Skip to main content

I am just going to get a a quick diary up on this because I have not seen it reported on anywhere else.

From Aljazeera:

Fifty-one crew members of the USS Ronald Reagan say they are suffering from a variety of cancers as a direct result of their involvement in Operation Tomodachi, a U.S. rescue mission in Fukushima after the nuclear disaster in March 2011. The affected sailors are suing Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), alleging that the utility mishandled the crisis and did not adequately warn the crew of the risk of participating in the earthquake relief efforts.
There is a conspicuous media blackout on news about Fukushima and what is going on there, and solutions to the slow motion disaster that is taking place in Japan are not being discussed anywhere.

It continues:

Charles Bonner, attorney for the sailors, says the radiation the USS Ronald Reagan crew was exposed to extended beyond the tasks of Operation Tomodachi. Deployed ships desalinate their own water, so crew members were unknowingly drinking, cooking with, and bathing in contaminated water due to the ship's close proximity to the disaster site, according to Bonner. The USS Reagan was ultimately informed of the contamination after a month of living approximately 10 miles offshore from the affected region.
This does not bode well. How do we break through to the truth?

Discuss...

EDIT: I had originally linked to an unreliable and toxic source, so I've edited the diary to remove those links. But there does seem to be something to this story, so I will leave the diary up.

Thanks to those commenters for pointing out the problems with the original source.

Update: The lawsuit against TEPCO was dismissed in November, but the case will be refiled. (h/t to campionrules in the comments)

A San Diego federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that U.S. sailors were exposed to dangerous radiation during the humanitarian response to the March 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami.

But Judge Janis L. Sammartino left the door open for a follow-on lawsuit, and the attorney representing several sailors from the San Diego-based aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan said he intends to refile.

The judge dismissed the case Nov. 26 on jurisdictional grounds, saying it was beyond her authority to determine whether the Japanese government had perpetrated a fraud on its American counterpart.

Update2: Thanks for the Reclist, my first time there. Glad to see that this important story is getting some exposure..

Originally posted to sangemon on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 07:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Military Community Members of Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (133+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tommymet, ROGNM, LynChi, angelajean, Keone Michaels, Betty Pinson, addisnana, Horace Boothroyd III, Mary Mike, wilderness voice, worldlotus, Josiah Bartlett, k9disc, pat bunny, Sun Tzu, CIndyCasella, 2thanks, IndieGuy, Lujane, CwV, mudslide, Lawrence, suspiciousmind, Superskepticalman, DRo, dougymi, Ishmaelbychoice, karmsy, fixxit, Things Come Undone, cordgrass, BlueDragon, greenbastard, newpioneer, lynneinfla, the dogs sockpuppet, jan4insight, Buckeye Nut Schell, slapshoe, raincrow, bibble, kevinpdx, weck, eru, Tinfoil Hat, hubcap, Claudius Bombarnac, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, GrannyOPhilly, hopeful, shesaid, lysias, JVolvo, MKinTN, forgore, Joieau, bumbi, Orla, marina, martinjedlicka, viral, rb608, peacestpete, oortdust, oldpotsmuggler, PatConnors, nuclear winter solstice, progreen, AoT, ColoTim, OHdog, Wreck Smurfy, DeminNewJ, Chi, jbob, FloridaSNMOM, kyril, YucatanMan, pyegar, wader, cotterperson, bogieshadow, SneakySnu, blueoregon, i saw an old tree today, Shadow Catcher, greycat, lcrp, gypsytoo, Senor Unoball, CanisMaximus, rapala, sawgrass727, greengemini, crose, Nebraskablue, randallt, doingbusinessas, Hanging Up My Tusks, Grandma Susie, Powered Grace, BarackStarObama, Matt Z, WakeUpNeo, dharmasyd, KayCeSF, xaxnar, blueoasis, chimene, CA Nana, Bluesee, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, carpunder, brouski, davidincleveland, OldDragon, psnyder, marykk, codairem, Hastur, Bluefin, lasky57, rbird, shortgirl, skywriter, 2dot, Eric Nelson, Team Leftie, miriam, 100fishhooks, Aaa T Tudeattack, catilinus, tofumagoo
  •  Thank you for bringing us this story. (48+ / 0-)

    I hope the Pentagon is doing everything they can to help these folks. And if they happen to be retired from active service, Congress will be sure that their benefits are cut:

    Military personnel who are medically retired — those with combat or service-related injuries so severe they were offered full military retirement pay and benefits — would see their retired pay cut as a result of the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said Tuesday.

    http://www.airforcetimes.com/...

  •  mahalo for this ..... (19+ / 0-)

    We have mariners in the commercial sector also.  I wonder how many of them have been affected?

  •  Hr until better source is found (9+ / 0-)

    Sorry, Turner Radio Network is the work of Hal Turner, white supremacist, Holocaust denier and birther scum bag.

    Other 'News' on this site:

    Harvand Law Review proves Obama Born in Kenya

    Wonderful.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 07:18:36 AM PST

  •  Different Source: This is old news as well (7+ / 0-)

    http://www.utsandiego.com/...

    The initial suit has been dismissed apparently but may be re-filed.

    I recommend checking your source carefully and perhaps deleting and re-submitting this diary minus the link to Turner.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 07:20:46 AM PST

  •  If true, this could be a much bigger issue (29+ / 0-)

    than 75 sailors.

    It looks as though the onboard desalinization systems that take salt out of seawater to make it drinkable, were taking-in radioactive water from the ocean for the crew to drink, cook with and bath-in, before anyone realized there was a massive radiation spill into the ocean.
    The entire crew of 6,000 or so could have been exposed, and the ship could still be contaminated today, meaning thousands more who have rotated through the crew since then could have been exposed.

    TEPCO could even be responsible for the Reagan being scrapped.

    Filibuster reform, 2013 - woulda, coulda, shoulda.

    by bear83 on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 07:21:04 AM PST

    •  Yeah, Roughly 1% of the Crew Are Showing Early (11+ / 0-)

      cancer, there could be new cases arising for decades among the entire population given the statistical nature of the disease and exposure issues.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 07:47:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, if you read to links, very few (12+ / 0-)

        if any of them have cancer (which as I pointed out in my other comment was essentially a biological impossibility this soon).

        But considering that close to 1/3 of all people eventually get cancer, about 2000 of these people WILL come down with cancer at some point in their lives, so as long as this type of lawyer remains amongst us, litigation will continue for the next 60 or 70 years on this.

        •  There are epidemiologic cluster analyses that (7+ / 0-)

          can be conducted to assess whether this is a background rate or something more.  With young healthy sailors, cancer is much less likely...

          Proper epidemiologic analysis won't lie on this and we can have quantitative data to answer the question.

          I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

          by the dogs sockpuppet on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 08:56:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Of course, cancer is only one of the (9+ / 0-)

          myriad effects of radiation exposure, and it may be that it's one's yet-to-be-conceived children that can suffer effects.

          The DoD publication, with an Independent editorial board, Stars & Stripes adds more detail

          Nevertheless, the plaintiffs claim they have suffered a number of ailments they say are linked to their exposure, ranging from headaches and difficulty concentrating to rectal bleeding, thyroid problems, cancer, tumors and gynecological bleeding.
          Apparently there's another 100 or so about to join in the lawsuit.

          I marvel how defenders of nuclear energy invariably talk as if it is highly unlikely that massive exposure to radiation could actually hurt anyone.


          Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

          by Jim P on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:33:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Define "massive exposure," discriminate (0+ / 0-)

            as to which kind of "radiation" you're taking about, clarify what you mean by "actually hurt anyone" (do you mean "cause any health effects whatsoever" or "cause health effects in excess of those caused by exposure to normal background radiation sources" or something else?) and we can begin unpacking your last sentence.

            Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

            by raincrow on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:41:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Impressed by your sentence structure given that (6+ / 0-)

              ordinary English confuses you greatly. Maybe ask someone familiar with the language what these words mean.

              Asking a mother in Japan might help, too.

              Here, read this, it'll help: http://www.spiegel.de/...

              In addition, you can check out the comments starting March 14, 2011 here: http://www.dailykos.com/...


              Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

              by Jim P on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 10:15:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And that points out the problem right there (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                melfunction, raincrow, Roadbed Guy

                You were asked what kind of radiation: you did know that "radiation" includes everything from long wavelength radio waves to heat to visible light to short wavelength gamma and x-rays, right, and what type of danger different wavelengths represent (and how much of it is dangerous) varies widely, right?

                •  But your remarks are so transparently stupid. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau, davidincleveland

                  And stupid for effect. Which is a type of dishonesty. C'mon you know you're trying to distract with word games.

                  Are you really so fucking ignorant you don't know that Fukushima has released massive amounts of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in the environment? On a scale unprecedented to date (except maybe some isotopes from Chernobyl, but then again we've got another few decades of Fukushima spewing.)

                  Are you really so fucking stupid you can't figure out that Japan evacuated several hundred thousand people from their homes because of health threats?

                  Are you really so dishonest that you'll pretend 'normal' background radiation isn't a health threat in itself? Is your brain really so frozen that you can't comprehend that new exposure to radiation is CUMULATIVE with other exposures?

                  Please, you're trying to make yourself seem sophisticated and me ignorant, but you're just embarrassing yourself with a pathetic effort.


                  Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

                  by Jim P on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 01:38:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That's a good point (0+ / 0-)

                  undoubtedly, by far, the largest radiation-based source of cancer in people is the sun.

                  but yet instead of working to ban the sun, I have actually seen people on this site enthusiastic advocate for solar-based energies.

                  strange, strange stuff.

              •  So you won't answer. OK. (0+ / 0-)

                Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

                by raincrow on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 02:12:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  It's not "defenders of nuclear energy" who are (6+ / 0-)

            skeptical, it's people with some scientific awareness and a belief in cause-and-effect.

            Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

            by oblomov on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 10:37:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Except you exclude the LITERALLY thousands (5+ / 0-)

              of scientists who say 'nukes are nuts.' What, you think you can wave your arms and make it all 'pro-nukes know science' 'anti-nukes don't.'

              Tell you what. Further up in this thread I posted a link to dairies on Fukushima. Start with March 14, 2011 and look at the comments. Who has been proven by time... not once, but again and again and again and again ... to be right about any detail of the business? The experts relying on the claim to authority, or the people using their brains given the known facts?

              The self-proclaimed scientists have given us such manifest nonsense as 'all the radiation will be diluted by the WHOTE Pacific Ocean.' Well, yeah, in 100 years or so. Meantime anyone with a fucking brain knows that currents flow through the bay, and isotopes stay within those for a long time. Concentrating up the food chain all the while. Or you can look at the posting about 'cesium in fish' as if cesium were the only isotope they are exposed to.

              You can look at the constant false premise that cancer and cancer alone is all that matters when assessing health-effects of exposure.

              Or that the joke scientists try to minimize effects by saying 'equal to an x-ray; to a transcontinental flight' when anyone who is honest knows that exposure efects are cumulative. Nuke plant radiation exposure PLUS x-ray PLUS transcontinental flight DO NOT EQUAL 'an x-ray' in terms or risk.

              Or you can look at the ignore-ance of the health effects on the fish themselves: pretending that only if fish get disease, that's no effect on humans. (How many studies can you find on eating fish with cancer, btw? Do you go to the store: gimme a pound of that tumor-tuna?)

              Etc etc etc etc etc etc.

              As a matter of fact, among nuke defenders arrogating to themselves a monopoly on being all science-like, you'll consistently find an astonishing inability to use common sense, logic, reason, or even large sections of the available data. When they just don't flat-out lie. And they lie, directly or by omission, a hell of a lot.

              Go, go read the comments starting March 14, 2011. Dare you.


              Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

              by Jim P on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 11:09:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I responded to your shouts of cancer from exposure (0+ / 0-)

                to Fuku discharges among 51 (77? 29? 1,456?) sailors.

                You react with a general rant about how nutty nuclear power is, which claim I am actually agreeable to considering the renewable alternatives.

                You need to review, or maybe look at for the first time, Reasoned Argument 101.

                Imthruwitcha.

                Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

                by oblomov on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 12:44:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What rant? Oh, you mean the well reasoned (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau, davidincleveland

                  and documented rebuttal (and not just for your benefit, btw) of the 'nuke defenders is the same set as all scientists' nonsense.

                  No wonder you don't want to defend your original claim.


                  Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

                  by Jim P on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 01:42:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  when i first saw the case, i doubted the jurisdict (8+ / 0-)

      ion.

      TEPCO is a japanese company doing business in Japan,
      the accident occurred in Japan and Japanese
      waters, and air space.

      US Courts would have very little ability to exert
      jurisdiction here.  The accident occurred in the context
      of Japanese law, it is for the Japanese to deal with.

      Worse, these are navy sailors. the US Navy knew
      what the situation was and the Reagan is a nuclear
      capable carrier, able to operate in nuclear environments.

      The onboard radiation safety crew had to be reporting to the captain and fleet.  If they were there, it was due to navy orders.

      Their claim is with the US Government.

    •  The onboard desalination system tests radiation. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bear83, kyril, melfunction, raoul78, Cixelsyd

      It also tests for known poisons and such as heavy metals that are also of interest.

      Every ounce.

    •  Unfortunately (0+ / 0-)

      their cancers from exposure to this radiation may not arise until decades from now and would be hard to prove that it was because of this exposure.  That's what is so insidious about nuclear power.  You don't know if the cancer you get 30 years from now was a result of some Fukushima plutonium in Tuna that you ate yesterday.   Really horrible..

      •  everybody alive today has about one billion (0+ / 0-)

        plutonium atoms in their body.

        So a few more or less from the tuna probably won't have much effect one way or another.

        I'd be much more worried about the mercury you're likely to get.

        •  True that everyone (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sangemon, Joieau

          has a tiny amount of plutonium in their bodies because of nuclear testing and nuclear accidents since the 1940s.  This doesn't mean it's safe or nothing to worry about.  Plutonium was named after the God of Hell for a reason.  It's considered the most deadly element.  A millionth of a gram could give you cancer.  It's so carcinogenic because it's an alpha emitter.  You can actually hold plutonium in your hand and because the alpha particles can't penetrate your skin...but if you inhale or ingest plutonium it's highly carcinogenic.  Plutonium mimics Iron in the body.  Those alpha particles are very large and highly damaging to DNA.  It's so important for people to be sure and wear masks that can filter out these radioactive particles so they don't inhale/ingest them when at nuclear accidents.  I don't see many service members wearing masks when cleaning onboard the USS Reagan.  Most people are only concerned with the gamma radiation that hits you from the environment and not the problem of inhaling or ingesting these particles and they becoming lodged in your body because they mimic many nutrients and years later you develop cancer.  It's a huge problem.

          •  People just make this shit up, of course (0+ / 0-)
            millionth of a gram could give you cancer.
            There's absolutely no evidence for that contention, but it resonates on the internet (I'm guessing, or else why would people keep posting it?).
  •  The reporting on this seems a little supicious (6+ / 0-)

    at the moment.  I don't think we should get too far out ahead.  The other link to turner radio in a comment that does work yields an article that quotes "Stars and Stripes" with no link.  A google search produces a bunch of very similar articles on tabloidish sites.  This is very troubling if it is true, and it could be, but caution is in order.

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 07:23:06 AM PST

    •  The MSM is hushing this up, because the isotopes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DRo, corvo

      are on their way to the West Coast.

      This is a major nuclear accident, and it should be front and center in the news.  Our government should be testing the fish, the beaches, but nada.  

      If you think that the MSM not covering a topic makes it not exist, think again.

      Whey they bury our heads in the sand, the bad stuff is still out there, we just don't see it or read about it.  No, instead our attention is misdirected to selfies and Mylie Cyrus.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 08:03:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, that number has been disconnected n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        waterstreet2013, melfunction

        Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

        by oblomov on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 10:38:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  the radiation is massively diluted.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy

        by the time it gets to the west coast.  You would have more risk in a tanning bed or a basement with radon.  That is not saying what happened in Japan or even on this ship.  The government tests background radioactivity all the time- that is how they know there has been a release.

        You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

        by murrayewv on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 12:04:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You do know about (0+ / 0-)

          the concept of bioaccumulation and/or bioconcentration, don't you? There's more than just wicked cesium coming this way. And the releases are increasing almost daily. Latest 'test well' figures from just about 5 meters from the ocean indicate 63,000 bq/L gross beta from nasties like strontium-90 in the groundwater flow to the sea. Limit for this isotope is less than 10 bq/L.

          Tuna, sardines and other fish tested are already accumulating, but what you're really going to want to eat once the main body of the continuing plume reaches the Pacific northwest are the shellfish and crustaceans. Yum!!!

      •  Yes, lack of coverage does not mean it does (0+ / 0-)

        not exist, but neither is lack of coverage proof of a cover-up.

        So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

        by illinifan17 on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 04:25:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I also did some searching, and I found no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eyesbright

      record of any missions conducted by the USS Ronald Reagan since the Fukushima incident.  Corroboration?

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:30:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Weird: the ship is nuclear so (15+ / 0-)

    you'd think that it would have detectors for radiation aboard ship.  

    If Hobby Lobby is against contraception, why does it buy its inventory from China, the country that limits the number of children by law?

    by Inland on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 07:25:20 AM PST

    •  They did. When the first helicopters started (26+ / 0-)

      returning to the ship, the detectors went off and all helicopter crews had to go through decontamination routines and the Reagan immediately withdrew from the area.

    •  Of course it does. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      Security similar to testing in and around nuclear power plants.

      Even the city water coming in at Indian Point gets radiation tested. These folks think the Reagan goes out of port, doing their consumables less carefully than Indian Point ???

      •  I do not see that the water angle (3+ / 0-)

        is going to fly very far with what amounts to an already dismissed (for jurisdiction) lawsuit and lawyers that want to try again. But that doesn't mean there wasn't considerable contamination, or that many weren't dangerously exposed.

        The USS Reagan reported to Fleet that contamination set off alarms when the first helicopters returned from aid flights. Helicopters and crews were then subjected to decon. They also reported "skyshine" gamma right off Daiichi at high enough levels to make them quickly steam on out to ~150 nautical miles. Where it was still 'shining' at .6 mr/hr, and an air sample from the deck at that distance demonstrated 7.5 times ten to the minus 9 pCi/ml. At that time primary components of the plumes were iodine and cesium, but there was also lots of everything else as well as fuel elements. Fleet ordered the ships to head on over to the west coast of Japan. Immediately.

        That does take some time, though, since these are large ships and not planes. No one has said the Navy didn't know, or that the ELTs weren't monitoring.

        •  That's made up. (0+ / 0-)

          Everything following the sentence relating the low level contamination detection that was triggered when the Reagan's helicopters returned from Fukushima.

        •  Here are links (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sangemon

          to the actual documents/transcripts that are among the NRC documentation released upon FOIA filings.

          March 13, 2011: Phone conference between Admiral Donald [Fleet] in Japan and NRC Op-Center.

          Contamination level on shoes of the helicopter crews measured at 10,000 CPM [particulate], and an observation that a member of the public would receive 100% thyroid dose limit of iodine-131 in 10 hours. The source for this level of contamination was a Japanese Navy ship closer in, at approx. 50 miles off Daiichi. This was shortly after the explosive destruction of unit-1, but a full day before unit-3 blew up.

          March 13, 2011: Phone conference between NRC principals about the Admiral's data.

          USS Reagan report on the plume from 130 miles distance - 0.6 mr/hr 'shine' direct gamma radiation from the plume at that distance, particulate air filter sample from the deck at 7.5 times ten to the minus nine pCi/ml.

          Again, prior to the explosion of unit-3, the MOX reactor.

          Obviously the user calling itself "waterstreet2013" is here to deny any and all technical data related to the disaster at Daiichi as well as discussion of possible health hazards the truth represents, but to assert that the US Navy present offshore of Daiichi at the time, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the activated Operations Center in D.C. were "making up" alarming data off the tops of their heads just to scare people who might someday see the documentation via FOIA releases, is utterly ridiculous.

          Followers of the situation at Fukushima will encounter this user in any diary to the subject, spouting flat denials and total bullshit. Readers should credit the pseud's pronouncements for what they're worth - zilch.

  •  When a nuclear powered aircraft carrier goes (23+ / 0-)

    into a disaster area and then, within a couple of hours, backs out, there's something very wrong going on.  The US Navy is absolutely known for producing potable water for disaster areas around the world (those close to the oceans and seas) and busting butt to do so.  So, for them to back out is not normal and not a good sign.

  •  If cancers developed in three years (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    murrayewv, raincrow, NYFM, kyril

    it is likely that this exposure possible exacerbated pre-existing conditions (as compared to de novo initiation of cancer, this really doesn't seem plausible based on known biology).

    •  more likely this was a worse accident (8+ / 0-)

      with a different radiation exposure profile.

    •  Are you a cancer specialist? Where is your link (3+ / 0-)

      for this CT (Cancer Theory) you are repeating here?  

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 08:07:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is well known amongst cancer biologists (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        murrayewv, raincrow, NYFM, kyril
        •  Then there must be plenty of good articles for (4+ / 0-)

          you to link to.  

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 08:13:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What exactly are you looking for? (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Librarianmom, raincrow, NYFM, kyril, kbman

            Information on the window in which radiation can cause cancer?

            Information on the multi-hit hypothesis of carcinogenesis?

            I mean yeah, there's a ton of information out there.  It literally fills up textbooks.  But I literally cannot post textbooks of information in response to this type of inquiry in this venue.

            •  They don't know. This is a new science. Claiming (5+ / 0-)

              that there is tons of information to make null and void a lawsuit about a company's pollution making people sick is the stuff of defense attorneys defending companies that wish to avoid paying claims.

              Watch the movies "A Civil Action" and "Erin Brokovich."

              Those defense attorneys who claimed the water was clean sure didn't want to drink it.

              I'm a scientist.  I'm not easily duped by claims of tons of articles defending a hypothesis until I read those articles and discern whether the scientists are paid off or are legit.  

              The same "evidence" is bandied about whenever there is a lawsuit claiming cancer.  

              Where is the evidence you claim is out there that proves that this particular lawsuit is moot?  I don't see it.

              Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 08:35:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What is a new science? (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                raincrow, NYFM, kyril, murrayewv, kbman

                I just posted an article about the Hiroshima survivors, they have been followed for decades - hardly anything new.

                The other aspect is the multi-hit hypothesis for cancer development - as summarized by Wikipedia:

                The Knudson hypothesis (also known as multiple-hit hypothesis) is the hypothesis that cancer is the result of accumulated mutations to a cell's DNA. It was first proposed by Carl O. Nordling in 1953,[1][2] and later formulated by Alfred G. Knudson in 1971.[3] Knudson's work led indirectly to the identification of cancer-related genes. Knudson won the 1998 Albert Lasker Medical Research Award for this work.

                The multi-mutation theory on cancer was proposed by Nordling in the British Journal of Cancer in 1953. He noted that in industrialized nations the frequency of cancer seems to increase according to the sixth power of age. This correlation could be explained by assuming that the outbreak of cancer requires the accumulations of six consecutive mutations.

                this is hardly "new" - it is based on decades-old science.
                •  What does that article have to do with this? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  corvo, davidincleveland

                  This is a group of men who were exposed to abnormally high radiation, not a nation that is statistically studied over many years.  It's apples and oranges.  

                  Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                  by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:07:41 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Like I said, this is a complex topic (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    raincrow, kyril, murrayewv

                    and I can't supply text-book volume information in one post.

                    That topic is covered in my other post about Hiroshima survivors.

                    Although by now I suspect that you're just fucking with me.

                    •  No, you are claiming to have scientific evidence (5+ / 0-)

                      that disproves these men's claims of having developed cancer from being exposed to Fukushima by alleging:

                      it is likely that this exposure possible exacerbated pre-existing conditions (as compared to de novo initiation of cancer, this really doesn't seem plausible based on known biology).
                      This explanation didn't make sense to me as a trained scientist.  It's pretty well known that nuclear radiation causes cancer by messing with cellular development.

                      Pre-existing conditions?  De novo initiation?  Reminiscent of the Agent Orange defense that worked for years to delay reparations until many of the claimants died or gave up, but finally came crashing down along with the military's reputation of treating their soldiers fairly.

                      I'm not blanking with you, but asking for you to prove these assertions that do not pass as science, but does quack a lot like ducking legal responsibilty.

                      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                      by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:28:31 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There is no scientific evidence that cancer (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kyril, Eyesbright, cwillis, kbman

                        from * any * level of radiation can develop more quickly than in two years.

                        This lawsuit was filed in December 2012, or about 21 months after the incident (i.e., sooner than 2 years).

                        Therefore, the onus really has to be on those making extraordinary claims (i.e., that radiation-induced cancer can occur that quickly, i.e., more quickly than ever before documented) not on those (like myself) who are standing by decades of medical precedent.

                        •  Start by reading this report about Chernobyl (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          corvo, FiredUpInCA, davidincleveland

                          Health Impacts Chernobyl Accident Appendix 2

                          According to the 2006 report of the UN Chernobyl Forum's 'Health' Expert Group1  : "The actual number of deaths caused by this accident is unlikely ever to be precisely known."

                          On the number of deaths due to acute radiation syndrome (ARS), the Expert Group report states: "Among the 134 emergency workers involved in the immediate mitigation of the Chernobyl accident, severely exposed workers and fireman during the first days, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS, and 19 more persons died in 1987-2004 from different causes. Among the general population affected by the Chernobyl radioactive fallout, the much lower exposures meant that ARS cases did not occur.

                          The effects of nuclear radiation on health is a new science.  The exposure is different according to the type of accident.  Here is a case in which the people may have been drinking desalinated sea water which was polluted with nuclear waste.  

                          One cannot definitively state that these men were not affected by this contamination.

                          I remember when the WTC came down.  I was appalled by workers being sent in there without protection while the concentration of asbestos in the air was so high.  I actually called the New York Times newsroom and other places in NYC to do something about it.  

                          Mistakes are made exposing workers to hazards all the time.  These people need to be recompensed for their pain and suffering.

                          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                          by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:55:37 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Does your appendix address the time-of-development (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Roadbed Guy

                            or "latency period" issue rightly raised by Roadbed?

                            If not, your just shilling a P.O.V.

                            Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

                            by oblomov on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 10:44:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Maybe that was in support of what I said (0+ / 0-)

                            you know, about acute radiation sickness and all.

                            It is strange, however, that while on the topic of Chernobyl the undisputed thyroid cancers that were attributed to this disaster were not mentioned.   Maybe that's because they did not reach statistically increased numbers until 1989, or three years later  . . ..

                    •  You can't supply proof that cancers (4+ / 0-)

                      cannot develop faster than three years because such proof does not exist.


                      Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

                      by Jim P on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:52:31 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  So do you think it's ok for these sailors to (0+ / 0-)

                  receive this hit?!

                  I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

                  by the dogs sockpuppet on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:09:09 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am flattered that somebody actually thinks that (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    raincrow, kyril, murrayewv

                    my opinion matters!!

                    Wow, makes me feel like a real person!!!!

                    But actually, that's probably something for the courts to decide.  The larger context is that the US military (and the Navy has been no exception) in being a purveyor and user all of kinds of carcinogens.  So this is just a drop in the bucket.

                    The real litigable issue from a medical POV seems to be acute radiation sickness that some of these sailors allegedly suffered from.  But again I don't have any insight into whether that is any more worthy of financial compensation than say if they came down with massive bouts of food poisoning, like occurred when George Constanza's father was an army cook.

                    •  Roadbed, I am always interested in others' (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      CIndyCasella

                      opinions and I learn a lot by talking to folks here about stuff even if we disagree.  I hope you would do the same with me :)

                      My personal opinion is that we should try to make the world as safe as possible... so that people with p51 mutations or BRACA genes don't take further hits... but then my job is to heal.

                      I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

                      by the dogs sockpuppet on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:18:49 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So maybe everybody who enlists (0+ / 0-)

                        should be given a "free" BRAC1/2  (and for whatever other cancer genes are out there) evaluation of the type that only the Angelina Jolie's among us can currently afford?

                        And then those at risk could be rejected and/or funneled into "safe" lines of service?

                        I dunno, that would seem to be a bit draconian/invasive to me at least.

                        The bottom line is that statistically a huge number of people are going to get cancer, mostly from non-avoidable causes, and this type of risk is so tiny as to be regarded as being negligible.

                        •  How about we just take risks to minimize (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          CIndyCasella

                          radiation exposure to everyone.

                          My job is to first do no harm.

                          I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

                          by the dogs sockpuppet on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:25:26 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  A more sophisticated approach is needed (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kyril, murrayewv

                            than that - for example, that would entail such things as banning air travel, depopulating naturally high radiation areas like Pittsburgh and Denver (as well as certain locations in Iran, India, and China that have hundreds of times high "background" levels of radiation).

                            Basically, that's like saying that everyone's exposure to religion should be minimized (something that I'd be all for, btw) because a few of many people are potentially harmed.  

                            Or maybe alcohol is a better example, I'm not sure.

                            The bottom line is that there are complex trade-offs involved.  For example, wrt to Fukushima it makes sense to me that a small number of people who knowingly signed up for a high-risk job might be exposed to what was probably a low, but potentially measurable, risk to avoid much greater harm to large number of people.  It didn't really necessarily turn out that way, but the tradeoff at the time (and even in retrospect) seem eminently reasonable to me.

                          •  No... How about we just avoid doing things (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            CIndyCasella, worldlotus

                            that will cause large scale nuclear accidents?  We abate radon. People are aware of the risk of flying and getting Xrays. We do the best we can to minimize the risk to ionizing radiation in our life, but as citizens we are hard pressed to avoid when a reactor melts down in our neighborhood.

                            Studies have shown that even 1 CT scan can raise a child's lifetime risk of cancer.  (Multiple studies have documented this). We work really hard to avoid CTs unless they are absolutely necessary and we limit the amount of radiation exposure to the minimal amount necessary to get the picture.

                            It's not black and white... like you have to stop living to avoid radiation... it's like you try to avoid the egregious stuff and I think even you would argue that it is very unfortunate that Fukushima happened and that you would want as few people to be harmed from it as possible.

                            I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

                            by the dogs sockpuppet on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:37:18 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How do you avoid magnitude 9.1 earthquakes (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kyril, Eyesbright, murrayewv

                            which, btw, killed something like 15,000 people from non-radiation causes compared to 0 people from radiation-linked causes?

                            But whatever, people seemed to have a really skewed view of risks that surround them, I'm getting much too old to really care anymore.

                            Which is kinda a shame, because the whole Fukishima thing led to Japan to increase their fossil fuel consumption by an Alberta Tarsands-sized increment, which I've been told (right here at DailyKos!!) is a "game over" scenario wrt global climate change.  So I feel kinda bad for the forthcoming generations.  But again, I'm too old to really care all * that * much.

                          •  The earthquake is over. (3+ / 0-)

                            The Fukushima catastrophe isn't.

                            Your point might be valid in another 30, 40, 50 or more years, when the Fukushima nuclear power plant has been decommissioned.

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 10:15:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't build nuclear power plants on (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Lawrence, worldlotus

                            fault lines.  I agree that people don't understand risk especially when it comes to lethal, rare events such as these, but to say that you don't care that people are suffering from a nuclear accident is hurtful.

                            We have to care (about all of these things) for future generations.

                            I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

                            by the dogs sockpuppet on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 10:15:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  First and foremost, (4+ / 0-)

                            you don't build nuclear reactors in high-risk earthquake zones.

                          •  we abate radon.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Roadbed Guy

                            by fans that spread it into the atmosphere.  The leaking radioactive water is similarly diluted into the ocean.  You are right- in radiation safety class we worked for ALARA- As Low As Reasonably Achievable.  And we assumed no exposure was really safe, just quite low risk.  I doubtless have strontium in my bones from the milk I drank when in the 1950s and 1960s, there was exposure from above ground testing.

                            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                            by murrayewv on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 12:20:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes and you doubtless have radioactive carbon (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            murrayewv

                            in your DNA from the same set of events: How To Date Your Fat Cells With Nuclear Bombs

                            To understand how our bodies regulate our weight, researchers are interested in knowing how the number of fat cells changes over our lifetime - do we stop making more fat cells after adolescence? Do we keep the same fat cells all of our adult lives, or do some die off and get replaced by new ones? The typical way to study the birth and death of cells in live animals is to use radioactive tracers that label DNA, but these experiments are too toxic to try in humans. It turns out though, that the US and Soviet militaries did the experiment for us, with above-ground nuclear bomb tests in the late 1950's, tests which spewed large amounts of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere. That radioactive carbon is now in our DNA (at least for those of us alive during the cold war), and it provides a convenient "manufactured on" date for our long-lived fat cells
                            (btw, the same method works for brain cells, toe cells, or whatever type you are interested in, proving that they (and you!) are long-lived enough to have been around during the cold war).
                          •  So. You want MORE?!? n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            the dogs sockpuppet
                          •  Not really, my number of fat cells is adequate. (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Not really..... (0+ / 0-)

                            I reject ALL nuclear weapons, always.  There is no reason to make them or test them.  They are surely one of the worst, most immoral forms of warfare- far worse than drones, far worse than carpet bombing.  Their effect would linger far beyond our lives, and would injure all life on earth.  Even a targeted epidemic from bioterrorism would be less likely to wipe out the whole of life on earth like a nuclear weapon.

                            The nuclear power industry has risks and should be approached with caution.  But aspects of it have been shown to be pretty safe- other aspects are troubling indeed (Like Fukushima, and what to do with aging plants and long term waste storage).  We should have that conversation more- and in doing so, we should stimulate a lot of people to ask questions and seek their own answers.  By educating ourselves and asking questions, we get a more nuanced understanding of the world and become better decision makers and voters.

                            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                            by murrayewv on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 03:41:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  p53 mutations.....n/t (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        the dogs sockpuppet

                        You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                        by murrayewv on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 12:15:23 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Wouldn't the Reagan sailors have been exposed (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau, CIndyCasella, worldlotus

                  to radiation multiple times while their ship was offshore off Fukushima?

                  The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                  by lysias on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:44:11 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  There were several hundred studies (5+ / 0-)

                claiming tobacco had no negative health effects, including cancer. Tobacco executives were even caught lying to Congress about it.


                Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

                by Jim P on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:45:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  and this is relevant how.... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roadbed Guy

                  are you saying all the scientists here, who are not on the reactor's payroll, are full of shit and somehow corrupt?  Roadbed Guy (and I) are telling you it seems hinky to say that many people developed any kind of cancer from the radiation exposure in 2 (or 3) years.  Even with smoking, it usually takes 20 years.  Even after Chernobyl, the thyroid cancer has taken quite a long time to develop.  We aren't saying it won't ever develop, just that these changes take time.

                  You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                  by murrayewv on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 12:26:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm saying the nuclear industry has provided lies (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau, sangemon, davidincleveland

                    and misinformation, not dozens, but hundreds of times, as experience has proven.

                    And then you get 'scientists' (or so they claim) who quote the lying or misinformed authorities. Surely you know this, there's no way to have missed it.

                    The most famous instance being the guy who wrote up a Chernobyl report for either the IAEA (or WHO?) -- frequently cited to this day -- claiming there were ZERO birth defects as a result, when he had in his hands the reports of Ukrainian, Belarus, and Russian medical personel and epidemiologists citing order-of-magnitude increases in birth defects after Chernobyl.

                    Lying, misdirection, artificially excluding relevant considerations, faulty 'evidence,' cooked studies, a lack of common sense, logic, and reason, the dismissal on no grounds other than 'contradicts x authority who feeds at the nuke tit' of studies and evidence... these are routine among defenders of nukes.

                    There was one asshole here proclaiming loudly and often that he is a scientist (since banned), who put up a study of 100 mice exposed to heavy cs-134 (137?) who didn't develop cancer at all. Well, the mice live 9 months.

                    Then there was the shithead (since banned) who ranted about his vast experience in nuclear energy who kept saying 'the SPEEDI data shows no problem' while ignoring that the range of the stations run a few meters, and that air-currents, density, and topography concentrate isotopes. So that 10, 20 meters away the station would have registered literally thousands of times higher than they did. Then of course, it was 2 years later that TEPCO admitted they suppressed the actual SPEEDI data in the first place.

                    This is routine amongst those who claim that they alone are cloaked in the Priestly Robe of Science. Even though you can find thousands of scientists who tell you nukes are bad; radiation is bad, in the amounts people get exposed to it in the real world and in real life disasters.

                    Just like it was with the defenders of tobacco; the scientists who claimed agent orange had no effects on troops until they had to admit it (and go look at Vietnam's deformed rates); the scientists who claimed Desert Storm didn't cause widespread health problems (until they had to); and we've just seen scientists claim that Depleted Uranium did not contribute to the stunning rates of deformed children and cancers that have since popped up in Fallujah and Basra. Although both Iraqi doctors and the large number of Western doctors there to help can count and do even arithmetic to work out percentages.

                    In short: there's Science, then there's $cience. The $cientists routinely lie, and the innocent people who rely on the 'authority' of the $cientists are confused. There's no real science when you ignore and suppress data; confound estimates based on faulty assumptions with hard facts (such as counting stats of actual populations); nor when one merely parrots what people with a career/financial stake conclude about a thing.

                    All of the actual history of the 2nd-half 20th C confirms this.

                    As to the topic of development times for cancer the facts on the ground are these:  

                    In November 2013 [2 yrs 8 months after the meltdowns], another report from the Fukushima Prefectural Government revealed that more children have been diagnosed with confirmed or suspected thyroid cancer. The number of children diagnosed with thyroid cancer was 59.
                    Of course, they say maybe it had nothing to do with Fukushima, we'll need more study.

                    So let's go to what the report says:

                    https://ajw.asahi.com/...
                    The latest figures show 12 people per 100,000 who were aged 18 or younger at the time of the accident developing thyroid cancer.

                    That compares with an average of 1.7 people per 100,000 in the general population between the ages of 15 and 19 who contracted the cancer in 2007, according to statistics taken in four prefectures, including nearby Miyagi.

                    The current results are based on the latest round of testing, which covered an additional 33,000 young people in Fukushima Prefecture. To date, the prefectural government has released test results for about 226,000 people.

                    They add that the screening is more intensive that previously, because of the disaster, so it might be finding higher rates. But it's simple enough to check: Before Fukushima how many of the cohort studied developed thyroid cancer? Was it vastly higher than the 2007 '1.7 per 100,000'?

                    Because right now like it or not there's a hell of a lot of children showing cancer, and thyroid abnormalities, in both percentages and by actual count. And in under three years.

                    Make that go away.


                    Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

                    by Jim P on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 01:27:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  To get started (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            newton123, raincrow, kyril, murrayewv

            Here's a NYT link

            The blast was horrific, yet many survived its radiation. RERF has followed some 54,000 people who received high doses of radiation from the bombs, along with another 40,000 people, located several miles from the bombs' hypocenters, who received low doses. (Another 26,000 provide a control group.) Thanks to Japan's koseki family registration system and cancer registries established in Hiroshima and Nagasaki hospitals by the late 1950s, nearly every member of RERF's life-span study, as it is known, has been successfully tracked for decades.

            Given RERF's fearful origins and the study's scale, its findings can seem confounding in their modesty, especially this central result: Out of the atomic survivors tracked by RERF -- nearly 100,000 people -- only 853 cases of cancerous tumors, so far, can be attributed to the bombs.

            Basically, this means that by following a large cohort of people who have been exposed to large (or varying) amounts of radiation for decades, the "excess" number of cases of cancers  * can * be teased out.

            This would NOT have been possible over 18 months, the time frame of this diary.

            The reason is that it is very difficult to get cancer from radiation - cells are well equipped to repair "background" and even substantially higher levels of DNA damage from radiation.

            If doses exceed that, chances are that not only DNA will be damaged, but most other cellular molecules (proteins, lipids, etc) such that a person will come down with acute radiation sickness.  Some such people die, others live.  

            In between the two extremes there is a narrow "window" where DNA damage that can lead to cancer occurs, but not such a great amount of damage that radiation sickness takes place.  Again, it must be emphasized that for acute exposure, this is a NARROW window.

            By doing independent googling, it appears that the US Navy personnel involved in the incident in this diary essentially all had acute radiation sickness, from which they recovered.  

            Whether that is litigation-able or not, I really have no idea.

        •  I agree..... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy, raincrow, mamooth, kyril

          this whole story is very unlikely.  This would be somehow a 1% cancer rate in 3 years.  Folks on CBS reporting on it in March are discussing things like miscarriages and "lumps."  http://www.cbsnews.com/...

          It isn't true that the military don't monitor exposure to toxins and radiation.  My sister worked on a big military contract to develop the software to do this.  No doubt these folks are anxious and concerned that they have increased risk because of their exposure.  But it isn't like it was a nuclear explosion.  WHO doesn't think there is a high risk of cancer from this.

          http://www.cbsnews.com/...

          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

          by murrayewv on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 08:23:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I know you come from a specific viewpoint. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CIndyCasella, davidincleveland

      I'm afraid that biology does not back you up on this one!

      I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

      by the dogs sockpuppet on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:08:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  With 54 (so far) (7+ / 0-)

      cases of thyroid cancer and suspected thyroid cancer in the ~240,000 children tested from the Fuku evacuation zone and known contamination regions (Japan's level for required evac is several times what it was at Chernobyl) - some showing up before the 2-year mark - I'd say it's entirely possible sailors who spent any appreciable time in the plume received enough thyroid dose to be suspicious of. Leukemias aren't exactly common in this demographic either, but that plume did contain tons of fuel 'fleas', fuel isotopes and every gnarly daughter/fission product you can name.

      The captain of the Reagan reported "skyshine" (gamma) from the plume at ~130 miles out to be high enough to well exceed allowable dosage - .6 mr/hr - and the fleet commander informed NRC Op-Center of that right away because the plume was heading east toward U.S. territories. Beta-gamma air sample from the deck at the same location returned 7.5 times 10 to the minus 9th microcuries per milliliter. That's considerable exposure. The water system would not have been a likely culprit at this distance, most ocean contamination that early on was fallout from aerial plumes, not direct water releases (corium still hadn't melted through containments).

      The Reagan group and other Naval vessels in the area were quickly moved to the western coast of Japan.

    •  What about pre-existing exposure because (0+ / 0-)

      of working on a nuclear-powered carrier?

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:40:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You don't understand the Navy nulear power program (0+ / 0-)

        The reactors are heavily shielded and crew wear dosimeters with their uniforms to monitor exposure through out their careers.  The Navy's nuclear power program is actually one of the safest in the world.  Safety systems are highly redundant and the crew responsible for their operation are highly trained.

        In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

        by Cixelsyd on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 07:14:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This doesn't quite add up... (10+ / 0-)

    US Navy CVNs (as well as all classes of submarines) use heat from their reactors to (indirectly) distill seawater. As a result, what's getting to the potable water system is pretty close to pure water.

    The evaporators are monitored by the same people (MM(N)/ELTs) who are responsible for radiological safety and the chemical composition of the primary and secondary reactor systems. It's pretty hard to believe that they didn't notice they were taking in radioactive material given how often they sample and test.

    •  orders are orders. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau

      ....

      •  The water is distilled. (5+ / 0-)

        That means all that could be in it from Fukushima is tritium and dissolved gases. They do re-mineralize, but not with what was removed by the upstream demineralizer. I don't think the ocean plume was that considerable in the time frame of when the Reagan, et al. were in the vicinity. The measured (by the Reagan) aerial plume was enough to cause immediate redeployment to the west coast of Japan.

        So I don't see the water purification system aboard as being a big consideration here for exposures. That aerial plume and its fallout would have been plenty. Also any decon teams once they were out of the area, as the decks had to be darned contaminated from fallout.

    •  Would they have used distilled water (0+ / 0-)

      to wash down the decks?

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:46:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  All of the fresh water aboard ship (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lysias, worldlotus

        comes from the same purification system. That means all of the drinking, cleaning, and cooking water. The only things saltwater is used for are flushing and firefighting.

        "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

        by kyril on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 11:18:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, it's impossible to believe. (0+ / 0-)

      The sensors function automatically. And the tracks are recorded to disk.

  •  Diarist removed offending source link in good (9+ / 0-)

    faith.

    I can understand how innocent the source error may have been-not everyone keeps tabs on who is & is not some racist controversial figure.

    Please remove the HR's since diarist is merely reporting a news report & has removed the offending source.

    •  When HR and CT brigade arrive, it's a hot topic (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      suspiciousmind, newpioneer, corvo

      the PTB are assiduously censoring.

      We should start a Fukushima group here on DailyKos and cover this topic as much as possible in response.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 08:11:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raincrow

        There is one HR in this entire thread--and it's on the tip jar.  No offense to the Kossack who dropped it, but I've never heard of them.

        I also haven't seen any CT accusations.

        What HR & CT are you referring to?  And who's the "brigade????"

        •  The HR was dropped (6+ / 0-)

          because I originally liked to a toxic source. I have removed those links. I wish the commenter would remove their HR but I doubt that will happen. She seems to be long gone.

          •  I Understand That (3+ / 0-)

            But I'm specifically asking who CC is referring to as the "HR & CT Brigade"

            •  we can infer at least two (4+ / 0-)

              campionrules and Librarianmom both had HRed at some point. There may have been more, but all the HRs were gone by the time I read the diary.

              Cindy owes those people, and any others, an apology. They and the diarist all handled the situation well. She did not. The notion that those HRs -- which would be damn near mandatory if the diarist had stood by that source -- evince "a hot topic the PTB are assiduously censoring" is... silly. (But obviously the diarist had no intention of standing by that source; it was an honest goof, and I've made a similar mistake myself.)

              "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

              by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:34:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Those HRs were there way too long after he (0+ / 0-)

                removed the links.  The comments they made to him speak for themselves.

                Please blockquote what I said that I should apologize for.

                Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 01:03:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  do you feel I quoted you out of context? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  davidincleveland
                  When HR and CT brigade arrive, it's a hot topic the PTB are assiduously censoring.
                  Status: nonsense.
                  Those HRs were there way too long after he removed the links.
                  Ridiculous. Maybe you have nothing to do all morning except to refresh DKos diaries to see whether someone has updated them yet, but that is no basis for smearing other people.
                  The comments they made to him speak for themselves.
                  I would agree, but apparently they speak differently to me than to you.

                  "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

                  by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 02:09:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  One commenter recommended he delete diary (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sangemon

                over the link and even added in a weak criticism that the diary is "old news" after it hit the rec list:

                Different Source: This is old news as well (6+ / 0-)
                http://www.utsandiego.com/....

                The initial suit has been dismissed apparently but may be re-filed.

                I recommend checking your source carefully and perhaps deleting and re-submitting this diary minus the link to Turner.

                Look, I tried to be reasonable...

                by campionrules on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 10:20:46 AM EST

                [ Reply to This |  Recommend   Hide ]

                This suggestion to delete the diary after it hit the rec list is an overreaction to a toxic link which was swiftly removed and would have in essence pressured this diarist to remove his diary which had made the rec list and resubmit it another time when it likely would not again make the rec list.

                I am so glad I spoke up in favor of the diarist who removed the link, because this very worthwhile diary stayed on the rec list all day as it should have, where it was read by many more people.  

                If you reread all the different comments that piled on the diarist and had been here in real time instead of after the fact, you would have seen how this was unfair to the diary and the diarist and to all of us here at dailykos.

                Now, who owes who an apology?

                Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 01:34:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  you still owe the apologies (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  davidincleveland
                  One commenter recommended he delete diary over the link and even added in a weak criticism that the diary is "old news" after it hit the rec list:
                  "Recommended" is an exaggeration in light of the "perhaps." As for the "weak criticism," the diarist thanked campionrules in the update for pointing out that the original lawsuit was no longer in force. So, in fact, that comment -- and sangemon's appropriate response to it -- materially improved the diary. That is exactly how DKos ought to work.
                  This suggestion to delete the diary after it hit the rec list is an overreaction
                  Amazing. Someone writes, "I recommend checking your source carefully and perhaps deleting and re-submitting this diary..."; you post about "the HR and CT brigade"  (apparently in cahoots with the PTB somehow?); and then you accuse the other poster of an "overreaction." I could not make this stuff up. I cannot convey how surprising I find it.
                  I am so glad I spoke up in favor of the diarist who removed the link, because this very worthwhile diary stayed on the rec list all day as it should have, where it was read by many more people.
                  It's great that the diarist was able to fix the diary expeditiously. Maybe it's even great that you "spoke up in favor of the diarist," but that isn't what you did in the comment I quoted.

                  "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

                  by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 02:26:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Here is an example of a CT accusation: (0+ / 0-)
                    Someone should have told the diarist that the conspiracy ration for today has already been distributed and  eaten.

                    Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                    by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:19:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Cindy, you're obfuscating (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm willing to assume that it's unintentional, but it's no less annoying for that.

                      Surely, in some part of yourself, you must realize that for someone to wander into the diary around 1:30 PM Eastern and use the word "conspiracy" -- however outrageous you may consider that, for whatever unstated reasons -- cannot possibly justify a comment you wrote over two hours earlier. No?

                      "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

                      by HudsonValleyMark on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 04:14:26 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  I removed the HR…had to take the kids to school. (7+ / 0-)
        •  Here's a CT accusation for ya: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sangemon
          To form a Fukushima group, get a list of people (0+ / 0-)
          who believe the USG brought down the WTC and/or Bldg 7.

          After all, they're such great scientists . . .  .

          Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

          by oblomov

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 01:16:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Please define (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, davidincleveland

        "CT" and "PTB"

        Thanks

      •  There already is a Fukushima group (8+ / 0-)

        FWIW, this story needs data and confirmation to support pretty extraordinary claims.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

        by FishOutofWater on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 08:38:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'd note... (4+ / 0-)

    ...that after every industrial incident of any kind, there are inevitably some people who claim that whatever sickness they've developed has resulted due to the incident.

    Or sometimes not even due to an incident. Remember the thousands of lawsuits about silicone breast implants that awarded millions of dollars that turned out to have been complete and total bullshit?

    I'd also be suspicious that a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, carrying a complement of nuclear engineers and equipped with radiation detectors as part of its normal equipment, somehow didn't notice they were supposedly bringing in contaminated water for a month. The sensitivity of normal detectors (non-military, at least), which can be set off for very low levels of contamination, often from natural sources, makes me wonder how, exactly, people were supposedly walking around for any period of time without detectors going off continuously.

    •  knowledge vs action. (0+ / 0-)

      I don't doubt the decision makers knew, but
      the problem was the actions taken by command.

      •  There were 6000 people on that ship (8+ / 0-)

        With radiation detectors going off everywhere on the ship (which, if their clothing was supposedly washed in such water as is claimed, they would have to be), no one, including the people in the lawsuit, noticed or mentioned them, then or afterwards? C'mon, really?

        And what about the crews on the other ships in the Reagan battle group, (Chancellorsville and Destroyer Squadron 7) who also would have been exposed to the exact same magically radioactive water?

        In point of fact, the detectors picked up radiation on the very first day when the ship was approaching (that's how sensitive they are), and they took up immediate safety measures for increased monitoring and measures to deal with dust transfer from their choppers that flew to the mainland. So the idea that they then sat ignorantly sucking up radioactive water for a month and no one noticed quite simply beggars belief.

      •  You don't doubt that the decision-makers (on the (0+ / 0-)

        ship or off) knew the water was radioactive enuf to cause cancers so soon?

        You will say anything to avoid looking into your empty bucket.

        Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

        by oblomov on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 10:51:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah. Those teenage (5+ / 0-)

      and twenty-something sailors are certainly a sickly lot. Why, a majority of Naval hospitals worldwide spend almost all their time dealing with cancerous NCOs...

      [/snark]

  •  So now we know that the radiation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, worldlotus

    has now traveled into the North Atlantic and is in the fish there, according to what I have read.  What about all of the Pacific fish, including the fish we eat from Alaska?   I think that this disaster is an epic one and that it still is as bad today as it was when it first happened.  How can we humans even think that nuclear power will ever be safe?  It cannot be and we better do something to end this mess as a world or it will cancer us all just like the 51 sailors.

  •  its only getting worse (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus, corvo

    cancer doesnt care about spin, lies dont change the reality of reality.

    http://enenews.com/...

  •  Since the wind was blowing the radiation out to (6+ / 0-)

    sea virtually the whole time after the accident and the Fukushima plant was also leaking high levels of radiation into the sea, being at sea on an aircraft carrier that uses desalination for its water supplies probably was just about the worst place that one could be.

    It doesn't take all that much radiation exposure to make you sick and Fukushima was using the very dangerous MOX fuel rods, so all this aircraft carrier had to do to be in extreme danger was to go through one hot spot with desalination pumps gurgling or one hot spot with high levels of airborne radiation for the crew to be in extreme danger.

    When one considers the fact that Plutonium is just about the most dangerous substance on earth and that one tiny particle can kill you, then it becomes obvious that any and all nuclear power that creates plutonium is literally completely insane.

    Tipped and recced because you switched to a credible news source.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 08:24:10 AM PST

  •  This has had coverage for at least a year (0+ / 0-)

    See the links for the following Dec 2012 YouTube.

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    Stars and Stripes also published on this in Dec 2012.

    Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

    by raincrow on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 09:28:25 AM PST

  •  I'm calling B.S. on this one (5+ / 0-)

    since the Ronald Reagan has several nuclear power plants to drive its engines.  They are very well equipped to handle nuclear environments.

    plus, for these kind of illnesses to occur the sailors had to be exposed to a massive dose, resulting in radiation poisoning.  This would have been well documented.

    Finally, there is no mention of 51 sailors in the lawsuit, only 7.  There is screening being done to see if they were exposed but no proof of exposure has been demonstrated.  Also there is no record of the sailors with illnesses that I can find.

    •  Evaporators (4+ / 0-)

      The drinking water theory holds no water, as the distilling units would have removed any contamination. Solid isotopes would have gone out with the brine, and gaseous isotopes (caesium and iodine) would have been sucked out by the air ejectors.

      (Why yes, I have run such units.)

      None of the 7 sailors of the lawsuit are nuclear-power qualified. No nuke sailor would have ever joined such a lawsuit, given how contrary to reality all the claims of the lawsuit are.

      •  Tritium........ (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lysias, worldlotus, davidincleveland

        .....

        Associated Press, Dec. 3, 2013: Experts on [the Japan government's contaminated water] panel also proposed establishing a special team to focus on how to deal with massive amounts of tritium, the only isotope that cannot be removed chemically by existing technology. [...] U.S. officials evaporated tritium water at the Three Mile Island plant following the 1979 accident, but the method is not recommended for Fukushima, where there is too much and it is likely to come back as tritium rain.

        I'm really pissed off this time

        by suspiciousmind on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 11:15:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's what the EPA says about tritium. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          davidincleveland
          As with all ionizing radiation, exposure to tritium increases the risk of developing cancer. However, because it emits very low energy radiation and leaves the body relatively quickly, for a given amount of activity ingested, tritium is one of the least dangerous radionuclides. Since tritium is almost always found as water, it goes directly into soft tissues and organs. The associated dose to these tissues are generally uniform and dependent on the tissues' water content.

          . . .

          EPA has established standards for the maximum amount of tritium that may be released by nuclear facilities, and that may be found in drinking water. In addition, before being approved for public use, sites previously contaminated with tritium must meet EPA's risk-based criteria for soil and ground water. These criteria set a person's increased risk of developing cancer from exposure to tritium at a cleaned-up site as being no more than a 1-in-10,000 to a 1-in-1,000,000 chance.

          I wonder how levels of tritium at Fukushima compare to levels at "cleaned-up sites".

          The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

          by lysias on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 11:28:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The latency period for radiation-induced cancer (5+ / 0-)

    is on the order of 5-7 years for leukemia, 10 years at least for solid cancers, as discussed in Hall's "Radiobiology for the Radiologist."  The claims mentioned here are just not consistent with the hypothesis that Fukushima caused the cancer.  Scientific understanding can always make room for new observations, but I think this court case should be treated with a grain of salt barring the kind of extraordinary evidence needed to upend the established understanding in the subject.

    •  So... you don't think (4+ / 0-)

      the drastic increase in childhood thyroid cancers among Fuku-area children [from ~1 per million prior to 3-11 to 54 per 240,000 as of the latest reports] could be related to iodine-131 exposures from Daiichi? Leukemias show up as well within a 1-2 year time frame, as established by several workers at TMI2 during decommissioning.

      Basing all hazards of radiation exposures on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is misguided, as is basing on the Chernobyl aftermath, due to the time lag in beginning the evaluations and record keeping. Why, European and UK studies - and one from here in the US - have shown that simply living within 3-5 miles of an operating nuke doubles childhood cancer risk. A risk that disappears, by the way, if the plant is shut down.

      •  There are expert consensus views on the subject (0+ / 0-)

        Expertise is required to design controlled studies and interpret the results in this subject area, and there are conclusive findings about some aspects.  These are mentioned in the references of first recourse such as Eric J. Hall's textbook (which has further bibliographic citations if you're interested in the basis for the latency numbers).  As I said, there is always room for scientific understanding to evolve.  I have no idea what the provenance is for your Japanese leukemia claims, or that of the unnamed European / US studies, or the TMI claim (which would seem to have no statistical value on account of sample), but I will simply point out that public discussions about Fukushima tend to get overrun by a massive tide of pseudo-expertise, cherry-picking, and anti-intellectualism of the "industry taint" cop-out variety.  Under such climate, I think the best thing any participant can do is point to information that can be considered reliable, sourced, scientific, and consensus-based.  And applying that to the claim that some sailors got cancer from Fukushima, we learn that it is not consistent and should be treated with heightened scrutiny.

      •  From Wikipedia (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cwillis, Roadbed Guy
        As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole. The government says the recent cases are unlikely to be connected with the Fukushima releases as it generally takes several years after radiation exposure for thyroid cancer to develop and similar patterns occurred before the accident in 2006 in Japan, with 1 in 100,000 children per year developing thyroid cancer in that year, that is, this is not higher than the pre-accident rate.[27][28]

        As a point of comparison, thyroid cancer incidence rates after the Chernobyl accident of 1986 did not begin to increase above the prior baseline value of about 0.7 cases per 100,000 people per year, until 1989 to 1991, 3 to 5 years after the accident in both the adolescent and children age groups, therefore data from Chernobyl suggests that an increase in thyroid cancer around Fukushima is not expected to begin to be seen until at least 3 to 5 years after the accident.[27][28]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        It is infants with the highest risk, because their cells will undergo more cell divisions in their lives compared with an older person.  So if they have a single mutation, this increases likelihood a second mutation will show up.

        You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

        by murrayewv on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In the children the risk is increased to..... (0+ / 0-)

          1/100,000 (which is a 70% increase) so that is why 50/5000 on the ship having thyroid cancer just seemed too high.

          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

          by murrayewv on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 12:39:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, yeah. ALWAYS (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jim P, davidincleveland

          trust "the government" to reassure people that because the Soviets didn't start keeping records on childhood thyroid cancer until 3-5 years after Chernobyl, thyroid cancer cannot develop faster than 3-5 years. By the way (just so you know), it's been 2 years and 9 months plus a week since Daiichi's disaster.

          •  If your insinuation is that Japan is lying (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            murrayewv

            about its thyroid cancer statistics, then you'd better present a case!  Planting the seed of doubt on something like this bears consequences for the people being blamed (directly or by insinuation) for dishonesty, AND for the people who rely on the presumption of accuracy in reported statistics.  And it is irresponsible to sow this kind of doubt casually and without a real foundation.

            The ongoing insinuation that governments, academics, privately-employed radiation and nuclear professionals, etc. are stupid (to wit., see your above argument about record keeping vs. cancer latency) or plausibly engaged in systematic dishonesty at Fukushima is increasingly the last word in comments you make, Joieau.  You tried to sow distrust of radiation detection technology developed by government or industry in the last thread we engaged on.  In a word, this stuff is a credibility problem for you.  

            •  My credibility is fine, thanks. (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't say Japan is "lying" about their thyroid cancer statistics, I am saying that 1:100,000 is a significantly lower rate than 59:240,000.

              A sudden rise of that magnitude must have a cause, and that cause is probably not a chronic lack of iodine in children's diets in northeastern Japan. The notion is absurd. In fact, the two notable risk factors for papillary and follicular thyroid cancer [per ACS] are a lack of iodine in the diet and radiation. Japan is an island nation with a normal diet of high in seafood, which is high in natural iodine. Japan is also an island nation where nearly 3 years ago at least 3 multi-megawatt reactors melted down, through and out, 4 reactor buildings blew up, and at least one overloaded spent fuel pool burned for days. The causal element here isn't difficult to pinpoint.

              This doesn't mean the Japanese government isn't lying, of course. They've been caught lying about All Things Fukushima literally hundreds of times over the past 2 years, 9 months and 7 days. This would be nothing new, and even a majority of the Japanese people no longer credit what they have to say.

              All nuclear governments lie about nuclear things. That's part of the dues nations pay to be part of the nuclear club.

              •  What I mean by "credibility problem" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                murrayewv, Roadbed Guy

                is when you claim, with some conviction of authority:

                The causal element here isn't difficult to pinpoint.
                Compare your assertion with:
                It is difficult to make a simple comparison, however. Thyroid cancer usually goes undetected in children unless they develop pronounced symptoms. The thyroid testing now being done in Fukushima Prefecture covers all healthy children and is designed for early detection of minor symptoms associated with the cancer.  Prefectural officials said it is unlikely there is a link between the young people’s exposure to radiation and the increased number of suspected and confirmed cancer cases to date.
                https://ajw.asahi.com/...

                It sounds like the public health authorities that released this data don't agree with your judgment, and furthermore, have a very mundane explanation for the larger number: the post-Fukushima implementation of a screening program to detect minor symptoms (the 59 identified as possible cancer cases are not all confirmed cases).  Those views are also consistent with Eric Hall and any number of other first-recourse texts on the subject as it is presently understood.

                What I mean by a credibility problem is the posture of authoritative wisdom that is, in fact, pseudoexpertise and unsupported.  Anybody can make conjectures or ask questions, and those can be the hallmark of curious or incisive thinking.  However, it takes a special brand of arrogance--even dishonesty--to peddle eccentric and unsupported views as settled matters, intuitively obvious, or the like.  I would like to see these discussions--and your contributions in particular--hew toward a higher standard of scholarship.

                •  Unless you get vaporized (0+ / 0-)

                  on the spot, they're never going to admit your cancer was most likely caused by the excess radioactive crap they dumped on you. Everybody knows this - it's been that way for ~70 years at least - so what makes you think Fuku would be any different?

                  I honestly don't care what you choose to believe. You needn't credit anything I have to say, no skin off my teeth. As someone who has some experience with melting reactors and their radiological aftermaths, I will say what is obvious to me. "Out loud" so to speak, even. You are not required to like it. Rapidly increasing childhood thyroid cancer rates in northeastern Japan is not a "scholarly" subject for those children or their parents. So you'll just have to deal with reality as it is presenting itself instead. Or not, your choice. Which has nothing to do with me.

                  But if you're going to call me "dishonest," don't be shy. Come right on out with it. It'll make you feel much better, I'm sure.

                  •  Just stop pulling stuff out of you-know-where. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    murrayewv, Roadbed Guy

                    I think you would get more respect (certainly from me) if you pitched your concerns in the following manner, for example:

                    I am worried about the rise in thyroid cancer in Japan, which is correlated with the Fukushima accident, and I think that correlation may imply causation because, well, radiation causes cancer.  Admittedly this conclusion is not consistent with some of what I've read from supposedly knowledgeable people.  What information might I be missing that would lead a public health officer or a radiation biologist to avoid the conclusion that these cancers are attributable to Fukushima? Could they be wrong?
                    I'm sure you can spot the difference between my example and your currently-adopted posture of abrasive condescension toward scientific, governmental, and industry subject-matter expertise.  You'd cede no goodwill toward the people afflicted by the disaster by adopting a heightened standard of self-scrutiny on some of what you write.

                    As I already pointed out with the reference quoted, the larger number of possible thyroid cases (59) identified as a result of the screening program does not necessarily point to an abnormal incidence of cancer.  It may simply be due to the screening program's ability to detect likely cases before they would have otherwise come to attention due to symptoms.  As regards the afflicted families, I would counter that their children's cancer (or possible cancer) IS a "scholarly subject" AND a personal catastrophe AT THE SAME TIME.  Science provides a path to understand the disease and treat it.  Science helps apportion, statistically of course, the probability of causation from various events, leading to improved avoidance in the future, improved screening, and improved allocation of resources for caring for people with the disease.  

                    •  And to expand further.... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Roadbed Guy

                      Japan has a long and sincere interest in tracking incidences of radiation caused cancer.  They are doing a much better job than many in did in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine after Chernobyl.

                      This link indicates there in indeed likely to be increased risk of thyroid cancer, possibly worldwide.  It points out people are tracking the radiation and that they are tracking cancer rates, not covering it up.  
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

                      It also points out the risk begins 5 years after exposure and will continue for up to 40 years, as Roadbed Guy was trying to explain.  When someone doesn't agree with a news story and points out why they think is is suspicious, it is not helpful to accuse them of a cover-up.  I agree that it is better to state you are concerned and want a simpler explanation that you can understand.  Mistakes were surely made at Fukushima, and the US military and atomic power industry experts were among those exposing those mistakes.  So suspicion is in some ways justified.  But some here just find nuclear power unacceptable as risk and therefore mistrust all data coming from this investigation.  It is better to say you reject that risk.  Then we can compare risks, like the very real risk of cancer and heart disease and asthma from living with coal fired power plants.

                      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                      by murrayewv on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 03:15:45 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  I found this link, carrying the story highlighted (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus, davidincleveland

    here by sangemon.  It is here.  I do not know how good it is, but it had many other updates from various media outlets.

    Mix the blood and make new people!

    by Yonkers Boy on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 10:24:32 AM PST

  •  I wonder how irradiated the USS Ronald Reagan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus

    is? It sounds like the entire ship may have been contaminated. Where is it docked now?

    •  The only news item I have found of use (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau, worldlotus

      of the USS Ronald Reagan since Fukushima is a story about Marine helicopters doing takeoff and landing exercises on the ship off the coast of San Diego on Dec. 6.  Marines conduct rotary wing operations aboard USS Ronald Reagan.

      Sounds like the sort of exercise that could be done with a minimal crew on board.  Just the sort of use you might expect for a crippled aircraft carrier.

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 11:04:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Any evidence? (0+ / 0-)

        This:

        Sounds like the sort of exercise that could be done with a minimal crew on board.  Just the sort of use you might expect for a crippled aircraft carrier.
        is nothing more than rank speculation.  Unless you have something to back it up, it adds nothing to the knowledge base for this conversation.

        In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

        by Cixelsyd on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 02:01:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am a retired naval officer. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau, worldlotus

          Let us call it informed speculation.

          And anyone who doubts my speculation is free to find evidence of any other use of the Ronald Reagan since Fukushima that I have not been able to find.

          The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

          by lysias on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 02:36:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Multiple problems: (0+ / 0-)

            First, you made the extraordinary claims that The Ronald Reagan is "crippled" because it is contaminated with radiation and the Navy is hiding that fact.  The burden is on you to establish those claims, not on anyone else to disprove them.

            Second, why would the Navy be using the Ronald Reagan for anything if it were contaminated?  Your "training with minimal crew to avoid exposure" doesn't hold up to basic logic.  Why not park the thing and decontaminate it?  Why send it out for ANY training exercises?

            Third, it took me approximately five minutes to find additional uses of the Ronald Reagan via Google.  Turns out, it spent 9 days in November conducting a surface warfare training exercise with 7 other ships in numerous simulated scenarios.

            http://www.navy.mil/...

            http://www.navy.mil/...

            Sounds like business as usual to me.

            Finally,  Fukushima was in March 2011.  The Ronald Reagan has not only been sent to sea multiple times since that date (including 5 months of additional sailing immediately following Fukushima), but it was also in dry dock for all of 2012 undergoing major planned maintenance, so your theory that it is a "crippled ship" is nonsense.

            http://www.gonavy.jp/...

            As I stated before: rank speculation.

            In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

            by Cixelsyd on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 06:55:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not buying this... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eyesbright, murrayewv

    As a nuclear carrier, many of the crew would have been required to wear dosimeters.  The Navy is actually very careful with radiation exposure and if sailors were taking on enough radiation to get cancer this quickly, I'm guessing their levels would have been through the roof.

    In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

    by Cixelsyd on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 11:16:31 AM PST

  •  You guys grok Stars & Stripes. (0+ / 0-)

    That's where the story came to light.

    I cited it above.

    Here's the LINK

    Thing is, background radiation from such as rocks is next to nothing. A month of it is also next to nothing.

    Meanwhile, a third of people are going to get cancer sooner or later.

    And yes, the reactors hit the mark for "cold shutdown" a year ago.  That's "cold" for a shut down reactor, not cold to touch. The water in the pool is not generating significant pressure any more. IAEA has the detail -- they're the guys who monitor nukes.

  •  Well first, YES Desalinization... but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus

    sea water is full of all manner of nasty stuff, that water is filtered and treated, and no radioactive uranium, cesium, etc is getting through to irradiate the crew.

    I'd be a lot more concerned with the air quality if the ships were brought near the site.... how far off shore were the operating from? 10 miles, 50 miles, 200 miles?

    Way too much 'bogey man" scarey ignorance around radioactive whatever.

    Also, cancer is not the flu, it takes time to develop, it hasn't been that long, I'm no expert but it would take one hell of an exposure to trigger near instant cases of cancer. I would think such exposure levels would have more immediate and obvious side-effects and symptoms to tip you off that the person had been exposed to radiation/chemical poisoning.

    My first question is .... what is the % likelihood of cancer in a population size of 5,000+ of 18-50 yrs old? Second, what is the cancer rate seen on the other 13 Aircraft Carrier battle-groups?

    Just saying, before going full war path, there are some basic scientific questions that need answering.

  •  I asked the Army's chief doctor about Gulf War (5+ / 0-)

    Syndrome back when I was working in the Pentagon in the summer of 1992 (I did so because I was asked to do so by my boss, who was one of the Pentagon's chief lawyers,) and the doctor assured me there was nothing to it.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 11:47:17 AM PST

  •  Some additional resources (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sangemon, Joieau

    “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

    by ozsea1 on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 12:38:27 PM PST

  •  Utah Sailor who is now sick..just one story (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, lysias, WakeUpNeo, sangemon, worldlotus

    Here's a local news story of a Utah sailor who assisted with the Fukushima rescue efforts and is now sick.  These servicemen need answers and acknowledgment:

    http://www.military.com/...

  •  I stopped eating seafood from the pacific (4+ / 0-)

    and Alaska for this very reason. Especially if the the seafood says "Product of China".

    "It's no measure of health being well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"

    by buckshot face on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 01:26:57 PM PST

    •  I don't eat any kind of food (4+ / 0-)

      that has "Product of China" on the label. My organs no more need plasticizing than they need radionuclides.

      •  Yup, if they'll kill their neighbors babies to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau, worldlotus

        make a Yen then I nor my critters are eating anything from China if I can help it.....

        Though almost every brand of dog food, even the high end stuff uses Chinese vitamin mix and they claim they can't get it anywhere else....

        sucks trying to go full on free of any Chinese ingredients.

        Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
        I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
        Emiliano Zapata

        by buddabelly on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 03:10:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Recently had a dear dog (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          worldlotus, buddabelly

          near death from 'Valley Fever' (a very strange migrating bat story, but we nearly lost him). He lost 20 pounds in 10 days, appetite stimulant just made him drool. Vet told me to make him some chicken rice soup. Leave out some of the veggies (kept diced potatoes) and all of the extra salt. He gained it all back over the past month, is back to his old self. A big pot batch made with your basic 5-pack of backs and 2 cups of rice fed both my dogs - a shepherd mix and large border collie - for 5 days, morning and night. Kept in 'fridge, nuked [heh] to warm. For the collie (the sick one), I'd add a beaten duck egg when heating. We get those free from our pekins.

          Cheap rice is... cheap. ~$2.50 for 5 pounds, which will make 4 batches. 'Older' backs pack is a couple of dollars depending on where you shop. Did use the turkey carcass after T-giving too. Simply a matter of boiling the bones and whatever meat/fat is still attached until it falls apart, fish out the bones and divvy the meat/edibles into no-big-chunks, toss the bones but keep the broth/stuff. Add rice and any veggies you've checked aren't bad for dogs. Even a buck a day to feed two large dogs isn't that bad of a deal. Though their usual fare is dry Purina. Did have to ration at the last, the shepherd was quickly putting on weight even though I mostly used it just to moisten/flavor up her dry food so she wouldn't be jealous.

          If you look on some of the bags, primary ingredients often boil down to chicken rice soup. And the cheap chicken parts I got (yes, from the bargain bin) I boiled down for broth and pullings weren't cancerous. As so much chicken plant throw-aways are, that go into pet food.

          The cats, however, have different tastes... §;o)

  •  "Now I am become Death... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, BvueDem, worldlotus

    ...destroyer of worlds."  Oppenheimer

    "With the splitting of the atom everything changed save man's (sic) way of thinking, and thus we drift toward unknown peril."  Einstein

    With the acquisition of  nuclear energy, humankind has taken into it's own tiny hands the awesome, god-like power of the universe, thereby creating the next mandate for evolution:
    We must change our way of thinking; we must evolve our moral consciousness.  We must match the god-like power of our technologies with parallel wisdom of consciousness, because...

    We have created death writ large across the planet.
    Therefore, I would ask only that you treat this subject and the people who write on it with the utmost respect.  This is what evolution demands of us.

    “...the class which has the power to rob upon a large scale has also the power to control the government and legalize their robbery.” Eugene Debs

    by dharmasyd on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 02:50:38 PM PST

  •  Why can't we find more reliable sources on this? (0+ / 0-)

    Someone sent me the "toxic" link on this and when I checked out the source I just discarded it. Can't we interview the numerous people this is supposed to be affecting?

  •  A couple of questions (0+ / 0-)

    A modern warship working in an area with known radiation dangers, and it took an outside warning to pick it up? The Reagan is powered by nuclear reactors. Nobody was monitoring anything? They should be watching for radiation from any source even under 'normal' conditions. No alarms went off?

    Further, if the crew of the Reagan was exposed, what of Japanese civilians? There ought to be similar health problems cropping up among them if the radiation is that pervasive. Given how things have been going in Japan and with TEPCO, a blackout on the news would not be surprising. We know the workers at the plant are getting seriously exposed….

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 03:27:12 PM PST

    •  The Reagan reported (0+ / 0-)

      contamination levels to Fleet, Fleet notified NRC Op-Center. In real time, in those first days. Then Fleet ordered all the ships to the western coast of Japan.

      Being in the plume doesn't mean they weren't monitoring/reporting. Part of the job. The risks to crew were weighed and disgarded. But they can't sue the Navy, so there they are.

    •  I'm not a conspiracy theorist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau

      But we seem to be well short of full disclosure regarding Fukushima.

      U.S. sailors could have been more vulnerable than people on land nearby because they were east of the reactors, therefore downwind.  I do agree that we would expect a nuclear aircraft carrier to have the best available equipment and practices of nuclear monitoring.

  •  As someone who served... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WakeUpNeo

    on an aircraft carrier (Eisenhower) as a reactor operator, all I can say is there are "discrepancies" in this story.

    It's also the only story that keeps popping up all over the Internet. Another skeptical warning flag for any story.

    I've submitted this one to Snopes for further review.

  •  Fukushima news blackout? Here's a source (0+ / 0-)

    http://fairewinds.org - A nonprofit energy education organization.  

    They've provided the best info about the nuclear situation in Japan and the US that I've been able to find.  

    Their new video this week was on how the Japanese government is hiding the severity of radiation exposure to their population in order to gain public support for restarting the undamaged shut down reactors around the country.

  •  The Veterans' service organizations.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catilinus

    The American veterans' associations need to see this article.  If you stir up these folks they won't quit until there is some justice for these sailors.

  •  We will know (0+ / 0-)

    And that ladies and gentleman thanks to our corporate controlled media is just a small taste of what is really happening due to Fukushima. Unless one really digs or is a free lance reporter themselves, we will never find out how bad the spill of waste really is. Unfortunately as more people die because of the various forms of environmental contamination, only then will we know, maybe 20 or 30 years from now. Of course it will be too late. Yep, let's forget about moving forward with wind, solar and hydro energy and just keep building them thar nuclear plants!

Superskepticalman, ROGNM, Chi, Scott Martin, Powered Grace, mimi, Sprinkles, LynChi, cotterperson, genethefiend, lysias, hubcap, Janie, ornerydad, hopeful, wader, SneakySnu, psnyder, pat bunny, Lawrence, duncanidaho, lcrp, 2dot, Brother Artemis, ybruti, randallt, Josiah Bartlett, bibble, oortdust, sawgrass727, davidincleveland, Bluesee, marina, Tinfoil Hat, zlankee, chimene, corvo, viral, YucatanMan, fixxit, eru, Sun Tzu, brentut5, snoopydawg, peacestpete, xaxnar, skywriter, martini, Keone Michaels, AoT, blueoasis, gpoutney, JVolvo, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, CA Nana, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, suspiciousmind, blueoregon, lynneinfla, OHdog, PatConnors, Aaa T Tudeattack, krwheaton, karmsy, edsbrooklyn, Mary Mike, newpioneer, buckshot face, martyinsfo, mudslide, carpunder, Wreck Smurfy, fb, windje, Youffraita, Buckeye Nut Schell, Lujane, tofumagoo, Hanging Up My Tusks, codairem, GrannyOPhilly, CIndyCasella, forgore, greengemini, dharmasyd, Nebraskablue, WakeUpNeo, sfarkash, catilinus, pyegar, progreen, angelajean, RJP9999, cordgrass, addisnana, Betty Pinson, slice, Bluefin, Oldowan, Haf2Read, Claudius Bombarnac, BarackStarObama, Grandma Susie, worldlotus, TRPChicago, DRo, BlueDragon, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, OldDragon, Orla, greenbastard, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, Joieau, 2thanks, FloridaSNMOM, martinjedlicka, jan4insight, oldpotsmuggler, George3, tn mountain girl, live1, bisleybum, nuclear winter solstice, jbob, bogieshadow, weck, gypsytoo, Ishmaelbychoice, Catkin, Fish Man, patbahn, 100fishhooks, Teland, mercedeslackey

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site