Newsletter Of Scams, Hoaxes, Infiltration, & Terrorism
Volume 1, Issue 1
May 4th, 2005
Editor: Russell D. Hoffman
Today's contents:
1): Commentary: What's In This Issue by Russell Hoffman, Editor
2): UPI Op-Ed: Bennett Ramberg on the future of nuclear terror
3): NEWS: Was Global Network infiltrated? YES, but by whom?
4): Opinion: Activism against nuclear power is DEAD IN CALIFORNIA
5): Outreach: Follow-up letter to the New York Times's "Nukes are Green" author
6): Letters: San Onofre's annual meeting sparsely attended
7) Blame: Contact information for the author of this newsletter
=================================================
1): Commentary: What's In This Issue by Russell Hoffman, Editor
=================================================
Dear Readers,
What Bennett Ramberg can say in one sentence is more than Mathew Wald can write in a lifetime. Indeed, Matthew Wald might as well be paid by the nuclear industry instead of the New York Times, Technology Review, and other supposedly balanced, but actually wildly pro-nuclear, forums.
A few days ago he came out with another article about the revival of nuclear power, something he seems to think will come about if he writes enough glowing articles in enough magazines and newspapers. Even the facts in his own article should make anyone suspicious of the idea that there will be a nuclear power plant construction revival any time soon, but the attitude of the author is clearly very enthusiastic. The New York Times has been biased in favor of nuclear power for a long time, and many smaller papers faithfully republish NY Times articles. For example, my local paper, the North County Times, published Wald's latest pro-nuclear story on page one.
Meanwhile, there ARE writers who know the score and tell it. Below is an Op-Ed by Bennett Ramberg, who is highly qualified to speak on the subject of nuclear terrorism and whom I have quoted often in my newsletters. Ramberg is the author of: NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AS WEAPONS FOR THE ENEMY: AN UNRECOGNIZED MILITARY PERIL (University of California Press, Studies in International and Strategic Affairs, William Potter, Editor, Center for International and Strategic Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles, CA (“Introduction to the Paperback Edition” Copyright 1984 by the Regents of the University of California). D.C. Heath and Co., 1980, 1984).
Also shown below is the story of infiltration of a nuclear organization, Global Network, the SAME "GN" which I MYSELF had earlier accused of being led by an infiltrator, an accusation for which I apologized last August (2004), after viewing Arsenal of Hypocrisy, a documentary by Randy Atkins. Well, well, well: There is now IRREFUTABLE DOCUMENTATION that the organization WAS IN FACT infiltrated -- BUT, the MAIN TARGET OF THE INFILTRATION was the very person I thought was the INFILTRATOR!
So, every crime I thought the guy was committing was actually being done against him -- coupled with my own unwarranted animosity! We admire Mr. Gagnon again for his fortitude.
I only wish I were as wrong about the dangers of nuclear power as I was about who was infiltrating GN. But alas, there is a lot of very irrefutable evidence against that possibility. The evidence can be and has been ignored by the nuclear elite, but they cannot and will not refute it.
Also in this newsletter, I have included correspondence with local (ie, California) activists. Where the only logical thing to do is call for a complete shutdown of California's four nuclear power plants, none of the "major players" will do so. Why not? One has to wonder whether there is infiltration (perhaps by A FOREIGNER?) of the California activists's organizations, which has poisoned the well, by passing the word that nuclear power is needed to prevent blackouts, that the 2000 - 2001 blackouts were because we had used up every available kilowatt of electricity, and that anyone calling for a shutdown is politically naive. (This last point might be true, but it's not relevant.
Activists are not politicians and should not play politics.)
Unfortunately, politically-motivated activism is exactly what Matt Wald and his friends need for nuclear power to have its revival. One new NRC ruling after another runs roughshod over democracy and creates bigger and more varied kinds of piles of nuclear waste on our shores (spent fuel pools, crowded spent fuel pools, over-crowded spent fuel pools, dry casks, many more dry casks, and still lots of fuel in the spent fuel pools, etc. etc. etc.). Across the country, I hope there are stronger activist organizations than here in California, where there is enough renewable energy for everything fun in the sun.
Nationally, George Bush is merely the vocal tip of a huge CORPORATE PUSH for more nuclear power. These "external" forces may make this the LAST CHANCE to stop nuclear power in California. But the California activists' efforts, whether well-intentioned or not, stand NO CHANCE of doing that. They are butting their heads against brick walls that are facing the wrong direction anyway. There is a clear path towards accomplishing the sole goal of protecting California from nuclear meltdowns and subsequent releases of vast quantities of POISON GAS. It's to call for an immediate shutdown. Every other possible energy solution is better than this.
