To: "Tyson Slocum" <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Response to PUBLIC CITIZEN'S participation in Nuclear Renaissanceconference
Regarding your complaint (shown below) that I misquoted you, it is a trivial difference at best, barely above semantics. I don't know why you even brought it up. Certainly it wasn't my intent to misquote you; I hardly would have sent you a copy in that case, would I have?
And for your information, this is NOT a democracy -- in a democracy, the people would not be subject to the random genocidal attacks of the Nuclear Mafia. The lie that the original civilian nuclear power plants were for electricity and not weapons-grade plutonium would not still be promoted by the mainstream media. (And the modern truth would be told, that the whole industry is little more than a full-employment program for retirees of the Nuclear Navy.) The lie that LLR doesn't kill wouldn't be perpetuated, either. The lie that sea dumping of nuclear waste is safe wouldn't be, either. OSHA and other government agencies would have shared regulatory control at the power plants, instead of having all the control in the hands of the NRC. And those are, of course, just for starters. A democracy wouldn't threaten other nations with Global Nuclear War.
What a democracy would do, is switch to renewable energy because the current choice is uneconomical at best, not to mention undemocratic (highly centralized) and extremely risky and lethal.
And speaking of misquoting, I did not call Public Citizen a "sell-out organization", though perhaps it would not have been inappropriate. Also, I did not "yell" at you over the phone at any time.
I asked you to give me the details of how your participation in the Nuclear Renaissance event came about, and to justify why adding your name to the meeting did not add credibility and respectability to what will obviously be a very biased event with NO purpose but to IMPRESS THE PRESS. Also, I asked for details such as whether you would be talking to the whole audience (yes, you thought), and when you would be speaking (you didn't know), and how much time you would be given (you didn't know that, either).
I realize now that the problem may be that you are absolutely right -- PUBLIC CITIZEN's attendance will not add any credibility or respectability to the meeting.
Russell D. Hoffman
At 03:47 PM 8/5/02 , Tyson Slocum wrote:
Never in my phone conversation with you did I say that these individuals "wouldn't think to criticize" Public Citizen. After you yelled at me accusing Public Citizen of being a sell-out organization for accepting the invitation to speak at the "nuclear renaissance" conference, I stated, "Well, maybe you should contact Mr. Gunter and others and ask them whether they believe Public Citizen to be a sell out organization." I do not appreciate being mischaracterized in your email.
Mr. Hoffman, I appreciate your obvious commitment as an anti-nuclear activist. But I do not appreciate the very aggressive tone you took with me over the phone. But, as I told you over the phone, "this is a democracy and we are all entitled to our opinions."
Thanks for your consideration,
>>> "Russell D. Hoffman" <email@example.com> 08/05/02 06:42PM >>>
Dear Karl, Paul, and Paula,
I just got off the phone with Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen, who assured
me that Public Citizen's attendance in the Nuclear Renaissance conference
to be held on the anniversary of 9-11 in no way lends credence or
respectability to the conference. I disagree completely.
I pointed out that the only "unbiased" point of view besides theirs was NRC
Chairman Richard Meserve, who, as the head of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, is supposed to be unbiased.
I also quoted each of your comments concerning Meserve's participation,
shown below (the previous email where I collected them is included in its
entirety, below, and is also available online at my web site).
Mr. Slocum assured me that each of you are strong supporters of Public
Citizen and wouldn't think to criticize them -- on anything, he seemed to
presume. I attempted to explain to him that each of you all already has
condemned Public Citizen, by dint of your condemnation of Meserve's
participation in the conference which Public Citizen has agreed to attend
(I wasn't invited to attend, for the record, but I'll be interested to know
if anyone besides Public Citizen was invited, and if so, what their reasons
were for choosing not to attend).
Mr. Slocum asked me to ask each of you directly your definitive opinion
about Public Citizen. I resisted, because, as I explained to him, I felt
that there was a possibility that none of you would want to criticize
Public Citizen directly because "yesterday you (Public Citizen) were
probably good, and tomorrow you will probably be good (but today you have
made a mistake)". He stridently insisted that I contact you all for
clarification, so I am doing so with this letter.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, and any comments any
of you care to make will be appreciated.
(Noting that, more useful than responding, I think, would be to comment on
Pamela Blockey-O'Brien's comment at the bottom of the email shown below,
about needing Nuremberg-type trials for the Nuclear Mafia. If we could all
come to agreement on THAT, there wouldn't be a need for ANY of this
silliness and the "trials" could begin. We would ALL be allowed to attend
the PUBLIC trials, or at least, watch them on CSPAN-235.)
Russell D. Hoffman
The attachment to the original letter can be found here:
"It may not happen in my lifetime, but I am convinced that one day there will be trials of this entire Nuclear Mafia similar to the Nuremberg Trials, and it will include every animal-torturing pseudo-scientist, every nuclear weaponeer and warhead designer, not to mention the IAEA and the Death-of-the-Earth squad."
-- Pamela Blockey-O'Brien, Douglassville, Georgia, in comments to the Department of Transportation, July, 2002:
(RSPA-1999-6283-117 Comment(s) 07/30/2002 Pamela Blockey-O'Brien)