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

111–120 of 161 posts

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#111

Post by icambron »

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.

> Even if figures and readings are produced, some will talk about bananas, flying in an aeroplane, and background radiation

From listening to those people, you might almost think the numbers were factual information to be evaluated thoughtfully!

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#112

Post by adamtj »

sliverstorm wrote: post #90
moocowduckquack wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Snowflakes, like other precipitation, form around some sort of condensation nucleus -- in other words, dust. Pure snow and fresh rain is actually pretty dirty. You might have noticed how clean windows won't be clean after they get rained on and it dries.

It seems plausible to me that some of the radioactive particles would be a form that could be incorporated into snowflakes, but I'm not an expert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#113

Post by mikeash »

lostlogin wrote: post #109
mikeash wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, the opinions expressed by the "nuclear apologists" generally line up with those of experts in the field. It's the fools who talk about "400 tons of radiation" who are committing the sin of hubris in thinking that they know more than the experts.

If you want an independent opinion upon the pros and cons of disbanding my field of work, don't ask me.

You have to make up your mind: do we trust experts, or not?

The person I was replying to was clearly on the "yes" side of that.

You can certainly disagree, but then your argument is going to be radically different.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#114

Post by jackweirdy »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #76
moocowduckquack wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Once a radioactive source is in your body, even alpha radiation will kill you.

A note about your choice of the word "even" - Alpha radiation will kill you a lot more effectively than Gamma when it's inside you. This is for the same reason it's not damaging outside - Alpha radiation doesn't travel very far before being absorbed.

When held close to skin, the majority is absorbed by the top layers of flesh and only a small amount will penetrate deeper. Conversely, when inside you, only a small amount will escape your body.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#115

Post by lostlogin »

mikeash wrote: post #113
lostlogin wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want an independent opinion upon the pros and cons of disbanding my field of work, don't ask me.

You have to make up your mind: do we trust experts, or not? The person I was replying to was clearly on the "yes" side of that. You can certainly disagree, but then your argument is going to be radically different.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that one should bare this in mind while listening. Keep conflicts in mind and listen.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#116

Post by alan_cx »

zequel wrote: post #19

This is why I wouldn't let my kids EVER enlist. The government has no regard for its enlisted. Doesn't take a genius to think our navy would be in harm's way during a RADIOACTIVE DISASTER. Reminds me of when soldiers were being electrocuted in showers in Iraq because of totally incompetent contractors wiring electricity near the showers.

These carriers are the most powerful, expensive war asset any nation state has. The weakest, most vulnerable link is the soft fleshy things on board. Yet, they are the most essential component of the system. You cant replace them at sea, you cant replace or fix parts, they are finite and vulnerable. No people, no carrier. Therefor carrier crews are probably some of the best looked after people in the forces. Perhaps not out of humanity, but to protect that vital asset.

I'd go further. I would wager that a US nuclear powered carrier is one of the safest places on earth. After all, it is built to fight in an all out nuclear war and hopefully survive. Perhaps be the last hope if the mainland was devastatingly attacked. It can't possibly be that if its crew are, well, dead.

Also, carriers are kind of isolated. They are societies in themselves. The captains are probably more attached and sympathetic to their crews than many other parts of the military.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#117

Post by sliverstorm »

adamtj wrote: post #112
sliverstorm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still confused why the snow was radioactive. Snow = water. Did it form around radioactive particles?

Snowflakes, like other precipitation, form around some sort of condensation nucleus -- in other words, dust. Pure snow and fresh rain is actually pretty dirty. You might have noticed how clean windows won't be clean after they get rained on and it dries. It seems plausible to me that some of the radioactive particles would be a form that could be incorporated into snowflakes, but I'm not an expert. http://en.wikipedi…

Yes, this is what I was thinking might have happened, but I wasn't certain.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#118

Post by sliverstorm »

_wp3r wrote: post #107
_wp3r wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The low on the 13th was 33 around Fukushima. If the humidity was low enough it would not be impossible to have ground level or especially 250ft off the water snow. EDIT: misread your question. If the steam was radiated it "could" carry that downwind but the nature of decay would greatly reduce the possibility for anything at the size of snow to stay frozen at sea level.

wont let me reply, radionuclides can be aqueous check out HTO and free-water tritium(FWT) in google that will get you what you are looking for. TLDR they bond with organics and other stuff in the water, and snow initiates around particulates.

Protip: Even if "reply" is missing, just open the "link" to the comment you want to reply to. Viola.

(Now just watch as pg fixes that)

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#119

Post by patrickgokey »

I served on the Reagan from 2003-2007 and am lucky enough to have finished my enlistment before the Fukushima incident.

I still have a large network of friends in the military and work in the defense industry in San Diego so I was surprised when I first learned of this incident only a few weeks ago. I thought the post I was reading at the time was a sick hoax at first but have since learned otherwise.

This doesn't surprise me much at all unfortunately, and I wish my fellow sailors the best of luck in not getting screwed by Uncle Sam, which is what I fully expect will happen.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#120

Post by mseebach »

ceejayoz wrote: post #96
dubfan wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I didn't realize you could weigh radioactivity!

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/188316/English-wat...

You can weigh water, you can even weigh radioactive water. You can't weigh radioactivity.
Post reply on HN