To: "helen caldicott" <hcaldic@bigpond.com>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Correspondences with Dr. Helen Caldicott, Stanley Thompson, John Skobra (USN), Jim Hoerner, Richard Knee (Investigative Reporter)
Cc: "Millie and Stan Thompson" <stanleyt@efn.org>, "John Skobrak" <jsfooter@myeastern.com>
May 13th, 2003
EXCLUSIVE! PLEASE READ AND FORWARD TO OTHERS (especially to Matt Wald of the NY Times!)!
"The most intolerable reactor of all may be one which comes successfully to the end of its planned life having produced mountains of radioactive waste for which there is no disposal safe from earthquake damage or sabotage."
-- A Stanley Thompson (see below)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Readers,
A flurry of emails came in, in the past 24 hours. Just the first two correspondents shown below alone have about 100 years of combined technical and scientific experience in nuclear issues, and they have authored half a dozen books on the subject. Add my 30 years of humble activism, and the next guy's 20 years in the arrogant U.S.Navy (John Skobrak; he likes nukes), and whatever Jim Hoerner's got (he worships them), and you've got 150+ years of experience in the nuclear arena represented here in just a few pages of writing!
A. Stanley Thompson's chilling comments, which lead off this collection, are truly ominous.
And I will make a scary prediction: The current generation of activists and scientists WON'T stop nuclear power. Who are we kidding but ourselves, to think otherwise? We won't stop nuclear power in five years. Nor in 10, nor in 20.
Oh sure, MAYBE nuclear power will stop itself -- by an American reactor (or two, or three) melting down, as nearly happened at least twice in the past 14 months, which would causing tremendous pain and suffering.
But if that's what stops nuclear power eventually (or tomorrow), that only means WE FAILED (and so did the pro--nukers). That's the ending to this debate that nobody wants, but it's the only possible end if we don't shut them down voluntarily. Soon.
Activism has not stopped, and at this rate will not stop, nuclear power in America. Why not? I offer one explanation in my letter to Caldicott, shown in the second item below.
About TEN MILLION POUNDS of High Level Nuclear Waste is created EACH YEAR in America, and NONE OF IT is safely stored. Yet most fighting against this outrage these days is actually over MINUTIA -- minor details, like trying to knock a freight train off its tracks with a fly swatter.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
=============================================
Stan Thompson (nuclear engineer):
=============================================
At 09:23 PM 5/13/2003 , Stan Thompson <stanleyt@efn.org> wrote:
Dear Russell D. Hoffman and others:
I've been wondering about our future as anti-nuclear activists.
I want to thank you, my anti-nuclear friends, and wish us every success.
After the bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945 I accepted an invitation
into what I thought was to be my lifetime engineering occupation: to help
develop for peacetime use this limitless and safe source of energy "too
cheap to meter." I studied reactors and how to design the best possible
nuclear power plant. Based on a design course I taught to engineers at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, I wrote the book, "Thermal Power from Nuclear
Reactors" (John Wiley, 1956).
In my study I discovered many reasons why no one should build nuclear
devices of any kind. I became unpopular with Congressional committees.
Professors in nuclear departments would not let me talk with their
students. No one would publish what I wrote. Members of the public
questioned why I was trying to spoil the gift of nuclear energy to human
society? I felt alone in my effort.
As many of you have stated, nuclear reactors have demonstrated that they
are neither cheap nor safe. They are of necessity designed, built and
operated by fallible human beings, some of whom may be vindictive. The
failure of Chernobyl demonstrated failure and some of its results,
including the death of thousands of Ukrainians, of birds in the Pt. Reyes
sanctuary in California, and the discard of polluted milk in Italy and of
reindeer meat in Lapland. The most intolerable reactor of all may be one
which comes successfully to the end of its planned life having produced
mountains of radioactive waste for which there is no disposal safe from
earthquake damage or sabotage.
Who still wants to build nuclear reactors? The military establishment in
any country can use a nuclear reactor to produce Pu-239 for nuclear bombs,
a symbol of status. With a nuclear reactor NASA can produce even more
dangerously radioactive Pu-238 for super batteries in its space projects.
With a nuclear reactor available, a university professor can head a
prestigious Department of Nuclear Engineering. With the promised
construction of nuclear reactors, his students can look forward to
prestigious employment. There is now an immense effort by vested military
and civilian groups to continue various expensive and expansive nuclear
activities.
I have self-published a pamphlet, "Comments on Nuclear Power" (100 pages).
I no longer feel alone in the fight against nuclear proliferation, thanks
to all of you. Each of us approaches the battle against military and
civilian nuclear reactors from a different life experience. Let us not be
torn asunder by our differences in viewpoint. Let us not weaken each
other's credibility with bickering and slander. Our differences of
viewpoint should be a source of strength. I hope we can use that strength
to advantage against our entrenched "paid" opposition.
A, Stanley Thompson, Eugene, Oregon, USA 541-683-2332 13 May, 2003
==================================================
Dr. Helen Caldicott, pediatrician and scientist:
==================================================
At 06:38 PM 5/12/2003 , "helen caldicott" <hcaldic@bigpond.com> wrote:
From: "helen caldicott" <hcaldic@bigpond.com>
To: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Correspondence from Matt Wald, Helen Caldicott, Ellen Thomas, Judith Johnsrud, (+ more, +responses)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:38:10 +1000
Dear Russell,
As you say there is much work to be done for all of us. I agree that Wald
should be reading as much as possible about the subjects at hand re nuclear
power.
I am not going to write to him at the moment as I hope to meet him in the
near future to discuss many issues with him.
As I said you are doing fine work, and I guess that all our work is
synergistic and also that people working together or in parallel on similar
but different issues will never all agree.
Keep it up, you are making a major contribution,
Helen Caldicott
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 13th, 2003
Dear Dr. Caldicott,
Do you believe there are NO spies, NO infiltrators, NO agent provocateurs -- none of those creeps -- in ANY leading positions in the anti-nuclear movements in America?
If so, I suggest you read "The War Against The Greens" by David Helvarg (Sierra Club Books, 1994, 1997). I also recommend reading Jim Britell on the subject, available online. You'll also find discussions of government disruption of U.S. protest movements in "In Our Defense", a book about the Bill of Rights by two lawyers, Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy (the daughter of our late President) (Avon Books, 1991).
As a United States Citizen, I am demanding of my government that the truth on THIS ISSUE be revealed -- WHO are the spies in our midst?
When you talk to people at DOE, at the White House, at the State Department, and wherever else you get invited, ASK. Ask WHO is infiltrating our movement. Demand it stop. You should also make a formal, written request to that effect.
Then who knows what will happen? You might get a surprise resignation on your desk the next morning. That way, they won't have to admit guilt, they won't have to "make a federal case out of it" as the saying goes, and they won't have to stop committing other, similar crimes in other environmental organizations.
But at least, it will rid you of a parasite you don't even know you've got, who's sucking your energy and misguiding your efforts.
Inside the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, or in the employment of SAIC -- somewhere back in the bowels of those organizations and pseudo-corporations -- the truth IS surely documented.
I've heard that in past decades, the Soviet Union was a major source of funds for the American anti-nuclear movement. The U.S. Government didn't care, as long as it wasn't a lot of money, because it gave us all a bad name in the eyes of the American public. When the Soviet Union was broken up, even that money dried up, and many spies were simply left in America, for possible future use (and many of them had found jobs and work here to this day, and didn't particularly want to go home to poverty-stricken Russia anyway).
Other spooks, spies, infiltrators, and agent provocateurs in our movement come directly from the U.S. Military. Others come from the ranks of the nuclear industry itself, or their subcontractors and sub-subcontractors. These people "dig up the dirt" on activists, or harass them, or purposefully engage them in the minutia of learning how to fill out NRC 2.206 petitions, how to do a search of the NRC web site with ADAMS, or show them, once a year, how to productively spend two minutes at the annual public hearing on their local nuclear power plant.
But sooner or later, while all this minutia crap goes on, SPENT FUEL ACCIDENTS will happen. Oblivion will come, one irreversible step at a time. Each day, about 50 tons -- 100,000 lbs -- of new, never-existed-before nuclear waste is created around the world. An ejection of just one of nearly 60 instrumentation plugs at the bottom of a Reactor Pressure Vessel at the South Texas Project nuclear station might have spelled doom (MELTDOWN) for that reactor -- Small Break Loss of Coolant Accidents (LOCAs) can be catastrophic. Davis-Besse was not a case of a near-miss that proved the system works -- it was nearly a MELTDOWN, too. Indian Point -- guards asleep, fires, failed force-on-force security tests (weak tests, at that). And at Monticello just a few years ago, it was suddenly discovered that its Primary Coolant Vessel had actually been unavailable for its entire 30-year life.
San Onofre has had its share of problems, that old rattletrap. It survives solely because they devote plenty of money to showering the local schools, churches, government offices, media, and so forth with highly polished MISINFORMATION. In opposition, I have a web site, and a few other people do too, that's all.
Every grouping, and every meeting, is disrupted by infiltrators sooner or later.
But we do have some power -- the power of truth.
