Subject: Re: [DOEWatch] A little challenge-Comment about J Shannon (a response by Jack Shannon, USMC ...

From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <>
Subject: Re: [DOEWatch] A little challenge-Comment about J Shannon (a response by Jack Shannon, USMC ...

Dec. 11th, 2001


Thanks for the insight into what's actually happening over at "know-nukes".  (Below your email is Jim Hoerner's latest, with its various assertions and wondrous factoids.)

-- Russell


At 04:21 PM 12/11/01 , wrote:
In a message dated 12/11/01 7:03:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, Magnu96196

> In a message dated 12/11/01 6:06:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> writes:
> >> Just a quick factual correction to your latest rants...
> ==============
> Hello Jim,
>   Seems your on a little rant too!!
>    How about being polite and asking folks like Jack Shannon why he said
> nukes are dangerous?    Or for clarifications on why.    Or if the comments
> in question were taken out of context.   How about doing something real
> rare and invite him to comment on the lists?   I'll volunteer DOEWatch as
> neutral ground, if need be.
>    Your perspective on what is safe for NPP's and whats not may be a little
> different than his.  I know I would not term current NPP safe or their fuel
> cycle.   He might even have a lot more direct experience on some systems
> than yours.  Like the pro-nukes started out calling NPP's non-polluting and
> super-safe only to come down the realizations that there is a lot of
> nuclear PR and some big data gaps that the Pro-side did not acknoledge.   
> Seems all these questions are making the Pro-nukes nervous about their
> safety oversites and terrorists using NPP's as dirty bombs.
>   I tend to support whistleblowers, who tend to blow the whistle on KAPL
> problems and even Nuke Navy problems.   I even support DOE whistleblowers,
> partly because I am one too and have seen personally the many cover ups on
> things nuclear by the Govt..
>   I hang out on your know_nukes list and I can't seem to verify some of
> your claims below from the list conversations, other than your rendering
> the comment that Jack was a fool.    I protested and started asking about
> some of the heavy sell NAZI tactics of the Pro-nuke side, that appears to
> have evolved to want to brand persons anti-nuke as terrorists of sorts.   
> Seems a little heavy with Pro-nuke opionions on know_nukes.   Where is the
> balance, better than that --- all the facts?
>    I tend to like the one that OKLO proves Pu does not migrate, as the
> pro-nuke proof that there is nothing to worry about from nuke waste issues.
>    Seems a little like some of the other logic from the Pro-nuke side,
> flawed.
>   The problems in the NPP domain and the tricks are not all that different
> than the ones in the DOE domain.    DOE has long played tricks with
> dosimetry by claiming it works, when things like HF from GDP enrichment
> tends to go over the top of the measurement sites and rain down in
> communities.    This is no different that contaminated steam leaks with
> aerosoled fission products lofted into the skies that goes over the monitor
> stations and rains out downwind.   It also appeared loss of coolant
> accidents and terrorist issues were a lot undersold toward telling the risk
> to the public for plant sabotage.     I won't quite be a nuke bomb
> explosion, but the fallout may be similar from steam aerosols carring rod
> melt products outside.
>   DOE also claims it is super-safe too, only to find out that they lied,
> covered-up, and acted more like NAZI's, always shouting down the truth.  
> DOE harmed employees health and communities and covered it up with heavy
> handed tactics, some still going on quite strongly today.
>   I recognize that same feeling on know_nukes as I get from DOE and Oak
> Ridge.

      I  think you can do a lot to change some of these things as list
moderator to know_nukes, both by example and asking the more pressing
questions that get all the cards on the table to be able to make informed
discisions.    It appears a little more like a poker game or legal defense
thing over there at times, than anything like openness and learning to know

   It is nice to learn that things like fuel rod are made of low neutron
absorption zirconium and the reactor parts of the finest stainless steels,
which is a typical PR sell job.   It is called laying the cards on the table
to acknowledge there are still problems due to fuel defomation and
embrittlement of the rods.    But getting that part was a bit like pulling
teeth from the nuclear dragon.

Those Orange county newspaper reports let in a little light on nuclear
safety, didn't they?     They sound a bit like Russell and Jack talking.

>   Just my opinion on what I see,

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Promise to Quit
Nicotrol will help

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.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to


Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:03:49 -0500
Subject: [downwinders] Re: Comment about J Shannon (a response by Jack Shannon, USMC (ret)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi, guys.

Just a quick factual correction to your latest rants...

>The one I like most is the baseball size nonsense about running a >home for
>one year ending up with a baseball size waste.

Any decent nuclear engineer should know that you can power the home of a
family of four for *80* years, and end up with a chunk of high level nuclear
waste about the size of a baseball, even without recyling (*).

You guys must be working for some special ops pro-nuclear PR team of the US
government.  I've never seen such self-discrediting behavior.

By the way, be sure to let us know what President Bush had to say about your
urgent communication (wink, wink).

Finally, I may stop forwarding your posts to Know_Nukes; from what I hear,
the anti-nuke members don't care much for them, but the pro-nukes are eating
it up.  It's rather ironic.  Just wanted to let you know in the interest of

* 45 GWd/T disharge burnup, 34% thermal-to-electrical efficiency, 1000 kWh
per month electricty usage, 10 gm/cc density.  I'll be glad to explain the

[sent to doewatch, downwinders, know-nukes]

Jim Hoerner

"Just the Facts, Jack" - Bill Murray


For the previous correspondence from 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