California Coastal Commission Submission by Russell D. Hoffman June 13th, 2001

To: "Governor Gray Davis" <graydavis@governor.ca.gov>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: California Coastal Commission -- printed remarks for June 13th, 2001
Cc: "Dianne Feinstein, Senator (CA, D)" <senator@feinstein.senate.gov>, "Barbara Boxer, Senator (CA, D)" <senator@boxer.senate.gov>

Russell D. Hoffman
concerned citizen
Carlsbad, California
June 13th, 2001
Remarks for the California Coastal Commission public hearing

To The Commissioners:

The Nuremberg trial of Nazi war leaders lasted 216 days.  The crime the Nazis committed -- and their 1000-year Reich -- lasted less than two decades, all told.  At Nuremberg they were punishing those most responsible for a crime which had already been committed.

What you do here is more important.  Here, you have the opportunity to PREVENT a crime.  A dry-cask accident could kill 20,000 people THE FIRST DAY, 200,000 in the first week, as roads and exit routes are clogged, and radiation sickness kills those who live nearest, and sickens everyone whom it does not kill for a hundred miles or more downwind.  No one will want these people near them, like during the black death.  SoCal residents who survive, who try to escape the horror, will be considered poisonous, and indeed they will be poisonous to others, and to themselves.  Cancers will set in decades later.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has figures.  Estimates for spent fuel explosions, plant meltdowns and such -- they're horrendous figures.  Very large.  Very expensive.  The dry casks are extremely hot.  Their radioactivity is actually still increasing -- and will be for thousands of years.  If they crack open, their effluent immediately rises and spreads. With everyone for hundreds of miles around leaving at once, fuel supplies will run out and our highways will be clogged with vehicles with no gas to escape the spreading cloud -- odorless, colorless, poisonous, cancerous, no one will know where to go.  No one will want you.  No one will take care of you.

Yet you allow yourselves usually only two minutes to listen to my concerns.  If more people wish to speak, you make us each speak for less time -- why is that?  A million citizens, if they wanted to decry this madness, must all have the right to speak.  But even when it's 15 or so, you cut it down because there are too many.

Learned professors, whose credentials alone would take 5 or 10 minutes to present, and who know how to teach courses in universities and how to give lectures and such, don't even have time to introduce the concepts that are involved.  If everything could be done in books and articles, there would be no need for universities.  There would be no need for Congress to meet in Washington, or our own legislature to meet in Sacramento.  These learned professors and technical experts MUST be allowed to make a reasonable-length presentation to you!  Before the public!  So you can ask questions, so there can be a discussion.  So there can be witnesses.  So the public can know why their beach is being threatened by yet a new nuclear terror, to add to the current terrors that already threaten the public welfare, for so little public gain (but quite a bit of private gain).

These learned professors will, it's true, rip to shreds the illogic presented by the San Onofre Public Relations people.  They will, it's true, bring up data that the NRC will claim you have no jurisdiction over, a claim you should reject as absurd -- because the thing they claim you cannot consider, is the ONLY thing this commission exists TO consider!

The California Coastal Commission approved this wreck -- Unit I, which is already useless, Unit II, and Unit III, which was just restarted after a four-month shutdown due to fire, which cost SCE or its insurers -- or more likely, its ratepayers -- over 100 million dollars, not including any fines they might ever pay (but in all probability, the NRC won't fine them).  Wind power can supply far more reliable energy, when combined with the other renewable options -- and with a better power grid.  You are part of a vast experiment.  We are your guinea-pigs.  All life on Earth are your guinea-pigs. You can revoke that license your Commission granted in a heartbeat.  Enough evidence is in.  There are expert opinions in books - hundreds of books saying nuclear power is dangerous and that it is supported by an ingrown, well-funded, unobservable, unaccountable Nuclear Mafia.

