Live data from Hacker News

Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

nypost.com

121–130 of 161 posts

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing offensive about it. Everybody hates governments and companies when things go wrong.

I disagree. The recent local calamity was the Christchurch earthquake. By and large companies and the government acted well. A few big problems cropped up (dodgy insurance companies, regional government dealing with unsafe land, overwhelmed fire service etc), and things are far from sorted, however I am deeply impressed by what systems were in place. Funds existed to rebuild despite massive devastation, the emergency…

What I meant is not that cursing government and companies is right. Only that it's not offensive in current culture. Like calling Afroamericans N-word was not offensive hundred years ago or so. It was perfectly socially acceptable and so common that no-one thought it was seriously offensive.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#122
post #56
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is much more to it than getting hardened electronics. For example, I was talking with some Westinghouse engineers and the biggest problem with the robots at Fukushima were the cameras. The radiation crazes the lenses and you become blind. Search and rescue is a hard problem and is terribly underfunded. It is also funded in a way that makes long term improvements hard. There is very little money until there's a…

Out of curiosity, do you have anything more on what destroys the lenses? Heat/melting? Some form of radioactive dust?

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#123
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…

The Navy has been having a lot of problems with their officers:

http://www.navytimes.com/article/99999999/CAREERS/302050309

USS Enterprise captain relieved: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/04/navy.videos/

USS Stennis Captain and his boss get into a biggest dick contest: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/rear-admiral-charles-m-...

Pacific commanders: http://nation.time.com/2013/10/03/second-warship-commander-r...

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#124
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…

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. Toxi…

This source is... less than reliable as they have no idea what they're talking about. It's not hard to find high school students with a better grasp of this subject than this reporter, sadly. Apparently there are still many sources that have yet to figure out that things like dosage, length of exposure and type of radiation matter quite a bit, though oddly enough, it seems like many would be more likely to understand this if it were ordinary toxic chemical exposure.

That said, I wouldn't weigh things too heavily either way, just because these folks are breaking the news. I very much doubt we have the whole story here and I would prefer not to weigh in until all the information is out. Other commentators on HN have noted that this was a nuclear carrier, so there should be proper records of their exposure (not to mention alternate routes of exposure...) which should be properly evaluated before rushing to judgement here, but there are simply too many possibilities to sensibly evaluate them all without more information.

For example, the article makes it sound like they were exposed to radioactive iodine (due to the thyroid conditions), something I would have expected the carrier to detect, and for which we have reasonable counter-measures (iodine pills). I do not have any insight into what went wrong, but I would focus my investigation on their records of exposure, any treatments, etc. My gut tells me that someone screwed up here, but we lack information sufficient to determine who, and everything is suspect.

That aside, radiation sickness is a terrible thing, and hope they are able to recover.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#125
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a two way street - they're usually dramatically downplayed by authorities and anybody who would otherwise have to pay. If you're not loud and exaggerated, nobody with any ability to do anything listens and powerful people actively want you to not be heard. For illustration, the official number of deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster is 31.

> For illustration, the official number of deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster is 31.

Link to a reputable source contradicting the official death toll please.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#126

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?

Yes, the there aren't any long lived radionuclides of Hydrogen or Oxygen, but their can be radionuclide contamination of water [1]. The question then would be "which ones?" which would be covered in the Navy report on the incident. (and contrary to the article radiation decon drills are actually standard operating procedure according to my Navy friends [2]) The USS Ronald Regan has a complement of over 5,600 souls when steaming with the air wing assigned to it. If the number '70' is accurate then it would suggest that between 1.25 and 2.1% of the sailors exhibited symptoms that might be linked to radiation exposure. In the specific instance of Thyroid Disease some studies [3] have the baseline incidence of this disease in the range of .35% for women and .05% for men. I don't know if the Navy publishes the baseline incident risk for various diseases on their ships and crews.

[1] http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/radionuclides/i...

[2] Remember the USS Ronald Regan has a couple of hundred MW of nuclear power reactors in their hull, so they train for radiation emergencies.

[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7641412

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#127
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a two way street - they're usually dramatically downplayed by authorities and anybody who would otherwise have to pay. If you're not loud and exaggerated, nobody with any ability to do anything listens and powerful people actively want you to not be heard. For illustration, the official number of deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster is 31.

> For illustration, the official number of deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster is 31. Link to a reputable source contradicting the official death toll please.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20403-25-years-after-c...

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#128
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

This "bug" has been around for years, so I'm hoping it's intentional :)

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#129
This has come up several times in the Navy-nuke Facebook group in which I lurk (I used to be one of them). The posters in that group have been, shall we say, scathingly skeptical of these claims of radiation sickness. The group includes a number of current- and former radiological-controls specialists, known as engineering lab techs or "ELTs." Navy-nuke ELTs are a select lot who are trained to face the facts and tell it like it is. As a general rule, they're very good at spotting BS, and they're not especially inclined to just passively accept it when they do spot it. Their skepticism about this radiation-sickness story is worth taking into account.

EDIT: Consider some circumstantial evidence:

- In the Navy nuclear-power subculture, people pay attention to detail (to put it mildly). This is true in general, and especially on the subject of radiation exposure to the crew or the public.

- The commanding officer and executive officer of every U.S. aircraft carrier are nuclear-trained, on top of being senior aviators or naval flight officers; they must successfully complete the full, one-year, very-intense nuke qualification course even to be eligible to hold those jobs. Then before they assume those jobs they undergo still more training to be an XO and then CO.

- On any U.S. aircraft carrier, the chief engineer (who "owns" the evaporators that produce the ship's drinking- and washing water) and the [chief] reactor officer (who "owns" the ELTs) are nukes, of course. They're among the most-senior officers on the ship.

- Unambitious people don't put in the years of stressful work that it takes to get these jobs. It's a safe bet that these senior officers all want to be admirals someday. A radiological "incident" of the kind being described likely would severely impair their chances of ever being assigned to a responsible job again, let alone being promoted to flag rank.

So: We're being asked to believe that, in a non-combat situation, somehow all of these career-minded senior officers aboard the Reagan inadvertently allowed the crew's radiation exposure to get to dangerous levels. Sorry, I just don't buy it. I suppose we can't categorically rule out the possibility, but to me it's another reason to be skeptical of the radiation-sickness claims.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#130

Sad story and and it pisses me off that so many countries denied the carrier to dock up.

> it pisses me off that so many countries denied the carrier to dock up.

Why is that? Countries that don't have the technical expertise to judge how dangerous it could have been for their people are absolutely right to have prevented them from docking.

Their only loyalty is to their own people, as it should be. As long as they don't have the expertise to verify that their is no risk to their own people, they should default to GTFO.

Do you think the US would allow a shipload of people with the SARS coronavirus or Ebola to dock at one of their ports?

Post reply on HN