To: Tim Steadham <tstead@ntirs.org>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Tsunamis, Asteroids, Earthquakes, Tornados, Fires, Floods, Terrorists, Equipment Failure, Operator Error, Design flaws -- the list goes on and on

Mr. Steadham,

Feelings?  Huh?  I've been trying to debate the issues from the start, Mr. Steadman.  Why not just start doing so?

Please list which SPECIFIC statements you are specifically apologizing (as shown below) for, and which you are specifically (as shown below) not retracting.  I am particularly interested in whether you are retracting EACH STATEMENT in which you used the following terms to describe me, none of which are appropriate:

"stupid"
"ignorant"
"neurotic"
"paranoid"
"a Jackass"
"dishonorable"
"dishonest"
"a liar"
"a moron"
"a censor"
"a man of low moral value"
and
"devoid of integrity"

Note that many of these appear multiple times in your letters.  If you wish to apologize for them, find and retract each one.  That's fair, isn't it?

Since my responses to your emails generally included your original emails, these phrases are interspersed throughout our documents.  There may be other insults, but I think finding them is your job -- not mine.  I had to read each of them.  So if you want to apologize for them, the least you can do is find them yourself and apologize for them individually.  Each one was clearly intended as a knife in the heart.  You can't apply a spray-on cure for that.  You need to be more specific.

Besides, you still have about 100 pages to pore through, so when you come to EACH of these phrases you say you want to "apologize for", clip them out and do so.  I don't see how I can accept a "blanket apology" when you haven't read or responded to the actual points I made in my letters.

If you want to have a new attitude, I hope it will be an earnest attempt on your part to discover the truth.  Otherwise, no, I don't think you are in any position to dictate the terms of your apology.  You, all by yourself (as far as I know; maybe you had help) have written me more nasty letters, insulted my honor more different ways, than anyone that I've ever met in decades of activism.

So if you want to undo that, fine.  But a single blanket apology is meaningless when one of my main points is that you've ignored what I've written to you which explains the many errors in your thinking.  So by doing this, you are making me rewrite all the responses you have yet to respond to the first time.  I'm not interested in that.

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
... still waiting for any intelligent life in the pro-nuclear camp to come out and debate the issues.

P.S. And stop twisting everything I say prior to refuting it.  That's worse than your direct insults (see your other letter from this morning, and my response, below).

NOTE:  THIS FIRST ITEM IS A CLIP FROM A LONGER LETTER (shown below) FROM MR. STEADHAM THIS MORNING (JULY 19th, 2001):

At 06:42 AM 7/19/01 , you wrote:
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 06:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Steadham <tstead@ntirs.org>
Subject: Re: Your new attitude -- what does it bring to the table?
To: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>


I do not retract any of my positions I have said in
the past.  I am merely offering to "wipe the slate
clean" with feelings, etc on my side of the fence.

With that in mind, I will apologize for any offensive
statements I have made to you in the past.

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

The rest of his first letter misrepresents what I have done and what he has done, and is answered below. --rdh

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

THIS NEXT ITEM IS MR. STEADHAM'S ENTIRE SECOND LETTER FROM THIS MORNING:

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 06:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Steadham <tstead@ntirs.org>
Subject: Re: Mr. Steadham's web site URL
To: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>

>  From what I've seen of the two of them, you can
> find a lot of facts at the
> NIRS web site, but NTIRS will leave you in tears,
> wishing for truth.

Russell, you don't even know many standard industry
AND engineering terms - how can you claim to know what
are the real facts and what are not?

Tim

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

Mr. Steadham,

I've met dozens of inventors -- pump inventors mostly.  They don't all know the arcane terms of their industry.  I've interviewed hundreds of scientists, and hundreds of people in the pump industry.  You are on extremely thin ice here.  If you want to communicate properly, try English.  You are slandering me again -- why?  Is this the "new" you?  I never said I don't know "many standard industry AND engineering terms" and you haven't tested me on the matter.  So how would you know?  What I said was that you should stop using jargon and speak to the lay person.  That way everyone will understand everyone else.  It's a requirement in any industry when talking to outsiders.  And there is absolutely nothing that happens under the sun that cannot be explained in lay terms.

So clearly, you're trying to insult me simply for telling you to stop using arcane initials and terms.  If you want to learn the difference between facts and semantics, that would be great.  But I assure you the vast majority of the Senators and Congressman who authorized nuclear power in America seldom had the technical background I've got (such as it is), or understood the unique terminology better.  I requested that you speak English instead of writing gibberish that only a nuke engineer would understand.  The problems can be described in lay terms and there is no reason to muddy the waters with terminology.

Mr. Steadham, stop hiding behind techno-babble, and stop posturing with your many insinuations and insults and misquoting and misinterpreting of my remarks, and give up -- at least for the sake of the debate you claimed to be ready for -- your supposition that "industry accepted" values are the God-given truth.  Stop bouncing from one topic to another (like, from the "diabolical experiment" to real life dispersal issues).

Just simply debate the issues earnestly, as though you, too, wanted to find the truth.  No more mathematical flights of fancy, please.  Let's stick to figuring out what is known and what is dogma.

Here's what you wrote:

"I don't know about this incident, but allow me to speculate.  If the bent asembly (sic) was not detected (despite the five or six people wathing (sic) 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."  -- Tim Steadham

I began my response with, "Define your terms".  Insider-tech-speak, undefined initials, and bad spelling are a bad combination.  Sure, believe it or not I understand most of what you've written, but I shouldn't have to look up arcane stuff that can just as well be described in English, and nor should anyone else.  Do you want to communicate or hide behind semantics?  For example it's standard writing practice, Mr. Steadham, in every technical journal and newspaper, to use initials for things only the second and additional times you use the thing, but not the first time.  And does your having typed "maximize" for "minimize" (as you have admitted doing in your letters) suffice to make my point clear?  You're not perfect.  Nor are nuclear plant workers.  You need to use a spell-checker.  They need to reconsider whether what they are doing makes sense in the big picture.

From this request to define your terms (and let's see, one or two other places where I asked you to define some initials) you seem to have concluded that I "don't even know many standard industry AND engineering terms"

Considering the misspellings and other errors in your letters, it is fair to expect you to not use initials without defining them the first time, since you may very well mistype them since your typing is very sloppy.  It's also fair to ask you not to use arcane terminology, since if it's spelled wrong, I can't look it up or guess what you meant.

And since you are trying to explain to a lay person, a concerned citizen, a human being with a right to know, of approximately average intelligence, why the Nuclear Mafia is not killing me, I think the burden is on you to use English, not "standard industry and engineering terms".  When doctors tell you you have cancer, they don't start speaking Latin all of a sudden.  They put everything in terms you can understand.  It's more than a common courtesy -- it's a necessity.  If you were ever called before a Senate committee hearing or something (not likely as I do not think the nuclear industry would want you to represent them), you would have to speak in plain language.

So do so now, unless slander, semantics, and propaganda actually are your only goals.  In that case just keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

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

MR. STEADHAM'S OTHER LETTER FROM TODAY (July 19th, 2001) (with my new comments in [[[ triple brackets -- rdh ]]] :

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

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

I do not retract any of my positions I have said in
the past.  I am merely offering to "wipe the slate
clean" with feelings, etc on my side of the fence.

With that in mind, I will apologize for any offensive
statements I have made to you in the past.

[[[ See above. --rdh ]]]

How you offended me was attacking my integrity by
saying I was deliberetly misleeding you.  I assume you
mean the reactor scram issue (which I addressed in a
seperate email) and the calculation I performed for Pu
dispersal.

[[[ You should not attempt to get into a pissing contest with me about who attacked who's integrity, Mr. Steadham.  If your integrity has been impugned by our correspondence (and I'm sure it has been) that's because of the things you wrote, and nothing more. -- rdh ]]]

As I have already maintained, my calculation was based
on a very simple scenario whose only references need
be where I got my "radiation effect" data.

[[[ Get past this, Mr. Steadham.  I am asking you to find the scientific basis for your industry's dogma.  You just can't do it, can you?  You libeled and insulted Dr. Caldicott.  For that you need better proof than what you've presented, because the very "data" you use to "prove" your case and insult her, are the very data she (and many other SCIENTISTS) says are inaccurate. -- rdh ]]]

For example, if I were to design a simple shaft, I
need NOT point to any reference where I got the
equations I used, the methodologies used, or even a
reference to show that my assumptions were correct.  I
need only point to my reference where I got the
material data that I used in the design of the shaft
material.  If someone wants me to give them the name
of a sceintist that did an experiment to show that
value to be correct, I would ignore them.  If it were
a shaft for a pump used in a critical service, I would
review the actual material test data of the actual
shaft material and ensure that the values used were
correct.

[[[ Okay:  So where is the actual test data to prove Plutonium's dangers are what you say they are and not what Dr. Caldicott says they are?  -- rdh ]]]

I am an Engineer - not a scientist.  I do not review
experiments and studies and then choose the ones with
results that best suit my needs at the time (this is
something you seem to be doing) unless such an
experiment is necessary because the data does not
already exist.  Just like ANY OTHER engineering
discipline, I use standard industry-accepted
methodologies and data to arrive at my conclusions.

[[[ Most engineers don't make a point of slandering and libeling the SCIENTISTS who question pieces of data they (the engineers) have no way of knowing is true or not.  You obviously don't have the ability to study whether ICRP has chosen the proper values yourself.  Nor do I.  But I have interviewed a number of SCIENTISTS who DO have the capability, and who HAVE done that work, and who have published their findings in peer-reviewed journals (and elsewhere).  True, as you say, you used "industry-accepted" data, Mr. Steadham.  But then you libeled good scientists because their RESEARCH disagreed with your DOGMA.  "Industry-accepted" does not mean "accurate".  It never has and it never will.  Every industry should be vigilant about what it accepts and doesn't, always questioning its assumptions (especially when numerous respected SCIENTISTS are telling them the assumptions are unquestionably WRONG). -- rdh ]]]

It is the function of others to determine what those
standards are - as with ANY standard or standards
committee.  For example, we use ASME standards in the
USA for design of equipment that would never harm
anyone if they failed - like high pressure, high
temperature boilers and pressure vessels.

Do you think every person designing a pressure vessel
looks at how ASME determined points like what types of
welds need to go where for the BPV codes?  Do you
think they need to give you the names of people who
did experiemnts to prove the pressure/temperature
relations in B16.5 are correct?  No, we just point to
the standard becuase it is what the word implies -
STANDARD.  Is this blindly following something?  No,
because others have invested many man-years into
determining those standards and have already done the
review work necessary.  Do you agree with this?  I
don't care.  If you don't then you need to expand your
field of activism to everything that engineers design
- which is, basically everything.

[[[ There have been numerous SCIENTISTS who have looked at what ICRP does, and have determined that ICRP are loading the dice.  And as for your comparison to ASME standards, those can -- and I'm sure have been -- revised if new information makes it seem reasonable to most engineers that they should be.  I asked you why you trust the ICRP numbers, and I proved to you beyond doubt that good SCIENTISTS (who have looked into the matter much more thoroughly than you) do not trust the ICRP numbers.  Yet your response has simply (and repeatedly) been to simply reaffirm your trust.  So your ASME reference makes no sense.  Dr. Caldicott cannot be proven wrong when she rejects the ICRP numbers by simply telling me the ICRP numbers are correct.  But that is exactly all you have done. -- rdh ]]]

So, when I am offended at your shallow attack on my
integrity it is only because I have good reason to be.
 Your attack shows to me that you did properly digest
exactly what I did and realize what references were
necessary to cite.

[[[ You were not clear.  I suggest you be more clear next time.  You're right: I made the mistake of thinking you had done more research than the meager amount you had actually done.  Mea Culpa.  I'll try never to over-assume the degree your efforts again. -- rdh ]]]

As I said, I do not have the desire to purchase the
ICRP data sets so if I can find another paper that
contains this information (for free) then I will do
so.  If I worked for a nuke plant, I would have gone
to our HP department and taken the ICRP data directly
from it.

[[[ Since every nuke plant has a public records and documents room, I'm sure you can dig up the studies if you accepted that the onus is on you to prove your assertions.  After all, you're the one supporting the distribution of these radioactive particles into the environment.  They are known carcinogens. You have attacked good scientists rudely and arrogantly.  You have invited debate.  So what's the problem?  ICRP "data" isn't good enough anyway, but you could at least dig up the exact studies you say they are using which prove your assertions. -- rdh ]]]

You disagree with how those standards were arrived at
- I now know that.  Once the new ICRP standards are
determined, then I will revise my numbers.  However,
using your method of reasoning, I should totally
dissmiss the many doctors and physicists on the BEIR V
committee that already reviewed the data and gave it
the weight it deserved.

[[[ You should think for yourself, Mr. Steadham.  Those "doctors and physicists" (can you name them and provide a brief bio of each one?) are already having their decisions challenged at many levels, by many scientists, doctors, physicists, and so forth.  I've shown you quotes.  This is redundant. -- rdh ]]]

I disagree that the committee was made up of people
only seeking to protect the nuclear industry and screw
the public.  For example, Dr. Ulner - I hope I spelled
it right - headed a study whose 2 page executive
summary points to the validity of the radiation
hormesis theory.  Even though Dr. Ulner was also the
chairperson of the BEIR V committee, the committee did
not review any of that work becuase it had yet to be
published.

[[[ What's that, an anecdote?  I don't have any idea what you are saying this proves, other than that "hormesis" is just a theory.  But it's really less than a theory.  It's hogwash.  Makes about as much sense as the idea that toxic waste is good for you.  But anyway, what were you trying to point out about it?  That BEIR actually rejected an unpublished study that might have helped them set the standard higher if they had included it?  What does that prove?  That even they have their limits?  Well, gosh, Mr. Steadham.  We know that!  ICRP limits in the 1920's were 75 REM a year for the general public and double that for doctors, x-ray technicians, etc. Now they are 5 REM a year, right?  And Dr. Gofman would argue that that is 1000 times too high. 

You job, should you chose to accept it (and you have made it abundantly clear that you think you are the man for the job), is to refute such claims.  With studies, scientists, and facts.  Not BEIR or ICRP decisions.  Stop being so hopelessly shallow, Mr. Steadham.  Dig in and find the answers you put your faith in. That's all I'm asking you to do.  Research your faith.  The faith -- a fervor -- that makes you arrogantly call me:

"stupid"
"ignorant"
"neurotic"
"paranoid"
"a Jackass"
"dishonorable"
"dishonest"
"a liar"
"a moron"
"a censor"
"a man of low moral value"
and
"devoid of integrity"

So tell the world, Mr. Steadham, what makes you so sure of yourself.  Why do you have such faith in "industry accepted" numbers?  Sure, you accept them.  You've said that about 30 times.  But that alone is not enough reason to rudely and arrogantly denounce scientists who have determined those numbers are surely inadequate protection for the public.  Nor is it even enough reason to rudely and arrogantly denounce people like me, who have attempted to simply tell the world what the scientists are saying. -- rdh ]]]

When the results of BEIR VII are released, that will
be a compilation of ALL radiation experiments to date
and will therefore be the most up-to date and correct
data set.  Yes, I know you disagree with this
statement because you choose to lay your faith in only
those people who agree that a yearly dose of 1 mREM is
deadly.

[[[ How can you be arguing this when you don't even know what BEIR VII will decide?

And as to my "only" having "faith" in "those people" (you mean "scientists", actually), what I have faith in is, I have "faith" in people  who's descriptions of their work makes sense to me.  Gofman, whom you've obviously never read or surely you'd be able to spell his name correctly instead of consistently spelling it incorrectly, is great at that stuff.  One does the work, then one must describe it to others.  All scientists must be able to properly do both of these tasks, and all scientists (or engineers or doctors or lawyers, etc.) who wish to try to communicate with the public (as you clearly want to do and as Gofman does so well) must put things in laymen's terms.

Why don't you find me a scientist who has studied the matter and is on your side, and then I'll have at least ONE scientist to counter the claims of the MANY scientists I've interviewed who think the current standards are way too high?  Is that so hard to ask of such a die-hard proponent of introducing more radiation into the environment? -- rdh ]]]

Me, on the other hand, actually are intrigued by the
hormesis theory.  If you want to make a rainbow of RP
ideology, I am somwhere near the middle but leaning
towards the hormesis theory to a minor amount.  I'm
not saying it's correct, I'm just saying what I've
read about it thus far has peaked my curiosity.  I'm
not ready to subscribe to it yet, though.

Lastly, I unfortunately cannot take many of your
concerns seriously.  The reason being is that I cannot
take anyone seriously who thinks that asteroids pose a
serious threat to nuke plants and therefore wants
asteroid searching telescopes in space.  I also cannot
take anyone seriously who thinks that Tsnuami
detectors are necesary.

[[[ Did you read the essay I wrote on the tsunami threat to coastal nuclear power plants?  Here's the link again since you obviously skipped it and are responding only to one sentence in my previous letter:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/ocreg05.htm

And have you actually studied the asteroid issue or are you just guessing on that one too?  Have you actually considered what would happen if an asteroid impacted a nuclear power plant?  You have no reason to insult me (yet again) for claiming these are not fair and proper concerns.

You wrote that you had zero interest in NASA: "I do not, never have, nor never (sic) will work for NASA or anyone that has anything to do with NASA."  I know I'm taking a bit of a leap here, but I'd feel comfortable with guessing that you haven't looked into the current state of the scientific investigation of asteroid impact threats to Earth, and its inhabitants and structures.  So let me tell you just one fact (perhaps I'll prepare a longer answer later):  Our "best guesses" could be off by many orders of magnitude.  We really don't know what's out there.  Sure, for man-made stuff circling Earth we have some idea of what the maximum amount might be, but that's about it.  We don't have a very good handle on how many particles of this approximate size or that are circling Earth.  We do know that about 99% of what is circling Earth is man-made, and probably 99% of that is not a worry for nuclear power plants because it wouldn't survive reentry.  (But for radioactive space debris, what the effective dose for radioactive elements is, is VERY important, because the debris is usually vaporized as it enters Earth's atmosphere.)

