      Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

      by Walt starr on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:23:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A random YouTube video is no sort (5+ / 0-)

      of cite. Do you have anything that is specific case that isn't a video?

      If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

      by AoT on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:46:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does anyone (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        melfunction

        have a cite that is peer-reviewed as to what these sailors were exposed to?

        Is there some reason why a random YouTube video is any less trustworthy than reported statements by plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit?

        The only thing that seems to come close are the DoD dose calculations reviewed by:

        Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction

        National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

        and validated with calculations by the World Health Organization.

        Any reason to suspect that these organizations are lying, or otherwise incorrect?

        •  I don't ever accept (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          a youtube video as evidence of anything unless it has a video of the thing happening.  A youtube video doesn't debunk this story. I'm not saying the story is legit, but what you're talking about is general guidelines, nothing more.

          If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

          by AoT on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:40:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  General guidelines? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, melfunction, golem

            Not sure what you mean. From the link JimP posted, the DoD calculated the dose experienced by the sailors, and these numbers were reviewed by multiple expert panels, and validated by an independent measurement by the World Health Organization.

            In addition, the report states “over 8,000 individuals were monitored for internal radioactive materials and the results of those tests were compared with the calculated doses.”

            In the end, however, the Department concluded that their estimates of the maximum possible whole body and thyroid doses of contaminants were not severe enough to warrant further examination.

            Navy spokesman Lt. Matthew Allen, in a written statement, said “The DoD has very high confidence in the accuracy of the dose estimates, which were arrived at using highly conservative exposure assumptions (i.e., assuming individuals were outside 24 hours a day for the 60 days in which for environmental radiation levels were elevated and while breathing at higher than normal rates).

            “The estimated doses were closely reviewed by the Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction and by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements who both agreed that the methods used to calculate the estimates were appropriate and the results accurate. In addition the dose estimates were consistent with the estimates made by the Japanese government and by the World Health Organization.”

            But if we can wait until April, UNSCEAR should be releasing it's report.
            •  I must have missed that link (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ozy

              Thank you. Exactly what I was asking for.

              If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

              by AoT on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:52:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  accurate is not precise (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              and given TEPCO just admitted lying about
              Strontium leaks,  let's just see what comes out.

              •  This wasn't TEPCO (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                melfunction, JerryNA

                This was DoD measurements, reviewed by two other organizations, and validated by independent WHO calculationss.

                I'm not sure what you mean here regarding accuracy vs. precision. In this case, we care about the accuracy rather than whether there are 10 significant digits on the dose value. 2 sigfigs are more than sufficient (or even 1).

                And again, there should be a UNSCEAR report coming out in April that should be well documented and reviewed. I'm looking forward to it.

                •  underreporting is accurate (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau

                  we saw 1 count per minute is accurate,
                  when you actually saw 100.

                  precise is "With this equipment, following this protocol
                  we saw this result +/- this error bar"

                  that's something else.

                  •  Um no, (4+ / 0-)

                    accuracy is how close to the actual value you are.

                    So, if the actual value is 2, and my measurement is 2 +- 0.5, that's extremely accurate, but not very precise (1 sigfig).

                    Precision is how many significant figures your result is, representing how repeatable the measurement is (which is related to the error bar).

                    If the actual value is 2 and my measurement is 1.5673894 +- 0.0000003

                    That's a very precise result, but not very accurate.

                    Hope that helps.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    •  i wouldn't trust the reports. (0+ / 0-)

                      i'd look to see what happens.

                      •  Why don't you trust the reports? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        melfunction, JerryNA

                        Are you saying that they don't know how to measure radiation levels?

                        Are you saying that you think the reports are being deliberately falsified? And that the multiple reviewing agencies are all in on it?

                        There should be another completely independent report from UNSCEAR showing up in a couple of months, though if you don't trust reports...

                        What are you waiting for, to see 'what happens'...15 years from now when cancer incidence might peak?

                        •  There is a tendency to rewrite reports. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          greengemini, Joieau

                          All the Japanese reports turn out a year or two later
                          to be 10-100X higher then they let on.

                          •  We always called that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            patbahn

                            "Fun With Exponentials," or "Losing Factors Of Ten By Dropping Zeroes."

                            Then, for even more fun, there's the nifty "Rounding Off Low." That's a cute one. The Kemeny TATF used it to "lose" 150,000 curies of iodine-131 released from the reactor at TMI2 slick as you please, simply by "rounding off" the figure of 7.65 million curies to 7.5 million curies. Voila!

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:08:06 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  that and fun with Dimensions. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau

                            Tepco does a lot of CC to M3 conversions, without
                            adjusting.

                          •  Yup. And it tends to fly (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            patbahn

                            because so few are able to call 'em on it. They like it that way, which is why, a quarter of a century after the end of the good old Cold War, they still cling so desperately to their UberSuper Secrecy Lie-Like-You-Mean-It paradigm.

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:46:21 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well it's a complex field (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau

                            took me a weekend just to get familiar with the
                            nomenclature and read some of the literature.

                            once i figured out the NRC was openly lying about the
                            safety systems, then it became a lot easier to understand.

                          •  I hear you. (0+ / 0-)

                            That's the catch, isn't it?

                            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                            by Joieau on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 04:56:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  once I calibrated my BS meter (0+ / 0-)

                            it became a lot simpler.

                            It's sort of like looking through a reversing mirror.

                            Once you figure out the trick then it's not so bad

    •  Your hysterical responses are not convincing. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Agent Orange Redux (8+ / 0-)

    The military never admits anything when it comes to dosing their own with poisons.

    "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

    by Bob Johnson on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:33:33 AM PST

  •  Outstanding. I have FAMILY in SD. And friends. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland

    Lots of Kossacks and "graduated" Kossacks. (ohai!)

  •  There is a ton of inaccurate info. around this... (10+ / 0-)

    I am begging you, please watch the video below. People who are buying into this story are being fed a lot of false information. Please, please, please, take the time and watch...

  •  Hiderated for anti-scientific nonsense (8+ / 4-)

    First linking to Harvey Wasserman should automatically discredit any diary. The guy's a nutjob.

    Secondly, this is about the ongoing(on it's 2nd or 3rd attempt) lawsuit by sailors of the U.S.S. Reagan because they believe they are suffering from cancer and radiation sickness caused by the Fukushima accident.

    Bear in mind that this would refute 50 years of medical and scientific knowledge of how and when cancer happens after exposure to radiation.

    But hey, Radiation! SCARY!

    Jesus, this site sometimes.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 11:45:21 AM PST

    •  Re: Thyroid cancer spike after Chernobyl (12+ / 0-)

      Ran three to five years after the event

      (checks watch)

      27 February 2014 is a couple of weeks shy of three years later (11 March 2011).

      Granted, Fukushima wasn't as intense an event as Chernobyl but has the situation been contained. For comparison, Chernobyl wanted fully contained for 14 years.

      Never mind me, I'm just citing the One True Wiki here so let's just post the linky

      I there's there enough here to know we just don't know yet how bad it is or with any certainty the radiation is contained... except for the open acknowledgment about groundwater leakage into the Pacific.

      We do know when the cancer spike started after Chernobyl... and given the Fukushima event was less intense there might not BE an event, or it might not be as bad, or it might materialize much later if at all.

      And while it might be in some sense satisfying to know that inferior intellects are upset and unscientific in their consternation different folks handle uncertainty that includes death and maiming as nonzero scenarios differently.

      And there's a professional and clinical way to respect that, too, as well as gushing sympathy. Different folks have different ways of showing respect as well.

      •  I gotta peace out of this one... (0+ / 0-)

        I suspect as the Reagan is scheduled to go back to Japan in a year or so, that the Navy figures it's safe for duty (yay).

        I also suspect I'm 'decontaminating' from the alarm that I might have driven near a slightly more radioactive than usual CVN in 2012...but now that I think about, meh. Still here.

    •  Hiderated for lying through your teeth. (9+ / 0-)

      It's the first lawsuit, the first was about TEPCO's responsibility; a second is in the process. Nothing about the health of the sailors was examined, though you try to imply it was.

      And more sailors have joined the legal process since it started.

      And it would refute absolutely nothing known to medicine and science about how and when cancer happens after exposure.

      But hey, Radiation! DON'T WORRY.

      Lord, the posters at this site sometimes.


      Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

      by Jim P on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:08:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emelyn, Ozy, Bonsai66, melfunction

        Care to expand on the timeline for cancer following radiation exposure?

        Note that the lawsuit lists testicular and brain tumors.

        You know what, I'll just give you the timeline:

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

        Excess leukemias begin appearing within 2 years after acute radiation exposure, reach a peak incidence within 10 years, and then fall off steadily. This is in contradistinction to other cancers for which the minimum latent period is generally 10 to 15 years, and the rate of appearance of new radiation-induced tumors increases at least up to 40 years. The major sources of data for the induction of leukemia are from the 86,500 members of the life-span study of the atom bomb survivors from whom DS86 (1986) dose estimates are available and from a study of approximately 14,000 patients in the United Kingdom treated with radiation for ankylosing spondylitis of the spine.
        Bolding mine.

        Note that Leukemia is fastest occurring possible cancer after acute radiation exposure- which if the USS Reagan was exposed to, would have had immediate side effects. Acute Radiation exposure would have caused some radiation sickness which manifests in about 24 hours which apparently didn't occur.

        This doesn't mean that the sailors aren't sick - it just means that it's not radiation exposure that causing the cancer.

        Look, I tried to be reasonable...

        by campionrules on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:31:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Radiation perspective in general (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skaje, kaliope, not a lamb

      http://xkcd.com/...

      Not about the Reagan claims, but in general: the difference between what's detectable and what's been shown to harm humans and animals is so huge our minds are not suited for understanding it.

      That said, for all our knowledge of health physics, we also have thousands of years of knowledge about business and government lying. Also, the immediate neighborhood of Fukushima was truly and immediately dangerous.

      Another random thought, the thousands and thousands who died from the tsunami should get more of our attention than one industrial accident.

      Anyone considering a dog for personal safety should treat that decision as seriously as they would buying a gun.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:35:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A whole lot of "claimed" ... (20+ / 0-)

    That is, references to unnamed sailors who "claimed" this or that.

    The 10% of the crew that worked with the reactors would have been wearing very sensitive gamma/neutron radiation monitors (thermoluminscent dosimeters, or TLDs) whenever they were in uniform. When sleeping, the TLDs would have been right next to them. Those showed ... nada. None of the nuclear-qualified crew, the ones who understand the issue, are signing on to the BS lawsuit. Like most in the nuke field, they've been trained to be scrupulously honest.

    Contaminated water? Against, makes no sense. The evaporators would have stripped out everything except tritium, and there wasn't enough tritium in the ocean to harm anything.

    And the "warm cloud" bit was so stupid and contrary to how radiation actually works, it made me laugh out loud. If radiation is intense enough to raise the temperature, those exposed to it would be dead very soon.

    •  I'm skeptical about the warm cloud (3+ / 0-)

      but not sure it's phony. I don't see the story claiming that the cloud was warm because it was radioactive. What I read is that the cloud was claimed to be formed from steam that escaped from the reactors' cooling vessels. Such steam would be very hot, of course. What I'm not sure about is a) why convection wouldn't carry that steam up and away from sea level, and b) how much excess heat energy (if any) the water from the steam might still have been carrying by the time it came into contact with ship, if it really did.

      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

      by Nowhere Man on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:40:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe things don't make sense because you (6+ / 0-)

      are ignorant.

      So far [Jan 2013], however, more than 150 service men and women who participated in the rescue mission and have since developed a variety of  medical issues – including tumors, tremors, internal bleeding, and hair loss – which they feel were triggered by their exposure to radiation. ...

      ...Jobs are compartmentalized at sea explained Navy Quartermasters Maurice Enis and Jaime Plym, two of the navigators on the carrier Reagan. Few of those on board knew there were dangerous radioactive plumes blowing in the wind and none knew what ocean currents might be contaminated. They did know there were problems when alarms went off.

      “We make our own water through desalinization plants on board,” said Plym, a 28-year-old from St. Augustine, Florida. “But it comes from the ocean and the ocean was contaminated.  So we had to get rid of all the water on the ship and keep scouring it and testing it till it was clean.

      “You have a nuclear power plant inside the ship that uses water for cooling, and they didn’t want to contaminate our reactor with their reactors’ radiation.”
      http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/...


      Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

      by Jim P on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:14:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And you know that... how? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, greengemini, Sandino

      Links, please, to this claim that there was zero radiation in the vicinity of the USS Reagan group in mid-March 2011.

      Because PACOM Admiral Donald told the NRC Op-Center in D.C. they got 2.5 x 10^-9 microcuries per milliliter particulates airborne at 100 nautical miles.

      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

      by Joieau on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:45:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I seem to remember a conversation... (12+ / 0-)

    on a comment thread here a few months ago where someone said that the US Navy would have never allowed their ships so close to this disaster if there had been any serious danger from the radiation leaks.

    I believe my response was something to the effect of, "Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the recklessness in which this country puts it's military service members..."  I think I gave examples like depleted uranium and agent orange at which point, I was again considered somewhat of a CT-esque writer who was making false equivilencies...

    I am too busy to look back through all of my comments to find it but that was the jest of the thread.  Well... I guess, nothing still surprises me.

    "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

    by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:30:34 PM PST

    •  I remember that conversation, and I also remember (4+ / 0-)

      at least two of the 'debunkers' here were all over you like white on rice, with the same talking points being used here. I won't link; that's against the rules.. but kossaks can find it on their own.

      Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

      by davidincleveland on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 03:50:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Again?? (11+ / 0-)

    I mean, how many times does the same story about the Reagan need to be circulated and then slapped down for being speculative?  Like a squeaky merry-go-round, this story has been making the circuits through the blogosphere (including Daily Kos) for months, going absolutely nowhere each time it gets brought up again.  We have the same unsubstantiated and implausible insinuations of "radiation sickness", and the same unhinged fearmongering embodied in analysis like this:

    The ship's ventilation system might have been contaminated?  What other systems might have been contaminated?

    I hope the next diary on this subject comes out AFTER the Navy has completed its report on the relevant circumstances.  At least then, there will be something concrete to talk about, a factual foundation for whatever bickering or real analysis may follow.  In the absence of concrete information, all we've got is a lawsuit alleging various maladies (many of which have no plausible connection to radiation), and a blogosphere that is replacing the information vacuum with pure, grade-A, scientifically-bankrupt, speculation.  Enough already!

     

    •  I have little confidence in Navy investigations. (4+ / 0-)

      Treasure Island cleanup exposes Navy’s mishandling of its nuclear past

      Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay is laced with highly radioactive particles after many years of Navy nuclear research & training and ship cleanup activities before being turned over to civilian use in the 1988 (or so) decommissioning process of various military properties. The just-published lengthy article linked above, by the Center for Investigative Reporting, lays out systematic coverup and prevarication procedures the Navy continues to engage in with respect to efforts by the State of California and local authorities to obtain documentation of the Navy's so-called research (from around 1948 onward) and cleanup and disposal of radioactive-contaminated naval items and materials.

      Poverty is not an accident. Like slavery and apartheid, it is man-made and can be removed by the actions of human beings. —Nelson Mandela

      by kaliope on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:46:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Understandable perhaps, but not an excuse (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        melfunction

        to resort to speculative, sensationalized, poorly-sourced information like that being propagated in this diary.

        I suspect the Navy can deliver existing information that will fill the present information vacuum and obviate the speculation merry-go-round on this particular USS Reagan controversy.  Naturally, not everyone will be convinced that a conspiracy to confabulate, mislead, sap and impurify, what-have-you is not afoot at the Navy, and those who think such a thing is plausible will reference bad behavior from the service's past.

        It's notable that the only information that this "stunning new" diary is founded on comes from the Navy itself--it's a telephone transcript released sometime a couple months back (and apparently just news to Harvey Wasserman today.)  Previous diaries have also mentioned this transcript, or linked around to discussions about this transcript, or linked to discussions about musings about speculations about tea-leaf readings about mutterings about this transcript, over the past two months.  And its revelations are pretty limited and inscrutable as regards the possible health consequences from the ship's encounter with Fukushima radioactivity, and not apparently contradictory to any facts previously asserted.

        •  ANOTHER omniscient commentator (0+ / 0-)
          Understandable perhaps, but not an excuse (1+ / 0-)
          to resort to speculative, sensationalized, poorly-sourced information like that being propagated in this diary.

          I suspect

          So YOU can speculate, but not the rest of us?

          I'm sure the Party will release their FULL FINDINGS in good time, and it will turn out that we HAVE always been at war with East Asia, despite you ignorant brain-cell-rubbers-together....

          Sheesh, the stink of self-importance is STRONG on this issue - way to allay the concerns of the public, y'all....

          trying to stay alive 'til I reach 65!

          by chmood on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 07:31:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nice try (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JerryNA

            but your sauce is weak this morning.

            Obviously, there's a big difference between speculating about the causes of illness on the Reagan (and particularly the unsupportable assertion flogged in this diary and its comments that the single cause is radiation), and my own self-declared "suspicion" that the Navy will release more useful information.  I don't assume to know what the Navy will do.  I suspect they can provide useful information.

            Use your head, and comprehend the difference.

  •  Operation Tomodachi? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chmood

    Wasn't that the keychain toy from the 90s? ;)

    "You can't run a country by a book of religion. Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." Frank Zappa

    by Uosdwis on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:03:08 PM PST

  •  Considering TEPCO has lied since this started... (4+ / 0-)

    I would believe nothing they have to say about anything.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 02:12:50 PM PST

  •  Big Pie fight upstream (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    patbahn, Sandino

    My 2 cents.

        The particles streaming out of the continuing meltdown are what gives off the zoomies that cause near term radiation sickness and set off radiation detectors. One tiny particle of a radioactive element in the lung will give off a steady stream of zoomies for a long, long time. Bioaccumulation in the thyroid will cause a world of hurt.

        You might catch more zoomies flying at 35,00 or living at 10,000 but breath in one particle of plutonium and you are a goner.

        Anybody trying to hide behind snapshot of low radiation levels without also admitting to the lethal effect of particles is being a bit trollish in my opinion.

    •  *sigh* (4+ / 0-)

      No, breathing in one particle of plutonium will not kill you.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

      These guys breathed in a boatload (relatively speaking) and had no elevated outcomes compared to the public.

      There is plutonium in the atmosphere right now that we breathe in, every day, and there was a lot more during atmospheric testing.

    •  The "hot particle" hypothesis, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ozy, Roadbed Guy, middleagedhousewife

      which suggests that the risk associated with "hot particles" (google for technical definition) is drastically different from that for other forms of exposure to radioactive material, has been around a long time and has been substantially refuted or at least bounded by an increasing body of data and analyses.  It's probably fair to say that some degree of uncertainty exists in some exposure scenarios.  But, it's inaccurate to suggest that the "hot particle" hypothesis has widespread credibility.  There is nothing "trollish" about adhering to the established, evidence-based approach to radiation dosimetry.

  •  If you follow 4 links into the provided one, (4+ / 0-)

    you do get an actual conversation from a FOIA request which is quite interesting.  Just search for Reagan and you'll get to it quickly enough.

    http://japanfocus.org/...

    Also very interesting is Table 2 from that document, which includes the timetable for the Exclusionary and Evacuation Zone increases.

    Note this:

    March 21  Department of Defense Naval Reactors (USA):

    Voluntary military assisted departures and Potassium Iodide (KI) distribution recommended up to 320km (200 miles) from Daiichi NPP

  •  i will return to read your diary and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JusticeSeeker68

    the comment thread.

    having recently contacted a navy chaplain-relative, i'm overly anxious and deflated with this sludge behavior.

    TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes? -- Addington's Perpwalk.

    by greenbird on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 09:03:31 PM PST

  •  Have they flown any of the planes on the ship? (0+ / 0-)

    How many contaminated planes? Where are they?
    Carriers often serve as supply ship for those that accompany it, as it is usually part of a task force.
    They supply food, fuel and mail; amongst many other things.

    "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

    by Cruzankenny on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:59:17 AM PST

  •  Thank you JusticeSeeker (3+ / 0-)

    I'm a lifelong poet (and 4-year Vietnam veteran, who had to Not Tell and Not Be Asked). The following came out of my heart/soul BEFORE I read your story on the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan (karmicly interesting how it was THAT-named carrier):

    Shocking News (Again)

    we’re Dismayed, Incensed!
    how we treat our heroes!
    launch yet another
    Congressional Inquestigation:
    how could this happen
    to those poor boys (and girls),
    again

    Dauntless scrabbling youths
    struggling through the minefield
    of our rigged economic deck –
    how briefly do they serve
    our Global Marketing Department
    all of them, so easy to
    plunder

    But when their tours are up
    and they come home,
    shattered, soul-shocked,
    expecting foolish gratitude,
    instead they hit the wall:
    implacable American analysis –
    R.O.I.

    Usefulness done, asset value nil,
    liability exposure?
    cut the corporate losses
    (amid the usual shell-game
     of fake patriotism)
    evade those loser-liabilities,
    duck and cover!

    Copyright © 2014 Berkeley Fuller-Lewis, all rights reserved

  •  numbers? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    Radiation is one of the most measureable things around.  Rads?  Roentgens? Grays? Does anybody have any NUMBERS?  I took over 5000 rads during cancer treatment and I'm still kicking.

  •  The Navy sinks it's sailors (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JusticeSeeker68

    I see I'm not the only one who thinks that Captain Fred Moosally (fateful former Captain of the Iowa) must have been given another command.  Holy crap, ships officers knew what they were sailing in to, but elementary precautions were not put into place, to protect the crew.   Looks like the USS There You Go Again might be getting retired early, folks.

  •  Business (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JusticeSeeker68

    as usual in the Navy;  a Frigate runs aground in uncharted waters of the Black Sea & the Commander is relieved.  It's all in the public eye.
    The reagan takes a dose of rads, out of sight of the public and with a Commander on board who fears exposure to radiation is more dangerous to his promotion than to the crew --- so data & info shutdown.

  •  Conservatives want to deregulate nukes (0+ / 0-)

    to help the free market do its natural thing and kill off the unproductive.  Jesus will protect conservatives.

  •  Frankly, this sounds like BS. I've seen some (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    recent contour maps of radiation levels near Fukushima Dai-Ichi and the boundary for hazardous levels of radiation is a few hundred meters from the plant. Somebody's lookin' to git paid.

    •  Whaaa ??? (0+ / 0-)

      Your aren't really saying that because the current maps show low dose there NEVER was a huge dose or huge contamination issue in the same area?!

      Are you?!

      •  This isn't the contour map I was looking (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JerryNA

        for, but it is even better.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        The map shows radiation levels from air and ground monitoring between March 30 and April 3, 2011. I assume that the units shown as mR/hr are mrem/hr, although this is not entirely clear.

        In any event, the levels greater than 12.5 mR/hr are literally right up against the plant boundaries. They drop to an order of magnitude lower within a few kilometers.

        Radiation safety is a controversial business, but typical background radiation counts are 300 mR/year and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's limits for power plant workers is 5,000 mR/year. Acute radiation sickness typically begins at dosage levels above 100,000 mR.

        The Reagan is a nuclear carrier, and I assume that radiation monitoring is part of daily routine. The highest level of radiation recorded on the ship was 0.6 mR/hr, and the ship left the area after helicopter crews suffered radiation exposure flying through a plume near the plant.

        It is very unlikely that anyone on the Reagan suffered a level of radiation exposure that could cause near-term health effects, except possibly for the helicopter crews.

  •  Dear President and Commander in Chief Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff

    Who is looking into this for you?

  •  Guinea Pigs in the US Navy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff

    During the 50s and 60s American  Sailors and Soldiers were forced to be up close to Nuclear Detonations, the Soldiers forced to march into the blast zone which was very Radioactive and Sailors were forced to try and wash off Radioactive particles from ships, which they could not do.   During those 'tests' none were given protection suits, and they are known to day as America's Atomic Veterans.  It comes as no surprise that the Military does still put people at risk in situations they did not cause.  This is Japan's accident which they don't seem to handling very well but exposing America's Military is extremely risky.

    •  Yep... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VirginiaJeff, JusticeSeeker68

      Personally instructed by a CPO who was made to sit on the deck edge facing away from the blast, and who was finally receiving follow up physicals decades later.

      Given the utter incompetence by TEPCO in the initial response and consequence evaluations, this all is VERY easy to believe.  Gonna take a lot of explanation and verified facts for this to be dispelled by the reputed culprits.

      That's from the perspective of a person familiar with nuclear accident analysis and risk assessment, along with accident response.

  •  Scrap it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JusticeSeeker68

    and replace it with one named after a good President!

  •  Too little evidence for, too much against. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    I'm very skeptical of the sailors' claims. Just not plausible, and too many inconsistencies.
    Sorry, I'm not buying it.

    "...pero mi corazón me aconseja, que los nacionalismos - ¡qué miedo me dan!" - Enrique Bunbury (El Extranjero)

    by JustGiaco on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:41:40 AM PST

    •  More info needed (0+ / 0-)

      given what I would expect to be the ventilation monitoring for the propulsion plants, given commercial practices with nuclear power, I'd have expected to hear that those instruments could be relied on to show no real exposure.  compare this to the recent incident at WIPP in new mexico with a reputed airborne release and who knew what, when, and why they knew it.

      where are the FACTS?

      however, given the past reprehensible behavior of the us armed forces in nuclear testing, nothing is off the table.

