Subject: Re: Encore Presentation! See MELTDOWN ON FX today (SATURDAY JUNE 12TH, 2004 -- check local listings)
To: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>
June 14th, 2004
Mr. Jacobus,
Can you actually identify what parts of MELTDOWN you feel were "poorly crafted"? What parts you think did not accurately portray the dangers? What parts were "opportunistic" and not truthful about the risks we all face from these plants? Say something scientifically credible to reassure people that the movie was wrong about the dangers, if you can.
As to my sentence, "Activists against nuclear power and people trying to simply tell the truth through a made-for-tv docudrama may appear to you to be the same thing, but they are not," perhaps it would have been clearer to you if I had used the phrase "as opposed to" rather than the word "and" (fifth word). But frankly, I think the statement was clear as it stood, unless you are absolutely desperate to continue your absurd claim that I had called the makers of the movie MELTDOWN "activists" in any way. You have blinded yourself, Mr. Jacobus.
And as to the statement you supplied me about Gofman, which you now refuse to continue to endorse, why did you send it in the first place if you don't agree with it? What were you trying to do, just muddy the waters and confuse everybody about the truth? Was that your agenda?
And please look up the word "libel" before responding, this time, or discuss it with your lawyer. You seem to think that by "just responding" to my emails, you cannot possibly libel me. That's ridiculous, like so many other things you have said.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
At 08:40 AM 6/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
Russ,
What do you mean endorsed? If it was part of an
e-mail I responded to, it does not mean I endorsed it,
per se.
I am certain not libeling you. I am just responding
to your posting. To me, your agenda is that people
should see this made for TV movie to learn the truth
about the risks of nuclear power, as YOU see it. I do
not think the makers of the movie are activist.
Rather, they are opportunists. Instead of using the
fears of sharks or meteors, they are using fear of
radiation to attract an audience. Disaster movies are
occasionally big hits at the box office. The truth
about the risk of nuclear power is the least of their
concerns. By saying that activist should endorse the
movie you are setting them up of ridicule for
supporting a poorly crafted movie.
I hate to point this out, but you are the one who says
they are activits, e.g., "Activists against nuclear
power and people trying to simply tell the truth
through a made-for-tv docudrama . . ." So make up you
your mind if the movie makers are activits or not.
What claim should I stand by? That people should know
the truth? Yes, they should. That people should
become educated about nuclear risks and benefits?
Yes, they should. But not through movies as you
suggest. What are your issues that I should resolve?
--- "Russell D. Hoffman"
<rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com> wrote:
---------------------------------
To: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>
June 13th, 2004
Mr. Jacobus,
Here's the statement you endorsed in a previous email:
===============================
When Gofman says "there is no safe dose", that
means thatanyone
receiving a plutonium uptake (down to one atom)
would eventually
develop some type of radiogenic cancer.
===============================
I will correct that where I wrote "fatal" I should
havesaid "some type of radiogenic cancer", and my
claim stands --and it's libel.
And you should stop libeling me, too: I did NOT say
the producers oranyone involved with the movie
MELTDOWN are activists. I don'tknow, but I sure see
no reason to think so. What I have been sayingis that
activists should endorse the movie because it is
plausible andaccurate.
Activists against nuclear power and people trying to
simply tell thetruth through a made-for-tv docudrama
may appear to you to be the samething, but they are
not.
And as to your profession, my claim on that one stands
firm. IfYOUR claim were true, you would attempt to
resolve my issues formally andenthusiastically,
instead of heckling me whenever the mood suitsyou.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad,CA
At 02:42 PM 6/13/2004 -0700, you wrote:
I do not make my money fromdenying the dangers of
radiation. As a health physicist, my professional
duty is to advise and educate on the risks and
benefits of the uses of radiaion to workers, and the
public when I can.
You obviously have me confused with someone else, as I
have never made that statement about Dr. Gofman
You are the one who is linking the makers of this
movie with activism.
"Activism is hard. Reading is an effort.
Watching a movie is easy, . . . So sit back and watch
for a change. This movie can really be thought of as
your reward for your patience and effort. It says so
much of what we've all been trying to say all this
time. And it's clear some people worked very hard to
produce MELTDOWN. Reward their efforts -- see it --
and tell your friends to see it, too.
.. . ."
And after watching this movie what do you want your
fellow viewers to do? Get more popcorn?
--- "Russell D. Hoffman"
<rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com> wrote:
> Mr. Jacobus,
>
> You make money from denying the dangers of radiation
> (as a professional
> Health Physicist) and from twisting other people's
> words to the point of
> libeling them, such as when you changed Dr. Gofman's
> "any dose is an
> overdose" into a claim that every dose, of any size,
> is fatal, as you did
> in a previous letter.
>
> I didn't say that watching a movie makes anyone an
> activist yet you say "of
> course" as if I had. I also didn't say the people
> who made MELTDOWN were
> activists. If they succeeded in making money, good
> for them.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Russell Hoffman
> Carlsbad, CA
>
> At 02:41 PM 6/12/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> >Of course watching a movie is an easy way to become
> an
> >activist. It does not require any thinking. I
> would
> >say that the makers of this movie was not activits
> by
> >those out to make a buck. At least they succeeded.
> >
> >--- "Russell D. Hoffman"
> ><rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com> wrote:
> > > June 12th, 2004
> > >
> > > Dear Readers,
> > >
> > > If you have not seen MELTDOWN on FX, PLEASE DO
> SO
> > > today (Saturday, June
> > > 12th, 2004)! Check your local listings.
> > >
> > > Activism is hard. Reading is an effort.
> Watching a
> > > movie is easy, and
> > > thousands -- or perhaps millions -- of people
> will
> > > do it for each one of
> > > you who has worried along with this author about
> > > these problems all these
> > > years. So sit back and watch for a change.
> This
> > > movie can really be
> > > thought of as your reward for your patience and
> > > effort. It says so much of
> > > what we've all been trying to say all this time.
> > > And it's clear some
> > > people worked very hard to produce MELTDOWN.
> Reward
> > > their efforts -- see
> > > it -- and tell your friends to see it, too.
> > >
> > > One thing that was not mentioned at all in
> MELTDOWN
> > > was Dry Cask
> > > Storage. I prefer to call it "Dry Casket
> Storage".
> > >
> > > Dry Cask Storage is supposed to be temporary --
> > > until Yucca Mountain
> > > opens. But in reality, once dry casks are
> > > authorized for any site, that
> > > site will have dry casks indefinitely. In
> addition,
> > > Yucca Mountain might
> > > NEVER open because it is a scientifically
> > > irresponsible and technically
> > > infeasible political hot potato.
> > >
> > > Terrorism against Dry Cask Storage systems would
> be
> > > even easier than
> > > against the spent fuel pool or the reactor!
> Sure,
> > > the Spent Fuel Rod
> > > Assemblies in dry casks have "cooled down"a
> little,
> > > in the thermal
> > > sense. But they are still highly radioactive
> and
> > > will be for -- NOT 10,000
> > > years, as many people believe, but for MILLIONS
> of
> > > years!
> > >
> > > Compared to Dry Cask Storage, Spent Fuel Pools
> are
> > > incredibly expensive to
> > > make and must be monitored and maintained.
> That's
> > > why they don't just
> > > build more pools! It's not SAFETY! It'sMONEY!
> > >
> > > Inside a dry cask, the deadly (and still very
> hot)
> > > fuel rods can catch fire
> > > SPONTANEOUSLY if they become overly embrittled,
> > > warp, crack, fall to the
> > > bottom of the cask, or otherwise clump together.
> If
> > > that happens, they
> > > would burn in a deadly conflagration which would
> be
> > > every bit as bad as a
> > > meltdown or a spent fuel pool accident, and
> which no
> > > fire company in the
> > > world is capable of extinguishing.
> > >
> > > Fire departments don't have the necessary "rad
> > > suits" needed to get close
> > > enough to fight the fire without getting a
> lethal
> > > dose of radiation within
> > > MINUTES, and they don't have the chemicals and
> tools
> > > to put it out if they
> > > do manage to get close somehow.
> > >
> > > Perhaps they expect to call in every helicopter
> > > pilot in the country and
> > > have them overfly a dry cask fire one by one and
> > > drop sand on it, like the
> > > Russians did with Chernobyl. The pilots were,
> of
> > > course, all killed, dying
> > > gruesome deaths shortly after the event.
> > >
> > > Diablo Canyon's plans for Dry Cask Storage call
> for
> > > bolting the beasts to
> > > the ground. (Apparently, despite there being
> > > earthquakes now and then just
> > > about anywhere, this is not normally done!)
> These
> > > casks will stick out
> > > like sore thumbs and can be destroyed in all the
> > > ways mentioned in MELTDOWN
> > > and many more -- by bombs, by explosives, by
> > > airplanes crashing into them,
> > > by God.
> > >
> > > Diablo Cyn's owners claim that their casks will
> be
> > > able to withstand a 7.2
> > > earthquake, and they claim that nothing as
> strong as
> > > that is predicted
> > > anywhere in the area.
> > >
> > > Anyone in the business of repeatedly and
> accurately
> > > predicting a
> > > significant number of earthquakes' locations and
> > > severity -- and/or
> > > successfully guaranteeing a location's lack of
> > > earthquakes for a
> > > significant period of time -- would be the most
> > > famous person in
> > > history. No such person exists at this time, or
> has
> > > ever existed.
> > >
> > > Why will Diablo Cyn's proposed Dry Cask Storage
> > > system be built to
> > > withstand a 7.2 earthquake, rather than, say,
> 7.3 or
> > > 7.5 -- or 9.2, for
> > > that matter?
> > >
> > > They answer is: MONEY. Each whole unit
> increment
> > > represents an order of
> > > magnitude increase in the earth's shaking from
> the
> > > earthquake. Thus, an
> > > 8.2 earthquake is ten times as bad as 7.2. A
> 9.2 is
> > > 100 times as violent
> > > as a 7.2, and thus, extremely expensive to
> protect
> > > against.
> > >
> > > And even that level of protection might not be
> > > enough.
> > >
> > > Recently, I read that the last
> earthquake-related
> > > studies of Diablo Cyn
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"We cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by
crawling intobed and pulling the covers over our
heads."
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"We cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads."
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
========================================================
To: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>
Mr. Jacobus,
Some "expert" you turned out to be! Can't even own up to the things you claimed in previous emails! One million dead is no small problem. You have too much blood on yours.
-- Russell Hoffman
At 09:52 AM 6/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
You really have too much time on your hands. If you
have any important points, let me know.
=====================================================