But what IS the risk from asteroids?  The answer is we don't know:  Within several orders of magnitude, we have no idea.  Let's say three orders of magnitude for the sake of argument.  It might be more, it might be less.  But, Mr. Steadham, if we also don't know how dangerous radioactive particles are within a factor of 1000, then you might be unconcerned about something that is actually a million times worse than you think it is.

Even if radiation is only 10 times worse than the ICRP recommendations suggest, then whatever worry there traditionally was from asteroids (and every other thing) is made 10 times worse.  So maybe now you can begin to see the enormous pressure BEIR VII will be under not lower the permissible dose.  Even cutting it in half, or by so much as 10%, let alone by a factor of 1000, would invalidate every Environmental Impact Study ever done which permitted nuclear power plants to be built and to operate.  So trillions of dollars are at stake not to lower those limits at all.

So please don't be so condescending, Mr. Steadham, about tsunami threats or asteroid threats.  It's not becoming of anyone searching for the truth.

Regarding tsunami threats (including tsunamis caused by asteroids) I sent my comments to a scientist who is a world-recognized authority on tsunamis.  This was last month, long before your first letter to me.  I found him on the Internet and had no idea what his views on nuclear power were.  Here is his response:

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:45:25 +0800
To: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
From: Dr. George Pararas-Carayannis
Subject: Re: Tsunami threats to coastal nuclear power plants

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

I apologize for the delay in responding but I get 30-40 email per day and often it is difficult to respond promptly. I realize that you are very concerned about the safety of the San Onofre nuclear plant and, obviously, you have done a lot of research on this subject.

I too share your concerns about nuclear power plant safety. As a member of a special committee and working group of the  American Nuclear Society, I co-authored the environmental standards and standards for the siting of nuclear power plants and recommended an extremely conservative approach using worse possible scenarios for their design. I have also attended meetings of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in Washington. (Pararas-Carayannis, George. Offshore Nuclear Power Plants: Major Considerations and Policy Issues. Chap. VIII: Direct Environmental Impacts of Offshore Plants, 8 Nov. 1973, President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Task Force on Offshore Nuclear Power Plants) (see also listing of additional studies- below.)

I was also  consultant to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,to the U.S. Corps of Engineers and to different United Nations scientific organizations (on the safety in the siting and design of nuclear power plants on coastal areas and offshore).

As Director of the International Tsunami Information Center, one of my particular concerns was the safety of nuclear power plants and the effects of a tsunami on the possible failure of their cooling systems - even if sited at high enough elevation. I was concerned not only about failure due to flooding, but also for failure due to withdrawal of water which could create a cave-in effect due to the loss of hydrostatic pressure. For distantly generated events, I was concerned on whether a plant could shut down within a reasonable length of time. Of course for locally generated events, this would be impossible.

As consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the licensing of units 2 and 3 of the San Onofre Nuclear Plant, the Crystal River (Florida) plant and others I read all the Impact statements that were filed by utilities and commented on their adequacy. For the Crystal River nuclear plant I developed a mathematical model of a mega-hurricane ( a hypothetical design hurricane striking the plant at right angle) and verified the model with actual historical hurricanes (Camille Carol, etc.). As a result of my study, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission required the Utilities Company to redesign the cooling system and build the pumps at a much higher elevation than Dames and Moore (Engineering Consultants) were recommending.

I was also at the San Onofre plant when the 1971 San Fernando earthquake occurred and I did studies of historical tsunamis in the Santa Barbara Channel for the consulting firm "Marine Advisors'. I was particularly concerned about a possible repeat of the 1812 Santa Barbara earthquake and tsunami and the effects which they may have on the safety of the San Onofre plant. (See also my new book on the "BIG ONE - The Next Great California earthquake". Go to http://www.forbesint.com/Book.htm )  [ The URL is not working (at least today), but the book is available from the large Internet book dealers -- rdh ]. Chapter 15 of my book is devoted to the assessment of the California Tsunami hazard. In fact I tried to map the faults in the Santa Barbara Channel that could generate a tsunami.

In summary, and as my new book indicates, I am still concerned about the potential hazard of earthquakes and tsunamis in California. I do not believe that all the risks have been adequately assessed.  Any efforts - such as yours- to increase public awareness as to the need for preparedness, are commendable. Although I have retired from government service, I am willing to assist, as consultant, in any assessment of the earthquake and tsunami hazard potential at Orange County and elsewhere - particularly now that there is additional new data.

With Best Wishes,

Dr. George Pararas-Carayannis

Partial listing of publications concerning nuclear power plants
 
Pararas-Carayannis, George. The Energy Crisis and the Marine Environment. A Presentation Given at the Marine Technology Society Meeting, NY Section, Jan.10, 1974.

Pararas-Carayannis, George. American National Standard:Tsunami Guidelines at Power Reactor Sites, American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Power Engineering Committee, Working Group 2, April 1974.

Pararas-Carayannis, George. Verification Study of a Bathystrophic Storm Surge Model. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center, Washington, D.C., Technical Memorandum No. 50, May 1975..

Pararas-Carayannis, George. Tsunami Hazard and Design of Coastal Structures. in Proc.15th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, , pp. 2248-53, Am. Soc. Civil Eng. (IOS), 1976.
Pararas-Carayannis, George. Proposed American National Standard - Aquatic Ecological Survey Guidelines For the Siting, Design. Construction, and Operation of Thermal Power Plants. American Nuclear Society, Monogram, September, 1979..
 
Pararas-Carayannis, George. Tsunami Hazard Analysis, Tsunami Hazard Planning, Protection Measures, Tsunami Exercises, and Public Education. Proceedings of International Tsunami Workshop, Sidney, B.C., Canada, July 29 - August 1, 1985..

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

They use tsunami warning devices in Honolulu, and they are only protecting about 400,000 people.  A tsunami hitting San Onofre Nuclear (Waste) Generating Station could kill millions and leave the entire SoCal coast uninhabitable for millennia, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars, even trillions, not including the cost of the permanent loss of America's Finest City.  So a few tsunami detectors seem reasonable to me.

Mr. Steadham, you are not the expert you claim to be, that's clear.  And you have no justification for dismissing my concerns out-of-hand, as you have done, and done so with malice.  But these are, admittedly, the least of our concerns.  Compared to human error, I'd say asteroids are a pretty low threat.  But note the following phenomena:  If the ICRP or BEIR change their values by only one order of magnitude -- not the three orders of magnitude Dr. Gofman, Dr. Caldicott, and hundreds if not thousands of other doctors think they should change it by -- that alone would invalidate every environmental study ever done about the cost/benefit ratio of nuclear energy.

A change by just one order of magnitude would mean every worry is 10 times more serious than originally considered.  Tsunamis, asteroids, earthquakes, tornados, fires, floods, terrorists, equipment failure, operator error, design flaws -- the list goes on and on.  Each one would be 10 times more worrisome than it is already.  So the industry will put an incredible amount of pressure on BEIR VII not to change the value even by a little.  Heck, maybe the Nuclear Mafia will even manage get the BEIR VII committee to relax the standard.  That won't make it right. -- rdh ]]]

I will try to make my future emails as brief and to
the point as possible - please return that courtesy.

[[[ Just make them accurate and honest and I'll be happy, although it would also be nice if you would wait longer for a response before sending another letter.  And it would be really nice if you actually caught up on my previous letters which you haven't responded to, instead wanting to "start over" whatever that means.  These topics are big, Mr. Steadham.  You could achieve a nice amount of brevity simply by eliminating redundancy. -- rdh ]]]

Tim

P.S. FEA means Finite Element Analysis. 

[[[ I am well aware of the computer term; perhaps it wasn't obvious that you were using one. -- rdh ]]]

If you have
computer simulations that show the containment for
Monticello to be insufficeint then you would have a
valid argument.  If you have no engineering study
based on computer simulations to show that the
structure is bad, then you have no valid argument.

[[[ Huh?  Ever hear of a computer bug?  They happen all the time.  Real-world data is much more useful.  And note that this is coming from someone with more than 20 years in the computer simulation business. -- rdh ]]]

SDM is shut down margin, it's the amount of excess
reactivity available to bring the reactor subcritical
and keep it there.  The SDM assumes that the most
reactive control rod assembly (i.e. the one that will
absorb more neutrons than any other assembly in the
core) is stuck out of the core.  In other words, even
if the most reactive control rod assembly cannot be
inserted into the core (bent rod scenario as you
mentioned), there is still adequate negative
reactivity to shut the reactor down and keep it shut down.

[[[ See? English isn't so hard!  Let's stick to it. -- rdh ]]]

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


To: Tim Steadham, etc.
From: Russell Hoffman
Date: July 19-20, 2001
Re: Your email to me (included in its entirety)

Mr. Steadham,

Here is a response to one of your emails of July 19th, 2001.

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

Note:
> Points I wrote which Mr. Steadham clipped to respond to.
blank lines are Mr. Steadham's response.
[[[ My new comments are in triple brackets. -- rdh ]]]

At 07:07 AM 7/19/01 , Tim Steadham wrote:
> 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?

Since our discussions have begun, I have been looking
into the subject of radiation protection much more
than I had before.

> 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

Dr. Gofman, whom you respect, has stated (as included
in one of your emails) that one pound of Pu would kill
400 million people.  That is not the entire world
population - it is far from it.  I think this in and
of itself should be proof enough for you.

[[[ Proof of what?  That Dr. Caldicott and Dr. Gofman differ by a little over one order of magnitude?  Either value is far from your industry dogma.  They are not nearly so far apart as you and Gofman are.  Besides, when are you going to stop putting words in my mouth and admit that I didn't say I thought Dr. Caldicott was "right" anyway?  Sure, I think she is far closer to the truth than you are, and she may in fact be right.  But I didn't say I thought she necessarily was.  I said she's probably a lot closer than your ICRP crap.  Dr. Gofman was giving numbers he was fairly confident in, and I'm sure even he would admit things might be even worse -- or perhaps, not quite so bad as his estimates suggest. But the point is, he and Caldicott's numbers are in roughly the same ballpark, approximately, while your fantasy figures are not anywhere close. -- rdh ]]]

> "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.

And backed-up by many scores of good, respected
scientists.

[[[ Name one of these scientists, Mr. Steadham!  One that I can interview, who has done relevant research (not the mathematical whimsy like you do).  I mean, you've made a bold claim here.  Prove it with the name of even one "good, respected" scientist (and what work they have done that is relevant, and why you think it is relevant).  I certainly won't respect them if they won't let me interview them -- that's a given.  I've interviewed lots of scientists and there is no reason for such a scientist to refuse an interview. -- rdh ]]]

> So I ask again -- where
> is your PROOF?  You haven't even cited a single

Dr. Gofman's estiamte.

[[[ Dr. Gofman's estimate lends credence to Dr. Caldicott's estimate, being fairly close, while it suggests your values are total hogwash.  You really need to understand the concept of MAGNITUDE, Mr. Steadham. Gofman's estimate is far from ICRP's, and not far from Caldicott's.  To suggest otherwise indicates you just don't understand basic mathematical principles. -- rdh ]]]

> quote he specifically pegs the number -- what for
> you is 12 -- at
> 400,000,000.  That's a big discrepancy and his

DOn't compare apples to oranges.  My 12 people dead
assumed total and complete dispersal in the atmosphere
in a realistic scenario where the majority of the Pu
would not be in a respirable size, and the majority of
which could be inhaled would land harmlessly on the
ground or ocean and never enter the human food chain.

[[[ When you wrote your very first letter to me (shown in its entirety below), just last week, the value you gave was that Dr. Caldicott's "diabolical experiment" would kill, maybe, 12 people.  Since neither you nor Dr. Caldicott were talking about a global dispersal into the environment but rather a "diabolical experiment" in which everyone is directly given an equal portion of a pound of plutonium, and since that's the number you gave, I'd say either you can't keep straight what you are talking about, or you want to change your numbers.  You have consistently bounced back and forth between this theoretical, diabolical experiment and reality (or your version of it, with an absolutely even dispersal throughout the surface of the planet).  From now on -- and at your web site you should make this clear as well -- please be much more specific.  Science is always as specific as possible. -- rdh ]]]

His is based, as best I can guess, on 1 mcg being a
lethal dose.  Therefore, his 400 million number would
be based on the theory that every atom of Pu in that
one pound we started with would somehow make its way
into people's bodies.

[[[ Right, that's the "theoretical diabolical experiment" and that's what we are talking about. That's what you denounce Dr. Caldicott for, even though her values are only about 1.5 orders of magnitude worse than Dr. Gofman's.  Even your "1.2 million" figure, if we use that (should we?  Then take back what you wrote in your first letter to me) is well over 2 orders of magnitude different from Dr. Gofman's, so Dr. Caldicott's value is far closer to his than yours is.  You seem to not grasp this concept at all, as you are still, a week into this discussion, unable to stick to talking about the experiment versus talking about a real world dispersal. Dispersal issues should be put aside completely for the purposes of deciding how badly you have libeled Dr. Caldicott. They are not relevant. -- rdh ]]]

  That is quite impossible as
even Dr. Caldicott told me in an email she sent me a
week or two ago.

[[[ Did you need such clarification or was she just being polite? -- rdh ]]]

> You also hand me lines
> like "0 automatic SCRAMS since 1998", which is just
> ludicrous.  I don't

I already adressed this issue and the context with how
it was stated and why I was pointing it out.

[[[ Eventually, yes, you had to give in on it. But it took some doing on my part to convince you to reconsider this matter.  I had to show you that an NRC official I had spoken to actually laughed at you before you went back and checked your references.  You had ample prior opportunity to retract it but instead just fought me on it.  What you should be doing is writing to the source you used and telling them their description confused you, and could they please be more precise in the future? -- rdh ]]]

> mistakes, but you have
> consistently presented me with misleading and poorly
> researched
> information.  I see no reason to change my opinion

Misleeding?  Nope.  Poorly-researched?  Nope.  Minor
error in not reading the fine print once?  O.K., you
got me there.  Guilty as charged.  By the way, the
basis of my argument and what I was trying to get
across remains the same and that is nuke plants are
extremely reliable today.

[[[ So say you, but as with the "0 automatic SCRAMS since 1998" statement, you need only do some research to conclude that a network of small-scale renewable energy resources would be vastly more reliable than a few large nukes could ever be.  And your research would undoubtedly show you that hydro and other large-scale renewable energy sources are ALSO much more reliable than nuclear power.  I think your definition of reliable is whatever the nuclear industry can achieve.  But in today's world that's not nearly good enough. -- rdh ]]]

> 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

This is a misleeding statement as you are trying to
imply that commercial reactors ship their spent fuel
to a reprocessing plant where the DOE turns it into
bombs.  I don't know the histroy of every nuke plant,
but the one I do know of has never transferred any of
it's fuel anywhere. 

[[[ So, it's all sitting in spent fuel pools and dry storage casks just waiting for a 747 or an asteroid to land on it.  The fuel *could* certainly be reprocessed.  (By the way, I completely agree with you that you don't know your history very well.) -- rdh ]]]

Moreover, I don't know of any
commercial reactor whose spent fuel was ultiamtely
used in weapons production.  If you know differently,
by all means, enlighten me.

[[[ Look at the historic data.  Nukes were originally built to supply fissionable material to the military. -- rdh ]]]

> materials.  That makes them legitimate targets of
> war.  So there is a very

Any power plant, water treatment plant, or other
industrial facility is a target of war.

[[[ True, but if a nuke plant is hit, the damage is incomparably worse than if a hydro dam is hit.  In the latter case the waters recede and people can rebuild.  In the former case a permanent evacuation is necessary and there would be vastly more deaths. --rdh ]]]

> 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.

I bore you? 

[[[ You are very repetitious and condescending.  Your unwillingness to use a spell-checker is annoying and childish.  Your insults are unbecoming of a gentleman interested in earnest debate.  And (as shown below), you are extremely arrogant.  Yes, it's boring.  -- rdh ]]]

Intersting especially coming from a
person who believes in placing telescopes in orbit to
look for asteroids because he beleives them to be
real, credible threats to nuke plants.  What about
chemical plants or jails where cyanide is kept (just
to name tow)?  Should they too not be subject to your
silly asteroid theory?

[[[ You can get on the forums of SCIENTISTS who are searching for asteroids and see that it is not a silly concern. -- rdh ]]]

What you call facts are mere speculations and
"what-if" scenarios with no engineering basis or
thought behind it.  Henceforth, I will expect any such
claims of "fact" to be based on some minor degree of
engineering basis of why you feel they to be
considered as fact.

Tim

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

============================================================
A BLAST FROM THE RECENT PAST (LAST WEEK):  TIM STEADHAM'S FIRST LETTER TO ME:
============================================================

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Steadham <tstead@ntirs.org>
Subject: Can 1 pound of Pu cause cancer to the entire world?
To: kgrossman@hamptons.com, rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com

The answer is a resounding NO.  I thought I'd give you
my website where I totally discredit and rip apart
your claim that 1 pound of Pu could cause cancer to
the entire world.

In fact, by my analysis, the results would be maybe a
dozen or so people - if that.

You might want to stop embarrasing (sic) yourself by
claiming that 1 lb. of Pu could in any way have any
sort of impact on the world's population.

Regards,
Tim Steadham, P.E.

Visit http://www.ntirs.org and click on the link about
1 lb. of Pu.

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

[[[ The question is, how much of that first letter is Mr. Steadham now willing to retract, now that he has had it explained to him nine ways to Sunday that his mathematical whimsey is utterly meaningless?

Visit www.nirs.org for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service web site, whose URL Mr. Steadham is clearly trying to conflict with. -- rdh ]]]

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