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

151–160 of 161 posts

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#151

Post by dctoedt »

awakeasleep wrote: post #137
dctoedt wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-o…

I don't know what today's Navy ships have by way of always-on ambient radiation detectors, and to be honest I don't remember exactly what we had in my day; I'm sure I learned it while qualifying, but my day-to-day duties were in other areas.

I can say that even in my day we were constantly monitoring ambient conditions -- and one of the things we constantly drummed into each other was to look for trends, not just instantaneous readings (life isn't a snapshot, it's a movie).

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#152

Post by dctoedt »

justin66 wrote: post #142
dctoedt wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

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 conc…

> 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?

See the Telephone Game, a.k.a. Chinese Whispers. [1]

It's amazing how stories get distorted in the retelling. I collected lots of examples on my blog. [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

[2] http://www.questioningchristian.com/distortions/

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#153

Post by dctoedt »

crazytony wrote: post #147
dctoedt wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

the article does a terrible job with facts but I would have thought the carrier would be equipped with dosimeters for the crew? Would it have been standard operating procedure for them to don the dosimeters given the understanding of the events unfolding in the area?

> I would have thought the carrier would be equipped with dosimeters for the crew? Would it have been standard operating procedure for them to don the dosimeters given the understanding of the events unfolding in the area?

I can't say for sure how things are now, but back in the day the answers would have been Yes and Yes.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#154

Post by notdrunkatall »

justin66 wrote: post #148
notdrunkatall wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in the Army for a few years and recently got out. The Army is considered to be the service which is the least concerned with its service members. That said, the Army most certainly DOES have regard for its enlisted. When things like this happen, bad PR follows. Bad PR is bad for a variety of reasons, one of which being that it makes recruiting more difficult. People will be much less likely to join an organizat…

> 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 h…

From your link:

>A November 1996 article in the New England Journal of Medicine found no difference in death rates, hospitalization rates or self-reported symptoms between Persian Gulf veterans and non-Persian Gulf veterans. This article was a compilation of dozens of individual studies involving tens of thousands of veterans. The study did find a statistically significant elevation in the number of traffic accidents suffered by Gulf War veterans.[44] An April, 1998 article in Emerging Infectious Diseases similarly found no increased rate of hospitalization and better health overall for veterans of the Persian Gulf War in comparison to those who stayed home.[45]

>Despite these studies, on November 17, 2008, a congressionally appointed committee called the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, staffed with independent scientists and veterans appointed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, announced that the syndrome is a distinct physical condition. The committee recommended that Congress increase funding for research on Gulf War veterans' health to at least $60 million per year.

The DOD is a large, cumbersome bureaucracy, and Gulf War Syndrome was an entirely new disorder which is still controversial today. It took a decade, but the DOD came around, and to my knowledge, people with Gulf War Syndrome are being treated.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#155

Post by ck2 »

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…

Rape is covered up every week in the US military, apparently at a massive scale.

You don't think other crimes are covered up as well? Like letting people drink and bathe in radioactive water because it would get the chain of command in trouble if it was reported?

How about the fact they couldn't get a port to accept them - you think the sailors made that up and it couldn't be verified?

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#156

Post by Pitarou »

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?

I'm talking about the outbreaks of diarrhea, because those are the only symptoms that are clearly epidemologically significant.

From a crew of 6,000, there's nothing that strikes me odd about the occasional case of thyroid or gynecological problems. Shit happens.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#157

Post by HCIdivision17 »

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.

The point is that each of those vectors of exposure carry some obvious context. Which matters a lot: where you are in relation to the radiation matters immensely. Alpha is harmless from without, but deadly within. What are the energies of the decay, and what particles are emitted? Are there secondary/tertiary decays and when? Can the body keep up with the damage? Are we talking sunburns or cancer inducing high energy gamma or high kinetic energy alpha? Nuclear physics earns it's reputation as a complicated science.

Units matter, and context matters. Perhaps we should fear bananas, or use it as a point if reference. Either way, it's a useful, comprehensible comparison, just like the others mentioned. Just think it through, and you don't need to worry about falling for hog wash.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#158

Post by AaronIG »

lostlogin wrote: post #91
notdrunkatall wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in the Army for a few years and recently got out. The Army is considered to be the service which is the least concerned with its service members. That said, the Army most certainly DOES have regard for its enlisted. When things like this happen, bad PR follows. Bad PR is bad for a variety of reasons, one of which being that it makes recruiting more difficult. People will be much less likely to join an organizat…

Thank you for your comment, hearing from someone involved in these things is excellent so please keep commenting. It's the insider perspectives that makes HN great IMHO. I've just come to this thread after reading the below link on sexual assaults within the military (and yes, I'm way behind on my reading). Do you have any thoughts on it? How can it go in challenged and unaddressed when courses are being offered on t…

Every branch has mandatory sexual assault training (I just attended one three weeks ago), but I agree it's not enough, nor working. Air Force JAG held a summit last week to address this very issue. Part of the problem is the way the military criminal justice system works. Commanders have too much discretion in whether or not to prosecute service members, and the ability to overturn or lessen convictions. A lot of victims don't report attacks out of fear of retaliation from their own command. Prosecutorial authority needs to be taken out of the chain of command for sexual assault cases, if not at the felony level entirely. That alone will have some impact.

There's been some effort to amend Article 60 of the UCMJ within the Senate; however, it's never gotten past committee.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#159

Post by coldtea »

scotty79 wrote: post #99
coldtea wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Maybe, but the fake numbers and face-saving are real, not some result of blind hate.

Case in point: in Fukusima, the government and the reactor officials admitted they have lied about the significance of the thing more than once.

Re: Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue

#160

Post by coldtea »

scotty79 wrote: post #121
lostlogin wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't even begin to understand this idea.

Do you suggest that cursing government and companies is akin to racism?

Corporations and governments can and do screw up. They also do malicious things with bad intentions (even things that kill people). And when they do so, it's perfectly appropriate to call them on it.

That's not something that will "go out of style".

Post reply on HN