4 ms·

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, s

by dctoedt 13y ago

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.

crazytony 13y ago
can you tell us about the reasons for their skepticism?
- dctoedt 13y ago
  > 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.)
  - awakeasleep 13y ago
    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.
    - karlkatzke 13y ago
      That was the part of the article that jumped out at me. I live in a university town. Various parts of the research arms of the university have various radiological materials on hand for experiments or ongoing work. There's an old, decommissioned nuclear reactor near the airport. ALL of the people who work in these facilities wear dosimeters that change color if an incident resulting in overexposure occurs. ALL of the emergency response teams in the area (campus police, county, city, city fire, and county volunteer fire) have a geiger counter on each truck -- there is a mini one that is just a box on the trucks, and the hazmat trailer with the chem suits has a bigger and more sensitive one with a wand. And this is just a small town research university kind of place, not a big government warship that's designed to fight nuclear wars. On top of that, I'm 99% sure that distilling water removes the radioactive contaminants.
    - dctoedt 13y ago
      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).
downer87 13y ago
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 13y ago
  > 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
ck2 13y ago
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?

by dctoedt 13y ago

crazytony 13y ago

can you tell us about the reasons for their skepticism?

dctoedt 13y ago
> 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.)
- awakeasleep 13y ago
  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.
  - karlkatzke 13y ago
    That was the part of the article that jumped out at me. I live in a university town. Various parts of the research arms of the university have various radiological materials on hand for experiments or ongoing work. There's an old, decommissioned nuclear reactor near the airport. ALL of the people who work in these facilities wear dosimeters that change color if an incident resulting in overexposure occurs. ALL of the emergency response teams in the area (campus police, county, city, city fire, and county volunteer fire) have a geiger counter on each truck -- there is a mini one that is just a box on the trucks, and the hazmat trailer with the chem suits has a bigger and more sensitive one with a wand. And this is just a small town research university kind of place, not a big government warship that's designed to fight nuclear wars. On top of that, I'm 99% sure that distilling water removes the radioactive contaminants.
  - dctoedt 13y ago
    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).

downer87 13y ago

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 13y ago
> 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

ck2 13y ago

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?