Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:48:59 -0800

From: "Russell 'Ace' Hoffman" <>
Subject: Letter to the editors of California's many "major" newspapers
  -- please print as an "Op-Ed" ASAP THX!

January 18th, 2007

To The Editor,

You should read yesterday's editorial in the Las Vegas Sun, calling for non-nuclear, renewable energy (shown below).  It applies 10-fold in California, but NONE OF YOU EVER ADMIT IT.  Get real.

WHY is there no reality check by the editors of California's major newspapers?  Are all of you STILL hoodwinked into supporting our four aging and dangerous reactors (two each at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon) or are you SCARED INTO SILENCE because you don't want to sound like an "extremist?"

Well, WHO made the "anti-nuclear" view out to be EXTREME in the first place?


WHO made it out to be wrong, even though it wasn't?


All the reasons the LVS editorial mentions were WELL KNOWN FOR DECADES by the "anti-nuclear activists" and we TRIED AND TRIED to get you to listen.  But you wouldn't.

Instead, WHO let the spokesperson from San Onofre, Ray Golden, say over and over in print that the "anti-nuclear activists" (as YOU have always called them / us) were "unscientific?"

YOU DID, again.

And again, and again, and again.

It's time for California's newspaper editors to get a reality check on themselves.   Closing San Onofre and Diablo Canyon is rational, and should be done immediately.  For every reason mentioned by the LVS editorial shown below, there are a thousand more.

Approximately every two years, for nearly a decade, California has added new electrical generating capacity equivalent to the ENTIRE COMBINED GENERATING CAPACITY of our four nuclear power plants.  So obviously, we DON'T need their electricity to keep the lights on.  They could all be shut down IMMEDIATELY.

But instead, because YOU let them go virtually unnoticed, EVERY TWO DAYS those plants produce a NEW TON OF HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE which must be protected from terrorists and mother nature for millions of years, at great risk, great danger, and great expense.


Don't just encourage or support renewable energy.  DEMAND IT.

How many CSX rail cars full of hazardous, explosive chemicals pass by San Onofre every day?  How many truckloads of dangerous materials?  What are the REAL risks of tsunamis from underwater landslides and / or earthquakes anywhere in the Pacific?  What reasonable person can believe that more than two years after the devastating Banda Achi tsunami, the tsunami wall at San Onofre has not been raised and reinforced?  The DRY CASK STORAGE AREA should at least be moved WELL AWAY FROM THE COAST.  But of course that begs the question:  Where WOULD they be "safe?"


Wake up, editors, before the blood of a horrific accident is on your hands.  You've ignored everyone who has tried to warn you.  You've refused, year after year, to tell the public the truth about the extreme danger we face every day.  You've never studied the hazards of low-level radiation to find out that the standards are based on how healthy adult males react to radiation, NOT on how infants and fetuses react.  Infants and fetuses are a hundred to a thousand times (or more) more susceptible to radiation's harmful effects!  No reporter, no pro-nuker, no DOE or NRC toadie will ever be able to disprove the FACT that low-level radiation standards are, virtually "across the board," AT LEAST several orders of magnitude TOO LAX.

No reporter, pro-nuker, or DOE or NRC toadie, can disprove the "anti-nuclear" claim that the EPA TRITIUM STANDARD (20,000 picoCuries per liter of drinking water) is TOO LAX.  Because it IS too lax.

We are where the battle against second-hand cigarette smoke was 30 or 40 years ago -- it was obviously dangerous, but NO ONE wanted to go out on a limb and push for laws to protect second-hand smokers.

We need STRONG LAWS to protect our babies, our infants, our fetuses, and our own DNA.  We also need EDITORS who aren't afraid of telling the truth.

If you DO come out for immediate closure of San Onofre and Diablo Canyon, I'm sure you won't be alone forever.  Sooner or later, REALITY must set in.  You're not all stupid, bought, evil, or ignorant.  And nor are your reporters.

But if reality DOESN'T set in, if California doesn't CLOSE these dangerous deathtraps, then one of these days there will be a horrible accident, perhaps a dozen times WORSE than Chernobyl (it's perfectly possible), and California will be ruined, and THEN those of you who are left will write powerful editorials about how we never learned our lesson in time.  Where we could have had offshore wind farms and all the rest of the renewable mix, instead we put our faith in nuclear energy, and it let us down.  But you'll be a day late and a trillion dollars short.

Of course, at the rate you are going, you'll probably editorialize that the cancer victims bring business to our local hospitals -- so much that they are overflowing, and people are dying on the streets (which brings business to our morgues and graveyards) and all this new business is a GOOD THING.  That's how far from REALITY you really are right now.  Our nuclear power plants are extreme FIRE DANGERS.  They can burn for WEEKS, and we have no way to put the fires out.  When our forests burn, in a few years they recover.  But if San Onofre melts down, there will be NO RECOVERY in our lifetime, or in a thousand lifetimes.  SoCal will be dead.

I implore the editors of California's newspapers to DO YOUR DUTY.  This issue is NOT the job of the oft-maligned "anti-nuclear activists."  We've done our job, despite the lies and the libel used against us.  For 50 years we've warned you.  Now it's YOUR turn.  Take a hint from the Las Vegas Sun.  The nuclear gamble is a sucker's bet.


Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

01/17/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.13
Send News Stories to with title on subject
line and first line of body

23 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Energy plan long overdue

Today: January 17, 2007 at 7:1:32 PST

Comprehensive approach could help Nevada reach its potential for
solar and other renewables

Over the past three decades this country has become fully aware
of the serious problems with fossil fuels, namely, that they are
dirty and are being consumed at a rate that is not sustainable.

During the same period the dangers of nuclear power became
obvious - there is no safe way to dispose of its deadly waste
and the plants pose radiation risks to communities.

Given the immensity of the problems posed by traditional energy
- negative environmental effects, increasing costs, dependence
upon unfriendly countries - it is clear that the federal
government should have long ago led a national push to develop
nonnuclear renewable sources of energy.

National leaders, however, never rose to the occasion and are
still taking little action in comparison to the scope of the

So it is up to the states to show initiative, and hopefully they
will do so before our economies are devastated by rising energy
prices and before the quality of our waters, soil and air drops
any further.

We would like to see Gov. Jim Gibbons announce a bold plan to
establish Nevada as the nation's leader in the production of
solar energy. Experts in this field have long identified the
state, because of its land mass and abundant sun, as one of the
most ideal places in the world for this purpose.

And there would be no reason to stop with solar energy. For
example, Northern Nevada is known for its vast potential for
geothermal - energy produced from underground water heated well
past the boiling point by natural energy emanating from the
Earth's core. This clean, renewable source of energy could
account for a much greater percentage of our power.

With studies under way in other parts of the country to track
the migratory routes of birds, to protect them from the blades
of modern windmills, environmentally friendly wind energy should
also be part of a long-range state plan.

Lacking such a plan from the governor, the 2007 Legislature
should fill the void and pass a comprehensive energy bill, one
that would not only provide more incentives for private
companies to take advantage of the state's potential, but also
one that would include a strategy for widely publicizing Nevada
as an ideal state for renewable-energy entrepreneurs.

A model for private companies has already been established in
Boulder City. Construction of Nevada Solar One, a plant owned by
Solargenix Energy of North Carolina, is nearing completion.
Helped along by $15 million worth of incentives provided by the
Nevada Commission on Economic Development, the $100 million
plant is expected to start producing enough energy this year to
power 48,000 homes.

This plant is an example of how state policy can help bring
about major change. In 1997 the Nevada Legislature passed a law
requiring the state's big utility companies to provide 1 percent
of their power from renewable sources by 2010. In 2001 the state
upped the ante, requiring 15 percent of the power sold in the
state to come from renewables by 2013. In 2005 the state raised
the bar again, requiring that 20 percent of power sold to
Nevadans come from renewables by 2015.

State and federal tax incentives inspired Solargenix to build
here, and the legislative mandate on renewable sources inspired
Nevada Power to contract with the company to buy its power.

What the state has done so far is to prove the relationship
between public policy and the emergence of a renewables industry
here. A new, comprehensive state plan could again increase the
percentage of total power from renewables by 2020, and it could
also address the infrastructure aspects of developing a
renewable-energy industry worthy of capturing the world's

For example, the sources of renewable energy are often in remote
areas, where the wind is most consistent or the underground
waters are the hottest. Roads are needed for these areas and
transmission lines need to be built.

An aggressive renewable-energy plan would also outline ways for
schools to develop their own power sources, and for individual
homes to be affordably outfitted with rooftop solar panels. A
year ago California announced a new surcharge on gas and
electric bills, to create a fund that would provide rebates for
homeowners who installed solar panels. Nevada could have success
with a similar initiative.

Additionally, a state plan could provide rewards for drivers who
switch to hybrid vehicles or vehicles that run on cleaner fuels,
such as biodiesel or ethanol. This would help clean our air, so
that people here could lead healthier lives and once again enjoy
a clear view of our scenery. As part of a comprehensive energy
plan, a long-term view of mass transit should also be committed
to paper.

A major side benefit would also result from a new plan - jobs.

Speaking to the Nevada Development Authority in November 2005,
former President Bill Clinton said, "If I were the economic
development czar for America today, or if I were in charge of
economic planning for Las Vegas and Nevada today, I would start
by making a complete and total commitment to a clean energy
future because I think you can create more jobs there than
anywhere else."

In truth, Nevada has taken only baby steps in developing
renewable energy. We believe the governor and the 2007
Legislature should put this state on a path toward achieving its
true potential, which is literally nothing less than being a
global powerhouse.

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.

Contact information for "Ace:"