To: Tim Steadham <tstead@ntirs.org>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Your new attitude -- what does it bring to the table?

To: Tim Steadham
From: Russell Hoffman
Re: Your new attitude -- what does it bring to the table?
Date: July 17th -- 18th, 2001

Mr. Steadham,

Start over?  Well, you're about 100 pages behind, right out of the gate.  And several decades, and 100 interviews with scientists, and dozens of books and thousands of articles.

From your letter (shown below) I see that you want to express some change in your attitude.  That's great.  But still, right now, Mr. Steadham, I am working on a response to one of your previous letters.  And you have a 50 page (if printed) document you should be looking at for any errors you can find.  Start over?  Fine.  So stop writing and start reading, and start preparing a detailed, logical and appropriate response to my assertions, if you can.

If you are in some way retracting earlier documents, please let me know.  When you say let's start over, do you want me to ignore everything you've sent so far?  I have to read it sooner or later, because I intend to post it all, and I can't do that without reading it.  So I'm probably going to comment on it.  You're going to post it all too, right?  Then I can just copy the HTML.

Anyway, I still want to know how exactly have I offended you?  Surely one who dishes it out as thick as you do can take the mere mention that you might be wrong without getting all huffy and offended.  At least, I would think someone capable of calling me "ignorant, neurotic, paranoid, crazy, a liar" -- oh, you remember, don't you? -- because that's a condensed list -- would be able to take whatever it is I've offended you with -- what is it, anyway?

One thing I know for sure, Mr. Steadham, is that you have tried very hard to offend me, and to convince others I have wronged you.  I haven't bothered to demand an apology, figuring you could figure out that one might be in order for yourself.  If you want to think you are starting over, that's fine.  But  I'm ready to continue.  I intend to finish the previous response, to your "Jackass" letter (that is, the one where you call me a "Jackass"), and other matters, like a couple of "hit and run" letters from Jerry Keto (which seems to be based on his idea that my exchanges with you are somehow excessively derogatory of the nuclear industry.  Beat's me what he's talking about).

Because Mr Steadham, your improved attitude is fine, but I worked hard on my responses, and I don't want to have to repeat myself, assuming we do start over.

Comments to your letter are interspersed in [[[ triple brackets -- rdh ]]].

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad CA

At 06:02 PM 7/17/01 , you wrote:
I forget the lady whom is the executive vice something
or another of whatever group was cc'd on the email you
sent me about the monticello thing...I am sure you
recall.  Rhonda..is that her name?

[[[ No, that's not her name.  It's Paula Elofson-Gardine. The same day she stepped into this exchange, I found a fantastic article co-authored by her in the Fall, 2001 Earth Island Journal about burning vegetation around nuclear weapons sites.  Burning a small amount of vegetation at Rocky Flats did amazing things to Geiger counters in the area.  The Geiger counter readings went from 2 digits to 5 digits (the top of the scale).  Then, in the weeks that followed, the Geiger counter readings settled down, but their new rate was about 10 clicks per minute above the rate it was before the burn.  Just a little more background radiation to you.  Cancer, leukemia, and birth defects to everyone else (maybe to you, too, except the birth defects, which can only happen to our progeny).

Do they burn the vegetation around any nuclear facilities near where you live or work?  If so, you definitely should read her article.  There are several other important articles in that issue as well.  And as luck would have it, some calculations regarding deaths, by Dr. Rosalie Bertelle, using ICRP numbers.  But the totals should shock you.  In fact, you'll probably want to try to prove her wrong next, now that it appears you are done with trying to prove Dr. Caldicott wrong (I'm assuming you're fixing your web site to indicate that you have no idea if the numbers you've used are accurate).  I'm sure Dr. Bertelle's paper with her actual calculations is available somewhere -- from her, for instance.  (I have an older email address I can try for you, if you can't find it some other way.) -- rdh ]]]

The last two emails we have had were actually quite
friendly and good-natured.  She suggested that we
start anew with our "debate" and I'm willing to at
least attempt that.

[[[ I'm delighted to hear you say that, but your actions will speak volumes where your pronouncements of intent mean little.  After all, Mr. Steadham, you indicated going in to this "debate" the first time that you were in earnest about your claims and your eagerness to honestly find the answers. -- rdh ]]]

With that in mind, a few semantics...

> workers.  But there have been plant workers --
> licensed by the NRC -- who
> became "inattentive" while moving nuclear fuel
> (April 21st, 1997, San
> Onofre Nuclear Generating Station), bending the
> control rod
> assembly.  God-only-knows what problems that nearly
> caused.  I can show you

I don't know about this incident, but allow me to
speculate.  If the bent asembly was not detected
(despite the five or six people wathing refueling at
the same time - all would have to be not watching),
the PV bolted back up, and the Rx fired back up -
start-up physics testing would have detected a problem
with the flux profile which would be attributed to a
bent control rod.  Also, plants need to ensure
adequate SDM which assumes that the most reactive
assembly is out of the core to mitigate a bent control
rod scenario.

[[[ Define your terms.  You know I'm not going to be able to understand all your jargon.  A real scientist or engineer can put their statements in terms a lay person can understand.  Try it.  You'll see that there's nothing you can't say in nuke-speak that can't be said in English.  Why you refer to this as "semantics" is also unclear. -- rdh ]]]

What is your concern about the incident?  In other
words, what do YOU think could have gone wrong as a
result of that incident?

[[[ I think I've expressed adequately that I'm concerned that this could lead to a release of radioactivity into the environment.  That's the only concern I have with this technology.  That's what it all boils down to.

And don't respond by saying there's no way this particular incident could have released radioactivity.  It could have been a contributing factor resulting in a major release.  Nuclear workers make mistakes even when they're supposedly being extra cautious (5-6 people watching a fuel move, for example). -- rdh ]]]

> reports where the control room operators didn't know
> what to do because
> they didn't understand what was happening inside the
> reactor because they
> couldn't reconcile all the different bits of
> information their gauges were
> telling them, and then they did the wrong thing and
> exacerbated the problem
> (this happened at Three Mile Island).  I can show

Yes, despite the operators's best efforts, the safety
systems prevented the release of fission products to
the environment. 

[[[ Wrong again!  TMI had a release, most of which wasn't properly measured (or the values not released to the public), which has probably caused hundreds, maybe thousands, of new cancers, leukemias, and birth defects all around the globe.  Tens of thousands have died from Chernobyl.  Sure it's hard to prove -- especially when proper efforts to study the problems are seldom funded by government and never by the nuclear industry.  But to claim they completely prevented any release at Three Mile Island?  Don't be daft.  Sure it could have been worse.  Don't you worry that next time it will be? -- rdh ]]]

Actually, the operators made the
right decisions based on the information they had - it
was the information that was wrong (e.g. stuck
Pressurizor level indicator, RFI intereference of
equipment transmitters, etc.)

[[[ I'm not concerned about laying specific blame.  A technology that requires every machine and every human to work so nearly perfectly, and requires Mother Nature to avoid certain areas just to be nice to us, is doomed to failure. -- rdh ]]]

> bolts?  How many
> regulations were violated when the plant apparently
> ran for 30 years
> without an inoperable containment?  How many people

You mean "operable" not "inoperable" in this context.

[[[ You are correct.  I apologize if this error caused any confusion, although it appears that you understood my meaning perfectly.  -- rdh ]]]

> think the Mark 1 has
> much of a containment anyway, come to think of it?

I assume you have some FEA analysis of the containment
to show that it is inadequate?

[[[ Sure, there have been studies -- what's FEA?   I have a variety of sources (it's not something I expected to have to be an expert on overnight).  I plan to prepare a report on the General Electric Mark 1 Reactors, and the dangers people are living with, who live near them.  Salem, Oyster Creek, Hope Creek, Monticello, Hatch, etc. -- they should all be shut down. -- rdh ]]]

> Wind power?  The Nuclear Industry tells me it's
> impractical -- try coal if
> you don't like nukes.  I don't like coal either, but
> it beats nukes.

Coal plants are dirty and filthy plus their radiation
emissions are not regulated by the NRC.

[[[ Uh, what's your point?  If the NRC doesn't regulate radiation emissions from coal plants, who does?  And why are you concerned with this radiation, but not the radiation produced by nukes?  I'm concerned about radiation and other pollution caused by coal plants which is why I advocate renewables.  But, compared to a meltdown and losing, say, the SoCal coast for 10,000 years, I'd say coal is a bargain.  Of course, one big difference is, you can SEE most of the pollution from coal.  Nuclear's pollution is insidious.  Besides, Dubya backs "clean coal", so what's your worry?  Or don't you trust him to be making logical energy decisions any more than I do? -- rdh ]]]

I was on the NEI website (www.nei.doe.gov) and I spoke
with a few people there.  To their best estimates, if
renewables were used to their fullest extent POSSIBLE
in the USA (that includes those trash buring plants
that you people in CA protested) they would provide
23% of this nation's electricity by the year 2020.
Currently, they provide only 7.2%.  The report also
shows that even with this being the case, many
pollutants like NOX and SO2 would not be curtailed by
very much.

[[[ Hogwash.  What did they say were the limiting factors?  Government investment?  Political will?  Nuclear propaganda?  I mean, what were the reasons they gave?  Or didn't you get that far?  You say they told you that renewables currently provide "only" 7.2% (higher than I had though, actually), which is billions of killowatts.  But for some reason they told you we can only get to 23% by 2020.  Why?  We can build more than 100,000,000 cars and trucks between now and then, but we can't build small-scale renewable energy systems?  I don't believe it.  Did this include -- and if it didn't, you better call them back and ask them -- a change in the regulations such that what I call "micropayments" occur, where any renewable energy producer who supplies energy to the grid can get paid as much per kilowatt as the local nuclear power plant was getting before they shut it down?  Did their prophesy (or fantasy) include that, Mr. Steadham?  By they way, an additional 15.8% (23 - 7.2) would be just about enough to shut down all the nukes. -- rdh ]]]

I don't know of too many people in the nuclear
industry that think that renewables should not play a
vital role in this country's future energy demand.

[[[ Don't patronize me.  The renewables industry is tired of being patronized with such cliches and wants your money instead.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Tell your congressman to put our money into renewables if you feel this way, and to support the micropayments idea. -- rdh ]]]

Heck, if I could buy a fuel cell that would provide me
with a realizable ROI within a matter of a few years,
I'd be all for it!

[[[ It's coming.  Meanwhile, because we can't be patient, we don't invest in renewables, which would bring that technology's costs way down.  And meanwhile, nuclear waste piles up at incredible rates.  And each new pile needs a new place to store it, and a safe way to get it there, and a safe way to hold it until it gets to its (so far unknown) final repository.  Since I got your first letter just over one week ago, my local nuclear power facility has produced over a ton of High Level Radioactive Waste and three to five tons of Low Level Radioactive waste, on average.  While we discuss, the waste problem grows.  The same problem you haven't got any idea of how to solve.  And, even with all their subsidies, I doubt nuclear power plants offered ROI "within a few years".  But for you the rules are different for nuclear power, and standard economic rules go out the window, like willingness to pay the costs of an accident.  Price-Anderson absolves the nuclear industry of at least 90% of the financial burden from even a "minor" meltdown and release.  Too bad no such insurance is available for people who inhale the radioactive particles and contract cancer. -- rdh ]]]

> A conspiracy?  It sure seems like there's always
> someone out there ready to
> attack me groundlessly.  It's not like this is my
> first round.

Just so I get this straight, I was driving home today
and heard an anti-smoking bit on the radio and it hit
me....do you equate what the smoking industry did
(e.g. lying about smoking as a danger and all) with
the nuclear industry?  I mean, is it about the same to
you?

[[[ What's your point?  Don't you see the similarities?  In my opinion, there are certainly aspects of that analogy which fit this case, but I don't recall the smoking industry ever claiming National Security in order to prevent the public from hearing the truth, so there are certainly some differences.  Your industry claims National Security as a reason for hiding the truth from the public all the time.  But it's not "National Security", it's public relations.   Unless, perhaps, you're talking about the terrorist threats to nuclear power plants, and how easily their perimeters can be breached, and how much damage a rocket propelled grenade could do -- sure, in that case, there probably are National Security issues.  But for letting the public know the size of the daily release in Curies, instead of always being told it's "insignificant"?  Come on. Let the truth out.  It's unAmerican not to trust the public to be able to handle the truth, no matter what Jack Nicholson claims in a Hollywood movie.-- rdh ]]]

> things they -- not the public -- would demand:  For
> coastal reactors, they
> would have Tsunami sensors, electronic gizmos that

I am not quite sure, but if all credible
weather-related problems are addressed, doesn't that
include tidal waves?

[[[ "Credible"?  Who gets to define "credible"?  You?  A 35-foot wall won't stop an 80-foot wave, unless the laws of physics have changed recently.  See this web page where I discuss this topic in detail:

Understanding the tsunami threat to coastal nuclear power plants -- June 19th, 2001
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/ocreg05.htm

-- rdh ]]]

BTW, I think you'll get a kick out of this
one....Surry PS the plant I worked at - their
emergency switchgear room is in the basement of the
turbine building.  I wonder who the bright individual
was that designed that one?  Surry had to spend
millions to upgrade the turbine building for flood
mitigation.

[[[ And so now this room has been proven flood-proof?  I mean, has a 100-year flood sat there for days and days and not leaked in?  Just wondering.  And how long was the emergency switchgear room vulnerable to floods before they fixed it?  However long it was, I guess we're fortunate that no flood occurred.  But lucky isn't good enough when you're dealing with billions of Curies of radiation, and there are clean alternatives where bad luck won't wipe out large portions of the human population and increase pain and suffering tremendously.   You can't and won't stop Mother Nature forever, Mr. Steadham.  An accident is inevitable unless we shut the plants down and put their waste somewhere very deep in the ground.  No, I don't mean Yucca Mountain is good enough, but it's in the right general direction -- deep. -- rdh ]]]

> strikes, so that if
> the waters in the ocean in front of them recede,
> they SCRAM the
> reactor.

If a tidal wave came by and smashed into the plant,
more than likely the turbine building would be hit
hard.  If a main steam or feedwater line broke, the
AFW system would kick in due to loss of main feed
flow.  This would initiate an automatic SCRAM.

[[[ And then what?  Then entire control room and all outside pipes, motors, pumps, valves etc. would be washed away, smashed and inoperable.  Debris would have fallen into the Spent Fuel Pool, Dry Storage Casks would have been smashed together and burst, burning and releasing their radiation.  As you say, it all starts with, among other things, an automatic SCRAM if they're lucky.   So what happens next? -- rdh]]]

> To protect the nukes from asteroids the industry
> should be paying NASA to
> put asteroid-searching telescopes in orbit.
> (Powered by solar panels, of
> course.)

I don't understand how that would protect a nuke
plant?  How would KNOWING a plant is going to be
smacked protect it? 

[[[ It's a first step.  There are ways to push asteroids around if you find them soon enough and spend enough money.  Of course, I'd much prefer to shut down the plants to minimize this danger, but there would still be nuclear waste to worry about. -- rdh ]]]

What is the probability that a
nuke plant will be hit by an asteroid?  Is this
probability less than the probability of a DBA?  I
don't know off the top of my head, but I would bet it
is much less than the probability of a DBA.

[[[ What's DBA?  Death By Aliens?  Anyway, there are many, many scientists around the world who worry -- whose entire careers are involved with worrying -- about so-called Earth-impacting asteroids.  Didn't you know that?  Then I bet you also didn't know that small asteroids (less than the size of a suitcase, say, on impact with Earth) are tens of thousands of times more common than big "Earth-Killers" the size of, say, a skyscraper.  These more common asteroids are only hazardous to a relatively small area.  Unless they happen to impact a nuclear power plant or other nuclear waste dump.  Not only would an asteroid smash the place to smithereens, it would release all the plant's fuel, spent fuel, and Dry Storage Cask fuel into the atmosphere as fine particles, the most dangerous form.

So it's not just how likely, it's how bad.  I don't know any way a renewable energy system could be responsible for such damage.  And don't tell me the asteroid is responsible.  They are out there, and they will impact Earth.  We know this.  This is a roll of the dice we don't need to take. -- rdh ]]]


Lets cut to the chase.  You beleive that any radiation
dose no matter how small can initiate a cancer.  I
agree that there is a distinct probability of that
happening.  What do you beleive to be the cancer rate
for radiation levels that the public are routinely
exposed to from nuclear plants?  Do you believe the
<0.1% dose from nuke plants I've mentioned before?

[[[ This is not "cutting to the chase" at all, Mr. Steadham.  Nuclear power plants are too dangerous, too risky, and are supported by evil warlords who rule with uranium fists, and their henchmen like you. Do I believe the <0.1% dose from nuke plants you mentioned before?  Let's see, based on what?  Perimeter monitors, which are few and far between, and records from them are averaged-out releases over three-month periods, and often they are found to be nonfunctional anyway, especially after a release has occurred, so they can't tell how much was released?  Or do you mean I should belive the <0.1% dose value, based on the many releases that occur at operational nuke plants,  for which the number of Curies released, and the isotopes are never actually published?  Or do you mean 0.1% of what "background radiation levels" were before the atomic age began, or what they are now, or what they will be in 100 years?

My worry is not so much an operational nuclear power plant -- although I do admit I believe they release far too much radioactivity and people around them are dying -- but melted-down nuclear power plants, which are releasing a billion times more radioactivity into the environment.  That's what I'm most interested in preventing.  Accidents. -- rdh ]]]

Since you say that nuclear power is causing cancer, do
you have any statistics that show the following:

1. Cancer rates before and after a nuke plant was
built in a community
2. The same except for nuke waste sites
3. Cancer rates for radiation workers

[[[ Oh, yes, Mr. Steadham.  I have figures.  Estimates, of course.  It's impossible to know exactly because no one kept good records.  I mentioned Dr. Bertelle's estimates, above.  I have 150-200 books which have made estimates of those figures.  I have experts you can talk to.  I have facts.  Don't pretend I don't!  I've asked you to justify YOUR calculations and your statements.  That is where we are at, Mr. Steadham.  This letter of yours is, again, filled with absurdities.  I hope you're thinking about what changes you are going to need to make to your web site to reflect the things you have learned in the past week - or rather, things you would have learned if you had been paying attention.  -- rdh ]]]

What evidence do you have to show me that nuke plants
have increased cancer rates in people throught the
USA?

[[[ Which books on the subject haven't you read yet?  Sternglass, Gould, Gofman, Calidicott, Schell, or 1000 others?  Sure I can "go there", Mr. Steadham, but that's not "the chase" in our conversation, and if you wish to start anew, I suggest you simply review what I've already written, and your previous answers, and try to figure out why you ever said the many illogical things you said.  I certainly can't figure out what makes you think that my answering these questions right now would prove your case for nuclear power.  Specifically as to this last question, we both agree that nuclear power plants in America have not yet had a "worst case scenario".  And should I say a word or two about how little attempt is made to measure how much is actually released?  Or how few records are kept of the public's exposures?  Or how records were doctored during bomb testing so calculations based on those records are meaningless?  Anyway, the number one rule in debating is that you don't answer a question with a question -- you answer the question.  So the answer to "where did you get your data" is not "so what's YOUR best guess?"  I'm not in the guessing business, Mr. Steadham -- you are confusing your method with mine.

What I want to know, is how you can continue to libel Dr. Caldicott (and now Dr. Gofman as well, in your letters), while admitting that you have no idea what you are talking about.  That is, while admitting that you have taken ICRP "data" without ever looking into the possibility that it is not accurate, or even where it came from.  That you have used that data as the basis for your own guesses and mathematical whimsy does not make your acts of libel any less significant. -- rdh ]]]

Tim

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

[[[ Mr. Steadham, I have trouble believing there's a "new you" in there, but if there is, I reiterate that I'd like to see it and am ready to debate it whenever it wants to begin earnest debate.  You have a lot of bogus statements to either justify or retract.  Let's not go down any new paths of debate just yet, you're way, way too far behind.   So far, you still owe Dr. Caldicott an serious and detailed apology.  I don't know if anything substantial has changed in your attitude, but I know the fact that you have unfairly attacked brilliant, courageous, and gifted scientists hasn't changed. -- rdh ]]]