My own complaint starts with the claim that you members of the Commission, have abdicated the responsibilities of your Commissions without relinquishing to others the power those positions hold.  That you have claimed to have no power to act on certain vital issues, when in fact you have total power to SHUT THESE PLANTS DOWN.  Your commission permitted them in the first place, people in your position, who were just as heavily lied to by the NRC (then the AEC) and the licensees as you are no doubt being lied to by their equivalents today.  They are an ingrown, self-regulated, unaccountable bunch of scoundrels, and you are feasting on their verbal effluent with each new report you pretend to have read.

Citizens have worked hard to try to figure out the complex, underhanded, overt and covert, legal and illegal, immoral and oft-times easily refutable -- if given half a chance -- shenanigans which have been employed at various times.  Shenanigans that include massive and dishonest public relations campaigns running into the tens of millions of dollars locally, and billions nationally.   Irresponsible mathematical guesswork about the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear waste and the prospects, which are not good, for a permanent repository somewhere.  And finally, as shown below, their shenanigans even include a blatant -- and blatantly unjust -- denigration of the opposition as ignorant, which they are not, and unnecessarily worried, which they are not -- they are necessarily worried.  They understand the laws of physics (and probability) at least as well as those who are gambling on nuclear power.  You should become as knowledgeable as some of these activists are!

These citizens have worked hard, yet you only let these citizens speak but for two minutes each.  At the last meeting, this amounted to merely about 1/2 hour in total.  One half hour to try to prevent a crime which lasts for thousands of years.

I haven't seen one word in any of this commission's testimony I've been able to read or hear, about the dangers of an accident occurring during transfer of the spent fuel -- without the added danger of an earthquake actually happening then.  But especially WITH that consideration, over and above what the NRC considers elsewhere in the country.  Do any of you Commissioners know how long it takes to actually fill a dry fuel cask, to then turn it on its side, and then move it over to the new location and then plunk it down on its concrete slab?  Hours and hours.  Do you know how many feet a dry cask or fuel assembly can safely be dropped?  A lot less than 40 feet, I can tell you that! During the transfer time the spent fuel is not fully protected, you can rest assured, even from a 7.0 Earthquake.  Those engineering guesses were only that -- guesses -- and they did NOT include the actual transfer period.  During that time the risk is higher.  The dropping at S an Onofre Nuclear Generating Station of an 80,000 lb crane June 1st, 2001 proved that there is a serious risk involved, and that SONGS workers can't handle it.

So they -- the NRC and anyone who would think they can safely handle this stuff in an earthquake zone -- are insane.  You commissioners are at liberty to break with tradition and not be stupid.  It's a free country, isn't it?  Don't believe your staff.  And at the very least, let us present the truth to you for you to decide!

At Nuremberg they saw fit to punish those who plotted, lied and schemed to permit and perpetuate the Holocaust.  But they could do nothing to prevent it -- because it had already happened.

Here, you have a far more solemn duty, to PREVENT an accident.  To force California to switch to clean energy solutions.  To save our coastline from the hazards which are inherent and unavoidable in ANY nuclear design ever presented to you, to your predecessors, or to any other Commission ever, anywhere.  It is a boondoggle. A Nuclear Mafia.  You have been lied to.

What you do here -- what's the worst that can happen if you disapprove the plant, shut it down?  Its owners, and maybe the NRC as well -- a corrupt Government organization if ever there was one -- will probably sue the State if you try.  And if they do, we'll have our day in court.  I'm sure all those who testify against SONGS today, would be willing to testify on your behalf in federal court to address the issues that made you come to your senses.  There's no reason not to let the facts guide your decision.   A factual and logical decision is absolutely going to come out as follows:  SHUT SAN ONOFRE DOWN.  There is enough evidence.  All you have to do is look at it.

The strength of the case against these plants does, indeed, hinge on the simplicity of it.  As with Nuremburg and the case against the Nazis.  Every year another couple of tons of high level nuclear waste, and many more tons of various mixed and lower level nuclear waste is created.  Each new gram, let alone each new ton, has to be watched for centuries, so stopping today is far better than stopping tomorrow. You are bankrupting California.

One good look at the possible consequences, and at the viable alternatives for clean energy, and any fool can see that nuclear power is a money-eating, life-threatening, risky, useless business.  But you, the Commission, do nothing.  You lap up the lies of the nuclear industry.  Your counterparts in Sacramento and Washington fail to build the power grid the planet needs, as first described by Buckminster Fuller over 70 years ago.  They and you have failed to build tide water energy systems, wave energy systems, off-shore windmills, and other devices which can only have limited consequences in their damage to their environment, which in their worst case leave little more trace than some broken steel and concrete.  Instead you have opted-in to a potential catastrophe which NO REGULATION CAN PREVENT.

In two minutes -- the allotted time you generally give us to speak -- citizens who love the Earth and our beaches cannot even begin to express the importance of those beaches, and why they hope you will act to preserve those beaches for our progeny, as you are charged to do by your Commissions.  No NRC official, nor your own lawyers or staff persons, should be able to convince you that you are acting in good faith when you violate the words of the Coastal Act by your current actions -- regardless of the fact that other Commissioners, similarly misled, violated their Commissions as well, and ever permitted San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) to be built.  Two wrongs don't make a right. The original Commission erred in permitting San Onofre in the first place.  Your duty is to admit that, and by so doing, prevent an atrocity.  A holocaust.

SONGS has been a disaster waiting to happen from the start, and as the plant ages, the risks increase substantially.  The parts become brittle and wear out with increasing frequency, as when a worker at another nuclear site recently merely jiggled a copper tube to see which tube ran to where for a test, and the tube broke off and hexaflouride leaked out all over the place.  Radiation alone breaks down these metals, as well as all the intense vibration and expansion, contraction, and so forth that these plants go through.  For example Unit III was shut down for a month for refueling, then brought up to peak power and run for about 12 hours at that power level, then shut down for four months after a fire, then started up again and than an 80,000 lb crane fell, and on and on.

All those technicians and such, who work at the plant, who could be building windmills and solar units for energy instead, are instead replacing pumps and valves and electrical circuitry which breaks with increasing frequency as it ages.  The NRC inspector (Charles Marschall) I spoke to described the typical lifespan of all things as "bathtub-shaped", where a lot of failures tend to happen initially, but then the rate of failure drops substantially and there is a long period where failures are much less frequent.  Then the slope starts to go up, and failures happen with an ever-increasing frequency.

Cycles.  It goes offline, it goes online.  It goes offline, it goes online.  Expansion, contraction.  Vibrations throughout whenever it's running.  Too many cycles are what we should be looking at, what the NRC should be looking at.  Not just years or hours of operation.  Like with airplanes.  Instead the NRC just looks at years of operation -- things are licensed for a certain number of years, and what exactly they look at in past years for relicensing, I don't know, because it obviously isn't actual performance, which has been atrocious at SONGS and elsewhere throughout the industry.  Humans make mistakes.  There are not and never could be enough backup systems.

The mistakes made at SONGS are common everyday mistakes that happen at all job sites.  People get killed in industrial accidents every day.  Do you think those workers who die weren't generally trying to stay alive?  They didn't want to die.  Workers try their best.  But nuclear workers have to be nearly perfect.   And they think they are, but they aren't.  But even if they were, so-called "ACTS OF GOD" are not preventable.  But they ARE predictable in a general sense.  We know for certain that California will have MANY 7.5 and greater earthquakes.  We know that Earth will be hit by meteors.  We don't know when, or where, or how big.  But we know these things will happen and we know that we can -- and should -- prepare for them.

This plant is too dangerous and needs to be closed down permanently.  We'll get our power some other way.  It's only built to a 7.0 Earthquake.  We might have a 7.5 or greater, today, or tomorrow or next week or in 100 years, when those casks will probably still be here if you permit them today.  It's not built for that.  Not nearly.  An NRC inspector told me he thought it was probably built at least 15% to 20% stronger than it's supposed to be built.  That's the number he mentioned.  He's been in the business probably all his life.  He spent years working with Boiling Water Reactors, he told me.  Now he overseas Pressurized Water Reactors in Section IV -- our section.  Well, his 20% -- that gets us from a 7.0 earthquake protection to a 7.015 or 7.020 size quake, because that scale, the Richter scale, is a logarithmic scale.   That's why we decide how big an earthquake to build for, and that's what we shoot for.  It costs money to over-buil d.  And we've discovered, from real experience, that a lot of modern buildings -- more modern than San Onofre -- don't hold up to what their builders expect them to be able to survive.  (Conversations with Charles Marshall, (also on the line for part was Russ Wise, also an NRC inspector) by phone with this writer, week of June 4th, 2001).

You should close SONGS, because the consequences of failure are too high.  There are about 300 "daughter" radioactive products being created at San Onofre from the initial fuel of mostly Uranium and Plutonium and so forth.  I read in the transcript of your last hearing on the subject, one of you -- commissioners -- on this panel -- stating that he wanted to be sure we would store the spent fuel here in Dry Casks only until such time as it might be "recycled" or turned over to a permanent repository.  Recycled?  At least that commissioner just doesn't get it.

That spent fuel is the END PRODUCT of all the "worthwhile" recycling the nuclear industry knows how to implement.  It's useless.  There is nothing to pull out of it which is of any use to anyone except maybe genocidal atomic bomb makers.  And if we allow bombs to be made from the nuclear waste of our local plant, that plant becomes a legitimate target during war.  (Or so they say.  It's a target, either way.)  We don't need 100 commercial nuclear power plants around the country, and 3 dozen more research reactors at universities, and military plants, and 100 or so "retired" plants -- we don't need THIS one.  We don't need SONGS.  (Sure, some medical applications use some nuclear materials -- and many of these can and should be replaced with non-radioactive solutions wherever possible.  San Onofre does not produce anything useful to medical science they do not already have lots of elsewhere, other than new cancer cases to study, irradiated kittens, and not to mention, "fuel fleas".)

Right now they are adding hundreds of cameras all around the site, presumably because they realized security was not tight enough -- a breach can occur, or an employee can go crazy -- else why the need for adding cameras INSIDE all the various rooms?  Because they are afraid perimeter monitoring is not enough.

There's plenty of work that needs to be done.  Converting California from 12% renewable to 27% renewable, to completely replace nuclear energy, will require a lot of manpower, so closing the plant need not cost anyone a job.  Even the officials of the corporations which permit the monstrosity can be gainfully employed -- watching the fuel for eternity.  Or shall we simply give that job to you and your descendents?

If these Dry Storage Casks must exist at all, why do they have to be near the coast, in such a populated area?  The reason is twofold:  First, we cannot find anywhere that has less sense than we do, and will accept the waste for long-term storage.  Second, we don't exactly look forward to the additional risk involved in actually moving the stuff.

But nevertheless leaving it where it is, is NOT an option!  The waste is too susceptible to destruction and the lives of too many people are at stake!  It is not safe enough.  We have to get this stuff out of our population centers, away from our coastlines, our earthquake faults, and our natural wonders.  We can't keep it here.  But in the meantime, we need to stop making more of it.

If an accident occurs involving a dry fuel cask, since they are being stored at the same site, then the plant itself, and the spent fuel pool, will become unreachable.  No one will be able to get near them to replace the filters, the pumps, check the Ph in the water level, anything like that.  So San Onofre will melt down, and then its spent fuel pool will overheat as the pumps fail, and the power fails, and the pool will explosively expel all its water, and we'll have a hell of a mess. Or, say, they drop an 80,000 lb crane into the spent fuel pool, well, then you won't be able to get to the nuclear plant anymore, and it will melt down, and then the dry casks won't be inspected, or moved.  They are only supposed to last 20 years, that's about all they are licensed for.  Maybe 40 years. No one knows, it's not properly tested.  Maybe, some dream, they will last a hundred years.  It's never been tested.  Would you want to be the one to open it OR MOVE IT then?  Do y ou think anyone else will want to?  But eventually it's got to break apart.  Metal and cement doesn't last nearly as long as the radioactivity.  100 years is pretty unlikely.  And then the monster will be loose.  Thousands, or even maybe millions, will die, our coast will be ruined, and your names will go down in history, as infamous as any Nazi war criminal, for your crimes will be at least as murderous.

San Onofre is at a crossroads.  If we recognize that there ARE alternatives, and if the State would realize that high-tech tecno-geeks like me, who want a lot of electricity, don't want it from dirty, non-renewable sources, then we can move forward, forgetting our past mistakes.  In addition to the already-begun task of minding this terrible waste for an eternity, we can gainfully employ everyone at San Onofre -- in clean energy production instead.  The only people who need to lose their jobs are officers of the companies that build and operate these plants, and anyone guilty of negligence and similar crimes, including lying to the public.

We don't need San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station.  Close it down!  If you reject it completely you won't be the first.  Whole countries have done so.  Counties, cities, and millions of people reject it.  You can too.

Look at the NRC's own statistics on how bad an accident can be.  CRAC-2 is a famous report that needs no introduction to most activists, an NRC report you've probably never looked at.  Look at it.  Learn the facts.

You don't care about all these facts people have presented you. You think the NRC is right to claim that by some fantasy on their part, you are not allowed to care about all these facts.  But your life, my life, everyone's life depends on you understanding these facts.  No law should override that.  We have a right to protect ourselves.

Energy solutions exist, which are technologically feasible, some large scale, some small scale, which are absolutely cost effective compared with nuclear, coal, oil, etc., and far safer, more reliable and cleaner.  You can't guarantee with any certainty, that you can prevent all possible apocalypses from nuclear power along our coast --  the Acts of God and terrorists, and stupidity that can wreck the plant.  Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Airplane Wrecks, RPGs (Rocket-Propelled Grenades), dropped loads, worn parts, improperly closed or opened valves, inattention, etc..  You can't prevent asteroids either, and there are whole teams of scientists trying to get funding so they can find earth-impacting asteroids, and you can watch shows about it on The Learning Channel, and read about it on the Internet, including in scholarly journals.  Many people take these concerns very seriously, until anti-nuclear activists point out the dangers if an asteroid -- even a relatively small one, not a "pl anet killer" --  falls on a nuclear power plant.  Then, suddenly, talk of asteroids becomes considered "crazy-talk", like it can't happen here.

Most asteroid impacts are localized dangers, until one enters the world of nuclear power plants, where an asteroid would spread lethal radiation such that ALL LIFE ON EARTH would be extinguished, should it land on San Onofre (yes, there's THAT MUCH poison at that one plant).  But it can happen.  And if we don't close the plants AND BURY THE WASTE deep within the earth, sooner or later it WILL happen.

The plants must be closed!  If only for the fact that there is no place to put the fuel and they mustn't keep it where it is.  I charge that you are letting a crime happen because you are not preventing that crime when it is within your power and your duty to AT LEAST listen to the facts of the matter (which my written attachments, with others, describe).  I charge that you are purposefully silencing the opposition voices to this madness, and that you have decapitated the head of Lady Justice.  Those are my own charges today.  Others have additional complaints.

You ignore what we have written you.  You say some of you read it.  It must be read by all.  There are thousands of pages of documentation describing the crimes that support the nuclear industry, from their original claim of a peaceful atom producing electricity "too cheap to meter" (it was repeated often so that it would be believed; two examples are shown below) to their current claims that Dry Fuel Casks are safe.  They repeat it, but it's not true.

They say these nukes provide about 15% of California's electricity, and less than 18% nationally.  First of all that's only when they are working.  And second of all the Governor of California, Governor Gray Davis, has offered all citizens a rebate if they cut they electricity usage by 15% or more.  So obviously the State thinks that a 15% cut is doable, at least for home usage.  Commercial operations have numerous ways they can cut electricity usage.  We can do it.  We wouldn't be having black-outs now if we simply put a little bit more effort into saving electricity.  If we demanded more efficient computers, lighting, televisions, kitchen appliances, laundry machines, water heaters, and so forth.  We could cut back usage 15%.

The U.S. Government estimates that, nationwide, if we simply switched home water heaters to modern units across the board, nationwide we could save 1% right there.  Anyway, that's just one step.  We can do it.  We don't need San Onofre.  It can be shut down, AND we can quickly build up renewable energy resources to replace it.  I'm not saying there would be "no" hardship, but it would be worth it.  And no jobs would be lost.

And once we've switched, we wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about San Onofre, since when it's not operational it is more Earthquake resistant, and can, at least theoretically, be dismantled and carted away from the beaches, away from the population centers.

Did you know that the pumps that move irradiated liquids themselves become irradiated, and thus cannot be repaired but are, instead, replaced?  And did you know that the cost of these pumps' disposal went from about zero dollars prior to about 1992, all the way up to $1.5 MILLION dollars each?  These figures are for the pumps used at Hanford, Washington, but I'm sure it's about the same here ( -- or should be.  See accompanying San Francisco Bay Guardian article from June 7th, 2001 regarding proposed new low-level waste disposal regulations (and who opposes them, including SCE, which accompanies this submission).  Pump lifespan in the sludge ponds at Hanford, and in many industrial places, I'm sure including San Onofre, is usually measured in hundreds of hours (although, in a conversation with SONGS officers June 11th, 2001, they assured me their pumps last much longer than Hanford's, because they pump clean fluids.  Nevertheless pumps, and their parts, (bearings, seals, motors and im pellers, especially) do wear out).  So $1.5 million dollars to dispose of each pump is a significant cost.  That's another reason San Onofre is not financially feasible each day it operates.  So many costs are deferred and ignored, and the EPA is including more and more things in the lists of waste which need special handling, like the pumps.  Accidents are "insured" under the Price-Anderson act, but that act is criminally negligent itself, paying fractions of a penny on the dollar for what might happen if an Earthquake, Tsunami, airplane, Rocket-propelled Grenade, design failure, part failure, operations failure, or other accident befalls the plant.  We will be dying by the tens of thousands, and no one will pay our survivors or descendents.  Glowing reports will be written, and tourism will collapse along with everything else.  Who visits Kiev these days, do you think?  Anybody?
 
I don't want to die silently.  The Nazi butchers first silenced their victims, then they killed them.  My father fought to stop them.  He was in combat, a mortar man, for 18 months straight.  The Nuremberg trial took 216 days.  We are each given but two minutes?  I cannot even begin to cry out against the many atrocities you permit!  I can barely mention the fact that I have spent hundreds of hours researching Dry Cask Storage as it is being implemented around the country, and by whom, and what corporations.  Looking into what the Coastal Act charges you commissioners with doing.  Interviewing scientists.  I've studied the nuclear issue for thirty years -- since I was about 14.  I've spoken to scores of scientists.  I've read thousands of documents, dozens and dozens of books.  I'm an independent researcher.  I spent the time because it seemed important to me.  Yet now, after all that work, I am allowed only two minutes, and even then, in an act the NAZI BUTCHERS would admire, your staff insist I cannot talk about the very thing that this whole Commission was set up to study -- the safety and reasonableness of various ways to exploit our coast for energy, for tourism, for homes, for parks, for fisheries, for tide and wave energy systems (which could be done NOW, TODAY, instead of San Onofre, with far less risk to the environment).  The NRC and your staff's claims and assertions that you must not consider the safety issues are WRONG.  You MUST look at the risks, and the benefits, and also the alternatives.

Why exactly IS San Onofre on the coast?

It is on the coast because if anything goes wrong there -- according to design criteria -- the clean, cool waters of the Pacific Ocean will be used to cool it as much as possible.  Our beaches for miles around will be permanently contaminated.  But the words are there, right in the design specifications for the site.  Every plant design has what is called an "ultimate" heat sink.  For San Onofre, it's the Pacific Ocean.  Which YOU are charged with protecting.

Right now wind energy is the cheapest form of electricity available.  I would rather see hundreds of offshore windmills dotting the horizon, silently and steadily drawing energy out of the clean blue sky, than one Chernobyl along our coast.  And a Chernobyl kind of accident -- or worse -- is perfectly possible.  That thing they call a "containment building" -- earthquakes can bust it.  747's crashing into it can bust it.  A meltdown means that the radioactive fuel melts through the bottom of the building and enters the ecosystem!  The containment building is full of holes -- holes for pipes, wires, doorways, etc. etc. etc.  Tsunamis, Earthquakes, airplanes crashing into it, rocket-propelled-grenades -- each of these can make for a very bad day at San Onofre.  These can even happen together.  Then there's asteroids, incompetence, equipment failure, and lack of proper oversight as demonstrated in the attached material that I have submit ted and which accompanies this presentation.

I would say "thank you" but I suppose I'm out of time, and I have a lot more to say.  Don't let the NRC push you around.  Don't trust your staff director, who, to the advantage of San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station, tells you not to look at the very facts you as Commissioners must look at.

Russell D. Hoffman
concerned citizen
Carlsbad, California

Attachments referenced in the testimony and included here:
1) "Too Cheap To Meter" quotes from pro-nuclear "authorities" from the early daze.
2) An expert speaks on seismic codes (1999).
3) A look at the logical fallacies exhibited by Commissioners and their staff at the last meeting (March 13th, 2001).
4) A look at history:  Along with the absurd optimism (see item #1, above), the denigration of the anti-nuclear voice is a historic fact.  Here is a look at just one example.
5) Recent San Francisco Bay Guardian article about extremely relevant Low Level Waste Disposal Regulations in California.
6) Letter to Alok Kumar, State of California, Utilities Safety Branch concerning his earlier claim to me that his agency has no responsibilities for public safety at nuclear power plants.  Clearly they do.  Clearly the California Coastal Commission does too (letter included attachments 7, 8, and 9).
7) Letter to U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Region IX concerning NRC failure to properly track accidents at places they are responsible for (letter included attachments 8 and 9).
8) Letter to California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) concerning the crane drop incident at SONGS and its ramifications for public safety (letter included attachment 9).
9) My own report on the crane drop incident, previously sent to the commissioners (note correction to description of a "half scram").

This document is available in its entirety online at the author's web site, at the following URL:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/cass2001/ccc2001a.htm

>>>>> "TOO CHEAP TO METER"? IT NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE: >>>>>

From:
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_8/8-3/npower.html


"It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter..." - Lewis Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, 1954

"Heat will be so plentiful that it will even be used to melt snow as it falls....[T]he central atomic power plant will provide all the heat, light, and power required by the community and these utilities will be so cheap that their cost can hardly be reckoned." -Robert M. Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago, site of the first nuclear chain reaction, 1946

<<<<< "TOO CHEAP TO METER" <<<<<

>>>>> AN EXPERT SPEAKS ABOUT SEISMIC CODES: >>>>>

From:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/specquake/quake10.htm

"John McLucas, vice president for structural engineers Faye Bernstein & Associates in Santa Cruz, said seismic codes get tighter every year. He said they are meant to keep buildings from caving in and causing injuries or death. He warns, however, that the seismic codes don’t mean a building will remain damage free or escape possible demolition."

(From a special edition on lessons learned in the Loma Prieta earthquake, published in the Santa Cruz County Sentinel print edition Sunday, October 17, 1999)

<<<<< SEISMIC CODES <<<<<

SHUT SONGS DOWN!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This web page has been presented on the World Wide Web by:

The Animated Software Company
http://www.animatedsoftware.com
Mail to: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
First posted June 13th, 2001.

Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman