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

131–140 of 161 posts

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#131

Post by yapcguy »

glenra wrote: post #68
yapcguy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You cannot compare eating a banana to ingesting the by-products of man-made nuclear fission.

I'm sorry but you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the nuclear industry's PR / propaganda / talking points.

There are real numbers from the Fukushima disaster. Just because this single NYPost article does not cite that data does not mean it does not exist.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#132

Post by krschultz »

greenyoda wrote: post #97
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…

" From what little details are given, it sounds like the crew of the Reagan suffered from some kind of gut infection, not radiation poisoning. " Do gut infections cause thyroid problems, cancers and uncontrolled gynecological bleeding?

Keep in mind in any sizeable group of people those things happen. I was a healthy 25 year old male with no issues what so ever. I'm now a 26 year old male who doesn't a have a thyroid and takes a pill every day. In between was an unexplained baseball sized growth on my thyroid that had nothing to do with anything and was thankfully not cancerous.

Shit happens and we don't always know why.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#133

Post by crazytony »

dctoedt wrote: post #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…

can you tell us about the reasons for their skepticism?

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#134

Post by tptacek »

yapcguy wrote: post #131
glenra wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You cannot compare eating a banana to ingesting the by-products of man-made nuclear fission. I'm sorry but you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the nuclear industry's PR / propaganda / talking points. There are real numbers from the Fukushima disaster. Just because this single NYPost article does not cite that data does not mean it does not exist.

Why can't you compare eating a banana to ingesting the by-products of man-made nuclear fission? Aren't both ingestible substances bound by the same laws of physics?

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#135

Post by dctoedt »

crazytony wrote: post #133
dctoedt wrote: post #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…

can you tell us about the reasons for their skepticism?

> can you tell us about the reasons for their skepticism?

The consensus seems to be that the exposure numbers being reported don't make any sense under the circumstances. (I've been out for years, so I'm not qualified to offer an opinion of my own.)

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#136

Post by mikeash »

lostlogin wrote: post #115
mikeash wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm with you, then. You have to learn and understand these things yourself, not just listen to whatever other people say. But, when somebody criticizes you for thinking you know better than the experts, it's totally valid to point out that the experts say the same thing.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#137

Post by awakeasleep »

dctoedt wrote: post #135
crazytony wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you tell us about the reasons for their skepticism?

> can you tell us about the reasons for their skepticism? The consensus seems to be that the exposure numbers being reported don't make any sense under the circumstances. (I've been out for years, so I'm not qualified to offer an opinion of my own.)

Can you say anything about how radiation detection occurs?

I'm specifically interested in the idea that the carrier was in irradiated water for a long time.

Do the radiation sensors in the ship really need to be 'turned on' in a long process? Would there be any geiger counter or something that automatically detects whether the water the ship takes in is tainted?

It seems crazy to me that there wouldn't be an always-on, cheap, sanity check.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#138

Post by awakeasleep »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #108
sliverstorm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but to my understanding water can't become radioactive. It can contain radioactive things, but H2O doesn't turn radioactive. So I'm wondering why the snow was radioactive.

It may have nucleated around radioactive particles in the plume.

We're all aware that seems feasible to a non-expert. Right now we're looking for someone who knows how to calculate possible radiation levels of snow.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#139

Post by justin66 »

If there's any government agency that will obfuscate, stonewall, evade responsibility and generally bullshit their way out of helping the people who get hurt on their watch, it's the DoD.

When people sperg out over specific radiation claims being floated in the NY Post (of all places) they ought to keep in mind that if these people are anywhere near as sick as they're described to be they need help, and they're up against a nasty brick wall when it comes to getting that help. Picking a side here ought to be pretty damn easy unless this turns out to be some kind of outright fraud.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#140

Post by markdown »

radiobat wrote: post #127
markdown wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Eh, that doesn't contradict the official death toll. Did you even read it. It reckons that some people think there might be thousands by 2065... which is a little silly, since there would be thousands dead by then anyway and there is no way to link the deaths to the disaster.

3 out of every 7 people you know will die of cancer. Every single person you know will die of cancer if they aren't taken first by some other illness, accident, murder, or natural cause.

Post reply on HN