To: nirsnet <nirsnet@nirs.org>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: A response to Michael Mariotte's latest comments, by rdh
In-Reply-To: <3D78458D.3010006@nirs.org>
References: <3D78212B.00003D.01224@bob>
Dear Readers,
Below, I've excerpted several quotes from Michael Mariotte's response to my previous letter, and added various related items. I will probably post all the comments received thus far (from Roger Herried, Bob Nichols, Marvin Lewis, Rochelle Becker, Dustin Johnston, and Michael Mariotte), but to respond in detail to each comment would surely be an act of "debilitating pessimism".
Regards,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
==========================================
^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~
==========================================
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:05 PM 9/5/02 , Michael Mariotte wrote:
"...I'd like to meet the person who 20 years ago said terrorists would fly jumbo jets into buildings..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a cartoon which shows people were thinking about it at least as far back as 1978:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/memories/memory.htm
The caption reads, "The industry claims that the latest reactors are built to withstand a crashing plane. But not a Jumbo-size airliner. Nor a big bomb..."
The cartoon appeared in: The Anti-Nuclear Handbook, by Stephen Croall & Kaianders (Pantheon Books, New York, 1978, page 86. (NIRS is listed on page 131 under "Organizations against nuclear power")). (Note: The world's first Jumbo Jet, the Boeing 747, first flew in 1969.)
20 years ago, even the National Enquirer had already published articles about nuke plants' vulnerability to air strikes. Here's a quote from a May 1st, 1979 article about a well-publicized event ("Flight 841"), when a large jet nearly crashed: "Dr. Abrahamson, who was returning from a nuclear energy conference in West Germany...was sickened by the thought that down below a string of nuclear reactors lined the Great Lakes. If we hit one of them, he thought, it will make the Three Mile Island incident look like a picnic." The pilot, Harvey "Hoot" Gibson, was able to slow and then recover the plane by lowering the landing gear; the flaps and spoilers had already been ripped off the plane's wings.
We've known about Kamikaze or "suicide" attacks by air since the Japanese used the technique against us with devastating accuracy during World War II.
A September, 2001 AP report started out like this: "OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (AP) Twenty-nine years ago, hijackers took over an airliner with 27 passengers and four crew aboard and threatened to crash into the government's nuclear weapons production complex in Oak Ridge."
A 1976 pro-nuclear book called The California Nuclear Initiative: Analysis and Discussion of the Issues (Stanford University Institute for Energy Studies, page 89) discusses the long odds against a 747 crashing at all, let alone into a "densely populated area", and also claims (in the same paragraph) that we did NOT "almost lose Detroit" in 1966 when the Fermi I reactor suffered a partial meltdown. The book does not connect the two (a 747 crashing into a nuclear reactor), but one must wonder if that wasn't simply another blatant inaccuracy, to go along with all its other blatant inaccuracies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:05 PM 9/5/02 , Michael Mariotte wrote:
"...I am the person, who, 17 years ago, wrote one of the first articles about reactors as "weapons for the enemy."..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please fax me a copy of your article, but note that the following book was first published 22 years ago -- 5 years before your article:
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AS WEAPONS FOR THE ENEMY: AN UNRECOGNIZED MILITARY PERIL, by Bennett Ramberg, University of California Press, Studies in International and Strategic Affairs, William Potter, Editor, Center for International and Strategic Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles, CA (“Introduction to the Paperback Edition” Copyright 1984 by the Regents of the University of California). D.C. Heath and Co., 1980, 1984.
An interesting graphic of the effects of a nuclear attack on our nuclear power plants appeared in Ramberg's book. I've reproduced that image at the bottom of my Downwinders' web page:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/downwinders/downwinders.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:05 PM 9/5/02 , Michael Mariotte wrote:
"20 years ago, nuclear supplied 17% of our electricity, now it is 19%--not a big difference..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to EIA (DOE) figures, in 1982 the percentage of electricity supplied by the 78 operating nuclear power plants was 12.6%. For 2002 (through May), it is 21.4% (from 104 licensed units).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/txt/mer8-1
(Note: The past few years have seen a 1%+ increase in nuclear power's percentage of the mix, with no additional units coming on line. This is because of shortened refueling cycles, longer periods between refueling, and NRC-authorized power upgrades. In other words: Rushing, delaying maintenance, and running things more dangerously, at higher temperatures and pressures.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:05 PM 9/5/02 , Michael Mariotte wrote:
"...The biggest change is the percentage that wind supplies, which is the fastest-growing energy source in the U.S...."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the EIA (DOE) web site, nuclear supplies 7.733% of America's energy mix. Wind supplies just 0.046%:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/table1.html
A big change? Fastest growing? Okay, sure -- in the small (microscopic) picture. But compared to nearly 20,000,000 new vehicles on the road each year, it's nothing. A "Manhattan Project" for wind power is just about the only thing that will change the percentages significantly in our lifetimes. Compared to the cost of a meltdown, such a project would be very inexpensive and provide lasting benefits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:05 PM 9/5/02 , Michael Mariotte wrote:
"...by putting all their cards at Yucca Mt, the gov't has given short shrift to potential alternative solutions; not that there are any good solutions out there anyway."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you believe there are "potential alternative solutions" which have been given "short shrift", then let's hear what they are. For a list of "solutions" that have been proposed over the years, please visit my Waste Repository web page. Tell us which of these, or others, you think have been given "short shrift":
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/waste_repository/waste_repository.htm
The only thing this generation can do to help, is shut the reactors down and stop making more waste. Some generation has to do it -- BEFORE a major nuclear catastrophe befalls America. There is no question that we will leave the waste problem for others to solve, because we can't solve it. The only question is how BIG of a waste problem will we leave for them?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:05 PM 9/5/02 , Michael Mariotte wrote (of the upcoming "Nuclear Renaissance" revival meeting:
"...NIRS will be at this conference, and will report on it fully..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gosh, you sure know how to pick your battles, Michael! You fight me and sanctify the Nuclear Renaissance meeting, all in the same motion! NIRS wasn't listed on the roster that was circulated on the Internet a few weeks ago. Were you invited, or have you paid good money to attend? If you were invited, when did you get your invitation, and when did you accept? Did you read the comments from all the activists (I found four separate activists' comments, plus myself) condemning Richard "Rich Rad" Meserve for attending before you decided to attend? Will you have a chance to make a presentation to the assembled pro-nukers, like Public Citizen is supposed to get, or are you just going to be our "eyes and ears", as if anything of interest will be said there?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:05 PM 9/5/02 , Michael Mariotte wrote:
"...I've been in this movement for 20 years and I understand it pretty damn well...."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you say, Michael.
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
==========================================
^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~-^-~
==========================================