Report: Many sailors from USS Ronald Reagan suffered problems after 3/11 — “No amount of money would compensate me if I’m 23 years old and bleeding from my behind” -Attorney

Published: December 30th, 2012 at 1:20 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
59 comments


Follow-up to: Navy crew members sue Japan over Fukushima cover-up -- "Irreparable harm to life expectancy" -- Gov't and Tepco conspired

Title: US sailors sue Japanese utility over radiation exposure
Source: Stripes
Author: Matthew M. Burke, Chiyomi Sumida contributed
Date:  December 27, 2012

[...] The sailors allege a host of medical conditions, from headaches and difficulty concentrating to rectal bleeding and thyroid problems, as a result of the exposure and say they will have to undergo more medical tests and expensive treatments in the future, their lawyer Paul Garner said Thursday. [...]

Garner said he was originally approached by [U.S. Navy sailor Lindsay] Cooper, who was reluctant to follow through with a suit. He then talked to others from the Reagan and found many suffered problems, including one sailor who already has cancer. Garner has linked up with an environmental toxicologist for a study to see how widespread the issues are. [...]

“No amount of money would compensate me if I’m 23 years old and I’m bleeding from my [behind] or have thyroid problems,” he said. [...]

See also: TV: US sailors having traits associated with radiation poisoning after Japan operation -- Bleeding from rectum -- Baby with birth defects -- Cancer -- Thyroid problems (VIDEO)

Published: December 30th, 2012 at 1:20 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
59 comments

Related Posts

  1. CNN: Major health issues in ill US Navy sailors who were exposed to Fukushima radiation -Attorney December 29, 2012
  2. TV: US sailors having traits associated with radiation poisoning after Japan operation — Bleeding from rectum — Baby with birth defects — Cancer — Thyroid problems (VIDEO) December 29, 2012
  3. NBC Affiliate: US Navy sailor discusses sickness after serving in Japan on USS Ronald Reagan December 29, 2012
  4. Attorney: U.S. Marine may join Fukushima lawsuit — Navy clients have bladder problems not normally seen in younger people January 8, 2013
  5. Video: Navy sailors use no masks when scrubbing radioactive particles on USS Ronald Reagan after 3/11 — CNN: “The idea here is all about safety” December 29, 2012

59 comments to Report: Many sailors from USS Ronald Reagan suffered problems after 3/11 — “No amount of money would compensate me if I’m 23 years old and bleeding from my behind” -Attorney

  • Livingonearth

    From USS Ronald Reagan Commanding Officer:
    par USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), dimanche 13 mars 2011, 23:52 ·

    Friends and Family of USS Ronald Reagan:

    I want to take this opportunity to personally assure you that first and foremost all personnel aboard the USS Ronald Reagan are safe and healthy.

    During our mission to assist our close allies of Japan, we were operating near the radioactive plume from Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant. As you may have already heard, radioactivity was detected on 17 personnel from our ship, however, we promptly took the proper precautions and the radioactivity was easily removed by using soap and water. The levels that were detected were very low levels. To put this into perspective, the maximum radiation dose received was equalt to the amount of natural background radiation one would receive in one month from sources such as rocks, soil and the sun.

    Ronald Reagan has since repositioned away from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant.

    As a nuclear-powered aircraft carrrier, we have extensive technical expertise onboard to properly monitor such types of risks, and if necessary, rapidly resolve the situation.

    We have taken all the necessary precautions to ensure that everyone is safe. We have closely monitored spaces, evaluated everyone who has flown or worked on the flight deck and cleaned the aircraft.

    I have not seen any levels of radiation or contamination that would cause me to have…


    Report comment

    • "To put this into perspective, the maximum radiation dose received was equal to the amount of natural background radiation one would receive in one month from sources such as rocks, soil and the sun."
      – Capt. Thom Burke (via Livingonearth)

      That statement is like explaining sex using the 'birds and the bees' example for children. It's 'sort of' relevant. It's 'sort of' true, but it doesn't REALLY EXPLAIN the detail or the true known dangers.