  •  Read a book called "The Atomic Times" (0+ / 0-)

    by Michael Harris.  Exposing soldiers and sailors to radiation is a feature, not a flaw.  
    I used to inspect atomic bombs for a living.  We kept uranium parts in containers called a birdcages so we couldn't stack them too close together and cause them to go critical.  

  •  Radiation (0+ / 0-)

    Why am I not surprised? Here, put these on. You'll see a big flash and feel a very warm breeze but nothing to worry about. It's only a test.

  •  Reagan Radiation (0+ / 0-)

    Agent Orange all over again.

  •  And another conspiracy theory is born....... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA
  •  USS Reagan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff

    This is beyond understanding, the sailors were asked to lie about taking iodine pills and exposed the radiation.  This needs to be a National concern, not buried away.

  •  Not to mention an American ship attacked by (0+ / 0-)

    Israel in 1967, the USS LIBERTY.  The Navy officer who hushed up the investigation into the Israeli attack on an American vessel was one Admiral McCain, father of John McCain. Does the word "payoff" mean anything?
    But, of course, the Israelis got away with it all.  Probably the same thing will happen again.  "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it."

  •  Same Old, Same Old (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff

    Nothing new here. Serve your country, volunteering to give your life if necessary, and then you're on your own.

  •  Pay back is a 'Bitch' (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    VirginiaJeff

    Even when it takes 70 years.....

  •  time for change at Daily Kos (0+ / 0-)

    You guys at Daily Kos are fucked up for not letting me change my user name on this lifetime account that was given to me (complete with the unusable name, "Hear the Beef") as a gift. I've written nicely to your tech support twice over about 3 weeks of time. What kind of progressive news/"action" site can't take care of a little problem like this?  I want to use the name of my free account, jeffsyrop, as my user name. There are no threads or posts under either of my user names, so changing one to the other should be effortless.

    Jeff Syrop http://www.zenhell.com

    by Hear the Beef on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:36:38 PM PST

  •  Never thought I'd see (0+ / 0-)

    an article on Daily Kos's recommended list that does nothing but promote an article that does nothing but promote conspiracy theory while ignoring science and history.

    •  Wasserman not a credible source (0+ / 0-)

      A more credible article analyzing the USS Reagan incident concludes,

      "The proposition that the USS Reagan crew were contaminated with significant doses of radiation is not credible. Suggestions that the US Navy is somehow hiding something because the ship was not brought back to a US port are equally so. The idea that the crew of the ship are suffering radiation related injury or cancer caused by Fukushima fallout  is fantasy. It is just not possible based on what science knows."

      http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/...

      The real problem is how quickly Wasserman's screed is reposted to other web sites.

  •  Our functional congress. (0+ / 0-)

    We hauled the CEO in front of congress because a few Americans were too lazy to reach down and adjust their floor mats yet, not a single representative has suggested hauling anyone from Tepco or the Japanese government in for a little public brow beating.

  •  The Navy and govt will get to the bottom of this, (0+ / 0-)

    and take care of our sailors, about the year 2067. Just hang in there mates, and learn from the radioactive military of the 40's, 50's and later. Denial until the survivors number in the teens at most.

  •  No surprise here (0+ / 0-)

    And this is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for the U.S. thanks to our Capitalistic pig leaders.  Same thing with the 9/11 first responders.  No one told them they needed to wear respirators, and now they're all dying from respiratory diseases and cancer.  Hazardous materials EVERYWHERE and every corporation will LIE about it.  

    And they want to bring the Keystone XL Pipeline here next?  

  •  Who exactly release this "stunning report"? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike Carey

    I'm very suspicious of this story since this seems to be the only vessel affected by the radiation.  Thunderf00t did a nice job of pointing out that this "story" is probably bunk being promoted by the lawyers behind the lawsuit.  You can see his video here:
    http://www.youtube.com/...

  •  We can make a difference (0+ / 0-)

    Everyone reading the Daily Kos should write your Senators and Representatives to make them aware of this situation. However the House will probably be voting on Health Care for the 51st time.

Meteor Blades, Bob Johnson, Thumb, Duckman GR, Alumbrados, Sylv, Alfred E Newman, DeminNewJ, decisivemoment, copymark, dalemac, native, Geenius at Wrok, Danno11, greenbird, Shockwave, mrhelper, cotterperson, genethefiend, OLinda, eeff, Pompatus, Matilda, dpeifer1949, davelf2, cinnamon68, tyler93023, sponson, cskendrick, wonkydonkey, susakinovember, whenwego, ehavenot, Agathena, peace voter, roses, taonow, ornerydad, PeteZerria, dksbook, wader, Redfire, kharma, psnyder, Joe Bacon, mwk, plan9pub, Miss Jones, pat bunny, agincour, HeyMikey, Steven Payne, 2dot, 313to212, walkshills, Steven D, Josiah Bartlett, oortdust, Longwing, weelzup, davidincleveland, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, marina, scurrvydog, chimene, offred, Alice Venturi, ajsuited, basquebob, dewtx, ChemBob, viral, fixxit, eru, Sun Tzu, where4art, Kayakbiker, lotlizard, Ice Blue, CompaniaHill, markdd, RichterScale, Sandino, kaliope, brentut5, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Tunk, sodalis, snoopydawg, peacestpete, xaxnar, Jim P, berko, SoulCatcher, Knucklehead, cybersaur, tobendaro, profundo, HoundDog, Gorette, cookseytalbott, seefleur, AoT, KenBee, kck, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, DarkestHour, StrayCat, philipmerrill, Rosaura, uniqity, JVolvo, unclebucky, myrealname, onionjim, AmBushed, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, suspiciousmind, Statusquomustgo, bstotts, dochackenbush, AllanTBG, Little, PatriciaVa, pfiore8, Loudoun County Dem, camlbacker, Debs2, devis1, yoduuuh do or do not, Wino, edsbrooklyn, LillithMc, la urracca, tahoebasha2, bnasley, jayden, US Blues, mudslide, SeaTurtle, Don midwest, South Park Democrat, thewhitelist, Empower Ink, fb, Mighty Ike, revm3up, misterwade, also mom of 5, gfv6800, amyzex, zerone, OleHippieChick, bill warnick, Aureas2, Buckeye Nut Schell, KJG52, monkeybrainpolitics, tofumagoo, Cassandra Waites, RandomNonviolence, Hanging Up My Tusks, pickandshovel, catly, home solar, elpacifico66, get the red out, doppler effect, billybam, toom, protectspice, shortgirl, CIndyCasella, legendmn, 207wickedgood, Bule Betawi, MufsMom, J M F, zmom, greengemini, Nebraskablue, WakeUpNeo, socal altvibe, rbird, JesseCW, elziax, kevinpdx, stevenwag, sfarkash, nancat357, astral66, Just Bob, parse this, Renie57, NJpeach, LOrion, mookins, Things Come Undone, RJP9999, paradise50, rja, Betty Pinson, BlueFranco, ericlewis0, cocinero, wrpereir, slice, Wisdumb, Pakalolo, Maximilien Robespierre, pajoly, ladywithafan, Oldowan, slowbutsure, jm214, Susipsych, FarWestGirl, mrsgoo, marleycat, Jasonhouse, tpre007, Wheever, VirginiaJeff, chickeeee, abbotkinney, Grandma Susie, IB JOHN, worldlotus, wintergreen8694, enhydra lutris, bluedust, PhilJD, VTCC73, Hayate Yagami, stlsophos, leftykook, No one gets out alive, jimwolf359, Rejoinder, YaNevaNo, chmood, greenbastard, Siri, molecularlevel, IndieGuy, joanil, S F Hippie, Lonely Texan, Joieau, Yonkers Boy, Horace Boothroyd III, Buckeye54, oldpotsmuggler, Kayjay, ZatCSU, AZ Sphinx Moth, BobTheHappyDinosaur, Lily O Lady, jusjtim35, jbob, 84thProblem, weck, 3rock, minnec, HedwigKos, aresea, Ree Zen, northerntier, GrannyRedBird, Halfton81, Kombema, Rich Lyles, RUNDOWN, luerwulf, patbahn, bygorry, ptressel, wilywascal, Damaged262, dawgflyer13, Arkenstark, bethann, terremoto, txtokken, AWilson

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site