Rum Ration
the Navy Network

Not thinking about the unborn fetus issue, I would love to go on bombers it would solve all my problems about joining and getting a posting up to Faslane (when I am fit enough to join - Just did a 7mile hill walk with a 25LB baby on my back that will help) I would love it and would be willing sign something saying I understand that I will be hotbunking/sharing loos/showers/messes etc etc with men.

If its the unborn fetus couldnt they make women take a test before hand? doesnt that happen on ships or anything? just thinking if you went on 6 month patrol and where 4 weeks gone at the start...thou you could be gotten off I guess.

If it was radiation effecting eggs couldnt they be given lead aprons or half aprons around that area? like a radiographer has for there thyriod area on the neck? Although quite a mad idea.

Of course most lads would be against it, but I think if it was allowed and WRENS proved themselves and that helped the manning shortage maybe it would be seen as a postive? then again sooo few men want to be on boats how many girls really would want to?

I dont think it will ever happen

Originally Posted by Naval_Gazer

Originally Posted by IDOITDEEPER

Originally Posted by janner

RAN and RCN are running DE boats, the reasons for them not serving on Nucs has been discussed at length elsewhere on the forum

Ah yes, you mean the possibility of damaging an unborn foetus due to the atmosphere encountered on-board. There is absolutely no radiological implication whatsoever. Be it a Nuc or DE boat there is no difference to the atmosphere when dived. That reason is simply an excuse that holds little or no water.

Have a nice day
IDOITDEEPER

The MoD doesn't share your confidence but I'm sure they'd like to see your evidence, especially as this is one of those 'negatives' that can't really be proven. As I understand it, they don't want to risk being hit by the avalanche of 'neglect of duty of care' litigation that might ensue with the first proven 'positive' case.

Naval Gazer thank you for your sarcastic suggestion that the MoD would like to see "my evidence" in respect to this subject. May I suggest that they simply consult the various medical studies carried out by the Naval authorities of countries such as Australia,Canada,Singapore,Norway,Spain and Sweden all of whom now allow women to serve on submarines. The little man sat in the Ministry of Defence simply has to google "women in submarines medical reports" as I have done.

Have a nice day
IDOITDEEPER

I don't think the issue is radiation. I suspect it might be a concern about atmospheric contaminants resulting from being stuck with the same air for many weeks at a time. Submersibles (SSKs) don't have the same issue, because they snort ventilate every couple of days, so the concentrations of any contaminants never really build up, I guess.

The official reason given is that the latent level of carbon monoxide present in the atmosphere in submarines MAY damage the unborn foetus. A speculative paper submitted by the INM apparently supports this, whilst stating the Nuclear element is of no relevance. The logical conclusion being that if other Navies can bring CO levels within tolerance and permit females to serve on boats, why not the RN? There is also the issue that a pregnant female cannot serve afloat once known to be pregnant- possibly problematic on a bomber, but not cited as a reason for exclusion.

Whilst frequently disagreeing with Idoitdeepers comments previously, on this particular occasion it is blatantly obvious he's 100% correct and it is only prejudicial opinion that maintains the current policy. Sooner or later it's going to cost the MoD a lot of money.

The main issue is actually whether females WANT to serve on boats- I've not come across one in 4 years once they see what it actually invoves. They WANT the RIGHT to serve on boats.

From the RN Website, Submarine FAQs:

Q. Why are women not permitted to serve on submarines?

Service in submarines is closed to women because of medical concerns for the safety of the foetus and hence its mother. This restriction is purely medical and does not relate to combat effectiveness. The potential risks to the foetus do not arise from hazardous radiation, but from contaminants in the submarine's atmosphere.

The Institute of Naval Medicine (INM) reviewed the exclusion in 1999, as did subsequently both the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Their outcomes supported the conclusions of the INM report, that the exclusion was justified.

The obvious answer being- remove the contaminants from the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Nutty

...I can see reasons,mostly concerning upper body strength, particularly in DC situations why females should not serve on surface units. But see no reason, other than possible medical reason, why they do not serve on boats....

I don't think this is as big a problem as it was. Surprisingly there isn't half as much excessive physical activity on modern-day larger warships (DD/FF and capital vessels), as more automated equipment is fitted.

And providing personnel (male and female) have passed their RNFT and completed and passed BSSC/ISSC (which are quite physically intensive courses) prior to joining their ship, I cannot see what difference it makes what sex a member of the Ship's Company is.

In relation to females (not "Wrens", as the WRNS no longer exists) on board Submarines, my understanding was that there was an additional concern if (IF!) she became pregnant whilst on deployment (Service policy to land pregnant females ASAP). On board a surface vessel, the female can be landed pretty quickly, but a deploying SM may be many metres below the surface and many hundreds of miles from land without helo support.

Originally Posted by Ninja_Stoker

The official reason given is that the latent level of carbon monoxide present in the atmosphere in submarines MAY damage the unborn foetus. A speculative paper submitted by the INM apparently supports this, whilst stating the Nuclear element is of no relevance. The logical conclusion being that if other Navies can bring CO levels within tolerance and permit females to serve on boats, why not the RN? There is also the issue that a pregnant female cannot serve afloat once known to be pregnant- possibly problematic on a bomber, but not cited as a reason for exclusion.

Whilst frequently disagreeing with Idoitdeepers comments previously, on this particular occasion it is blatantly obvious he's 100% correct and it is only prejudicial opinion that maintains the current policy. Sooner or later it's going to cost the MoD a lot of money.

The main issue is actually whether females WANT to serve on boats- I've not come across one in 4 years once they see what it actually invoves. They WANT the RIGHT to serve on boats.

From the RN Website, Submarine FAQs:

Q. Why are women not permitted to serve on submarines?

Service in submarines is closed to women because of medical concerns for the safety of the foetus and hence its mother. This restriction is purely medical and does not relate to combat effectiveness. The potential risks to the foetus do not arise from hazardous radiation, but from contaminants in the submarine's atmosphere.

The Institute of Naval Medicine (INM) reviewed the exclusion in 1999, as did subsequently both the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Their outcomes supported the conclusions of the INM report, that the exclusion was justified.

The obvious answer being- remove the contaminants from the atmosphere.

To be unbiased and factual:

The results of the report carried out by the INM are not available on line however for those interested and want to know the facts as perceived by the US Navy the link is here:

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTR...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

This is a detailed report. Little credence is given to the CO argument, in fact it states further study is required, but cites other medical logistical reasons.


IDOITDEEPER

Originally Posted by Ninja_Stoker

The official reason given is that the latent level of carbon monoxide present in the atmosphere in submarines MAY damage the unborn foetus. A speculative paper submitted by the INM apparently supports this, whilst stating the Nuclear element is of no relevance. The logical conclusion being that if other Navies can bring CO levels within tolerance and permit females to serve on boats, why not the RN? There is also the issue that a pregnant female cannot serve afloat once known to be pregnant- possibly problematic on a bomber, but not cited as a reason for exclusion.

Whilst frequently disagreeing with Idoitdeepers comments previously, on this particular occasion it is blatantly obvious he's 100% correct and it is only prejudicial opinion that maintains the current policy. Sooner or later it's going to cost the MoD a lot of money.

The main issue is actually whether females WANT to serve on boats- I've not come across one in 4 years once they see what it actually invoves. They WANT the RIGHT to serve on boats.

From the RN Website, Submarine FAQs:

Q. Why are women not permitted to serve on submarines?

Service in submarines is closed to women because of medical concerns for the safety of the foetus and hence its mother. This restriction is purely medical and does not relate to combat effectiveness. The potential risks to the foetus do not arise from hazardous radiation, but from contaminants in the submarine's atmosphere.

The Institute of Naval Medicine (INM) reviewed the exclusion in 1999, as did subsequently both the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Their outcomes supported the conclusions of the INM report, that the exclusion was justified.

The obvious answer being- remove the contaminants from the atmosphere.

I'm sure that I've read on a previous thread that it is to do with the recycled atmosphere on nuclear boats, its not a problem on diesel boats because the air is, at least in part, changed when snorting or surfaced. Very few nations run Nucs. and I haven't heard of any that do having women on them. The navies mentioned so far have diesel boats

Originally Posted by sgtpepperband

...
In relation to females (not "Wrens", as the WRNS no longer exists) on board Submarines, my understanding was that there was an additional concern if (IF!) she became pregnant whilst on deployment (Service policy to land pregnant females ASAP). On board a surface vessel, the female can be landed pretty quickly, but a deploying SM may be many metres below the surface and many hundreds of miles from land without helo support.

Have to agree that is a more logical reason than the one given, however it isn't currently cited. (Watch this space!)

The obvious come-back being a female declaring herself either sterile or having a certified pregnancy test & contraceptive injection prior to going on patrol, thus ruling out that excuse also.

Originally Posted by janner

I'm sure that I've read on a previous thread that it is to do with the recycled atmosphere on nuclear boats, its not a problem on diesel boats because the air is, at least in part, changed when snorting or surfaced. Very few nations run Nucs. and I haven't heard of any that do having women on them. The navies mentioned so far have diesel boats

That may well be the case Jan & I'm certainly no expert on atmospheric monitoring, but surely it's possibly to purge a nuclear boat's atmosphere without actually having to revert to snorting? Maybe I'm wrong on that one.