From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Just a couple of truths I think we all ought to consider self-evident
by now...
In-Reply-To: <20030213213842.9966.qmail@web20501.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.20030213100004.0104e578@mail.adnc.com>
Dear Readers,
Thanks very much for all your emails (some of which are shown below).
My apologies to those whom I haven't answered (yet!).
If you know ANYONE who is protesting for peace, PLEASE let them know about
the NUCLEAR WAR George Bush, Dick Cheney, Spencer Abraham, Richard "Rich
Rad" Meserve, Sean O'Keefe and others are WAGING against the PEOPLE OF
AMERICA and all the people of Earth.
A war crimes trial is needed for the nuclear "COLD WAR" nuclear criminals,
who not only RUN FREE, they still promote their DEMON HOT ATOM.
I am beginning to think that the most recent Bin Laden tape just might be authentic.
I had originally completely discounted the possibility, in part because so little
of it was audible, but now I suspect the tape is real, and my guess is that
Bin Laden still works for the CIA, and is trying to draw as many religious fanatics
as possible to their martyrdom, via death-by-the-hand-of-the-great-Satan (that
would be US) in Iraq. Even if Bin Laden is no longer paid by the CIA,
it sure is convenient for the Bush Administration that bin Laden is telling
all his followers to go to Iraq, dig in, and die. Perhaps the tape is
forged. Perhaps Bin Laden is a fool. Perhaps he was deranged to
begin with, and then, subjected to 18 months of being hunted and bombed, he
has lost what little sense he had left. Intense bombardment drives people
mad. I do not believe there is any record of it ever driving a mad man
sane.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Senior Counter-Intelligence Strategist
Planet Earth
HQ: Carlsbad, CA, USA
CONTENTS:
Feedback from Molly Johnson
Feedback from Richard Knee
Trying to change the world ONE REPORTER AT A TIME
Subject: [globenet] Fwd: "shuttle Columbia appears to have been carrying
nuclear material"
THE PORT OF NO RETURN: San Onofre drops everything (including logic) to rid
itself of Unit 1 900-ton RPV
Peace on Earth, Good Will Towards Iraq
[DOEWatch] Attack On A Nuclear Plant 'Could Kill 3.5 Million People'
Note to readers: Please distribute this newsletter!
============================================================
------------------------------------------------
I've enhanced and improved (once again) the NO NUKES IN SPACE Flash MX animation.
Even if you've visited it before, you might want to take another look:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.swf
or try
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.html
=======================================================
Feedback from Molly Johnson:
=======================================================
[[[What Molly Johnson and Richard Knee are responding to is reprinted below
-- rdh.]]]
At 01:38 PM 2/13/2003 , Molly Johnson <mollypj@yahoo.com> wrote (clip):
Are you talking about our People's Policy on Radioactive Waste - or is
this something new. If so, would love to read it.
----------------------------------------------------
It was just a couple of truths I think we all ought to consider self-evident
by now. -- rdh
========================================================
Feedback from Richard Knee:
========================================================
--------------------------------------
At 11:33 AM 2/13/2003 , Richard Knee <rak0408@earthlink.net> wrote (in
response to the same statement:
For other provisions in the real Patriot Act, see the U.S. Constitution.
------------------------------------
Dear Richard,
That's got to be the best response I've ever received from anyone for anything
I've ever sent out.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Russell
-------------------------------------------------
Followup:
At 02:07 PM 2/13/2003 , Richard Knee <rak0408@earthlink.net> wrote:
Every so often, someone takes a copy of the Constitution, minus the title, and
asks
people on the street to read it and say yea or nay [to] such a document. Most
folks respond
that it's too communistic.
-----------------------------------------------------
Being a humanitarian is the most basic Patriotic gesture there is. People
love to point out how much FREEDOM the Constitution grants us, but then don't
bother to recognize the RESPONSIBILITIES it demands. -- rdh
========================================================
The statement:
========================================================
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
The real PATRIOT ACT -- the one that needs to be passed, not the one that was
passed -- declares the United States of America a nuclear-power-free zone.
It declares Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction ILLEGAL,
even for superpowers.
It declares that the public shall be told the full truth about America's enormous
nuclear waste problem. (It's everywhere. It's growing. It's unsolvable.)
It declares that NASA -- and SPACE -- shall both be demilitarized.
It declares the individual's right to live in an clean environment -- one where
the so-called "background radiation level is NOT creeping up and up and
up every year, causing the premature DEATHS OF MILLIONS.
It declares radiological weapons immoral and ceases operation at LANL, ORNL
and other all WMD facilities.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Hoffman
Senior Policy Advisor
Planet Earth
HQ: Carlsbad, CA , USA
The full email is available online here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/cass2003/usnuclearfreenow.htm
----------------------------------------------------
Please pass it around! -- rdh
========================================================
Trying to change the world ONE REPORTER AT A TIME:
========================================================
At 02:25 PM 2/13/2003 , m wrote:
Hi Mr. Hoffman. My name is M, a ...- based journalist working with Latin
American media. I'm writing a "sequel" of a recent article about the
Columbia, but now about the Price Anderson Act and what could happen in the
case of an incident like the Columbia disaster but with a ship with nuclear
propulsion and outside the United States.
The article is for the ... magazine ..., one of the largest in the country.
My question is what could happen if a shuttle with nuclear propulsion
falls, not in Texas but in [the magazine's home country]?
Any another comments are welcome. The only problem is that my deadline
is tomorrow around noon. Do you think that you can give me some comments in
time? That will be great.
Thank you very much, M....
PS: you still can see the article about the Columbia at ...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email [shown above]. If you haven't spoken with Karl
Grossman yet, he's probably the best source for exact, well-referenced "numbers",
such as exactly how much the US would pay out for such an accident.
I believe the figure is $100,000,000.00 for all damages from a nuclear accident
outside the U.S., be it from a nuclear-propulsed ship, or a Columbia type accident,
or even an accidental explosion of a nuclear warhead in or near a major city.
Just One Hundred Million Dollars. It would probably cost more in lawyer's
fee's to collect that money, anyway, because they'll fight you tooth and nail
for it.
I hope you will be able to view my instructional tutorial about the history
of nukes in space. It's very short, and is also my newest educational software
project (others are listed below):
NO NUKES IN SPACE:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.swf
or try:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.html
(Requires Netscape 7 or IE 6, and FLASH 6 (aka FLASH MX).)
I believe that any consideration of the engineering requirements for spy satellites
makes it clear that the U.S. military is probably launching a lot of plutonium
in space already.
What they've done is they've built a containment system which is supposed to
either fail COMPLETELY at high altitude or (with any luck) not fail at all (at
least in theory).
This system (with names like RTGs, RHUs, GPHSs, GISs, etc.) protects NASA and
the US Government from anyone being able to prove that a particular cancer,
leukemia, or birth defect they've got or their child has, was actually caused
by NASA's release of plutonium or other radioactive substances at high altitude
and widely dispersed.
Of course, this containment system has a major problem, which is that terrorists
can get hold of the plutonium if it makes it back to the ground. NASA
therefore prefers its accidents be over water, but statistically, of course,
it won't always happen that way.
Thank you again for your email, and please feel free to call or write for any
clarification or if I can answer any more questions.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA, USA
Author (or Coauthor), illustrator, and programmer for the following Internet
publications:
The Demon Hot Atom:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/index.htm
List of Nuclear Power Plants in America:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist.htm
NO NUKES IN SPACE:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.swf
or try:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.html
Glossary of Pumps:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/pumpglos/pumpglos.htm
Co-Author:
Learn Statistics (Password: NO NUKES!):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/elearning/index.html
===========================================================
Prior document in this series:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/cass2003/usnuclearfreenow.htm
This email well be available there soon, as well
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Note: The last reporter I spoke to (who called from London a week or so ago)
said his article was canned; he didn't know why; but was hoping it would appear
some time before the first ROVER launch. Perhaps he wrote too much about
the military connection I tried to concentrate on during the conversation --
perhaps someone had a "discussion" with the reporter's Editor! (this
was a major British paper we're talking about).
When the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk sank, retired US Navy Admirals quickly
got on CNN, NBC, ABC and FOX to tell the public there was no danger from the
radiation (which was not true). Similarly, it would be in the best interests
of the pro-nuclear governments of England, France, Israel, Russia, China, etc.
to politely ignore America's pro-nuclear policies, because they've all got a
few plans of their own, and also they all have nuclear power plants (and/or
nuclear weapons) which they don't want a wised-up public opposing.
-- rdh)
============================================================
Subject: [globenet] Fwd: "shuttle Columbia appears to have been carrying
nuclear material":
============================================================
At 09:23 PM 2/14/2003 , ReCarDeaux@aol.com fowarded this:
To: globenet@yahoogroups.com
From: jonathan mark <flyby@acornworld.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:09:41 -0500
Subject: [globenet] Fwd: "shuttle Columbia appears to have been carrying
nuclear
material"
>
><http://www.xymphora.blogspot.com>http://www.xymphora.blogspot.com
>
>Friday, February 14, 2003
>The shuttle Columbia appears to have been carrying nuclear material,
>material which is now spread all over Texas and elsewhere. How much
>material was on board? Unfortunately, NASA is about the last place you'd
>look to get a straight answer, but we can piece together some facts:
> * The Sheriff of Nacogdoches, Texas, Thomas Kerss,
> <http://www.rense.com/general34/shuttleWAScarrying.htm>stated
that there
> was nuclear material on board the shuttle, and therefore any recovered
> debris would be tested for radioactivity. The Shreveport Times
> <http://www.shreveporttimes.com/html/359ABBEF-A603-45E8-A05E-CCC07671209D.shtml>reports,
> referring to Nacogdoches County: "NASA provided county officials with
a
> list of recovery priorities that includes anything that could contain
> data or resembles computer circuitry, or potentially radioactive
> materials." What does 'potentially radioactive' mean?
> * The Orlando Sentinel
> <http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asecssdebris07020703feb07,0,5524674.story>reports:
>
>
> * "Dale Vodak, environmental investigator for the
Texas Commission on
> Environmental Quality, said the teams have made progress recovering
> hazardous materials, including explosive bolts, fuel cells and a small
> quantity of a radioactive isotope, Americium 242 - used in smoke
> detectors." <http://www.bartleby.com/65/am/americiu.html>Americium
is a
> radioactive metal. Smoke detectors <http://www.uic.com.au/nip35.htm>use
> Americium 241. It may be a coincidence, but the Israelis
> <http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0kcj0>are
> <http://www.spacedaily.com/news/fuel-01a.html>researching
the use of
> Americium 242m as a nuclear fuel to propel spacecraft. An Israeli, Ilan
> Ramon, was doing scientific research on the shuttle. Could he have had
a
> secret project to test the use of Americium 242m as a propellant in
> space? If so, how much of it is now spread over Texas?
> * Unless someone actually approaches a significant concentration
of
> nuclear material, we are not likely to see any dramatic deaths. NASA is
> presumably counting on the fact that the effects of the crash will only
> be a statistical long term rise in certain kinds of cancers, which will
> only become apparent long after it has started its nuclear program.
> * Animals in Texas
> <http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/12/sprj.colu.sick.animals/>are
> <http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=31&art_id=vn20030213060232876C826009&set_id=1>showing
> <http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/space/1776163>symptoms
of unusual
> illness. This could be caused by exposure to some chemical in the debris.
> Could it also be caused by exposure to radiation?
> * The shuttle, if it did contain radioactive material,
is now serving
> as an experiment for NASA in determining how widely the material would
> spread in a crash. Not telling the people of Texas about their possible
> exposure, and thus preventing them from taking any steps to keep from
> getting sick, will allow NASA to study the long-term health effects of
> any spread of radioactive materials.
>NASA is trying to tread carefully as it heads towards the use of
>nuclear-powered space exploration
>(<http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/11514.php>some
><http://www.space4peace.org/>people
are
><http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/articles/columbiaswake.htm>against
><http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20030203063634587.html>this
-
>remember the protests against the use of nuclear fuel
><http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/>in
><http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9710/10/cassini.advancer/>the
><http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/september97/worsham.htm>Cassini?).
>Obviously, the crash of a nuclear-powered shuttle over earth could have
>immensely tragic consequences. NASA feels it needs nuclear fuel to send
>man to Mars, and is desperate, for a combination of practical (a Mars
>mission will keep NASA alive) and mystical (a Mars mission will allow for
>the continuance of the quasi-religious attitude NASA has towards manned
>space missions; did you see those insane NASA scientists salivate in their
>Columbia press conferences when they talked of 'manned space flight'?))
>reasons to have a manned mission to Mars. If NASA were to reveal that
>Texans and others may have been exposed to radiation due to some secret
>experiment, the political repercussions would probably end the chance for
>NASA to use nuclear power in space. The use of nuclear power in space is
>also part of the militarization of space, something which the Bush
>Administration is in the process of implementing. Since no one is able to
>stop the Bush Administration or the nuts at NASA, I imagine we're going
to
>see many more of this kind of incident as NASA conducts its experiments
on
>the world.
>posted
><http://www.xymphora.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_xymphora_archive.html#89082028>4:01
>AM
>
>
>--
>-----------------------Flyby News--------------------====>
News Fit to Transmit in the post Cassini flyby era
<<<>>> http://www.flybynews.com
<<<>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
[ Yahoo! Newsgroup stuff]
=======================================================
San Onofre drops everything (including logic) to rid itself of Unit 1 900-ton
RPV:
=======================================================
Recently, Southern California Edison lifted the enormous Reactor Pressure Vessel
out of the San Onofre Unit One Nuclear Power Station. Barnwell, South
Carolina, the nation's "low-level' nuclear waste repository, has apparently
agreed to take it. But how will SCE get it there? The local port
in South Carolina has refused to let the RPV through, and the rail routes are
treacherous, and run through thousands of neighborhoods with strong opposition,
and a lot of the bridges can't take the weight anyway.
What SCE wants to do is send it through the Panama Canal, but apparently they
were unable to get permission. This thing is highly irradiated (no matter
what they call it!), and if it fell off the barge, or if the barge were to sink,
it could spew radiation for millennia AND be IMPOSSIBLE to clean up effectively,
because even if you picked up the pieces, the downstream effluent would already
have contaminated the area. The Panama Canal would be permanently damaged
from the breakup point downstream to the oceans, which are already permanently
contaminated by more than a dozen other Reactor Pressure Vessels which were
used in nuclear submarines. The Sea Wolf, a Navy training reactor, is
also there.
So what will SCE do? They are "negotiating", which can only
mean seeing who they can bully, bribe, or confuse. They might send the
reactor pressure vessel around the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Horn, or by land.
They claim they have many options. They desperately need the SPACE because
San Onofre is on the smallest parcel of land of any commercial reactor facility
in America, and they need to start using DRY CASK STORAGE immediately, or they'll
"run out of space". Right now the spent fuel pool racks are
triple-packed and highly dangerous -- perfect for terrorists OR accidents.
And, they are routinely risking SoCal's future to refuel, and turn yet another
batch of slightly-enriched (barely above "Depleted") Uranium into
HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE -- SPENT FUEL.
And if you think they're having trouble getting Unit 1's RPV moved, because
no one wants it traveling near them, just IMAGINE what obstacles they'll have
when they (and all the other nuclear power plants) try to move the HIGH LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE FUEL.
-- rdh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 02:47 PM 2/15/2003 "Richard J. Redfield" forwarded:
*****************************************************
Obstacles hindering move of reactor to South Carolina
The Associated Press
Published 3:25 a.m. PST Friday, February 14, 2003
SAN DIEGO(AP) - A series of problems over the past several months will
likely delay plans to move a decomissioned nuclear reactor from the San
Onofre power plant to South Carolina, Southern California Edison officials
acknowledged.
The 900-ton reactor was supposed to be shipped next month to a nuclear waste
site in Barnwell County, S.C., but Edison officials believe there may be too
many challenges to meet their projected deadlines.
The Panama Canal Authority has denied the energy giant access through the
waterway because the reactor is six times heavier than the allowable amount,
officials said. The Canal officials are also worried that the reactor could
fall off a barge and block the canal, Edison spokesman Ray Golden said.
"We were disappointed," Golden said. But "you could certainly
understand
their need to make sure transit through the canal is not delayed in any
way."
Golden said the firm has offered to send salvaging equipment with the barge,
and is urging the Canal Authority to reconsider.
If canal officials don't change their mind, Edison will either have to ship
the reactor on a barge 11,000 miles around Cape Horn at the tip of South
America, or ship it west, navigating around Asia and Africa in an even
longer trip.
Planning for either trip would probably delay the voyage until at least
November.
Other problems have occurred such as disputes with the California Department
of Transportation and opposition from environmentalists.
"This reactor is likely to become the garbage barge of California, wanted
by
no one and adrift at sea," said Mark Massara, coastal programs director
of
the Sierra Club of California.
The reactor was to be loaded onto a barge at the Camp Pendleton Marine base
next month and shipped to a burial site in Barnwell County, S.C.
The California Coastal Commission last week narrowly approved a request by
Edison to move the reactor by truck 15 miles across a state park and beach
lands at the Camp Pendleton base. It must complete the project by March 31,
to avoid the primary nesting season of the snowy plover, which lives there.
The reactor is classified as low-level radioactive waste, which is not as
dangerous as the spent nuclear fuel that is stored at the San Onofre nuclear
plant. However, among the three types of low-level waste, it is the most
dangerous, Golden said.
****************************************************
Richard Redfield
webhead@nuclearwitness.org
www.nuclearwitness.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Richard,
I wonder who writes this crap? Do they only put cubbie reporters on the
nuclear beat or something?
I, too used to fall for the idea that LLRW was "not as dangerous"
as HLRW until I learned it was the exact same thing, diluted.
This thing should not be permitted on the high seas or anywhere else. There's
no reason to move it if we're leaving all that fuel there, anyway (which of
course, we are).
They are only moving it because the folks at Barnwell are sufficiently misinformed
to want it, and the folks along the various shipping routes are all kept in
the dark as much as possible as to .what route it will actually take (it seems
SCE doesn't know, either). They'll probably "accidentally" drop
it in the ocean and be done with it -- off somebody else's coast, not America's,
of course.
-- rdh
=================================================
Peace on Earth Good Will Towards Iraq:
=================================================
According to a recent poll by a British news service, the British public considers
America the #1 Threat to World Peace. More of a threat than Iraq or North
Korea! We have Bush's incessant war-mongering to thank for this.
Tens of millions of people all over the world are protesting Shrub's upcoming
Personal Vendetta With Iraq. February 15th, 2003 was probably the biggest
single day of protests in history. God Bless 'Em, Every One.
It is, however, extremely unfortunate that even if these protesters succeed
in stopping a war with Iraq, they have not stopped the vastly larger war which
is silently occurring all around them -- the inappropriately named Cold War,
which continues to this day. Most of these protesters unquestionably have
NO IDEA of all the crimes they need to get busy and stop!
7% of our energy comes from Nuclear Power. Let's make it 0%. Impeach
Cheney. Impeach Bush.
-- rdh
=====================================================
[DOEWatch] Attack On A Nuclear Plant 'Could Kill 3.5 Million People':
=====================================================
From: magnu96196@aol.com
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:04:34 EST
Subject: [DOEWatch] Attack On A Nuclear Plant 'Could Kill 3.5 Million People'
Source:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=378739
==========================================================
Attack On A Nuclear Plant 'Could Kill 3.5 Million People'
By Geoffrey Lean Environment Editor
The Independent - UK
2-16-3
More than three and a half million people could be killed by a terrorist
attack on a British nuclear plant, concludes a series of three reports so
alarming that even Greenpeace - which commissioned them - is unwilling to
publish them.
The reports - whose findings the Government has also sought to suppress -
show that terrorists could identify the most dangerous parts of the plants
from publicly available information and crash aircraft into them, releasing
vast amounts of radioactivity.
Now MPs and peers have launched an investigation by the Parliamentary Office
of Science and Technology into the revelations as part of a formal inquiry
into "the possible risks and consequences of a terrorist attack at a nuclear
facility in the UK". They decided to set up the inquiry last month - at
the
urging of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee - drawing on the
reports and other material, even though ministers warned that much of the
information they needed was secret and would not be made available to them.
The reports show that Britain could face a far greater threat than the danger
of ricin, constantly quoted by ministers, or the warnings of a rocket attack
on an aircraft that led to last week's deployment of tanks at Heathrow. Yet
one of their authors - John Large, an independent nuclear expert - says that
the Government has reacted to it with "staggering indolence".
The three reports, commissioned by Greenpeace after the 11 September attacks,
cover the vulnerability of Britain's nuclear installations, the possibility
of an attack from the air and the consequences of the resulting disaster.
They were completed at the end of 2001, but the pressure group has sat on
them for over a year, unable to decide what to do with them. They are still
being kept a closely guarded secret.
The first, by Dr Large, concludes that Britain's nuclear plants are "almost
totally ill-prepared" for an airborne terrorist attack. The second, by
an
aviation expert, suggests that it would only take four minutes for an
airliner to divert from its regular flight path to attack the most dangerous
target of all, the Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria. And the third, by
leading scientist Dr Frank Barnaby, estimates that, at worst, 3.6 million
people could die as a result.
Dr Large said last night that he had found it "astonishingly easy"
to get
information on targets at Sellafield and other nuclear plants, and that he
had been sent official reports identifying them without any attempt to check
on his bona fides.
He said: "A terrorist cell charged with attacking Sellafield could readily
obtain sufficient information from publicly available documents to identify
highly hazardous and vulnerable targets for which there exists little defence
in depth."
Dr Barnaby - a former Aldermaston scientist, who was for 10 years director of
the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute - concludes that a jumbo
jet crashing into Sellafield could cause a fireball over a mile high.
He says that 25 times as much radioactivity as was emitted by the Chernobyl
disaster in 1986 would be likely to be released, eventually killing 1.1
million people from cancer. In the worst case scenario, the number of deaths
could reach 3.6 million.
Dr Large was so alarmed by his findings that he asked Greenpeace not to
publish his report, and stamped the words "Not for Open Publication"
on every
page.
Greenpeace, for its part, has been paralysed by indecision by the reports,
unable to decide even to disclose their findings to ministers or officials to
try to get them to act on the vulnerabilities they identified.
The pressure group is highly sensitive about this, and has only now decided
-
after repeated questioning by The Independent on Sunday - "to seek to
stimulate this debate within government over the next months".
Shaun Birnie, a nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace International, said last
week that there had been "months of debate" inside the organisation
about
what to do with the reports, with some activists fearing that the Government
might take action against it.
He admitted: "We never got round to agreeing how to use this report"
but
threatened that any suggestion in this article that Greenpeace had sat on the
report would damage relations with the IoS.
Challenged to explain the organisation's lack of urgency at a time of an
increasing terrorist threat, he said: "There is no reason to rush this.
A
year is a very, very short time in the half life of plutonium."
=========================================================
I wonder if the folk at Greenpeace have read my (infamous!) article: "25
Simple Ways A Small Group of Terrorists Could Destroy A Nuclear Power Plant
in under 25 minutes, with under $25,000, using LESS THAN 25 rolls of duct tape
and some plastic sheeting"? -- rdh
Here are the email addresses this question has been sent to.
"Grenpeace/Czech Republic" <greenpeace@ecn.cz>
"Greenpeace/USA" <greenpeace.usa@wdc.greenpeace.org>
"Greenpeace/UK" <info@uk.greenpeace.org>
"Greenpeace/Russia" <greenpeace.russia@diala.greenpeace.org>
"Greenpeace/Japan" <greenpeace.japan@dialb.greenpeace.org>
"Greenpeace/India" <greenpeaceindia@vsnl.com>
"Greenpeace/Germany" <mail@greenpeace.de>
"Greenpeace/Eastern Europe/Tobias Muenchmeyer" <tobias.muenchmeyer@ams.greenpeace.org>
"Greenpeace/Canada" <greenpeace.toronto@dialb.greenpeace.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=====================================================
Note to readers: Please distribute this newsletter!:
=====================================================
LOTS OF PEOPLE are wondering WHO ELSE reads these newsletters. Unfortunately,
YOU probably don't know 99% of the people who read them, and neither do I.
But these newsletters keep turning up, in bits and pieces, all over the Internet
(you can of course verify this with Yahoo or many other search engines any time
you wish). The list of "dignitaries" who have graced these newsletters
with comments is long; it represents an excellent sampling of the entire anti-nuclear
movement for the past 5+ years. The rest who are writing have probably
had a few things published here as well, even if they didn't send it to me specifically.
It's well known, for example, that David Lochbaum is only the latest to have
commented on something in these pages, then DROPPED THE BALL when the hard questions
came in. We still await his answers, or answers from some other representative
of The Union of (un)Concerned Scientists.
Pro-nuclear people in the U. S. Government DO read these newsletters.
MEDIA DO read these newsletters (as shown by the recent Utah media libel I received
after my Nukes Are Next warning after the Columbia disaster (what did the newsdesk
people there want me to talk about -- the possibility of Space Debris hitting
the wing? Well, duh!))
Why am I drawing all this to your attention now? The reason so many people
in the movement know about these newsletters is because it's obvious that my
audience is knowledgeable, international, concerned, and well-educated on matters
of nuclear problems. Redistributing this newsletter IS what gives it its
strength. So please do so, and I can't thank you enough!
And when you can't think of anyone else to send it to, please contact the General
Accounting Office of the United States Government and tell them to INVESTIGATE
THE CHENEY ENERGY PLAN for its SECRET PRO-NUCLEAR AGENDA.
Here's who to contact at the GAO:
"Ms
Gary L Jones" <JonesGL1@GAO.GOV> (Director of Environmental Enforcement)
"Mr.
Dwayne E Weigel" <WeigelD@GAO.GOV> (Assistant to Ms Jones
-- all email to Ms Jones should ALSO be sent to Mr. Weigel.)
Please -- Do it again if you've done it before, do it now if you never have.
It won't take long, but it might just be the straw that breaks the Nuclear Demon's
back. The U.S. Government does not need to have a pro-nuclear stance when
the vast majority of Americans unquestionably would choose differently, if given
the facts. I've looked all over for the most responsible party there --
it's the GAO, it's Ms Jones. If President Bush won't take on a reasonable,
scientific, sound stance on nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and nukes in space,
then the whole reason we have a government made of "checks and balances"
should be rolled into motion, to stop Bush's insane pro-nuclear stance from
hurting the public. It's time for a change, and if it's to be done lawfully,
the GAO is where is has to begin (IMHO).
-- rdh
=====================================================
This newsletter is available online here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2003/acoupleoftruths.htm