Slashdot Mirror
16 US Ships That Aided In Operation Tomodachi Still Contaminated With Radiation (stripes.com)
mdsolar writes: Sixteen U.S. ships that participated in relief efforts after Japan's nuclear disaster five years ago remain contaminated with low levels of radiation from the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, top Navy officials told Stars and Stripes. In all, 25 ships took part in Operation Tomadachi, the name given for the U.S. humanitarian aid operations after the magnitude-9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami on March 11, 2011. The tsunami, whose waves reached runup heights of 130 feet, crippled the Fukushima plant, causing a nuclear meltdown. In the years since the crisis, the ships have undergone cleanup efforts, the Navy said, and 13 Navy and three Military Sealift Command vessels still have some signs of contamination, mostly to ventilation systems, main engines and generators. "The low levels of radioactivity that remain are in normally inaccessible areas that are controlled in accordance with stringent procedures," the Navy said in an email to Stars and Stripes. "Work in these areas occurs mainly during major maintenance availabilities and requires workers to follow strict safety procedures."
Half a life time of radioactive material is a bazillion times your life time.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
"The low levels of radioactivity that remain are in normally inaccessible areas that are controlled in accordance with stringent procedures," the Navy said in an email to Stars and Stripes. "Work in these areas occurs mainly during major maintenance availabilities and requires workers to follow strict safety procedures."
Translation: "So there's radiation in the air conditioning. STFU and get back to work"
Which basically makes it clear that there IS NO ISSUE.
A few quotes for those who cannot bother reading the article:
'The low levels of radioactivity that remain are in normally inaccessible areas that are controlled in accordance with stringent procedures'
'The radioactive contamination found on the ships involved in Operation Tomodachi is at such low levels that it does not pose a health concern to the crews, their families, or maintenance personnel'
' the Reagan’s ventilation system was contaminated with 0.01 millirems of radiation per hour, according to the Navy. Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines advise no more than 2 millirems of radiation in one hour in any unrestricted area'
'“Personnel working on potentially contaminated systems were monitored with sensitive dosimeters, and no abnormal radiation exposures were identified'
'Of the 1,360 individuals aboard the Reagan who were monitored by the Navy following the incident, more than 96 percent were found not to have detectable internal contamination, the Navy said. The highest measured dose was less than 10 percent of the average annual exposure to someone living in the United States'
And the whole article wraps up, after showing quite clearly that there is NO ISSUE, by pointing out that a bunch of money-grabbing US navy staff are trying to push a baseless lawsuit for such things as 'genetic immune system diseases, headaches, difficulty concentrating, thyroid problems, bloody noses, rectal and gynecological bleeding, weakness in sides of the body accompanied by the shrinking of muscle mass, memory loss, leukemia, testicular cancer, problems with vision, high-pitch ringing in the ears and anxiety', from doses that are fractions of quite normal background exposure.In other worse for anything they could dream of that has happened since then.
Their may reasoning seems to be 'Well, the Navy cleaned the decks after, it must have been dangerous!', so they appear to be suing on the basis that due care was taken!
The real news here is how ridiculously out of perspective many people are about radiation risks.
Lets hope none of those sailors like bananas! they better sue Ecuador!
Look, this is what's behind the promises of Science -- nothing but death and cancer.
The headline for this story is very misleading. It should be "Another pointless anti-cheap-power article, brought to you by a paid shill for the expensive-power industry."
From an article written by the same author in 2014: "Woodson said the rate of cancer in Reagan sailors was actually nearly 50 percent lower than in the control population."
Know anyone who would pay for a 50% reduction in cancer risk? They should bottle that contamination, it is apparently magically lucky. Either that or hormesis.
See that "Preview" button?
They spew whatever crap they believe supports their cause. They are not looking for information to form a conclusion, they have a conclusion and go trying to find things to support it. In the event things don't support it, they'll either ignore it, shout it down or, as in this case, try to rebrand it as supporting their cause.
He's no different from creationists: It's not about facts, not about science, it is about pushing an ideology. He is convinced he's right, so is unwilling to investigate his own beliefs further.
mdsolar has a very anti-nuclear agenda and will post all kinds of non-issue stories with "the sky is falling" headlines. Slashdot, please do something and get rid of this one.
According to some physicists, one material commonly found not only in nuclear waste but also in the byproducts of many industrial chemical processes is radioactive and has a lifetime of 10^32 years!!! Just think what kind of lasting problems that creates!
Not only should we shut down those nuclear and chemical processes, we should obviously jettison all these troublesome 'protons' into space so future generations don't have to deal with them!!!!1111
Did I submit an article about the Navy doing a pretty good job handling a tough situation?
They keep water out of the engine. I wonder if it would help to filter air intakes on ships in this kind of situation which might also arise during hostilities?
This is a chance to learn more about radiation proofing, cleaning and other risks for the ship and operations designers. See, every dark cloud has with a green glowing lining.
Life in the military is dangerous. These sailors volunteered knowing, or should have known, that they'd be asked to do things that might very well shorten their lifespan. They might be asked to do things that result in what's left of them being mailed home to their family in a shoebox. In return for their service they get things like their education paid for, real world work experience, and preferential hiring.
I served in the US Army, was injured in training, now I'm in college part time while working part time. A job I got in part because I showed I was someone to the trusted with sensitive information and around dangerous people & items, because the Army does not take people that cannot be trusted. My education is paid for by the GI Bill. I also get my medical care paid for and a few bucks every month for my screwed up feet and knees.
These sailors served on a nuclear powered ship, it would not be inconceivable that they'd be exposed to radiation while on that vessel. Granted, and fortunately, the radiation did not come from the ship's power plant. These sailors were undoubtedly trained in the handling of radioactive material and in the methods to protect themselves from it.
It used to be that if you served in the US Navy you were almost certain to have damaged hearing. I know a few old sailors that can't hear so well. It was common for such people to get disability pay for this but no more. Why is that? Because the US DOD figured out that they could give their sailors, and all that serve, training in how to protect their ears and the gear to save their hearing. If they end up deaf then it's on them now. I believe that the same should apply here. They were trained, provided protective gear, and as far as I can tell were never asked to do anything out of the ordinary. If they end up sick from radiation then I say it's on them unless they can prove something extraordinary. Also, by extraordinary I mean that a fraction of those 5000 sailors would be eligible for compensation, not the entire crew.
I recall hearing of a Navy helicopter that got caught in an unexpected radioactive plume. Of the half dozen or so on that craft one came back with what might be considered a dangerous radioactive dose because that sailor was sitting by the opened side door. Upon return to the ship that sailor was showered, got a fresh uniform, and was given on ship duty for the remainder of the cruise, which I was told was the best thing to do because the shower and new uniform removed anything radioactive that the sailor would have been exposed to. The change in duty was merely out of an abundance of caution. That's third hand information so I have no means to verify the accuracy but if true then we have one, perhaps a handful more in a similar situation, that might have a case for getting an unsafe dose of radiation.
A common claim is, "I didn't sign up for this." Well, I believe you did.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Keep cranking that lie mdsolar... you never know, if you shill enough bs, one day someone may believe some of it!
BTW, care to explain why the fatality rates in solar power are higher than nuclear? I am sure you are aware that they
are.. But I am just as sure you wont want to admit it.
(hint for the uninitiated, its because of installers falling during installations, and its quite a problem).
http://physics.kenyon.edu/people/sullivan/PHYS102/PHYS102F12Lecture15.pdf
From what I've seen Chernobyl alone will cause around 45,000 excess cancer deaths. Haven't heard that about solar.
So the USS Ronald Reagan has a measurable amount of radiation in it's ventilation systems. What also has a measurable amount of radiation are bananas. Could someone please tell me how many bananas the sailors on these "contaminated" vessels would have to eat to get the same radioactive dose?
I suggest that whatever that number is that the US Navy subtract that from the daily rations for those sailors. Let them eat oranges instead.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Very very mild problems.
Btw if you can use a chemical process to create radioactive isotopes I think you've just gotten a Nobel prize!
No, I suppose not. Solar panels don't cause cancer. Because they are made of safe materials like silicon, aluminum, gallium, and arsenic.
Oh, wait, arsenic causes cancer, no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It would be interesting to see how many people died of arsenic induced skin cancer due to solar panel production.
Your mentioning of Chernobyl is irrelevant to modern nuclear power. Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen, badly designed, poorly constructed, and what little safety systems it had were disabled at the time it blew its top. If we did the same things with solar power we'd have panels falling on people, electrocutions, fires, and arsenic poisonings. Nuclear is only as unsafe as you allow it to be, just like anything else.
Why are you ignoring the cancer deaths from current solar panel production and yet bring up a nuclear accident from thirty years ago?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Did you really bring a pocket knife to a gun fight?
If you think that's an actual response to the post you replied to, well, there's an "English as a second language" class with an opening near you...
Three years after the operation ventilation systems still have a 1 BANANA EQUIVALENT DOSE, of RADIATION each hour.
WE ALL ARE GOING TO DIE. The regulations say area it isn't usable if you can get 200 BANANA:s worth of radiation per hour.
And yearly exposure limits are 10 000 BANANAS per person, which translates as same CANCER RISK as SIX PACK OF BEER.
©God
Those ships are not conatminated with "radiation" or "radioactivity", whatever that is supposed to mean. They are contaminated with radioactive materials, which could certainly be named. People always pretend that radioactivity and radiation are some mysterical boogey man. We know where it comes from and probably also know how to get rid of the stuff, which may cost too much to get the stuff out of the ships. iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137, which came out of Fukushima Daiichi are easy to name and now that iodine-131 is all decayed, only the caesium remains.
But "boo radioactivity" sound much better to frighten people. The monster you can't name or see is always the worst.
Physics and chemistry were unified by quantum electrodynamics.
You can't give out that nobel, they gave it to Feynman and 2 other guys.
Oh sure under ideal conditions it would be the greatest thing ever!
But we put humans and for profit companys in charge of it. They like to cut corners and fuck things up with greed and just general fucking up.
Nuclear power has only been around since 1954. And so far we've contaminated a dozen+ areas FOREVER.
(accidents, waste, etc.) Or at least long enough that humans today can call it forever.
Nope. Not a good start.
But oh well. I won't be around to see how bad it will REALLY get. So fuck you future people. Enjoy our mess.
Where did you get that common silicon solar cells contain arsenic (or gallium for that matter)? Gallium arsenide solar cells are only used in space applications where the extra cost is offset by the watts/mass ratio. Standard PV panels are made of silicon doped with traces of boron and phosphorus. So, the answer is probably: close to zero, given how small the market for solar cells in satellites is.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
I don't think its even the nasty materials.
The thing with nuclear is it's both high density power and high density fuel. This means in brief that the overall scale of construction for building the plant is low and the overall scale of the fuel mining for the plant is low. You know, low per TWh generated.
Coal and gas plants are similar in terms of size and construction (maybe half the size), but require vast efforts to get the amazing amounts of fuel consumed.
Solar and wind of course require no ongoing collection of fuel. but the plants are vast requiring vast construction efforts to build them and vast efforts to mine the raw matierials and manufacture the resources. That includes lots and lots of coal for making lots and lots of steel.
Construction and mining are terribly dangerous.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
fuckhead
Yeah, would have been better to leave Asia to the Imperial Japanese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You can't get any financial aid for those classes when English is your primary language for some reason.
Solar panels don't use much steel. They require much less effort to produce and deploy than nuclear power plants. The electricity costs a third as much as nuclear because of this and is getting cheaper.
From the article, it looks as though some of our people got radiation sickness from a more recent accident. It's not just Chernobyl.
http://www.chernobylreport.org...
Solar panels don't use much steel.
Oh I see. People just dump bare solar panels on unprepared dirt then. Good to know.
They require much less effort to produce and deploy than nuclear power plants.
[citation needed]
Tell me how many solar panels do you need for 1GWe net (i.e after taking the capacity factor in to account)?
The electricity costs a third as much as nuclear because of this and is getting cheaper.
Not it costs a massive amount because vast amounts of scaremongering and stupidity. We're running 1960s power plants because people don't like new plants but like electricity and so would rather run an old, less safe plant than build a newer, safer one.
The regulation is so heavy that it has made nuclear power the safest form of electricity by a factor of 10.
Thing is I'm actually strongly in favour of renewables, but blimey your posts are so ill-informed they almost put me off.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I think you just summed up your credibility better than anyone else ever could have, mdsolar.
If you don't like what someone says, you'll just argue with something they didn't say instead.
I was comparing to new nuclear power plants, though in the US, existing nuclear power plants in deregulated markets are having trouble competing with wind and natural gas pricing.
See, was that so hard? So let's see...
A political hit piece from The Greens / European Free Alliance? And the main page ends with "Nie wieder Tschernobyl!"
I was wrong, your argument was stronger without the citation, but thanks for the laugh.
Looks like they got the math right. Maybe you went to the Barbie School of Mathematics?
HEADLINE: Radioactive Bananas Responsible for King Kong
Scientists have come to the conclusion after doing extensive research that the incredible size and ferocity of King Kong is overwhelmingly due to the radioactive bananas he has been consuming since he was just a wee gorilla in the rainforests of Borneo. Says scientist Iziro Ishtawri "You see, we had a suspicion that bananas were the cause of King Kongs Giant size but we were not sure. So in the lab we began to feed a juvenile gorilla these bananas, and wouldn't you know he got bigger. Now he didn't get to Kongs size, but we measured some growth and extrapolating we figured that with especially radioactive bananas and given enough time, that young gorilla would get to the size of King Kong." Fascinating.
Asked about the incredible size of Godzilla Iziro says " Well, we didn't want to ruin our premise by feeding a lizard the bananas, you know, Godzilla is a special case." Laughing he adds "We certainly didn't want another remake of 'Godzilla Vs King Kong.'"
If the ships in the waters off Japan are radiated, then the amount of radioactive material that got out is far more massive than was indicated.
That explains the high levels of radiation that crossed the pacific ocean, and failed to dissipate. The conspiracy alone far surpasses Silkwood, 3 mile island and Chernobol
Seriously, nearly every article he posts is some scare piece about radiation or Fukushima.
Here's your choices Mdsolar: Coal, Natural Gas, or Nuclear.
Hydroelectric has killed and displaced more people than all those combined. Solar, while excellent, has a footprint that is incompatible with its low output, relegating it to a supporting role, not to mention its not an on demand solution. Wind is also sketchy, yes it gets higher output but it has a narrow range for operation.
So, you'd better pick one of those three. If you want to cut carbon, Nuclear is the only real option.
You didn't try to address a single one of my points. You have about as much credibility as our esteemed Mr. Hassleton.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
All that regulation indicates safety is a major issue. Chernobyl, TMI, Fukushima, and lots of close calls demonstrate this.
All that regulation indicates safety is a major issue.
Still ignoring my points I see.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Repeating that indicates you don't read.
For some reason, the operators of Chernobyl did not follow the directions in the manual. They ran a test that the designers of the poorly designed reactor wrote not to do.
You trying to say driving a 2015 Volvo is too dangerous to drive because 1950's cars had no anti-lock breaks, airbags, or seat belts and that some driver back then floored the throttle only to purposely run into a brick wall.
You know what the nuke navy does with coolant discharges? They just move 12 nautical miles off shore into international waters. That's a pretty cheap solution don't you think?
Enough mdsolar OMG NOOOKS!!! crap posted by Timothy.
Please stop.
Yes, the nuclear industry has a shameful record of covering up incidents and accidents but this sort of bullshit does not further the debate.
You would think mdsolar would get tired sucking the Koch brothers dicks at this point.
Bullshit! It all boils back down to Maxwell's Equations and you know it!
^^YOU are wrong.
It is INCREDIBLY expensive to "decommission" a civilian nuclear plant. Nobody knows how to do it, its never been done, and NONE of the plant owners worked those costs into their profit/loss/energy rates charged because if you DO include them, the plant is NOT ECONOMICAL FROM DAY ONE.
Maybe you went to the Barbie School of Mathematics?
Don't be silly, Princess Charm Schools don't have math departments.
Looks like they got the math right.
Of course they did, you can't put actual math errors in quality propaganda any more than you can put outright lies - it's all in the assumptions. Use this study for your data rather than that one. Even better, find a plausible-sounding explanation for why using the linear no-threshold model make sense (and purely by chance happens to add an enormous number of people with a very small (as in so small there's no evidence it exists) increased risk of cancer). The next thing you know you've tacked a zero onto the end of your estimate. Genius!
Standard method. Seems silly not to use it.
Until Einstein, nobody was even sure if Maxwell's Equations worked. Everybody was ready to blame him for the problems, to save Newton's F=MA. It seemed obvious to many people that Newton's math had already been well verified.
Of course, at the scale I work in it is all Newton and Maxwell.
That said, no, Maxwell's Equations are most useful for what I do but quantum electrodynamics can independently describe all the same things, and it gives the how. It just takes all year to do the math that way.
Physics isn't like engineering, where the knowledge grows and grows endlessly. The new simplifies the old. It doesn't boil back, it boils forwards. And Maxwell evaporates into Feynman. Sorry.