Russell drops a bomb on December 7th, 2001 -- what are you going to do about it?
To: OREILLY@foxnews.com
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Russell drops a bomb on December 7th, 2001 -- what are you going to do about it?
Dear Mr. O'Reilly,
I saw most of your show today and wish to assure you that when I write you, I'm as pithy as I can be.
I hope you'll investigate the truth about nukes soon. If you think there's smoke behind the Enron debacle, just wait till you discover the muck underneath those containment domes and in those spent fuel pools!
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
===============================================
Date: December 7th, 2001
Re: Our next "Pearl Harbor" may be a nuclear meltdown, and it will dwarf all previous surprises...
From: Russell D. Hoffman, Concerned Citizen
Friends,
There is no reason to use nuclear power plants for electrical energy. Renewables, such as those described in one of the documents shown below Jack Shannon's frightening and rational statement, can replace these deathtraps. They will too, some day -- but will it be before or after a nuclear disaster? That's the question Americans have to answer. And I mean NOW!
-- Russell Hoffman, Concerned Citizen, Carlsbad, CA.
Included below are 4 emails, plus contact information:
=================================================
Note: Jack Shannon designed the most commonly used reactor in the world today. DON'T ACT LIKE A DUMB GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE AND SELL HIS COMMENTS SHORT. Yes, he knows that "a nuclear power plant can't blow up like a nuclear bomb", as the pro-nuclear spokespeople are always quick to remind us. He also knows that what a nuclear power plant CAN do is a whole lot worse, actually.
(NOTE: IF YOU ACTUALLY ARE A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE READING THIS, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS STOP ACTING DUMB AND KEEP READING, AND MAKE YOUR BOSS READ IT, AND YOUR COWORKERS TOO. DO YOUR JOB, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!)
At 04:09 PM 12/7/01 , Jack Shannon wrote:
All discussion of evacuation plans immediately following a nuclear meltdown
are a waste of time and effort.
The major damage from a meltdown comes in the blink of an eye. That is when
the blast is felt and the explosion is heard. People die immediately just
like at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Within some period of time after the immediate catastrophe people can start
being evacuated and KI pills can be given.
The period of time is uncertain because no one knows what will be lost. If
all police and fire fighting capabilities are lost and roads are destroyed in
an instant, chaos will reign for some time and more people will die from high
radiation exposures.
I think the chances of a motorized evacuation, within a several mile radius
of the meltdown is not rational, most evacuation will have to be on foot.
Evacuation is only being considered because our government refuses to listen
to reason to close down all plants ASAP, and just stop screwing around. We
really are playing with something more than dynamite here and we have a moral
obligation to make ourselves heard above the claptrap of military tribunals
and suspension of our Civil Rights.
The damn fools in Washington never see a disaster until it has happened. The
people almost always do.
John Shannon
Nuclear Safety Engineer
=========================================================
[NOTE: THIS NEXT ITEM RELATES TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOLUTIONS, WHICH ABOUND. THERE IS NO NEED TO KEEP RUNNING THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, WHICH ARE EACH ON THE EDGE OF DISASTER. -- rdh ]
From: "Greenpeace USA" <listreply@wdc.greenpeace.org>
Subject: ******POSITIVE ENERGY****** V1.24 December 3rd - 9th 2001
To: ReCarDeaux@aol.com
Time for another edition of Greenpeace's Clean Energy Now!
weekly campaign update - POSITIVE ENERGY!!!!
*** L.A. COMMUNITY COLLEGE SOLAR INITIATIVE AT RISK ***
Students and faculty at Los Angeles's nine community colleges have joined Greenpeace calling on the Community College District Board of Trustees to lead the way to a solar energy future for California and the country. The Board of Trustees is deciding how to spend $1.245 billion that voters approved for renovations and new buildings in a ballot measure. Students and faculty are working hard on campus and in the district's halls of power to ensure that a significant amount of that money goes to investments that will ensure clean air and a reduction in California's global warming emissions. Six out of nine student Senates, and all of the student body Presidents have passed resolutions calling on the Trustees to ensure that any new buildings constructed on community college campuses receive at least 25 percent of their energy supply from solar energy, and exceed California Building Code efficiency requirements by at least 25 percent.
Despite the overwhelming outcry for solar energy, the president of the Board of Trustees, Sylvia Scott Hayes, is refusing to meet with students, faculty, and activists, and is attempting to delay the solar vote in order to diffuse the public's interest in clean air and climate protection. You, however, can help . . .
Contact Mrs. Hayes now, and demand that the Community Colleges invest in solar and green buildings, by going to:
http://www.cleanenergynow.org/bin/takeaction.pl?action_id=97
***SWEDEN GOES BEYOND KYOTO***
On November 29th 2001, Sweden demonstrated how governments can reduce greenhouse gas emissions without bankrupting their economy. It was officially announced that they have set their emissions reduction target at -4%, and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without using "sinks" to capture carbon dioxide. While this is not nearly enough to stop the onslaught of global warming impacts, it is, according to a recent Greenpeace Nordic press release a "stumbling step in the right direction." Originally, the European Union required the emissions only increased by +4% in Sweden from 1990 levels. This -4% emissions target is a tremendous improvement from that original goal.
We are far behind Sweden here in the US, but there is still hope that our local political leaders will move to reduce greenhouse gas emissions despite the lack of leadership from the White House.
***CITY OF VALLEJO TO INSTALL 30MW OF RENEWABLE ENERGY***
The city of San Francisco is not alone in its efforts to meet future energy demands with renewable power. By early 2002, the city of Vallejo expects to begin construction on an initial 1 megawatt (MW) of solar and 10 MW of wind energy and could expand to meet the city's 100 MW base load energy demand within five years. This would allow the city to sell extra energy back to the grid! In May, the Vallejo City Council voted to negotiate a deal with BP Solar to build a 1 MW solar farm with half the energy going to city hall and the rest for sale on the grid. And, in then a 7-0 vote in August, the Vallejo authorized a round of talks with Terra Moya Aqua, a Wyoming wind generator, to build a 10 MW wind farm, at least one third would be devoted to the city's highest electricity costs: pumping reservoir water. Right now, the city is stuck buying power from the corporate culprit PG&E, but could soon be energy independent! Way to go Vallejo . . .
To find out more information, go to: www.ecologycenter.org
The "Positive Energy" newsletter and the web site, http://www.cleanenergynow.org, will give you good news about ways to achieve clean air, climate justice and renewable energy solutions to our current energy crisis.
Want to do more? Become a Greenpeace member today!
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/join2/cen.htm
If you would like to subscribe or unsubscribe to any Greenpeace e-mail list, you can do so at:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/subscription.html
Want to do more? Become a Greenpeace Member!
https://www.greenpeaceusa.org/join2/cen.htm
If you would like to subscribe or unsubscibe to any Greenpeace e-mail list, you can do so at:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/sc
====================================================
[NOTE: GOOD ALTERNATIVES ALONE WON'T CLOSE THE NUKES. IF THAT WERE ENOUGH THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE OPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE! MONEY TALKS -- THE FIRST STEP IN CLOSING THE NUKES IS CANCELLING THEIR OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT-BACKED INSURANCE POLICY, AS THE NEXT TWO MESSAGES DISCUSS. -- rdh]
To: CAPPcoord@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CAPPcoord] The Price Anderson Act Reauthorization
Dear Friends:
The U. S. House of Representatives passed HR 2983, The Price Anderson
Act Reauthorization, without any debate, without a recorded vote and
with a scant number of Representatives present. Yet another example
of how nuclear power and democracy cannot co-exit. We are now
fighting reauthorization of the Price Anderson Act in the Senate.
Price Anderson subsidizes the liability insurance costs of the
commercial nuclear industry and caps their liability in the case of a
catastrophic accident. The nuclear industry has already gotten enough
subsidies and Price Anderson would continue to subsidize a technology
which is extremely appealing to terrorists-for national security
concerns, it deserves a rigorous debate. Democratic Senators are
under pressure to add Price Anderson to their version of the Senate
Energy bill rather than make it a separate bill, for which there
could be a full and open debate.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
TELL YOUR SENATORS THAT YOU DON'T WANT PRICE ANDERSON ADDED TO THE
DEMOCRATS' SENATE ENERGY BILL.
TELL THEM TO OPPOSE PRICE ANDERSON REAUTHORIZATION IN ANY FORM.
SET UP MEETINGS WITH YOUR SENATORS WHILE THEY ARE HOME FOR THE
HOLIDAYS.
Please fax/email or call your representative's DC office. Mail has
been sketchy and we don't recommend it.
Please also fax/email your local offices as well. We don't have
Senate recess dates yet. As soon as we know, you'll know.
REASONS TO OPPOSE PRICE ANDERSON (PA)
1) PA provides a 3.4 billion dollar annual insurance subsidy to the
nuclear power industry, a developed mature industry which should be
able to hold its own in a supposed free-market economy.
2) Current reactors are covered by PA whether or not it is
reauthorized. The only incentive for voting to extend PA coverage is
for a NEW generation of INHERENTLY UNSAFE reactors such as the Pebble
Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) which are designed without a containment
building. Because of public opposition to nuclear power, "new"
reactors will most likely be built on existing reactor sites. Even
Vice-President Cheney admits that without Price-Anderson there would
likely be no new nuclear reactors in the US because of liability
concerns.
4) Terrorist attacks on nuclear power facilities are a glaring
concern in light of September 11, 2001 and a reactor without
containment in an unnecessarily tempting target-no matter how well-
guarded.
5) Price-Anderson would cap nuclear liability at about 10 Billion
while the US Government estimates a reactor accident can cost from 24
Billion to 590 Billion dollars.
*After you've contacted your member, please contact your friends and
colleagues and urge them to do the same. The key is to organize,
organize, organize. If your representatives are not hearing from
you--they will certainly vote for the industry.
*Contact your local media and let them know this is going on. A
sample letter to the editor (and sample letter to congress members
for fax/e-mail) is posted on NIRS' website (www.nirs.org).
*Continue to collect signatures on the Petition for A Sustainable
Energy Future. And, again, make sure your local media are following
and understand this story.
CONTACT INFORMATION: The Capitol Switchboard is 202-224-3121--you can
reach any member of Congress with this number. Local Congressional
offices are usually found in the blue pages of local phone books. If
you can't find your local number, call NIRS, we have them.
House and Senate fax and e-mail information plus a comment section
can be found at http://capwiz.com/ombwatch/dbq/officials/
Cindy Folkers
NIRS
cindyf@nirs.org
====================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:48:05 EST
Subject: [EF!] ATOMIC TREASON FROM US HOUSE by Harvey Wasserman (pls circulate/reprint)
Reply-To: earthfirstalert@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
ATOMIC TREASON FROM THE U.S. HOUSE
By Harvey Wasserman
If terrorists turn a US nuclear plant into a radioactive holocaust, the House
of Representatives wants you to pay for it. But the Senate can still say
otherwise.
The House voted November 28 in virtual secret to shield new reactor builders
from normal insurance liability, even if they lack safety domes to contain
radioactive releases.
Only a handful of Representatives were present for the vote. Led by Texas
Republican Joe Barton and Michigan Democrat John Dingell, HR 2983 sailed
through under a "suspension of rules," traditionally used for unanimous
resolutions to rename government buildings, proclaim heroes and commemorate
holidays. Facing a barrage of grassroots opposition, a very cynical nuke
caucus used the loophole to avoid full debate and hide their votes on the
free insurance ride for a new generation of reactors.
Barton received more than $131,590 in utility contributions leading up to the
2000 election. Dingell got $109,679. Dingell is also related by marriage to
major partners in Detroit Edison, which built the Fermi nuclear plant at
Monroe Michigan. Fermi Unit I, a breeder reactor, nearly exploded in 1966.
That near-catastrophe was memorialized in John G. Fuller's WE ALMOST LOST
DETROIT, from the Readers Digest Press. By official 1982 estimates, such an
explosion could have killed tens of thousands of US citizens and done $592
billion in damage.
But since 1957, the atomic power industry has been shielded from such
consequences. Utility presidents considered the reactors too risky. So a
pro-nuke Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, limiting the industry's
liability. The Act's current version allows public indemnification only up
to roughly $9 billion. Private citizens who lose their health, families or
property would have to beg Congress for any more. To this day, all US
homeowner insurance policies claim exemption from damage caused by a nuclear
accident.
But the public was originally told Price-Anderson was just a "temporary" fix
until private insurers gained confidence in reactor safety. The initial
exemption was to last just ten years.
That was 44 years ago. A re-re-re-renewed Price-Anderson is now slated to
expire in August, 2002. The 103 US reactors now licensed are grandfathered
under the law. But the industry wants a new generation of reactors which it
says will be perfectly safe, even though some of the heavily subsidized
designs are almost entirely untested. Vice President Dick Cheney, among
others, has made it clear none will be built without this public-funded
insurance safety net.
The renewal's grassroots opposition has been deeply embittered by the
terrorist attacks of September 11. The London Sunday Times has reported that
the fourth hijacked jet, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field, may have been
headed for a nuke. Regulators and the industry concede that no US reactor
containment is designed to withstand the crash of a large fuel-laden
airplane. But incredibly enough, the new Pebble Bed design promoted by
HR2983 has no containment at all!
Multiple lawsuits filed in New York and elsewhere now demand operating nukes
be shut. Reactors over the years have routinely flunked a wide range of
"anti-terrorist" tests even though operators in many cases had six months
warning and the tests were essentially rigged.
Severe operating and structural problems still plague the industry, as at
Ohio's Davis-Besse, now in line for a rare official inspection. And as of
today, 2400 central Pennsylvanians who can document harm from radioactive
releases at the 1979 Three Mile Island accident still can't get their cases
heard in federal court. Thus the industry's infamous assertion that "no one
died at Three Mile Island," with which the plaintiffs vehemently disagree,
remains untested in a public jury trial.
The whole debate is overshadowed by the escalating success of wind power, the
world's fastest growing new source of electricity, now a $5 billion industry
leaping ahead at 25% per year. Wind-driven kilowatt costs are plumetting, as
are those from solar power and fuel cells. Conservation and efficiency
measures are already far cheaper than reactor output. None are subject to
terrorist attack. None threaten a radioactive holocaust. None require
Congressional insurance immunity.
This latest Price-Anderson renewal must still pass the Senate, where the
Bush-Cheney Administration may attach it to its larger pro-nuclear energy
bill.
But building new reactors would give future terrorists yet more chances to
perpetrate a nuclear holocaust at public expense. And mandating a design
without even a simple containment dome raises questions of basic sanity.
After nearly a half-century of atomic failure, the House and the White House
seem intent on handing our avowed enemies ever more dangerous versions of the
uninsurable ultimate weapon.
What could be more treasonous?
-----------------
Harvey Wasserman is author of THE LAST ENERGY WAR (Seven Stories Press).
Please recirculate and reprint this article. To help fight the
Price-Anderson renewal, see www.nirs.org.
========================================================
This email was collected and the notes written by: Russell D. Hoffman, concerned citizen.
For a list of all nuclear power plants in America:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist.htm
For a list of about 200 nuclear-related books and videos:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/mybooks.htm
========================================================
For more information please visit:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm
Learn about the effects of nuclear weapons here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm
This web page has been presented on the World Wide Web by:
The Animated Software Company
http://www.animatedsoftware.com
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
First posted December, 2001.
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman