"The levels were incredibly dangerous and at one point, the radiation in the air measured 300 times higher than what was considered safe, Sebourn told The Post."
This doesn't mean anything, its technobabble. How many REM or mSv total exposure?
"I said something complicated and science-y sounding, so you are supposed to be scared right now".
The biggest misfortune is they may even accidentally be correct, just completely incompetent about it.
A big epidemiology problem is identifying the actual cause by symptom, and avoiding the assumption that participation in something big and scary therefore means all problems must be caused by big n scary. Some goofball tipping over a barrel of solvent in the maint bay could cause many cancers later, and is marginally more likely.
"For perspective, the maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship's force personnel aboard the ship when it passed through the area was less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun."
Meaning ~300 uSv, or three orders of magnitude short of acute radiation poisoning [1].
"Using sensitive instruments, precautionary measurements of three helicopter aircrews returning to USS Ronald Reagan after conducting disaster relief missions near Sendai identified low levels of radioactivity on 17 air crew members. The low level radioactivity was easily removed from affected personnel by washing with soap and water. They were subsequently surveyed, and no further contamination was detected."
(edit) By the way, [0] says the carrier was 100 miles from Fukushima at the time. Overlay that with the calculated I-131 dose map [2] (from [3]) (I-131 is the largest early dose component); it makes it really hard to believe any of these claims.
The paper [3] is relevant too: it shows off the ability to measure internal I-131 dose, long after the fact. And claims that people far closer to the disaster, with presumed far higher radiation exposures [2], are relatively safe.
>Tokyo Electric Power also knew that radioactivity was leaking at a rate of 400 tons a day into the North Pacific, according to the lawsuit and Japanese officials.
>>“We were probably floating in contaminated water without knowing it for a day and a half before we got hit by that plume,” said Cooper, whose career as a third-class petty officer ended five months after the disaster for health reasons.
The toxic seawater was sucked into the ship’s desalinization system, flowing out of its faucets and showers — still radioactive — and into the crew member’s bodies.
Toxic seawater a hundred miles offshore???? You can't make up anything more ridiculous.
Well, I wouldn't want to walk around outside with levels at 300 times what is "considered safe".
Japan is just lucky that 95% of the radioactive release from the meltdowns was blown out over the ocean, otherwise a much larger fraction of their island would have become useless for agriculture. If the earthquake occurred during the fall, the winds would have been generally off the ocean.
"Tokyo Electric Power also knew that radioactivity was leaking at a rate of 400 tons a day into the North Pacific, according to the lawsuit and Japanese officials."
I'm sorry, what? What does that even mean? 400 tons of.. Uranium? Water? Pure radioactive essence?
This article is shocking on many levels, but the lack of journalistic standards is appalling.
400 tons of slightly radioactive coolant water, I believe. Or of groundwater that had been mixed with the slightly radioactive coolant water.
Journalists don't seem to realize the more water there is, the less harmful it is per unit volume, or that the sea rapidly dilutes it further into harmlessness.
> By the time the Reagan realized it was contaminated and tried to shift location, the radioactive plume had spread too far to be quickly outrun.
>
> “We have a multimillion-dollar radiation-detection system, but . . . it takes time to be set up and activated,” Cooper said.
But... if you're on the coast helping deal with the tsunami damage like them and then a nuclear disaster starts, setting it up & activating it seems like a priority task.
During the height of the Cold War, US Navy ships were equipped with a "wash down" system to enable operations after sailing through nuclear fallout. I'm surprised to learn that no means of detecting radiation in the drinking water was thought of back then. Then again, many of those systems were thought of as a way of continuing to operate for just a few weeks more. Many of those scenarios would have included the end of civilization.
This has come up several times in the Navy-nuke Facebook group in which I lurk (I used to be one of them). The posters in that group have been, shall we say, scathingly skeptical of these claims of radiation sickness. The group includes a number of current- and former radiological-controls specialists, known as engineering lab techs or "ELTs." Navy-nuke ELTs are a select lot who are trained to face the facts and tell it like it is. As a general rule, they're very good at spotting BS, and they're not especially inclined to just passively accept it when they do spot it. Their skepticism about this radiation-sickness story is worth taking into account.
EDIT: Consider some circumstantial evidence:
- In the Navy nuclear-power subculture, people pay attention to detail (to put it mildly). This is true in general, and especially on the subject of radiation exposure to the crew or the public.
- The commanding officer and executive officer of every U.S. aircraft carrier are nuclear-trained, on top of being senior aviators or naval flight officers; they must successfully complete the full, one-year, very-intense nuke qualification course even to be eligible to hold those jobs. Then before they assume those jobs they undergo still more training to be an XO and then CO.
- On any U.S. aircraft carrier, the chief engineer (who "owns" the evaporators that produce the ship's drinking- and washing water) and the [chief] reactor officer (who "owns" the ELTs) are nukes, of course. They're among the most-senior officers on the ship.
- Unambitious people don't put in the years of stressful work that it takes to get these jobs. It's a safe bet that these senior officers all want to be admirals someday. A radiological "incident" of the kind being described likely would severely impair their chances of ever being assigned to a responsible job again, let alone being promoted to flag rank.
So: We're being asked to believe that, in a non-combat situation, somehow all of these career-minded senior officers aboard the Reagan inadvertently allowed the crew's radiation exposure to get to dangerous levels. Sorry, I just don't buy it. I suppose we can't categorically rule out the possibility, but to me it's another reason to be skeptical of the radiation-sickness claims.
I can't claim to know anything about naval nuclear engineering. My intuition tells me that avoiding runaway criticality and avoiding crew contamination are high priorities. Based on this I can think of 4 significant questions off the top of my head:
1. How might they ever know to avoid a massive radiation plume they weren't expecting? Particularly if the plume is very large and expanding faster than they can move the ship?
2. How much of the crew would be informed of such a situation? Would there be a risk of panic or mutiny, if all of the crew were permitted to fully understand such circumstances?
3. Given that this is a military vessel, if they are ordered into harm's way (or perhaps ordered to assist since they've already unwittingly suffered irreparable harm), would they say no? Would careers be protected and defended if orders were obeyed?
4. Would it be possible to fake 70 cases of thyroid polyps, leukemia, testicular cancer and uterine bleeding so bad it requires transfusions?
...and as an aside, given that we're introducing the idea that everything might be a hoax, one more question: Given what we've learned about the NSA and Facebook over the past year, how probable is it that a Navy-nuke Facebook group might be astroturfed into an echo chamber aligned with a particular agenda?
Rape is covered up every week in the US military, apparently at a massive scale.
You don't think other crimes are covered up as well? Like letting people drink and bathe in radioactive water because it would get the chain of command in trouble if it was reported?
How about the fact they couldn't get a port to accept them - you think the sailors made that up and it couldn't be verified?
On its own, I can't treat this article as credible. The compensation lawyer presents the strongest possible case for his clients, and the journalist is clearly glossing over a great deal in order to get the juiciest quotes.
From what little details are given, it sounds like the crew of the Reagan suffered from some kind of gut infection, not radiation poisoning. That would explain why they were denied port entry at Guam, and so on.
I live on the fringe of the area where contamination from Fukushima can be detected. To my knowledge, doctors haven't noticed anything unusual yet, and believe me people are watching. Still, the article sends a chill...
It was much worse than was reported. An online forum of nuclear engineers (I may still have the link) was the most informative source of news about the disaster at the time.
EDIT: found the link.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=8b5b840e5e9217...
I hope I won't offend anyone by saying that some of the reported health problems after radioactive disaster are usually exaggerated to get reparations.
This is why I wouldn't let my kids EVER enlist. The government has no regard for its enlisted. Doesn't take a genius to think our navy would be in harm's way during a RADIOACTIVE DISASTER. Reminds me of when soldiers were being electrocuted in showers in Iraq because of totally incompetent contractors wiring electricity near the showers.
These carriers are the most powerful, expensive war asset any nation state has. The weakest, most vulnerable link is the soft fleshy things on board. Yet, they are the most essential component of the system. You cant replace them at sea, you cant replace or fix parts, they are finite and vulnerable. No people, no carrier. Therefor carrier crews are probably some of the best looked after people in the forces. Perhaps not out of humanity, but to protect that vital asset.
I'd go further. I would wager that a US nuclear powered carrier is one of the safest places on earth. After all, it is built to fight in an all out nuclear war and hopefully survive. Perhaps be the last hope if the mainland was devastatingly attacked. It can't possibly be that if its crew are, well, dead.
Also, carriers are kind of isolated. They are societies in themselves. The captains are probably more attached and sympathetic to their crews than many other parts of the military.
>Reminds me of when soldiers were being electrocuted in showers in Iraq because of totally incompetent contractors wiring electricity near the showers.
The details of which are the showers needed water pumps,and the water pumps were not properly grounded.
I was in the Army for a few years and recently got out. The Army is considered to be the service which is the least concerned with its service members.
That said, the Army most certainly DOES have regard for its enlisted. When things like this happen, bad PR follows. Bad PR is bad for a variety of reasons, one of which being that it makes recruiting more difficult. People will be much less likely to join an organization which doesn't care about them, and would thus require more incentives to do so, incentives which cost money. Two: soldiers, airmen, etc go through a pretty intensive training process that lasts several months at a minimum, and that training isn't cheap. By the time you're a full-fledged member of your respective service, your service has a lot of money invested in you, and the more advanced in your career you are, the more valuable you are to them. Soldiers cost more money than you imagine. Three: morale in the military is of paramount importance. Without good morale, operations break down. If a group of soldiers feel that their leadership doesn't care about them, morale quickly goes into the toilet, and that has all sorts of detrimental and pervasive effects.
When I was in the Army, I got sick of having to always go to another meeting about another program that, should we need it, was available to us. Everything from PTSD counseling to going outside of your chain of command if necessary to financial counseling to healthcare to complaining about the food, barracks, or what have you - there were channels galore to address grievances. They not only create these programs, but they force you to be aware that they exist. These aren't programs created just for show; they're programs which are created to be used.
This isn't the Vietnam Era. The military is an all-volunteer force, and unless the draft comes back, it can't afford to not care about its members. In an organization of many millions of people who constantly deal with difficult, dangerous things like this, incidents will occasionally occur, but they are the exception, rather than the rule.
Wikipedia says the USS Ronald Regan has a total crew of 5,680.
How statistically significant is 70 people out of 5,680 suffering serious health problems over 2.5 years? I'm guessing that most people on board were fairly young and in good health.
Radiation overdose is happy to cause you all kind of cancer 50 years down the road. Having been overexposed is really not something you want, even if you don't show symptoms so quickly. The psychological pressure on these people alone must be maddening.
Imagine waking up every day for the rest of your life and wondering if you have cancer today? Not good..
Edit: and let's not talk about the increased likelihood of disfigured offspring.
A failed multimillion-dollar radiation-detection system. Why didn't they have this activated?
"The toxic seawater was sucked into the ship’s desalinization system, flowing out of its faucets and showers — still radioactive — and into the crew member’s bodies."
They could have sidestepped the whole issue with a simple reverse-osmosis water filter. Somehow I get the impression that they did not think the ABC (edit: CBRN) thing through.
It may be the lack of capabilities to deal with a mass radiation event.
I can't find any references to how many crew are typically assigned to the USS Ronald Regan. Guam doesn't seem like it has a lot of healthcare support for a full-aircraft carrier of irradiated seamen.
If I were losing 60 or 70 pounds a month due to hyperthyroidism, I'd request that my thyroid be removed and I'd probably then be prescribed levothyroxine. I'd say it's a safe bet the thyroid isn't the root cause here. Thyroid removal is pretty common.
The meaning behind the story is far more sinister than the sad case of some people getting cancer...
it is that TEPCO, which is the organization best suited to know and measure what was/is going on, has been shown to lie, even to its own government, about the situation.
If it truly the case that TEPCO has been lying about things from the start, then nothing that they have said in the interim, or things that they say in the future, can be taken at face value, and whatever claims they make require independant third party confirmation.
If there's any government agency that will obfuscate, stonewall, evade responsibility and generally bullshit their way out of helping the people who get hurt on their watch, it's the DoD.
When people sperg out over specific radiation claims being floated in the NY Post (of all places) they ought to keep in mind that if these people are anywhere near as sick as they're described to be they need help, and they're up against a nasty brick wall when it comes to getting that help. Picking a side here ought to be pretty damn easy unless this turns out to be some kind of outright fraud.
We already can make simple ones, it's a matter of radiation shielding. They don't have to be huge expensive humanoid ones. Robots were used in the Chernobyl cleanup 25 years ago although they ended up getting fried from the radiation. I haven't done much research on the topic of what exists today regarding workarounds for electronics in radioactive environments (if someone has domain knowledge, please tell!), but I suspect we could fix that.
For some interesting history, look up "Bio-Robots" to see how the Soviet Union dealt with the disaster. Basically they sent up humans in heavy lead suits for no more than 45 seconds at a time. Run up, get three or four shovelfuls (they were clearing radioactive debris from the roof), get out.
At the TC Disrupt Europe hackathon, there was one team that build a hardware/software hack to crowdsource radioactivity data / warnings. Basically, a Geiger counter attached to your computer that sends readings to a server.
I think it was a really cool hack and one of my favorites, but it didn't go anywhere with the jury (I guess no business model and all :) ).
I served on the Reagan from 2003-2007 and am lucky enough to have finished my enlistment before the Fukushima incident.
I still have a large network of friends in the military and work in the defense industry in San Diego so I was surprised when I first learned of this incident only a few weeks ago. I thought the post I was reading at the time was a sick hoax at first but have since learned otherwise.
This doesn't surprise me much at all unfortunately, and I wish my fellow sailors the best of luck in not getting screwed by Uncle Sam, which is what I fully expect will happen.
[+] [-] VLM|12 years ago|reply
This doesn't mean anything, its technobabble. How many REM or mSv total exposure?
"I said something complicated and science-y sounding, so you are supposed to be scared right now".
The biggest misfortune is they may even accidentally be correct, just completely incompetent about it.
A big epidemiology problem is identifying the actual cause by symptom, and avoiding the assumption that participation in something big and scary therefore means all problems must be caused by big n scary. Some goofball tipping over a barrel of solvent in the maint bay could cause many cancers later, and is marginally more likely.
[+] [-] throwaway_yy2Di|12 years ago|reply
"For perspective, the maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship's force personnel aboard the ship when it passed through the area was less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun."
Meaning ~300 uSv, or three orders of magnitude short of acute radiation poisoning [1].
"Using sensitive instruments, precautionary measurements of three helicopter aircrews returning to USS Ronald Reagan after conducting disaster relief missions near Sendai identified low levels of radioactivity on 17 air crew members. The low level radioactivity was easily removed from affected personnel by washing with soap and water. They were subsequently surveyed, and no further contamination was detected."
(edit) By the way, [0] says the carrier was 100 miles from Fukushima at the time. Overlay that with the calculated I-131 dose map [2] (from [3]) (I-131 is the largest early dose component); it makes it really hard to believe any of these claims.
The paper [3] is relevant too: it shows off the ability to measure internal I-131 dose, long after the fact. And claims that people far closer to the disaster, with presumed far higher radiation exposures [2], are relatively safe.
[0] http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=59065
[1] http://xkcd.com/radiation/
[2] (figure only) http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120712/srep00507/fig_tab/sre...
[3] (full paper) http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120712/srep00507/full/srep00...
[+] [-] nevinera|12 years ago|reply
This was my favorite line.
[+] [-] cpleppert|12 years ago|reply
>>“We were probably floating in contaminated water without knowing it for a day and a half before we got hit by that plume,” said Cooper, whose career as a third-class petty officer ended five months after the disaster for health reasons. The toxic seawater was sucked into the ship’s desalinization system, flowing out of its faucets and showers — still radioactive — and into the crew member’s bodies.
Toxic seawater a hundred miles offshore???? You can't make up anything more ridiculous.
[+] [-] platz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marze|12 years ago|reply
Japan is just lucky that 95% of the radioactive release from the meltdowns was blown out over the ocean, otherwise a much larger fraction of their island would have become useless for agriculture. If the earthquake occurred during the fall, the winds would have been generally off the ocean.
[+] [-] joshvm|12 years ago|reply
I'm sorry, what? What does that even mean? 400 tons of.. Uranium? Water? Pure radioactive essence?
This article is shocking on many levels, but the lack of journalistic standards is appalling.
[+] [-] glenra|12 years ago|reply
Journalists don't seem to realize the more water there is, the less harmful it is per unit volume, or that the sea rapidly dilutes it further into harmlessness.
There's a little more detail on the claim here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/fukushima-radioacti...
[+] [-] nobody_nowhere|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fidotron|12 years ago|reply
Much as TEPCO may be at fault over the actual reactor the sailors being exposed unnecessarily sounds more like Naval negligence.
[+] [-] gwern|12 years ago|reply
> By the time the Reagan realized it was contaminated and tried to shift location, the radioactive plume had spread too far to be quickly outrun. > > “We have a multimillion-dollar radiation-detection system, but . . . it takes time to be set up and activated,” Cooper said.
But... if you're on the coast helping deal with the tsunami damage like them and then a nuclear disaster starts, setting it up & activating it seems like a priority task.
[+] [-] stcredzero|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dctoedt|12 years ago|reply
EDIT: Consider some circumstantial evidence:
- In the Navy nuclear-power subculture, people pay attention to detail (to put it mildly). This is true in general, and especially on the subject of radiation exposure to the crew or the public.
- The commanding officer and executive officer of every U.S. aircraft carrier are nuclear-trained, on top of being senior aviators or naval flight officers; they must successfully complete the full, one-year, very-intense nuke qualification course even to be eligible to hold those jobs. Then before they assume those jobs they undergo still more training to be an XO and then CO.
- On any U.S. aircraft carrier, the chief engineer (who "owns" the evaporators that produce the ship's drinking- and washing water) and the [chief] reactor officer (who "owns" the ELTs) are nukes, of course. They're among the most-senior officers on the ship.
- Unambitious people don't put in the years of stressful work that it takes to get these jobs. It's a safe bet that these senior officers all want to be admirals someday. A radiological "incident" of the kind being described likely would severely impair their chances of ever being assigned to a responsible job again, let alone being promoted to flag rank.
So: We're being asked to believe that, in a non-combat situation, somehow all of these career-minded senior officers aboard the Reagan inadvertently allowed the crew's radiation exposure to get to dangerous levels. Sorry, I just don't buy it. I suppose we can't categorically rule out the possibility, but to me it's another reason to be skeptical of the radiation-sickness claims.
[+] [-] downer87|12 years ago|reply
1. How might they ever know to avoid a massive radiation plume they weren't expecting? Particularly if the plume is very large and expanding faster than they can move the ship?
2. How much of the crew would be informed of such a situation? Would there be a risk of panic or mutiny, if all of the crew were permitted to fully understand such circumstances?
3. Given that this is a military vessel, if they are ordered into harm's way (or perhaps ordered to assist since they've already unwittingly suffered irreparable harm), would they say no? Would careers be protected and defended if orders were obeyed?
4. Would it be possible to fake 70 cases of thyroid polyps, leukemia, testicular cancer and uterine bleeding so bad it requires transfusions?
...and as an aside, given that we're introducing the idea that everything might be a hoax, one more question: Given what we've learned about the NSA and Facebook over the past year, how probable is it that a Navy-nuke Facebook group might be astroturfed into an echo chamber aligned with a particular agenda?
[+] [-] ck2|12 years ago|reply
You don't think other crimes are covered up as well? Like letting people drink and bathe in radioactive water because it would get the chain of command in trouble if it was reported?
How about the fact they couldn't get a port to accept them - you think the sailors made that up and it couldn't be verified?
[+] [-] crazytony|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pitarou|12 years ago|reply
From what little details are given, it sounds like the crew of the Reagan suffered from some kind of gut infection, not radiation poisoning. That would explain why they were denied port entry at Guam, and so on.
I live on the fringe of the area where contamination from Fukushima can be detected. To my knowledge, doctors haven't noticed anything unusual yet, and believe me people are watching. Still, the article sends a chill...
[+] [-] greenyoda|12 years ago|reply
Do gut infections cause thyroid problems, cancers and uncontrolled gynecological bleeding?
[+] [-] sitharus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ChristianMarks|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zequel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
I'd go further. I would wager that a US nuclear powered carrier is one of the safest places on earth. After all, it is built to fight in an all out nuclear war and hopefully survive. Perhaps be the last hope if the mainland was devastatingly attacked. It can't possibly be that if its crew are, well, dead.
Also, carriers are kind of isolated. They are societies in themselves. The captains are probably more attached and sympathetic to their crews than many other parts of the military.
[+] [-] joenathan|12 years ago|reply
The details of which are the showers needed water pumps,and the water pumps were not properly grounded.
[+] [-] ams6110|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JanezStupar|12 years ago|reply
I agree wholeheartedly.
[+] [-] notdrunkatall|12 years ago|reply
That said, the Army most certainly DOES have regard for its enlisted. When things like this happen, bad PR follows. Bad PR is bad for a variety of reasons, one of which being that it makes recruiting more difficult. People will be much less likely to join an organization which doesn't care about them, and would thus require more incentives to do so, incentives which cost money. Two: soldiers, airmen, etc go through a pretty intensive training process that lasts several months at a minimum, and that training isn't cheap. By the time you're a full-fledged member of your respective service, your service has a lot of money invested in you, and the more advanced in your career you are, the more valuable you are to them. Soldiers cost more money than you imagine. Three: morale in the military is of paramount importance. Without good morale, operations break down. If a group of soldiers feel that their leadership doesn't care about them, morale quickly goes into the toilet, and that has all sorts of detrimental and pervasive effects.
When I was in the Army, I got sick of having to always go to another meeting about another program that, should we need it, was available to us. Everything from PTSD counseling to going outside of your chain of command if necessary to financial counseling to healthcare to complaining about the food, barracks, or what have you - there were channels galore to address grievances. They not only create these programs, but they force you to be aware that they exist. These aren't programs created just for show; they're programs which are created to be used.
This isn't the Vietnam Era. The military is an all-volunteer force, and unless the draft comes back, it can't afford to not care about its members. In an organization of many millions of people who constantly deal with difficult, dangerous things like this, incidents will occasionally occur, but they are the exception, rather than the rule.
[+] [-] forktheif|12 years ago|reply
How statistically significant is 70 people out of 5,680 suffering serious health problems over 2.5 years? I'm guessing that most people on board were fairly young and in good health.
[+] [-] skriticos2|12 years ago|reply
Imagine waking up every day for the rest of your life and wondering if you have cancer today? Not good..
Edit: and let's not talk about the increased likelihood of disfigured offspring.
[+] [-] lafar6502|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elleferrer|12 years ago|reply
"The toxic seawater was sucked into the ship’s desalinization system, flowing out of its faucets and showers — still radioactive — and into the crew member’s bodies."
[+] [-] skriticos2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukateake|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ams6110|12 years ago|reply
That sounds suspicious. Guam is a U.S. Territory.
[+] [-] cmgreen|12 years ago|reply
I can't find any references to how many crew are typically assigned to the USS Ronald Regan. Guam doesn't seem like it has a lot of healthcare support for a full-aircraft carrier of irradiated seamen.
[+] [-] cpleppert|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josh-wrale|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickg_zill|12 years ago|reply
it is that TEPCO, which is the organization best suited to know and measure what was/is going on, has been shown to lie, even to its own government, about the situation.
(mentioned in more detail here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/28/world/asia/japan-fukushima-law... )
If it truly the case that TEPCO has been lying about things from the start, then nothing that they have said in the interim, or things that they say in the future, can be taken at face value, and whatever claims they make require independant third party confirmation.
[+] [-] justin66|12 years ago|reply
When people sperg out over specific radiation claims being floated in the NY Post (of all places) they ought to keep in mind that if these people are anywhere near as sick as they're described to be they need help, and they're up against a nasty brick wall when it comes to getting that help. Picking a side here ought to be pretty damn easy unless this turns out to be some kind of outright fraud.
[+] [-] Juha|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melling|12 years ago|reply
http://singularityhub.com/2013/12/20/nasa-unveils-valkyrie-a...
It's really up to us if it's going to be 10 years or 20.
[+] [-] Alex_MJ|12 years ago|reply
For some interesting history, look up "Bio-Robots" to see how the Soviet Union dealt with the disaster. Basically they sent up humans in heavy lead suits for no more than 45 seconds at a time. Run up, get three or four shovelfuls (they were clearing radioactive debris from the roof), get out.
[+] [-] pagekicker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CookWithMe|12 years ago|reply
I think it was a really cool hack and one of my favorites, but it didn't go anywhere with the jury (I guess no business model and all :) ).
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/26/open-radioactivity-warning-...
http://techcrunch.com/video/open-radioactivity-warning-syste... (Video)
[+] [-] patrickgokey|12 years ago|reply
I still have a large network of friends in the military and work in the defense industry in San Diego so I was surprised when I first learned of this incident only a few weeks ago. I thought the post I was reading at the time was a sick hoax at first but have since learned otherwise.
This doesn't surprise me much at all unfortunately, and I wish my fellow sailors the best of luck in not getting screwed by Uncle Sam, which is what I fully expect will happen.