(3) Study: Cancer deaths decrease when nuke plants close:
From: Edith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 00:23:33 -0500
Subject: [JerseyShoreNuclearWatch] Radiation and Public Health Project website on 8 nuclear plant study
Press Release based on Study of 8 nuclear plants - demonstrate that when nuclear plants shut down the rate of cancer goes down.
April 26, 2000 Press Release Contact: Scott Cullen:
Infant Deaths Drop Dramatically After Nuclear Plants Close
Model, Congressman Join Groups In Calling on Government
to Consider Adverse Health Effects of Radiation
When Renewing Nuclear Plant Licenses
[WASHINGTON, D.C] -- Infant death rates near five U.S. nuclear plants dropped immediately and dramatically after the reactors closed, a new study shows, raising questions about the government's refusal to consider the effects of radioactive emissions from nuclear plants on local residents (see attached).
Moreover, dramatic decreases in childhood cancer cases and deaths from birth defects, which are strongly affected by radiation exposure, occurred near one of the reactors. The study suggests that the health of 42 million Americans who live downwind and within 50 miles of a nuclear plant may be affected by these reactors, according to the study's author. The study was conducted by the New York-based Radiation and Public Health Project and published in the spring issue of the scientific journal Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology.
In light of the study, model Christie Brinkley today joined Rep. Michael Forbes (D-N.Y.) and others in calling upon the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to immediately consider whether adverse health effects are associated with nuclear plant operations before renewing nuclear power plant licenses. Brinkley is a board member of the STAR (Standing for Truth About Radiation) Foundation, a group formed in 1997 by concerned Long Island residents.
"As a mother of young children who lives near nuclear facilities, I worry daily that radiation from these plants may be deadly to our children," Brinkley said."So far, the federal government has buried its head in the sand. If closing the nuclear power plants was not responsible for the decline in infant deaths, what was?"
The NRC rules do not consider the potential adverse health effects of radioactive emissions when considering license renewal applications. Owners of twenty-eight nuclear reactors at 17 nuclear facilities around the country are scheduled to seek license renewals by 2003. The NRC has never voluntarily studied the link between radioactive emissions from nuclear plants and patterns of cancer.
The study, conducted by Joseph J. Mangano, a research associate at the Radiation and Public Health Project, examined infant death rates in counties within 50 miles and in the prevailing wind direction of five reactors: Fort St. Vrain (located near Denver, CO), LaCrosse (near LaCrosse, WI), Millstone/Haddam Neck (near New London CT), Rancho Seco (near Sacramento, CA.) and Trojan (near Portland, OR).
In the first two years after the reactors closed, infant death rates in the downwind counties under 40 miles from the plants fell 15 to 20 percent from the previous two years, compared to an average U.S. decline of just six percent between 1985 and 1996. In each of the five areas studied, no other nuclear reactor operated within 70 miles of the closed reactor, essentially creating a "nuclear-free zone."
The study detailed the plunges in newly-diagnosed leukemia and cancer cases and birth defect deaths in children under five years in the four-county local area downwind from Rancho Seco. This excessive decline has continued through the first seven years after the June 1989 closing. In contrast, the local infant death rate rose in the two years after Rancho Seco began operations in 1974.
"This article is the first to document improvements in health after a nuclear plant closes," says study author Mangano.
"It supports many other studies showing elevated childhood cancer near operating reactors." "The federal government allows nuclear reactors to emit a certain level of radiation, saying that the amount is too low to result in adverse local health effects. However, this study clearly calls that assumption into question, as do other studies"
The announcement comes on the 14th anniversary of the catastrophic accident at Chernobyl, a nuclear power reactor. Increased infant cancer and death rates after Chernobyl have been documented, not just in the former Soviet Union, but in Western Europe and the US, where Chernobyl fallout levels were deemed by regulators to be within safe limits.
Nuclear plants seeking re-licensing this year include Oconee Nuclear Station in northwest South Carolina; Arkansas Nuclear One in Russellville, Ark.; Edwin I. Hatch in southern Georgia; and Turkey Point near Miami, Fla. In 2001, plants expected to seek re-licensing include Catawba, which lies on the border between North Carolina and South Carolina; North Anna, located near Fredericksburg, Va.; Surry, near Virginia Beach, Va.; and Peach Bottom, located near Lancaster, Pa. Recently, the government approved a license renewal application for Calvert cliffs, located near Baltimore, Md.
Said Forbes, whose eastern Long Island district lies across the Long Island Sound from Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Connecticut,
"On this day in particular, which is the fourteenth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster in Russia, we need to address the very real and legitimate concerns of people who live near nuclear reactors. At the very least, the government has a responsibility to determine whether emissions from these plants are harming people."
Janette Sherman, an Alexandria, Va., M.D. who specializes in internal medicine and toxicology, and has written books about the causes of breast cancer and the relationship between chemical exposure and disease, said she believes Mangano's study confirms the link between radiation and illness.
"This confirms the best of public health principles: that when you remove a known cause of illness, health improves," Sherman said."The adverse effects on humans exposed to radiation are predictable. What is gratifying about the research is that it showed childhood health measures increasing so dramatically and quickly after the reactors closed"
For some of those who live near reactors, the government's inaction has been maddening. Randy Snell, a New York resident who lives near the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), learned several years ago that his 8-year-old daughter had developed a rare soft tissue cancer called rhabdomyosarcoma. Snell also has uncovered 19 other cases of the same rare cancer in Suffolk County; in one area near BNL, the rate of this cancer in children under 10 since 1994 is 15 times the national average. "I have no doubt that radiation from nuclear reactors sickens people who live nearby," Snell said.
"What is really disheartening, though, is that state and federal public health agencies haven't lifted a finger to confirm the link between Brookhaven and all these rare child cancers. I hope this study forces them to act."
IMPROVEMENTS IN INFANT DEATH RATE
AFTER CLOSING NUCLEAR REACTORS
(decreases in death rate age 0-1)
REACTOR CLOSED YEAR % CHANGE
IN INFANT DEATH RATE
LaCROSSE, WI 1987 -15.3%
RANCHO SECO, CA 1989 -16.0%
FORT ST. VRAIN, CO 1989 -15.9%
TROJAN, OR 1992 -18.0%
MILLSTONE, CT 1995 -17.4%
BIG ROCK POINT, MI 1997 -54.1%
MAINE YANKEE, ME 1997 -33.4%
U.S. Average 1985-96 -6.4%
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN INFANT HEALTH AFTER CLOSING RANCHO SECO, CA REACTOR
Percent Change in Birth Defect Death and Cancer Incidence Rates
CATEGORY LOCAL US
DEATHS 0-1 FROM BIRTH DEFECTS -20.9% - 5.8%
DEATHS 1-4 FROM BIRTH DEFECTS -29.3% - 7.0%
CANCER CASES 0-4 -37.2% +6.2%
Two years before and after closing are compared (e.g., LaCrosse 1986-87 vs. 1988-89). All downwind counties less than 50 miles from closed reactor are included. No other reactors are located within 70 miles of above reactors. Millstone was temporarily closed from late 1995 to mid-1998. All data from U.S. Centers for Disease Control (http ://www.cdc.gov), except for Big Rock Point and Maine Yankee, which are available from the states.
Prepared by Joseph J. Mangano, MPH, MBA, Radiation and Public Health Project, April 19, 2000
Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, PO Box 4283, Brick, NJ 08723 Phone 732-255-8044 www.jerseyshorenuclearwatch.org
(4) Las Vegas mayor to stop nuke waste transport:
04/21/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.91
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
Send News Stories to email@example.com with title on subject
line and first line of body
40 Las Vegas SUN: Goodman wants state law banning nuke waste transport
By Dan Kulin <firstname.lastname@example.org> LAS VEGAS SUN
Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said Wednesday that he wants a
state law banning the transportation of radioactive waste
through Nevada, a law similar to the city's ordinance.
During the Wednesday City Council meeting, Goodman asked Deputy
City Manager Betsy Fretwell to look into getting the Legislature
to consider such legislation this year.
Goodman also said he would want the law to require transporters
of other dangerous cargo to be required to alert local
governments before they travel through an area.
The mayor's comments came on the heels of a Monday ruling in
federal court that upheld a Washington, D.C., ban on hazardous
rail shipments, which the mayor said was a wonderful development
for local governments including Las Vegas. In 2000, Las Vegas
adopted an ordinance banning nuclear waste shipments through the
city in an effort to keep waste bound for the proposed Yucca
Mountain waste repository out of the city.
The Clark County District Attorney's office questioned if it
were constitutional, but Goodman has noted that the ordinance
has never been tested in court. Goodman has said he would have
drivers hauling high-level nuclear waste through Las Vegas
arrested. On Tuesday, Goodman said that in light of the ruling
he would ask the city attorney to draft a new ordinance that
would expand the city's ban to include other dangerous cargo.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
(5) Nuke power a net loss: Energy Audit:
19 [NukeNet] Net Loss From Nuclear Power - Energy Audit
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:16:28 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (email@example.com)
Nuclear Power Used Up More Energy
Than It Delivered To Society !
Nuclear Power was devised to make the public pay
the high cost of plutonium production, the element needed for nuclear
weapons. The ultimate doomsday machine!
"At the end
of forty years of the US nuclear power program
by 1991, this energy- 381302 MW-yrs -delivered to
society is still less than the gross cumulative
energy invested in nuclear plant construction and
maintenance of 489174 MW-yrs! "
Energy audit of nuclear fuel cycles
By R. Ashok Kumar,
B.E,M.E(Power),Negentropist,Flat 1/13, Telec
Officers' CHS.,Ltd.,Plot 30, Sector 17, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai-400705. Tel:7896209.
Although the gross nuclear capacity of the USA
reached 104820 MW (greater than 150 MW capacity
only considered), less than 20000 MW energy
capacity was in fact delivered to society in
1991(Spread Sheet No.12A: See attachment). This is
derived as follows:Gross cumulative energy
delivered to society (1991)= Megawatt-years/years
= 798370/40=19959 MW or 20000 MW approximately.
The rest was all consumed by the nuclear industry
itself. The actual energy- capacity delivered at
the consumption point was much less. Using a
figure of 0.597 for the plant factor, and 20%
transmission,distribution and conversion loss, the
amount of energy delivered by the programme
amounts to only 9.09% of the energy generated. For
the annual energy invested in the nuclear
programme, the energy generated per year per unit
was divided by a factor of 1.5(R. Ashok
Kumar.1989.The Indian Nuclear Energy Programme:A
Net Energy Analysis. PPST Bull. No.18.March.pp17:
Energy Invested in Waste Storage. See also
Appendix 1,this article.).
Thus as the US
programme of commissioning of the nuclear power
plants progressed from 1952 to 1991 (end of my
study period for the US programme), the average
nuclear capacity added per year was 2621 MW while
the average nuclear industry demand was 12229 MW!
The cost overrun was 4.25.
It is estimated (based
on assumptions given in the appendix) that the
programme started delivering net energy to society
only thirty years after the commencement of the
programme. And while it generated 1283911 MW-yrs
in 30 years,it delivered to society only 30% or
less in a brief period from 1981 only. At the end
of forty years of the US nuclear power programme
by 1991, this energy- 381302 MW-yrs -delivered to
society is still less than the gross cumulative
energy invested in nuclear plant construction and
maintenance of 489174 MW-yrs!
assumes only a portion of the energy used for
waste storage and maintenance.This American
civilian nuclear programme cost a total of Rs 45
trillion. This means Rs 45 Crores per Megawatt!
But as we saw above, this programme delivered to
society an energy capacity of 9532 MW per year
over 40 years , with an installed capacity of
104820 MW achieved over 38 years.
As shown above
the US programme needed an additional gargantuan
amount of thermal power to construct the nuclear
facilities.The data for the nuclear capacity
additions were taken from Nuclear Engineering
International, April 1991.
Nuclear Wastes Unmanageable: An audit of the
As of year 2000, 7925 reactor years of
operation have been completed in sixteen countries
which have operating nuclear power plants (Data
till 1990 have been taken from Nuclear Engineering
International April 1991). Thus the 16 countries
of the world generated by end 1990 in their
nuclear power plants 15714.1 TWh or 1793847 MW-yr.
The corresponding capacity was 290898 MW(337
reactors). Average nuclear capacity was
290898/337= 863.2 MW. All over the world the
number of reactors retired to date is 90 with a
total capacity of 77688 MW. Net capacity on line=
209898-77688=213210 MW. Energy generated by these
reactors from 1991 to 2000 amounts to 213210
MWxlifetime plant load factor of 0.64 x 10y=
Therefore the total energy
generated till 2000 from begin of nuclear
programmes= 1793847+1364545= 3158392 MW-yr. The
number of reactor years of operation till end 1990
was 4500. Taking the number of reactor years of
operation to be proportional to the energy
generated yields a total of 7925 reactor years of
opeartion. For this the power required for waste
storage and maintenance is 4.75 MW(thermal). See
Lovins. Technical Bases for Ethical Concern. In AH
Lovins and JH Price. 1975. Non-Nuclear Futures.
Harper-Colophon. p 97. This is at the rate of
1.505 watts per megawatt-year (of gross energy
generated) for waste storage and maintenance.
Now the energy invested in the nuclear power
programmes of the 16 countries till end 1990 was
1793847 x 0.5= 896923.5 MW-yr(See below for
derivation). From 1991 to 2000 units were retired
rather than added. Let us assume that the energy
invested remained at this value (1990 end value).
Then, net energy available after accounting for
the energy invested which included energy for
waste storage and its maintenance for 31500
years(see below) was 3158932-896924= 2261478(The
energy invested 896924, if considered at the bus
bars would be higher).
Thus the number of
additional years of waste storage and its
maintenance which is obtained by dividing the net
energy available 2261478 MW-yr by the power needed
for waste storage and its maintenance 4.75
MW(thermal) is a maximum of 476101 years because
there is a conversion efficiency for electrical to
heat production of 50% to 80%. This is far from
enough for storing wastes for a million years or
more. Thus the nuclear energy programmes are net
energy consumers. The latest evaluation of waste
storage research proclaims this loudly(Institute
for Energy and Environmental Research. May 2000.
Science for Democratic Action. See also R. Ashok
Kumar, op cit. ).
An estimate of the fraction of energy
generated debited to investment in the nuclear
power programmes can be done as follows:
Let us take four countries namely,the
USA,France, Japan and Canada. The energy generated
back of the 20% losses is given by the (sum of the
total nuclear industry demand and the net energy
delivered to society )/0.8. This for these four
countries for which the energy audit has been
worked out by the author becomes 2354460 MW-yr.
Details in a separate article. The nuclear
industry demand works out to 1175742 MW-yr which
is 50% of the gross energy generated.
A number of surprises as the nuclear power
programmes progressed over the world.
It must be noted that a number of surprises
have caused retrofits and replacements like the
steam generator premature replacements and the
replaced radioactive steam generators enclosed in
costly sarcophages worldwide. These have
enormously increased the energy invested in these
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
(6) Bennett Ramberg letter in the New York Times, May 23rd, 2005:
New York Times Letter to Editor North Korea & Nukes
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 11:49:05 EDT
New York Times
Bennett Ramberg letter to Editor May 23
To the Editor:
Re "Letting Nukes Happen" (editorial, May 16):
Your presumption that the United States can buy North Korea's fidelity
not to remain a nuclear weapons state is a chimera.
Because regime change is unlikely any time soon, the United States and
North Korea's neighbors will confront the risk that North Korea could launch a
nuclear strike because of intelligence failure, a delegation of nuclear
initiation to field commanders, and poor command and control.
The interlocutors with North Korea can reduce these risks by providing
Pyongyang with such nuclear confidence measures as a hot line, satellite
intelligence and economic engagement.
Consider the Bush administration's alternative and its consequences: a
further isolated North Korea, increasingly paranoid, with poor intelligence
placing its nuclear forces on hair-trigger alert. This is not an outcome the
international community can abet.
Los Angeles, May 16, 2005
The writer was a policy analyst at the State Department, 1989-90.
(7) Radiation leak "could kill 400,000:"
From: Christopher Couture <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [JerseyShoreNuclearWatch] The Japan Times: Radiation leak 'could kill 400,000'
Not directly about Oyster Creek, but a good article about what could possibly happen...
Radiation leak 'could kill 400,000'
Researcher bases grave study on Chernobyl disaster
A large-scale radiation leak at a major nuclear reactor in Japan could kill more than 400,000 people and cost up to 460 trillion yen over 50 years, according to a study by a Kyoto Sangyo University researcher released Monday.
Pak Sung Jun, a full-time lecturer at the university, made the estimate assuming an accident similar to the one in Chernobyl, Ukraine, occurred at a 1,180-mw reactor in Japan such as either the No. 3 or No. 4 pressurized water reactors of the Oi nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture.
Few estimates have been made on the damage a nuclear accident in Japan would cause since the former Science and Technology Agency's estimate in 1959, made before the government began building nuclear plants on a large scale. The agency came up with a cost of 3.7 trillion yen, experts said.
The late Takeshi Seo, a former Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute worker, estimated how radiation would spread and affect people in a nuclear meltdown. But no one has expressed the estimates in terms of monetary cost, according to Hiroaki Koide of the institute.
Pak applied various data, including income, agricultural output and population, to a formula Seo developed in calculating the cost of damage over 50 years.
High-level radiation would prevent people from being able to live within 160 to 200 km downwind of the nuclear plant, and no farming could occur within at least 500 km.
The most damage would occur if north winds blew from Fukui toward the major cities of Kyoto and Osaka. Relocation costs and the losses for agricultural and fisheries industries would total 391 trillion yen, and the costs of human suffering would reach 66 trillion yen, including medical costs.
The death toll would be the largest, at 410,000, if west winds blew to contaminate the more populous Tokyo and Kanagawa Prefecture. Immediate deaths were estimated at up to 17,000.
The average damage estimate came to 104 trillion yen. But liability insurance, to which nuclear reactor operators are obliged to subscribe, caps coverage at 60 billion yen, less than one-1,700th of the average damage estimate.
Pak said the current insurance system allows victims to receive only small sums as compensation. He called for discussion on Japan's nuclear-reliant energy policy to be based on actual estimates.
The 1986 Chernobyl accident involved a meltdown of the reactor core and explosions. Thirty people were killed immediately and radiation was released into the atmosphere.
The Japan Times: Oct. 28, 2003
(C) All rights reserved
(8) Regarding breast cancer in Long Island, New Jersey:
From: "Denise Garner" <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 12:05:12 -0500
Subject: Re: [JerseyShoreNuclearWatch]
You guys are doing a great job. This state has so many problems, I think
most of them come from the elected people. These are people that don't
have an understand about science they only get into office because they what
to do things for them self. And that is a major problem. But, keep
educating everyone and hopefully we'll get them out of office too.
Save, Preserve and Respect Our Environment
>From: "Paula A. Gotsch" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: [JerseyShoreNuclearWatch]
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:20:49 -0500
>The Millstone Plant (circa - Oyster Creek Plant) in Connecticutt is
>calculated to be the cause of the large amount of breast cancer on Long
>Island. Radioactive path for the plant was from CT wafting across Long
>Similarly Oyster Creek radiation followed a flow right up the (now
>designated) cancer corridor in NJ. Don't remember the name of the report.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Edith
> To: JerseyShoreNuclearWatch@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:31 AM
> Subject: [JerseyShoreNuclearWatch]
> We have had requests regrding the Tooth Fairy Project.and the
> between breast cancer and low level radiation.
> Edith Gbur
> LIFE'S' DELICATE BALANCE - CAUSES AND PREVENTION OF BREAST CANCER
> Despite the fact that the cancer epidemic has not ended, the publisher
>has taken Janette Sherman's book out of print. She has negotiated to get
>the last remaining copies.
> Far too few people understand that cancer is caused by ... carcinogens!
>These are the chemicals, pesticides, endocrine disrupters, and nuclear
>radiation permeating our environment. We need to educate our families,
>friends and colleagues in order to begin primary prevention. Let us keep
>the next generation from developing cancer.
> Copies are $10.00 each plus $3.85 postage for the U. S. or Canada.
> (Original publisher's price was $24.95). For copies, please contact the
> Janette D. Sherman, M. D.
> P. O. Box 4605
> Alexandria, VA 22303
> Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, PO Box 4283, Brick, NJ 08723 Phone
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
(9) Activists call for San Onofre to be shut-down:
From: Molly Johnson <email@example.com>
Subject: Public says go green instead of fixing San Onofre
To: me <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Public says go green instead of fixing San Onofre - a
referendum on nuclear power
Public says go green instead of fixing San Onofre
By: PAUL SISSON - Staff Writer
OCEANSIDE ---- A town hall meeting on proposed repairs at the San Onofre
Nuclear Generation Station on Tuesday turned into a referendum on
nuclear power itself.
Most of the 28 people who spoke at the meeting, held by the California
Public Utilities Commission, came down against spending more than $800
million to replace four steam generators at San Onofre's two functioning
Southern California Edison, San Onofre's majority owner, has asked the
commission for permission to replace the generators and to pass the cost
to its customers. The utility claims that cracking inside the monolithic
steam generators, which produce steam that in turn spins turbines to
produce electricity, could be unusable by 2010, meaning San Onofre would
have to shut down.
Many, but not all, of those who spoke Tuesday said they would prefer
that the commission deny Edison's request and invest in renewable energy
sources such as solar power and wind energy.
Oceanside resident Maegan Prentice said she has already installed
photovoltaic cells on the roof of her home that turn sunlight into
electricity. She said that if 18 percent of the rooftops in San Diego
County were covered with solar panels, there would be no need for San
"If we keep putting money into projects that are already doomed, we just
keep putting off the future," she said.
Pastor J. Steven Beckham drove to Oceanside from Riverside to call for a
shift from atomic power to green energy. He said it would take about 100
square miles of solar panels to power the nation.
"Do we have 100 square miles of rooftops in Southern California?" he
asked. "I think we do. We've got the resources to do clean power now."
As did several other speakers, Beckham noted that nuclear power plants
generate radioactive waste which the nation still has not decided where
"I just can't see how it's ethical from any point of view," Beckham said.
Al Tschaeche of Encinitas was one of several in attendance who defended
San Onofre's repair plans. Tschaeche said he worked as a health
physicist in the nuclear industry for more than 50 years and found no
evidence of chronic health risks.
"There's nothing wrong with nuclear power," he said.
Tschaeche noted that, if San Onofre is not repaired, the plant would
likely have to be replaced with several natural gas-fired power plants.
He noted that burning fossil fuels generates carbon dioxide, which
contributes to worldwide temperature increases known as global warming.
A draft environmental impact report commissioned by the utilities
commission provides contrary statements about the viability of renewable
energy. The report states that it would not be feasible to replace the
more than 2,200 megawatts of electricity San Onofre generates ----
enough to power more than 2 million homes ---- with renewable sources.
After the meeting, Commissioner Geoffrey Brown said the debate over
atomic versus renewable power is at the crux of the commission's
decision on whether to allow the repairs that Edison has requested.
"The question is whether we can subtract nuclear energy and totally
replace it with renewables. At this point, I don't think we can do
that," Brown said.
Contact staff writer Paul Sisson at (760) 901-4087 or
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954
Molly P Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place,San Miguel, CA 93451
[[[ Note: Al Tschaeche believes that a little radiation is good for you, an idea known as "Hormesis" and discounted by the CPUC in comments to this author at the 4th public hearing (May 17th, 2005). -- rdh ]]]
(10) Contact information for Russell Hoffman: