To: Tim Steadham <tstead@ntirs.org>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Mr. Steadham wishes the world to know he thinks I'm a Jackass...
In-Reply-To: <20010716032803.29239.qmail@web9107.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.20010712082324.009fc820@mail.adnc.com>

To: Tim Steadham
From: Russell Hoffman
Re: Mr. Steadham wishes the world to know he thinks I'm a Jackass...
Date: June 15th -- 18th, 2001

Mr. Steadham,

Maybe your web page says you simply used ICRP data, but to ME, you tried to claim you actually had sources which could confirm your guesswork and mathematical hogwash.  Sources that proved Dr. Caldicott wrong, and that showed that your values are correct.  Industry standard data?  Yeah, the industry believes it.  I'll grant you that.  But reasonable people do not, and nor should you.  I've provided you with plenty of good references to make you question the ICRP data.  AND I've asked you to show me what gives YOU faith in that data, and you haven't been able to do so.  Yet your whole mathematical game was based on that data, and for a reference you cited another mathematical game and simply repeated the sources it cited.

Now Mr. Steadham, calm down a bit and ask yourself this: Isn't this supposed to be a search for truth?  Or do you just want to see who can yell louder and stomp out of the room angry first?

I asked you to prove your case against Dr. Caldicott's figures and against Dr. Caldicott (for your attacks against her were and continue to be very personal).  You have not done so, and the only "data" you have provided to back up your case is more than suspect -- it's atrocious and has been condemned by scores of good, respected scientists.  So I ask again -- where is your PROOF?  You haven't even cited a single study that looks into the actual facts of the case -- but to explain that to you again would be repetitious.  If you wouldn't listen before, I don't expect you to listen now.  As for Dr. Gofman's comments, you obviously haven't read the whole document I sent yet.  True, in one place he comments that any dose can be fatal.  I believe this to be true, and you've admitted that you do to.  But to get Dr. Gofman's professional opinion you need to read more.  In another quote he specifically pegs the number -- what for you is 12 -- at 400,000,000.  That's a big discrepancy and his credentials and research methods are impeccable.  And 400,000,000 is vastly closer to Dr. Caldicott's assertion than to yours -- including your 1.2 million value, whatever that was about.

As to my suggesting you should be fired for the way you have been speaking to me, here's the way it works:  You said there were honorable people in the nuclear profession and because of that the public should trust the nuclear industry to behave in a forthright manner.  You also hand me lines like "0 automatic SCRAMS since 1998", which is just ludicrous.  I don't think the nuclear industry -- if it's as forthright as you say it is -- would want someone like you in it.  Of course, now that you've made it clear you aren't actually in the nuke business at all anymore, I suppose this part of the discussion is irrelevant, but I don't think the nuclear industry is getting any benefits from your championship.

If you hand me lines like "0 automatic reactor SCRAMs since 1998", your whole case becomes suspect.  Everything you do, taken together, proves (or disproves) your integrity.  Everybody makes mistakes, but you have consistently presented me with misleading and poorly researched information.  I see no reason to change my opinion of your honesty at this point, but feel free to continue to try to convince me differently.

As for the non-proliferation issues you seem so hell-bent on discussing, where do you think nuclear weapons material comes from?  It comes from (among other places) commercial reactors, AND there are plans afoot to have the reactors produce even more weapons-grade plutonium and other materials.  That makes them legitimate targets of war.  So there is a very definite connection, and a very reasonable concern.

Are you really as arrogant as you are acting or is this your idea of how to win a debate when the facts are virtually all against you?  I've certainly seen such tactics before.  You bore me.

And lastly, Sir, as to your saying I have been yelling at you, I have been merely stating my case.  That you find it overwhelming and apparently equate this with "yelling" is not the least bit surprising to me, as I believe it is quite so.

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

P.S.: As usual, my comments are in [[[ triple brackets ]]] and none of your letter has been deleted or moved.  The level of insulting, unprofessional language in your letter, Mr. Steadham, is beyond my ability to comment on.  It's disgusting and utterly unwarranted.  I hope Jerry Keto is reading it and feeling sorry to have your help.  I've ignored much of your first part of your letter, simply because it misquotes my claims and insults the intelligence of anyone who reads it.  Let me know if you want to actually stand by that stuff and I'll look at it more closely.

At 08:28 PM 7/15/01 , Tim Steadham wrote:
Hold your horses, jackass.  You went over the line
with your crude comments about me and attacking my
integrity with your last email.

I perused your letter of seemingly endless lack of
common sense and are going to give you an overview
response - followed later in the week by a more
detailed one speaking to each point (as my time
permits because I am very busy this week).  Since you
have demonstrated a complete and utter lack of
intelligence, I will not waste much more of my
valuable time with you.

First, if you were to REVIEW any of the SHORT emails I
sent you recently, you would have found the following:

"As I said, if you feel that I have evaded any of your
questions becuase of the format that I replied to
them, please tell me what you think I evaded and will
try my damdest to answe them as strightforward as
possible." (sic)

Here you come writing a paper yelling that I have not
answered your questions, BS'ing you, etc. and you
failed to do just one simple task and that was to list
the questions which you feel I am evading.  I guess
asking that is just too difficult.

Next, you would have read where I answered your STUPID
attempt at non-proliferation concerns with the letter
(which I originally stated I was too busy to read).
The proper accountability of military stockpiles of
special strategic material have absolutely NOTHING to
do with civilian nuclear power.  Is this fact too
complex for you to understand?  Why did you casually
forget to mention in your email that I had already
answered this point??

THEN you go off on some sort of tangent about how I
cited four references which all point back to the same
one and somehow correlate that to some sort of term
paper.  I guess the fact that I was merely giving you
a very brief review of what was in that paper again
escapes the few brain cells you have left.  If I were
citing four references as independent sources, I would
have written them in the same reference-style format
that I used for my SINGLE source I quoted.  Again,
this concept escapes you.  I was quoting an
industry-accepted source (ICRP when you boil it all
down) which, God FORBID ANYONE DO!  I was assuming
that you wanted a source for the “5,000 cancer deaths
in Southern Asia” comment.

THEN you go off on yet ANOTHER tangent that I am going
to get fired for what I say to you?  My, GOD...how
idiotic could you possibly be?  I am not, nor have I
ever claimed to be a PR spokesperson for any company
or industry.  I am just a normal guy trying to debate
nuclear power with dolts like you.  By the way, I do
not work in the nuclear industry - I took an early out
at the plant I worked at, received one hell of a
severance package, and are a pump design engineer
right now (which means that I would not be affected
one iota if every nuke plant were shut down tomorrow
because I would still have a job ­ assuming that drop
of capacity in Virginia by 40 some odd percent from
nuclear were able to be made up elsewhere).  If you
were to send this email to my employer and demanded
that I be fired, your email wouldn't even warrant my
boss taking time away from his piss break to respond.

Again, God FORBID ANYONE trying to use standard
industry-accepted data to show that 1 pound of Pu
could never kill every man, woman, and child on Earth.
 Even if you believe Dr. Gofman’s number of 400
million, that is STILL not 6.2 BILLION people.  In
addition, God FORBID ANYONE trying to use numbers
arrived at by Lawrence Livermore either wherein they
state that Pu dispersed in the atmosphere would have
negligible effects on the population.

To put it into perspective, (and I'm assuming you are
intelligent enough to know how to calculate friction
loss in piping) if someone were to ask me what the
equivalent length of an 18" cast steel pipe were and I
were to look in my book and tell you what it is, I
would tell you to go pound sand if you were to come
back and tell me who ran the experiment that
determined that head loss because you believe another
number.

With that said, I assume you STILL want to know my
source of whom I used to come up with my 1.2 million
people (As stated MANY times and ALSO on my website,
the dozen or so people is merely a guess.  In
addition, the overly-simplistic calc I emailed to you
Friday afternoon showed ~4 deaths in the entire
world.)  Well, as I have said NUMEROUS times, my
source comes from ICRP data.

[[[ That's not a source.  That's a committee of thieves.  We are supposed to try to transcend that bull$hit committee and find out if there is any truth to what they say.  I've named a bunch of learned scientists who have said that ICRP recommendations are too lax, perhaps by as much as three orders of magnitude.  You denounced one of them, Dr. Caldicott.  I'm still waiting for you to denounce Dr. Gofman, if you dare.  I'm still waiting for you to come up with scientists on your side who have actually studied the issues -- not done lame calculations like you've done, and then published those "flights of fancy" to prove they've added up the figures based on faulty assumptions correctly, and thus come out with equally faulty equations which are mathematically correct but meaningless and in fact, harmful to society, because people like you then take these figures as gospel.  Get off your high horse, Mr. Steadham:  You have NO RIGHT to condemn Dr. Caldicott as you have to me and as you do at your web site.  Take it down or correct your libel.  It's trash.  You've proven you don't know what you're talking about. You admit you are standing firm on a guess.  You're no scientist, and you can't even point me to one who can speak for you with the authority of actually experimentation (good luck finding that) or appropriate epidemiological surveys (I have found you those (e.g., Dr. Gofman's research), but you reject their numbers simply because they don't jive with ICRP fantasies).  You have no other reason to reject Dr. Gofman's assertions, or even Dr. Caldicott's.  So stop repeating yourself. -- rdh ]]]

If you STILL want to know where I get my data from,
it’s from the ICRP.

[[[ That's not "data".  Stop repeating yourself.  If that's all you have to go on, you owe Dr. Caldicott an apology. -- rdh ]]]

If you STILL want to know how I arrived at the numbers
I did and arrived at the conclusion I did, then it’s
ICRP data.

[[[ What scientists do you follow, Mr. Steadham?  None.  So you owe Dr. Caldicott an apology. -- rdh ]]]

If you STILL think that 1 pound of Pu can kill
everyone on Earth if dispersed in any type of
realistic scenario then you are a complete moron.

[[[ Nobody -- not me, not Dr. Caldicott -- ever said that one pound of plutonium could kill everyone on Earth via a "realistic scenario".  There's disagreement in the scientific community about whether 1 pound of Plutonium, evenly dispersed, would kill 100's of millions (Dr. Gofman) or billions (Dr. Caldicott), but there are no credible sources that either your or I have found which put the number at 12, or even 1.2 million. All there is for such low numbers, is the guesswork produced by the nuclear industry and then spread by people like you and Jerry Keto as if it were fact.  I still think you haven't even begun to prove anything but that you are stuck and don't understand that your arguments are weak.  I mean really, Mr. Steadham: The problem is you haven't got a valid reason to believe the dogma you do.  That's the point:  I can present dozens if not hundreds of learned doctors and scientists who have studied the facts.  You can present a tired committee of disreputable scoundrels with a vested interest in keeping allowable doses as high as possible -- as high as the public will permit.  All I've asked is for you to try, yourself, to go beyond that and find the actual data on which ICRP (or anyone's you used for your calculations) proclamations are based.  If you want to start over, start with that. -- rdh ]]]

By the way, if I have not been abundantly clear enough
(as if my website and the pdf files did not say “ICRP
data” clearly enough on them in a couple different
places) and you STILL have questions as to how I
arrived at the conclusion that 1 pound of Pu could
never ever wipe out everyone on Earth then you are in
worse mental shape than I had thought.

[[[ Are you having fun avoiding the fact that you owe Dr. Caldicott an apology? Next time, please edit your material better.   This is tiresome to me and surely to everyone else who might ever have to read it.  (Like government agents and such.) -- rdh ]]]

 If you STILL
want studies, you could have looked at the LLNL link I
gave you where it talked about an actual experiment
where Pu was burned in the Australlian desert.

[[[ So what's the reference, how many people were irradiated, how long did the study last, etc. etc.?  Don't be flippant, Mr. Steadham:  Your reputation is already in the dumps.  You're supposed to be trying to dig it out again.  This is no time for half-measures.  Tell me all you know about this "actual experiment" and that will go a long way towards balancing your repetitiousness and inability to get past your emotional outbursts. -- rdh ]]]

It is amazing that you still want to see studies when
my calculations were staring you RIGHT IN THE FACE. 

[[[ "Studies" and "calculations" are two different things.  You denounced Caldicott's values but haven't provided an actual study which would prove you are right.  If the LLNL "actual experiment" does that I will be very surprised.  It sounds like there was an accident.  How many people were irradiated?  To what extent?  How long were they followed for epidemiological studies?  Such an incident could not possibly answer the question of whether a milligram or a microgram or something in between is sufficient to kill people who receive that dose.  I mean, do you really think it could?  Please, Mr. Steadham, can't you just come up with one valid study that proves your point?  Can't you?  No, and at this point I don't think you can even understand the problem.  Do you know what "confounding factors" are?   I don't want guesswork.  I want studies that prove your assumptions are correct. You're not the first pro-nuclear supporter I've debated, Mr. Steadham, but your persistence IS admirable and maybe you'll be the one to dig up the data you think exists. -- rdh ]]]

I even performed an overly-simplistic calc using
breathing rates of humans, descent rates of Pu
particles, minimum size respiratory particles, etc.
and STILL you say that I have not yet provided you
with my source.  My source is SIMPLY my calculations.
My data is from industry-accepted data which, again,
God Forbid anyone use.  I mean, how could ANY credible
person use industry-accepted data?

[[[ I love that term -- "industry-accepted data".  The tobacco industry-accepted data is just as powerful, and proves that second-hand cigarette smoke is harmless and first-hand cigarette smoke isn't too bad for you either.  So much for "industry-accepted data".  The point is, Mr. Steadham, that such data does not in and of itself disprove Dr. Caldicott's statement, which was made by a good scientist who is WELL AWARE of the "industry-accepted data".  And of course, it's not really data anyway, it's just some fictitious numbers you've borrowed, which is not the same thing.  They didn't have any good studies to base their numbers on. I told you that Dr. Caldicott's number may not be correct in one of my first responses... Ho Hum.  And your friend (or at least, comrade-in-arms) Mr. Keto say's *I* don't listen!  You seem to be particularly afflicted with that ailment, which is why our correspondence is not progressing past your persistent and repetitious yelling. -- rdh ]]]

 It would seem
prudent to just look for the study, which proves your
point, and use that data instead of industry-accepted
data ­ wouldn’t it? ­ and then you could argue that
everyone else was wrong, you are right, and 1 pound of
Pu could kill everyone on Earth.  It only seems to
reason that the BEIR committee looked at available
literature, critically reviewed each bit, and
formulated their opinion based on all the evidence at
the time.  I guess its like a lawyer arguing a point
after he lost his appeal - the evidence has already
been heard, sit down already.

But the ICRP data is wrong as you claim?  Fine, why
don’t YOU do what you criticize me for doing and point
me to just ONE source where someone calculates how
many people will be killed by 1 pound of Pu.

[[[ I did -- Dr. Gofman's work.  He's found a variety of ways to study the problem of low doses of ionizing radiation and its effects on human beings.  I also pointed you towards the work of Dr. Alice Stewart.  Also Dr. Rosalie Bertell.  And Dr. Sternglass, and Dr. Caldicott, and others. -- rdh ]]]

  See, I
have asked this of you on NUMEROUS occasions, yet you
fail to do so.  I wonder why.  Can it be that no
credible scientist, engineer, student, quack, etc. can
present calculations with their assumptions (I laid
all mine on the table up front, but again you were too
stupid to understand them or realize what I was
saying) showing that any credible scenario could
result in 6.2 billon cancers with only 1 pound of Pu?
And don’t point me to a place where I have to pay $25
to see the report ­ show me.

So, Russell, you too can go pound sand because I do
not need to spend my time looking into exactly WHICH
experiments and exactly WHO ran them was used into
creating the current ICRP data.  If you want to know,
ask the ICRP and stop WASTING my time asking ME.

[[[ Lots of people have asked the ICRP to stop wasting everyone's time.  You made some silly mathematical calculations, brought them to my attention, denounced honest and forthright scientists, and all I asked you to do is justify scientifically the claims you are making.  Frankly I don't care where you got the data -- ICRP or wherever -- as long as it's accurate.  I asked you to show me a STUDY that proves your data -- wherever you got it -- is accurate.  You obviously have no idea how to do that, let alone why you should. -- rdh ]]]

 Even
assuming the 12 deaths/mg is correct (which LLNL uses
by the way) we are still far short of the 6.2 billion
mark.  Now, if you think that the BEIR committee of
the NAS is biased and part of some grand conspiracy
theory then why is the BEIR VII committee right now in
phase 2 of determining new radiation protection
algorithms?  Before you answer, yes they are taking
into account many of the (39 in fact if memory serves
me right) “anti-nuclear” studies on the effects of
radiation.

I am amazed at how you could not understand simple
common sense.  I emailed you the pdf files with my
calcs and everything you needed to know were right
there - including the ICRP data I used.  Again, God
FORBID ANYONE using common industry-accepted data.

Be that as it may, you’re Dr. Goffman simply states
that any amount of radiation has the potential to
cause a cancer ­ even just one decaying atom.  I do
agree with this in that even one stray gamma ray does
have the potential of initiating a cancer event ­ to
say otherwise would be nonsense (and I have never
doubted that).  However, I believe that probability to
be next to zero.  Add more gammas, and that
probability goes up.  However, if I am exposed to many
orders of magnitude more radiation just by living on
this planet and doing the things I do than I get from
nuclear plants or its waste, then I see the RISKS from
nuclear power to be insignificant to the point of
being silly.

Where Dr. Goffman (and YOU, too) err is when he says
that any risk, no matter how small, is just too much
to warrant and is utterly and completely insane.

[[[ Could you quote me his exact phrase? Because that isn't it.  It  isn't even close.  He should sue you for libel. And it's Gofman, not Goffman.  You'll need to know that if you ever want to look up his research on the Internet. -- rdh ]]]

 I
wonder if he, or you ever drive a car.  But I guess
that is a risk that you can accept.  O.K.  ­ Granted.
I wonder if you live next to a road where a drunk
driver could come speeding down the road and kill you
while you mow the grass.  I wonder if you have
reinforced your house because of those inconsiderate
airlines flying overhead (which you cannot control)
could come tumbling down and crash into your house ­
killing you and your entire family.

[[[ Cumulative risk -- both for individual and for the entire population (half-lives vary from days to eons) need to be considered.  Are things you do dangerous to future inhabitants of Earth?  Not much, if it's driving fast or riding in airplanes, but those do present risks to others, which may or may not be fair.  But spreading tons and tons of radioactive waste into the environment definitely matters to future generations who have to live in your waste.

To tell you the truth (as I always have), airplanes crashing down on things (nuclear power plants and other nuclear waste dumps especially) is one more reason, out of many, why I am for ground-based public transportation systems. -- rdh ]]]

I see now why you are anti-nuke and that is because
you think that the risks, no matter how small, are
more than you are willing to take.

[[[ Just take out the phrase "no matter how small" and change the phrase "you are willing" to "society should be willing" and you've got it. -- rdh ]]]

  You also believe
in some grand conspiracy theory (and bring up some
irrelevant articles about Soviet secrecy with regards
to Chernobyl) to which you have no evidence ­ except
that it “sounds good.”

[[[ It's not that I have no evidence, it's that you evidently are cutting your losses and refusing to investigate anything I write.  Since I've already posted at my web site, dozens of documents explaining this stuff, we need not debate the matter here.  But before you dismiss it, you could at least look at the evidence I and others have gathered, let alone the court cases which have proven that such shenanigans occur with surprising regularity.  But please don't think I think you are part of an organized conspiracy.  I can't imagine any group that would have you. -- rdh ]]]

I will wrap this up with a comment on the 0 unplanned
automatic SCRAMS.  I was referencing an INPO report in
which 12 indicators are used to gauge industry
performance.  In all ten categories to which goals
were set, the industry met or exceeded 100% of them.
Look into them ­ they might be on INPO’s website ­ I
was referencing May’s issue of “Nuclear News” from the
American Nuclear Society.  In that chart, they plot
“unplanned automatic scrams per 7000 hours critical”
vs. the year.  In 1998, 1999, and 2000, those numbers
were reported as “0.0”

As I read the fine print, I realize that “In 2000, 59
percent of operating units had zero automatic scrams.”
 I take this to mean that the “0.0” is from rounding
error in that some such scrams did occur but they were
so infrequent and the plants were running for so long
that if you took the ratio to one significant digit,
you get 0.0.

I am not guilty of lying to you about this issue, I am
not guilty of misleading you ­ I am only guilty of not
reading the fine print.

[[[ This is the first time you mentioned -- after reasserting your claim at least once -- that you were in error.  I have to assume you would only say things you are sure off.  Of course, I've known all along you have trouble reading fine print, since after all, large-type print apparently throws you as well, so it only stands to reason that fine print will be beyond your capabilities most of the time. -- rdh ]]]

  Be that as it may, the point
of the issue was to your silly “outage” argument ­
which as I say again, is a very stupid argument at
that and shows a COMPLETE lack of knowledge to how the
industry has been performing over the past decade.

And, lastly three more points while it is on my mind:

The “Mobile Chernobyl” argument is totally without
basis or logic.  You state that it’s properly called
that and for good reason (I guess you are just quoting
the NIRS and believe everything they tell you).

[[[ I've barely been to their web site, if you must know.  I form my opinions from many inputs, including trying to get people like you to explain why they feel the way they do.  Obviously this has put a strain on our relationship.  It was much easier when you simply stated your opinion and nobody (certainly not me) gave a damn what rubbish you printed.  But, you wrote to me and invited this discussion, so here we are. -- rdh ]]]

  I’ll
forego a debate on that and point you to my website
where I discuss why “Mobile Chernobyl” is nothing more
than a scare tactic used by idiots

[[[ I thought you said you didn't attack people, only ideas? -- rdh ]]]

who don’t know what
they are talking about.

[[[ Do you present facts that can be checked there or do you just state your opinion?  I know what your opinion is, so if that's all you do there (besides denouncing NIRS) there's little reason for me to go look at your "discussion". -- rdh ]]]

SONGS: you say they “forgot” the “waste” in the name.
I guess people of your intelligence forgot that the
object of a POWER plant is to make POWER and not waste
for if it’s object was to make waste then they would
have that in the name.  But this point is too complex
for even you to understand.

[[[ The "object" is to hide the production of that waste from the public.  To make sure the public is unaware of the terrible costs which it will pass on to future generations in dollars spent, lives lost, health destroyed, and happiness stolen.  What SON(W)GS makes -- that is most important to humanity -- is nuclear waste.  The power it creates could be made many other ways. -- rdh ]]]

CONGRATS ON THE FINE DETECTIVE WORK: With all of the
problems you have found with SONGS, you have just
proven a fact that the nuclear industry has been
trying to keep a secret for so long!  I mean, God
FORBID word EVER get out that nuclear plants are not
100% perfect and that incidents happen at even them.
My, God, how will the nuclear industry EVER survive
now that people KNOW that lifting slings FAIL ­ EVEN
AT NUCLEAR PLANTS! 

[[[ I'm not the one who claims that nuclear plants can operate perfectly.  The nuclear industry and its lapdog regulators do that, when it dismisses the risks inherent in an accident with nuclear materials, and when it dismisses job performance in one part of the plant as irrelevant to another part of the plant.  The point from the litany of failures in the last two months is that the plant is OLD and DECREPIT, and there is a nearly complete lack of government oversight.  Workers there have told me that maintenance is being deferred because of the supposed energy crises which makes them try to keep running come hell or high water.  Is that so hard for you to understand or are you just being argumentative again? -- rdh ]]]

You have done some fine detective
work in finding the bad slinging program at SONGS and
the maintenance problems that they have had.  Please,
do not tell anyone that nuclear plants have incidents
too!  If the average person knows that even a crane
can drop equipment at a nuke, then the next thing they
will want to know is whether the toilets get clogged
also.  If they find out that toilets get clogged to
then that will be the end of nuclear power in the USA!
 Please, keep it all a secret.  By the way, Taco Bell
had a BIG hepatitis outbreak in Virginia Beach a few
years back ­ a bunch of people died.  I guess we need
to close down every single restaurant in the entire
USA!

[[[ What was all that?  Sarcasm?  Or are you just being funny?  Or have you just no understanding that it's one thing for a non-nuclear industry to make lots of mistakes.  It's another thing for a nuclear plant to have dropping equipment, breaking slings, exploding circuit breakers and on and on, all in a brief time period.  The reason it's another thing entirely is that the cost of failure is so much higher at a nuclear power plant than at, say, a hydroelectric plant. -- rdh ]]]

As I sit here and ponder why you are so paranoid, I
cannot help but think that it is because you simply
live in CA.

[[[ I lived in Connecticut most of my life and was also opposed to nuclear power there.  Since I left, half of their plants have been closed.  I guess the anti-nuke movement might be better off without me, but we each do what we can and I'm trying my best to do what's right.  I'm beginning to think that corresponding with you is a waste of everyone's time, including yours, since you just endlessly repeat yourself and call me names.  (Note:  Will this change with your "new attitude"?  We'll see.] -- rdh ]]]

 I hope you were one on the picket lines
to help shut down several new power plants proposed in
CA over the past couple of years.

[[[ As I stated I'm for renewable energy options facilitated through micropayments when they feed renewable energy to the grid.  What do you think of micropayments for clean energy?  Do you find it unAmerican or something? -- rdh ]]]

 I also hope that
you enjoy seeing car accidents at intersections
because the power was cut off.  I also hope that you
are one of those lucky millions that have to go
without power occasionally.

[[ The power outages are purely political, as can been ascertained by comparing the prior year's power versus consumption with the past 12 months, where one can see that despite using less energy, California was still hit with blackouts.  That's political.  But like the rest of the nuclear industry, you wish to get as much mileage from these outages as possible, truth be damned. -- rdh ]]]

For me, I enjoy being able to turn the lights on.  I
also enjoy knowing that the two nuclear stations by me
are two of the top performers in the country and I
sleep well at night knowing I am safe.  66% of the
population feels that they are safe also. 

[[[ 66%?  According to whom?  And was this a properly educated population or one brought up on the lies of the nuclear industry, who then believes the dogma you fall for?  Hitler's plans were supported by most Germans, after a totally one-sided propaganda campaign.  So what's your point? -- rdh ]]]

You say you
don’t like nuclear because there is nothing you can do
about when it is forced down your throat?  Well,
that’s democracy in action and luckily most Americans
don’t believe in conspiracy theories ­ or that the
0.001 mREM/year that they get from nuclear plants will
ever harm them.

[[[ Democracy, when done properly, does not involve lying to the people about energy being "too cheap to meter" from a technology so dangerous that a milligram of its waste product will kill you (maybe a microgram).  And once again, you've confused the issue of a "properly operating" plant with the potential for disaster and the need to guard the waste for 1000s of years (at least). -- rdh ]]]

You can expect a more detailed response from me
addressing your silly points as time permits ­
probably near the end of the week.  I am busy this
week supervising pump performance tests.  And by the
way, despite the fact that I even apologized to you
for being a little snippy with you in the past, you
casually forgot to mention that.

[[[ Huh?  I sent out your apology to my lists a few days ago, pretty much as soon as it came in.  I don't know what you're talking about here.  You fired off about 25 letters so far.  Stop, collect your thoughts, and prepare a proper response, if you can.  And, I think describing your previous correspondence (not to mention this letter I'm responding to here) as "a little snippy" is a serious understatement. -- rdh ]]]

Through your email, you casually forgot to mention how
I had already addressed some of your points despite
your stating otherwise. 

[[[ Oh, I'm so sorry.  You did answer some points. -- rdh ]]]

You also casually mention in
your email how you feel I insulted you, but (again)
casually forgot to mention my previous apology.  Then
you vividly argue that I have not answered your
question as to the source of my data in my calculation
DESPITE the fact that any moron could realize that I
was using ICRP data JUST by reading my website. 

[[[ I asked you to justify your numbers and your rejection of Dr. Caldicott's numbers.  That you got your numbers from ICRP does not even begin to do either one of those things. -- rdh ]]]

Then
you state many times that I have been deceitful and
lied to you when this is obviously not the case.
Because you have tried to paint a nasty picture of me
and refused to post the entire truth of our
correspondences,

[[[ Huh?  I thought it was you that was going to post debates at your web site.  You wrote to me originally (last week), and your web site says you want to debate these issues.  So obviously, this is what you wanted and so you should be publishing it.  I certainly plan to post it as well, so I can simply point the next guy like you to these discussions.  So I'm not sure what your point is here.  -- rdh ]]]

you will get no more such apologetic
emails from me in the future since you have
demonstrated that you are a man of low moral value and
devoid of integrity.

[[[ I don't think history or outside readers are likely to agree that I have demonstrated such things to you, although you sure are trying my patience and I might just let fling a comment about what an asshole you really are sooner or later if you keep it up.  But I'll try to refrain, for the sake of the kiddies who might be reading this. -- rdh ]]]

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

[[[ Russell D. Hoffman, Carlsbad, California, USA, June 15th -- 18th, 2001 -- rdh ]]]