      How about just stating…

      1. What exactly were the Geiger counts?
      2. How long were they actually exposed?
      3. What types of radiation?
      4. Is it worse for women than men?

      These are the facts, they know this, they have to.


      Report comment

  • Livingonearth

    From USS Ronald Reagan Commanding Officer:
    par USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), dimanche 13 mars 2011, 23:52 ·

    Friends and Family of USS Ronald Reagan:

    I want to take this opportunity to personally assure you that first and foremost all personnel aboard the USS Ronald Reagan are safe and healthy.

    During our mission to assist our close allies of Japan, we were operating near the radioactive plume from Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant. As you may have already heard, radioactivity was detected on 17 personnel from our ship, however, we promptly took the proper precautions and the radioactivity was easily removed by using soap and water. The levels that were detected were very low levels. To put this into perspective, the maximum radiation dose received was equalt to the amount of natural background radiation one would receive in one month from sources such as rocks, soil and the sun.

    Ronald Reagan has since repositioned away from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant.

    I have not seen any levels of radiation or contamination that would cause me to have any significant concerns at


    Report comment

  • Livingonearth

    I have not seen any levels of radiation or contamination that would cause me to have any significant concerns at all.

    As we continue to assist Japan in this terrible catastrophe, our Sailor's–and your loves ones'– safety will remain at the top of my priority list.

    Capt. Thom Burke


    Report comment

  • This is how I see it. Regardless of the extent of the disaster (which was known according to FOIA docs from the NRC, TEPCO, and MEXT — which provided data directly to the Japanese Government and in turn the US, China, and Russia) the US Navy did NOT follow their own procedure and protocol. How do I know this? Because I read their protocol. It is attached below in the pdf.

    Please watch the above linked video ^^

    To the sailors: Don't stop with just suing Japan.

    To the lawyers: Don't stop at just representing sailors…entire north america has been affected.

    Navy PDF of decontamination protocol: https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_nfesc_pp/amphibious%20and%20expeditionary/em-cbrn%20defense%20support/emergency%20management%20program/cni3440.17-appk-decon–23jan06.pdf


    Report comment

    • WindorSolarPlease

      Thank you eyechix


      Report comment

    • PavewayIII PavewayIII

      This is kind of a stretch, eyechix. All the armed forces have similar unrealistic decontamination procedures that they're not going to use. They work *if* you have a unit dedicated to decontamination with the proper equipment and training and unlimited replacement uniforms/gear for personnel. That's NEVER going to happen, aside from a demonstration by the pencil-necks to the brass on 'this is how it should be done'.

      If you don't have a dedicated unit, then it's a do-it-yourselfer like nearly everything else in the military. At that point, it's pretty much like you saw on the ship. Draw a line somewhere between unchecked and OK stuff. Check one by one for x amount of surface contamination. Wash whatever with soap and water until amount is below x. Put on other side of line. That's it.

      Adequate for anyone, anytime? Of course not. Adequate for the armed forces in nuclear warfare? Unfortunately, yes – if they have the luxury of time and measuring equipment to even bother with that.

      Dusting or washing alpha particles off soldiers isn't really suppose to decontaminate (as in make completely safe) anything. It's to remove enough alpha to keep the skin from sloughing off your arms and legs so you can keep doing your job. It's the same 'decontamination' with the same purpose used for biological or chemical warfare.


      Report comment

  • Livingonearth

    Douglas Beck As a former Nuke myself the expertise they have on-board is world class, in fact the vast majority of nuclear operators in the civilian world come from the Navy. The crew is very safe and in very capable hands.
    14 mars 2011, 03:56 · 10
    Ruby Wilkinson Thank you for the update. You and your crew are in my prayers. God bless you in Jesus name!
    14 mars 2011, 04:07
    LuAnn Jacob Thanks for the update Capt. I am very concerned about my daughter's health and I am very proud of what she and all of her crew mates are doing over there today and always!
    14 mars 2011, 04:15
    April Annette Mysliwy Thank you for caring for the people of Japan but also keeping our guys safe. Thank you for keeping my husband to be safe.
    14 mars 2011, 04:34 · 1
    Julie Lapides Batchelor I appreciate this update so much! Thank you.
    14 mars 2011, 04:37
    Jean Bradley Is there anything we the family's can do for our love ones on the ship? can you give us an address to send a package to all the men and women . would love to hear from my son Johnny Jones.
    14 mars 2011, 05:05
    Laura Ann Fogle Thanks so much. We appreciate that update.
    14 mars 2011, 05:06 · 1
    Janie Helman-Maust Thank you so much for the update on this most difficult situation. I am keeping each and everyone of you in my prayers. I am very proud to have my son on board. May God be with you.
    14 mars 2011, 05:11 · 2
    Jose R Arellano I was a member of the USS Ronald…


