Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 161 posts

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#61

Post by ChristianMarks »

Alex_MJ wrote: post #36
melling wrote: post #33

We're either a one decade or two from having the necessary robotics technology needed to keep humans out of harm's way in these situations. http://singularityhub.com/2013/12/20/nasa-unveils-valkyrie-a... It's really up to us if it's going to be 10 years or 20.

We already can make simple ones, it's a matter of radiation shielding. They don't have to be huge expensive humanoid ones. Robots were used in the Chernobyl cleanup 25 years ago although they ended up getting fried from the radiation. I haven't done much research on the topic of what exists today regarding workarounds for electronics in radioactive environments (if someone has domain knowledge, please tell!), but I s…

See the end of

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=711577&page=4

on why it isn't entirely straightforward to send in a robot.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#62

Post by Turing_Machine »

platz wrote: post #39
VLM wrote: post #23

"The levels were incredibly dangerous and at one point, the radiation in the air measured 300 times higher than what was considered safe, Sebourn told The Post." This doesn't mean anything, its technobabble. How many REM or mSv total exposure? "I said something complicated and science-y sounding, so you are supposed to be scared right now". The biggest misfortune is they may even accidentally be correct, just complet…

Amazing how you think your claim is better informed than those from a primary source. You're right, the mystery solvent must have been it.

A report as spun by lawyers and the New York Post is a "primary source"?

"Considered safe" for how long? For continuous life exposure? For the length of time it takes to make a medical X-Ray? It doesn't say.

The OP is right. There is zero useful information in that statement.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#63

Post by [deleted] »

Pitarou wrote: post #51

On its own, I can't treat this article as credible. The compensation lawyer presents the strongest possible case for his clients, and the journalist is clearly glossing over a great deal in order to get the juiciest quotes. From what little details are given, it sounds like the crew of the Reagan suffered from some kind of gut infection, not radiation poisoning. That would explain why they were denied port entry at G…

[deleted]

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#64

Post by throwaway_yy2Di »

VLM wrote: post #23

"The levels were incredibly dangerous and at one point, the radiation in the air measured 300 times higher than what was considered safe, Sebourn told The Post." This doesn't mean anything, its technobabble. How many REM or mSv total exposure? "I said something complicated and science-y sounding, so you are supposed to be scared right now". The biggest misfortune is they may even accidentally be correct, just complet…

Here's numbers and a primary source [0]:

"For perspective, the maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship's force personnel aboard the ship when it passed through the area was less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun."

Meaning ~300 uSv, or three orders of magnitude short of acute radiation poisoning [1].

"Using sensitive instruments, precautionary measurements of three helicopter aircrews returning to USS Ronald Reagan after conducting disaster relief missions near Sendai identified low levels of radioactivity on 17 air crew members. The low level radioactivity was easily removed from affected personnel by washing with soap and water. They were subsequently surveyed, and no further contamination was detected."

(edit) By the way, [0] says the carrier was 100 miles from Fukushima at the time. Overlay that with the calculated I-131 dose map [2] (from [3]) (I-131 is the largest early dose component); it makes it really hard to believe any of these claims.

The paper [3] is relevant too: it shows off the ability to measure internal I-131 dose, long after the fact. And claims that people far closer to the disaster, with presumed far higher radiation exposures [2], are relatively safe.

[0] http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=59065

[1] http://xkcd.com/radiation/

[2] (figure only) http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120712/srep00507/fig_tab/sre...

[3] (full paper) http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120712/srep00507/full/srep00...

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#65

Post by _wp3r »

wissler wrote: post #48
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was. The Reagan is nuclear-powered and is capable of carrying nuclear missiles (and quite possibly was at the time). Unless Navy planning has entirely rotted away, that ship was plastered with radiation detectors, crewed with people trained for nuke decon, equipped with NBC (nuclear/bioweapon/chemical weapon) protection suits, and supplied with potassium iodide tablets for thyroid protection.

Then what really happened here?

