From: Russell David Hoffman, Concerned Citizen
Re: An open letter to NASA (STOP CASSINI #197)
Date: September 27th, 1999
Dear Mr. President, others:
Enclosed is a newly expanded "Cassini Quiz" and a number of other items. I hope you will take the quiz yourself.
Founder and Editor
STOP CASSINI newsletter
"There can be no democracy without truth, no justice without mercy, and no nuclear dispersals without ill consequences."
This issue's subjects:
This correspondence led me to reread the quiz, and I realized I have been letting people off easy -- letting them not define some important terms they proclaim to be capable of prognosticating about. So I added a few questions, and have also composed a letter which everyone who knows anyone at NASA will hopefully immediately send to that person. By so doing, you make them immediately RESPONSIBLE for the crimes against humanity they might otherwise have been able to claim they were unaware of. The NASA employees you send the letter to do NOT need to be members of the Cassini team -- because ALL NASA employees tacitly supported Cassini if they did not publicly speak out against it. Thus it is their duty to understand the consequences of their actions, and this quiz tests them to see if they have any real knowledge about that which they -- at least tacitly -- have approved.
To: All NASA staff and associated contract employees
From: Russell D. Hoffman, Concerned inhabitant of Spaceship Earth
Re: Your genocidal ways
Date: September 27th, 1999
Dear NASA staff:
Here are things each of you need to know, with links to more information. Please pass this information around to all other NASA and NASA contractor employees as soon as possible.
ON HANDLING NUCLEAR VICTIMS:
Hospital staff are not being properly trained to handle a human flood of victims from a nuclear meltdown or plutonium dispersal. The linens become irradiated. The gurneys as well. The halls, the operating room, and worst of all -- the staff. The entire community that surrounds them is suddenly at their door, except for those who cannot make it -- who die trying. Ambulances also become irradiated, but they are useless anyway because the drivers and technicians need only go out the door to find more victims than they can possibly handle, all begging for aid.
So if it's YOUR local nuclear power plant which melts down, or if some space probe comes down near YOU, you will be on your own. And if any nuclear power plant anywhere in the world melts down now or on Y2K, it will be because of a crime committed by government personnel today, that of doing nothing to stop a clear and present danger. No person is an island (or an empire) unto themselves, and when the bell tolls for any of us, it tolls for all of us. A nuclear dispersal anywhere is a nuclear dispersal everywhere. What happens there happens here -- and matters to me. Radioactive substances cause illnesses at lower and lower rates as the dose goes down, but the severity of the problem to the person afflicted never changes -- cancers, leukemias and birth defects.
It's not as if a lot will kill you outright, a little will give you influenza, still less will give you the flu, and a tiny amount will just give you a case of the common cold. It's not like that at all (except that a lot WILL kill you outright).
Instead, it is like what happens when you lay out land mines. If you spread them out more thinly, fewer people, farm animals, pets, wildlife, or work animals (such as elephants) will step on them per unit of time, but for those unfortunates that do, there is no lessening of the effect. It is the same with radiation: At lower and lower rates, the same effects (cancers, leukemias and birth defects) occur. (A small difference is that land mines wait to go off, while radioactive particles "go off" continuously, according to the radiological properties of the substance. Another difference is that land mines can be found and disarmed (at great expense and danger) but nuclear decay is unstoppable and worldwide dispersals cannot be removed from the environment).
And if chemotherapy cures a cancer caused by a particle of plutonium, it does nothing to remove the particle from your lung! Thus the particle will go on irradiating you, and killing the cells around it with 10s of thousands of rads of energy, and will continue to decay at the rate for that isotope of plutonium, and will continue to have pieces of it break off and spread to other areas of your body. And chemotherapy may be necessary again, because of a new cancer caused by the SAME particle!
Thank you NASA, for all this. Thank you, David F. Doody, Woody Smith, Daniel Goldin, Mary Beth Murrill, Sandra Dawson and all the rest, for threatening this planet and all the billions and billions of beautiful and peaceful people on it with this horror. Nuclear waste is never destroyed in a space probe reentry, it is only diluted. But do any of you actually understand what the effect really is? I doubt it.
Whose soul do you keep? Do any of you consider yourselves responsible for the lives of others? Or do you utterly deny the dangers of what you are a part of, and if so, on what grounds?
I have attached an expanded version of my Cassini Quiz. I believe that in light of the OUTRAGEOUS misrepresentations you folks at (and around) NASA have made, it is your responsibility to prove to the public that you actually know what you have been talking about. If you are unwilling to take this quiz and answer each question to the best of your abilities, then you should immediately resign your position within NASA or with a NASA contractor, which amounts to the same thing since the relationships are so cozy (and even the job titles are misleading).
Besides taking the Cassini Quiz, here are a variety of documents you should read and if you can challenge them, you are welcome to try to do so:
The effects of nuclear weapons:
What makes America vulnerable:
What is a half-life? (Compares Plutonium 238 to Plutonium 239)
What is the Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)? Is nuclear war winnable?
Then, if you still believe you have been helping, instead of gravely harming, this country, I demand a full explanation of how that could possibly be so. In your own words, I demand that each of you justify your personal decision to risk a global (or localized) genocide.
Russell D. Hoffman
Concerned citizen of Spaceship Earth
September 27th, 1999
Note: It is hereby demanded of NASA employees who read this document, that in the name of humanity, they immediately pass this letter on to all other staff members they know. You do NOT need official permission to do so! The author hopes that ANY NASA or contractor employees who refuse to answer all fifty questions will resign. Those who have difficulty answering the questions should immediately study the facts so that they can finish the quiz knowledgeably as soon as possible.
(1) How many RTGs (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators) are there on Cassini?
(2) How many GPHSs (General Purpose Heat Sources) are there in each RTG?
(3) How many GISs (Graphite Impact Shells) are there in each GPHS?
(4) How much plutonium is there in each one?
(5) How many LWRHUs (Light Weight Radioactive Heater Units, also known simply as RHUs) are there on board Cassini (roughly, since I'm not sure NASA ever gave a final exact figure)?
(6) How much plutonium is there in each one?
(7) What was the likelihood, according to NASA, that the LWRHUs would incinerate in a Cassini reentry accident?
(8) What is the maximum percentage of plutonium which NASA EXPECTED to be vaporized in a reentry accident, according to page 4-51 of the June 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini mission?
(9) What's the which minimum EXPECTED to be vaporized, according to that same page?
(10) What particle size range and mean can be expected from a vaporization, if it is approximately the same as for the reentry which occurred in April 1964 which provided actual data regarding the vaporization characteristics of plutonium?
(11) What particle size is ideal for lodging permanently in a person's lung if it is inhaled?
(12) How much radiation do the cells around a particle of plutonium receive, according to the late Dr. Karl Z. Morgan and related to me in a conversation in 1997, which I described in a statement published in a NASA Cassini document?
(13) How many Curies of plutonium did SNAP-9A carry?
(14) What chance of reentry did NASA give for SNAP-9A?
(15) Did the SNAP-9A reenter Earth's atmosphere?
(16) How many Curies are there in 2.1 lbs plutonium, assuming the mix is the same as for NASA's radioactive thermoelectric generators?
(17) How much plutonium was on board Russia's Mars '96?
(18) Where is it now?
(19) How much plutonium was on board Apollo 13?
(20) Where is it now?
(21) Can you prove it's there? Have you seen it? Has anyone seen it?
(22) What were NASA's official odd's against a Space Shuttle failure prior to the Challenger accident?
(23) What were NASA's official odds on the same thing shortly after the Challenger accident?
(24) What is the half-life of Pu 236?
(25) What is the half-life of Pu 238?
(26) What is the half-life of Pu 239?
(27) What is the half-life of Pu 240?
(28) What is the half-life of Pu 241?
(29) What is the half-life of Pu 242?
(30) For the next seven questions, the launch weight percentage may be given:
(31) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 236?
(32) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 238?
(33) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 239?
(34) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 240?
(35) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 241?
(36) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 242?
(37) What percentage of the RTG fuel is oxygen?
(38) What kind of radiation does plutonium 238 give off?
(39) What is an alpha particle?
(40) If inhaled or ingested, is an alpha-emitter dangerous?
(41) If so, why?
(42) What health effects does plutonium cause?
(43) How much plutonium 239 is considered by most people in medical science to be a fatal dose, because it will almost surely cause lung cancer if lodged permanently in a lung?
(44) How much Pu 238 would it take to have the same radiological effect?
(45) If two people each receive a dose of plutonium, but one receives 1000 times less than the other of the exact same radioisotopic composition (a theoretical statement, of course, for just as no two snowflakes are ever exactly alike, no two particles of mixed plutonium isotopes will be exactly alike), what would the relative chance that the person who receives the lower dose will suffer a health effect, compared to the chance that the person who receives the higher dose will suffer a health effect?
(46) It is a given that the rate at which health effects occur in a given population decreases as the dosage of radioactive particles which have been inhaled or ingested is decreased. But, will there be any difference in the TYPES of health effects either of the individuals cited in the above question might suffer?
(47) Is there such a thing as a mild form of cancer, leukemia, or birth defect? Or are they all, at best, survivable or non-survivable horrors?
(48) If NASA were to announce that future space missions would use only 1/10th as much plutonium as Cassini used, do you think this would reduce the risks to a reasonable level, if at the same time NASA tripled the number of launches and five other countries also began launching nuclear missions as well, because NASA's arrogance gave those other nations legal precedent for using so-called "peaceful space exploration missions" to get rid of some of their nuclear waste?
(49) Over approximately the past 4 decades, rockets from all nations capable of launching them have failed to achieve orbit, or have failed to escape Earth's gravitational field, or have failed at some other point, at a fairly constant (and alarming) rate. Approximately what is that rate?
(50) What's your favorite color of cancerous tumor?
If memory serves me correctly this is the fourth time David F. Doody has asked to "unsubscribe" from the Stop Cassini newsletter (soon to be renamed, and when it is, he MIGHT even get his wish). Our response follows. -- rdh
At 08:35 AM 9/27/99 -0700, David F. Doody wrote:
Cassini Mission Support & Service Office
To: David F. Doody, Operations Lead, Cassini Mission Support & Service Office
From: Russell D. Hoffman, concerned citizen of Spaceship Earth
Date: September 27th, 1999
re: Your letter to me [shown above]
According to James Oberg, "Cassini ... uses optical tracking of the target planet to refine the relative state vector, an option that was scrubbed from MCO for cost reasons. That's one of many reasons why, in terms of navigation, Earth is the safest planet to flyby, and why spacecraft with onboard nav (eg Cassini) are much safer than those without it (MCO)."
Please put some concrete numbers on Mr. Oberg's statements. How much more accurate is Cassini's navigation system than MCO's? 100 times better? 1000 times better? Or a million times better, which is what it would need to be for NASA's guess about the safety of Cassini to be what one might call "just barely not good enough" (since after all, MCO failed). Exactly how much more accurate is a flyby of Earth than an orbital insertion of Mars? Than a flyby of Jupiter? Than a flyby of Venus? Please give me NASA's "best guesses" (and whatever data exists to back up those guesses) for the actual risks involved in each of these types of operations.
Also, since you are a lead person on the Cassini mission, it behooves you to know the radiological burden you are (still!) risking inflicting upon Earthlings (since NASA's 1995 EIS makes it clear that even now, Cassini can come back to Earth). Please take the time to answer the following set of questions about Cassini and its radiological burden so that the public might know the extent (or lack thereof) of your knowledge.
Also, I would like to know if there are any other nuclear space missions you are involved in at this time.
Thank you in advance.
Russell D. Hoffman
Founder and Editor
STOP CASSINI newsletter
P.S. You are not a "subscriber and will not be "unsubscribed". My understanding is that you are a government employee in charge of a genocidal piece of technology and you have no real idea of what the dangers really are of what you have been playing with and what you support. It is my duty to try to inform you of the facts, and it is my right also to try to do so, as a citizen of Spaceship Earth.
Attachment: 44 questions about Cassini:
[44 -question version of the Cassini Quiz followed]
The editor will publish any responses received. -- rdh
Lee Jones has sent us a fascinating article everyone needs to read, because it really points out how primitive our understanding of what the solutions to the nuclear waste problem are. Here is one quote to illustrate the point, and Lee's letter and then the article follow:
"The rollovers were spectacular, but now we've got another problem, caused by the solution to that problem," said Stephen Agnew, a chemist who worked at Hanford for years. "Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an end to it," he said. -- From New York Times article shown below.
Here is a scary article on nuclear waste that has been buried in Washington State and now, as it threatens to poison the environment, seems to have attributes (the way it is described by this NYT press article) usually attributed to foods and creatures. A nuclear souffle? Nuclear waste that burps? Nuclear waste that bubbles gases like a carbonated soft drink! I don't think this touchy feely crap bodes well for the dangers potentially involved. Anyway, just wanted to pass the article on to you because it shows how deadly this stuff is even years down the road! This article says that if this tank burps during a lightning storm the tank could burst and Washington would have quite a challenge on its hands. A challenge? What a minimization!
Article is at URL:
September 27, 1999
Nuclear Site Is Battling a Rising Tide of Waste
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON -- A giant radioactive souffle is rising toward the top of a million-gallon tank of nuclear waste buried in the desert near Richland, Wash.
Whipped up unexpectedly by a pump that was supposed to dissipate pockets of hydrogen gas, the waste has smothered one tube for vapor sampling, threatens other instruments and could eventually overflow, according to officials of the Department of Energy and the contractor in charge of the tank, Lockheed Martin Hanford Corp. They are rushing to pump some of the waste into another tank, possibly within a month.
In May, workers stopped the growth, at least temporarily, by lancing the crust with high-pressure water jets, but the hole they made is beginning to close.
"I don't make any claims about this tank," said Donald Oakley, a retired environmental expert from Los Alamos National Laboratory, hired by the Energy Department as an outside consultant. "I'm not convinced anyone understands the chemistry and physics involved in this crust."
At the Washington State Department of Ecology, Mike Wilson, manager of the nuclear waste program, said that before the crust was lanced, engineers were predicting the waste would reach the top of the tank this fall. "It was 'The Blob' kind of thing," he said.
The 20-year-old tank, called SY-101, is buried just under the surface at the Hanford nuclear reservation, 20 miles from Richland, a city of about 32,000 people. The tank produces unwanted hydrogen as radiation fields bombard organic chemicals that were added years ago in what officials now say was a mistaken strategy to reduce the waste's volume.
Until six years ago, the hydrogen was emitted in huge releases that official studies call burps, causing "waste-bergs," chunks of waste floating on the surface, to roll over.
With the tank belching thousands of cubic feet of gas at roughly 100-day intervals, Energy Department officials were afraid that at some point it would burp during a lightning storm and cause an explosion. "Under certain conditions, you could rupture the tank," said Leo Duffy Jr., who was the Energy Department's chief environmental official during the Bush administration. "You'd have a challenge on your hands in the state of Washington," he said.
An explosion would spread radioactive material into the environment, experts say.
In retrospect, the gassy eructations were the good old days.
To reduce the chance of fire or explosion, the Energy Department ordered installation of a huge pump in July 1993 to break the hydrogen into tiny bubbles, which engineers hoped would then rise to the surface like carbon dioxide fizzing out of a soft drink.
For a time that worked. But engineers theorize that the crust started to toughen because it no longer rolled over from time to time, and it prevented the hydrogen from coming to the surface. In December 1997, the crust began to rise, even though virtually nothing was being added to the tank.
The waste's surface climbed from about 403 inches above the bottom of the tank to 435 inches at its peak, before workers lanced it, with each inch representing almost 3,000 gallons. That level was 13 inches above the maximum specified for the tank's operation. By Friday, the waste had risen again to 432 inches. The tank is protected by a double shell, but the waste is within 2 feet of the level at which the outer shell ends.
"We were getting awfully close, closer than we wanted to be," said Dr. Carolyn Huntoon, assistant secretary of energy for environmental management.
The crust also grew downward, and could eventually threaten the intake nozzle of the mixer pump. Experts say that if it clogged the pump, the hydrogen would begin accumulating at the bottom again and burping to the surface, but the crust that would then roll over would be four times bigger than it was before the pump was installed. And the vapor space at the top of the tank would be far smaller, making it easier to reach a hydrogen concentration that would support a fire or explosion.
"The rollovers were spectacular, but now we've got another problem, caused by the solution to that problem," said Stephen Agnew, a chemist who worked at Hanford for years. "Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an end to it," he said.
Another expert, Robert Alvarez, a former senior adviser to the energy secretary on environment, safety and health, said of the managers at Hanford: "They were lulled into complacency and forgot the fact the pump was only meant to be a temporary measure to mitigate the problem. They completely ignored the fundamental problem of dispositioning these materials."
Hanford managers should have transferred some of the contents to a different tank and diluted the rest to break up the crust years ago, he and others say.
In fact, in June 1996, the Energy Department crossed hydrogen off its list of problems at SY-101; in October of that year it announced that "all safety issues with the tank are now understood."
Fran DeLozier, president of Lockheed Martin Hanford Corp., said in a telephone interview, "It really wasn't until the fall of 1998 that everyone was convinced the crust was growing, that we didn't know how to stop the growth and that the solution was to do a transfer."
Even then, some people thought the department was moving too slowly. In June Agnew sent an e-mail to Oakley that said, "It is amazing that the level has reached 435 inches and no one is freaked out yet."
Some experts say that they are not sure the pumping will work and that they will not trade a bad situation (one problem tank) for a worse one (two problem tanks). There is only one spare tank available, and some experts think the wastes may be incompatible with other wastes that are supposed to go into it, organic liquids from older, leaking tanks that the department wants pumped dry, and wastes from a defunct plutonium-processing plant nearby.
"The whole situation at Hanford is a reaction mode rather than a planning mode," Duffy said. "I gather they're baffled by what's going on."
Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Marketplace
Quick News | Page One Plus | International | National/N.Y. | Business | Technology |
Science | Sports | Weather | Editorial | Op-Ed | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Diversions |
Job Market | Real Estate | Travel
Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today
Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company
This is a beautiful poem. It is sad that human-made horrors such as Bikini Atoll exist. We want to thank all those responsible for forwarding this poem around so that it came to us, and so that we can share it with our readers. We also want to thank the author for creating such a thing of beauty out of such a terrible waste:
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:48:18 +0930
Subject: [y2k-nuclear] Fw: Ballad of Bikini Atoll
From: David Morgan email@example.com
Subject: Ballad of Bikini Atoll
2 Sept 1999 David Morgan Vancouver BC
The grand tragedy of the Pacific nuclear tests will one day be expressed in many great art forms. In the mean time, here is a simple ballad from me.
The Marshall Islands Trust Territories
or Ballad of Bikini
A necklace of white coral
set in a turquoise sea
a far Pacific atoll
was given to a trustee.
The Pacific Marshall Islands
entrusted to U.S.A.
"to further peace and security"
the words of the charter say
To make the islands flourish
the U.N. Charter reads
by trading, teaching, building
and meeting the people's needs
Around their palm thatched village
the Pacific war swirled by
But in forty-six the ships came back
and the people wonder why
A smart American officer
has just sailed through the reef
he's walked up to the village
and he's speaking to the chief:
"We need an island just like yours
on which to make our test
but due to this bomb's mighty power
to leave here will be best."
The officer wore a fine uniform,
but the chief had a natural pride
he looked into those dark glasses
and with simple words replied:
"Your bomb will wreck our island home
our village it will flatten
Manhattan Project made your bomb
So test it on Manhattan."
The officer laughed and pointed:
"Those grey shapes far from land
are part of a mighty task force
the test is already planned
"That task force brings a message
that makes it very clear:
Manhattan Project made the bomb;
but the testing place is here."
"But have no fear of danger
we'll move you far away
and house you, feed you, all for free
So pack without delay"
And when our tests are over
we'll bring you back again
we'll rebuild all your houses
and you'll be right as rain
The tests began soon after
"for peace & security"
the bombs the trustees tested
Those raging atomic furies
that blazed out like the sun
spread poison ashes far and wide
the islands are in ruin
They poisoned those coral atolls
they poisoned the sea as well
they turned a Garden of Eden
to a radioactive hell
A necklace of white coral
set in a turquoise sea
a far Pacific atoll
was given to a trustee.
The U.S. was that trustee
The U.S. broke its trust
The honour of the U.S.A.
has blown away in dust
David Morgan, August 1999
"The basic objectives of the trustee system...
a. To further international peace and security.
b. To promote the political, economic, social and
educational advancement of the inhabitants of the
trust territories..."(Article 76 United Nations
Charter, 26 June 1945)///
* David Morgan, *
* 240 Holyrood Road, *
* North Vancouver, *
* BC, V7N 2R5 CANADA *
* Tel: 604-985-7147 *
* Fax: 604-985-1260 *
* firstname.lastname@example.org *
FREE 30 DAY TRIAL FOR EGROUPS MEMBERS: Portera Tracker - all you need
for bug & issue tracking. Access over the web & customize in minutes!
TRY IT FREE NOW! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/847
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 09:28:24 +0900
To: "Russell D. Hoffman" email@example.com
From: Richard Wilcox firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Harper's Index August '99
Tons of uranium from Russia's nuclear arsenal that the country will sell to a U.S. company over the next twenty years : 500
Annual cost of containing plants and animals accidentally irradiated at Washington's Hanford Nuclear Site : $2,000,000
Pounds of plutonium that a British nuclear plant has dumped into the Irish Sea since 1959 : 397
Percentage change in the number of ponds in Britain since the turn of the century : -75
Richard adds that he "can't believe NASA lost their stupid space probe!"
This is one reason I love my subscribers so much:
I enjoy your newsletter immensely,and you really have me captivated. I share your information with my family who are equally captivated,and I should add CONCERNED. You are good, real good!!
We thank Lu for the kind words. I hope I am good enough to get the job done of waking NASA and the world up to the threats of radioactive poison, but so far I have failed. -- rdh
NASA needs to be told in no uncertain terms NEVER to launch nuclear rockets of any type ever again!
To learn about the absurd excuses NASA used to launch Cassini and its 72.3 pounds of plutonium in 1997, ask them for the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini mission, and all subsequent documentation. At the same time, be sure to ask them for ANY and ALL documentation available on future uses of plutonium in space, including MILITARY, CIVILIAN, or "OTHER" (just in case they make a new category somehow!). To get this information, contact:
Cassini Public Information
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena CA 91109
(818) 354-5011 or
Here's NASA's "comments" email address: email@example.com
Daniel Goldin is the head of NASA. Here's his email address:
Here's the NASA URL to find additional addresses to submit written questions to:
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT NASA IS DOING TO YOUR HEALTH.
Be sure to "cc" the president and VP and your senators and congresspeople, too.
President Bill Clinton
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20500; Ph. (202) 456-1111, Fax (202) 456-2461;
e-mail -- firstname.lastname@example.org
Vice President Albert Gore
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20500;Ph. (202) 456-1414, Fax (202)
456-2461; e-mail -- email@example.com
Secretary William Cohen
Washington D.C. 20301
Secretary Bill Richardson
Department of Energy (DoE)
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington D.C. 20585
Always include your full name and postal address in all correspondence to any Government official of any country.
Thanks for reading! Welcome new subscribers!
Home page of our STOP CASSINI movement:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/cassini.htm (Accept NO imitations!)
To subscribe, simply email the editor at
firstname.lastname@example.org and state:
SUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Please include a personal message of any
length and subject matter. Thank you!
To unsubscribe email me and say
UNSUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
Written in U.S.A.
This newsletter is free and is not distributed for profit.
Please distribute these newsletters EVERYWHERE!
Many of the issues presented by Russell Hoffman in this letter are based on conversations with Dr. John W. Gofman (who isolated the first working quantities of plutonium), the late Dr. Karl Z. Morgan (who was known as the "father of health physics"), Dr. Ernest Sternglass (who has done statistical studies about LLR), Dr. Jay Gould (ditto), Dr. Horst Poehler, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dr. Ross Wilcock and dozens of activists, as well as many others on both sides of the nuclear debates, including ex military nuke expert Jack Shannon (responsible for the design of the D2G Navy reactor, the most widely used reactor in the U. S. navy), award-winning investigative reporter Karl Grossman, ecologist and human rights advocate Pamela Blockey-O'Brien, etc. Also, I've read a few dozen books on the various subjects. And scads of government documents purporting to explain how something so dangerous can be safe. Professionally, my pump training software is used throughout the pump industry and even in some nuclear power plants around the world to train their staff about mechanical pumps. Any errors herein are regrettably my own, but I believe it would take an extremely unlikely preponderance of errors to invalidate my basic position on these issues.
Russell D. Hoffman, Carlsbad, California, Peace Activist, Environmentalist, High Tech Guru:
Hoffman's Y2K Preparedness Information:
Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** Carlsbad CA
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site: