Since the dawn of the nuclear age.

Actually, the source I originally pulled that from seems like it had cut out quite a few events, so there have been considerably more incidents:

http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm

Ok, so Level3 made the distinction earlier between detection and announcement.

So I was just thinking that if there were a problem, the USS George Washington would detect it way sooner than the remote facilities. If they choose not to announce it and the Japanese facility announces it first, there would be cause for concern over the U.S. base’s accident disclosure policy, or whatever. I don’t know, probably wouldn’t happen like that, though.

Here is some Latin to supplement my intelligence:
sine qua non
cogito ergo sum
Biggus Dikkus

If you want to have reasonable arguments with users on this site, I suggest you concentrate on using plain English that your opponents can understand. You might see it as dumbing down the discussion, but I see it as making discussions easily understandable and approachable to everyone.

By the way, I am considering an update to the discussion policy of this site to ban the use of overly pretentious language. Over the last few months I have seen a trend toward the meaningless use of weighty-sounding words and phrases, especially Latin terms and acronyms such as QED. Not everyone commenting on this site speaks English as their first language, and even many who are native English speakers are not familiar with such terms. If you want to get your point across, please use plain English instead of snarky pretentious language.

Oh please, dismount from your white horse.

So you’re saying that nuclear monitoring is the same as QC on an iPod in a factory production line?

There have been three civilian nuclear accidents and one military accident involving Japan, the worst being a level 4 on the nuclear events scale. (5 in the U.S., 7 in Ukraine)

There have been four civilian and twenty seven military nuclear accidents involving the U.S.

Seriously, are ANY Japanese nuclear reactors surrounded by 300 million yen monitoring sensors?

But, I suppose when it comes to radiation, overkill in safety measures probably isn’t such a bad thing.

For 10 monitoring stations – DOUBLE OUCH! (especially when they could be setup and automated for way less then 1/100th of that cost).

To monitor something that has a zillion times better track record then their own Nuclear Power Plants – PRICELESS!!!!!!!!

300million yen?
How about something more simple, pay for people with binoculars to see if the crew starts freaking out and radiation alarms go off on the ship. That SHOULD be a much better deteftion system than a few sensors scattered far, far away from the ship.

300 million yen for a useless gesture which won’t change any minds.