From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <>
Subject: Re: Public Hearing - Its Time To Shut Down Aging  San Onofre
  Nuclear Plant!

Newsletter of Scams, Hoaxes, Infiltration, & Terrorism; Volume 1, Issue #3

(1) Letter to Tanya Winter regarding tomorrow's San Onofre hearings
(3): Anti-nuclear activists tell state regulators to abandon San Onofre
(4): Public Hearings TOMORROW (May 17th, 2005)
(5): Contact information for Russell Hoffman, Editor

(1) Letter to Tanya Winter regarding tomorrow's San Onofre hearings:
To: "Tanja Winter" <>; cc:

May 16th, 2005

Dear Tanya,

Thank you for sending out the notice from Shirley Vaine regarding the California Public Utilities Commission's San Onofre Steam Generator Replacement Project hearings tomorrow.

However, your subscribers should be asked to DEMAND A SHUTDOWN of San Onofre, which is NOT the same as to "Urge conservation & renewable energy sources" as stated in your letter (shown below).

It's probably what the vast majority of them want to say anyway, so why not be frank with them and let them run with it?  Please don't play politics with this issue!

Also, you might also want to warn your readers that they will be told the CPUC has no authority to regulate safety of nuclear power plants, which is ridiculous, but it's what they'll hear.  I have it in writing from the CPUC from earlier this month, and we heard it claimed again last Thursday.

Below, I have enclosed an article about how last week's hearings went, from the North County Times.   As I did last week, I will be handing out copies of my new book about San Onofre, which was quoted or referenced by at least four speakers at last week's hearing's (not including myself).  (If you will not be at the hearings tomorrow, I'll be happy to send you a copy.)  I'll have several hundred copies on hand at the hearings.

In any event, thank you again for sending out notification of this upcoming last day of hearings on the "DEIR".  I don't think SCE will be able to "drown us out" thanks to your help!

Lastly, I have also included, below, a copy of a letter by Sidney Goodman, P.E., M.S.M.E., Professional Engineer, to the Union of Concerned Scientists.   As I did last week, I'll have a copy of his incredible book on hand, along with 20 or 30 other important, historic, classic and rare books about nuclear energy at the hearings, for people to look at.


Russell D. Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA


----- Original Message -----
From: Sidney Goodman
Sent: 5/12/2005 8:29:57 PM
Subject: Nuclear power

I think the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is mistaken in thinking
that nuclear plants are acceptable if they are only made safer.

The problem is that people are not safe enough for nuclear power.

The imperfection of people, their greed, stupidity, deceit,  and corruption is the
root cause of nuclear power problems.

The  degree of perfection that is really required to assure health and safety is
beyond the realistic attainment of human beings, industrial equipment,
and adequate design.

While I admire most of what UCS has done and is doing, the failure to
address the following is very disturbing.

Failure to insist on the abolition of the Price Anderson Act, a federal law
which abolishes everyone's property rights to protect the property
rights of nuclear utilities.

Failure to focus on the serious net energy yield problems of nuclear
plants. Swept under the rug, with fraud and deceit that makes Watergate
look like small apples.

Failure to emphasize that nuclear plants do consume and  burn
large [quantities] of fossil fuel.

Failure to insist on no-fly zones over nuclear plants.  Yet, there are
no-fly zones over Disneyland and Disney World.   Mickey Mouse
is protected better than the rest of us.

Failure to mention the health toll of Chernobyl, where Ukrainian health officials
have treated more than a million victims for radiation illness.

Failure to focus on the victims of TMI, more than a thousand of whom have
been harmed.

It also disappoints that the UCS failed to  mention the
book I wrote, "Asleep at the Geiger Counter".  This book has been endorsed by
Dr. Helen Caldicott. the Nuclear Information Resource Service, and four
small safe energy groups.

One safe energy advocate has a library of books on nuclear power.  He
told me that mine is the best of the lot. Yet, no publicity.

Not a single major media newspaper or magazine has been willing to
do a book review.  This has reduced the circulation of this teach-in
book (written for the layman) to a microscopic level.  Too bad.
Much of what is in the book is exactly what UCS has been advocating
throughout the years, except for  acceptance of nuclear power on the
premise that it can be made safe,  when it can't be, not ever.

The advocates of nuclear power belong to the Union of
Unconcerned Scientists.

Sidney J. Goodman, P.E., M.S.M.E.
Professional Engineer
NJ license # 15326
158 Grandview Lane
Mahwah, NJ 07430
(201) 327-5158
(973) 616-7300 (laboratory - work)

Sidney Goodman
EarthLink Revolves Around You.

(3): Anti-nuclear activists tell state regulators to abandon San Onofre:

Subject: Re: Anti-nuclear activists tell state regulators to abandon San Onofre

to: Molly Johnson <>

Hi Molly,

I gave out about 50 copies of my new book at the affair, and will print up many more for next week.  Of course, next week they'll know I'll be there!  I'd like to send you some copies -- please give me an address to send them to [actually, Molly's address appears below and the copy has been sent].

Paul Sisson (the writer of the article below) interviewed me (I had set up a table while no one was looking in the room, and no one made me take it down) but didn't mention me.  But at least he had to agree that what the citizens were calling for was a shut-down!  The session next week, which the other local activists have all focused on to the exclusion of yesterday's session (only CREED sent people, plus Sharon and I), is not "official".  There will be no secretary writing down what is said and it will not become part of the official record.  Thus, the activists were hoodwinked (again -- second time in two weeks)!  But in a way it's good this time, and will work out okay in the end, because I can pretty much guarantee that next week's sessions will have some very strong SCE presence. Three SCE supporters spoke yesterday (two in the evening, one in the afternoon).  Next time there will probably be 20 of them, to drown us out.


Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

At 01:22 PM 5/13/2005 -0700, Molly Johnson wrote:
And we should be saying the same thing to PG&E in regards to Diablo
Canyon.   Shut it down! Now!  Molly

Friday, May 13, 2005
Last modified Friday, May 13, 2005 12:07 AM PDT
Anti-nuclear activists tell state regulators to abandon San Onofre

By: PAUL SISSON - Staff Writer

SAN CLEMENTE ---- Opponents of nuclear energy told state regulators they
should forget about repairing the San Onofre power plant and focus on
safer ways to produce electricity at a special workshop Thursday

"Clean and sustainable energy is feasible now ... we do not have to extend
the life of this dangerous machine," said David Perlman, a member of the
Angeles chapter of the Sierra Club.

The California Public Utilities Commission held two public workshops in
San Clemente on Thursday to talk about an environmental impact report on
replacing four massive steam generators at the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, which is 17 miles north of Oceanside.

Thousands of tiny pipes inside the generators that help transfer the heat
of nuclear fission into nonradioactive steam are cracking, forcing the
plant to replace them or shut down by 2009.

In order to replace the 650-ton generators, Southern California Edison
must get permission from the public utilities commission. California law
requires the commission to perform an environmental impact report to
identify every way that removing the old generators and installing new
ones could harm the environment.

The commission hired San Francisco-based Aspen Environmental Group to
write the report, which concludes that replacing the steam generators will
not cause any negative effects that cannot be fixed.

However, nearly everyone who spoke Thursday said the report misses the
point, saying that Aspen did not consider the effects that replacing the
generators would have on San Onofre's ability to continue operating after
its existing license runs out in 2022.

Kathryn DeRusso of San Clemente argued that allowing Southern California
Edison to replace the steam generators would make it much easier for the
utility to eventually win a license extension from the Nuclear Regulatory

"This is going to happen because of entrenched interests, not our
interests," DeRusso said. "Edison, you should take that billion dollars
and put it into renewables."

Jon Davidson, vice president of Aspen Environmental Group, confirmed that
the 650-page environmental impact report does not address the potential
costs of continuing to operate San Onofre beyond 2022. He said the
document focuses only on the plant's current licensed operation because
Edison has not yet asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license

However, Davidson agreed that repairing the steam generators could help
Edison if it does ask for a new license.

"Putting in the steam generators would benefit relicensing (because) it
would be one less obstacle they would have to consider," Davidson said.

Though most said the plant's failing steam generators presented an
opportunity for Southern California to turn away from nuclear power, one
San Clemente resident took the podium to defend the 2,200-megawatt plant.

Don Ritchie, noting that he lives close enough to San Onofre to see the
blinking red warning lights atop the plant's towering containment domes,
said he does not fear nuclear catastrophe or the radioactive waste stored

"I haven't had the tiniest concern," Ritchie said. "As far as I'm
concerned, if they want to put in a Unit 3, it's fine with me."

Though many who spoke Thursday called for fewer nuclear plants and more
renewable energy, the environmental document concludes that replacing the
amount of electricity generated at San Onofre with sun, wind and other
forms of "green" power would not be feasible.

The public can still comment on Aspen's draft environmental impact report
until May 31. The report can be viewed on the public utility commission's
Web site at Comments can be mailed to: Aspen
Environmental Group, 235 Montgomery St., Ste. 935, San Francisco CA,
94104. Comments can also be emailed to or faxed to
(949) 203-6410.

Contact staff writer Paul Sisson at (760) 901-4087 or

Ever stop to think, and forget to start again?
Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot, either!
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Jack Kevorkian for White House physician.
Stop repeat offenders. Don't re-elect them!

Molly P Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place,San Miguel, CA 93451
805 467-2431

(4): Public Hearings TOMORROW (May 17th, 2005):

At 09:58 PM 5/15/2005 -0700, Tanya Winter wrote:

Time To Shut Down Aging  San Onofre Nuclear Plant!
Public Hearings
Tues May 17, 1-3 pm Oceanside,   7-9pm San Clemente
Please take the time to let the California Public Utilities Commission know that continued operation of a nuclear plant, which daily produces high-level radioactive waste, is not in the best interest of ratepayers.
Urge conservation & renewable energy sources.

Together we can stop the production of millions of additional pounds of high-level radioactive waste on California's coast

May 17th 1-3 p.m. at the Oceanside Library
330 N. Coast Hwy Oceanside, CA
and 7-9 p.m. at the San Clemente Inn 2600 Avenida de Presente San Clemente, Ca., you will have the opportunity to speak out to protect your children, your homes and your businesses from the risks resulting from millions of additional pounds of radioactive waste on our coast. This lethal waste will be stored at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Your opportunity to influence the future is on:


Your presence could end the fear of a nuclear nightmare at the San Onofre Nuclear Station. The draft Environmental Impact Report addressing steam generator replacement at San Onofre ignores the fact that this nuclear facility will operate for an addition 10-30 years if these expensive generators are replaced; adding the following risks:

1) Additional years of operation means an additional 10-30 years of risk of a catastrophic radioactive release due to accident, earthquakes, tsunamis, and/or acts of malice or terrorism.

2) It also means an additional 10-30 years of radioactive waste production and storage, sitting precariously on California's earthquake active and vulerable coast.

3) The project is opposed by SDG&E because the utility does not believe it is in the best interest of its ratepayers. This could leave Edison customers paying SDG&E's share of costs or SDG&E customers paying for un-wanted costly new steam generators and other costly replacements.

4) Edison must cut a 28 by 28 foot hole in each reactor to replace the steam generators. This would leave the southern coast of California extremely vulnerable during the replacement process.

5) Losses of property due to a radioactive release, whether homes or businesses, are excluded under all insurance policies.

6) The alternative of using non-nuclear replacement sources of energy would create new jobs, new property taxes, a cessation of nuclear waste production and new clean industries for our state. California could be the leader of conservation and renewable energy resources, as it is in stem cell research.

7) State governments have the right and the responsibility to deny project on grounds of economic viability. In California the Humboldt and Rancho Seco nuclear plants were shut down years ago.

If an accident resulted during the additional 10-30 years of operation from this proposed project, the 7th largest economy in the world would be devastated. For example the World Health Organization's 2002 study of Chernobyl states: two thousand cases of thyroid cancer have been diagnosed among young people exposed to radioactive iodine in April and May 1986; conservative estimates state that this figure is expected to rise to 8-10,000 over the coming years; a Ukrainian national report estimates that 15 years after the Chernobyl Catastrophe, the Soviet Union spent between 1986-1991 $18 billion on Chernobyl restoration; restrictions on land-use were implemented and many remain in effect today; several hundred thousand people were resettled; at present between 150,000 and 200,000 people permanently reside in so-called highly contaminated territories; Ukrainian figures estimate the number of people designated as permanently disabled by the Chernobyl accident (and their children) increased from 200 in 1991 to 64, 500 in 1997 and 91,219 in 2001; the Republic of Belarus estimates that losses over 30 years following the accident will amount to $235 billion; and the Ukrainian government estimates the loss as $148 billion over the period from 1986 to 2000.

8) Nuclear power is subsidized from mining, enriching, transport, insurance (mostly benefiting utilities), and eventual disposal. It is the only industry in the world incapable of finding insurance coverage.

9) The National Academy of Scientists has recently released a study regarding the vulnerability of nuclear plants and onsite storage of high-level radioactive waste. The conclusions are that nuclear plants are not adequately protecting radioactive waste, that Yucca Mountain is not and will never be a safe place to store radioactive materials, and that the dangers of transport make it imperative that nuclear materials be stored and safeguarded at reactor sites.

10) Finally the nuclear workforce is an aging workforce and one that does not attract highly qualified new employees. The number of students majoring in nuclear engineering in college is dramatically less than a few decades ago. As these plants continue to age, will we be able to depend on the technical knowledge of workers to operate and maintain these plants for decades into the future?

California has waited over a quarter of a century for a solution to the problems presented by lethal radioactive waste storage on our coast. We must not continue with the charade that this deadly material is going "somewhere else". We must, we can, stop the further production of this radioactive material.

Nuclear power is an experiment whose time has come to an end. We will not continue to prosper as a state if we do not begin to close down our aging nuclear plants and replace them with alternative methods of power generation.

Please take the time to let the California Public Utilities Commission know that continued operation of a nuclear plant, which daily produces high-level radioactive waste, is not in the best interest of ratepayers.

For more info: ===============================================
Networking for Socia Justice
When we live in awareness, it is easy to see miracles everywhere.
                                    Thich Nhat Hanh
To be removed, reply with the subject word "remove".

(5): Contact information for Russell Hoffman: