Those who read my ramblings know that I am a total supporter—perhaps an ad nauseam one—of equal opportunity for gays and for women in our military.
I am pleased that we are finally seriously considering the repeal of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” legislation and that Congress has implicitly blessed the Navy’s decision to allow women to serve aboard our nuclear submarines, and that the Navy is proceeding full steam ahead to implement the new policy.
On the latter, however, there are a couple of red flags.
Not the kind of red flags that purport to warn that women are not ready or sufficiently capable to succeed in such assignments, nor the kind of red flag that some have waved alleging that our Navy personnel, male and female, do not have the professionalism or the moral fiber to serve honorably and morally, side-by-side in cramped quarters during long, submerged missions.
Those flags have hopefully been furled forever.
I am talking about flags of caution and reason dealing with health issues for our future women submariners.
One such issue, smoking aboard submarines—one that affects the health of both male and female submariners—is being resolved. A few weeks ago, the Navy announced that a smoking ban will go into effect on submarines no later than December 31 in order to protect non-smoking sailors from second-hand smoke. Recent testing has proven that, in spite of the air purification technology, there are “unacceptable levels of second-hand smoke” in the atmosphere of submerged submarines.
However, a couple of warning flags are still out there, flapping for attention and perhaps action.
I touched upon one of them here, citing a warning in the Washington Times by retired Rear Adm. Hugh Scott, a former undersea medical officer, to Congress that the air inside a submarine can be hazardous to fetal development.
The Washington Times:
“Atmosphere controls are different between ships and a submarine’s sealed environment,” retired Rear Adm. Hugh Scott, a former undersea medical officer, told The Washington Times. “There are all types of organic traces that off-gas into the air that have to be removed by mechanical means. You just can’t open a window and let them out.”
Referring to the same Times article, I continued:
In a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton, Adm. Scott wrote: “I have serious concerns about the risk to the safety and normal development of an embryo-fetus in the submarine environment…” According to Adm. Scott, a certain percentage of female sailors embark on deployments pregnant or become pregnant during the cruise, and “Unlike surface ships, the sealed environment of the submarine atmosphere poses an increased risk to the normal development of a woman’s embryo-fetus.”
Today, in the Los Angeles Times, yet another warning flag is being waved. This time it deals with the risks of exposure to radiation emitted by nuclear reactors in nuclear submarines—a radiation that can have especially harmful effects on women.
The author, Roger C. Dunham, a doctor of internal medicine, is especially concerned about the effects of radiation exposure on “the genetically sensitive tissue in women that is intimately involved in the process of childbearing…”:
While sperm from men are frequently changing and thereby present a reduced vulnerability to radiation consequences, women have ovaries that contain radiation-sensitive tissue fixed for the life of the woman. Damage to the egg cells remains with the woman until that egg produces a baby. An even greater concern is that women who (by design or by accident) become pregnant would then possess the most radiation-sensitive tissue known: a developing fetus with a small number of cells that are rapidly dividing and thus vastly more sensitive to radiation.
And,
It is widely believed by many that advanced shielding systems can adequately protect personnel from radiation and minimize the risk to women. This may be the case, perhaps, for larger ships, where increased distance of personnel from reactors can be protective. But on submarines, the nuclear reactor is near the center of the vessel, and sailors need to pass by that radiation-emitting system to get to the engine room watch stations, often several times a day. If a female sailor must stand watch, she will have to pass near the reactor four to six times a day, resulting in exposing a potential fetus to increased neutron and gamma energy as many as 350 to 400 times during a two-month patrol.
Dr. Dunham goes into other unique and even greater risks posed to women by the radiation emitted by nuclear submarine reactors, poses a series of questions and calls on “those who are working to change this policy to publicly address these questions before introducing women into the nuclear submarine environment.”
He concludes:
The public deserves answers to these questions, and female sailors volunteering for service aboard a nuclear submarine must be better informed about their risk before it is too late for them, or for the children they hope to bear.
I agree.
These are valid issues that need to be seriously addressed, instead of the usual mélange of red herring issues that merely offend the character, caliber and professionalism of our fighting men and women.
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.