    Report comment

  • Weeping Lulu Weeping Lulu

    Oh my… I didn't even want to read any of those reports that have been posted about the USRR updates. I pray for these memebers that have been stuck on that ship since this happened not getting the proper treatment for their health, if there really is at this point. May the lord be with you and I pray he heals you fully. What is wrong with our society? I mean I read somewhere that Japan is going to restart 2 of the reactor's? Can't international community make them quit already?!


    Report comment

  • Ontological Ontological

    Observation:
    Feb 17, 2012 – Earlier this week, a Japanese government official said that there were no plans to restart any of the reactors at the Fukushima Daini nuclear plant.
    Jul 25, 2012 – Tepco is planning to restart reactors 5 and 6 at Fukushima Daini (12km south of Daiichi).
    These bipolar nuketards tend to try to dazzle us with their brains, but always end up attempting to baffle us in BS. OK first of all the NPP Daini is 12k south that’s 7.5 miles or so INSIDE the mandatory no go zone. The sensors there would pick up the radiation from the Fuku One NPP and thus could not be operated in context with international Nucklearcrat law. IE: They would have to run the plant without the onsite radiation sensors, and that is not allowed.
    If the powers that be think that we the public are so stupid that we forget these “minor” details they are drastically in error. They fabricate these uppity statements for the media due to one fact; they desire to lure us into a false sense of security, keeping our comfort zones undisturbed. All of course is a grand scale of propaganda, right up there with little sparkling cartoon characters teaching children how wonderful it is to gargle away your hot particle dose three times per day. An onset of a Navy lawsuit opens a veritable can of worms to way more public awareness and mass media coverage of this outrgeous mishandling of Human rights! Since the local Fukushima cattle are dieing at an alarming rate, I am sure local people are also.


    Report comment

    • PavewayIII PavewayIII

      Nice rant, Ont. Unfortunately, the Japanese people just re-elected Abe and the LDP. They're the ones who ushered in nuclear power to begin with, and they fully intend to fire up the boilers again in Japan. Done deal.

      The *private* lawsuit (not Navy) brings this issue to U.S. public attention again. It may have unintended consequences as well: plenty of average Japanese detest expansive U.S. bases on their soil. They don't necessarily like the presence of US military personnel. They were still pulling the bodies of their families out of the tsunami debris when they were forced to evacuate and live on a gym floor in a cardboard box. Do you think they'll have much sympathy that TEPCO didn't give the U.S. Navy a minute-by-minute update of Fukushima? I don't think it even rates a forehead slap by them.


      Report comment

  • Maggie123

    I'm not aware that anyone has yet brought up the curious haunting link between USRR experience and the 1954 "Lucky Dragon" incident:

    "On March 1st 1954, the 23 crew members of the Japanese fishing boat "Daigo Fukuryu Maru" ("the Lucky Dragon") were amazed to find a fine snow falling, far out to sea in the tropical North Pacific. For three hours the fine, yet warm, white substance fell. The curious fishermen gathered it up while they worked."

    Quote is from brief memorial article here: http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/lucky-dragon-and-atomic-tuna-memorial.

    Brief mention of Lucky Dragon incident in lager context of US Marshall Island atomic bomb testing here: http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/the-united-states-nuclear-testing-programme/page-4-the-united-states-nuclear-testing-programme/.

    I don't mean to suggest any 'woo-woo' interpretation of how these two events might generally 'mirror' one another. Terrible suffering is terrible suffering. And that's the larger point, IMO, to be made.

    It seems nuclear developments for war and peace, and all the dangers and suffering found, are especially focused in an 'entanglement' between the US and Japan.


    Report comment

  • aigeezer aigeezer

    The comments that are accumulating at the story site are fascinating, many purportedly from military people. Sample follows:

    ——————

    de_day

    I don't know if anyone else noticed, but isn't the person who posted the first comment at the bottom of this thread one of the 8 named plaintiffs in this case?

    If so, I don't know what she means by "loved this"? Is it because she got her name in the newspaper? Or because she "will almost certainly die prematurely"?

    I also don't know if her lawyer or the other plaintiffs will love her for attempting to get some attention before the trial (that is, if there ever is one), but I'm pretty sure the TEPCO executives will enjoy seeing this boob's boobshots using the posted link in Disqus to her Facebook page.

    (Edited by author 21 hours ago)

    ———- end of comment sample ————-

    I see comments are being edited and deleted there in real time, so look while you can.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/earthquake-disaster-in-japan/us-sailors-sue-japanese-utility-over-radiation-exposure-1.202197


    Report comment

    • aigeezer aigeezer

      More weirdness – the plaintiff cited left the navy in 2011? If you click on the link provided by "Lindsay Cooper" (allegedly one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit) from the comment "loved this" to the original story, you find a Facebook page with this biographical snippet:

      ————– quoted item begins here —————-

      Work and Education

      United States Navy
      United States Navy
      ABE3 · Dec 2007 to Aug 2011

      Info
      About

      Truth is, I'm tired of you. You can write me down in history with hateful, twisted lies. You can tread me in this very dirt. But still, like dust.. I'll rise.
      Lives in Spring Valley, California
      Born on July 12, 1989
      Female

      2011

      Left Job at United States Navy

      2007

      Started Working at United States Navy

      1989

      Born on July 12, 1989

      ————- end of snippet ———–

      http://www.facebook.com/lovecooper


      Report comment

      • PavewayIII PavewayIII

        Is it really necessary to post personal information on anyone, AI? The Facebook link is already dead so you would have had to quote, but exact birthday and hometown are really not necessary. I realize it may not even be the person mentioned (or be fake), but I wouldn't want someone posting the same thing for my daughter.


        Report comment

        • richard richard

          It beats me why people put all that stuff up n FB in the first place. It's her own fault, she would have been the one putting out the info.

          These people don't seem to realize the issue of placing info online. That, or they don't care, which seems to be the general thinking of some. It's like there is a whole generation of people who have had frontal lobotomies and no longer care of consequences – nukes also seem to fall into the same category. And they are being handed the reins to 'continue' civilization; the future doesn't look good.


          Report comment

        • aigeezer aigeezer

          PavewayIII, the Facebook link was and is live, and was and is posted in the comment section of the story.


          Report comment

          • aigeezer aigeezer

            Weirder still:

            "In a Relationship
            March 15, 2011"

            Please reflect on the significance of that date.

            What in the heck is going on with this story?

            Reminder, I'm citing a publicly available page, posted by someone claiming to be "Lindsay Cooper", one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit under discussion.

            My source is the earliest comment in the comments section of the article that heads this thread, specifically the bottom of this linked page:

            http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/earthquake-disaster-in-japan/us-sailors-sue-japanese-utility-over-radiation-exposure-1.202197#disqus_thread

            A commenter using the name "Lindsay Cooper" posted the comment "loved this." as the first comment to the story. "Lindsay Cooper"'s name offers a mouseover "Expand Lindsay Cooper's Profile" which yields the Facebook page I've been citing:

            http://www.facebook.com/lovecooper

            Browsing by year within that publicly available page yields the specific item I'm citing in this post.

            "In a Relationship
            March 15, 2011"

            I'm convinced there is major mischief going on with all aspects of this lawsuit story, but what the heck is it about? Who is doing what to whom and why?


            Report comment

            • PavewayIII PavewayIII

              Must be my browser. I keep getting "This content is currently not available…" message. I probably have to make up another fake FB ID and log in.

              I usually forget my last ID or password after about maybe, fifteen minutes. Same with Twitter. Same with Google. Same with…


              Report comment

              • aigeezer aigeezer

                I was wondering about that, PavewayIII. I kept checking the link to make sure it was live. I was using a browser with an active FB account at the time. Please post if that makes the link go live for you.

                Hehe – I'm checking it really often now, half expecting it to change or go dead. That was the main reason I posted the excerpt rather than just the link, as you probably guessed.

                Anyone else finding the link live/dead?

                Oh, I'm also using Proxmate to override area restrictions, but I doubt that's a factor in this case. The FB server is in Ireland, but that's normal I think.


                Report comment

                • NoNukes NoNukes

                  Doubt that is the plaintiff. Sounds like classic disinformation, like the story that Nancy Lanza works at Sandy Hook school and not Morgan Stanley…http://onswipe.com/investmentwatchblog/#!/entry/wall-street-mom-nancy-lanza-was-morgan-stanley-investment-broker,50dfa4f5d7fc7b5670cbb4d6/1


                  Report comment

                • MaidenHeaven MaidenHeaven

                  @aigeezer the only way that anyone can see that page is if you are signed into Facebook, this is true even if you are signed into Facebook in one browser & paste your own wall link into a browser where you are not logged in. I use Facebook as my main browser & Opera for Facebook only. I am unable to access my own facebook wall in Firefox. Even open groups that you belong to require a logon for everyone else.

                  Only the main public pages are available without signing in but you will only see posts made by the page owner…if you try to access posts by others on that same page you must login…


                  Report comment

                  • aigeezer aigeezer

                    Thanks, MaidenHeaven – that would explain it. As you can tell, I don't use FB much, so I don't know its quirks.

                    I'm not sure how that leaves the public/private issue. I'm not feeling uncomfortable in citing the FB material because the intent of the original comment poster ("Lindsay Cooper" who may or may not really be Lindsay Cooper, the sailor) was clearly that people see the "Lindsay Cooper" FB page that he/she presumably owns the rights to. What a muddle – I hope I'm not inadvertently helping one of the spin-artists!

                    As for the big "what's going on with the lawsuit" question… still completely murky to me.


                    Report comment

                    • MaidenHeaven MaidenHeaven

                      aigeezer you need to type in Lindsay Cooper in the search section at the top of your Facebook page to see that there are at least over 20 Lindsay Coopers…so for this reason it is inappropriate to copy & paste any info off a page unless you are certain that you have the right person. It is also very easy for people to simply create any name to use of facebook or other sites.

                      ..the facts are however that you should never post any personal info online including where you live & most certainly should not upload photos of yourself, children or of others.

                      You may also be inadvertently accessing a child's page..

                      I do understand your reason for posting..but it may well be a fake profile.

                      When you consider how this case targets Nuclear & the billions of dollars invested & made off this industry …you can be assured that all those involved in the suit will be targeted in some way.


                      Report comment

                    • aigeezer aigeezer

                      MaidenHeaven, no room to indent further, but I understand your points.

                      To clarify: I am absolutely certain that the page contents I excerpted were from the FB page link posted under the name "Lindsay Cooper" in the Stars and Stripes comments section.

                      I have no knowledge whatsoever of who owns that FB page, or why someone posted a link to it in the Stars and Stripes comments section claiming, accurately or not, to be "Lindsay Cooper" the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

                      To me this is all part of the weirdness of this lawsuit story, and highlighting the weirdness of it feels appropriate – precisely because I am considering how this case targets Nuclear – there are big forces in play, but what are they up to? I imagine the games go a few levels deep.


                      Report comment

                    • PavewayIII PavewayIII

                      It finally worked for me when I logged in.

                      MH: Her profile on stripes.com has a direct link to her FB profile, and that profile is four years old. Reasonable to assume it's the same person or at least not an obvious, recent fake. Well… at least it meets the *design basis* for real, FWIW.

                      Fellow Geeze: Allow me to partially un-murkify. Filed on the 12th:

                      http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.202195!/menu/standard/file/TEPCO_COMPLAINT.pdf


                      Report comment

                    • aigeezer aigeezer

                      PavewayIII – wow, thanks for that link. Super find – the actual lawsuit document! That should help with focus issues. Where did I leave my reading glasses? ;-)


                      Report comment

                    • PavewayIII PavewayIII

                      I didn't read anything too interesting after the '…all the while lying through their teeth about reactor meltdowns…'

                      That kind of drama in a complaint would just make me look for ways to throw it out if I was a judge. TEPCO was 'lying through their teeth', but and educated lawyer has absolutely no reason to phrase it that way for the courts.


                      Report comment

                    • aigeezer aigeezer

                      PavewayIII, that amateurish wording struck me as one of several hints that this thing might be intended to fail very noisily. Maybe it's just clumsy, maybe it will take a new twist, but it is one strange piece of business so far.

                      I'm thinking if it were any kind of real threat to the nuke industry that the WSJ wouldn't have flouted it, and if it were any kind of serious threat to the Navy's image, the local TV in Navy-city San Diego wouldn't have pushed it. (Or would they? – Wheels within wheels).

                      What will tomorrow bring?… Oh, I almost forgot, it's fiscal cliff time – a different media circus altogether. Good luck to all you cliff-dwellers from me in dull old Canada. ;-)


                      Report comment

      • Pierpont

        Thanks, geez. I'm with you on posting the info on Cooper. Fair dinkum.

        According to Garner she's the one that got this suit rolling, she has been very public and on at least one TV interview, she put her data out there for the world to see. She has turned herself into a public figure, obviously looking for her 15 minutes of fame. So, give it to her.

        Other information in the Stars and Stripes article and comments:

        One post said the Gipper was <12 miles off-shore. Doesn't say where this info came from, but it makes sense if the boat started off as a re-fuelling platform for Japanese rescue helicopters before moving out to 100 or 130 mi.

        Half of the plaintiff's are still on active duty.

        Another source says that one of the plaintiffs [not identified] is the father of the infant plaintiff. So we've got a 3x family multiplier effect for damages. Nice.

        Hmmm… the birth was Oct15.2011, the event was Mar11.2011, so the mother was then about 8 weeks pregnant, well within the 20 weeks cut-off for mandatory pregnancy leave, which would have been in June. Presumably, the mother came off the ship by then. The Gipper was not back in CONUS until about Thanksgiving.

        I don't know if these carriers have obstetrics departments, but it sounds like a good idea when you read about the thousands of sailors becoming pregnant while deployed. Why not just open up a maternity ward and day care center on board and carry on? The New Navy, etc, etc,


        Report comment

    • Tom in AZ Tom in AZ

      You make that comment about her 'boobs'as if she has done something she shouldn't. And what the hell has it to do with what is going on with the radiation? Maybe this will end up being the 'before' picture, as in before the breast cancer.


      Report comment

  • rebelgroove

    My comments are often deleted due to strong language, but perhaps you girls can suck it up for once.

    First of all (and greed aside), it is a good thing that these sailors are suing TEPCO – it will finally get the story in front of mainstream American (and. possibly, worldwide) audiences.

    Secondly, these sailors won't see any money; even if the case is successful in an American court, it has no jurisdiction over a Japanese corporation. It is upsetting though that these sailors think it is TEPCO's fault they were put into danger; it is their officers (who had EXCELLENT technical intelligence regarding the disaster) who they should be suing.


    Report comment

    • Maggie123

      Rebelgroove – I've had the same thought re this story serving as 'launch' to get the story to wider audience.

      I'm also keeping aigeezer's thoughts in mind, that the story may make it easy to have a 'brief flurry' of interest which may cause wider audiences to marginalize both the story and the larger nuclear concern. (Apologize for no link – tried several items on this topic and didn't find where he posted that thought – think I've summarized it OK though, and hope he'll say if not.

      BTW – I may or may not object to whatever strong language you may use, but I most *definitely* object to the social/cultural practice of calling people "you girls" as a put-down or as suggestion there is 'weakness' in being female that needs to be mocked. I won't make it a big topic as it's not immediately to the USRR point, but it IS definitely to the larger "humanity is off track" point! … sorry, couldn't let it go by. Thanks.


      Report comment

  • ftlt

    This "Sailor" tale is all being flavored for an American audience and couched inside a specific time frame…. Typical orchestration of the news… Tell part of the truth… Never, the whole truth…

    It will be forgotten and the horror of Fukushima goes away for most…. I notice how many Japanese food products we have on the shelves – I ask questions about them and get weird looks for the employees or customers around me…

    Ask the average American, "what is Fukushima", well over half don't know and most of the rest reaction is, "is that still going on"… If it is a out of the news for 2 weeks mindset "it no longer exists" … We are all Pavlov's dogs… he media knows this…

    The new National Public Radio/TV since its overhaul in the 2000s engages in this all the time with beltway business and foreign policy – it has done it on Fukushima too… Training the masses for response…


    Report comment

  • San Diego sailor angered over Japan radiation exposure
    Lindsay Cooper assisted with aid delivery to Japan

    Posted: 12/29/2012
    Last Updated: 1 day ago

    http://www.10news.com/news/san-diego-sailor-angered-over-japan-radiation-exposure12292012

    "CARLSBAD, Calif. – A San Diego sailor says she is suing Japan and the Tokyo Electric Power Company for radiation exposure.

    Lindsay Cooper, 23, was stationed aboard the USS Ronald Reagan when it was sent to aid those in Japan affected by a devastating tsunami last year.

    The world watched in awe as plumes from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant hung in the air last March. The same plumes which sent radioactive debris onto the Ronald Reagan, with roughly 5,500 sailors on board.

    “The debris and the teddy bears and the pictures that you saw in the water, that was real,” Cooper told 10News. “The radiation … we couldn’t see that. We could only trust what our command was telling us.”"


    Report comment

  • fishwharf

    The video of the "decontamination" aboard the aircraft carrier is shocking. Thanks Radchick! Lawsuits against the Navy or officers in charge are probably not an option because I believe those rights are signed away in the enlistment agreement. It's unlikely that lawsuits by USN sailors against TEPCO will bring any justice.
    My free advice to the sailors and other members of the armed forces is to get out of the military any way you can ASAP.
    I'll never forget the day I finally got out. Until my daughter was born it was the happiest day of my life. Two MPs escorted me to the base main gate and handed me my discharge papers and a plane ticket home. I was free. I was not missing any body parts and I didn't have to kill anyone. Life has been very good since then.


    Report comment

  • Pierpont

    I hate to be so negative, but somebody has to point out the nonsense when it surfaces.

    The title of this post asserts that many of the Gipper sailors "suffered problems after 3/11" as if it were a fact. The only fact is that it was Garner, the NY lawyer, who asserts that. This is the same guy saying the boat was 200 yards off-shore, so . . . yeah, right.

    Here's the quote from Stars & Stripes:

    "[Garner] then talked to others from the Reagan and found many suffered problems, including one sailor who already has cancer."

    Note the "already has cancer," as in "Wow, it's only been 18 months since 3/11 and he ALREADY has cancer." This is a cheap trick to tie some sailor's cancer to 3/11. Out of a crew of 5500, it is a certainty that many of them will have some sort of cancer. For instance, 30% of whites develop basal cell carcinoma.

    Also Garner's comment: “No amount of money would compensate me if I’m 23 years old and bleeding from my behind”

    On the other hand, if I was 23 and could get $10M for my hemorrhoids, I'd be good with that.

    My point is: I think it's a good thing to follow the reports on the lawsuit, but I question the fairness or wisdom of cherry-picking the lawyer's hype to make the audience gasp. It comes across as a cheap trick.


    Report comment

    • Tom in AZ Tom in AZ

      "My point is: I think it's a good thing to follow the reports on the lawsuit, but I question the fairness or wisdom of cherry-picking the lawyer's hype to make the audience gasp. It comes across as a cheap trick."

      And you couldn't have presented the downplaying, 'reasonable', and oh-so-smug language of a white shoe lawyer defending the indefensible any better, Pierpoint. I know what you're saying, and you may have a point about red meat, but dramatic doesn't mean incorrect, and every pundit in America will be using your point of view. I have no problem with a little bomb-throwing rhetoric to keep the case alive. Not trying to pick a fight here.


      Report comment

      • Pierpont

        No, Tom. I don't see your comments as picking a fight at all. Thanks for taking the time.

        My concern is that ENENEWS has cred as a source for solid information, although I think the most solid information is probably found in the comments as some of the folks here seem to know their stuff. But if the site starts ginning questionable lawsuits by using inflammatory headlines that are based on lawyers' hype, it will end up as an online National Enquirer for nuke conspiracy theorists and UFO fanatics. I'd hate to see that.

        In addition, this seems to be Gundersen's site, and he is quoted repeatedly in the lawsuit. So a skeptic might wonder whether there might be some income for him down the road in expert witness fees if they can help get a fire built under this lawsuit. It is one hypothetical reason one might want to concoct such sensationalistic headlines based on lawyer hype. An ethical scientist wouldn't do that.


        Report comment

        • garjackson

          Talk about nonsense. You are full of it.

          The article says "He then talked to others from the Reagan and found many suffered problems"

          That's reality pal. MANY


          Report comment

        • PavewayIII PavewayIII

          Agree 100%, Pierpont. What should have been a very carefully crafted, well thought out complaint comes off as an ambulance-chasing hack job. Better than nothing, but it deserved more and could have used a more worthy headline.

          I've already said my piece on ENENews and it's National Enquirer headlines. No idea who runs the site or for what reason – but it doesn't really matter. It's how they seem to want to run it. I'm sure they would remind us we're always free to leave.

          And I see you already have a fan in garjackson. Shame on you for not toeing the company line, here! Are you a DOE plant?


          Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      I hope you are thinking of going to spend some time near Fukushima Daiichi without any protection. Why don't you volunteer for a health clinic in Fukushima Prefecture? And spend some time helping the farmers there and eat their produce and spend some time on the work at Fukushima Daiichi [I hate to call it clean up, since you can't clean up melted cores and spent and live fuel rods that are damaged]. You can then "prove" to us how harmless radiation is and how wonderful it is now to live near the reactors which are in "cold shutdown." And how wonderful you are not to seek monetary help or gifts for medical bills and disability equipment to meet daily life.

      Would such action help to shut down all nuclear reactors and save the lives of many people? I'm afraid not. But at least your would be living your dream.

      It's called putting your feet where your mouth is. I.e., don't do as I say, but do as I do.


      Report comment

      • Pierpont

        @anne: My comment is for Pierpont.

        Moi??
        Accusez?

        @anne: You can then "prove" to us how harmless radiation is and how wonderful it is now to live near the reactors which are in "cold shutdown."

        Your comment has no connection to anything I've said. I have not said a word about radiation being harmless or it being "wonderful" to live near reactors. Shame on you for trying to twist the conversation. I called you on this tactic in a related thread.

        @anne: And how wonderful you are not to seek monetary help or gifts for medical bills and disability equipment to meet daily life.

        My point has been that phoney lawsuits suck resources AWAY from the people of Japan. My point has been that this whole lawsuit circus could damage the real victims of Fukushima, and I have made that point repeatedly and very clearly. Are you now trying to spin the lawsuit into a way for the people of Japan to get their medical bills paid? Your knickers are twisted so tightly, they're cutting off oxygen to your brain.

        Instead of responding to my valid criticisms of the lawsuit, you engage in a program of mis-information about what I have said. Where are you coming from? Your enthusiasm for this lawsuit is . . . curious.


        Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Keeping it real, is exactly why any information review is good.
    If it is a chessmatch, that's the only way to stay in the game…
    An informed citizenship, seeks a government, for the people.


    Report comment

  • razzz razzz

    Needed a sociopath like O'bummer to dress up the lawsuit language, huh? He could have announced the EPA was filing a lawsuit on behalf of the American people against TEPCO…the lawsuit would still have been vilified by the UN as silly.


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.