To: Tim Steadham <tstead@ntirs.org>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Hundred Billion Dollar Fine... Monticello Primary Containment booboo
In-Reply-To: <20010716185124.48657.qmail@web9105.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <003f01c10e15$136d0b20$ba200f18@lakwod1.co.home.com>

Hoffman:
> BTW, did you look at what they discovered at
> Monticello, as shown in the
Steadham:
"No - but I'll look into it at my leisure."

and:
"I certainly hope you are not going to bring up all of
the 30,000+ incidents that occur at nuclear plants
every year because that would be quite boring to read."

That is why I say you are brushing off what happened at Monticello.  It sounds like a brush-off to me.

As for what I distribute or don't, you are free to publish it all at your web site and I wish you would so I can copy it to mine.  The rest of your 23rd letter to me (shown below, and perhaps I've lost count) is your usual irresponsible dream of what you wish the situation was.  I've answered your points in previous letters, no need to repeat those efforts you've already ignored, to your everlasting shame.

Reality bites, doesn't it, Mr. Steadham?  Is this your first taste of it?

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

==================================================

At 11:51 AM 7/16/01 , Tim Steadham wrote:
I wonder, if after reading my response, you will
inform everyone here how your foot tastes - that
includes you, too, Russell.

First, Russell had automatically assumed that I would
have no issues, concerns, problems, etc. with an
inoperable containment dome.  I'm not quite sure what
he based this on seeing as I have never stated or even
thought that serious safety issues should not be dealt
with seriously.  In any event, his desire to not only
assume what my position would be and then to ATTACK me
on it ALL THE WHILE copying other people on his email
can only be attributed to a serious lack of moral
integrity.

Now, with that aside, allow me to copy a portion of
the email I sent Russell in response to the email you
are mentioning (I doubt Russell would distribute it):

>As far as Monticello is concerned,
>if they had such a significant event then they
deserve
>to have fines levied in excess of that proposed.

>We don't need nuclear plants operating if they can't
>operate properly.  If the event occurs as you make it
>out to have occured, then I hope their plant is shut
>down for many years to fix any and all discrepencies
>that obviously exist.  If the fine is so high such
>that they cannot afford to remain in operation, then
>they got what they deserved.

A wise man once said that it is better to keep your
mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and
remove all doubt.  I think this is a prime example of
that.  Don't you agree?

To another point, you talk about a "dismal performance
and safety record."  Are you speaking specifically to
this plant with regards to this issue or a "dismal
performance and safety record" of the entire industry?

The thing that you do not undersand is that I don't
work at that plant and, as such, I can not, will not,
and should not be asked to defend their actions - that
is something you need to take up with them.

However, if you are speaking about the entire nuclear
industry as a whole, the mere fact that no person has
ever been harmed or injured as a result of any
commercial US nuclear plant leads me to wonder what
your definition of "dismal" performance actually is.
I guess your idea of "dismal" is anything less than
100% perfection.

Sure we have all heard it before that the radiation
emmitted from nuclear plants is slowly killing the
planet.  Yada, yada.  Too bad the only proof that you
have with this regard are crazy conspiracy theories
and a few studies disproven by common sense and a
cursory review of reality.

Isn't it a shame that after 20 years and over a dozen
of independant studies, the lawyers for the TMI
victims STILL could not dig up a shred of evidence
that would even cast a shadow of a doubt that anyone
near Harrisburg, PA suffered ANY ill effects as a
result of the TMI accident.  I mean, if they couldn't
show ANY evidence that the radiation from the TMI
disaster caused any health problems (even in the light
"most favorable to [the] Plantiff[s]"), how can anyone
believe that the yearly MINUTE amount of radiation
given off by NPPs poses any significant risk to the
public?  You are arguing points you have already lost
in both the scientific and legal arena.

Regards,
Tim Steadham

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

=======================================================