If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Japan Times)   Japan encounters the power of the fully operational and litigious nuclear-powered aircraft carrier   (japantimes.co.jp) divider line 63
    More: Stupid, aircraft carriers, Tokyo Electric Power Co., Tohoku, U.S. federal court, sailors, USS Ronald Reagan  
•       •       •

15509 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2012 at 5:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-27 04:27:05 PM  
Well, if they were aboard the USS Ronald Reagan, shouldn't there be more Navy personnel involved in this suit?
 
2012-12-27 06:02:56 PM  
Just wait until those sailors find out how happy the Navy is with them for doing this...
 
2012-12-27 06:05:38 PM  
Why would that be stupid?
 
2012-12-27 06:05:50 PM  
Remember those Fukushima power plant workers who braved the radiation even though they knew the risks. They didn't care, they just went in knowing what had to be done.

Then there's these guys.
 
2012-12-27 06:08:55 PM  
"Heya Joe, who-a won-a the Second-a World-a War, you so smart?"
 
2012-12-27 06:11:49 PM  

AirForceVet: Well, if they were aboard the USS Ronald Reagan, shouldn't there be more Navy personnel involved in this suit?


Probably helicopter crews.
 
2012-12-27 06:16:54 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Just wait until those sailors find out how happy the Navy is with them for doing this...


If they win, I question whether there's much that the Navy could legally do to counterbalance the amusement of rolling around in a big pile of cash.

Incidentally, that seems like it would be uncomfortable. It's not like leaves just raked... Cash tends to form hard stacks and bumps. Unless each bill is crumpled up.

Ok... If they win, I question whether there's much that the Navy could legally do to counterbalance the amusement of rolling around in a big pile of crumpled-up cash.
 
2012-12-27 06:18:43 PM  
Perfect example for future soldiers. Join the military - if your life is ever in danger you can sue! It was a god damn nuclear reactor, what did they expect? Kittens?
 
2012-12-27 06:18:59 PM  
I saw this movie, it wasn't very good.
 
2012-12-27 06:19:43 PM  

treesloth:
If they win..


If they get to court.

The Navy is not likely to be amused by people filling lawsuits regarding things that happened to them while they were on active duty, and presumably, following orders. If any of these people are still on active duty, and don't have the full permission of their superiors in this, they could be in quite a bit of trouble.
 
2012-12-27 06:25:10 PM  

Lansan1ty: Perfect example for future soldiers. Join the military - if your life is ever in danger you can sue! It was a god damn nuclear reactor, what did they expect? Kittens?


It was a god damned nuclear reactor that they were told was safe to approach.
 
2012-12-27 06:25:51 PM  

Click Click D'oh: treesloth:
If they win..

If they get to court.

The Navy is not likely to be amused by people filling lawsuits regarding things that happened to them while they were on active duty, and presumably, following orders. If any of these people are still on active duty, and don't have the full permission of their superiors in this, they could be in quite a bit of trouble.


I can imagine the reactions of the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy upon hearing of this: "WTF is the bullshiat???? Are any of these idiot swabbies still on active duty? If so, re-assign them *immediately* to the Pentagon, so we know *exactly* where they are, and so that we can personally tear them bran-new arseholes each and every day that they have left in the Navy!".
 
2012-12-27 06:26:18 PM  

MBrady: rockforever: Remember those Fukushima power plant workers who braved the radiation even though they knew the risks. They didn't care, they just went in knowing what had to be done.

Then there's these guys.

Then there these guys who are AMERICANS, and not JAPANESE.

But I guess you're okay with that..



Yeah, if they were lied to about the risks by the Japanese authorities then I don't really see the problem with them suing. Heck, if a Japanese person was lied to about the radiation level then I don't see a problem with them suing either.

If someone is willing to face those risks/damage willingly then great. But being lied to about the radiation levels to trick them in to taking unnecessary risks, or do things they might otherwise not do, is pretty shiatty.
 
2012-12-27 06:31:53 PM  
Oh Lord, the irony. American military personnel are suing the Japanese for exposing them to radiation?

The only thing that could make it better would be if the plant had been in Hiroshima instead of Fukushima.
 
2012-12-27 06:36:10 PM  

AirForceVet: Well, if they were aboard the USS Ronald Reagan, shouldn't there be more Navy personnel involved in this suit?


I assume they were in some part of the operation that brought them much closer to the reactors than others on the ship.

Given the last 70 years or so at this point people should figure that joining the US military means being exposed to radiation, toxins, experimental vaccines, and various other serious life-altering health hazards.
 
2012-12-27 06:38:16 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: Lansan1ty: Perfect example for future soldiers. Join the military - if your life is ever in danger you can sue! It was a god damn nuclear reactor, what did they expect? Kittens?

It was a god damned nuclear reactor that they were told was safe to approach.


Well, it was their own fault for listening to Fark's nuclear engineering team during the crisis.

/what a cluster those threads were...
 
2012-12-27 06:42:18 PM  

jedikinkoid: Oh Lord, the irony. American military personnel are suing the Japanese for exposing them to radiation?

The only thing that could make it better would be if the plant had been in Hiroshima instead of Fukushima.


We didn't lie to the Japanese what we would do to them.  In fact, we pretty much told them to expect whatever their imaginations could come up with, and multiply it by six.
 
2012-12-27 06:42:48 PM  

ClavellBCMI: Click Click D'oh: treesloth:
If they win..

If they get to court.

The Navy is not likely to be amused by people filling lawsuits regarding things that happened to them while they were on active duty, and presumably, following orders. If any of these people are still on active duty, and don't have the full permission of their superiors in this, they could be in quite a bit of trouble.

I can imagine the reactions of the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy upon hearing of this: "WTF is the bullshiat???? Are any of these idiot swabbies still on active duty? If so, re-assign them *immediately* to the Pentagon, so we know *exactly* where they are, and so that we can personally tear them bran-new arseholes each and every day that they have left in the Navy!".


At the most extreme, the only thing the Navy can do is bump them out at re-up time. After that, they are private citizens suing TEPCO. I would imagine that these sailors DID get permission. The fact that an active duty armed services staff member was unwittingly exposed to high levels of radiation doesn't absolve TEPCO. In fact, these sailors likely have full support of the Navy so our gubmint can steer clear of a political mess.
 
2012-12-27 06:48:31 PM  

vygramul: jedikinkoid: Oh Lord, the irony. American military personnel are suing the Japanese for exposing them to radiation?

The only thing that could make it better would be if the plant had been in Hiroshima instead of Fukushima.

We didn't lie to the Japanese what we would do to them.  In fact, we pretty much told them to expect whatever their imaginations could come up with, and multiply it by six.


Wikipedia respectfully disagrees with you.

"In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, US military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb, and they also decided against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation. No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped."
 
2012-12-27 06:49:14 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: Lansan1ty: Perfect example for future soldiers. Join the military - if your life is ever in danger you can sue! It was a god damn nuclear reactor, what did they expect? Kittens?

It was a god damned nuclear reactor that they were told was safe to approach.


Unlike the ones that run their ships?
 
2012-12-27 06:57:40 PM  

jedikinkoid: vygramul: jedikinkoid: Oh Lord, the irony. American military personnel are suing the Japanese for exposing them to radiation?

The only thing that could make it better would be if the plant had been in Hiroshima instead of Fukushima.

We didn't lie to the Japanese what we would do to them.  In fact, we pretty much told them to expect whatever their imaginations could come up with, and multiply it by six.

Wikipedia respectfully disagrees with you.

"In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, US military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb, and they also decided against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation. No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped."


Thanks, but irrelevant, since we were at total war and told them we would do everything and everything we could.  The Japanese were working on the bomb, and they knew we were.  So they also knew if we got it, they'd be subject to it.  And we were already herding tens of thousands into easily-firebombed groups and were in the middle of a naval blockade we called "Operation Starvation" - the gloves were off, and their government could have prevented it any time they wanted to by surrendering.

So Wikipedia doesn't disagree with me in the slightest.
 
2012-12-27 07:10:38 PM  

leadmetal: AirForceVet: Well, if they were aboard the USS Ronald Reagan, shouldn't there be more Navy personnel involved in this suit?

I assume they were in some part of the operation that brought them much closer to the reactors than others on the ship.

Given the last 70 years or so at this point people should figure that joining the US military means being exposed to radiation, toxins, experimental vaccines, and various other serious life-altering health hazards.


Reminds me of the reservists who sued to get out of going to Afghanistan after 9/11 because they thought joining just got then money for college and weekend duty in the states.
 
2012-12-27 07:13:15 PM  

vygramul: their government could have prevented it any time they wanted to by surrendering.


They wanted to surrender, just not unconditionally. So the bombs were dropped to ensure that they would.
 
2012-12-27 07:19:00 PM  

DerAppie: vygramul: their government could have prevented it any time they wanted to by surrendering.

They wanted to surrender, just not unconditionally. So the bombs were dropped to ensure that they would.


And they STILL didn't surrender unconditionally.  Had we insisted on the Emperor stepping down, they wouldn't have.
 
2012-12-27 07:19:53 PM  

DerAppie: vygramul: their government could have prevented it any time they wanted to by surrendering.

They wanted to surrender, just not unconditionally. So the bombs were dropped to ensure that they would.


Citation?
 
2012-12-27 07:20:35 PM  

vygramul: Thanks, but irrelevant, since we were at total war and told them we would do everything and everything we could.  The Japanese were working on the bomb, and they knew we were.  So they also knew if we got it, they'd be subject to it.  And we were already herding tens of thousands into easily-firebombed groups and were in the middle of a naval blockade we called "Operation Starvation" - the gloves were off, and their government could have prevented it any time they wanted to by surrendering.


Yah, the general populace knew everything about this, so they could have easily weighed the pros and cons of staying in the cities. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two of the worst things America ever did. We killed around 200,000 in the initial blast alone. Civilians. It was disgusting.

When you start targeting those that can't defend themselves you lose your moral right. We could have targeted anything else to demonstrate what could happen, but our leaders chose densely populated cities. But every country has a way of justifying their actions, no matter how abhorrent. I wonder what Japanese textbooks say about Nanking?
 
2012-12-27 07:31:46 PM  

blipponaut: I wonder what Japanese textbooks say about Nanking?


Japanese textbooks don't say anything about Nanking.
 
2012-12-27 07:36:47 PM  

tenton: blipponaut: I wonder what Japanese textbooks say about Nanking?

Japanese textbooks don't say anything about Nanking.


Nothing about the glorious leaders of the time and their brave liberation of the subjugated foreigners?
 
2012-12-27 07:38:58 PM  
Operation Tamagotchi
 
2012-12-27 07:39:33 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: Unlike the ones that run their ships?


Containment. how does it work?
 
2012-12-27 07:40:07 PM  

blipponaut: vygramul: Thanks, but irrelevant, since we were at total war and told them we would do everything and everything we could.  The Japanese were working on the bomb, and they knew we were.  So they also knew if we got it, they'd be subject to it.  And we were already herding tens of thousands into easily-firebombed groups and were in the middle of a naval blockade we called "Operation Starvation" - the gloves were off, and their government could have prevented it any time they wanted to by surrendering.

Yah, the general populace knew everything about this, so they could have easily weighed the pros and cons of staying in the cities. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two of the worst things America ever did. We killed around 200,000 in the initial blast alone. Civilians. It was disgusting.

When you start targeting those that can't defend themselves you lose your moral right. We could have targeted anything else to demonstrate what could happen, but our leaders chose densely populated cities. But every country has a way of justifying their actions, no matter how abhorrent. I wonder what Japanese textbooks say about Nanking?


Densely populated cities were picked because that's where the infrastructure for their war machine was located. Kobe for example was specifically excluded because it wasn't a key part of that infrastructure (among other reasons). Hiroshima had plenty of factories and Nagasaki was a major railway hub in addition to also having factories.

As far as the second bombing goes there might be an argument to be made that it was unnecessary given that it was just 3 days after Hiroshima and that the communications infrastructure was so totally destroyed that the word of just how destructive the bombing was hadn't yet been truly understood by the Japanese leadership, but that would be going into Monday morning quarterbacking territory as the allies wouldn't have known that at the time.

Post war revisionists have much more information than the people who were there at the time and use that extra information to make claims about what should or could have been done differently. They never look at it from the perspective of not only what was known and by whom but also what was unknown or what was suspected but not verified. If you look at it through the eyes of the people who were making the decisions at the time (on both sides) they both were doing what they thought was necessary to come out of a bad situation as best as possible for their own side.

The truth of the matter is that it is undeniable that the bombs saved American lives. The only valid debate is really over how many of them were saved. Lets not forget who drew first blood in that conflict and that that, in my opinion, negates any complaints about the loss of civilian lives as a result. they should have considered that before they decided to engage the Americans in a war.
 
2012-12-27 07:42:56 PM  

blipponaut: We killed around 200,000 in the initial blast alone.


Nope. About 80K in the first blast, another 10-50K from ongoing effects.

Incendiary bombing of Tokyo: 100K.

If you're going to get your moral outrage up, use numbers that are at least somewhat realistic.

Horrible? Yes. The worst thing ever? I'm not so sure. I find the arguments regarding the potential invasion of Japan to be convincing. I also wonder if seeing the effects of an atomic weapon on a populated city helped give a bit of sanity to leaders, helping the US and USSR to realize what horrors might be unleashed if we tried it with megaton level bombs.
 
2012-12-27 07:45:10 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Lets not forget who drew first blood in that conflict and that that, in my opinion, negates any complaints about the loss of civilian lives as a result. they should have considered that before they decided to engage the Americans in a war.


And you wonder why people equate war with terrorism.
 
2012-12-27 07:53:12 PM  

jayphat: Reminds me of the reservists who sued to get out of going to Afghanistan after 9/11 because they thought joining just got then money for college and weekend duty in the states.


Not that I agree with their position, but there is a point to be made that the old reserve/guard recruiting campaign ("One weekend a month and two weeks a year") was false advertising. It is their own fault for not reading the fine print (or having common sense) before they enlisted, it doesn't change the fact that they were arguably enticed to enlist under false pretenses.

You'll notice that the Guard and Reserves have dropped that particular recruiting pitch.

To contrast these pussies, there is a group of servicewomen suing for NOT being deployed to combat assignments, because not having combat experience hurts their chances for promotion.

/veteran
 
2012-12-27 07:53:39 PM  

jedikinkoid: Radioactive Ass: Lets not forget who drew first blood in that conflict and that that, in my opinion, negates any complaints about the loss of civilian lives as a result. they should have considered that before they decided to engage the Americans in a war.

And you wonder why people equate war with terrorism.


War is hell and should be avoided whenever possible. Japan made it impossible to avoid.

On the plus side the horrible effects of that war made it possible to avoid any more large scale conflicts and it can be argued from that standpoint that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved millions, if not billions of lives in the decades that followed as it was quite clear to the world afterwards that it was best to keep that from happening again.
 
2012-12-27 07:54:16 PM  
So, how do they calculate the damages? When the H-bomb tests killed and sickened Japanese fishermen I think the US paid damages, I would assume Tepco is only liable relative to the sailors' dosimeter readings by comparison to their exposure, right?
 
2012-12-27 08:08:15 PM  

clyph: jayphat: Reminds me of the reservists who sued to get out of going to Afghanistan after 9/11 because they thought joining just got then money for college and weekend duty in the states.

Not that I agree with their position, but there is a point to be made that the old reserve/guard recruiting campaign ("One weekend a month and two weeks a year") was false advertising. It is their own fault for not reading the fine print (or having common sense) before they enlisted, it doesn't change the fact that they were arguably enticed to enlist under false pretenses.

You'll notice that the Guard and Reserves have dropped that particular recruiting pitch.

To contrast these pussies, there is a group of servicewomen suing for NOT being deployed to combat assignments, because not having combat experience hurts their chances for promotion.

/veteran


I have a different take on that. Signing up for the active reserve means that you accept a low risk\high reward opportunity. Low risk doesn't mean no risk and most active reservists could've changed their contracts (at the end of their active duty period) into staying active duty for a shorter period of time (2-4 more years depending on several variables) instead of 4-6 years of active reservist duty. When I was in the obligation was 6 years. 4 (or more) years meant that the remainder of that six year period was inactive reserves where they usually didn't even want to know where you went to outside of your first move so that they could pay to move your stuff for you. When I got out after a bit over 8 years I didn't even go into the inactive reserves (the initial six years were up) but straight into civilian life with zero obligations.
 
2012-12-27 08:12:02 PM  

SwiftFox: So, how do they calculate the damages? When the H-bomb tests killed and sickened Japanese fishermen I think the US paid damages, I would assume Tepco is only liable relative to the sailors' dosimeter readings by comparison to their exposure, right?


The difference here is that the US owned up to their mistakes (the wind shifted unexpectedly causing that accidental exposure in addition to the blast being mkuch larger than expected) and didn't repeatedly lie about it.
 
2012-12-27 08:13:39 PM  

blipponaut: vygramul: Thanks, but irrelevant, since we were at total war and told them we would do everything and everything we could.  The Japanese were working on the bomb, and they knew we were.  So they also knew if we got it, they'd be subject to it.  And we were already herding tens of thousands into easily-firebombed groups and were in the middle of a naval blockade we called "Operation Starvation" - the gloves were off, and their government could have prevented it any time they wanted to by surrendering.

Yah, the general populace knew everything about this, so they could have easily weighed the pros and cons of staying in the cities. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two of the worst things America ever did. We killed around 200,000 in the initial blast alone. Civilians. It was disgusting.

When you start targeting those that can't defend themselves you lose your moral right. We could have targeted anything else to demonstrate what could happen, but our leaders chose densely populated cities. But every country has a way of justifying their actions, no matter how abhorrent. I wonder what Japanese textbooks say about Nanking?


Well, as you say, once they did that to Nanking, they lost their moral right to object to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, now, didn't they?
 
2012-12-27 08:16:36 PM  

rockforever: Remember those Fukushima power plant workers who braved the radiation even though they knew the risks. They didn't care, they just went in knowing what had to be done.

Then there's these guys.


These guys didn't know the risks.
 
2012-12-27 08:24:19 PM  

blipponaut: vygramul: Thanks, but irrelevant, since we were at total war and told them we would do everything and everything we could.  The Japanese were working on the bomb, and they knew we were.  So they also knew if we got it, they'd be subject to it.  And we were already herding tens of thousands into easily-firebombed groups and were in the middle of a naval blockade we called "Operation Starvation" - the gloves were off, and their government could have prevented it any time they wanted to by surrendering.

Yah, the general populace knew everything about this, so they could have easily weighed the pros and cons of staying in the cities. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two of the worst things America ever did. We killed around 200,000 in the initial blast alone. Civilians. It was disgusting.

When you start targeting those that can't defend themselves you lose your moral right. We could have targeted anything else to demonstrate what could happen, but our leaders chose densely populated cities. But every country has a way of justifying their actions, no matter how abhorrent. I wonder what Japanese textbooks say about Nanking?


And what if we hadn't bombed them and Operation Downfall had taken place? How many Americans would have died then? We should value the life of one US soldier more than the entire population of an enemy nation.
 
2012-12-27 08:24:43 PM  

whither_apophis: Fark's nuclear engineering team


gems like:

"THE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT VESSEL OUTSIDE THE REACTOR IS DESIGNED TO CONTAIN A WORST-CASE MELTDOWN"

"Modern reactors have better measures in place to ensure this does not happen; in most modern reactors the idea of a critical meltdown is actually laughably improbable."

"Despite all that has gone wrong, there is NO danger of a major radiation release from the Japanese plants. The situation IS under control. The WORST case is that the plants will be wrecked and safely decommissioned."

etc etc
 
2012-12-27 08:27:55 PM  
If only nuclear vessels were equipped with some sort of radiation monitoring equipment that could have alerted these sailors to the danger.
 
2012-12-27 08:31:25 PM  

clyph: fanbladesaresharp: Unlike the ones that run their ships?

Containment. how does it work?


Irony of containment. And biatchy seamen.
 
2012-12-27 08:57:45 PM  
As someone who works in nuclear power in Radiation Protection, FTFA:

"The plaintiffs must now endure a lifetime of radiation poisoning and suffering."

THAT IS NOT HOW THAT WORKS YOU ASSHOLES.

SERIOUSLY. NOT. HOW. IT. WORKS. *flips table*

It's been over a farking year and you're going to tell me now you have radiation sickness? Oh, no honey. No no no. You'd have known within a week if you had it.

Realistically, according to Gollnick: You need in excess of 100 rem of dose ACUTE (as in, all at once) before your body even starts showing real medical changes that we can track. 100 to 150 rem is when you'll start seeing blood changes and at that point, you probably DO NOT need medical assistance for recover.
200 to 250 rem acute is when you'll start getting the classic responses of nausea. AND YOU WILL FEEL THAT IN SHORT ORDER.

Reality of the situation: radiation sickness is not a long term thing, because of the sheer amount of dose you need to pick up and how fast! The people of Ramsar, Iran are exposed to 20 rem a YEAR in background dose and have absolutely no ill effect! Cancer patients get radiation sickness because they're taking often in excess of 500 rem acute, for fark's sake!

Seriously. This. Is. Retarded. If they're sick, it's not the radiation, I will bet money it's chemical exposure. They lost fertilizer plants and refineries in the earthquake too you know!
 
2012-12-27 09:06:33 PM  

Ringshadow: As someone who works in nuclear power in Radiation Protection, FTFA:

"The plaintiffs must now endure a lifetime of radiation poisoning and suffering."

THAT IS NOT HOW THAT WORKS YOU ASSHOLES.

SERIOUSLY. NOT. HOW. IT. WORKS. *flips table*

It's been over a farking year and you're going to tell me now you have radiation sickness? Oh, no honey. No no no. You'd have known within a week if you had it.

Realistically, according to Gollnick: You need in excess of 100 rem of dose ACUTE (as in, all at once) before your body even starts showing real medical changes that we can track. 100 to 150 rem is when you'll start seeing blood changes and at that point, you probably DO NOT need medical assistance for recover.
200 to 250 rem acute is when you'll start getting the classic responses of nausea. AND YOU WILL FEEL THAT IN SHORT ORDER.

Reality of the situation: radiation sickness is not a long term thing, because of the sheer amount of dose you need to pick up and how fast! The people of Ramsar, Iran are exposed to 20 rem a YEAR in background dose and have absolutely no ill effect! Cancer patients get radiation sickness because they're taking often in excess of 500 rem acute, for fark's sake!

Seriously. This. Is. Retarded. If they're sick, it's not the radiation, I will bet money it's chemical exposure. They lost fertilizer plants and refineries in the earthquake too you know!


Nono... I'm pretty sure that everyone can still get sickness.  Even now.  I read a pamphlet from ELF on it.
 
2012-12-27 09:31:24 PM  
My question is which farkhead officers arranged it so these guys were around long enough to get a problematic radiation exposure (well also, how badly were these guys really exposes).

First and foremost, while I never advanced beyond the lowly rank of NCO in Korea, I managed to fully grasp the concept of saving face and the fact it was merely a more extreme form of cover your ass. Normally if you had some working knowledge of the culture and the people you could pick up when face saving mode was engaged, ask some indirect questions, and indirectly get the truth. Which dipshiat officer rushed the people in without verifying the nuke plant was safe versus checking it out.

Secondly, perhaps (and quite likely I hope) the squids might have been doing proper NBC monitoring, detected the Japanese were full of shiat, and ensured the exposure wasn't excessive. It could very well be the USN knows how much they were exposed to and by policy does not consider it excessive, and these guys just found themselves some shady doctor to sign off on a report. Considered we had a carrier stooging around the area, we better have been doing NBC monitoring, otherwise that is just exposing our assets to unneeded risks.

Third, and this is the most important, prove to me the fact there was heightened radiation would have meant you wouldn't have been ordered in anyway. I worked disaster relief once where there was a threat of a second mudslide occurring that would have killed the lot of us. That didn't stop us from going in to check for survivors. Instead we got a little safety brief that basically boiled down to "You're farked there is a second one, but the rescue workers need strong backs to help survivors out, so go be useful, besides you're just infantry and not that hard to replace". If the radiation is at a high level and there is a threat of the plant exploding that means there are civilian lives at risk, so in you go. Don't like it, your ass shouldn't have joined up. When you joined you agreed to sacrifice your life for the protection of American lives and those of our allies.

/now if the Navy medical establishment and/or VA is refusing to provide treatment for that exposure, by all means lawyer up
 
2012-12-27 09:34:20 PM  
Hey, ha-ha-guy, I was never a Navy Nuke, you guys wear dosimetry don't you? Radiation tracking badges?

/if so these guys have a physical record of their exposure
//so we'll see who are the lying liars that lie
 
2012-12-27 09:42:37 PM  

Ringshadow: Hey, ha-ha-guy, I was never a Navy Nuke, you guys wear dosimetry don't you? Radiation tracking badges?

/if so these guys have a physical record of their exposure
//so we'll see who are the lying liars that lie


I was a Marine, so I was never a navy nuke either. My understanding is the guys working on nuclear ships wear the badges, but I have no idea at what level they were monitoring the guys around the reactor. My understanding is that we have NBC equipment for detecting if you need MOPP gear or not. I'd hope we'd have pulled that and checked out the radiation levels before just sending people and ships in. If for no other reason than it is a giant waste of money to radiate a perfectly good carrier.

/as an older and wiser NCO pointed out, the LHD is the safest place to be
//while the USN has no concern for your ass, they spent a lot of the money the ship and prefer not to have to replace it
 
2012-12-27 10:13:13 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Ringshadow: Hey, ha-ha-guy, I was never a Navy Nuke, you guys wear dosimetry don't you? Radiation tracking badges?

/if so these guys have a physical record of their exposure
//so we'll see who are the lying liars that lie

I was a Marine, so I was never a navy nuke either. My understanding is the guys working on nuclear ships wear the badges, but I have no idea at what level they were monitoring the guys around the reactor. My understanding is that we have NBC equipment for detecting if you need MOPP gear or not. I'd hope we'd have pulled that and checked out the radiation levels before just sending people and ships in. If for no other reason than it is a giant waste of money to radiate a perfectly good carrier.

/as an older and wiser NCO pointed out, the LHD is the safest place to be
//while the USN has no concern for your ass, they spent a lot of the money the ship and prefer not to have to replace it


Oh, well, fair enough then, my apologies!

And that's a radiation vs contamination thing. VERY common misunderstanding of the nuclear industry and one the news can never get right let alone the public.

"Radiation" as the industry deals with is basically an energy beam. Yeah they're subatomic particles (in the case of alpha, beta, and neutron) but we don't consider them physical, exactly, it's more like a flashlight or laser beam and tends to behave the same way (it can reflect, be shielded, et cetera). To that end, if you shine a flash light on a wall, the wall doesn't glow after right? Radiation doesn't stick to stuff. Now, alpha can jack you up on a chemical level (don't eat it) and neutron can irradiate stuff (but neutron doesn't just knock around out of doors), but for all practicality, radiation doesn't get left behind.
"Contamination" is what sticks to stuff. The best example for contamination I can give is Cobalt 60, and it's one of the nastier ones. Cobalt is an ingredient in Stellite, an alloy used as a hardener in valves and pumps. Over the years, as the component gets used, the outer layer of metal gets worn and tiny bits of it wear free and enter the water stream. Now often enough you won't see this unless it's a huge build up, and this isn't a problem unless we're talking primary coolant water. If we're talking primary coolant, the cobalt in stellite (Cobalt 58 or 59) can pass through the reactor and become Cobalt 60, which is screaming hot. So then the Cobalt 60 settles into pipe bends and stuff and you get hot spots.

The key difference here: if you have a radioactive area and you rub it down with a cloth, the cloth will not read as radioactive. If you have a contaminated area and you wipe it down, you'll see radiation on the cloth with a frisker.

To that end: contamination be hosed off. It's just a matter of different procedures for different levels of crapped up.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report