Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

How do the people who've reached this consensus react to the statement that the lawyers made that they've got at least 70 sailors who are really sick, half of whom have some kind of cancer? Do they think the lawyers are just making that part up? Do they have some alternate explanation for the illnesses, something that doesn't involve all that radiation?

It's interesting that these people you're describing are so concerned with the part that's hard to prove or disprove. The number of sick people seems rather more significant.

Umm, most electricians, I imagine, know how to ground a pump. Also, it wasn't isolated (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/28/soldier.electrocutions/inde...). There were 12 electrocutions. After the first one, you would think there'd be an inquiry.

sure ya can, e=mc²

> This isn't the Vietnam Era. The military is an all-volunteer force, and unless the draft comes back, it can't afford to not care about its members. In an organization of many millions of people who constantly deal with difficult, dangerous things like this, incidents will occasionally occur, but they are the exception, rather than the rule.

I'm curious, is it your view that the Army dealt well with the people who had Gulf War syndrome? (or whatever we're calling it)

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

I had a cousin go to war very healthy and come back sick and his experience getting treatment wasn't exactly great. It's nice to think that we're not living in the Agent Orange days anymore but I wonder if the government is really any less inclined to stonewall sick vets whose problems go against the official narrative than they used to be.

edit: you're right that it's important for retention to have good PR and make it look like there aren't serious problems. Damaging the credibility of sick people seeking help is one way the DoD does that.

> 1. How might they ever know to avoid a massive radiation plume they weren't expecting? Particularly if the plume is very large and expanding faster than they can move the ship?

The crucial assumption here is that the crew supposedly wasn't expecting a radioactive fallout plume. From personal experience I can vouch that the crew is trained to deal with radioactive fallout. Given the Fukushima circumstances, I truly cannot imagine that the ship wasn't on alert for a radioactive plume, and would have either navigated around it or taken appropriate precautions such as setting Material Condition Zebra (closing hatches, buttoning down the ventilation system, and so on); activating the water-wash-down system; etc.

2. How much of the crew would be informed of such a situation?

The down-in-the-weeds details likely would have disseminated to the people who would deal with specific issues.

As to the big picture, I'm confident the CO would have told the entire crew the basics of what was going on -- not least so that they would be able to spot apparent anomalies and report them up the chain of command. Sailors at sea are keenly aware that they're "all in the same boat."

Would there be a risk of panic or mutiny, if all of the crew were permitted to fully understand such circumstances?

No.

(OK, I've been out for a long time, and I didn't know every single person in the Navy even then, so I can't say for certain, but ... no.)

3. Given that this is a military vessel, if they are ordered into harm's way (or perhaps ordered to assist since they've already unwittingly suffered irreparable harm), would they say no?

That's a very imaginative hypothetical question, with no indication that it bears any relationship to the facts. The U.S. Navy has a tradition of doing the needful (as our British friends sometimes say). See, e.g., the self-sacrificing heroism of the USS Johnston, USS Hoel, USS Samuel B. Roberts, and USS Heerman at the Battle off Samar on Oct. 25, 1944 [1].

Would careers be protected and defended if orders were obeyed?

Yes.

4. Would it be possible to fake 70 cases of thyroid polyps, leukemia, testicular cancer and uterine bleeding so bad it requires transfusions?

Probably not -- but that assumes facts not in evidence, namely that there actually were 70 such cases attributable to radiation. One thing I learned in years of doing litigation was not to believe everything you hear or read. For all I know, among a crew of around 5,000, the 70 cases mentioned might conceivably be within the bounds of statistical probability.

...and as an aside, given that we're introducing the idea that everything might be a hoax, one more question: Given what we've learned about the NSA and Facebook over the past year, how probable is it that a Navy-nuke Facebook group might be astroturfed into an echo chamber aligned with a particular agenda?

I doubt it -- U.S. Navy sailors are loyal but independent-minded, with very-sensitive and finely-calibrated bullshit detectors, coupled with a willingness to call bullshit when they encounter it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#The_battle