Scientists must be willing to examine every relevant fact, and will discard a lifetime of belief if even ONE fact disproves the previously-held dogma. I'm sure that the truth will eventually come out. But will it be before the arrogance of people like Bourque, Hoerner and Skobrak is allowed to destroy the planet?
Warmest regards,
Russell D. Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
=============================================
John Skobrak, USN:
=============================================
At 07:07 PM 5/12/2003 , "John Skobrak" <jsfooter@myeastern.com> wrote:
Russell,
Is this website for real, or is it supposed to be for comic
relief? I couldn't stop laughing at all of your definitions and news
clips. Funny Stuff! I would feel really sorry for someone that took you
seriously. Are you getting paid to put this information online by some
misinformed environmental group or by fossil fuel companies worried about
their competition?
Thanks again for the entertainment!
John Skobrak
From: Russell D. Hoffman [mailto:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 11:12 PM
To: John Skobrak
Subject: Re: Questions/Comments about Demon Hot Atom
I'm sorry, Mr. Skobrak -- The Demon Hot Atom was for people with open minds
and clear consciences. It's clear you'll never understand it. And no, I
wasn't paid by anyone to post it. Who are you beholden to?
-- rdh
At 05:52 AM 5/13/2003 , "John Skobrak" <jsfooter@myeastern.com> wrote:
Russell,
I have an open mind, that's why I thought it was more humorous than
pathetic. I'm at the end of a 20 year naval career and happened to be
looking for information about Commercial Power Plants and found your
website.
You have some good information and great ideas about energy resources. The
extent at which you bash nuclear energy and fill your site with
misinformation takes away from your credibility if you have a serious cause.
I honestly thought at first that you were an ex nuclear industry worker
putting the site up as a joke. Many of the things that you have on your
site we've laughed about for years.
If you truly understood the importance of nuclear energy in the defense of
our country, the politics, and safety measures involved with the program you
would see why your site is so entertaining.
My conscience is always clear.
Good Luck with your cause.
John Skobrak
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Skobrak,
If you have a correction to anything at my web site, I implore you to point it out specifically, explain the correction in detail, and cite your sources.
Commander Scott Waddle was at the pinnacle of a 20-year naval career when he surfaced the U.S.S. Greeneville under a Japanese fishing trawler and killed 9 people. Prior to that accident, his conscience was probably as clear as yours is right now. But the fact is, he was a lousy commander.
After the accident, he testified under oath in court that his conscience would be forever troubled. And what was his crime, ultimately? Failure to look all around him, and assess the facts based on ALL the available information. His negligence nearly cost us our third nuclear submarine, it did cost us enormous good will around the world, and it cost him his career, and I bet it didn't help his shipmates' careers much, either. But then, there's always nuclear power to retire into! At least, that's what you've been told for the past 20 years, isn't it? And it seems to be just where you were heading when you stumbled across my web site and decided to take a swipe at me, and see if you could torpedo me down.
But look at the bright side! Now you have a chance to reconsider your options, and you SHOULD think twice before entering the commercial nuclear industry! When that first, or second, or third MELTDOWN happens at one of our lousy commercial nuclear power plants, if you decided not to find work in the industry, it won't be YOUR FAULT! Think what that might save your currently-clear conscience in self-inflicted grief later! Do you know about Davis-Besse? Did they talk about that in the Navy where you've been sequestering yourself for the past 20 years? Did they talk, also, about high cancer rates among nuclear Navy power plant operators, or has that been hidden from you, too?
The United States Government, and the Navy in particular, has a blithe and improper attitude towards health effects of radiation. All other lies stem from this inaccurate assessment. Their conclusions regarding the dangers of what they are doing are utterly unrealistic, as any unbiased scientist can tell you (Caldicott, Gofman, Thompson, and Johnsrud all pop into my head, but there are many others whose work you can study).
Jack Shannon designed a lot of the USN reactors. You should check out what he has to say now, at his KAPL web site:
http://www.mindspring.com/~kapl/index.html
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
P.S. I would love to converse with you further, preferably under oath and before Congress.
================================================
Jim Hoerner -- Doesn't Know Nukes::
================================================
Apparently this next item is the best the pro-nukers have to offer in response to a recent newsletter. I confess to not reading it all and don't recommend anyone else bother to, either. It got pretty boring, and besides, they didn't even bother to distinguish my original remarks from their comments very carefully, and their comments are the same old argumentative and useless dogma, and the original spineless authors' email addresses are hidden, so I decided not to include it in the email version of this newsletter. However, for posterity, the online version of this newsletter includes the full, utterly absurd, totally inaccurate comments presented at message 951 of the "know nukes" web site. -- rdh
--------------------------------------------------
At 02:59 AM 5/13/2003 , "Jim Hoerner" <jim_hoerner@hotmail.com> wrote:
FYI, Russell...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/951
--
Hold the door for the stranger behind you. When the driver a half-car-length in front of you signals to get over, slow down. Smile and say "hi" to the folks you pass on the sidewalk. Give blood. Volunteer.
-----------------------------------------------------
=================================================
CONTENTS OF MESSAGE 951 AND RELATED MESSAGES (sorry for the colorization failures; that's the way the message was posted on the KNOW NUKES message board):
=================================================
FROM: Malcolm Patterson <metamorph@f...>
Date: Mon May 12, 2003 3:38 pm
Subject: RE: [Know_Nukes] FW: Dr: Helen Caldicott > Hitler!
Worrying about nuclear weapons in preference to nuclear power is backwards.
First, the nuclear power plants produce the material for nuclear weapons.
When the premise is false, argument is useless.
Uranium-235 can be used to make a weapon but only if it’s not mixed with too much U-238. The uranium in power plants is mostly U-238. It’s very expensive to “enrich” uranium to increase the percentage of U-235. Plutonium-239 can be used to make a weapon but only if it’s not mixed with too much Pu-240 and Pu-241. Power plants make Pu-239 but quickly convert it to the other isotopes. That’s why research reactors and “production reactors” *designed* to produce bomb fuel have ALWAYS been used instead. Spent fuel from US power plants has NEVER been used for weapons production. To do so would require advanced isotope separation technology and would be very hazardous.
If we "cut off the spigot", eventually they'll be UNABLE to build more nuclear weapons -- at least until they figure out a new source for the bomb material.
Since US power reactors are not the source of weapons-grade material, this is patently untrue. You can shut down all power reactors and have absolutely no impact on weapons. I wonder: who has been lying to you? Why do you prefer their lies to the truth?
Second, nuclear power plants are protected by "rent-a-cops", and nuclear weapons are protected by Marines. If you were a terrorist, which would you rather fight your way past?
If access to nuclear weapons is your goal as a terrorist, you will not bother to attack a power plant. If you are smart enough to make a bomb, you are smart enough to know that there’s nothing useful to you at a power plant.
The reason to attack a nuclear power plant is to scare people.
OTOH, if you want a bomb, it’s far easier to buy or capture one than to build it. Let’s hope that other countries can defend their nukes as well as we do.
Third, nuclear weapons are stored in hardened facilities in the middle of nowhere, while nuclear power plants are in the midst of population centers (the industry calls nuclear power plants "hardened", but it's just a spin-doctored term and has no real meaning).
“Hardening” in the context of power plants refers to protection from tornado, hurricane, flood, and earthquake risk. That’s not a trivial engineering and construction effort, i.e, whoever told you that it has no “real meaning” is lying to you. Why do you prefer their lies to the truth?
Because the weapons facilities are isolated, they're much more difficult to approach. Sure, you could crash into a missile silo with a 777, but the actual warheads are deep underground and probably would not be damaged. A spent fuel pool is a
much more vulnerable target.
Who told you that nuclear power plants are in the midst of “population centers”? Name one US plant sited within ten miles of a major metropolitan area—or do you define “population centers” as “a community of whatever size that is near a power plant”?
Fourth, nuclear power plants are a "force multiplier" for nuclear weapons, since the most devastating target for a nuclear weapon is a nuclear power plant and its spent fuel pool.
It appears that you have allowed someone to impress you by using stratego-military jargon. Once again you have been deceived, alas. The radiation release from site inventories is far less effective than simply adding cobalt to the warhead and delivering it to a real target. This is, in part, because power plants are not sited near population centers (as most people understand the term). It’s also, in part, because of the nature of reactor fuel—spent or otherwise.
Yet, despite these facts, most of the so-called anti-nuclear leaders concentrate nearly all their energy on banning nuclear weapons, and pay relatively little attention to shutting down the world's 430+ nuclear power plants.
I know that Dr. Helen Caldicott is well aware of the dangers of nuclear power, but she only touched briefly on the subject a couple of times during the presentation she gave recently in San Diego, California. Her focus was almost entirely on nuclear weapons.
This is probably because when she was attacking nuclear power, she kept getting caught in embarrassing lies. Her fawning admirers would excuse them, but the large body of uncommitted listeners did not. She learned from that mistake, and now focuses on an area where there are fewer knowledgeable people to point out her errors.
Afterwards, in a conversation with one of the other attendees, I was told she is "more dangerous than Hitler" because of her inaccurate statements (he could not, however, nail down one of those inaccurate statements for me).
If you were to provide any knowledgeable radiation worker with any of her tracts, it would be a simple matter to identify several inaccurate or misleading statements in a matter of minutes. Few knowledgeable people care to waste their money on the rubbish she writes.
He turned out to be a "Pressure Safety Officer" in the Health, Safety, and Radiation Department at Los Alamos National Labs, Dr. Robert F. Bourque.
Dr. Caldicott did make one inaccurate statement, saying that California has "three" nuclear reactors -- in fact we have four operating reactors (two at San Onofre, two at Diablo Canyon). But overall her assessment of the dangers we face from nuclear weapons and nuclear power was chillingly accurate.
I’m sure that it would not bother her in the least to learn that a statement was inaccurate. In my experience, she cares only for polemic effect.
She said that she is founding a new organization to take on the "Right-Wing Think Tanks" which has several goals, including eliminating nuclear weapons and nuclear power within five years.
I’ll bet $10 that she fails.
Why wait? Our nuclear power plants are unlikely to last five years! The chance of a meltdown before then is high.
Would you care to quantify the risk?
I do not believe Dr. Caldicott actually has anyone qualified to speak about the dangers from nuclear power
plants on her new committee.
On this point, we appear to agree.
What a crazy world! On the one hand, I have to spend half an hour listening to a vehement pro-nuker denounce Caldicott as "worse than Hitler", and tell me that Wind, Wave, Tide, Solar, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, and OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) have EACH been proven ineffective,
OK, he should have said, “not cost effective solutions to the problem of US energy needs.” Some of them are feasible solutions to relatively small and unique situations. Iceland can run on geothermal power (and release extraordinary quantities of radioactivity in the process) without offending its neighbors. Indiana can’t. Hydro has certainly been effective, but its environmental impact appears to be intolerable to the public—and in any case there are few remaining sites suitable for exploitation.
. . . and on the other hand, Dr. Caldicott is paying little more than LIP SERVICE to the problems of nuclear power generation – the source of all that radiation, and the far larger national industry and financial institution!
“All that radiation.” Interesting. Are you concerned with radiation, dose, or risk? Be careful: the response will reflect on your values as well as your numeracy.
The pro-nuker told me that windmills kill birds. What does he think happens around Chernobyl? Does he think it's a bird sanctuary?
Have you seen the data on wildlife around Chernobyl? It might dissuade you from bringing up this point.
He also told me that Dr. John W. Gofman had been debunked years ago. "Is he still alive?" he asked. "Yes," I replied. "He must be very old." "Yes, but he's still active" I replied, and asked, "When was he debunked? Who debunked him?" I got no answers.
Does it matter who debunked him? I would say that it does not—only the fact that he has been caught repeatedly in scientific fraud. If you insist on names, Dr. Petr Beckmann and Dr. Bernard Cohen are two who have exposed his errors in terms that are accessible to the layman.
The pro-nuker then went over to talk directly to Caldicott, who had just finished signing books for a long line
of people.
It's clear she's dealt with hecklers like him many times. She asked me if I worked at Los Alamos too, since I was standing next to him and had walked over to the table with him (but at least, I had a copy of her book in my hand to be signed!)
"Oh, you know me, Dr. Caldicott! " I replied, and handed her another copy of my TALKING POINTS ABOUT SAN ONOFRE document. I
had passed out around 150 copies of the Talking Points document just prior to the start of the presentation. I had printed it on bright yellow paper, so I could see that a copy had reached Dr. Caldicott within a few minutes. (Once she knew who I was, Dr. Caldicott was very encouraging about my writing, which I greatly appreciated, because of my own respect for her
efforts.)
One propagandist to another, eh?
During the lecture, someone had submitted a question about San Onofre and she said something like, "Russell must have submitted that!", evidently thinking that in a room of nearly 400 people in San Diego, California, nobody else would ask about San Onofre -- and that they would all know me by just my first name!
The reality is that the anti-nuclear “movement” is moved by a very small number of very vocal people, so her assumption is not strange at all.
I hadn't submitted it, actually, and didn't know the answer. She suggested we should ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission if we want the answer to questions like that (where is the San Onofre Unit 1 Reactor Pressure Vessel being stored right now?). AS IF the NRC answers any but the most trivial and obvious of our questions (or was that Dr. Caldicott's point?)!
It would make more sense to ask the utility’s public information department. I’m sure they’d be happy to tell you. It seems strange that you would want to waste the time of the NRC in looking up information that you could probably discover at the public library.
