
Navy sailors have radiation sickness after Japan rescue - SuperChihuahua
http://nypost.com/2013/12/22/70-navy-sailors-left-sickened-by-radiation-after-japan-rescue/
======
VLM
"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
completely incompetent about it.

A big epidemiology problem is identifying the actual cause by symptom, and
avoiding the assumption that participation in something big and scary
therefore means all problems must be caused by big n scary. Some goofball
tipping over a barrel of solvent in the maint bay could cause many cancers
later, and is marginally more likely.

~~~
platz
Amazing how you think your claim is better informed than those from a primary
source. You're right, the mystery solvent must have been it.

~~~
yapcguy
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.

~~~
glenra
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 on. And it might _still_ be scary if
we knew the numbers, but without real numbers we can't _know_ that it's worth
worrying about.

~~~
yapcguy
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.

~~~
tptacek
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?

------
joshvm
"Tokyo Electric Power also knew that radioactivity was leaking at a rate of
400 tons a day into the North Pacific, according to the lawsuit and Japanese
officials."

I'm sorry, what? What does that even mean? 400 tons of.. Uranium? Water? Pure
radioactive essence?

This article is shocking on many levels, but the lack of journalistic
standards is appalling.

~~~
nobody_nowhere
We're talking about the NY Post! It would be more surprising if it exhibited
any standards at all.

~~~
jrockway
They have standards. They pick a Tumblr at random and say, "I bet we can have
higher journalistic standards than _that_ guy." And 50% of the time, they're
right!

------
fidotron
Of all groups you'd hope to be able to detect and protect their staff against
radiation, wouldn't the US Navy be fairly near the top of the list?

Much as TEPCO may be at fault over the actual reactor the sailors being
exposed unnecessarily sounds more like Naval negligence.

~~~
gwern
Yeah. It does say that

> By the time the Reagan realized it was contaminated and tried to shift
> location, the radioactive plume had spread too far to be quickly outrun. > >
> “We have a multimillion-dollar radiation-detection system, but . . . it
> takes time to be set up and activated,” Cooper said.

But... if you're on the coast helping deal with the tsunami damage like them
and then a _nuclear disaster_ starts, setting it up & activating it seems like
a priority task.

~~~
rgbrenner
CBS - March 2011: [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/radiation-detected-on-us-
warship...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/radiation-detected-on-us-warship-near-
japan/)

The U.S. Seventh Fleet said Monday it had moved its ships and aircraft away
from a quake-stricken Japanese nuclear power plant after discovering low-level
radioactive contamination.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that there were
two separate radiation exposures on the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan.
The first was to air crews who were swabbed upon returning from search and
rescue (SAR) missions, 17 of whom were found to have received the equivalent
of a month's radiation and had to be decontaminated.

The second exposure occurred when the carrier's shipboard alarms went off.
Since the Reagan is nuclear-powered, it has sensors to detect radioactivity,
said Martin, and those went off as soon as the radiation levels went above the
naturally-occurring background.

...

The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was about 100 miles offshore when its
instruments detected the radiation. The fleet said the dose of radiation was
about the same as one month's normal exposure to natural background radiation
in the environment, and no one was exposed to levels that would have made them
sick, reports CBS News correspondent Celia Hatton.

The power plant and its plume are south of Sendai, so as long as the wind
doesn't shift, the Reagan can stay out of the plume and still be in position
to conduct SAR missions.

------
dctoedt
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.

~~~
downer87
I can't claim to know anything about naval nuclear engineering. My intuition
tells me that avoiding runaway criticality and avoiding crew contamination are
high priorities. Based on this I can think of 4 significant questions off the
top of my head:

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?

2\. How much of the crew would be informed of such a situation? Would there be
a risk of panic or mutiny, if all of the crew were permitted to fully
understand such circumstances?

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? Would careers be protected and defended
if orders were obeyed?

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

...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?

~~~
dctoedt
> _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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#The_battle)

------
Pitarou
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 Guam, and so on.

I live on the fringe of the area where contamination from Fukushima can be
detected. To my knowledge, doctors haven't noticed anything unusual yet, and
believe me people are watching. Still, the article sends a chill...