I am a CBRN specialist in the Marine Corps. These ships run constant radiation detection, everywhere, especially in the water desal. The only probable cause for these kind of biological responses, would have to be inhalation of radiated particulates, but even that would be extremely difficult given the range from the source. Even the most basic respiratory protection(shirt over face) would prevent most of that type of contamination.

The entire CBRN community was hyper focused on these operations Navy wide, and the possibility of an entire group of ships not taking every precaution is very very very low. I am not discounting the possibility of equipment failure(unknowingly) or execution failure by individuals, but the chances of that with so much attention on the issue would be low.

EDIT: What do people do when they see snow? Think tounge out.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#66

Post by jrockway »

VLM wrote: post #23

"The levels were incredibly dangerous and at one point, the radiation in the air measured 300 times higher than what was considered safe, Sebourn told The Post." This doesn't mean anything, its technobabble. How many REM or mSv total exposure? "I said something complicated and science-y sounding, so you are supposed to be scared right now". The biggest misfortune is they may even accidentally be correct, just complet…

It's the New York Post. Don't trust a word it says.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#67

Post by jrockway »

nobody_nowhere wrote: post #45
joshvm wrote: post #41

"Tokyo Electric Power also knew that radioactivity was leaking at a rate of 400 tons a day into the North Pacific, according to the lawsuit and Japanese officials." I'm sorry, what? What does that even mean? 400 tons of.. Uranium? Water? Pure radioactive essence? This article is shocking on many levels, but the lack of journalistic standards is appalling.

We're talking about the NY Post! It would be more surprising if it exhibited any standards at all.

They have standards. They pick a Tumblr at random and say, "I bet we can have higher journalistic standards than that guy." And 50% of the time, they're right!

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#68

Post by glenra »

yapcguy wrote: post #44
platz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing how you think your claim is better informed than those from a primary source. You're right, the mystery solvent must have been it.

You can't argue with some people, perhaps like the original poster. Even if figures and readings are produced, some will talk about bananas, flying in an aeroplane, and background radiation. The biggest joke of all has been how the "safety limits" of different types of radiation were all magically raised after Fukushima.

If actual measurements of radioactivity were produced rather than measurements in terms of "tons of water (with some tiny unknown percentage of radioactive component)" or "300 times the level considered safe (without saying what that level actually is)", then it would be possible to talk sensibly about how it compares to other exposure sources. Such as eating bananas, living in Colorado, getting a dental x-ray and so on. And it might still be scary if we knew the numbers, but without real numbers we can't know that it's worth worrying about.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#69

Post by glenra »

marze wrote: post #52
VLM wrote: post #23

"The levels were incredibly dangerous and at one point, the radiation in the air measured 300 times higher than what was considered safe, Sebourn told The Post." This doesn't mean anything, its technobabble. How many REM or mSv total exposure? "I said something complicated and science-y sounding, so you are supposed to be scared right now". The biggest misfortune is they may even accidentally be correct, just complet…

Well, I wouldn't want to walk around outside with levels at 300 times what is "considered safe". Japan is just lucky that 95% of the radioactive release from the meltdowns was blown out over the ocean, otherwise a much larger fraction of their island would have become useless for agriculture. If the earthquake occurred during the fall, the winds would have been generally off the ocean.

> Well, I wouldn't want to walk around outside with levels at 300 times what is "considered safe".

Wouldn't that depend on how many orders of magnitude of safety margin went into deciding what is "considered safe"?

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#70

Post by moocowduckquack »

throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #64
VLM wrote: post #23

"The levels were incredibly dangerous and at one point, the radiation in the air measured 300 times higher than what was considered safe, Sebourn told The Post." This doesn't mean anything, its technobabble. How many REM or mSv total exposure? "I said something complicated and science-y sounding, so you are supposed to be scared right now". The biggest misfortune is they may even accidentally be correct, just complet…

Here's numbers and a primary source [0]: "For perspective, the maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship's force personnel aboard the ship when it passed through the area was less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun." Meaning ~300 uSv, or three orders of magnitude short of acute radiation poison…

If any of them have manage to ingest any of the snow, then they could be subject to long term internal exposure and depending on the type of source, it could be very difficult to scan for.
Post reply on HN