Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:12:27 -0700

From: "Russell 'Ace' Hoffman" <>
Subject: Hear Yea, Hear Yea! People's Victory! MOTHERS FOR PEACE vs.

June 2nd, 2006

Dear readers,

I believe this is an ENORMOUS legal victory.  Today may truly stand as the beginning of the end for nuclear power.  WITHOUT another accident to push it along to its INEVITABLE demise.  Wouldn't THAT be nice?

Dry casks are extremely vulnerable to terrorism, including but by no means limited to 9-11 style terrorism.  So are spent fuel pools and the reactors themselves, as well as all proposed methods of transport.

Getting the NRC to admit any of this has been totally impossible.  They stonewall us at every turn.

This is a big crack in their legal armor, my congratulations to the SLO Mothers for Peace, the California Attorney General's office, and everyone else involved.  Now, to drive a stake into the breach before the NRC can figure out how to close it up again!  Dry casks MUST be stopped completely everywhere!  The nuclear industry MUST be shut down.

There is no minimum lethal dose for radiation effects.  Any radiation exposure can cause the full spectrum of health effects, only the ratio of these illnesses drops as exposure drops.  Furthermore, any and ALL exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful, even if it doesn't kill you outright: "Any dose is an overdose" as the eminent Dr. John W. Gofman puts it.

Radiation exposure damages the body, the reproductive system, and everything else -- every steel, zirconium, glass or cement container ever built is eventually destroyed by its radioactive contents.  No elemental chemical bond in nature can withstand an atomic (radioactive) destruction -- not even the "lowest energy" particles, like those released from the decay of tritium.  Your body's living cells and their delicate DNA doesn't stand a chance.  Nuclear power IS the opposite of life, which is orderly.  Nuclear radiation creates disorder.  Its only notable endpoint is your death, my death, the deaths of our cells, the deaths of our progeny.

There is no way California (or anyone) NEEDS nuclear power.  Iran doesn't need it.  France doesn't need it.  NASA doesn't need it.  Nobody needs it.

Since the famous California blackouts just after Y2K, as the BusinessWeek article shown below points out, California has added three times more capacity than our nukes produce (in a "GOOD" year), and we've managed not to increase our per capita consumption so well that we've probably also saved two or three times' their capacity that way, too.

Ergo, CALIFORNIA DOESN'T NEED NUCLEAR POWER.  They are being run here as a cash cow for the utilities that own them and because a great fraud is being perpetrated on the people of California.

A great and grave, very dangerous fraud.

Perhaps there is an end in sight.

Ace Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA

P.S. Pro-nukers undoubtedly want me to remind you that alpha particles, if exposure is outside the body, are harmless.  They ignore exposure to mucus membranes, eyes, and other living external cells of the human body which are not "dead skin" when they make this specious claim.  They also ignore all the pathways to internal exposure of alpha particles.  Shame on them.

(2) This may be the biggest thing since sliced and diced atoms!
(3) California could close all its nukes over and over, about every 16 to 20 months, at the current rate!


To: MJ <>


Congratulations and THANK YOU!

This is big, big, big...



At 12:22 PM 6/2/2006 -0700, you wrote:

P.O. 164
Pismo B each, CA 93448
(805) 773-3881


For Immediate Release

Contact: Jane Swanson, spokesperson - San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace

(805) 595-2605   cell (805) 440-1359

Diane Curran, attorney  202/328-3500 (office)


Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission was irrational to categorically refuse to consider the
possibility of a terrorist attack in preparing the Environmental Impart
Statement for the dry cask storage project that PG&E is planning on
installing at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear power plant. This ruling is a
total victory for the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, who challenged
the NRC's 2003 decision refusing to hold a hearing on the question of
whether a terrorist attack on the new facility is "reasonably foreseeable"
and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).  As Curran told the Court in Oct 17, 2005 oral arguments, "the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have removed any shred of
credibility from the NRC's stance that terrorist attacks on nuclear
facilities are 'speculative' events that cannot be predicted."

The San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, a local group that has actively
opposed the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant since 1973, is extremely pleased
that logic prevailed in this important court ruling, which sends the NRC
back to the drawing board to complete the Environmental Impact Statement.
The group hopes that effective mitigations will be put in place to provide
defenses against possible air attack.

"The court ruled in favor of the safety of the people of California's
central coast, rather than corporate convenience. This ruling is a
vindication of the perseverance of our all-volunteer citizen group and our
one wonderful attorney, " according to spokesperson Jane Swanson

MFP attorney Diane Curran pointed out in arguments before the court  that
140 spent fuel storage casks are to be located on an exposed hillside
overlooking the Pacific Ocean where they are vulnerable to airborne
attack.  "The effects of a terrorist attack on the steel casks could be
devastating," she warned.  "Our expert study found that if only two casks
were breached, an area more than half the size of the State of Connecticut
could be rendered uninhabitable."
Among the measures MFP has asked the NRC to consider are fortifying the
casks, or putting them in bunkers, or scattering the cask storage pads
over the site so that they would not present one big target.  "These are
all feasible alternatives for minimizing the impacts of a terrorist attack
on the Diablo Canyon facility.  The NRC had no lawful basis to ignore
them,"  according to Attorney Curran.

The Court ruling can be found at


Jane Swanson

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago": Sir George Porter, quoted in The Observer, 26 August 1973

"The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military
service": Albert Einstein

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have
acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph": Haile Selassie

Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA  93451


(2) This may be the biggest thing since sliced and diced atoms:

At 05:41 PM 6/2/2006 -0700, wrote:
Oh my God! This is huge. Maybe we will be able to shut down the whole nuclear

Quoting Glenn Carroll <>:

> 3C79/$file/0374628.pdf?openelement
> A landmark decision was issued today by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of
> Appeals in favor of Mothers for Peace and nuclear security. At issue is
> whether the potential for acts of terrorism and sabotage must be considered
> in the Environmental Impact Statement for nuclear facilities. It finds that
> acts of terrorism are not "remote and speculative" as claimed by the Nuclear
> Regulatory Commission and Pacific Gas & Electric and must be considered in
> weighing environmental impacts as required by the National Environmental
> Policy Act (NEPA).
> On August 13, 2001, Georgians Against Nuclear Energy intervened before the
> NRC challenging the lack of consideration of terrorism and insider sabotage
> for the MOX plutonium fuel factory at Savannah River Site. GANE's challenge
> was based on comments from the State of Georgia (Jim Hardeman, 1999) in the
> DOE EIS for Surplus Plutonium Disposition.
> In accepting GANE's security contention for public hearing the NRC's panel
> of judges said: "Regardless of how foreseeable terrorist acts that could
> cause a beyond [design] basis accident were prior to the terrorist acts of
> September 11, 2001, involving the deliberate crash of hijacked jumbo jets
> into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the
> Pentagon in the Nation's Capitol killing thousands of people, it can no
> longer be argued that terrorist attacks of heretofore unimagined scope and
> sophistication against previously unimaginable targets are not reasonably
> foreseeable." (Judge Thomas S. Moore 12/6/01)
> Public interest attorney Diane Curran subsequently represented GANE (-MOX
> plus Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League-Catawba relicensing, Nuclear
> Information Resource Service-McGuire relicensing, Connecticut Coalition
> Against Millstone-spent fuel pool expansion, State of Utah-Private Fuel
> Storage, and San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace-Diablo dry cask storage) with
> Dr. Gordon Thompson serving as expert witness to force the NRC to analyze
> the environmental impacts of terrorism at the respective sites.
> The contentions were ultimately passed up to the Commission which denied
> considering them. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's case took the NRC to
> Federal appeals court and won the unprecedented decision today.
> The Mothers, strongly led by Rochelle Becker, was joined in its suit by,
> among others, Sierra Club, San Luis Obispo County, and the States of
> California, Washington, Utah and Massachusetts. It was a long, expensive
> battle with tremendous popular support.
> The Federal court said, "We hold only that the NRC¹s stated reasons for
> categorically refusing to consider the possibility of terrorist attacks
> cannot withstand appellate review based on the record before us. ...because
> we conclude that the NRC¹s determination that NEPA does not require a
> consideration of the environmental impact of terrorist attacks does not
> satisfy reasonableness review, we hold that the EA prepared in reliance on
> that determination is inadequate and fails to comply with NEPA¹s mandate."
> (Sidney R. Thomas, 6/2/06)
> Many, many, many people and organizations have contributed to this
> watershed.
> Sure the appeal has been filed already, but the precedent is also written. I
> was wondering, is it retroactive? Doesn't it require all existing facilities
> to conduct as EIS with respect to terrorism? Will we be having environmental
> impact scoping and comment hearings at every nuclear facility in the
> country? A government-sponsored forum for citizens to say, "Nah. We're over
> THIS nuke!"
> *
> --
> Glenn Carroll
> Coordinator
> (aka GANE - Georgians Against Nuclear Energy)
> P.O. Box 8574
> Atlanta, GA 31106
> PHONE/FAX: 404-378-4263

(3) California could close all its nukes over and over, about every 16 to 20 months, at the current rate:

JUNE 2, 2006

By Christopher Palmeri

Energy: Wiser on the West Coast
From "smart meters" to white roofs, California is putting its crisis behind it

It was six years ago this summer that the great California energy crisis began. The state hadn't built enough power plants to meet demand. Rogue energy traders swooped in, prices soared, and the state's largest utility went bankrupt.

The crisis branded the nation's most populated state as a energy-industry basket case. "What's the difference between California and the Titanic?" recently convicted former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling once joked. "The Titanic went down with the lights on."

Now, as temperatures creep up in much of the country and the peak air-conditioning season begins, it's worth noting that from an energy perspective, there's much good happening in California. More than 30 new power plants have come online in the past six years, generating 12,000 megawatts. The California Energy Commission estimates that it will have generation reserves of more than 20% this August, nearly three times what's required should power usage spike.

The better story, though, lies on the demand side of the equation, or what the state's fitness-focused governor might call portion control. Since California began aggressively pursuing energy efficiency in the mid-1970s, the state's per-capita electricity usage has remained flat at around 6,500 kilowatt-hours per person. In the rest of the country, consumption has risen from 8,000 to 12,000 kilowatt-hours in the same time frame. In terms of carbon emissions, that's the equivalent of keeping 12 million cars off the road.

UTILITIES ON BOARD.  How does California do it? Here's one way: The state requires that fluorescent bulbs be used in new construction or major remodels in many rooms of the house. Fluorescent lights are more than four times more efficient than incandescents, so if you're remodeling a kitchen, laundry, or bathroom in the Golden State, you have no choice. The standards are part of a massive set of statewide building codes called Title 24 that was passed in 1978. They get toughened every couple of years or so, and consumers get used to them. "They kind of accept it and move on," says Santa Monica architect Aleks Istanbullu.

California has also succeeded by getting utilities involved in conservation. The state's big electric distributors shell out hundreds of millions of dollars every year in rebates to consumers who install more energy-efficient air conditioners, refrigerators, and heating systems. The rebates, budgeted at $2 billion between now and 2008, are intended to save $5 billion in power purchases. "Before we invest in traditional pipes and wires, we have to implement these programs," says Anne Shen Smith, senior vice-president for customer relations at San Diego Gas & Electric. "It's the equivalent of avoiding three new power plants."

Utilities are also required to get more of their power from renewable sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. In 2002, California instituted one of the most extensive renewable programs in the country, requiring 20% of power from such sources by 2010, up from 10% today. The utilities are also being allowed to earn their regulated rate of return on new "smart meters" that collect customer-usage information in real time, allowing the energy providers to recommend ways for them to cut costs. "California's unique," says Greg Ander, chief architect for Southern California Edison. "Utilities have gotten very aggressive since the meltdown."

WHITE-ROOF INITIATIVE.  Politicians have gotten into the game, too. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is campaigning for reelection in November, has jumped on the green bandwagon, earmarking $2.8 billion over 10 years to put small solar systems in place. His "Million Solar Roofs" program, started in January, provides cash to homeowners who choose to install such systems.

The state has other initiatives in the works. California Energy Commissioner Arthur H. Rosenfeld, who has been called the father of energy conservation in the state, says his office is now working on regulations that would require all new roofs in the state to be white, because they absorb less heat and cut air-conditioning bills. "The pharaohs and the Greeks have known this for 5,000 years," he says. Regulations presently call for flat roofs to be white. The state is working with roofing manufacturers who have created pigments that mimic the energy-saving nature of white so that the regulations can be extended to sloped roofs and tiles by 2008.

It may seem goofy, but what happens in California usually doesn't stay there. In the mid-1970s, California was a leader in pushing for more efficient appliances. Similar federal standards came into effect in 1992. The result is that even as the average size of refrigerators has increased, the power they use has fallen 75%, to roughly 400 kilowatt-hours per year. It's funny how fast things can turn around. It's not California that's sinking anymore.

Palmeri is a senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's Los Angeles bureau

Copyright 2000- 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
All rights reserved.

Contact info for "Ace:"