~~~
greenyoda
" _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?

~~~
krschultz
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.

------
ChristianMarks
It was much worse than was reported. An online forum of nuclear engineers (I
may still have the link) was the most informative source of news about the
disaster at the time. EDIT: found the link.
[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=8b5b840e5e9217...](http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=8b5b840e5e92174eb7a22932b9d60c0f&t=501974)

~~~
scotty79
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.

~~~
Alex_MJ
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.

~~~
markdown
> 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.

~~~
radiobat
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20403-25-years-
after-c...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20403-25-years-after-
chernobyl-we-dont-know-how-many-died.html)

~~~
markdown
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.

------
zequel
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.

~~~
JanezStupar
Sure, better let somebody else's kids take care of the shitty work.

I agree wholeheartedly.

~~~
lostlogin
There is, of course, the better option. Invade less people and spy on less
people and then the number of people needed and the danger they face is
decreased. Additionally, using the military as a social welfare system may not
be the great system some think it is. My perspective is skewed however, as
being a New Zealander the threat level is zero (except from our so-called
allies, who have bombed us in the past - thanks France).

------
forktheif
Wikipedia says the USS Ronald Regan has a total crew of 5,680.

How statistically significant is 70 people out of 5,680 suffering serious
health problems over 2.5 years? I'm guessing that most people on board were
fairly young and in good health.

~~~
skriticos2
Radiation overdose is happy to cause you all kind of cancer 50 years down the
road. Having been overexposed is really not something you want, even if you
don't show symptoms so quickly. The psychological pressure on these people
alone must be maddening.

Imagine waking up every day for the rest of your life and wondering if you
have cancer today? Not good..

Edit: and let's not talk about the increased likelihood of disfigured
offspring.

~~~
scotty79
> Imagine waking up every day for the rest of your life and wondering if you
> have cancer today? Not good..

30% of us will have it at some point, also you have chance 1 in 1000-2000 that
you'll die next year.

~~~
simulate
> you have chance 1 in 1000-2000 that you'll die next year.

You have a 1000-2000 chance that you'll die when you are no longer an infant
but still young. Your chances of dying next year go up as your get older. If
you had only 1 chance in 1000 to die each year that would mean that people
would live to be 1000 years old on average.

A good estimate of human mortality rates can be calculated from Gompertz law:
[http://forio.com/simulate/mbean/death-probability-
calculator...](http://forio.com/simulate/mbean/death-probability-
calculator/simulation)

~~~
WalterBright
> If you had only 1 chance in 1000 to die each year that would mean that
> people would live to be 1000 years old on average.

Actually it means your chances of living to be 1000 would be 37%.

0.999 ^ 1000 = .37

~~~
thaumasiotes
Your chances of living to be 1000 are approximately 1 in _e_ , 37%, yes. But
that has nothing to do with the average age people live to. I don't get 1000
as the average lifespan, though, I get 999. Can someone explain where I'm
going wrong with this reasoning?

If there is a 0.001 chance of dying every year, the average lifespan will be
0(0.001) + 1(0.001)(0.999) + 2(0.001)(0.999)^2 + 3(0.001)(0.999)^3 + ... , or
\sum_{i=0}^\infty (i(0.001)(0.999)^i). The idea is that to live to the age of
0, you have to die in your first year; to live to be three, you have to live
through exactly three years and then die, and so on. Then, \sum_{i=0}^\infty
ix^i is x / (1-x)^2 .

So the sum of interest is 0.001 times (0.999) / (0.000001), which is exactly
999.

------
elleferrer
A failed multimillion-dollar radiation-detection system. Why didn't they have
this activated?

"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."

~~~
skriticos2
They could have sidestepped the whole issue with a simple reverse-osmosis
water filter. Somehow I get the impression that they did not think the ABC
(edit: CBRN) thing through.

~~~
JshWright
A "simple" reverse-osmosis system?

A Nimitz class carrier can produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 400,000
gallons of desalinated (potable) water a day. Desalination is very energy
intensive, but energy is something that a nuclear powered carrier has plenty
of. There are obviously some consumables involved, but it's mostly just
energy, and lots of it.

RO, on the other hand, requires a lot of high quality, small pore filters and
membranes that need to be cleaned and changed regularly. RO systems have
dramatically lower throughputs than desalination systems of similar size. An
RO system capable of producing 400,000 gallons/day (especially one capable of
filtering radioisotopes that are (while larger than a water molecule), still
quite small) would be very large, and very maintenance intensive.

But hey... you're probably right... The folks who designed the potable water
infrastructure for the Nimitz class aircraft carriers were probably idiots...

~~~
throwaway_yy2Di
Actually, it looks like Ford-class carriers use, or will use (?), reverse
osmosis for desal:

[http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657412.pdf](http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657412.pdf)

RO is already used in utility-scale desal plants:

[http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/DesalinatedWater.aspx](http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/DesalinatedWater.aspx)

 _" This plant can produce 30 million gallons of water a day (136, 000 cubic
meters) and is one of the region’s largest seawater reverse-osmosis plants."_

~~~
JshWright
Yeah, they've done away with many of the steam systems on the new carriers
(including the catapult launch system, which is now electric).

If you're trying to minimize energy (particularly steam) usage, then RO starts
to make a bit more sense. On the Nimitz class, they have plenty of waste heat
from the powerplant, and already had numerous steam distributions systems in
place.

------
lukateake
Out of related curiosity, weren't there efforts to ban Geiger counters in the
US post-9/11? Were any laws enacted?

------
ams6110
_Guam turned us away_

That sounds suspicious. Guam is a U.S. Territory.

~~~
cmgreen
It may be the lack of capabilities to deal with a mass radiation event.

I can't find any references to how many crew are typically assigned to the USS
Ronald Regan. Guam doesn't seem like it has a lot of healthcare support for a
full-aircraft carrier of irradiated seamen.

------
josh-wrale
If I were losing 60 or 70 pounds a month due to hyperthyroidism, I'd request
that my thyroid be removed and I'd probably then be prescribed levothyroxine.
I'd say it's a safe bet the thyroid isn't the root cause here. Thyroid removal
is pretty common.

------
patrickg_zill
The meaning behind the story is far more sinister than the sad case of some
people getting cancer...

it is that TEPCO, which is the organization best suited to know and measure
what was/is going on, has been shown to lie, even to its own government, about
the situation.

(mentioned in more detail here:
[http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/28/world/asia/japan-fukushima-
law...](http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/28/world/asia/japan-fukushima-lawsuit/) )

If it truly the case that TEPCO has been lying about things from the start,
then nothing that they have said in the interim, or things that they say in
the future, can be taken at face value, and whatever claims they make require
independant third party confirmation.

------
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.

------
Juha
Related post from NBC (27th of Dec 2012): US sailors sue Japan's TEPCO for
post-quake radiation exposure
([http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/27/16197507-us-
sa...](http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/27/16197507-us-sailors-sue-
japans-tepco-for-post-quake-radiation-exposure)). Interesting they used almost
the same photo on the article.

------
melling
We're either a one decade or two from having the necessary robotics technology
needed to keep humans out of harm's way in these situations.

[http://singularityhub.com/2013/12/20/nasa-unveils-
valkyrie-a...](http://singularityhub.com/2013/12/20/nasa-unveils-valkyrie-a-
humanoid-robot-destined-for-space-exploration/)

It's really up to us if it's going to be 10 years or 20.

~~~
Alex_MJ
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 suspect we could fix that.

For some interesting history, look up "Bio-Robots" to see how the Soviet Union
dealt with the disaster. Basically they sent up humans in heavy lead suits for
no more than 45 seconds at a time. Run up, get three or four shovelfuls (they
were clearing radioactive debris from the roof), get out.

~~~
Qworg
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 disaster, then there is a ton of cash you have to spend
right now.

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

------
pagekicker
Not the most credible publication, and plaintiff's attorneys are clearly the
primary sources for the article.

------
CookWithMe
At the TC Disrupt Europe hackathon, there was one team that build a
hardware/software hack to crowdsource radioactivity data / warnings.
Basically, a Geiger counter attached to your computer that sends readings to a
server.

I think it was a really cool hack and one of my favorites, but it didn't go
anywhere with the jury (I guess no business model and all :) ).

[http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/26/open-radioactivity-
warning-...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/26/open-radioactivity-warning-
system/)

[http://techcrunch.com/video/open-radioactivity-warning-
syste...](http://techcrunch.com/video/open-radioactivity-warning-system-demo-
at-hackathon-europe-2013/517988760/) (Video)

------
patrickgokey
I served on the Reagan from 2003-2007 and am lucky enough to have finished my
enlistment before the Fukushima incident.

I still have a large network of friends in the military and work in the
defense industry in San Diego so I was surprised when I first learned of this
incident only a few weeks ago. I thought the post I was reading at the time
was a sick hoax at first but have since learned otherwise.

This doesn't surprise me much at all unfortunately, and I wish my fellow
sailors the best of luck in not getting screwed by Uncle Sam, which is what I
fully expect will happen.

------
mateodelnorte
As the reactors have now dumped thousands of tons of nuclear runoff water into
the ocean which then drifts to the North American West Coast, is this not
something we should be much more aware of and acting to protect against?

Is the US West Coast at danger of increased incidence rates of radiation
related illness?

~~~
cdash
The answer is no, it is not even close to something we should be worried
about.

~~~
StavrosK
Is that because it's going to be diluted to unnoticeable levels even near the
origin?

~~~
cdash
Yes

------
dhughes
You would think it would have been a good time to test or at least offer Ex-
Rad to the sailors.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Rad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Rad)

 _" Ex-Rad (or Ex-RAD), also known by the code name ON 01210.Na, is a drug
developed by Onconova Therapeutics and the U.S. Department of Defense.[1][2]
This newly developed compound is said to be a potent radiation protection
agent. Chemically, it is the sodium salt of
4-carboxystyryl-4-chlorobenzylsulfone.[3"_

------
tzakrajs
Negligence triumphed over excellence this time...

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

~~~
markdown
> 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?

------
tasty_freeze
This story may or may not be accurate, but anything which comes from nypost is
suspect.

------
AnotherDesigner
The nuclear apologists are out in full force today.

I love how you guys, mostly computer programmers, are so much more informed
than experts in nearly every other field of science existing. It must be
amazing to be that smart.

~~~
mikeash
Er, the opinions expressed by the "nuclear apologists" generally line up with
those of experts in the field.

It's the fools who talk about "400 tons of radiation" who are committing the
sin of hubris in thinking that they know more than the experts.

~~~
lostlogin
If you want an independent opinion upon the pros and cons of disbanding my
field of work, don't ask me.

~~~
mikeash
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.

~~~
lostlogin
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.

~~~
mikeash
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.

------
wissler
A Geiger counter is a simple, inexpensive device, and several should be
present at all significant military installations and turned on at all times.
Why wasn't that the case here?

~~~
Daniel_Newby
It was. The _Reagan_ is nuclear-powered and is capable of carrying nuclear
missiles (and quite possibly was at the time). Unless Navy planning has
entirely rotted away, that ship was plastered with radiation detectors, crewed
with people trained for nuke decon, equipped with NBC
(nuclear/bioweapon/chemical weapon) protection suits, and supplied with
potassium iodide tablets for thyroid protection.

~~~
wissler
Then what really happened here?

~~~
frankydp
I am a CBRN specialist in the Marine Corps. These ships run constant radiation
detection, everywhere, especially in the water desal. The only probable cause
for these kind of biological responses, would have to be inhalation of
radiated particulates, but even that would be extremely difficult given the
range from the source. Even the most basic respiratory protection(shirt over
face) would prevent most of that type of contamination.

The entire CBRN community was hyper focused on these operations Navy wide, and
the possibility of an entire group of ships not taking every precaution is
very very very low. I am not discounting the possibility of equipment
failure(unknowingly) or execution failure by individuals, but the chances of
that with so much attention on the issue would be low.

EDIT: What do people do when they see snow? Think tounge out.

~~~
moocowduckquack
_" What do people do when they see snow? Think tounge out."_

I thought that as well, especially with the detail in the article about
'billows of metallic-tasting snow'.