We can't ask anything from the nuke power plant owners, either! Aside from the fact that Ray Golden, San Onofre's spokesperson, doesn't return my phone calls, the nuke plant spokespeople are not required to tell the truth, anyway! The following was in a letter sent to me by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year: "Statements made by the public affairs
officer of a NRC licensee are not regulated activities. Therefore, the veracity of such statements will not be investigated by the NRC."
That's a license to lie.
So, you think that only those who parrot the NRC should be allowed to speak? Your true colors are showing. As for me, I continue to place value on the First Amendment.
Dr. Caldicott claims she plans to get the plants closed within five years, but as far as I can tell, there isn't a single person on the masthead of her new foundation dedicated to that topic -- NOT ONE. Judging from their biographies, none of them even has specific expertise about, or focus on, nuclear power plants! None are former plant workers or concentrate their efforts on stopping nuclear power.
So, you just noticed that HC is willing to lie to you, too. Congratulations. Now, what does that tell you?
We need to close all the world's nuclear power plants TODAY!
Fortunately, this is not your decision to make. Still, you can continue to try to convince others that your silliness is acceptable public policy.
We will NOT "freeze in the dark" as the nuclear industry claims will happen.
No, but we would probably suffer more California-style power disruptions and we would certainly pay more for electricity that pollutes more and kills more human beings.
These plants simply aren't VITAL.
Not to you, obviously, which reflects upon your priorities.
Right now, the fact is that the nuclear industry considers itself beleaguered and unable to expand, because of a perceived negative political environment. They think that will change some day. It will -- it will get much worse -- because every accident makes their "political" environment worse. Every scientific study which shows low-level radiation -- especially internal radiation -- is more harmful than government "experts" have been claiming -- makes it harder for the nuclear industry to release radiation and pretend it's safe. Nuclear power is doomed. It's just a question of when, and how many people will die with it.
We agree that change is inevitable, but we disagree on its direction. Concerns about power will drive a new wave of nuclear construction. The only question is “when?”—and concerns about safety, if any, will prompt the more rapid replacement of old nuclear plants with (better) new ones.
The nuclear industry's current plan is to keep the plants which are already operating online, at a terrible risk to the public, but at great financial gain to themselves. No U.S. nuclear power company is investing in the next generation of nuclear power plants, which shows how little confidence they have in their own future.
No, they have no confidence in feckless regulation.
But in the meantime, the plants are lurking like terrorists in our midst, ready to meltdown and explosively release their
contents, thus killing tens of thousands, or even millions of people who live downwind.
Another meltdown would have the same consequence as the meltdown at TMI-2: no explosion (because of physics) and no injuries (by design and safety philosophy).
Between the so-called California energy crises of 2000 - 2001 and now (May, 2003), California has built nearly TWICE AS MUCH GENERATING CAPACITY – all of it non-nuclear -- as is produced by our four nuclear power plants even when they all are running.
At what price per kW-hr?
The fact is, that ALL of that new generating capacity could have been from renewable energy systems.
How? and at what price per kW-hr?
But one way or another, we COULD shut down all the nuclear plants in California TODAY, with no impact on services.
That’s a silly thing to say. Do you actually believe it?
The rest of the nation and the world could do so too.
Fortunately, they will not do so.
Instead, California alone is creating 1000 lbs per day of high level radioactive waste, stuff so dangerous and useless that we cannot safely store it, ship it, process it, or dump it. 50 tons of "spent fuel" are created around the world each day.
I believe Dr. Caldicott is being seriously misled by infiltrators and government handlers such as Bruce Gagnon. Rochelle Becker often takes on this role in California. I don't know if Dr. Caldicott has a working relationship with Becker or not, but my guess is that she does. I'm sure Dr. Caldicott has more than enough evidence to be cautious of Bruce Gagnon, but instead, she finds him "prophetic" and her new book, titled THE NEW NUCLEAR DANGER, is -- believe it or not! -- actually dedicated first and foremost to that SPY.
What a crazy world!
Ipse dixit.
Malcolm Patterson
FROM: Nuke Bob <Know-Nukes@m...>
Date: Mon May 12, 2003 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Know_Nukes] Re: [global-energyoptions] Birdkills
At 01:25 AM 5/12/03, Chris Allen wrote:
>--- greenscitek@w... wrote:
>> [RE: Windmills kill 30,000 birds a year. Window panes kill up
>> to 976 million] Fascinating. According to this data windmills
>> are not a relatively significant hazard to birds.
>
>...
>"Top Ten Countries, Installed Wind Power, 2000. Country, Installed
>Wind Power (MW). Germany, 6,113. United States, 2,554."
>...
>To replace all of the United State's 500 gWe of electrical
>capacity, we would need 2 tWe of wind capacity. This would bring
>us (2 tWe / 2,554 mWe) * 30,000 dead birds = 23,492,561
>dead birds per year.
A minor point: This assumes linear relationship with capacity, which may not be
reasonable as designs of installed towers and generators change significantly
with time.
>According to this data, windmill bird-kill power is indeed
>insignificant compared to window-pane bird-kill power.
What does that comparison really prove, though? I'm sure the number of
windmill bird-kills looks even smaller when compared with the number of
slaughter-house chicken-kills for eating (perhaps 3 billion per year in USA?).
:-)
>Of course, we could save 976 million birds a year by getting rid
>of all of the windows in the country and replacing the indoor
Indeed. And will all those saved birds and windows increase or decrease global
warming? :-)
Cheers,
Bob
FROM: Malcolm Patterson <metamorph@f...>
Date: Tue May 13, 2003 12:03 am
Subject: RE: [Know_Nukes] Re: FW: Dr: Helen Caldicott > Hitler!
More like "He himself has said it."
Normally used for the unproven but unchallenged assertion: "OK, if you admit
it I won't argue with you."
Malcolm
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Hollingsworth [mailto:steveh_19@y...]
I'm reminded of Anthony Hopkins in "Zorro".
I missed the movie. :-(
"Ipse dixit" means "Because he said so"?
=======================================================
CALIFORNIA TRIES TO ENACT "SUNSHINE" LAW:
=======================================================
From: "Knee Richard A." <rak0408@earthlink.net>
Subject: [CAPPcoord] Boost for Calif. sunshine amendment
>From the California First Amendment Coalition (www.cfac.org):
SCA 1 on tomorrow with Lockyer and Cities support SACRAMENTO (5/12/03) -- After more than a year of false starts and negotiations, the drive for a constitutional open government amendment has its biggest breakthrough.
State Sen. John Burton's Senate Constitutional Amendment 1, which would let Californians decide at the polls next year whether they want access to public meetings and records given constitutional status and force, has finally gotten Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the League of California Cities on the record in support.
In a support letter to Burton (D-San Francisco) and co-author Sen. Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz), Lockyer cites a May 6 amended version of the bill, to be heard Tuesday in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee, as "a signal event in the development of California's open government policy."
Late Monday afternoon, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities said the organization was drafting a letter of support for SCA1 to inform the legislation's sponsors of the league's support prior to Tuesday's hearing.
"This is terrific news for open government advocates throughout the state," said CFAC President Rich McKee. "This moves us much closer to getting the constitutional amendment on the ballot where the people can decide how open they want their government to be."
Lockyer stresses the amended version's provision of a twofold role for the Legislature:
"First, the proposed subparagraph (b) (2)...recognizes that existing statutes will be operative, while requiring courts to construe them in favor of open government. Second, subparagraph (b) (2) allows the Legislature to respond to our changing world in future legislation, but only with findings showing the public interest being protected and the need for any limitation on access."
SCA 1 is co-sponsored by the California First Amendment Coalition and the California Newspaper Publishers Association.
------------------------ Yahoo!
====================================================
THINGS ARE GETTING EVEN WORSE:
====================================================
This URL forwarded to the EF! list by Teresa Binstock <binstock@peakpeak.com>:
FROM:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/050303B.shtml
Broad Domestic Role Asked for C.I.A. and the Pentagon
By Eric Lichtblau and James Risen
New York Times
Friday 2 May 2003
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration and leading Senate Republicans sought today to give the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon far-reaching new powers to demand personal and financial records on people in the United States as part of foreign intelligence and terrorism operations, officials said.
The proposal, which was beaten back, would have given the C.I.A. and the military the authority to issue administrative subpoenas — known as "national security letters" — requiring Internet providers, credit card companies, libraries and a range of other organizations to produce materials like phone records, bank transactions and e-mail logs. That authority now rests largely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the subpoenas do not require court approval.
The surprise proposal was tucked into a broader intelligence authorization bill now pending before Congress. It set off fierce debate today in a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, officials said. Democrats on the panel said they were stunned by the proposal because it appeared to expand significantly the role of the C.I.A. and the Pentagon in conducting domestic operations, despite a long history of tight restrictions, officials said.
After raising objections, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and other Democrats succeeded in getting the provision pulled from the authorization bill, at least temporarily, Congressional officials said.
In a closed vote, the committee passed the bill unanimously without the proposal. But Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the intelligence committee, indicated to panel members that he wanted to hold further hearings on the idea, officials said.
There was some disagreement over exactly how the provision originated. Several Senate aides active in the debate said that Senator Roberts had included it in the authorization bill. But a senior Congressional official said the Bush administration had initiated the proposal and that Senator Roberts had not objected.
A C.I.A. official said the provision had come from the Bush administration, after the White House's Office of Management and Budget signed off on it.
The official said that Congressional leaders had asked the Bush administration whether there were any additional powers needed to help combat terrorism. The administration responded with the proposal to give the C.I.A. and military the power to use the national security letters, the official said. Another Congressional official said the move came at the urging of the C.I.A. The White House had no comment last night.
Because the F.B.I. now has primary responsibility for domestic intelligence operations, the C.I.A. and the military must currently go to the F.B.I. to request that it issue a national security letter to get access to financial and electronic records.
The Bush administration believes that giving the C.I.A. and the military direct authority to demand the records would cut down on the lag time in the process and give those organizations more flexibility to combat terrorism, according to the senior Congressional official.
Administration officials played down the significance of the proposal, maintaining that it would not give the C.I.A. or the military access to any information that they cannot already get through the F.B.I.
But Democrats and civil liberties advocates said they were alarmed by the idea that the C.I.A. and the military could begin prying into Americans' personal and financial records.
They said that while the F.B.I. was subject to guidelines controlling what agents are allowed to do in the course of an investigation, the C.I.A. and the military appeared to have much freer reign. The F.B.I. also faces additional scrutiny if it tries to use such records in court, but officials said the proposal could give the C.I.A. and the military the power to gather such material without ever being subject to judicial oversight.
Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the proposal "dangerous and un-American."
Mr. Edgar said that "even in the most frigid periods of the Cold War, we never gave the C.I.A. such sweeping and secret policing powers over American citizens."
A Congressional Democratic aide said the measure appeared to go well beyond even hotly debated antiterrorism measures that the Justice Department has been considering in past months. "This is a very odd and very far-reaching idea that came out of nowhere," said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It raises a whole series of questions about what the C.I.A.'s mission has really become."
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the C.I.A. and the military have assumed greater authority overseas over what were once law enforcement terrorism investigations, and the traditional lines between domestic and overseas operations have become increasingly blurred. A new terrorism center, led by the C.I.A., started operation today in an effort to better coordinate the activities of different federal agencies. Civil liberties groups said they were worried it would give the C.I.A. authority to conduct domestic operations.
The proposal to allow the C.I.A. and the Pentagon authority to demand domestic records comes at a time when both Democrats and Republicans have voiced growing concerns about the government's expanded powers to fight terrorism.
New figures released today also showed that the Justice Department is relying with increasing frequency on secret warrants that allow the officials to go to a secret court to get approval for surveillance and bugging warrants in terrorism and espionage investigations without notifying the target.
Attorney General John Ashcroft said in an annual report that the Justice Department used secret warrants a record 1,228 times last year, — an increase of more than 30 percent over the year before. The court that governs the warrants did not turn down any of the Justice Department's applications, officials said.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
======================================================
Business as usual (yeah, this really happened today, too):
======================================================
At 01:58 PM 5/13/2003 , Jeff .... wrote:
Mr. (Dr.?) Hoffman,
Love your animated website 'All about Pumps'! We are working on a line of products, and need to know the best type of pump for them. Are you available on a consulting basis and, if so, what are your fees?
Jeff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jeff,
Thank very much for the email (shown below).
I love to look at anything new, high-tech, and innovative (as long as it's safe!). There's no charge for that! I don't know if I'm worthy of earning a consulting fee, though. I'm not a licensed engineer or "Doctor" of anything.
What I do bring to the table is a bit unique -- I am probably the only person who has actually seen all the pumps in that tutorial in action. Some of them only have prototypes and "one-offs" running, but I verified to my personal satisfaction that they each worked substantially as the inventor was claiming, and together the inventors and I verified that the animations and descriptions were accurate depictions of the action. Some are quite amazing. I have a few more I have to add, too. I'm behind in my work! Many of the animations are used in college courses about hydraulics, where they have been carefully scrutinized. In ten years, only one has been redrawn for a minor technical correction pointed out by a world-renowned expert!
Where are you located? I live in Southern California, so hopefully you're fairly local.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Author, animator,and programmer, ALL ABOUT PUMPS
Carlsbad, CA
==================================================
URL of this newsletter:
http://animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/2003/spiesinourmidst.htm
URL of previous email in the series:
http://animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/2003/DrCaldicottSanDiego.htm
===================================================
Love and Thanks to Alice Slater, Dr. Carol Wolman, Joy, Mitzi, and so many others who have forwarded our recent newsletters! -- rdh
====================================================