But INSTEAD, we can all expect new nuclear power plants to be streamline-approved at EVERY aging nuclear facility in the country. They are even getting licenses for nuclear power plants they don't intend to build without BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in government subsidies and TRILLIONS in not-paid-for insurance protection (ie, the Price Anderson Act), and which their investors would currently RUN from if they announced intentions to build. These new reactors, if built, will undoubtedly cost perhaps 5 to 8 billion dollars -- but be estimated at the time of construction to cost only 1 or 1.5 billion dollars, with construction not even starting for five or ten years. But in the current climate, NOW is the time to get a license from the NRC, because they are handing them out to just about anyone.
Maybe Osama will get one. Oh, that's right. He's already got 103 nuclear power plants around the country he can use as he wishes. He doesn't need any more, and neither do we.
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
=====================================================
2): UPI Op-Ed: Bennett Ramberg on the future of nuclear terror:
=====================================================
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 17:43:59 -0400
From: "Bill Smirnow" <smirnowb@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: [NukeNet] Bennett Ramberg UPI Op-Ed Nuke Terrorism
Bennett Ramberg is the author of three books, and editor of three others on
nuclear security issues. He served in the Department of State's Bureau of
Politico-Military Affairs in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.)
The NAS conclusion: "A terrorist attack that partially
or completed drained a spent fuel pool could lead to ... the release large
quantities of radioactive material to the environment." The academy added that
NRC's efforts to belittle the risk are "not prudent."
As an immediate remedy, the NAS called upon utilities to modify the spent
fuel configuration and density to allow better cooling and water-spray systems to
douse any terrorist ignition. It further recommended a plant-by-plant survey
of unique vulnerabilities.
CRAC-2 Report, Plant By Plant Study Of Fatalities, Cancers, Injuries, $$ Damage:
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html
United Press International
April 28, 2005
Outside view: The future of nuclear terror
By Bennett Ramberg
Outside View Commentator
Los Angeles, CA, Apr. 28 (UPI) -- This month marks Chernobyl's 19th
anniversary. It comes at a time of continuing concern about the motivation and ability
of terrorists to inflict an intentional Chernobyl upon the United States.
Despite Washington's recognition of the risk, 31/2 years after the attack on the
World Trade Center, it is still attempting to sort out what to do. The
dithering ill serves national security.
Testifying before the Senate Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence on
Feb. 16, FBI Director Robert Mueller succinctly laid out problem.
Commenting that 9/11 "al-Qaida planner Khalid Sheik Mohamed had nuclear power
plants as part of his target set," Mueller ominously warned, "... (W)e have
no reason to believe that al-Qaida has reconsidered." Indeed, the director
placed nuclear power plants at the top of the hit list of infrastructure targets
that terrorists would be tempted to attack.
The FBI's conclusion begs the question: Has the United States done all it can
to prevent or reduce the consequences of nuclear sabotage since Sept. 11,
2001?
The answer: Not really. In fairness, the country's nuclear infrastructure is
more secure today. Utilities have bolstered defenses against ground assaults.
Intelligence is more focused. Airport security better protects against
airplane hijacking. Yet, the National Academy of Science's April 6 report on the
vulnerability of nuclear spent fuel pools belies the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's persistent mantra that our nuclear plants are effectively immune.
Prompted by nongovernmental scientists' claims that terrorist ground or air
assaults could drain the pools and ignite the highly radioactive spent fuel
assemblies resulting in consequences exceeding Chernobyl, Congress asked the
academy for an evaluation. The NAS conclusion: "A terrorist attack that partially
or completed drained a spent fuel pool could lead to ... the release large
quantities of radioactive material to the environment." The academy added that
NRC's efforts to belittle the risk are "not prudent."
As an immediate remedy, the NAS called upon utilities to modify the spent
fuel configuration and density to allow better cooling and water-spray systems to
douse any terrorist ignition. It further recommended a plant-by-plant survey
of unique vulnerabilities.
The NRC will require further political prodding to implement recommendations
since the academy is only an advisory group. Unfortunately, the terrorists'
calendar to do us harm may not comply with the commission's labored pace.
The commission must also do a better job in protecting power reactors, a
matter the academy addressed marginally. It remains unclear whether the NCR's
post-9/11 "Orders" requiring beefed up plant security meets the challenge.
Guards repeatedly have complained they neither have the training, armament or
sufficient personnel to foil a sophisticated ground assault. The commission
has not provided the public with ample information to judge the results of mock
attack exercises intended to test defenses. Furthermore, the NRC still clings
to the mistaken belief that intelligence will provide timely warning of an
increasing attack risk environment to bolster security.
However, one fact remains clear: nuclear power plants are naked against a
Sept. 11, 2001-like air attack. Plaintively, the commission argues that the
"defense in depth" engineering built into reactors to prevent serious accidents
should suffice although it continues to "study" the matter. It contends that the
first line of defense ought to be airport security; if that fails, military
aircraft could intercept suspicious airplanes.
Unfortunately, this "action plan" is flawed. Engineers did not design reactor
containments to withstand an intentional, high-speed impact by a large
commercial airliner. Then there is the risk that such an attack could disrupt "soft"
vital lifelines outside the containment that could prompt a meltdown.
Airport security already has failed to prevent general aviation "buzzing" of
reactors. Other defensive measures could be deployed.
However, the commission opposes antiaircraft guns or missiles at reactor sites
fearing that they could shoot down innocent planes. The fact that other
countries pursued this path without mishap has not made an impression.
There yet remains passive defenses. Utilities could put in place large World
War II-like barrage balloons to entwine light aircraft in their tether.
Another option, heavy steel I-beams can be placed over reactor sites to
fragment incoming aircraft dramatically reducing their ability to penetrate
sensitive structures. The beams also could anchor defensive steel cabling and
netting to further deflect impact. The NRC has before it a formal petition for
rulemaking to accomplish this option.
Unfortunately, the commission is not likely to implement such insurance as
long as it clings to the view that attacks are improbable and plants are well
protected. This year's Chernobyl commemoration should serve as a useful
reminder of what can happen if the presumptions prove wrong.
--
(Bennett Ramberg is the author of three books, and editor of three others on
nuclear security issues. He served in the Department of State's Bureau of
Politico-Military Affairs in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by
outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views
expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the
interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
Copyright 2005 United Press International
All site contents copyright © 2005 News World
Communications, Inc.
------------------------------
=====================================================
3): NEWS: Was Global Network infiltrated? YES, but by whom?:
=====================================================
[[[ Note: This level of criminality against U.S. citizens by the U.S. government should surprise no one. It's been going on for decades and it is not about to stop, especially since they now have new laws allowing even greater investigation of anyone they feel like thinking is a "threat". And, they are going to get better at hiding their records, so explosive things like this don't just happen by accident -- you can be sure of that! -- rdh ]]]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 03:42 PM 4/22/2005 -0400, "Global Network" <globalnet@mindspring.com> wrote:
NASA & PENTAGON SURVEILLANCE
OF GLOBAL NETWORK
As the Global Network (GN) prepares for its 13th annual space organizing conference in New York City, on April 29-30, a call came into our office today from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The ACLU office in Brevard County, Florida (where NASA and the Kennedy Space Center are located) called to inform the Global Network that an ACLU investigation of the Brevard County Sheriff's department has revealed 600-700 pages of internal files documenting extensive infiltration and surveillance of the Global Network and other anti-war activities in the county during recent years. The files contained descriptions of Global Network members as being "anti-American."
The ACLU investigation, which began last January, also revealed that NASA was gathering information on European demonstrations against the launching of weapons and nuclear power in space during recent years. In addition, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI), based in Tampa, Florida, had infiltrated the Global Network as late as October of 2002 during the organization's annual Keep Space for Peace Week.
According to the ACLU the investigations centered on Global Network Coordinator Bruce Gagnon and Global Network members Mary Beth Sullivan and Maria Telesca. In addition to infiltration of the organization, the ACLU noted that the investigations included background checks, driving histories, address histories, as well as other information gathering activities.
The ACLU has requested permission to pursue legal action on behalf of Bruce, Mary Beth, and Maria. The ACLU intends to attempt to retrieve all surveillance files gathered on Global Network members and to pursue a possible lawsuit.
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-0517
(207) 319-2017 (Cell phone)
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Our blog)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
=====================================================
4): Opinion: Activism against nuclear power is DEAD IN CALIFORNIA:
=====================================================
[[[ Note: Although the editor has received letters from two of the addressees of the letter shown below, those responses did not address the central question being asked -- WHY won't you support a call for an immediate and permanent shut-down of San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear power facilities? -- rdh ]]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 30th, 2005
Dear Shirley, Patricia, Rochelle, Laura, Lyn,
Having received the DEIR and the letter from the EIR team (shown in my newsletter earlier this week), it's amply clear that the CPUC has every intention of rubber-stamping the steam generator project. Even if they seem to hem and haw and rub their chins as if in deep thought, it's still a done deal. They've stacked the deck by refusing to consider numerous vital details. This environmental review is far more concerned about the residual radioactivity in the old steam generators than about the 250 pounds of new reactor core waste the replacements will generate each and every day, if they are approved. It's an outrage.
150 or 1,500 or even 15,000 people at the hearings would NOT change a thing. They have already declared, as they always do -- most recently in their letter to me on Tuesday -- that they will not consider any relevant issue.
Is there any plan on how to get around this fact? Have you warned any of your teams of the imminent possibility that they will be ignored -- perhaps even told to stop talking -- if they try to bring up ANY radiation issues? (This happened to me at previous state agency hearings. Some of you were WITNESSES when the lawyer for -- I think it was the CCC -- suddenly yelled STOP! just as I started to quote Dr. John W. Gofman.)
If someone can give me even ONE REASON to believe this exercise will make a difference, I'll write about that aspect of it. But the unfortunate reality is the same as it was for the dry cask issue, and for restarting Unit Three after the big fire, and for what to do after 9-11, and for what to do now that we know Yucca Mountain is 15, 20, 25 years away, and may never happen and should never happen.
These issues were all current issues that should have been used as reasons by every anti-nuke activist in calling for a shutdown during the past couple of years and which, cumulatively, we should all be using as reasons
now to call for a shut-down
now. None of these problems have gone away, they have only piled up on each other, along with the tsunami issue and many other industry-killing issues. Calling for a permanent shut-down of San Onofre December 26th, 2004 was certainly a no-brainer, but the risk remains and it's STILL a no-brainer.
So why are we even asking the CPUC to rule on steam generator maybes when there are tsunami absolutes?
We won the scientific debate about nuclear power long, long ago. Dislodging the power elite is the only task left, but it is OUR generation which is tasked with this job. Bad enough we should leave all the waste, but must we also leave shutting the plant down to a future generation?
We need to have a unified call for a shutdown! We cannot and should not count on the CPUC to maybe, after next month's hearings, set a rule which might, in about 2013, make a difference. All of our energies should be focused on the main issue; shutting down this plant and eventually all plants.
I feel that without this focused energy, we are spoiling
another chance to get nuclear power shut down in California
for good. But it's NOT going to happen directly through the CPUC. They will ignore terrorism, meltdowns, dry casks being added to, not even used instead of, spent fuel pools, and every other thing that matters, just as they always have.
The CPUC claims their hands are (conveniently) tied. Let the public know that! Let them know this whole hearing process is a charade! The public can handle the truth and the media might. It's our duty to give it a try.
If any of you disagree with me at all, then won't you please write about it for my newsletter? Explain, from an anti-nuker's point of view, where I am wrong. If Dr. Caldicott and 100 other scientists and activists over the past 10 years are willing to submit articles to the newsletter (and they have), then how about each of you -- or at least one of you -- stating YOUR case for NOT calling for a permanent
and immediate shutdown of these dangerous behemoths? (Thank you in advance if you choose to do it. You will not be edited.)
Unfortunately the CPUC is not on our side, and “dreaming” that these hearings will amount to anything but a rubber stamp is just that, a dream. No matter how many people we cajole into showing up, THEY (SCE et al) can AND WILL get just as many people as we can at any hearing they want, so what good will all your publicity do in the long run, anyway? The CPUC should base their decision not on the quantity of opposition or the support one side or another can dredge up for the cameras, but on the quality of that side's message. If you are trying to say that the CPUC will not behave in the spirit of doing what is right for Californians, then why not just come out and say it? If you believe they will do what is right, then you are fooling yourselves, or perhaps, haven't read their letter to me earlier this week, in which they outlined their lack of both authority and expertise.
We should be having a rally! I would love to speak and hopefully incite the public to support an immediate shut-down. You all should speak! An obvious time and place for the rally is at the site of the hearings the day and evening of the hearings. Don’t you agree?
And please: if you haven't already read them, I urge you to read my newsletters now, BEFORE all of our efforts in this movement are made in vain next month. I don’t want this attempt to fail as all others in the past have. I feel that our efforts need to be made more serious and focused on the real issue of shutdown. And I want you to realize that, unfortunately, 99.9% of your objections to the steam generator project will be
ignored and the other 0.1% will be
overruled, and this should not be a surprise to
anyone.
All this CPUC thing can ever amount to is another opportunity to explain to the people of California that San Onofre is -- like all the other nuclear power plants around the world -- dangerous, dirty, and inefficient, and should be shut down immediately and permanently, as outlined in my trio of recent newsletters (now posted online and linked to again, below).
We all need to come together and unite on shutting the plant down --
immediately. Such a unification of voices in California would be a powerful message to the whole world -- and I'm sure it would be supported by national leaders in this movement. But if we do not succeed in shutting the plant down, even if everything "works out" and we are told that SONWGS will not bother replacing their steam generators, our good intentions will make no difference -- again. Why? Because by 2013, they'll be building "new nuclear technology" at the site, using even more streamlined licensing procedures than they have right now. And they'll be using sheer guesswork to test these new reactors and pure falsification to document their work.
Please write to me your thoughts on this issue.
Thank you in advance,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
"Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law":
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2005/CPUC_SONWGS_SGRP_DEIR20050427.htm
Comments: on KPBS television "promo" regarding San Onofre's Steam Generator Replacement plan:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2005/ShutSONWGSnow20050425B.htm
List of problems at San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station since 2001 + more:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2005/ShutSONWGSnow20050425A.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
=====================================================
5) Outreach: Follow-up letter to the New York Times's "Nukes are Green" author:
=====================================================
[[[ Note: The attachments to the next letter, including Dr. Siegel's commentary, are NOT included in this newsletter. Readers should feel free to ask, and I will send them to you separately. -- rdh ]]]
------------------------------------------------------------------
May 2nd, 2005
Mr. Kristof,
In this version of your recent Op Ed in the NYTimes, Dr. Siegel, a metallurgist who has considered the dangers of nuclear power for many years and worked in the industry for even longer, has annotated your comments.
I would really like to know:
A) Why you wanted to publish your career-killing letter in the New York Times (no real environmentalist respects you anymore, and since you seem to want to be an environmentalist, you've ruined your life's "calling") and,
B) Who the "environmentalists" and "acedemics" were who advised the NCEP, and whether you've actually met anyone who helped you develop your "nukes are green" ideas.
Thank you in advance for your response. I am sorry that the New York Times did not publish my original response to your Op-Ed there. I hope you read it, however, and I hope by now you have learned enough to be even more sorry they published your misguided essay in the first place than I am that they didn't publish my response.
If there is anything I can help you with to help you better your understanding of the dangers of nuclear power, please do not hesitate to ask. Really.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
P.S. Although I normally do not send "attachments" with my emails, I could not find another way to forward Dr. Siegel's comments. My apologies in advance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
=====================================================
6): Letters: San Onofre's annual meeting sparsely attended
=====================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------
To: "Rochelle Becker" <beckers@thegrid.net>, "CREED" <creedmail@cox.net>, "Shirley Vaine" <SVAINE1@cs.com>, "Patricia Borchmann" <pborchmann@yahoo.com>, "Laura Hunter" <LauraH@environmentalhealth.org>
Subject: Last night's annual meeting on San Onofre
Dear California Activists,
Didn't a single one of us know that San Onofre was having their annual meeting last night? Did any of us attend? There was no notification in the paper that I saw.
And, despite attending EACH of the last half dozen of these annual meetings, I received NO notification from the NRC or from any activist. My local paper says the meeting was "sparsely attended" by the public.
Why didn't any of you "leaders" tell people about the annual meeting?
But by next week you expect us to have 150 or 1500 people to complain to the CPUC?
It doesn't look good.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To: "Paul Sisson" <psisson@nctimes.com>
Subject: Sparely attended? Well, sure! The NC Times didn't tell anyone it was coming up, did they?
May 4th, 2005
Mr Sisson,
Yesterday's San Onofre meeting was sparsely attended by the public because they were not informed about it. After attending the last half dozen or so meetings and putting my name on their lists each time to be informed about such things, nevertheless the NRC did not send out any notification of this event.
And I don't recall seeing it mentioned in your paper.
How did YOU find out about it, and when?
And no, I don't go to the NRC web site very often, and nor should I be required to, to hear about a meeting I attend every year, and while I've got FOIA's in process about that plant, and while I've got dozens of commentaries about that plant which have been submitted to the NRC just in the past year alone. Yet they can't distribute an email or send a postcard or anything to interested citizens so they know to attend? That's pathetic. I'd say I have a right to be told it's happening, but no one let the cat out of the bag. Not even my fellow activists, or local reporters.
Silence is Golden -- and to Ray Golden's benefit.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
----------------------------------------------------------
=====================================================
7): Contact information for the author of this newsletter:
=====================================================