USS Ronald Reagan post Fukushima

[awblain]

Tourist's reply may be terse and "direct", but it's almost certainly correct.

Given Veteran Administration benefits, which are OK but not excellent, and suffering from serious illnesses, taking legal action is a promising way to pay for better long-term care and rehabilitation. And it's a good way to make some lawyers very wealthy.

Over time, Fukushima will certainly lead to enhanced rates of cancers, perhaps tens of thousands. However, the enhanced risk of an individual getting cancer due to the plant - especially within four years - is small.

Nuclear-powered ship workers presumably all have dose meters - which gives some idea of external exposure. They were almost all young, so presumably were all given potassium iodide to ward off the biggest internal exposure risk.

If it had been 60 aircrew with cancer from flying near the site (out of maybe 1000 aircrew onboard) that would be dramatic evidence of contamination and a causal link from exposure to emission from Fukushima. But it's not - the claim is that their desalinated seawater caused it, in 60 out of all 10000 onboard. In almost 4 years, out of 3000 men on Essex and 6500 on Reagan, how many would naturally get (not die from) testicular and other cancers?

Half of testicular cancers occur in 20-35 age group - the age of naval personnel. The lifetime risk of testicular cancer (over ~50 years) is about 1:300, so in 3.7 years, the risk in this group is 1:300x2x50/3.7 = 1 in 8,000. 60 cases of testicular cancer amongst 10,000 crew is unlikely - there should be about 1.

But, there are lots of other cancers listed in the report. The annual risk of a man getting any cancer at 20-40 is about 1:1000, so the chance of getting cancer in 3.7 years is about 1:300. For 10,000 crew, that would give ~30 cases. Having 60 cases dug up by diligent lawyers amongst 10,000 crew is thus not at all unexpected.

Furthermore, the proposed means of making them sick - consuming purified (corrected from evaporated) water drawn from the Pacific - is absurd. If that's an enhanced risk, then everyone who drank water falling as rain evaporated from the Pacific since 2011 should be at the same enhanced risk.

To make any case, the lawyers need to show that it's aircrew that make up the claimants, not general crew. However, whether a jury is numerate or not, is a question. There is no case, but it might still be worth a gamble.

PS - When the water's desalinated, there's a good chance that it's also de-nuclearwasted as well.