In light of you having completely misunderstood the meaning of "fake", how many of your points do you wish to reconsider?  Because this fish you have by the tail is a lot bigger than you think.

None. You're still talking about an article that I was not writing.

I had looked at Project Prometheus, but not in a while when you called.  None of NASA's excuses for launching plutonium or other radioactive materials had changed since last I'd looked, so what exactly was the problem with that?

None. But the impression would have been this is not a high priority (and hence not a major concern) even for anti-nuclear activists.

And yes, I suppose it would have been easier to leave the activists completely out of the story (as you actually did, since you only quoted a fake -- a provocateur, an infiltrator, a plant, a G-man, a spy). But is the New York Times' policy now to do what's easy, rather than to do what's right?

So if Bruce Gagnon said, "Russell Hoffman is a fake," I should ignore you. I'll be sure to ask him next time.

Russell, you not this naive about news. In our conversation, you did not say, "Bruce Gagnon is a fraud" or "Bruce Gagnon is a plant for the nuclear industry." You described incidents that suggested an ineffective activist, which would lead me to doubt some of his claims perhaps, but not his sincerity.

Finally found the newsletter referring to Gagnon and his list of sins. At best, an argument for an incompetent activist, no direct evidence that he's a plant.

Russell,
I'll keep this short since I don't particularly want to be fodder for your email list. If you quote it, do quote it in its entirety.
1. The heart of the story was, planetary scientists are excited about sending a nuclear powered-spacecraft to Jupiter. That's not the heart of the story you want me to write, but that's the story I was writing.
2. I thought it was important to put in the viewpoint that there are people who don't think this is a good idea and I made the effort to talk a number of anti-nuclear activists. Even though you think Bruce Gagnon is a fake, I believe you do largely agree with the sentiments he expressed (it's dangerous and the military will use it next). Unless you're charging that he's a fake in the sense that he's a plant for the nuclear industry or DOE, what he is saying is more important than who he is, for this article anyway.
3. If I had quoted you, I would have had to put the quotes in the context of a) you hadn't even looked at Project Prometheus in detail and b) you said it was not as bad as Cassini, anyway, which would have given the impression that it's not a big deal, because there are more important issues.
4. This was not a story about anti-nuclear activists spitting at each other.
5. This was not a story about the anti-nuclear movement.
6. You know, it would have been much easier just to leave you all out of the story like just about every other story about the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter I've seen.
7. If you'd like to make a more formal complaint, my editor is Laura Chang, chang@nytimes.com (no relation); and we have that wonderful new public editor, Daniel Okrent, public@nytimes.com.

Cheers.

December 16th, 2003

Ken,

I'm not sure which is worse -- Jayson Blair making up stories from scratch, or you ignoring facts and quoting fake activists.

I spent quite a bit of time talking to you last week about why there aren't a lot of protests right now about NASA's nutty nuclear plans. Silly me, I thought you were interested in publishing the whole truth (or at least, as much as is fit to print).

It's not like I made that stuff up about Gagnon (or anything else, for that matter).  If you ask the right people (or read the right documents, which have been posted at my web site), you'll get the same story.  Neither Caldicott, Kaku, nor Grossman see Gagnon for who he really is, because he coddles them, but Mark Elsis and others have seen it, and Horst Poehler, who wrote the Cassini Cancers article which is posted at my web site, said of Gagnon simply, "OF COURSE HE'S A FAKE!".  I would be happy to swear in a court of law that Dr. Poehler said that to me.  You evidently didn't even question Gagnon's authenticity.  So you didn't get to the heart of the story -- you didn't even get close.  (The rest of your report wasn't very balanced, either. )

I suspect that Senator Markey has looked into my claim, because of certain things he did (or rather, didn't do) during the Cassini actions.  Maybe he can't tell you about Gagnon, but he probably knows if I'm right or not.  Why don't you ask him?

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

P.S. I've included, below, an article about similar activities which are believed to be going on right now in California regarding the chemical industry.  Do you really think this sort of thing doesn't go on where "National Defense" is concerned?  Or were you simply fooled by Gagnon's always quotable "activism"?

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

At 01:47 PM 12/16/2003 , Jack Shannon passed this around:

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:04:13 -0500
From: "Brendan Hoffman" <bhoffman@citizen.org>
To: <nukenet@energyjustice.net>

Subject: [NukeNet] Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage to
        Jupiter
Sender: Nukenet-bounces@energyjustice.net
Errors-To: Nukenet-bounces@energyjustice.net

December 16, 2003
Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage to Jupiter

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/science/space/16JUPI.html?8hpib

By KENNETH CHANG

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 12 � The nuclear power industry may find its revival
in space � on the way to Jupiter.

Development of nuclear energy has been stymied for decades on Earth
because of high costs, the fear of another accident like those at Three
Mile Island or Chernobyl, and the problem of how to deal with
radioactive waste. But NASA and planetary scientists see it as opening a
new era of research in space by providing a plentiful power source for
deep space probes, which has been lacking so far.

"This is an unprecedented opportunity for exploration," said Dr. Ronald
Greeley, a professor of geological sciences at the Arizona State
University. Dr. Greeley is co-leader of a team of 38 scientists who have
been working with NASA since February to define what kind of science
could be pursued by a nuclear-powered spacecraft at Jupiter.

The proposed spacecraft, the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, would be able to
carry new and more powerful instruments and would be able to move in and
out of orbit of different Jovian moons.

The team of scientists presented its recommendations at a meeting of the
American Geophysical Union here last week. Still in the preliminary
planning stages, Jimo would cost several billion dollars, which includes
developing a space-worthy nuclear reactor. The earliest launch date
would be 2011, and, Dr. Greeley said, "None of us will be surprised if
it launches later than 2011."

Jimo would also have to overcome concerns about what could happen in
case of an accident.

As many as 1 in 10 rocket launches still fail, opening the possibility
of a nuclear reactor exploding high in the atmosphere and dispersing
radioactive material. "As you introduce more nuclear power into space
missions, you're looking for trouble," said Bruce K. Gagnon, coordinator
of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.

A space probe like Jimo would also be "an icebreaker to institutionalize
nuclear power in space," Mr. Gagnon said. "Later it would be used for
military purposes" like powering space-based lasers, he said.

NASA officials said the nuclear reactor would not be turned on until
after the spacecraft reaches orbit and that safety would be a primary
design concern. The nuclear fuel will be designed not to break up even
if the rocket explodes.

The appeal of a small nuclear power generator for propulsion in space is
that power becomes more precious with distance from the Sun. In the
outer solar system, sunlight is too dim for solar panels and
technologies like fuel cells are not reliable enough for the years-long
voyage to distant plants. Until now, NASA has used hunks of radioactive
plutonium that generate heat as they decay, and the heat is converted
into modest amounts of electricity.

NASA's Galileo spacecraft, which in September concluded a hugely
successful 14-year mission with a deliberate plunge into Jupiter,
subsisted on an electrical diet of a few hundred watts � which would
light up a handful of light bulbs.

That was still enough for Galileo to produce a wealth of discoveries,
especially about Europa, one of Jupiter's moons. Cameras captured
up-close images of Europa's exquisitely cracked crust of ice, and
magnetic field measurements indicated that beneath that ice is a layer
of electrically conductive material � what planetary scientists believe
is a liquid ocean and possibly the most likely place in the solar system
to find life. Because Galileo had only small maneuvering thrusters, it
could not enter orbit around any of the moons. Galileo's brief flights
past Europa produced high-resolution images of less than 0.1 percent of
the surface.

With nuclear propulsion, mission controllers would be able to drop into
orbit around one moon for several months, then restart the engine to
propel the
probe to the next destination. "You are in the driver's
seat," said Raynor L. Taylor, program executive for icy moons orbiter
project. "You can control where you can go."

With a reactor on board, the spacecraft would also have perhaps a
thousand times more power available. That would make possible
power-hungry instruments like ground-penetrating radar to look at what
lies beneath the surface. Scientists would like to investigate the
geological history of the moons' surfaces and identify the types of
molecules there, especially ones that might indicate life.

Nuclear propulsion is an old idea. In the 1950's, the United States
attempted to develop a rocket propelled by small atomic bombs tossed out
the back. NASA now envisions something less dramatic.

A uranium fission reactor, which would not be turned on until the probe
reaches space, would generate heat that would be converted into
electricity to power an ion engine. Ion engines use electric fields to
accelerate ions to very high speeds, producing thrust.

NASA successfully tested a nonnuclear ion engine on an experimental
spacecraft called Deep Space 1 in 1998. The ion engines in Jimo would
have to be at least 10 times more powerful. NASA's Glenn Research Center
in Cleveland announced last month a successful test of one possible
design.

Sean O'Keefe, NASA's administrator, originally pushed for sending a
nuclear-powered spacecraft to Pluto, the only planet not yet visited
close-up. However, planetary scientists rallied to the defense of a
lower-cost, conventional space probe already in planning. There is a
rush to reach Pluto, which is cooling as it moves away from the Sun,
before its atmosphere freezes and disappears.

The scientists working on Jimo are much more enthusiastic about the
promises of nuclear propulsion. "This would be taking steps in leaps and
bounds potentially," Dr. Greeley said.

Conceptual designs envision a spacecraft about 100 feet long with the
nuclear reactor at one end and the scientific instruments at the other.
Three studies for more detailed designs are under way.

"We have been surveying industry for their technology and capabilities,"
said Mr. Taylor of NASA. "We see no roadblocks."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Brendan Hoffman
Organizer, Nuclear Energy & Waste
Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
Public Citizen
p: 202.454.5130
f: 202.547.7392
bhoffman@citizen.org
www.citizen.org/cmep


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net


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

From: Planttrees@aol.com
Message-ID: <1de.151ea5d0.2d0fd477@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:22:31 EST
Subject: Chemical industry's secret plan to attack Calif's anti-toxics trend
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Language: en

X-UIDL: a=]!!R+g"!H!Q!!O9)!!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Environmental Working Group
http://www.ewg.org
Nov. 20, 2003

Bill Walker, EWG: (510) 444 0973
Lauren Sucher, EWG: (202) 667-6982


CHEMICAL INDUSTRY�*�S SECRET PLAN TO ATTACK CALIFORNIA�*�S ANTI-TOXICS TREND
           Memo Calls for Phony Front Groups, Spying on Activists
http://www.ewg.org/briefings/acc/

OAKLAND, CA, Nov. 20 �*� The chemical industry plans to conduct a covert
campaign attacking
the growing movement in California for more chemical safety testing, with
tactics
including the creation of phony front groups and spying on activists,
according to an
internal American Chemistry Council (ACC) memo obtained by
Environmental Working Group (EWG).

The memo, available at www.ewg.org, offers a rare inside glimpse of the
deceptive and
underhanded tactics used by some corporations and public relations firms to
lobby against
tougher environmental regulations. It recommends that ACC, the lobbying
association for
U.S. chemical companies, hire a crisis communications firm that promotes
itself as the
attack dog of the public relations industry to fight back against
California�*�s adoption of
laws and regulations that embrace the �*�precautionary principle.�*�

The precautionary principle, a policy that says new chemicals should not be
allowed on the
market unless they�*�re proven safe, has gained a strong foothold in Europe,
and in recent
years California has enacted measures applying the principle to several
pollutants
including, most recently, chemical flame retardants. Despite the fact that
two-thirds of
the public believes that such protections are in place already, the Bush
Administration
has opposed their realization here in the U.S.

The memo warns that the state�*�s embrace of the precautionary principle is a
threat to the
entire U.S. chemical industry because �*�California�*�s political climate makes
the state more
susceptible to policy and thinking inspired by the PP [precautionary
principle] than other
geographic region... California is a bellwether state, and any success
enjoyed here could
readily spill over to other parts of the country.�*� It recommends to ACC
members that they
pay $120,000 a year to Nichols-Dezenhall, a Washington-based firm that hires
former FBI
and CIA agents, to conduct �*�selective intelligence gathering ... about the
plans,
motivations and allies of opposition activists... Focus on the PP �*�movement
leadership�*� in
the U.S., and in particular, California.�*�

The memo says Nichols-Dezenhall would also �*�create an independent PP watchdog
group to act
as an information clearinghouse and criticize the PP in public and media
forums... The
group could be structured as a tax-exempt organization.�*� EWG obtained the
document from a
confidential source outside the chemical industry who received it from ACC,
which was
recruiting other industries as allies in the campaign. Microsoft Word data
embedded in the
document confirms that it was written in July by Tim W. Shestek, an ACC
lobbyist in
Sacramento.

In a Nov. 19 letter to ACC�*�s President Greg Lebedev and Vice President for
State
Governmental Affairs Roger Bernstein, EWG asked if the association had hired
the firm to
execute the plan. Among Nichols �*�Dezenhall�*�s reported tactics are digging
through the
trash of its�*� clients opponents. (The letter is available at http://www.
ewg.org.)

Creating phony front groups is �*�patently deceptive in its effort to use third
parties to
carry the message because, understandably, the ACC lacks credibility and
trust in any
discussion of the safety of its members�*� products,�*� said the letter from
Bill Walker,
EWG�*�s vice president for the West Coast. �*�However, the third tactic,
�*�selective
intelligence gathering,�*� pushes the ethical envelope toward dirty tricks,
given
Nichols-Dezenhall�*�s reputation for such techniques.�*�

�*�As someone whose trash might be searched,�*� Walker said today, �*�I�*�d at
least like to know
the lengths ACC is planning on going to in order to stop common-sense public
protections
in the State of California. ACC has spent millions on advertising and
corporate PR to
position itself as a solid corporate citizen, with nothing to hide from the
public.�*�

EWG is a non-profit public health and environmental watchdog organization
that uses the
power of information to give people the information they need to be engaged
environmental
citizens in their communities.

EWG News Release
 http://www.ewg.org/briefings/acc/index.php

Letter from EWG's Bill Walker to ACC
 http://www.ewg.org/briefings/acc/ACCletter.php

Microsoft Word metadata identifies the original author
 http://www.ewg.org/briefings/acc/microsoftmetadata.php

Download leaked MSWord document
 http://www.ewg.org/briefings/acc/California PP Campaign-2.doc


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


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

*************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936
** (800) 551-2726
** (760) 720-7261
** Fax: (760) 720-7394
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
*************************************************

IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT:

rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com

MailTo:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please .
Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please" appears in the subject line.