To: "Paul Lavely" <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Spent fuel pdfs from the NRC (available online for a limited time only!)
May 30th, 2002
Paul,
I'm working on responses to your various emails (you can be flippant in your remarks; but I choose not to be), but in the meantime, I suggest you check these three pdfs out. I think they are terrifying documents (despite the usual minimizations we tend to see, especially regarding terrorism and sabotage):
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSMITTAL OF DRAFT FINAL TECHNICAL STUDY OF SPENT FUEL POOL ACCIDENT RISK AT DECOMMISSIONING PLANTS AND FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE REQUESTING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON TECHNICAL STUDY Feb. 15 2000 (282 pages)
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nrcdocs/SFACCRI1.PDF
TECHNICAL STUDY OF ACCIDENT RISKS AT DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Oct., 2000 (88 pages)
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nrcdocs/SFACCRIS.PDF
APPENDIX 1.A THERMAL-HYDRAULICS ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL POOL HEATUP (275 pages)
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nrcdocs/SFAPPEND.PDF
---------------------------------------------------------------
If the average American 50 years ago had known, when we first got into this mess, what we were really risking when we chose the nuclear power option, they never would have permitted it.
If the experts NOW would openly admit the whole truth about the risks, people would know to demand a change. Nuclear power would be stopped.
If only we had more time to debate in excruciating minutia, exactly how many thousands will die, to the fourth decimal place, if something happens at a nuclear power plant, spent fuel pool, or dry cask storage facility, Paul, I'd love to. But meanwhile, terrorists are loading their weapons and developing their attack plans, having already chosen -- and announced -- their targets.
BTW, I received these documents from an activist in New Hampshire who took the trouble to put them on CD and mail them to me. I believe they are authentic.
Regards,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
P.S.: Below I've included an interesting comment from Marv Lewis regarding the NY Times magazine article I had previously sent out which is now posted (with a brief introduction) at this URL:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/nytmag02.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: FW: nuclear nightmares
From: Marvin I Lewis <marvlewis@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 07:44:04 EDT
Russ,
it was past tense difficult to get a critical mass. It is not
anymore.
That's what subcritical tests are all about. With lasers we can
get an awful lot of power even into very few atoms of fissionable
isotope. The temperature and pressure can be upped without an explosive
at an incredible rate. The critical mass concept is a horse race: can we
get enough temperature and pressure fast enough to cause an criticality
before the mass blows apart. With lasers it's easy. Critical mass is no
longer in the kilograms. Critical mass might wind up being a speck. It
will also take a lot less expertise to copy once done at the subcritical
tests.
The article that you included in your e mail was good for ten
years ago. I think it is a little dated. i still agree that it was a good
article to include.
Marv
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------