Correspondence between Tim O'Brien, Star Tribune (Minneopolis, MN) and Russell Hoffman, October 30-31st, 2001


To: "Tim O'Brien" <tobrien@startribune.com>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: We bide our time, waiting for Mother Nature,Osama bin Laden,orMurphy to strike (resend)
Cc: president@whitehouse.gov
In-Reply-To: <sbdfdf38.068@mail.startribune.com>

October 31st, 2001

Sir,

Your two nuclear power stations in Minnesota are Monticello and Prairie Island.

Last summer, at Monticello, the Primary Containment was found to be inoperable since the plant was built -- in other words, for the past 30 years.  I recommended a 100 Billion Dollar Fine.  Did you write a story about it?  I did -- did you publish it?

Here it is:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/nrc2001c.htm

Please send me any URLs relevant to Monticello's little boo boo.  Imagine what a plane crashing into your power plant would have been like with the primary containment vessel inoperable!

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA


At 09:22 AM 10/31/01 , you wrote:
Yes we do. And we even have TV stations from outside the state and if anyone cares about news from New Mexico or California or Bombay, India, they can subscribe to newspapers from those cities.

We, on the other, serve the readers of the state of Minnesota, and when you get more than 100 readers from your readers and subscribers, they will always get first shot at our very limited space on our editorial pages.

By the way, do you subscribe to the Star Tribune? We can get you started today.

Timothy O'Brien
Editorial assistant
Editorial Pages
Star Tribune
425 Portland Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
(612) 673-4778
tobrien@startribune.com

>>> "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com> 10/30 5:51 PM >>>
Thanks for responding and clarifying the matter.  By any chance, do
Minnesota schools permit books which were written outside the state?

Just curious, thanks.

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman

At 02:37 PM 10/30/01 , you wrote:
>It is not.
>
>The reason I asked you to take us off your mailing list is because we do
>not run unsolicited submission from outside of Minnesota.
>
>Timothy O'Brien
>Editorial assistant
>Editorial Pages
>Star Tribune
>425 Portland Ave.
>Minneapolis, MN 55488
>(612) 673-4778
>tobrien@startribune.com
>
> >>> "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com> 10/30 4:27 PM >>>
>To:  Timothy O'Brien
>
>Sir,
>
>I've removed your email address as requested.  You wouldn't happen to know
>if the Star Tribune is owned by GE or some other nuclear corporation such
>as Westinghouse, etc.?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>-- Russell Hoffman
>
>At 01:24 PM 10/30/01 , you wrote:
> >Please remove us from your mailing list.
> >
> >Timothy O'Brien
> >Editorial assistant
> >Editorial Pages
> >Star Tribune
> >425 Portland Ave.
> >Minneapolis, MN 55488
> >(612) 673-4778
> >tobrien@startribune.com
> >
> > >>> "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com> 10/30 1:05 PM >>>
> >At 04:56 PM 10/29/01 , Mark wrote (regarding the bias seen in Dateline,
> >NBC's show on nuclear power plant security):
> >
> >  >>>>>>>>>>>
> >Could it have anything to do with the fact that NBC is owned by major
> >reactor-component maker General Electric?
> ><<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> >===========================================================
> >
> >October 30th, 2001
> >
> >Hi!
> >
> >Thanks for your comments, Mark.  It is certainly conceivable to me that
> >NBC's owners could have had some influence on Dateline's obvious
> >bias.  Money talks very loudly, regardless of whether there is any truth to
> >back it up.
> >
> >The nuclear industry is reluctant (to put it mildly) to run any ads right
> >now about how wonderful it would be if we built more nukes, if we loved
> >nuclear power, if only we went with nuclear -- there has seldom been a good
> >climate for such ads, but this most certainly isn't it.  So instead, they
> >get the media to do a "balanced" report.
> >
> >Ugh.
> >
> >They also got their good friends the coal industry -- who make the nuclear
> >industry look good as long as the nuclear power plants are running properly
> >and we aren't worrying about the long-term consequences of the waste -- to
> >run some stupid ad with a kid running a cord to light his treehouse over
> >and over and over -- an ad which correctly tells us that a lot of "us don't
> >even know where our electricity comes from".
> >
> >Then it tells us about something called Clean Coal Technology, which of
> >course, is an oxymoron.
> >
> >But what's really happening is nuclear is laying low and setting the stage,
> >with these coal ads, to remind us all that coal emits radioactive particles
> >too, and more than a properly operating nuke, so let's all buy more nukes.
> >
> >Yadda Yadda Yadda.  The point is, the public is being lied to over and over
> >and over, and it's a multi-level, highly-orchestrated media
> >campaign.  Every step of the way, the public is being lied to!  Nuclear
> >power is dangerous, dirty, inefficient, hated by millions of very
> >reasonable people, and incredibly vulnerable to terrorists.  Nuclear power
> >is also uneconomical when all the costs are included, and doesn't
> >(according to a number of studies) even provide humanity with a net
> >positive energy gain because of all the energy needed to extract the
> >uranium, purify it, etc. etc.!
> >
> >Nuclear power only lives on only because it has the best PR in the
> >world.  Local newspapers (San Diego Union-Tribune, North County Times,
> >Orange County Register, LA Times, for examples) publish half-truths.  Other
> >papers like the Reader and the Coast News and so forth ignore the problems
> >completely or nearly so (unless I've missed some expose somewhere), and
> >local television puts Ray Golden (San Onofre's spokesperson) on the air
> >whenever he wants.  If any activists get any airtime, 5 seconds or so, it's
> >always rebutted with utter bull.  But it's enough to keep the masses calm,
> >and that's all they care about.
> >
> >Should the masses begin to wise up, I'm sure they have layers and layers of
> >things they might do.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission taking their web
> >site down was one example of the layers of steps they can take.  Refusing
> >to appear on Dateline was another.  Dateline and other shows doing these
> >ludicrous "investigations" are yet another.
> >
> >And meanwhile the spent fuel pools around the country get more and more
> >full, and the alloys the plants are made with become more and more brittle
> >and thus, more vulnerable to terrorist's bombs, and we bide our time
> >waiting for Mother Nature, Osama bin Laden, or Murphy to strike.
> >
> >Renewables are, of course, the only reasonable solution, but too many
> >people in power would have to eat crow to make the switch.
> >
> >What a terrible mess we are in!  Southern California Edison says that the
> >military is responsible for protecting San Onofre from any serious
> >threat.  Officials at the local Marine base, Camp Pendleton, say it's not
> >their problem unless asked to intervene at the time a threat occurs --
> >which will be way too late.  The National Guard still hasn't been called
> >out to guard the plants in California, and personally, I think our most
> >elite troops should be the ones guarding our most vulnerable targets.  I
> >want our best Navy Seals, Rangers, etc. to be there, who are least likely
> >to fire a gun at the wrong time or in the wrong direction.
> >
> >We have to shut the plants down.  It's the only reasonable solution.   Just
> >before the NRC site was taken down, I noticed that nearly 20% of the
> >nations' nuclear power plants were SHUT DOWN.  This was interesting,
> >because it indicated we weren't really in need of their energy -- most of
> >those that were shut were in refueling mode, which they can go into
> >whenever it's most convenient -- within a range of about a year.  So many
> >choosing to do so shortly after the 9-11 attacks indicated to me that there
> >was, and probably still is, a lot of excess generating capability these
> days.
> >
> >There is no question America can shut these plants down and switch to
> >renewable energy for most of our electrical energy needs.
> >
> >Coal is no more the answer than oil is, but both still are better than
> >nuclear power.
> >
> >Thanks again for writing!
> >
> >Russell Hoffman
> >Carlsbad, CA
> >
> >Below are some relevant and perhaps somewhat irrelevant quotes:
> >
> >==========================================================
> >
> >  >>>>> "TOO CHEAP TO METER"? IT NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE: >>>>>
> >
> >From:
> >http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_8/8-3/npower.html
> >
> >"It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes
> >electrical energy too cheap to meter..." - Lewis Strauss, Chairman of the
> >Atomic Energy Commission, 1954
> >
> >"Heat will be so plentiful that it will even be used to melt snow as it
> >falls....[T]he central atomic power plant will provide all the heat, light,
> >and power required by the community and these utilities will be so cheap
> >that their cost can hardly be reckoned." -Robert M. Hutchins, president of
> >the University of Chicago, site of the first nuclear chain reaction, 1946
> >
> ><<<<< "TOO CHEAP TO METER" <<<<<
> >
> >==================================================================
> >
> >This quote was brought to our attention by Pamela Blockey-O'Brien and
> >previously posted online in my STOP CASSINI newsletter: :
> >
> >----- CLIP FROM W. W. SCHUTZ, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 1951 -----
> >
> >"It is possible to eliminate certain hazards by suitable physical or
> >chemical treatments.  Harmful bacteria can be destroyed by heat or by
> >suitable chemicals.  An acid can be neutralized by a base.  A capacitor can
> >be discharged.  In contrast to this, there is nothing that can be done to a
> >radioactive material that will change the characteristics of its
> >radiation.  Its temperature may be raised or lowered and it may be
> >subjected to severe mechanical treatment or combined chemically with other
> >elements, but it will still continue to radiate as before.  There is no
> >switch available which can turn the radiation on and off.  No matter what
> >treatment they receive, radioactive materials will continue to emit
> >radiation in accordance with definite natural laws."
> >
> >-- From: Radiation and Radiation Hazards, by W. W. Schutz of the General
> >Engineering Laboratory of the General Electric Company, written in 1951.
> >
> >----- END OF CLIP -----
> >
> >Adds Pamela, "All 'dilution' in water does, for example, is spread it
> around."
> >
> >============================================================
> >
> >-----  INCOMING LETTER FROM JEFF R. NYQUIST, WORLD NET DAILY COLUMNIST
> >(1999): -----
> >
> >At 04:01 AM 9/21/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 04:01:38 -0700
> >From: Jeffrey Nyquist <jnyquist@northcoast.com>
> >Reply-To: jnyquist@northcoast.com
> >Organization: SOLPAC
> >To: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
> >CC: Woody Smith <woody.smith@hq.nasa.gov>, flatworm@erols.com
> >Subject: Russell Hoffman Strikes Again
> >
> >I am against nuclear power, but Hoffman is so incredibly obnoxious, so
> >windy and huge -- I cannot resist a sigh and a little jab at him.  He
> >manages to be rude, arrogant, and he loses the good will of everyone
> >after a while.
> >
> >JRN
> >
> >-----  END OF INCOMING LETTER FROM JEFF R. NYQUIST, WORLD NET DAILY
> >COLUMNIST -----
> >
> >I wonder if Mr. Nyquist has been calling for the shutdown of our nuclear
> >reactors since September 11th, in light of their now-much-more-obvious
> >vulnerabilities?  For his and my entire correspondence (in which, IMHO, I
> >express none of the traits he assigns to me) please see the STOP CASSINI
> >newsletters (first mention of Mr. Nyquist is in #128).  They are posted
> >online here:
> >
> >http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/nltrs/index.htm
> >
> >==============================================================
> >
> >"Russell D. Hoffman" wrote:
> >  >
> >  > To: Producer, Dateline, NBC
> >  > Date: October 28th, 2001
> >  > From: Russell Hoffman, Concerned Citizen
> >  > Re: Comments on today's Dateline show on nuclear power plant
> > vulnerabilities
> >  >
> >  > To The Producer:
> >  >
> >  > Your report on nuclear power plants which aired today, Sunday, October
> >  > 28th, 2001, was weak and unfair.  It minimized the reality of the many
> >  > vulnerabilities, which it is our duty -- both yours and mine -- to point
> >  > out to the public.  You didn't do your job and you stand in the
> direct way
> >  > of me doing mine.
> >  >
> >  > For example, Dateline gave Ralph Beedle of the Nuclear Energy
> > Institute (an
> >  > industry sponsored-group, as you pointed out) the cover of legitimacy by
> >  > allowing viewers to assume that you've researched the subject of nuclear
> >  > power plant security.  Why did you let your reporter, Victoria
> > Corderi, let
> >  > Ralph Beedle say things which are unrealistic, unsubstantiated, and/or
