Subject: Re: Questions/Comments about Demon Hot Atom

To: "Seawolf" <>

April 11th, 2004

Mr. Dog,

Okay, you say you'll tell the truth and have nothing to hide.  I say you won't.  But if you will, I do have a bunch of questions.

First, list every book about nuclear power you've ever read.  We'll just start with that.

Have you ever heard of Dr. John Gofman?  What books of his have you read, if any?

How about Jack Shannon?  Have you visited his web site about KAPL?

Have you read any of Dr. Helen Caldicott's books?

How about Stanley Thompson's?

Chris Busby's?

Rosalie Bertell's?

Let's just see you tell the truth.  Let's see how long you last at it.



P.S. It's at least as much because of people like my father that we have any freedom's left here (Army, WWII), so don't wave the frigging flag at me.  You didn't earn that right, going around poisoning the planet with your radioactive filth, and poisoning my "in box" with your libel.


At 05:35 PM 4/10/2004 -0400, "Seawolf" <> wrote:

Very interesting website.  Of note is your complete incomprehension of what you are talking about.  I especially like the part where you compare TMI to Chernobyl.  You had me in tears, I was laughing so hard!  Do try and research the differences between the two designs.  It is nice to see a website that is so objective (not).  Ask yourself why the United States Navy has safely operated nuclear reactor for 50+ years.  Don't even think of using the "Thresher and Scorpion" arguments, the fact that they were nuclear powered had nothing to do with either tragedy.  Too bad most of the American public is gullible enough to believe the tripe you are putting out.  Oh well, guess we will just keep mining for coal and drilling for oil, that's much better for the environment....right?!?!
Brent R. Whitehead


Dear Mr. Aquatic Dog,

You're so wrong it's amazing.  There are valid comparisons between TMI and Chernobyl which I have made, and there are differences which I have also described at various times.  As for Scorpion and Thresher --  and Sea Wolf -- they are each nuclear disasters no matter what spin you and the USN tries to put on them.  You obviously have never studied OTEC or any other renewable energy solution.

It's so sad to think that people like you make up our Navy.  I'd love to get a chance to interrogate you under oath, but I'm sure you (and the USN) would never let that happen because you folks don't want the truth to ever come to the surface.


A Concerned American Citizen


At 01:33 PM 4/11/2004 -0400, "Seawolf" <> wrote:
Valid comparisons between TMI and Chernobyl?  How can you compare two reactors that are of completely different designs?  How do you call the Thresher and the Scorpion nuclear disasters?  I have studied OTEC and other renewable energy sources, each has its advantages and disadvantages, as does nuclear power.  However, at this time, nuclear power is a proven technology that is capable of supplying the energy demands of the populace, the others are in their infancy and will require years of improvement and many dollars to become useful.
As for your comment of people like me making up the Navy, you should thank your lucky stars that you live in country that allows you to speak your mind, there are places in this world where the comments that you have made on your website concerning government cover-ups and lies, would get you thrown in jail, or worse.  So you are welcome, it is because of people like me that you have the right to speak your mind and have your say without fear of reprisal, and, if you don't like it when someone disagrees with you, then you shouldn't be posting the tripe.  As for interrogating me under oath; I don't lie.  I have been working with nuclear power for over 15 years and I have nothing to hide, I do find it funny that there are people like you out there that see the "China Syndrome" and such stuff and seem to take it as gospel.  As for the truth that you say we don't want to come out, well, the Navy has been operating these reactors for 50+ years and we have yet to have an accident.


Subject: Formal list of questions for Mr. Brent R. Whitehead, United States Navy

To: "Seawolf" <>

April 11th, 2004


What ship/sub did you/do you serve on?

I assume it is/was nuclear and I assume it has PWR-type reactors on board.   What percentage of the steam generator tubes have failed and had to be plugged?  How many valves have failed on board the ship in its lifetime?  How many reactor pressure vessel heads have had to be replaced due to corrosion?  How many pumps have failed?  What alloys are used in the welding materials and other parts?  What company manufactured these components?  How many emergency shutdowns have the reactors on board had since they were first brought online?

Why doesn't Navy propulsion use the Ball Piston Pump, which I am personally convinced is the most elegant pump ever devised (although it has stiff competition from several other pumps, but I don't believe any of them are used by the Navy in production quantities, either)?

What is the total weight of the used reactor cores that have been removed from your ship's reactors?

What is the chemical composition of that waste?  Where is it now stored?  How was it transported there?  How many trips were made, how many people knew about them at the time, and how much security surrounded each trip?

What is the volume in gallons and the total radioactive content in Curies (for each isotope present) of the reactors primary coolant loops?  What was the volume of primary coolant on board Thresher and Scorpion when they were lost?

What is the total number of humans who would be killed if that number of Curies of radioactive waste were poured into a closed drinking water system?

What is the exact mechanism(s) by which radiation destroys DNA?

What amount of Plutonium 238, if vaporized and then inhaled with the first breath of life outside the womb, into a newborn baby's lung, will cause lung cancer in 50% of the babies who get that dose?

What amount will cause 10% of those babies to get lung cancer any time in their lives?

What amount will cause just .001% of those babies to get lung cancer any time in their lives?

What amount will cause just .00001% of those babies to get lung cancer any time in their lives? (In addition, of course, to any other causes of cancer they might suffer in their lifetimes.)

If every baby on the planet inhaled that dose over their lifetimes (the dose that causes .00001% to get lung cancer), how many people would die every 1000 years?

Please give exact numbers to a least two decimal places, and cite all references exactly.

Your time to completion will be considered in deciding whether you actually knew the answers to these questions (assuming you answer them correctly in the first place) when you arrogantly assaulted me with your libel, which I found in my "in box" today.


Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA


At 03:23 PM 4/11/2004 -0400, wrote:

Brent R. Whitehead:

Mr. Whitehead:
The only information we have about the Thresher and the Scorpion came from the US Navy.

I can't remember the last time any DOD agency told the truth, maybe never.

Therefore comparing anything to these two accidents is an exercise in futility.

I won't say much hear about the Nuclear Navy. I would expect it is the most corrupt organization in the Nation. It has never been inspected by anyone, or any agency in over fifty years. Even the EPA, nor the DOE is allowed to inspect either of the NR sites. The reason is simple, if they were inspected by any organization and a truthful report issued all NR sites would be closed down, including those located at all of the exposed harbors in the world.

If you want to see more go to my site,

By the way I'm the guy who designed the D1G core 2, for years the most widely used Nuclear Power plant in the World.

You can write me if you like, but I guarantee you that I will blow away any argument concerning the safety of Nuclear Power plants.

John Shannon [Major USMCR] [R]


Subject: Re: Radioactive vitamins!

Don't act like you won any great debate, waterdog.  You didn't.  It's very typical of blind pronukers like you to declare victory and run when the going gets rough.  I never expected more from you.

-- rdh

At 09:40 PM 4/11/2004 -0400, "Seawolf" <> wrote:

I'm done.  You obviously don't want to discuss this rationally and I have
much better things to do with my time, such as hanging out with my two
beautiful, healthy children (both of whom were born long after I started
working on reactors).  Have a nice life scaring the hell out of those
gullible enough to listen to your tripe.


Brent R. Whitehead


Subject: Brent is a liar!

To: "Seawolf" <>

April 12th, 2004


If the newspapers and everyone else got this story wrong as you so lamely claimed, it's the Navy's fault, which would only validate my main claim, that the Navy lies to the American Public routinely.

As shown below, what happened to the Stennis was exactly as I described, and your prior comments about the incident just shows the level of crap you're willing to try to feed me to excuse your crimes against humanity as a pro-nuker.

Perhaps you defended something important in your Naval career, but it sure isn't truth, justice, and the American Way you fight for now.


Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA


November 30, 1999 Naval Air Station

North Island, San Diego, Ca

The STENNIS ran aground in a shallow area adjacent to its turning basin as it attempted to maneuver near Naval Air Station, North Island (NASNI). Silt clogged the intake pipes to the cooling systems of the nuclear reactors, causing the carriers two nuclear reactors to be shut down (one reactor by crew, the other automatically) for a period of 45 minutes. The STENNIS was towed back to its pier for maintenance and observation for the next two days. The cleanup cost was about $2 million.

From the "info" page:

This is not the official site of the U.S. NAVY, you can find the official one at
This website has no official connection to the US Navy or the US Department of Defense.

You are currently visiting the largest European US Navy website. The whole project was started in early 1999 by two German students and has since then developed into an interesting and informative source of US Navy related information.



Contact: Laura Hunter, EHC or Tony LeSane, EHC (619) 235-0281      Date: March 20, 2000


(San Diego) Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) has challenged the Navy to come clean about an accident that happened on the USS John C. Stennis (CVN74) late last year. In a letter to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Office, EHC accused the Navy of misrepresenting the facts of the accident and of improperly refusing to release information to the public about the accident. EHC believes the Navy has not told the truth with regard to a 1999 Stennis accident and its impacts on public safety and is, in fact, systematically hiding the truth.

EHC has been able to piece together the following information from partial documents released to it under the Freedom on Information Action (FOIA): On November 30, 1999, the USS John C. Stennis (CVN74) lost power when its two nuclear reactors were shut down and the ship was unable to deploy for training operations. The Stennis ran aground in a shallow area adjacent to its turning basin as it attempted to maneuver near Naval Air Station, North Island (NASNI). Silt clogged the intake pipes to the cooling systems of the nuclear reactors, causing the carriers two nuclear reactors to be shut down (one reactor by crew, the other automatically) for a period of 45 minutes. The Stennis was towed back to its pier for maintenance and observation for the next two days. This was an accident that had potential impacts on nuclear operations of the carrier.

The Navys original story, however, was quite different. From day one, the Navy had maintained that the USS Stennis had not struck ground, that the "incident" was not nuclear-related, and that there was no danger to the crew or to residents of San Diego.

EHCs January 19, 2000, FOIA request to the Navy for documentation of the Stennis accident resulted in information about the accident that was clearly in conflict with initial reports. The information was also very limited and many sections were redacted (covered with blacked out blocks of text). In addition, one document, the USS Stennis Technical Report of Incident, was withheld in its entirety by the Navy, with a claim that its release was protected due to the fact that it contained information about the secret design of naval nuclear reactors. EHC intends to formally appeal this decision.

EHC decries this manipulation of information about the accident but this is not the first time that the Navy has misinformed the public about an accident at NASNI. A spill of elemental mercury into the turning basin in 1997 was originally reported by the Navy to be "readily pinpointed to a piping joint which leaked during prelaunch checks aboard the...Dolores Chouest" (NASNI Fact Sheet No. 10, August 1997 page 1). Again, after EHC filed a FOIA and received a partial response, the cause was shown to be an overworked and exceedingly fatigued crew, who pressed a wrong button causing hundreds of pounds of mercury to be jettisoned on the decks of the vessel and into the Bay by accident. The Navy also misrepresented the cost of the cleanup to a Union Tribune reporter, stating that the clean up cost about $68,000 when in fact the cost was almost $2 million. The Navy continues to deny release of documentation on this accident, including the Lessons Learned Report. The excessive work level problem was apparently not addressed after the incident.

In this case, EHC is demanding that the Navy tell the whole truth about the accident. On March 15, 2000, EHC wrote to the Navys Office of Reactors requesting a prompt response to several questions about the Stennis accident and asking again for a release of full information:

a) The Navy has publicly stated that this was not a nuclear-related incident and yet the USS Stennis Technical Report of Incident is being withheld in its entirety. Since the accident occurred in close proximity to densely populated areas, the public has a serious interest in and the right to know what happened and what will be done to prevent another occurrence in the future. Withholding the full report speaks to EHCs concern that this was, in fact, an accident with serious potential implications regarding nuclear reactors.
b) EHC is requesting clarification and reclassification of this accident as a "grounding" since the released documents clearly state that the vessel was "... in the mud,".

Laura Hunter, spokesperson for EHC stated, "Clearly, the USS Stennis had an accident which resulted in an emergency shut down of its nuclear reactors. How can the Navy claim that the accident was not a "nuclear-related incident? We are demanding that the Navy come clean about this accident and call on the Navy to make more information available to the public regarding the Stennis accident and past accidents in the region. The public deserves no less."