Related post from NBC (27th of Dec 2012): US sailors sue Japan's TEPCO for post-quake radiation exposure (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/27/16197507-us-sa...). Interesting they used almost the same photo on the article.
Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue
81–90 of 161 posts
Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"?
No, because what is "considered safe" in the first place is not reachet at by scientific consensus aimed at the well being of the population, but by how far private and state interests can raise the "safe dosage" in order to cover their asses and go about their polluting as usual.
Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue
#83It was much worse than was reported. An online forum of nuclear engineers (I may still have the link) was the most informative source of news about the disaster at the time. EDIT: found the link. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=8b5b840e5e9217...
I hope I won't offend anyone by saying that some of the reported health problems after radioactive disaster are usually exaggerated to get reparations.
And I hope I don't offend anyone by saying that most of the numbers reported after a radioactive disaster are BS spin in order for the company/state to save face.
Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
A "simple" reverse-osmosis system? A Nimitz class carrier can produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 400,000 gallons of desalinated (potable) water a day. Desalination is very energy intensive, but energy is something that a nuclear powered carrier has plenty of. There are obviously some consumables involved, but it's mostly just energy, and lots of it. RO, on the other hand, requires a lot of high quality, small p…
Actually, it looks like Ford-class carriers use, or will use (?), reverse osmosis for desal: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657412.pdf RO is already used in utility-scale desal plants: http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/DesalinatedWater.aspx "This plant can produce 30 million gallons of water a day (136, 000 cubic meters) and is one of the region’s largest seawater reverse-osmosis plants."
Yeah, they've done away with many of the steam systems on the new carriers (including the catapult launch system, which is now electric).
If you're trying to minimize energy (particularly steam) usage, then RO starts to make a bit more sense. On the Nimitz class, they have plenty of waste heat from the powerplant, and already had numerous steam distributions systems in place.
Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue
#85"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.
I'm a little confused here, why are the sailors on the aircraft carrier a hundred miles off the coast suing and not the helicopter crews or the sailors on the destroyers that got closer?
People are bashing the article not because it is from the NY Post but because there is a zero evidence that being on a ship a hundred miles away was more dangerous than actually being at the site or in tokyo. The article is filled with all kinds of misunderstandings about radioactivity that are accepted wholesale by the reporter to drum up a good story.
Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue
#86Guam turned us away That sounds suspicious. Guam is a U.S. Territory.
Right, the notion it turned away an aircraft carrier a hundred miles away from fukushima is ridiculous.
Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue
#87"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…
Even worse:
>>“We were probably floating in contaminated water without knowing it for a day and a half before we got hit by that plume,” said Cooper, whose career as a third-class petty officer ended five months after the disaster for health reasons. The toxic seawater was sucked into the ship’s desalinization system, flowing out of its faucets and showers — still radioactive — and into the crew member’s bodies.
Toxic seawater a hundred miles offshore???? You can't make up anything more ridiculous.
Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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"?
No, because what is "considered safe" in the first place is not reachet at by scientific consensus aimed at the well being of the population, but by how far private and state interests can raise the "safe dosage" in order to cover their asses and go about their polluting as usual.
Politicians are pretty scared of radiation, they may very well set 'safe' limits far lower than they need to be. It's not one-sided.
Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine waking up every day for the rest of your life and wondering if you have cancer today? Not good.. 30% of us will have it at some point, also you have chance 1 in 1000-2000 that you'll die next year.
> you have chance 1 in 1000-2000 that you'll die next year. You have a 1000-2000 chance that you'll die when you are no longer an infant but still young. Your chances of dying next year go up as your get older. If you had only 1 chance in 1000 to die each year that would mean that people would live to be 1000 years old on average. A good estimate of human mortality rates can be calculated from Gompertz law: http://fo…
>If you had only 1 chance in 1000 to die each year that would mean that people would live to be 1000 years old on average.
You're not old, and you're also not an infant. Your chances are much lower than a naive average.
Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm still confused why the snow was radioactive. Snow = water. Did it form around radioactive particles?