[Note: In October, 2003, a Cassini pro-nuker (D.
Handlin) stated that Mr. Baxter claims I never responded to his email. In
fact, both I and Gai Oglesbee sent him comments. These are shown below. Mr.
Baxter's entire letter is included in my response. -- rdh]
From: "Gai Oglesbee" <email@example.com>
"Russell D. Hoffman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Stop Cassini (is the information "either exaggerated or
To: "Josh Baxter" <email@example.com>
Cc: Gai Oglesbee <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
WE can all thank GOD for giving us each a brain to cause each of us to make up our own minds what is good or bad for us. Obviously you are another pro-nuke addict. Quote: "GOD isn't responsible for everything that happens in the universe."
You have every chance at every given opportunity to ingest, stand in or near radiation, or any other means of exposure until you die. Reportedly, every American is statistically just 15 minutes from a nuclear source so saith the analysts. Then, hereinafter, you will know for sure when GOD lets you know for sure. That's the best chance you have of proving whether your hypothesis or "hunches" were worth your own pain and suffering. Or, perhaps, you believe pro-nuclear scientists will save your life or that of your loved ones. You do believe you should at least be responsible for yourself, right? I assume from your responses to Russell Hoffman that you are still relatively young and foolish.
There are thousands of your fellow Americans who are victims of nuclear pollution which your same government officials have admitted since 1998 -- a revelation and/or precedent. The officials admit liability for their "nuclear caretakers'" negligence and abusive which caused death, disease, and suffering of untold numbers of victims." (See the US President's very relative EXECUTIVE ORDER #13179 filed with the Federal Registry dated December 7, 2000).
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Panel of 3 Federal Judges established a precedent in Hanford/Berg Downwinder Plaintiffs vs. USDOE Contractors when they included in their remand for trial order that "any dose of radiation is harmful." Your insults won't change any of these findings of fact regarding the "radiation monster" that is allowed to roam out of control that loves to kill people, one after the other.
Five members of my family battle with the human health effects caused by exposure to abnormally dangerous radioactive material and components.
Your cyberspace site is not very interesting with all the Know-nukes "stuff" just sitting there that is not worth debating.
Those of us who oppose your pro-nuclear ideals are also educators. May the last one standing reign victorious on earth because heaven or hell will certainly be eternal.
Gai Oglesbee, National Independent Advocate
Occupationally Injured, Retired Hanford Worker
Northwest Anti-Nuclear Alliance and Downwinder Coalition
National Nuclear Workers for Justice Co-Chair
Honorary Member of PRESS
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Stop Cassini (is the information "either exaggerated or wholly inaccurate"?)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:18:12 -0700
To: "Josh Baxter" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
June 22nd, 2003
I have responded to your comments about my Stop Cassini web site in triple brackets ([[[ ]]]), with my initials at the end of each comment. I have not modified your email to me except by the insertion of the marked comments.
At 03:33 PM 7/19/2003 , "Josh Baxter" <email@example.com> wrote:
Dear Mr rhoffman
I've read through your page about the dangers of Cassini and as a space enthusiast, I find some of your evidence either exaggerated or wholly inaccurate.
[[[ You have not identified any such areas, based on the comments you sent me. To say so without providing proof is libel, so I expect you to provide the proof, or retract the statement. Nothing has been exaggerated. To the best of my knowledge all the information I have provided is accurate. Any specific errors that are brought to my attention are corrected promptly. -- rdh ]]]
Your assertion that radioactive material poses a threat to the environment seems somewhat redundant given that the material was present in the accretion disk that formed this planet in the first place. Yet, we still have a habitable biosphere.
[[[ Oh do we? Between 1/3 and 1/2 of all people die of cancer. Why? Although some people appear to have genetic susceptibility to specific types of cancers, this only makes them more vulnerable to carcinogens. Even in those who seem to have no pre-disposed susceptibility, it's an accepted medical fact that cancers can be caused by radiation, as well as other environmental pollutants. Also, you should know that plutonium (which NASA uses extensively) has NOT been around (in any significant quantities) until humans started making it and then spreading it around. You would know this if you had spent more time at my site. It is a phenomenally dangerous carcinogen, especially in the size particles which would be released in a typical NASA accident. (You would know this, too, from reading the information available at the site you say you've read through.) -- rdh ]]]
I am curious as to what genetic mutations you believe PuO2 will cause. Perhaps we might end up with the three-eyed fish we saw on The Simpsons?
[[[ Actually, most mutations -- probably as many as 99.99999999% of all mutations -- are either fatal to the individual cell they happen to, or, at best, they are not good. Either the individual cell which is mutated cannot reproduce anymore, or it cannot reproduce as well (produces flawed DNA patterns, perhaps at an accelerated rate), or it simply dies (not a good thing, but if not too many do it, the larger organism (say, a human) will survive). The larger organism, which has a cell (or millions of cells) which are irradiated, may suffer accelerated cell growth or some other mutation (leukemia, cancer, etc.). At the very least, damage generally known simply as "aging" occurs (radiation accelerates aging, but that's probably the least of its crimes against humanity). So even if the attack (radiation imposed upon others without consent is a physical assault -- an attack upon one's person) doesn't kill the person outright, even if it produces no grotesque mutations, it is still bad for you. It's bad for you even if it temporarily stimulates the immune system, which is plenty-stimulated in today's environment without any help. Sure, every once in a blue moon a beneficial mutation comes along that is adopted by the species over time, and viola! -- evolution occurs, but on the whole, deformed organisms simply suffer and die. Maybe you could benefit from three eyes, but I think stereoscopic vision is sufficient. Nor do I wish any progeny I (or anyone else) might have to be deformed. It is generally accepted that the human form is in a perfect -- or at least perfectly acceptable -- state as it is. Why do you want to muck with it in such a "brute force" way? Procreation is the proper way to form new species over eons, not random radiological (and usually deforming) mutation. In fact, it has been postulated -- and I see no reason not to believe it -- that life could not form higher-level organisms on Earth until the background radiation had subsided to where it no longer was able to randomly undo any beneficial mutations that organisms -- and genomes -- had adopted. -- rdh ]]]
Are you aware that more than half of our average radiation dosage comes from radon gas within our own homes?
[[[ The fact that Radon gas is a huge problem only reinforces the idea that NASA's plutonium-packed projects are, too. Estimates vary both for how badly our homes are polluted by Radon gas, and for how much damage to one's health a given amount of Radon gas can cause during its relatively brief existence (half-life: 3.8 days versus 87.75 years for Pu 238 and 24,000 years for Pu 239; all three are mainly alpha emitters). The effects on health from Radon gas are undoubtedly significant, and there are things that can and should be done, especially by homeowners, to reduce their risk. However, since the effects of radiation are cumulative upon the human body, there's certainly no reason to add even more radiation to the mix, and worse, to do so in an uncontrolled, widespread, unmitigated, unremovable, and unaccountable manner -- like NASA does. -- rdh ]]]
Nevertheless, I am keen to discuss this issue with you in greater detail. We have been discussing it at http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6918 and we'd welcome your opinions in the debate.
[[[ I'm glad to hear you're thinking about the issues. But I think that, before we can have a meaningful debate, you should spend more time reading my web site and related materials, such as WINGS OF DEATH by Dr. Chris Busby, or the ECRR (European Committee on Radiological Risk, an international body of 30 independent scientists led by Dr. Busby) 2003 study summary report, or anything on the subject by Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Helen Caldicott, or Dr. Rosalie Bertell, to name a few sources for the wealth of knowledge now accumulated on the subject (yet still ignored by the "scientists" at NASA). Get back to me when you have something other than demonic pro-nuke dogma to discuss. Dismissing NASA's use of plutonium as safe is irresponsible. Supporting its use by the agency makes you party to the callous murder of innocent children, perhaps hundreds of years from now and thousands of miles away from America. Thanks for writing. -- rdh ]]]
[[[ -- Russell D. Hoffman, Carlsbad, CA ]]]