Congratulations on your fine editorial in today's paper!

To: editor@nctimes.com, "Bob Kahn, Op-ED editor, NC Times" <bkahn@nctimes.com>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Congratulations on your fine editorial in today's paper!
Cc: opa@nrc.gov, graydavis@governor.ca.gov,   "Barbara Boxer, Senator (CA, D)" <senator@boxer.senate.gov>, president@whitehouse.gov,  "Russell Wise, NRC" <rxw@nrc.gov>,  "Elmo Collins" <eec@nrc.gov>,   "Pat Gwynn" <tpg@nrc.gov>,  "Clanon, Paul" <pac@cpuc.ca.gov>,   "Ajello, Julian E." <JEA@cpuc.ca.gov>,   "Wong, Zee Z." <czw@cpuc.ca.gov>,   "Clark, Richard W." <rwc@cpuc.ca.gov>,   "NRC" <the.secretary@hq.doe.gov>,"Barbara Byron" <BByron@energy.state.ca.us>, Bob Aldrich <boba@energy.ca.gov>, "Steve Woods" <swoods1@dhs.ca.gov>
September 30th, 2001
To: Editor, North County (San Diego, CA) Times
cc: Phil Diehl, Reporter; Bob Kahn, Opinions Page Editor
From: Russell Hoffman, concerned citizen
Re: Congratulations on your fine editorial in today's paper!

To The Editor:

Congratulations on your fine editorial in today's paper (Sunday, September 30th, 2001, "Time to Secure Our Nuclear Power Plants").  It is a powerful, responsible, and courageous statement.

I would like to comment on two points in the editorial.  First, you wrote, "Obviously, the nation needs nuclear energy capacity..."  Some may use this statement as a rationale to continue to ignore the vulnerabilities of nuclear power plants, not just to terrorism, but also to natural disasters, operator error, and equipment failure.

The fact is, America CAN replace the energy we get from nuclear with environmentally-friendly, terrorist-resistant solutions.  Nuclear power provides America with only about 18% of our electricity needs.  Most experts and the government of California believe we can reduce power usage by approximately 20% via conservation, without any major impact on our lifestyle.

I have spent most of the past decade investigating alternative energy equipment, specifically pumps, compressors, engines, and mechanical renewable energy systems.  My research in pumps, for instance, has resulted in an educational Glossary of Pumps which is available free online, and which receives thousands of "hits" each day (URL given below).  A number of these pumps are much more efficient than the technologies we now use.  Unfortunately, thus far America has been lax to investigate -- much less to implement -- these new pump solutions.  Changing large manufacturing processes and set ways of thinking is hard.  But according to scientists with the U. S. Department of Energy, moving fluids is the #1 use of energy in most cities around the world, so clearly this is an area that needs to be looked at.

With tourism down substantially and no sign of its returning to previous levels any time soon, I'm sure civilian America is using far less energy than we did before the attacks.  Couple this with a large available work force, and a solution to our energy needs is in sight.

There are over a million workers who have been laid off since the attacks (over 100,000 in the airline industry, and over a million in other related industries including the tourism and service industries).  These people can and should be put to work building a renewable-energy economy.

Wind, wave, tide, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass -- these are the benign energy sources of the future.  They must all be developed simultaneously and quickly, and if we do so, America will be much less vulnerable to terrorism.

The other point in your editorial which I want to address is this.  You wrote: "It might be possible to reconstruct the plants, reinforcing them to post-attack safety standards."  Unfortunately, that will not be possible for many reasons:  It's too expensive to accomplish, and there are far too many vulnerabilities besides airplane crashes.  San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station has had a litany of dangerous failures this year alone, prior to the September 11th attacks.  The safest nuke -- by far -- is one that has been closed for many years.  To get there, we have to start now.  Even so, some amount of reconstruction will be necessary.

If I can answer any questions about renewable energy options, or about problems with nuclear power plants, please feel free to contact me.  I know a large number of nuclear physicists, engineers, pump inventors, activists, etc. etc., plus I have a substantial collection of books and other information to back up everything I have claimed here and in my previous letters.  I would be happy to share all of this information with you "24/7" -- call or write any time, any hour, any day, and I will give you my fullest cooperation.

Thank you again for publishing your editorial.

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

Internet Glossary of Pumps:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/pumpglos/pumpglos.htm

See especially the Ball Piston Pump, the Cylindrical Energy Module, the Recessive Spiral Pump, the Wolfhart Principle Pump, and Newby's Minimum Flow Technique Pumps.  Most of these inventors contacted me, in the hopes that I would include their pump(s) in my Glossary of Pumps.  I believe these pump designs are vastly superior to what we are using now, and I was delighted to be able to include them.  (FYI, last week I sent your paper a review copy of my educational software CD-ROM which includes the complete Glossary of Pumps and several other programs.)




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
Mail to: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
First posted September 30th, 2001.

Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman