Dear Readers,

Well, this is a first for my humble little newsletter -- a flaming email from a former member of the United States House of Representatives.  Gosh.

The entire correspondence (thus far?) is shown below.

Warmest regards,

Ace Hoffman

Carlsbad, CA

========================================

To: "Elizabeth Furse" <fursee@pdx.edu>

March 3rd, 2007

Dear Honorable Representative (former) Elizabeth Furse (D-OR),

Thank you again for your email (shown below with my original response, and related information), even if it was rude, erroneous, and libelous.  I believe open and frank communication is the best way that problems can be resolved.

And I'm sorry all I could do was leave a message on your answering machine when I called the number listed for your office at Portland State University's web site, where it says you're a professor now.

And -- just to let you know -- that's the LAST time I answer an email flame like yours without Googling the person's name FIRST...

But what are the chances I'd have ANOTHER run-in with ANOTHER upset Congressperson -- two in less than 15 months?  One in a million?  You and Randall "Duke" Cunningham (with whom I ALSO had a run-in, just days before he resigned from Congress) make quite a pair.  You were out for blood (with your "poison pen"), and so was he.  But at least in his case, I was just a nameless "constituent."  You, on the other hand, wish to destroy ME in order to protect Al Gore's hidden pro-nuclear agenda!  Somehow, that feels WORSE.  Who needs a sword (or a car) when you've got a pen (or a keyboard)?

The Nuclear Energy Institute, the dis-information arm of the nuclear industry, made a $34,500 PAC contribution to you while you were in Congress.

Why should I now believe you are objective on nuclear issues?  In fact, my guess is, the Nuclear Energy Institute thought pretty hard before handing you that kind of an "endorsement," especially since you were on the Energy and Power Subcommittee while you were in Congress.  Coincidence?  Unlikely.

Well, what would I expect from someone who thinks you MUSTN'T be just a little bit nuclear (so-called "mini-nukes," the most oxymoronic term I've ever heard) because it's immoral, but didn't stop the big stuff? You've poisoned my world, and now you're upset that I won't thank you for not poisoning it even more than you did?

When's the last time you thought about what a nuclear weapon of ANY size could do to a spent fuel pool, dry storage cask, nuke waste transport vehicle, or to the nuclear reactor, its control room, its backup generators, its operators, its pumps...

I suspect you're a closet pro-nuker (as opposed to someone like me, who should be described as "pro-DNA").  Am I right?

Thanks in advance for any light (or more heat) you can shed on this subject.

Ace Hoffman

Carlsbad, CA

====================================================

At 11:42 AM 3/2/2007 -0800, "Elizabeth Furse" <fursee@pdx.edu> wrote:

====================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Who Elizabeth Furse is...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

At stake is a 1993 law provision introduced by two Democrats in the House of Representatives - Elizabeth Furse and John Spratt.

The Furse-Spratt provision prohibits research and development that could lead to the production of nuclear weapons with an explosive yield of less than 5 kilotons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Nuclear Industry: A Cash Cow for Congress II

Polluter PAC Contributions, Radioactive Waste Disposal, and the House of Representatives

House Commerce Committee

Name District Total NEI Receipts

FURSE, ELIZABETH   OR01  $ 34,500.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Correspondence

Letter to Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith and Representatives Robert Smith, Peter DeFazio, Elizabeth Furse, Darlene Hooley, and Earl Blumenauer, dated September 11, 1998, concerns the proposed one-time shipment of the Trojan reactor vessel (Incoming dated August 17, 1998 also released)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In America; Life Before Roe

By BOB HERBERT

Bob Herbert Op-Ed column recounts former congresswoman Elizabeth Furse's ordeal trying to get legal abortion 40 years ago, before Roe v Wade; says people have forgotten great danger faced by women in those days; says now, with conservative administration in Washington and Republicans in control of Congress, Furse and others fear new assaults on reproductive rights of women;

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Development of a "mini-nuke" has been banned since 1993 when Reps. Elizabeth Furse (retired) and John Spratt (D-SC) ensured passage of a measure preventing the labs from doing design and development work on "mini-nukes." The House and Senate Armed Services Committees supported this 1993 ban.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Top House Recipients of Environmental PACs

1996 Election Cycle

1Elizabeth Furse (D-Ore) $23,269

Red type marks members of the House Commerce Committee.

Red italics shows members of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.

[ Note: Furse was both red and italics -- Ace ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Furse, Elizabeth

(503) 725-6426 670B UPA Public Administration - Urban & Public Affairs Professor

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Laying Low But Moving Ahead

Shortly after Bill Clinton entered the White House, Representatives John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Elizabeth Furse (D-Ore.) introduced an attachment to the FY 1994 defense authorization bill, prohibiting U.S. weapons labs from conducting any research and development on low-yield nuclear weapons. The measure, which was passed and signed into law by President Clinton, defined low-yield nukes as having a yield of five kilotons or less. All the micro-, mini- and tiny-nukes envisioned by Dowler and Howard were, in effect, placed in the deep freeze.

Or were they? In his prescient January 1993 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists piece, "Nuclear Junkies," Arkin had warned, "The programs are far from dead. Support for [mini-nukes] has spread like a virus, infecting the nuclear laboratories, the Air Force and the Navy, Strategic Command (formerly SAC), the Defense Nuclear Agency, and the Central and European Commands.... Nuclear enthusiasts publicly describe continued nuclear testing and research as a way for the labs to maintain 'nuclear competence' and to prevent technological surprise in the future­with the side-benefit of improving weapons safety. They say they have no hidden agenda.... But behind the traditional 'safety' advocates hide a new, post-Gulf War constituent­nuclear zealots intent on developing a new generation of small nuclear weapons designed for waging wars in the Third World."

Indeed, buried deep within the vast Pentagon bureaucracy, at least one mini-nuke program was carried all the way through, from research and development to field deployment, during the Clinton era. Greg Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group, penned a most revealing article in the June 1, 1997 Washington Post, under the headline, "The Birth of a New Bomb­Shades of Dr. Strangelove: Will We Learn to Love the B61-11?"

According to Mello, in October 1993, Harold Smith, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy, sought approval to develop an alternative to the B53 high-yield nuclear bomb, which was the principal "bunker buster" weapon in the U.S. arsenal. The B53 was also the heaviest payload nuke in use, weighing 8,900 pounds, and only deployable from the B-52 bombers.

Under the guise of "weapons modernization," Smith was pushing the development of the first mini-nuke, the B61-Mod 11.

By November 1993, despite Spratt-Furce, the Nuclear Weapons Command Standing Safety Committee had approved the B61-11 proposal. On Feb. 6, 1995, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch, a veteran of the Reed Panel advisory board, signed off on the plan. The project was placed on a fast track: On April 18, 1995, the Department of Energy made a classified request to six Congressmen to get funding for the B61-11. The money was flowing by July 1995. On Nov. 15, 1995 Smith pressed for the weapons labs to accelerate the R&D timetable, so the first B61-11 could be delivered to the military before the end of 1996.

The new nuclear weapon that replaced the B53 weighed 1,200 pounds, and could carry a nuclear payload ranging from 300 tons to 340 kilotons.

Even before the first B61-11 was delivered, Smith was threatening its use. He told a group of Pentagon correspondents in Spring 1996 that the United States would soon have a nuclear bunker-buster that could destroy an alleged underground Libyan chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah, 40 miles southeast of the capital, Tripoli, which the United States considered a serious threat. On May 7, 1996, Defense Department spokesman Ken Bacon scrambled to repudiate Smith's threat, telling reporters at a regular Pentagon briefing, "There is no consideration of using nuclear weapons, and any implication we would use nuclear weapons against this plant pre-emptively is just wrong."

=========================================================

Dear Ms Furse,

Thanks for writing.  I'm guessing that you only saw my commentary; below are some quotes I sent out the next day.  I would sure like to see how you can dispute the conclusion I (and others) draw from them.

Sour grapes?  For what?

Ace

At 11:42 AM 3/2/2007 -0800, "Elizabeth Furse" <fursee@pdx.edu> wrote:

============================================================

Subject: Al Gore is a closet pro-nuker! (some clips and quotes to prove it)

February 27th, 2007

Dear Readers,

To back up my comments in yesterday's newsletter, here are some clips and quotes from the past decade, indicating Al Gore's pro-nuclear stance and his reluctance to admit it.

Ace Hoffman

Carlsbad, CA

------------------------------------------------------

From 2000 (Congressional Quarterly, April 21, 2000):

[Nevada senatorial candidate John] Ensign . . .has accused Vice President Al Gore--the certain Democratic nominee--of being unclear on the issue of nuclear waste.  Gore's campaign has said that the vice president wants the EPA to rule on Yucca's suitability before sending waste to Nevada and that he opposes storing it there temporarily. He has not ruled out using Yucca as a permanent site, said a spokesman from the vice president's office.

------------------------------------------------------

From an article in the LVS, April 26, 2000:

But NEI won't ease up. Next year brings the promise of a new president, which has stirred speculation about how Al Gore and George Bush would handle a nuclear waste bill. Gore, like Clinton, objects to the current bill, but neither he nor Bush has said much beyond that.

------------------------------------------------------

From LVSA April 21, 2000:

Only Green Party candidate Joel Kovel said he outright opposed burying nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. He responded with a simple "no" to the question of whether he supported a high-level waste storage facility at Yucca.

Only Republican Alan Keyes responded with a "yes" to the question posed by the Washington-based Sustainable Energy Coalition.

Vice President Al Gore, who previously has voiced opposition to storing nuclear waste in Nevada, said in the survey that he still doesn't support the plan, at least for now. He said the nuclear waste debate should be "based on science, not politics."

"Until the scientific analysis of the Yucca Mountain site is completed, it is premature to make a determination about its use as a disposal site," Gore said. "For that reason, I have strongly supported the administration's vigorous and successful fight against legislation that would move waste to the Yucca Mountain site before the scientific evaluation is complete."

------------------------------------------------------

LVS, May 15, 2000 (Not sure why it's in CAPS):

`SOUND SCIENCE' THE PHRASE

   IT'S UNANIMOUS: THE NUCLEAR WASTE INDUSTRY AGREES WITH BOTH

PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDERS: "SOUND SCIENCE" MUST BE THE FIRST AND

FOREMOST CONSIDERATION WHEN IT COMES TO BUILDING A NUCLEAR WASTE

REPOSITORY.

   THAT PHRASE WAS USED BY DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE AND

BUSH.

   "SOUND SCIENCE NEEDS TO BE THE BASIS FOR A REPOSITORY

DECISION, WE AGREE ON THAT," A SPOKESMAN FOR THE NUCLEAR ENERGY

INSTITUTE SAID AFTER BEING ASKED TO REACT TO BUSH'S ONE-PARAGRAPH

ISSUE POSITION.

   THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY DID NOT RETURN CALLS SEEKING COMMENT ON

WHETHER THE POSITION OF EITHER CANDIDATE WAS PREFERABLE.

------------------------------------------------------

From a pro-Nader Sierra Club document, June 29th, 2000:

Reasons not to vote for Al Gore as compiled by Sierra Club board member Michael Dorsey as a discussion paper.

...

12. Gore failed to keep radioactive materials out of commercial products. The Vice President supported the plan to melt metals from the Oak Ridge nuclear facility and put them into ordinary commerce despite the lack of agreement over national radiation standards for such metal products.

------------------------------------------------------

Birds of a feather:  Gore and Bush agree on Yucca Mountain, Idaho State Journal, Sept. 2000:

Republican nominee George W. Bush, seeing his lead in Nevada melting away, has promised Nevada Republicans that he would veto plans to use Yucca Mountain as a temporary storage site for high-level nuclear waste. Bush is now in line with Vice President Al Gore, who made a similar pledge at the Democratic National Convention.

------------------------------------------------------

From the Paducah Sun, October 10th, 2000:

The Committee to Elect Al Gore, formerly known as the U.S. Department of Energy, is throwing a large bone to southern Ohio voters, hoping to convince them that the vice president will save the jobs of workers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

------------------------------------------------------

Some may say he has no responsibility to this, but note that the sins of the father have NEVER been undone -- even a little -- by the son.  From my Stop Cassini newsletter #155, July 20th, 1999:

In the 50's the American People had to be sold a lie in order for them to embrace the nuclear future that was being offered them.  Al Gore' dad was one of the main proponents of that lie, and thousands of others bought into [it] themselves for whatever reason...

------------------------------------------------------

From a presentation by Karl Grossman at the New School University, January 26, 2002:

The Republican Bush-Cheney posture on nuclear power is super-extreme, but that doesn’t mean the Democratic alternative was or is on the diametric other “side.” The website of the Nuclear Energy Institute www.nei.org includes a page of “Endorsements of Nuclear Energy” and among those quoted are Al Gore: “Nuclear power, designed well, regulated properly, cared for meticulously, has a place in the world’s energy supply,” he is reported to have said.

Gore’s running mate as candidate for vice president, Senator Joseph Lieberman, is quoted as saying at a Senate hearing in 1998: “I am a supporter of nuclear energy.”

------------------------------------------------------

From Energy and Peak Oil News, April, 2005:

Former Vice President Al Gore, a reputed environmentalist, authored a book called, “Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit,” published in 1992. Yet on July 25, 1998, Gore visited the Chernobyl Museum in Kiev, Ukraine, and delivered a speech in which he said, “The lesson of Chernobyl is not an indictment of nuclear power as such. Nuclear power, designed well, regulated properly, cared for meticulously, has a place in the world’s energy supply.”

------------------------------------------------------

Here's a reader comment found at the Huffington Post blog, July 7th, 2006:

Jim Lovelock is an absolute GOD to the environmental/anti-GW bloc...he created the Gaia Hypothesis &is cited by Al Gore for lotsa stuff in his movie.

He too is urging the immediate/massive transition to nuclear power plants.

------------------------------------------------------

And lastly (not that I couldn't go on and on with this!), here's something from a pro-nuclear article in Opinion Journal by William Tucker, July 21st, 2006:

No, it's more than ironic--it's dishonest. In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore lifts the "seven-wedge" approach to global warming from Robert Socolow, director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton. Mr. Socolow's main "wedges" are efficiency, conservation, fuel switching, renewables, carbon sequestration, reforestation--and "nuclear fission." Mr. Gore conveniently leaves nuclear out.

------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: Al Gore is a closet pro-nuker!