Eight US Sailors Sue Japan's TEPCO For Lying About Fukushima Radiation

Tyler Durden's picture

It was only a matter of time before Japan's criminal lying about the radioactive exposure in the aftermath of the Fukushima catastrophe caught up with it. What is surprising is that those holding Japan accountable are not its citizens but eight US sailors who have just filed a suit against semi-nationalized energy operator TEPCO - the company which repeatedly ignored internal warnings about the ability of the Fukushima NPP to withstand an earthquake/tsunami -  seeking $110 million in damages.

As Kyodo reports:

"Eight U.S. sailors have filed a damages suit against Tokyo Electric Power Co., claiming they were exposed to radiation and face health threats as the utility did not provide appropriate information about the Fukushima nuclear disaster while they engaged in rescue operations on board an aircraft carrier, U.S. media reported.


The plaintiffs who filed the suit at the U.S. federal court in San Diego -- seeking a total of $110 million, or 9.4 billion yen, in damages -- were aboard the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan when it was involved in "Operation Tomodachi," a disaster relief effort shortly after a big earthquake and tsunami triggered the worst nuclear accident in decades, the reports said."

What is sad is that while everyone in the alternative media was repeatedly warning about the radiation exposure being misrepresented by both TEPCO and various Japanese ministries, it was the mainstream media that was constantly complicit in disseminating official and unofficial lies that there is nothing to fear. Which begs the question: shouldn't the lawsuit stretch to everyone who - without inquiring deeper and merely serving as a mouthpiece to a lying government and utility - gave the "all clear" even as radiation levels were approaching, and in many occasions, passing critical levels?

But hey: they were merely following orders, and were worried about keeping their jobs if they stepped out of line and questioned the line of propaganda command. Luckily, this will be the first time in world history this excuse will have been used.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
CClarity's picture

Just like our central bankers, in the higher echelons it is apparently now okay to LIE as long as it "keeps confidence" among the masses.  Disgusting!  Propaganda Ponzis never end well, but for a while some a-holes make big bucks.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

I believe the lowest circle of hell is reserved for turncoats, traitors, and betrayers of confidence.

If so, the traitorous lying whores in the mainstream media are in for a real treat.

exi1ed0ne's picture

I don't believe in hell.  I'll take my justice now thank you.

Pladizow's picture

They'll have better luck with their new set of gills and appendages, then they will with their law suit!

Fukushima Sam's picture

There was about a ton of plutonium in Fukushima #3 alone, which of course exploded in a nuclear detonation.  Japan is fucked.

Tirpitz's picture

Just as I am a bit curious today: how in this world would you ignite a ton of Plutoium, to get a nuclear explosion?

The critical mass for Pu239 lies at something like ten pounds, and even if you mixed it with Pu240, you'd be far from the ton resting in Fukushima.

Fukushima Sam's picture

The fact that the detonation at unit 3 was nuclear in origin is not yet acknowledged in the mainstream.  But don't worry, eventually it will be.

Arnie Gundersen certainly thinks that the detonation was too strong to be caused by a hydrogen explosion.  If you research the explosions at the three units that exploded you see a very large difference in their character.  The fact that unit 3 was loaded with MOX fuel is certainly a big difference between the configuration of the three reactors.

Recommend you look at Gundersen's site:


"Arnie Gundersen discusses TEPCO's latest analysis that, almost two years after the accident, fully substantiates Fairewinds long held position that the explosion at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 was the result of a detonation shock wave."

I like to make donations to Fairewinds to keep this kind of scrutiny going.

Tirpitz's picture

Sam, thanks for the detailled reply. None of us was present at Fukushima, so we all have to guess, each as best as (s)he can. That said, your guess is as good as mine, and as good as anyone else's.

To achieve a nuclear explosion, we need a minimum amount of nuclear fuel to blow off simultaneously, which releases a certain typical amount of energy. The energy of such a nuclear detonation is approximately by the factor of 10E6 larger than that of a chemical explosion. I.e. if Fukushima 3 would have blown up that way, instead of a heavily damaged concrete structure, we'd now see there a midsized crater instead.

Then, to detonate a ton of fissile material is technically challenging, so while I won't want to rule it entirely out (the possibility), chances that it happens are tiny at best. Negligible in fact. What may have happened could have been a so-called deflagration -- the effects of which are more comparable to a chemical explosion than to a nuclear one. All the while (a small amount of) fissile material would have burned down in the process, adding to radiation being spread wide and far.

The MOX fuel brings more toxic isotopes into the biosphere in case of an accident, so you're entirely right that there's a difference in the outcome. And don't let's forget that three of the four cooling ponds were loaded with spent fuel, which in the case of a melt-down will add to the radioactive inventory jeopardizing Japan and almost half of the Pacific rim.

Element's picture

I've watched Gundersen's initial video regarding this detonation and it's source thesis, and I've watched this one. I remain unconvinced with his conclusions.


Firstly; The #3 spent fuel pool has water in it, then, and still. It continues to hold water, the walls and floor were not blown out of it, they were not shattered by the force of the detonation allegedly occurring in it. Thus a prompt moderated nuclear energy release in the form of a detonation definitely did NOT occur from that source area.


Secondly, the #3 reactor vessel has water in it and continues to more or less hold water, the walls, floor were not completely destroyed, thus a prompt appreciable flash of nuclear energy release from an accelerating chain reaction in the MOX fuel in there, also did NOT occur.


Thus #3 reactor exploded due to a chemical reaction.

The TEPCO diagram only shows a point-source area of the ignition, producing a detonation. It does not insinuate 1,000 tonnes of hydrogen was all squeezed into the basement, only that this is where the ignition seems to have taken place. Of course the hydrogen gas would be distributed through out the entire building, that goes without saying.

But Gundersen knows that, so it appears he's being quite deliberately disingenuous, and spinning that nonsense to his 'viewers', for propaganda effects. It was a dumb thing to do Arnie and makes you look considerably less then forthright about all this stuff. But your theory about reactor #3's demise has not made a lot of sense from the beginning.

Fill a weather balloon with hydrogen, attach it to a string, stand well back with a long pole and a flame on the end on it, and touch the balloon with the flame. You'll see a flash and a ball of flame and hear a very loud bang. I saw this done indoors once and small bits of vermiculite flaked off the ceiling from the shock of it.

So I have no problem accepting that the ignition in the basement of hydrogen distributed throughout an entire reactor building, could raise the internal pressure so high (as per powder contained in a gun breach and cartridge that ignites) that it exploded out of the weakest point in the structure, the roof area, with greater speed and pressure than you'd otherwise expect it to have generated.

Occam's-Razor Arnie. You're theory is obviously incorrect, you're assertions and conclusions are erroneous - recant.

If you don't you will be regarded accordingly by the industry you critique, and they will not spare you. You've many valuable points to make that are valid and meaningful, without distorting the under-laying picture of the Fukushima accident, with what is irrelevant and incorrect theoretical nonsense (which actually does still hold water).

That's why regulatory agencies have discounted Gundersen's views and will continue to do so. He's pandering to the 'viewer', and more-or-less talking-his-book, thus doing himself discredit with everyone else in that industry, who can plainly see he's gotten it wrong, and hasn't faced-up to it yet (I'd go easy with the "training video" quips mate).

My guess is he will go quiet on this topic and will eventually admit he was wrong. In the meantime, as with everything, question axioms, assumptions and theories, no matter who is saying them.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

Not all the radiation detectors were shut off.  Here is what radnet showed over by me in San Bernardino, CA (Route 66): http://www.epa.gov/japan011/rert/radnet-sanbernardino-bg.html  You can probably search around your own town and see what happened.


azusgm's picture

No info at that link. Hmmm.

Hugh_Jorgan's picture

That is a load of ignorant crap. Where did you get Plutonium? The reactor fuel is Uranium. There are traces of Plutonuim created over the life of the core but there is not enough to make a bomb, and it certainly is not in a configuration to be detonated. There is no "nuclear detonation" in a meltdown situation. You can have sustained high temperatures and melting from zirconium-water reaction and normal enriched Uranium criticality if the core becomes a big enough puddle somewhere, but any explosion only comes from the aforementioned heat causing rapid expansion of coolant (aka; STEAM?) and the associated over-pressurization and system rupture that results. It can eject nasty material far and wide. This is what happened in Chernobyl and Fukashima both of which has serious design flaws.

Fukushima Sam's picture

You call someone ignorant yet have no clue yourself.  Unit 3 was loaded with MOX fuel.  And plutonium is a by-product of uranium fission:


I trust Gundersen:


"Unit 3 had 30 bundles of MOX fuel… All the reactors have plutonium in them… Uranium-238 becomes plutonium-239 when it absorbs a neutron… There was close to a ton of plutonium in each of the reactors… scattered throughout the fuel… A ton of plutonium in each reactor… you and I know how dangerous plutonium can be… makes the cleanup that much more difficult."

Nassim's picture


Hugh does not know what MOX is. Here is the Wikipedia entry and an extract:

... consisting of plutonium blended with natural uranium, reprocessed uranium, or depleted uranium


By the way, anyone who thinks that depleted uranium is some sort of depleted firework should ask the Iraqis - especially the children and parents of Fallujah


Of course, the US military hates to admit that the Gulf War Syndrome was actually internal low dose alpha and beta contamination.


I am proud of having donated $100 to Fairwinds for Christmas. Gundersen is doing a great job:


Anusocracy's picture

To everyone who understands that governments lie, wrap your mind around the idea that perhaps government lied about the linear dose-model.


AMHERST, Mass. – University of Massachusetts Amherst environmental toxicologist Edward Calabrese, whose career research shows that low doses of some chemicals and radiation are benign or even helpful, says he has uncovered evidence that one of the fathers of radiation genetics, Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller, knowingly lied when he claimed in 1946 that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.

Calabrese's interpretation of this history is supported by letters and other materials he has retrieved, many from formerly classified files. He published key excerpts this month in Archives of Toxicology and Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis.

Muller was awarded the 1946 Nobel Prize in medicine for his discovery that X-rays induce genetic mutations. This helped him call attention to his long-time concern over the dangers of atomic testing. Muller's intentions were good, Calabrese points out, but his decision not to mention key scientific evidence against his position has had a far-reaching impact on our approach to regulating radiation and chemical exposure.

Calabrese uncovered correspondence from November 1946 between Muller and Curt Stern at the University of Rochester about a major experiment that had recently evaluated fruit fly germ cell mutations in Stern's laboratory. It failed to support the linear dose-response model at low exposure levels, but in Muller's speech in Oslo a few weeks later he insisted there was "no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold." To Calabrese, this amounts to deliberate concealment and he says Stern raised no objection.

Calabrese adds, "This isn't an academic debate, it's really practical, because all of our rules about chemical and low-level radiation are based on the premises that Muller and the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) committee adopted at that time. Now, after all these years, it's very hard when people have been frightened to death by this dogma to persuade them that we don't need to be scared by certain low-dose exposures."

chiswickcat's picture

In a study published in the Br Med Jr using 100 years of data, cancer rates were compared amongst medical staff. The radiologists had the least cases of cancer, despite receiving the highest levels of cancer. It has been calculated that the optimum dose of radiation for the lowest cancer risk is about one cervical x-ray PER DAY! Linear no threashold is totally out dated. The French Radiological Society have called for it to be scrapped as have other researchers. No radiation is bad, a little is good, too much is bad. It's the same with virtually everything. Lead, arsnic, red wine, you name it! A little radiation causes; Radiation hormesis which is the stimulatory or beneficial effect of low doses of ionizing radiation. While an actual benefit from radiation exposure may seem outrageous, there is much supportive evidence for this phenomenon. 

Ctrl_P's picture

and this.



this is the same substance that is used in the medical industry.

- so much for the "no dose good, any dose bad" meme

Payable on Death's picture

You're prepared to go to hell right now?

ich1baN's picture

Ah exi1ed one, God has written His code into nature to provide justice one way or another.

Why else do those who perform an abortion have long-term psychological issues and an increase in breast cancer risk? Why else do homosexuals experience a much higher disease contraction rate and much lower average lifespans compared to heteros?

Just because these rich elites seem like they have all the power in the world, the fact is they are miserable people and are actually quite unhappy. Yes, it appears that injustice is happening to the naked eye, but justice comes in more forms to the unseen dimension of intellectual, spiritual, and emotional.  

mvsjcl's picture

Better take a geiger counter to any settlement monies won.

Cursive's picture


How radioactive is the USS Ronald Reagan?

mvsjcl's picture

I'm sure those figures are classified, Cursive, but I'd venture to say the effects are on par as were those of Reaganomics to our economy.

HedgeHammer's picture


I am retired Navy DC/HT and one of my resposibilities was CBR Defense. If the Reagan was contanminated in anyway the CBR sniffers that run 24 hrs a day would have alarmed. If this ship did indeed come in contact with radiation of any kind would have set of the CBR alarms shipwide. Mission would have been reevaluated and immediate containment and complete decontanmination efforts would be underway.

So to answer your question. The USS Ronald Reagan is not radiated. The ship would have been pulled into dock and given a complete decon scrub from top to bottom even after we would have done so at sea prior to the ship being docked.

Radiation can be washed off your body and othger in organic material and be radiation free afterwards. This applies to all Alpha and Beta particles except X-Ray particles which pass through the human body but these particles only travel a vert short distance from any blast. If memory serves me right the X-Ray travels less then a hundred feet or so.

Please forgive my rusty information above about the particles themselves ass I have been retired since the early 90's.

Cursive's picture

Sad.  How is the American Left coast doing vis-a-vis radiation levels?

CPL's picture

"Statistical clustering"


That is all.

Shell Game's picture

Not all here are Leftists, Cursive.  Someone has to wave 'Liberty or {radioactive} Death' signs at the fools...  ;)

OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

Other than a spike in infant deaths in British Colombia during the worst week of exposure (that cannot be statistically explained away)...they're fine. Slight glow.

tooriskytoinvest's picture

Navy rescue workers sue Japan over Fukushima cover-up — “Irreparable harm to life expectancy” — Gov’t and Tepco conspired


PUD's picture


Banksters's picture

The truth of the matter is that radiation will spew out of Fukushima for eons.

AGoldhamster's picture

Do you really think anybody - except J6P - cares?

Glass Seagull's picture



In totally unrelated news:

8 US sailors were found dead in 8 separate jacuzzis this morning.

a growing concern's picture

Each had multiple self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head.

knukles's picture

Reported dead in Texas but the bodies were later found in Maine.

takeaction's picture

Buried at sea at 2am with no witnesses for respect to their beliefs...

fuu's picture

Suicide notes at the scenes claimed responsibility for the USS Maine, The Federal Reserve, JFK, RFK, MLK, Hoffa, Tonkin, and 911.

tickhound's picture

And all began with a Dear Mom, This is FIRST, LAST NAME.

sushi's picture

I want you to know that I was one of those 8 suicides and the whole thing was perfectly legit.

I travelled from Texas to Maine to celebrate the New Year with my folks. What is wrong with that?

I think it unseemly for members of the public to publicly express complete and utter distrust of the government especially at this time of year. I have sworn to uphold the laws and constitution of the USA and will gladly testify to congress to that effect.


AGoldhamster's picture

I just wonder who sold all that - soooo safe - nuclear stuff to japan/tepco ... maybe they should be sued too

knukles's picture

GEeeee wiz!

They melt, he melts, she melts, Imelt

Joe A's picture

General Electric built right?

FubarNation's picture

Tepco didn't sail those ships into harms way.

Payne's picture

The Navy was the responsible party, all the equipement was on board to measure radioactive environments.  The Navy either failed to measure or misrepresented the findings in order to operate in the area.


Toolshed's picture

The US government STILL does not monitor, or at least it does not report the monitoring, of radiation levels in seafood. The nuclear industry is a VERY powerful entity indeed.

Cursive's picture


Neither France nor Japan would have electricity to support it's modern infrastructure if not for nuclear power.  So yeah, you could say it's a "power"-ful lobby, pun intended, or you could say it's another state-sponsored, mis-managed cartel. 

Manthong's picture

failed to measure?..  no way

But good luck ever revealing the measurements.

MachoMan's picture

Although you are correct to a certain degree, my guess is there are procedural and practical barriers for these guys to sue uncle sam.

TomGa's picture

Recall that Navy moved its ships out of the area for several days following the explosions. No reason was given at the time, but it wasn't hard to figure out why.  Meanwhile,  the U.S. embassy in Tokyo was taking measurements on its roof hourly and recorded "extremely frightening" levels of radiation blowing into Tokyo several hours after reactor #3 detonated.  Weeks later, areas of high radiation  were found to the Southwest of Tokyo.

Soil samples collected in and around Tokyo months after the meltthroughs and brought back the U.S. for analysis by Gunderson tested hot enough to be classified as nuclear hazardous waste  and had to be disposed of accordingly.