January 6th, 2007
Dear Readers,
Pronukers are becoming rabidly covetous of their claim that nuclear energy is "green."
They've made that claim many times before -- it's nothing new. It didn't stick then, and it won't stick now. Nuclear power is the dirtiest form of energy available, and the people pushing it are the sleaziest polluters on the planet. They LOVE the fact that their pollutant is odorless, colorless, tasteless, and difficult to measure accurately, either in the body or in the environment.
An example of the intensity with which a typical modern pronuker -- in this case Ralph Andrews, of Nuclear Green -- tries to defend his specious claim that nukes are green is shown below, along with my responses.
I suspect I'll get a bunch more flames in this series, such as the one that appears at the bottom of this email, but Mr. Andrews has proven he isn't capable of defending nuclear power in any meaningful way, and nor is his friend Scott Haeberlin. They are very good are repeating the old dogma, and at giving the old fox a new set of sheep's clothing: The idea that nukes can save humanity from "global warming." They'll bet YOUR life on it.
Sincerely,
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
=================================================================
Ralph Andrews' opening salvo:
=================================================================
At 10:41 AM 1/5/2007 -0800, Ralph Andrews <
ralph@nucleargreen.org > wrote (no subject):
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
From: ralph andrews <ralph@nucleargreen.org>
Subject:
You are definitely a group of sick and
dangerous people. The ONLY way we can ever end global warming is with hundreds of new nuclear power plants. There are now 441 plants in the world, and all of them have been operating without a single fatality or injury related to their reactors. This does not include the more than a dozen nuclear powered ships of the US Navy. Approximately 30,000 sailors are actually living inside of those ships (nuclear power plants) without any incidences whatsoever.
If you really want to know the
truth (look up that word in your dictionary) read my new book, NUCLEAR GREEN. I'll be happy to send you a complimentary copy if you would promise to actually read it.
I'll be happy to debate you on one of my many media appearances.....if you dare!
Ralph Andrews
PS If you won't accept my book as a gift, you can purchase one at Amazon.com or Borders.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Russell 'Ace' Hoffman wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Andrews,
I've read a lot of pro-nuclear books. None were announced with a libelous letter from their author before, though. That's a first.
I'll accept and read your book AFTER you've read my tritium article which I prepared last year. The URL is at the bottom of this email, above my address. I'll caution you not to be flippant or quick in responding to it, since a lot of highly qualified scientists already HAVE looked at it. None have disproved its assertions.
But if you have a fair go (it's much shorter than a book), then I'll have a look at your material and offer a critique.
As for the 30,000 sailors you claim are safe, scuttlebutt among Navy families I've met (and I've met a few, especially living here in San Diego) is that brain cancers, leukemias, and other health effects are RAMPANT among retired U.S. nuke submariners. It's much worse in Russia, and so are their disposal methods for old nuke subs. It is, of course, unlikely that the Navy would commission, let alone release, ANY relevant study.
My tritium article is currently being used by a lot of activists where tritium has leaked excessively around nuclear reactors, to help them express the problem in real numbers. I am confident that it will be through the legal system that we (the people) WILL shut the Nuclear Mafia down. You can write all the libel you want; but people ARE dying, and our DNA is being damaged, from Chernobyl, which your letter completely forgot about, and from our own MANY American accidents and spills. Nuclear power kills babies every day. Just like with second-hand cigarette smoke, all of these deaths will eventually be counted properly, and something will have to be done.
Thanks in advance for any rational, technical, PROVABLE comments you are willing to stand by regarding the tritium article, and I hope the libel, at least, will cease immediately.
Sincerely,
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
At 10:41 AM 1/5/2007 -0800, ralph andrews <ralph@nucleargreen.org> wrote:
You are definitely a group of sick and dangerous people. The ONLY way we can ever end global warming is with hundreds of new nuclear power plants. There are now 441 plants in the world, and all of them have been operating without a single fatality or injury related to their reactors. This does not include the more than a dozen nuclear powered ships of the US Navy. Approximately 30,000 sailors are actually living inside of those ships (nuclear power plants) without any incidences whatsoever.
If you really want to know the truth (look up that word in your dictionary) read my new book, NUCLEAR GREEN. I'll be happy to send you a complimentary copy if you would promise to actually read it.
I'll be happy to debate you on one of my many media appearances.....if you dare!
Ralph Andrews
PS If you won't accept my book as a gift, you can purchase one at Amazon.com or Borders.com
--------------------------------------------------------
Please visit these additional web sites (all created by "Ace" Hoffman):
--------------------------------------------------------
POISON FIRE USA: An animated history of major nuclear activities in the continental United States, including over 1500 data points, accurately placed in time and space:
www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf
How does a nuclear power plant work? Animations of PWRs and BWRs, praised by BOTH pro-nuker and anti-nuke experts for their technical accuracy:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/nukequiz/nukequiz_one/nuke_parts/reactor_parts.swf
Internet Glossary of Nuclear Terminology / "The Demon Hot Atom," a look at the history of nuclear power:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/index.htm
NO NUKES IN SPACE (what was on board Columbia?):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.swf
or try:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.html
SCE Memo / One Bad Day At San Onofre (roll mouse over ONE BAD DAY and leave it there for a minute or two to watch an animation of several disastrous events take place at San Onofre):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2005/sce_memo/sce_memo_2004.html
List of every nuclear power plant in America, with history, activist orgs,
specs, etc.:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist.htm
List of ~300 books and videos about nuclear issues in my collection
(donations welcome!):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/mybooks.htm
Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm
Depleted Uranium: The Malignant Bullet:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/du/dumb.html
Animated Periodic Table of the Elements:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/apt.html
Selected Pump Animations with full frame control:
www.animatedsoftware.com/elearning/ProductDemos/FourPumpGroups/FourPumpGroups.html
"All About Pumps" educational software tutorial:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/elearning/All%20About%20Pumps/aapumps.swf
"Statistics Explained" educational software tutorial:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/elearning/Statistics%20Explained/statexpl.swf
"The Heart: The Engine of Life" educational tutorial about the human heart, originally written in 1984 and released for the first time in 1986:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/elearning/Engine%20of%20Life/eolife.swf
All four of the educational products require passwords to be entered once:
ZINC (for the Animated Periodic Table)
MR. PUMP (for All About Pumps)
ANOVA (for Statistics Explained)
AORTA (for The Engine of Life)
The above four programs also ask for a "login ID," but that can be anything in the current releases.
A few more cool pumps I've animated:
Piston Rotary PD Pump:
http://tinyurl.com/e6zjn
Rotating Spindle Pump:
http://tinyurl.com/zo3bo
Tritium Explained (why "Low Level Radiation" can be disproportionately harmful):
http://animatedsoftware.com/environment/tritium/2006/EPATritiumStandard.htm
========================================================
The next day, two more letters from Ralph Andrews and one from one of his fans come in:
========================================================
At 11:14 AM 1/6/2007 -0800, ralph andrews <ralph@nucleargreen.org>wrote:
My dear "Ace:"
You've picked the wrong card for your nickname. Instead of the "Ace" a more appropriate nickname would have been the "Joker."
Thank you for your tired diatribe. I've read it all before. Lies, scare tactics, exaggerations and fantasy won't stop nuclear power from becoming the ONLY source of energy on this endangered planet. You're attempting to swim upstream against the overwhelming current of truth. You're on the wrong side of the most important issue facing the world today.
I do appreciate, however, the fact that you are passionate about your position, however wrong that position may be. It is always refreshing to hear from people who genuinely care about something.
With kindest regards,
Ralph Andrews
==============================================================
Ralph Andrews' third letter to me:
==============================================================
At 04:18 PM 1/6/2007 -0800, ralph andrews <ralph@nucleargreen.org> wrote:
I have read your treatise and found it seriously flawed. Now it's
your turn to read my book.
I passed your email on to my friend who is a nuclear engineer with
many years in the nuclear power industry, and has also written a book
on the subject. The following is his response: (Incidentally, how
many times have you visited a nuclear power plant...I mean the inside
of one, not picketing one?)
Ralph,
I have to admit his series of statements is a pretty big load of
“stuffâ€. I do wonder if he can get this excited about what he
thinks is 2 out of ten million why isn’t he spending all his time on
the much more clearly documentable 1 out of 21,000 per year caused by
drunk drivers. That is nearly 15,000 people every year hey, worry
about something that matters, O.K.
For what it is worth tritium is about the most trivial of all
radioactive materials. It is only mildly radioactive, has a soft
beta, and is transmitted through the human body very rapidly, i.e. it
don’t stay in you very long.
Some time back I got a question from a University of Chicago
instructor on the tritium leaks from commercial power plants.
Attached as a word file is the question and my answer that you might
like to have for background information.
Keep up the good fight.
Scott

I have read your treatise and found it seriously flawed. Now it's your turn to read my book.
I passed your email on to my friend who is a nuclear engineer with many years in the nuclear power industry, and has also written a book on the subject. The following is his response: (Incidentally, how many times have you visited a nuclear power plant...I mean the inside of one, not picketing one?)
Ralph,
I have to admit his series of statements is a pretty big load of “stuff”. I do wonder if he can get this excited about what he thinks is 2 out of ten million why isn’t he spending all his time on the much more clearly documentable 1 out of 21,000 per year caused by drunk drivers. That is nearly 15,000 people every year – hey, worry about something that matters, O.K.
For what it is worth tritium is about the most trivial of all radioactive materials. It is only mildly radioactive, has a soft beta, and is transmitted through the human body very rapidly, i.e. it don’t stay in you very long.
Some time back I got a question from a University of Chicago instructor on the tritium leaks from commercial power plants. Attached as a word file is the question and my answer that you might like to have for background information.
Keep up the good fight.
Scott
Subject: Ralph Andrew's Tritium attachment 20070106
Question: Braidwood Reactor Tritium Leak
Dear Mr. Heaberlin, My name is Kathleen XXXX. I am a graduate student of economics at the University of Illinois, Chicago, where I also teach a freshman seminar entitled Energy & Society. On the reading list this year is your book A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity. Using your book and also Svetlana Alexievich’s Voices from Chernobyl the students have very thoughtfully struggled with the question of whether nuclear power has a place in our energy future, and most of them have reached the conclusion that it does. They are convinced by your argument that nuclear power is essentially safe. Today, however, one of the students brought in a recent news article about leaks of radioactive tritium from the Braidwood nuclear power plant here in Illinois. The students were concerned to hear that in fact there are confirmed leaks of radioactive tritium that have occurred. Just what is this radioactive tritium? How does it leak out of power plants that we’ve convinced ourselves are safe? And how has there been an ongoing problem with these leaks since 1996? I’ve done a little research and I can’t answer these questions for myself. I wonder if you might be willing to help us. There are a few questions:
Can you explain at what point in the power generation process this tritium escapes? I read that it has leaked from an underground pipeline. Where is this pipeline going? What is it taking away? We’ve taken some time to understand how nuclear power plants work, but this is new information.
Can you tell us how serious a concern this is? Is the technology safe, or is it leaky and dangerous?
Is there sufficient regulation and oversight to protect against problems like this?
I will very much appreciate any help you can offer. I agree with your assertion that the public must reconsider its position of opposition to nuclear power, but this type of confusing information is just what makes that difficult. A brief email from you clarifying this question would be incredibly helpful. I look forward to your reply. Please let me know if I can provide you with any additional information. Best, Kathleen XXXX Graduate Student, Economics University of Illinois, Chicago
Answer:
Kathleen,
I was delighted to get your e-mail. You and your students are exactly who my book was written for. I was attempting to target intelligent, open-minded people who were honestly interested and ready to fairly judge the issues but had not been given sufficient information nor context to make those judgments. It is very gratifying to see the book in your hands.
You have raised a good question. I followed the incident at the time, but once it was clear the environmental problem was small and the public response was not going to be disproportionate I did not study it carefully. Your question gave me the opportunity to go back and research a bit further. If you wish to do some more independent study the NRC home page at HYPERLINK "
http://www.nrc.gov/"
http://www.nrc.gov/ has a tab specifically on tritium releases with a number of items. Unfortunately, a lot of this is either short on science or long on regulatory issues, so I will not abandon you to that source alone.
If in the following I offend anyone in starting out too simply, let me just offer you the opportunity to get a running start on the subject.
To your questions:
Can you explain at what point in the power generation process this tritium escapes? I read that it has leaked from an underground pipeline. Where is this pipeline going? What is it taking away? We’ve taken some time to understand how nuclear power plants work, but this is new information.
Let me start way back with how atoms are built. As you know atoms contain electrons, protons, and neutrons. Electrons swirl around the outside of the atoms while neutrons and protons are found in the nucleus at the very center. The number of protons and electrons are the same in order to achieve electrical charge balance. That number is called the atomic number and determines which element the atom is. An atom with one proton is hydrogen. If two protons it is helium, and so on. All atoms of a given element will have the same chemical properties. This makes sense because chemistry is all about the behavior of electrons, and the number of electrons is unique for each element.
The number of neutrons can vary for any given element. Hydrogen can have no neutrons, one neutron, or two neutrons. If it has none it is normal hydrogen we are most familiar with. If it has one neutron it is deuterium. While behaving chemically just like normal hydrogen, deuterium has different nuclear properties. For example, normal hydrogen likes to absorb neutrons while deuterium already having a neutron is much less likely to absorb neutrons. If a hydrogen atom has two neutrons it is tritium. Again, it is chemical just like normal hydrogen but its nuclear properties are even more different. The most noticeable difference is while both normal hydrogen and deuterium are stable, tritium is radioactive. That is its nuclear structure is unstable and it wants to revert to a more stable form. It does that by ejecting a beta particle, that is an electron, and converting its “extra” neutron into a proton. The tritium atom then becomes helium-3, which is a stable but rare form of helium with one less than the normal two neutrons for helium.
O.K., that is what tritium is. How do we get it in nuclear reactors and how does it get out? If you recall from the book when we were describing how to build a nuclear power reactor we noted that if you are going to run the reactor for one or more years on a fuel charge you have to put in a bit more fissile material that just that required to support a self-sustaining chain reaction. We control that extra fuel by employing neutron absorbing materials which are withdrawn slowly as the fuel gets used up over time. One of the best ways to do this is to dissolve boron, an excellent neutron absorber, directly in the cooling water to be circulated in the reactor. The boron is in the form of boric acid. While this is a mild acid, the water chemistry of the cooling water is very carefully controlled to limit corrosion in the reactor systems so this acid is balanced with a buffering agent. What is used is lithium hydroxide. About 7.5% of natural lithium is lithium 6 which has one less neutron that the more common lithium 7. If you smack a lithium 6 atom with a neutron you will get a tritium atom and a alpha particle which is a nucleus of a normal helium atom. If it helps that looks like Li-6 + n = He-4 + T-3. Which means you start with three protons and three neutrons in the lithium 6, add one neutron and get two neutrons and two protons in the helium and one proton and two neutrons in the tritium, so it all balances, three protons and four neutrons on each side.
Since there is a lot of neutrons zipping about in the reactor and a little bit of lithium 6 in the cooling water by operating the power reactor we make a small amount of tritium. In answering the next question I will explain more about the biological hazard of tritium, but it is sufficient to say here that for the operation of the power plant you do not want a lot of tritium building up in the primary coolant. When it comes time for refueling you take the lid off the reactor and the cooling water is exposed to the air within the containment building You do not want a high level of tritium in that water to be a radiological hazard to your workers. The solution is from time to time drain some of the water from the primary coolant and replace it with fresh water. That water that is drained is mixed with a large volume of other water and discharged from the plant into a larger yet body of water. If this seems like dumping your toxins into the public’s water ways, you have to understand a little about toxic things in general. Toxins are harmful only if you are exposed to too much of the substance. An example might be alcohol. The little amount used to dissolve your dose of cough syrup is not going to harm you. However, a binge drinker that takes on 20 times that amount may well depress their respiratory function to the point of death. Again, I will address the biological hazard of tritium in a bit, but the point here is if you dilute tritium sufficiently it is an insignificant health hazard.
Now what happened at the Braidwood power station was the occasional drain of primary water was mixed with cooling water going to the Kankakee River. In this five mile pipe were a number of vacuum breaker valves. Several times in past years a few of these valves leaked resulting in large losses of water into ground on the power plant site. While of some concern at the time they were not particularly worried about environment issues since this was just water. However, the in 2005 the State of Illinois inspectors detected elevated tritium in the ground water. The utility and later the Nuclear Regulatory Commission responded with a much more intensive environmental testing program and found tritium in the ground water on site and that some small amount of tritium had gotten off site.
Can you tell us how serious a concern this is? Is the technology safe, or is it leaky and dangerous?
The first part of the answer is to understand the nature of the radioactive decay of tritium and the biological hazard that represents. From my book you will remember the concept of half life. This is the amount of time it takes for a radioactive material to lose half its atoms to decay. If that value is small, say hours or days, it is going to be very radioactive giving off a lot of radiation, but it is going to go away pretty fast. Tritium has a half life of 12.3 years. That means it is not intensely radioactive, but it is going to last a while. The next thing is the nature of the radiation. Tritium gives off a relatively low energy beta particle. This is an electron ejected to convert that extra neutron into a proton. The good news here is that this means it is not an external threat. As long as tritium is outside of you, it is quite safe. Beta particles just do not penetrate. A single sheet of paper or even the dead layer of skin on your body is sufficient to block them. Tritium is used in glow in the dark watch dials, self powered exit signs, and even in runway lighting systems without hazard to the public. However, if you get a beta emitter inside you, that is not good. Since a beta particle is an electron with a strong electrical charge it can ionize organic chemicals inside your and create toxic chemicals like hydrogen peroxide by breaking up your internal water. For tritium there are two bit of good news, however. First the energy of the beta given off by tritium is pretty weak so its effects are not as strong as other radioactive materials. Second, and this is the big one, since tritium gets in as tritiated water is does not stay in a person very long. The human body uses and exchanges water at a fairly rapid rate. The biological half life of tritium is ten days. That means if you get a dose of tritium in your within ten days half of what you took in is gone. Furthermore, if you know you have been exposed you can significantly accelerate that rate by drinking a lot of water and/or taking diuretics, something as simple as tea.
As to the Braidwood release we can jump to the conclusion section of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission report “LIQUID RADIOACTIVE RELEASE LESSONS LEARNED TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT, September 1, 2006:
3.1.3 Conclusions
The review of the public health and environmental impact of liquid radioactive effluent releases, as described above, leads to the following conclusions:
(1) Based on bounding dose calculations and/or actual measurements, the near-term public health impacts have been negligible for the events at NRC-licensed operating power facilities discussed in this report. These events released radioactively contaminated liquids to the onsite/offsite environment in an unplanned, unmonitored manner.
I could give you all the numbers, but let me just summarize the data by saying that the highest offsite concentration was more than an order of magnitude below the drinking water standard, which is set to limit the public dose to less than 1% of natural background radiation which is at least thirty time less than the level of observable harm to humans. Point being it was a long way from anything bad happening.
So back to the question. This release was not dangerous. The dilution of the already small concentration of tritium made the release to the ground water not a very big deal. It was certainly a screw up in that the water was suppose to get to the Kankakee River and be diluted to essentially invisible levels and it got out first. It was also a screw up that they knew they had leaked a lot of water but it did not strike them that the slight concentration of tritium in that water might lead to a problem in the ground water around and off the power plant site. Again, it turned out the problem was not a true health hazard, but they missed it all the same.
Is there sufficient regulation and oversight to protect against problems like this?
This is a very good question and the answer has to be a bit judgmental and subjective. The easy answer is that in the initial sense both the utility and the regulatory oversight failed at the time of the first release to realize this was a problem. So it that sense while there were regulations saying don’t do this, the oversight was lacking. The next observation was the thing that was missed in the final assessment turns out to not be much actual concern, so how bad was the lacking oversight? The more gratifying thing to observe is the utility and NRC response to this event. The utility took on a very aggressive sampling program and developed a major corrective action program owning up to errors they made and taking strong steps to fix them. The NRC not only looked at this specific event but ask a lot of question of themselves along the lines of, “if we missed this one, what does that mean about our program and where else have we got problems like this we need to fix?” If you look at the NRC website, you will see a lot of that consideration. So in the end I come away with a pretty good feeling about the regulatory system and oversight. Sure, it isn’t perfect and since humans are engaged there are always going to be some shortcomings, however, those humans engaged in the process are active, looking for any shortcomings and always trying to make it better. It is about all I can ask of people.
I hope you find this useful. Feel free to write again if this fails to answer your questions or if you come up with others things I could help you on.
Scott
=======================================================
My response to Ralph Andrews' second letter:
=======================================================
To: "Ralph Andrews" <ralph@nucleargreen.org>
Subject: Re: Tritium, etc.
January 6th, 2007
Mr. Andrews,
Passed it on to a "nuclear engineer?" Does he know microbiology, too>? And what in the world in it was too difficult for YOU to handle, Mr. Andrews? Do admit to your weak spots, because you said YOU knew stuff that would change my mind! But you immediately deferred to others when I got a little technical (even though that tritium article was specifically written so that lay people like yourself could follow along and understand it).
You libel me, but yet you can't prove you know ANYTHING which justifies even the IDEA that your libel was at least a PROFESSIONAL OPINION. In fact, you're clearly saying IT WASN'T. And from Scott's comments, it would appear that you forwarded your libel of me, to him. Interesting. And not ABOUT to be forgotten.
But while you're on your little power trip, please don't waste anyone's time pretending your buddy Scott's response is any kind of scientifically credible answer. It is not. But don't worry: I'll be sending his comments (and yours) to a few dozen scientists myself, soon (and more than a few media and government officials). Some of the people I'll send this out to are nuclear engineers, others are biologists, physicians, lawyers and so on. They'll have a good laugh at your and Scott's weak pabulum. I doubt your friend even read past my summary statement, anyway, since if he had, he would know that I fully address every relevant issue he brings up, from biological half-lives to the sheer and utter fallacy of the claim that tritium is harmless because it is considered a "low energy" beta decay.
So you have not made it suddenly be my turn to read your book. Not at all.
Rather, you have admitted that you have not studied that which you claim to understand.
I hope you'll begin "the good fight" soon.
But until you fulfill my request for a scientific critique (that YOU will sign off on, because YOU understand it), this garbage is over. Post my tritium article at your web site and then let ALL your "experts" actually explain WHY they think it is wrong. If you find a scientist to refute my tritium article, and that person writes a book, I certainly PROMISE I'll read THAT book! But clearly there is no reason to read your book, since you have already given up proving you know enough to answer my document, and libeled me while doing so.
But again, feel free to send it if you like. At least I might use it as a historical (and hysterical) reference some day.
Oh and, unless Scott gives us his full name and affiliation, he is not taking responsibility for his comments. You seem completely baffled by what is reasonable (and lawful) and what is not.
But that's why our side will win. Because your side can only remain in power illegally and immorally.
And by the way: My tritium essay makes it clear that I only examined tritium as an EXAMPLE. All other radioactive substances are undoubtedly ALSO several orders of magnitude more dangerous than you are able to comprehend.
Sincerely,
Ace Hoffman
P.S. I was given the nickname "Ace" by a friend after winning a forced and absolutely serious game of "chicken" against a suicidal, homicidal, and probably drunk driver. And I have spent THOUSANDS OF HOURS fighting against drunk driving and related dangerous and suicidal tendencies. Don't go down that road, Ralph, you'll lose that battle, too, and quickly.
P.P.S. Dr. Lefteri Tsoukalas, head of nuclear engineering at Purdue University, also claimed to me that tritium was "harmless." So I wrote that article. Here's his response AFTER reading the tritium article, which included an offer of a residency at Purdue to study the problem: "You are raising very interesting questions to which I have been offering encyclopedic answers. It would be great to look at these in a systematic way." Now, Dr. Tsoukalas is certainly "pro-nuclear." But he's obviously much more of "scientist" than you are, because he has the good sense to question his assumptions. You've obviously made a lot of bad assumptions about me, as well as about nuclear power.
=======================================================
My response to Ralph Andrews' third letter:
=======================================================
To: ralph andrews <ralph@nucleargreen.org>
Subject: Re: Your libelous claims are utterly false
January 6th, 2007
Mr. Andrews,
Wow! You libeled me again! Twice in two letters (shown below). You really think you'd ever win a real debate that way?
You're a real piece of work, Mr. Andrews... You obviously are afraid of an honest debate, or at best, afraid you CAN'T answer my tritium article without showing your foolishness for all to see, permanently. Well, I don't blame you.
You're the joker, not me. I bet you haven't got the guts to print this exchange (including the link to my tritium article) at your web site. But your libel will be published at my web site, where I'm sure Google and Yahoo will find your name readily. That way, other activists won't have to bother with you next time.
You won't bother to learn the truth, despite your love of the word. I made you a very fair offer, considering the libel you've thrown at me without any justification whatsoever. You have not made a single correction to any fact at my web site. I'll be surprised if you ever do, but I guarantee that IF you find something for me to correct in anything I've ever written, I WILL make the correction.
You have your dream of what nuclear power can do, and you're afraid to learn anything that might prove you wrong. It is you, Sir, who is afraid of the truth. I spend my LIFE trying to find people who can disprove my hypothesis -- that nuclear power is bad. I search the world over, begging all to explain to me why nuclear power is safe. After more than 35 years of searching, I prepared that tritium article, and it has stood firm. Of course I could tear your book apart, but why bother? While you write "with kindest regards" and "My dear 'ace'" you libel me and show that you have absolutely ZERO respect for the fact that I have tried very hard to find an honest person on the pro-nuclear side with whom I can dialogue. You obviously only want to "slash and burn" -- fire off insult after insult, libel after libel, accusation after accusation -- and then leave. You never had any earnest interest in honest debate, that's perfectly obvious.
Or stop libeling me and answer -- technically and scientifically -- my tritium article. Prove it wrong. Tell the world how you would correct it. Find a wrong number SOMEWHERE (there may be one, I don't know). Or don't pretend you EVER tried to talk to me man-to-man.
You are arrogant and you have not earned it.
Sincerely,
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
URL for this exchange:
www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2007/RalphAndrews_NuclearGreen.html
=======================================================
Regarding Scott Heaberlin:
=======================================================
January 6th, 2007
Mr. Andrews,
Although you didn't identify who "Scott" was directly, from the information in the attachment, I realized it must be this guy:
A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity: (Or Why I Think Nuclear Power Is Cool and Why It Is Important That You Think So Too) by Scott W. Heaberlin
Please forward our entire correspondence to him. If he's got some concrete arguments against my tritium article, AFTER actually reading it, I'd be interested in hearing them. Otherwise, I've already answered, in that article, every comment he's made on the subject.
Sincerely,
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
=====================================================
Another party heard from:
=====================================================
At 11:30 PM 1/6/2007 -0500, Miramx1@aol.com wrote:
Subject: Re: Your claims are false
What a zero this guy Ace is. Dont worry about him Ralph. There's always one in the crowd.
---------------------------------------------------------------
My response:
---------------------------------------------------------------
And what sort of expert might you be, Miramx1, and what are you going to say to prove it?
========================================
Contact information for "Ace:"
========================================