To: "Tyson Slocum" <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, "Karl Grossman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Paul Gunter" <email@example.com>, "Sara Barczak" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "PROGRESSIVE REVIEW" <email@example.com>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Our precious DNA is being threatened by this constant, unstopping escalation. (addendum + new libel from TS, RB)
Your name is only as good as your actions. In 50+ years, the anti-nuke movement has accomplished virtually nothing. In the 30 years you mentioned that Public Citizen has been working on the issue, the high level nuclear waste pile in America has grown from a few million pounds to nearly 50 million pounds and is right now growing at just about the fastest rate it's ever grown at. About 80% of our operating nuclear reactors have come online in that time. The pro-DNA movement has failed, and all of us who have tried to make it succeed are at fault. The are no prizes for failure, for any of us.
Besides that, despite your evil assertion about me, I didn't put ANY words in Sara Barczak's mouth (or anyone else's), I just published what she said, in its entirety. What she wrote roundly condemns Meserve and the meeting itself, and its implications for Public Citizen's integrity can be made by anyone. If people are upset that Meserve would attend this pro-nuclear (nuke-you-ler, as you pronounce it) pep rally party, then they should be at least as upset that Public Citizen is attending it and giving legitimacy to it, too. If they aren't upset about the one, but are about the other, then they aren't following through on their own train of logical thinking, and I can't be responsible for that. But I won't put words in Barczak's mouth. If she or anyone else wishes to defend Public Citizen on these pages, she knows my email address, as do the others. If she can figure out how Public Citizen deserves to be commended for attending, while Chairman Meserve is to be roundly condemned for the same thing, let her explain it to all. You couldn't offer me a legitimate explanation over the phone or in writing, and no one else has, either. Public Citizen deserves to be condemned for this action.
And as for the movement pulling together, we have to just do what's right EVERY TIME. Don't compromise your integrity for expediency, a larger audience, etc. etc.. I agree of course, that if we pull with each other we'll get a lot more done. That doesn't make any of us immune to criticism, but you seem to feel Public Citizen should be.
Cavorting with known criminals isn't right. Giving the Nuclear Mafia's Nuclear Renaissance hoe-down an air of legitimacy for the press by adding the "good name" of Public Citizen to their roster isn't right. Accusing me of trying to trash your "good name" is absolutely inappropriate. I merely have pointed out a serious error in your ways. That you are being so obstinate about it not being an error only compounds the error. There's NOTHING I can do about that, and it's not my fault. Stop shooting the messenger. I've been fair to you and given you every opportunity to explain yourselves, but it's my duty to point out your error because I saw that it had occurred. An honorable organization would revise a plan which, if carried out, would bring dishonor to that organization. That you attack me instead is pathetic at best.
It is both illegal and immoral to hang out with known gangsters. And if the Nuclear Mafia is anything else, we can all go home, there's nothing to worry about.
Below are yours and several related emails.
At 06:31 AM 8/7/02 , "Tyson Slocum" <email@example.com> wrote:
Before you use the comments of other people (in this case, Sara Barczak) as evidence that folks are critical of Public Citizen, perhaps you should talk to them first. I just had a conversation with Sara where she said she was glad that we were appearing at the conference.
The anti-nuclear community needs to pull together to fight this beast. Please stop trying to trash our good name! And please check with other people first before misrepresenting their positions.
Again, thanks for your consideration.
Critical Mass Energy & Environment Program
215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20003
You're not on my list, don't kid yourself. You asserted to me that Dr. John W. Gofman had been discredited the only time we ever met, last summer. I asked you to show me the evidence, you couldn't. You have no legitimacy in the pro-DNA movement. Your slander shown below does not add to your legitimacy in anyone's eyes.
[Note to reader's: Private communications with others has indicated unequivocally that Rochelle Becker has been waiting to strike at me for a long time. That she decided now is the time strongly indicates the importance of this issue, but little else.)
At 08:38 AM 8/7/02 , "Rochelle Becker" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote (on the California CAPPcoord forum):
Between you and I, Russell Hoffman is a very intelligent loose cannon
who alienates many who agree with him. I have found his tirades against
so many quite irksome (Although he has "threatened to take me off his
email list, he has not done so and to ask him to would bring on more
unneeded grief). I probably get everything you get and appreciate your
> The media aren't ignoring the fact that an N-attack against the US is being
> planned. What they are ignoring is that the weapons are our own, to be turned
> against us. Judo theory: Use your enemy's strengths to your advantage. That's
> precisely what happened last Sept. 11.
> Rick in San Francisco
> In a message dated 8/7/2002 2:49:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> email@example.com writes:
> << They ignore (at OUR peril!) the fact that a nuclear attack on
> New York (and on many other American cities, or on ANY American city) is
> unquestionably being planned RIGHT NOW by someone. >>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
To: Sam Smith, PROGRESSIVE REVIEW <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Mr. Smith,
Even if 1 pound of nuke waste equals 100,000 pounds of coal energy, as claimed by one of your writers (it's not really anything near that useful; they have a variety of ways the increase the apparent efficiency of the nuclear fuel cycle), it wouldn't translate to 100,000 shipments of coal for each nuke waste shipment anyway. Why not? Because a nuke shipment has to be relatively small, with a lot of containment. For example, it might have a 20-to-1 ratio of fuel to containment (by weight), not including the transportation vehicle itself (the 20-to-1 weight ratio is just for the cask they carry the waste in, that they put on the transportation vehicle). Coal has NO containment besides the transportation vehicle, because it's not dangerous. Also, coal trains can be miles long (very efficient), while nuke casks have to be moved one at a time with multiple guard trucks fore and aft (very inefficient and expensive, but necessary). Also, coal can be transported as a slurry, and you don't need trains at all. I don't know what this isn't done more. Also, you can generate the electricity at the coal site now, because long-distance transmission efficiencies are so much greater than they used to be. Again, I don't know why this isn't being done more. Lastly, other than derailing it, which you can do with a nuke train too, with far worse consequences, you can't commit a terrorist act by attacking a coal train.
A more realistic calculation might be that 1 shipment of extremely dangerous nuke waste equals a few relatively harmless shipments of coal. The sort of math your pro-nuker writer supplied was pure hokey, but typical of how they balance (or cook) their books.
Please visit my DEMON HOT ATOM web site, with a history and glossary of nuclear power: