Rum Ration
the Navy Network

Originally Posted by janner

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

Yer Tis, Tother thread

Originally Posted by janner

NS, you wrong Never, well maybe a little mistaken in this case

Fair point, well put.

Going back to the official line:

"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.

It would be interesting to find out whether the INM reviewed the exclusion together with both the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists based their conclusions on atmospheric samples provided by a deployed submarine and whether they ascertained whether it was realistically possible to reduce the contaminants by simply maintaining more rigorous practices, despite the fact that they cannot purge without snorting.

If they based their findings on samples provided, then possibly they should dig a little deeper to see whether the purity that can be realistically maintained is still considered potentially harmful.

Originally Posted by IDOITDEEPER

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

Having scanned through the report (admittedly rather rapidly) the outstanding issue seems to be CO2 rather than CO & there's no referral to differences in nuclear or diesel boat atmospheres that I could find,. Similarly a large section of the USN evidence appears to have been obtained from the RN & refers to the UK laws regarding Duty of Care. (That comes as a surprise).

The talk of differing levels of medical care more prevalent in women, appeared not dissimilar on balance to the overwhelmingly more prevalent predominantly male disorders (such as significantly more successful suicides as opposed to attempted ones).

Originally Posted by IDOITDEEPER

No doubt this subject has been covered before. Having had the opportunity to research the subject in great detail for an essay I was required to submit, personally I can see no logical reason that women are denied the opportunity to serve on Royal Navy submarines. It has proved to be very successful in both the RAN and RCN. Females however should expect to be treated no differently from male counterparts. Hot bunking,sharing facilities etc. Before women served at sea in surface units there was as much opposition from that male dominated environment. With the manpower constraints faced by the submarine service is now not the time to review an outdated and nothing short of a chauvinistic policy?

IDOITDEEPER

YES this subject has been covered before and it bores the TITS off me. If a MD says its not a good idea to have the fairer sex at sea on boats, thats good enough for me. Are you going to publish your essay on here? I would be pleased to read some new material on the subject.

Originally Posted by witsend

Originally Posted by IDOITDEEPER

No doubt this subject has been covered before. Having had the opportunity to research the subject in great detail for an essay I was required to submit, personally I can see no logical reason that women are denied the opportunity to serve on Royal Navy submarines. It has proved to be very successful in both the RAN and RCN. Females however should expect to be treated no differently from male counterparts. Hot bunking,sharing facilities etc. Before women served at sea in surface units there was as much opposition from that male dominated environment. With the manpower constraints faced by the submarine service is now not the time to review an outdated and nothing short of a chauvinistic policy?

IDOITDEEPER

YES this subject has been covered before and it bores the TITS off me. If a MD says its not a good idea to have the fairer sex at sea on boats, thats good enough for me. Are you going to publish your essay on here? I would be pleased to read some new material on the subject.

No I am not going to publish my essay on here. If the subject bores the TITS off you do not read and comment on the thread, a simple concept really. If you would like to read some new material on the subject simply google it and research it like I did. I have made comment ,stated my personal opinion and opened up a relevant debate. If you do not want to participate don't. Your choice.

IDOITDEEPER

Originally Posted by witsend

YES this subject has been covered before and it bores the TITS off me. If a MD says its not a good idea to have the fairer sex at sea on boats, thats good enough for me. Are you going to publish your essay on here? I would be pleased to read some new material on the subject.

If it bores the TITS off you, why would you want to read some new material on the subject?

Originally Posted by witsend

One of my personel gripes about the mob is acronyms. I'm sorry Potential_Officer but what are you taking about "OCLO".

OK, what's an MD?

Why not publish it, you seem to have a strong opinion on the subject, so let myself and anyone else read what your findings are.

Yes maybe i should have wrote doctor,,,,,lol,,,thanks for reminding me i don't like acronyms.