Medical Forum / General / General / January 2004
Crews' Health
|
|
Thread rating:  |
JHarold Rutabaga - 12 Jan 2004 03:44 GMT Is it healthy to live aboard a nuclear submarine?
The common person does not know much about nuclear submarines, so the issue of health is in the dark. The navy exclaims its healthy victorious journey through time and sea, but all tales are not told. I would not feel guilty or shameful to say that the basic heath of submariners is ignored. Granted it is up to each person to maintain their own health, but one can only go so far to overcome daily restrictions and obstacles.
There is a revolving 18 hour day which in itself is somewhat unnatural. Some scientist somewhere figured out that this was the most efficient means of operation. Those said scientists have not probably bothered to place themselves on the recommended schedule for an extended period of time.
Often you are not allowed to exercise for atmosphere control and due to mission regulations. Other times, being up for 36 - 52 hours naturally (if it may be stated that way) kills any desire to maintain your body or health.
Most fresh food is gone within a week. The meal quality, which is supposed to be among the best in the fleet, is its own topic.
On frequent occasions, and against federal safety rules in place, my command officers found it necessary to paint major portions of the boat while underwater. This was not usually accomplished out of necessity, but for shipboard beautification. To claim the commanding officers usual status, ignorance, would be inappropriate on all levels. Not only were people painting, but on several occasions a large portion of the crew was sectioned off to be part of the "paint team." During these exercises, many of these crew members had no job other than to paint the boat while it was under water.
Not all members of the crew were allowed to use respirators, and some were even prohibited from using them as they could not receive them because they had not attended the training course. The main source of filtration while underwater are those breathing the tainted air. I do not believe the headache inducing paint huffing abides by the navy zero tolerance program. Then again, because it is only destructive and it softens the brain for further brain washing, it might be acceptable.
The oxygen level is also artificially low. Again, scientists had decided that it was important for the crew members to have low energy levels. This is part of the reason that most of the foods are fatty, and is the whole reason oxygen levels are left below that of the outside world. This is not a positive if you are naturally a somewhat depressed person. This effect combined with the lack of sunlight and general negative atmosphere can quickly spiral you into extreme depression.
The navy has a physical readiness program, which I am forced to view as a joke. I have been to about a half dozen commands and have not seen any reasonable standards enforced or followed. To best point this out, I only have to think back to the 350 lbs + man that sat my courts martial. There was a program in place that kicked people out for being too heavy when I joined the navy. This program was abolished since too many people were eating their way to freedom.
-=- This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
BF Lake - 12 Jan 2004 03:56 GMT > Is it healthy to live aboard a nuclear submarine? snip of entertaining stuff, except he forgot to mention the saltpetre in the food put there to keep the men impotent. (they do do that , right??? teehee)
> seen any reasonable standards enforced or followed. To best point > this out, I only have to think back to the 350 lbs + man that sat my > courts martial. That would be even more entertaining to hear about
Regards, Barry
William A. Noyes - 12 Jan 2004 10:55 GMT Moral of the story avoid submarine duty.
Painting the interior while under water with poor ventilation and poor protection, sounds like the military mind at work.
I wonder if they have elevated prostate cancer (from the lack of UV and vitamin D3 and) and elevated leukemia rates (from the paint fumes)?
Just say Yes to No.............. ...............William A. Noyes
> Is it healthy to live aboard a nuclear submarine? > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > -=- > This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services. Fred J. McCall - 12 Jan 2004 12:20 GMT :Moral of the story avoid submarine duty. No, I think the moral of the story is to not give much, if any, credence to stories that come via multiple anonymous remailers and are told by people who admit to being court martialed as if this is a normal part of being in the service.
Frankly, you've really got to be a f.cking idiot to draw a Court in the normal course of events, particularly if you're attached to an afloat command. It's much easier to simply be unlucky and draw a green table as an officer than it is to actually get a Court Martial as an enlisted man.
 Signature "Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Keith Willshaw - 12 Jan 2004 12:46 GMT > Moral of the story avoid submarine duty. > > Painting the interior while under water with poor > ventilation and poor protection, sounds like > the military mind at work. It sound bogus to me. All the nuclear boats I went aboard (as a civilian contractor) had strict rules about the use of solvents while submerged and had atmospheric analyzers that monitored the build up of such contaminants. Those interested in art had to stick to water colours as I recall.
Keith
William A. Noyes - 13 Jan 2004 06:07 GMT > > Moral of the story avoid submarine duty. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Keith William A. Noyes - 13 Jan 2004 06:08 GMT > It sound bogus to me. All the nuclear boats I went aboard (as a > civilian contractor) had strict rules about the use of > solvents while submerged and had atmospheric analyzers > that monitored the build up of such contaminants. Those > interested in art had to stick to water colours as I recall. You are right of course.
Vaughn - 12 Jan 2004 11:19 GMT > Is it healthy to live aboard a nuclear submarine? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > their own health, but one can only go so far to overcome daily > restrictions and obstacles. Unless things have changed, SSBNs are the only ships of their size with a highly-qualified specially trained MD aboard.
> There is a revolving 18 hour day which in itself is somewhat > unnatural. Some scientist somewhere figured out that this was the > most efficient means of operation. True, it took me a few days to recover and start sleeping at night and staying awake during the day, the Navy gave me those days for free.
>Those said scientists have not > probably bothered to place themselves on the recommended schedule for > an extended period of time. SSBNs have been around for about 40 years now, this is no longer a scientific mystery.
> Often you are not allowed to exercise for atmosphere control and due > to mission regulations. Can't talk about your boat, but I have never heard of such a thing.
>Other times, being up for 36 - 52 hours > naturally (if it may be stated that way) kills any desire to maintain > your body or health. Don't know, the only time we worked extended hours was refit.
> Most fresh food is gone within a week. True, they compensate.
> The meal quality, which is > supposed to be among the best in the fleet, is its own topic. It is excellent! I hope they have reduced the caloric and fat content some though.
(The rest of this post dissolves into bullshit and I am out of time)
Vaughn
Derek Lyons - 14 Jan 2004 01:05 GMT > Unless things have changed, SSBNs are the only ships of their size with >a highly-qualified specially trained MD aboard. Yah, they changed decades ago... The '41 abandoned real docs during the early 70's and the 726's in the late 80's.
D.
 Signature The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs:
Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to om@io.com, as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion.
Steven James Forsberg - 12 Jan 2004 16:19 GMT : Is it healthy to live aboard a nuclear submarine? Modern submariners tend to have two distinctive features: they are often a little chubby (by military standards) and they often smell a little funny. They are quick to tell you that is because "the air is cleaner aboard a sub." Whatever. ;-) Rotating watches do have some long term effects, but submariners (aand even the military ) aren't alone in having to utilize them. The main complaint seems to be about failure to follow 'proper' procedures in painting. I can believe it happens, virtually every day sees someone somewhere cutting corners -- and it is usually the lower ranks that suffer the consequences. I don't know if it is a fleetwide problem, however. Few people spend long in the Navy without being able to relate tales of incredible stupidity and dangerousness they have seen, but it tends to be the same in industry. As to lack of physical fitness, well, it is traditional for modern submarine sailors to be a little heavy. (Translation: weight standards sometimes get a wink and nod). For one, the food is too good and the sailors, like most Americans, tend to eat a little too much of the weight-inducing stuff. "Grill your own steak" night was a feature, not "Make your own salad night." Secondly, physical activity is often very limited on submarines. In theory you can work out, I have a relative who served on at least one submarine where it was "discouraged", however. Not enough space and a lot of sweaty sailors and clothes. The bike machine was basically reserved for the XO. Forced PT and healthy eating are so downright un-American that to impose them would lower morale. :-) I haven't seen any recent statistics on submarine vs. surface sailors overall health. On the whole, however, I would expect submarines to have a lower accident rate. Painting on a sub may sound like a problem, but an awful lot of painting (and other stuff) on surface ships is also done in confined spaces, and once again safety unfortunately is not always first on everyone's list.
regards, ---------------------------------------------------------- sjforsbe@bayou.uh.edu
Olivers - 12 Jan 2004 18:12 GMT JHarold Rutabaga muttered....
To best point
> this out, I only have to think back to the 350 lbs + man that sat my > courts martial. Did Southwest Airlines make him buy two seats?
TMO
Steven James Forsberg - 12 Jan 2004 23:30 GMT In sci.military.naval Olivers <olive@losethiscalpha.com> wrote:
: JHarold Rutabaga muttered....
: To best point :> this out, I only have to think back to the 350 lbs + man that sat my :> courts martial.
: Did Southwest Airlines make him buy two seats? Just because he weighed 350 doesn't mean he failed the body fat standard. He could have been NFL sized.... I sometimes think I should buy two seats, one in front of the other -- and tear the first one out for legroom. And loosing weight would not help me with my shoulder span...
This actually raises a very tangential navy related question. If a government employee/military person is flying commercial air, what do the JFTRs say about people required by the airlines to buy two seats?
regards, ---------------------------------------------------------- sjforsbe@bayou.uh.edu
Olivers - 13 Jan 2004 16:41 GMT Steven James Forsberg muttered....
> This actually raises a very tangential navy related question. If > a government employee/military person is flying commercial air, what > do the JFTRs say about people required by the airlines to buy two > seats? While I doubt the military would do it, if the old TRs and contract prices are still used, civil servants would likely get away with it, although the various IG offices might raise a flap later. Under civil service/GEUnion rules, I don't think you could deny a CS the required second ticket.
I share your need for legroom, travel a great deal, most of it on AA, "More room in coach" still on domestic and transatlantic service (but not the Carib Sea).
TMO
Joe Osman - 13 Jan 2004 19:47 GMT > In sci.military.naval Olivers <olive@losethiscalpha.com> wrote: > : JHarold Rutabaga muttered.... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ---------------------------------------------------------- > sjforsbe@bayou.uh.edu I have noticed that government employees are preferentially placed in seats near the hatch, I assume because they are used to following orders and won't need to be argued with in a crunch.
Joe
Fred J. McCall - 13 Jan 2004 21:00 GMT :I have noticed that government employees are preferentially :placed in seats near the hatch, I assume because they are :used to following orders and won't need to be argued with in :a crunch. Well, I don't know that THAT is the reason I'd go with. I think one of these is more likely:
1) Military folks are generally going to keep it together in an emergency, when you need to get that hatch open and operating, and/or
2) Government travel bookers are doing them a favour, since those rows typically have more leg room.
 Signature "We come into the world and take our chances. Fate is just the weight of circumstances. That's the way that Lady Luck dances. Roll the bones...." -- "Roll The Bones", Rush
Brian Sharrock - 14 Jan 2004 10:30 GMT > :I have noticed that government employees are preferentially > :placed in seats near the hatch, I assume because they are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 1) Military folks are generally going to keep it together in an > emergency, when you need to get that hatch open and operating, and/or In/on flights originating from UK airports, Passenger Service Agents (PSA) aka 'check-in operators' have the final say on seat allocation. PSA are obliged to select - without Joe Six-pack realising the fact - pax that will _not hinder_ the emergency egress (don't you love that word?) of passengers. A bonus is to select pax that _might_ help cabin-staff in in an emergency. Trying to brow-beat the clerk behind the desk with;- "I need the extra leg-room 'cos my leg is in plaster!", "My children want a good view"; or any such techniques cuts no ice. [There is an audit trail detailing which PSA assigned the seat.] By and large, 'military folk' meet the selection criteria as do healthy, uninjured, non-deaf, non-blind, 'government employees' - Joe may have observed an effect not a cause. [YMMV}
--
Brian
Paul J. Adam - 13 Jan 2004 22:15 GMT > I sometimes think I should buy two seats, one in front of the >other -- and tear the first one out for legroom. And loosing weight would >not help me with my shoulder span... The most comfortable flights to date I recall were off-peak trips with Air Canada, on a half-empty flight where I had the seat beside me empty both ways. I got useful sleep both ways. (On a 2-3-2 767, some were using empty middle seats as bunks...)
I'm also too tall to be comfortable in any single economy class seat I've ridden to date, but life's a bitch... that's why they call it 'economy' instead of 'luxurious delightful comfort'. Having spare space helps when you can get it.
> This actually raises a very tangential navy related question. If >a government employee/military person is flying commercial air, what do >the JFTRs say about people required by the airlines to buy two seats? Personal guess, "you're one person, you get one seat!" for UK rules.
But then I'm in the 'deployable' category as are many colleagues, which requires us to at least be fit enough to keep up with field HQs. This crudely limits girth, if not height: and sadly us long-and-lean types are expected to fit into whatever seat pitch is allocated; even if others can complain about width, we're stuck with 'that seat has not yet been declared unfit for human use'.
(Not knocking you, Steve, but our travel budget tends to be tight... 'go economy or don't go' is not uncommon)
 Signature When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Fred J. McCall - 13 Jan 2004 22:39 GMT :But then I'm in the 'deployable' category as are many colleagues, which :requires us to at least be fit enough to keep up with field HQs. This :crudely limits girth, if not height: and sadly us long-and-lean types :are expected to fit into whatever seat pitch is allocated; even if :others can complain about width, we're stuck with 'that seat has not yet :been declared unfit for human use'. Doesn't help me much, either. I'm currently out of shape and sitting next to me is uncomfortable for anyone anywhere near my size. It's not just the 'out of shape' part - my shoulders are wider than the seat back, which means everyone gets to twist and lean to keep from running into each other.
I think someone else noted that they have a similar problem.
 Signature "May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it." -- General George S Patton, Jr.
C.V. Compton Shaw - 16 Jan 2004 23:18 GMT Hippocrates, the author of the Hippocratic oath, states in his book, 'On Ancient Medicine", words to the effect that a nutritious diet is the foundation of maintaining health. Preventive health care for these submarine crews should be imperative to maintaining their physical, emotional, and intellectual health. It clearly appears to me, form the original post, that the U.S. Navy does not follow those necessary and requisite tenets for preventive health that Hippocrates elucidated in this book. The same includes adequate and nutritious food, adequate rest, and adequate exercise.
Mr. C.V. Compton Shaw;R.N. CLA; U.S. Army;2/8th Inf.;4th. Inf. Div.;Republic of Vietnam 1969-1970
Christopher Horner - 17 Jan 2004 00:42 GMT > Hippocrates, the author of the Hippocratic oath, states in his book, 'On > Ancient Medicine", words to the effect that a nutritious diet is the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Mr. C.V. Compton Shaw;R.N. CLA; U.S. Army;2/8th Inf.;4th. Inf. > Div.;Republic of Vietnam 1969-1970 I would disagree with your assertion relating to the USNs actions, with the caveat that I have not served on submarines, only surface vessels.
All three tenets of health you describe are available on every ship. The problem lies in the choices of the sailors, not in the choices offered to them.
 Signature Christopher Horner
|
|
|