> >  > personal opinion, and not let anyone refute them, and not ask him to
> name
> >  > names if he feels anyone in the so-called "anti-nuclear" side has
> > misstated
> >  > the situation for any reason, let alone for the evil intent he
> >  > suggests?  He has slandered many good scientists as well as activists,
> >  > philosophers, humanitarians, etc. etc. etc.  But who exactly?  He
> > paints us
> >  > all with a broad brush, and you provide him with millions of dollars
> worth
> >  > of free "advertising time" to spew his slander.
> >  >
> >  > The reality is that nuclear power is dangerous, dirty, and
> >  > inefficient.  There is no "anti-nuclear" viewpoint.  There is a
> > pro-nuclear
> >  > viewpoint, and a reasonable, sane, safety-minded, realistic
> > viewpoint.  I'm
> >  > pretty sick of seeing Ralph Beedle be given air time (and print
> space) to
> >  > unquestioningly promote his herd of deadly dinosaurs.  To balance
> > that, you
> >  > need to give equal time to the doctors who oppose nuclear power, and
> > to the
> >  > economists who have become convinced not to invest in it, and to all the
> >  > engineers, geologists, statisticians and other experts who each oppose
> >  > nuclear power for different, valid reasons.  And you need to give equal
> >  > time to the housewives who are tired of being terrified, and to the
> >  > insurance companies who won't invest in nuclear power, forcing the U.S.
> >  > Government to insure the plants with the absurd Price-Anderson Act.
> >  >
> >  > It's hard to undo the crime of misleading the public.  "Equal time"
> is not
> >  > enough.  The "reasonable" viewpoint needs to make up for more than 50
> > years
> >  > of lies by the government, the nuclear industry, and the media, not just
> >  > Ralph Beedle's many moments in the spotlight since September 11th.  His
> >  > pulpit should be the dock of a court.
> >  >
> >  > Why don't you visit my web site, and start reading?  There is no way
> >  > Beedle, or anyone else in the nuclear industry, can refute the many
> > reasons
> >  > presented there for why we need to not just increase security and add
> >  > anti-aircraft guns, but why we need to completely shut the plants down:
> >  >
> >  > http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm
> >  >
> >  > You need to do another show -- and quick.  I'm sure Scott Portzline
> had a
> >  > lot more to say (you didn't even tell the public about his web site,
> >  > www.tmia.com ), and there are plenty more waiting in the wings to
> talk to
> >  > the American media, to help you (and through you, all of America) to
> >  > recognize that this is the most important story in America today -- yes,
> >  > even, and especially, today.  Some of us have been trying to bring
> up the
> >  > issue of the vulnerability of Nuclear Power Plants to terrorism and
> >  > airplane crashes (intentional or otherwise) for years, but have been
> >  > ignored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, our complaints
> > invariably and
> >  > utterly denied.  The NRC's refusal to talk to you for your report stunk,
> >  > and was unfair to the public whose interests they are supposedly
> >  > protecting.  Their excuse was hollow, but maybe you just didn't try hard
> >  > enough.  Dateline NBC has a lot of clout.  Use it.  Time is not on our
> >  > side; the terrorists will wait for no one.
> >  >
> >  > We need to shut down the nuclear power plants immediately and
> permanently,
> >  > and convert to renewable energy solutions.  Piano tuners know
> > it.  Computer
> >  > programmers know it.  Doctors know it, engineers know it, and
> millions of
> >  > other America know it, too.  It can be done, and it must be done.  But
> > even
> >  > after the plants are shut down, we will still need to greatly increase
> >  > security.  Besides airplane strikes, here's a list of "25 simple ways
> >  > terrorists can destroy a nuclear power plant".  It is no joke:
> >  >
> >  > http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/simple25.htm
> >  >
> >  > There is NO WAY Ralph Beedle, the NRC, or anyone else in the "Nuclear
> >  > Mafia" can possibly resolve all these issues without shutting the plants
> >  > down and storing the waste in guarded underground facilities (note: I am
> >  > not advocating Yucca Mountain as a solution).
> >  >
> >  > Sincerely,
> >  >
> >  > Russell Hoffman
> >  > Concerned Citizen
> >  > P.O. Box 1936
> >  > Carlsbad, CA 92018
> >  >
> >  > P.S. #1 Have you taken another look at those timelines you presented
> a few
> >  > weeks back, for the fighter jets that were scrambled on September
> 11th, as
> >  > I suggested earlier?  You had them flying backwards or something.  I
> mean,
> >  > for a name like DATELINE, you ought to be able to catch impossible
> >  > timelines when they are handed to you by the
> military!  Specifically, can
> >  > you now tell us how it was possible that fighter jets could have
> taken off
> >  > from Langley AFB, bound for Washington, DC, at 9:30 am on September
> 11th,
> >  > but 13 minutes later, at 9:43, when the plane struck the Pentagon, those
> >  > jets were said to be "12 minutes away"?  Langley AFB is about 130 miles
> >  > from DC. So at the speed these planes fly at, even allowing for
> >  > acceleration and takeoff, they are less than 7 minutes away from DC to
> >  > begin with.  You should be ashamed, but hardly lonely -- the stated
> >  > timeline from a number of media for the fighter jets bound for New
> York is
> >  > that they were 8 minutes and 80 miles away when the second jet crashed
> > into
> >  > the second tower -- also ridiculous.
> >  >
> >  > P.S. #2 If you ever do get to talk to the NRC, please ask them what
> > exactly
> >  > they did from approximately 9:02 am on September 11th, when it was
> > clear to
> >  > the entire world that terrorists were attacking America, until 10:00 am
> >  > when THEY SAY they contacted the 103 operating nuclear power plants and
> >  > told them to go on "high alert", whatever that means (not much).
> >  >
> >
> >======================================================
> >
> >  >>>>> LETTER FROM JACK SHANNON TO NBC DATELINE, OCTOBER 29TH, 2001: >>>>>
> >
> >From: Jacksha1@aol.com
> >Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:43:26 EST
> >Subject: Re: Comments on today's Dateline show on nuclear power plant
> >vulnerabilities
> >To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com, dateline@nbc.com (NBC Dateline),
> >
> >Producers of Dateline:
> >
> >Dateline serves no National Patriotic service if it's only purpose is to
> >mouth the standard nonsense as laid down by the NRC/DOE, or their minions.
> >
> >Neither of these agencies has told the truth in fifty years and they are not
> >about to start doing so now. The lack of truth from these so called
> >"oversight agencies" are, in fact, the reason for this debate at this time.
> >They have never performed their oversight in anything approaching a
> >professional or objective manner.
> >
> >Mr. Beedle is not being honest when he tells the American people that
> Nuclear
> >Power, in the present day environment is safe. It is not safe and has,
> >furthermore, a host of problems in a non terrorist environment that have
> >never been debated in an open and objective manner. The terrorist
> environment
> >of today requires, in fact demands, an open debate on this subject. It is
> >unconscionable to keep the plants running and exposing the spent fuel to an
> >attack, of any kind, and not keep the public fully informed as to the
> dangers
> >associated with the nuclear industry.
> >
> >Nuclear Power Plants are not now nor have they ever been safe!
> >
> >I have spent 30 years in the Nuclear Business and can tell you that I know
> >more about the business than Beedle or anyone in the DOE or the NRC, and I,
> >furthermore, have no reason to lie.
> >
> >I designed the most widely used nuclear power plant in the United States
> >today. It is referred to as D1G Core 2 by the United States Navy and is used
> >on all High Speed Nuclear Attack Submarines and most, if not all, of the
> >nuclear-powered Cruisers [previously referred to as DLGN's destroyers].
> >
> >It was I who eventually got the Navy to shut down two Nuclear Power Plants
> >near Saratoga Springs, NY because they were being operated for years without
> >containment vessels. They were closed down one day after I appeared on local
> >TV [WRGB Channel 6, Schenectady, NY] telling the local population of the
> >dangers associated with such reactors even in a non terrorist
> environment. In
> >a terrorist environment it was unforgivable to keep these plants running.
> >
> >Mr. Beedle does no patriotic or good service to the American public by
> >downplaying what may be the single biggest danger to the public in this
> >Country today. It doesn't even have to be a 737 airplane, a large bore
> >antitank weapon could do the job. Maybe a "tow" or a 3.5 inch rocket
> launcher
> >would do the job and most of New York City would have to be evacuated, if
> >Indian Point 3 were the target, probably forever.
> >
> >I would like to know Mr. Beedle's credentials as a Nuclear Engineer,
> >explosive expert mechanical engineering or an expert on weapons. I
> qualify in
> >three of the four areas and have done some work as a mechanical engineer. I
> >will, furthermore be willing to take on Mr. Beedle or any other NRC/DOE
> >employee in a debate on the safety of nuclear power containment vessels.
> >
> >So let's have a debate. Nothing less will do. This is too important a matter
> >to be left up to the likes of an NRC talking head.
> >
> >John Shannon Major USMC [Retired]
> >Nuclear Physicist/Nuclear Engineers.
> >
> ><<<<< END OF SHANNON'S LETTER TO NBC DATELINE <<<<<
> >
> >====================================================
> >
> >This document is posted (along with additional comments on the Dateline
> >show) here:
> >http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/nbc2001a.htm
> >
> >====================================================
> >
> >For Shannon's web site on Knoll's Atomic Power Laboratory:
> >http://www.mindspring.com/~kapl/index.html
> >
> >====================================================
> >
> >For more information on why the nukes should be shut down:
> >http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm
> >
> >====================================================
> >
> >*************************************************
> >** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
> >** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
>
>
>*************************************************
>** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
>** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer


*************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer


11th hour protest against nuclear power:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/11thhour.htm

For more information please visit:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm

Learn about the effects of nuclear weapons here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm

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

The Animated Software Company

http://www.animatedsoftware.com
Mail to: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
First posted October 31st, 2001.

Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman