Re: Re: Jim Hoerner tries to waste everyone's time again (and again)...

From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <>
Subject: Re: Re: Jim Hoerner tries to waste everyone's time again (and again)...
Dec. 9th, 2001

Mr. Hoerner,

You state that I haven't answered your points.  I believe I have; can you be more specific?

I admit it's difficult to "answer" someone who, on a downwinders' forum, denounces hydroelectric because of the danger from bust dams, and then tells us later that he was just mentioning it lest I, um, had forgotten or something.  Do we need to remind everyone that water runs downhill, too?  Do we need to tell them what an "ultimate heat sink" is? I mean, how basic do we need to make this discussion?  Sure, every renewable energy source has its drawbacks.  But none have the many drawbacks of nuclear.

Nuclear has been a failure, even if you only account for the economics, and ignore the downwinders' health problems, and the waste problem, and the terrorist target each plant presents, and about a million other things (such as those highlighted in today's Orange County Register articles, which I hope you read).  But, even ignoring everything but the financial aspect, nuclear power plants are still a boondoggle. If you think they aren't, I hope you'll speak out against renewal of Price-Anderson, since if the plants are economically viable, the insurance industry ought to be willing to insure them.  (They won't, of course, hence the adoption of the Price-Anderson Act, which was supposed to be for a budding industry, but which has remained in effect since the mid 1950's, and by doing so, has destroyed any pretense of economic viability of the nuclear industry in a fair capitalist economy.)

The nuclear plants don't pay for the waste, they don't pay for the fuel, they didn't pay for the trillions in R&D (Research and Deception) which went into creating the industry in the first place, etc. etc. etc..  And they deny culpability for every death outside their perimeter fences, and most of the ones inside, too.  Price-Anderson ensures that the nuclear industry will never pay the price for its failures.

Here's an essay about the need for a global energy grid.  The idea was originally proposed about 80 years ago by R. Buckminster Fuller (long before it was technologically feasible, which it now is).  It alone could eliminate the need for nuclear power, without any new power plants of any sort being built ANYWHERE:

Well?  What are we waiting for?

I stated in a previous letter to you that the recent California energy "crisis" was purely political.  If you check the actual electricity usage during and surrounding the time of the blackouts, you'll find that the year before, we Californians were actually using more energy -- with no blackouts!  So that's why I say the crisis was political.

I have studied energy alternatives, and the parts that the alternatives are made up of -- the computer control systems, motors, valves, vessels, and pumps.  Here are 71 different pumps I've studied, for instance.  If we used more efficient pumps, we wouldn't need nearly as much electricity:

In particular, let me suggest you look at the Recessive Spiral Pump, the Ball Piston Pump, the Wolfhart Principal Pump, the Cylindrical Energy Module, the late John Newby's inventions, and some of the other marvelous and yet, not-widely-implemented units.

Pumps are the second-most common machine on earth (only after electric motors).  In most cities in the world, the #1 use of energy is to move fluids.  Many common pump designs in use today are actually little-changed in the past century, so perhaps you can imagine the energy improvement if factories re-tooled and started producing the newer pumps, and people started to use them.  Why don't they?  Perhaps they aren't aware of these pumps.  Perhaps they are set in their ways.  Virtually every inventor I have ever met wonders why his invention is not adopted more widely.  Thankfully, I have seen some great inventions finally be accepted and become widespread.  But why does it usually take so long?

Whatever it is that keeps the nuclear power plants open when they should be closed, and prevents America from switching to green energy solutions, it is NOT a technological challenge -- it is purely political.  That makes you a politician -- and me too, when I debate these issues.

So really, what's your angle, Mr. Hoerner?  It seems to me that every point I've ever made in a letter to you, you have simply denied or ignored -- and you even claimed I never made a single point at all!  And it didn't matter how carefully or logically I've tied things together -- you just attack everything I say.  Maybe you aren't paid to do that, but you are surprisingly consistent in your attacks, and yet at the same time, pointless in your arguments.  I mean, look at your latest salvo (shown in its entirety below).  There's little to it that can be answered.  Let's see: You learned that the reactor vessel at Three Mile Island didn't crack, and you corrected yourself.  You also tell me I plug my ears, you yawn, you make snide comments, and you call me names like "delusional", "sekret (sic) agent man", and "two-faced" (without even explaining why), and so forth.

You say you're against harassment, but you appear pretty practiced at the art.

So, who do you work for?  Got relatives or investments in the nuclear industry or something?  Are you ex-Navy?  A lot of my friends are -- there's no shame in that.  But there is shame in keeping your knowledge limited to what they teach you about radiation in the military.  So what is your background?  Since you are arrogant enough to call me names and proclaim that you've "whipped my butt", aren't you also proud of whatever it is you've done prior to this, that you believe qualifies you to judge the merits of various energy alternatives?  Evidently not.

I have a lot of trouble buying the idea that you've included every relevant detail about why you might be interested in these subjects at all.  You have two boys and you want them to live in a clean environment.  That's it?  I think you're hiding something, and I doubt I'll find it expressed over at your Know-Nukes forum (even if I join your closed forum so I can look at your archives).

I want the nuclear debate to be a public one, and if you believe you are right, I don't see why you wouldn't want a public debate, too.  Let your know-nukes buddies say who they are, say why they back the nuclear option, and let them present their names, and thus their reputations, for inspection or ridicule, as warranted.  Bush/Cheney's energy policy decisions are secret; that's bad enough. 

As to your request that I send out your side of this correspondence to everyone to whom I sent your earlier hogwash, why don't you just chill out?  Everyone knows exactly where to find you -- at Know-Nukes, spewing your pro-nuke B.S..  Anyway, they can read our correspondence online if they like.  I'll be sure to post this additional item, but no promises on what else I'll post or distribute.  Last I checked (some time before Ashcroft got itchy), it's a free country.

Oh one last thing, Jim.  When you speak of "small minds" -- too small for the government to bother about -- I wish you would just speak for yourself.  If I thought that, I'd just figure out another way to try to make sure I've been noticed.  I believe it's a citizen's duty to cry out at injustice, and that's what I do, and I do everything I can to make sure the good folks in the government (if I can find them) hear me.  I'm sure they hear you too, and I'm sure some of them are fooled by your rhetoric.  But I will continue to have faith in the system, and believe that most are not.

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

At 04:18 PM 12/9/01 , "Jim Hoerner" <> wrote:
--- In downwinders@y..., "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@a...> wrote:

Hello again, Mr. Hoffman.  Sorry to get your name wrong in my last post.

I don't understand why you keep changing the subject header, but whatever
floats your boat...

>According to Mr. Hoerner's latest response to my writing,
>doesn't include accidents, so as I pointed out in my original
letter, all
>his calculations can be thrown out the window, especially the
>comparison he included below. [snipped by Jim]

Like I said, plug your ears if you wish.

>Also, he thinks Three Mile Island was a major meltdown, and that
only the
>containment dome saved us.

Actually, the reactor vessel wasn't breached either, as pointed out to me on
Know_Nukes.  I apologize for the error.

>And he thinks only 30 people died because of Chernobyl (with 10
more who
>might die of thyroid cancer later).  Only the nuclear industry and
>lackeys think the numbers are that small.

That is not what I said, sir.  Anyway, thanks for your numbers :-).

>He claims now he didn't say dam busts are better than meltdowns.
Now he
>just says he was mentioning dam busts as negatives regarding hydro
-- but
>not THAT negative.  Geez, whatever, Mr. Hoerner.  What a game.
>He pretends that he is trying to have a debate here, but all he can
tell me
>to do is go to his know-nukes web site.  I think he wants traffic
there, to
>make himself more important.  Maybe then he'll get a raise from his
boss, I
>don't know.

Yawn.  Mr. Hoffman, talking about making oneself more important, you think
that anyone who disagrees with you must be some kind of government agent. 
Don't flatter yourself, Mr. Super-Sekret-Agent-Man.  I don't think they
would waste their time with small minds such as yours or mine.

>Funny he doesn't say if he works for any of the groups and
>agencies I mentioned.  I wish he'd answer this question -- who pays
him?  I
>wonder if it's the CIA, the NSA, Halliburton, SAIC, or does he have
>other more hidden connection?  (Please fax me your W-2s and 1040
form, Mr.
>Hoerner -- (...)

Ha!  Mr. Hoffman, I work for the KGB.

Just kidding, but I will be sending a team over to your place soon to talk
to you about your 2000 tax return.

Seriously, I consider it rude of you to ask anything personal about me,
especially in a public setting, without first sharing the same boring
information about yourself.  You are like those people who call me and after
I say "hello", they say "who is this?".

I do not post on behalf of my employer, and I do not know if they are even
smart enough to share my opinions.  My employer is therefore irrelevant.

Like you, I am a concerned citizen.  I am a father of two that wishes for my
boys to have a safe and clean environment and good standard of living.  I am
not affiliated with the government in any way.  I don't really care for "big

As someone who mentioned civil liberties in your last post, you sure are
two-faced.  As moderator of Know_Nukes, before your drivel, I posted my
opinions about respecting the rights of others that may be subject to
harrassment -

No one at Know_Nukes will be subject to "exposure".  People might want to
avoid spam, the government, embarrassment, former lovers, employers,
whatever.  I would hope you could understand that.

Know_Nukes is not about me, Mr. Hoffman.  It is about discussion, debate,
and facts.  Not hype.  I respect all the different perspectives we see
there, and I learn from each, as well.

>Plus at the end of his letter he accuses me of calling him names
>because I said he doesn't know Jack Shannon!

You are delusional.

By the way, I took offense at Jack's foolish statements because ther are
plenty of government employees out there, right now, as we sit behind our
monitors, working hard long hours to protect our sorry selves.  To them, I
say, thank you very much!

>Wow this guy is itching for a fight with me over just about anything!  Jim,
>give it a rest.  The Downwinder's forum isn't for fictional accounts of the
about nukes,
>and I haven't got much use for either your fiction or your
friction, either.

Come on over to Know_Nukes, and I'll kick your butt again and again.  :-)

Should I note that you could not refute any factual statements I made?  Nah,
that was obvious.  I am done with you for now, and I am done "wasting the
time" of those you speak for and don't want to hear me again.  Email me
directly anytime, though.

Please do me the courtesy of forwarding this post to the appropriate lists
that I may have missed (I can't tell by the header; it says "To: (Recipient
list suppressed)".  I only mailed Know_Nukes, doewatch, and downwinders. 
Thank you.

Jim Hoerner

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Break free. Great
American Smokeout

The Magnum-Opus Project---The Mission: To do a greater good.
Righting the wrongs of the Manhattan Project's deceit and treachery national security methods using openness and accountability.
DOE Watch List--Where toxic health damage is not a mystery.
A news list combined with scientific studies to expose the problems.
DOE Watch OR Web page:
Rocky Flats EIN page:

Toxic metals and fluorides concentrate in lymph nodes and cause damage to macrophage mitochondrial DNA, leading to illnesses.  See the analysis at

In the 1980's, Oak Ridge managers established a national alliance of DOE friendly supplanted activists and old DOE scientists to mislead gullible fluoride affected sick workers and communities in order to fabricate a health mystery and avoid the extreme liabilities of the fluorides health damage to uranium gas diffusion chemical plant workers and communities.

For the previous correspondence with Mr. Hoerner, please visit:

For the next in this series of correspondences with Mr. Hoerner, please visit:

Learn about the effects of nuclear weapons here:

This web page has been presented on the World Wide Web by:

The Animated Software Company
Mail to:
First posted December, 2001.

Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman