Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor?
Author: Old Salt
Date: 08-31-2014 - 23:46

> Several early nuclear reactor operated ships were decommissioned here also.


Seems dubious to me, Since the first three such nuclear powered ships that the Navy had were decommissioned well after most industrial activity at Hunters point was gone, which happened many years before its official closure. Also seems dubious since I was stationed on board a ship that regularly docked there in the mid 60s. Don't recall ever seeing any subs.

It did continue to serve as a place to dock a few still active surface ships, into the mid 70s; though they had to go elsewhere for repairs even as early as 1967. Heck, they even had to go elsewhere for routine supplies and repair parts, since neither was available there. Much of the shipyard seemed a ghost town even then. The place was already moribund when I my own ship was decommissioned at mare island, and I was transferred elsewhere.

While chemical pollution was evident everywhere, and some of it undoubtedly serious by today's standards, it seemed pretty typical to me. But I doubt that if the place was as contaminated with nuclear waste as suggested, that civilians not related to the military, such as the Myth Busters or GGRM, would ever have been allowed in there in at all!

And since the EPA has been known to frequently hire rabid extremists with heavy axes to grind, I will remain skeptical of any such claims until they have proven their case well enough to justify permanently barring civilian access altogether. Not likely!

Another required piece of evidence, would be the CDC finding a statistical hot spot after all these years, involving nuclear diseases among Hunters Point personnel. I haven't heard of any such hotspot.

Until both these things have happened, I wouldn't worry very much; and certainly you shouldn't get worked up enough to cause an ulcer - or stress related diabetes - very real here and now medical risks!



Subject Written By Date/Time (PST)
  PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Dale Cherne 08-31-2014 - 00:04
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? rumormonger 08-31-2014 - 01:52
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? K-Town Rail 08-31-2014 - 08:33
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Alfred Doten 09-01-2014 - 08:56
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Espee99 09-01-2014 - 17:35
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Forbes Mill 08-31-2014 - 08:55
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Trainfriend 08-31-2014 - 11:02
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Erasmus B Dragon 08-31-2014 - 12:28
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Farley Farwell 08-31-2014 - 13:28
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Margaret (SP fan) 08-31-2014 - 14:08
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Pickov Andropov 08-31-2014 - 15:14
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Mike K 08-31-2014 - 22:30
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Old Salt 08-31-2014 - 23:46
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Art Carney 09-01-2014 - 10:17
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Ivy Mike 09-01-2014 - 11:44
  GGRM and Cesium 137 Radiation HUTCH 7.62 09-01-2014 - 09:37
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure 09-01-2014 - 09:19
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? Mike K 09-01-2014 - 11:44
  Re: PLA vs GGRM Rumor? HUTCH 7.62 09-01-2014 - 15:23


Go to: Message ListSearch
Subject: 
Your Name: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **         ********  **    **  **     **   *******  
 **    **   **        **   **   **     **  **     ** 
 **    **   **        **  **    **     **  **        
 **    **   ******    *****     **     **  ********  
 *********  **        **  **     **   **   **     ** 
       **   **        **   **     ** **    **     ** 
       **   ********  **    **     ***      *******  
This message board is maintained by:Altamont Press
You can send us an email at altamontpress1@gmail.com