STOP CASSINI Newsletter #212 -- October 21st, 1999

Copyright (c) 1999

STOP CASSINI Newsletters Index

To: Subscribers, government officials, members of the press

From: Russell David Hoffman, deeply concerned citizen

Re: Some things Richard Greenberg won't hear: STOP CASSINI #212

Date: October 21st, 1999 -- 71 days before Y2K

This issue's subjects:

(1) Nuke Test Ban Treaty, letters to DoE:

This is a series of emails regarding the terrifying near future of nukes in space. NASA, the DoE, and the U. S. military-industrial complex are all together gearing up for a full-fledged assault on the health of the planet:


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:31:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Post Cassini Flyby News
Subject: Nuke Test Ban Treaty and Campaign Finance Reform Defeated

Post Cassini Flyby News
P.O. Box 1999, Wendell Depot, MA 01380 USA

October 20, 1999


Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Defeated by U.S. Congress
Campaign Finance Reform Defeated by U.S. Congress

Senator John McCain called the system corrupt. Just recently India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons, adding more nuclear pollution into our environment. By defeating the Test Ban Treaty, Congress loses any credibility that the U.S. had for disarmament interests. Current policies place profits over true national/international security and democratic ideals.

What can you do?

Write, call and meet with the U.S. Department of Energy to stop their plans for expanding plutonium isotope production. This is a small step, but in a better direction than where we are headed.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) scoping meeting for the programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for accomplishing expanded civilian nuclear energy research and development and isotope production missions in the United States, including the role of the Fast Flux Test Facility.

Please respond by going to the public meeting: (Each person will receive at least a five minute time slot to make a statement)

Wednesday, October 27, 1999, 2-5 p.m.
The Mariott at Metro center
775 12th Street, NW
Washington, D.C.

Or Call Toll Free to Make Your Statement

Or add your statement by E-mail to:

Following are examples of responses. For more information see:


Colette Brown
Office of Nuclear Energy
Science and Technology (NE-50)
U.S. Department of Energy
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, Maryland 20874

Re: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for accomplishing expanded civilian nuclear energy research and development and isotope production missions in the United States, including the role of the Fast Flux Test Facility.

October 4, 1999

Dear Ms. Brown:

I oppose expansion of isotope production. If we keep taking chances with isotopes that are toxic and known to cause mutations and cancers in living cells we will unnecessarily continue threatening life on Earth. I have read the letter sent to you on this subject by Jonathan Mark. It sufficiently documents the technical reasons for opposing the development, let alone the intended uses of harmful isotopes. Think of the self-defeating behavior which DOE is proposing. Think of their potential impacts on your friends and family—for countless generations to come!

Jerry C. Bosworth
321 Beale St.
Brooksville, FL 34601-2029


Dear Colette Brown,

I am in support of a "No Action" alternative where there would be no domestic capability to produce Plutonium-238 for future space missions.

I have a two year old child and want him to grow up into a healthy adult in a safe world. There are clearly alternatives to Plutonium for space travel and the horrors of nuclear war are unthinkable. I urge you to do all that is within your power to stop any further production of Plutonium and to divert resources to non-nuclear, non-fossil fuels. Individual moral responsibility must outweigh political considerations.


Paul Kirsch
Administrative Assistant, UCLA
Paul Kirsch


To Whom It May Concern:

Lately, I have been reading a lot about the Cassini fly-by and other issues related to nuclear power used in space vehicles. Consequently I also did some research on low-level radiation and the opposed viewpoints on its effect on humans and other life forms.

I am convinced that the current mainstream attitude towards this radiation may be in error. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the current estimates of risk may be based on false assumptions.

In 1997, Tom K. Hei and co-workers at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York found that there is no safe dose for alpha particles (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) Vol.94, pp.3765-3770, April 1997, 'Mutagenic Effects of a Single and an Exact Number of Alpha Particles in Mammalian Cells')."

I often hear the counter argument that humans are already exposed to much greater levels of low-level radiation from natural sources. Why then should we be worried about adding another source? John [Gofman], M.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, explains why: "The fact that humans cannot escape exposure to ionizing radiation from various natural sources --- which may well account for a large share of humanity's inherited afflictions --- is no reason to let human activities increase the exposure to ionizing radiation. The fact that ionizing radiation is a mutagen was first demonstrated in 1927 by Herman Joseph Muller, and subsequent evidence has shown it to be a mutagen of unique potency. Mutation is the basis not only for inherited afflictions, but also for cancer."

Do the benefits of the DOE proposal to expand civilian nuclear energy research and development and isotope production outweigh the risks entailed by the increased potential exposure to ionizing radiation? I do not think so.

The DOE states in the Federal Register, vol. 64, no. 178, that the purpose of expanding the program is threefold: "(1) The production of isotopes for medical and industrial uses, (2) the production of plutonium-238 for use in advanced radioisotope power systems for future National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) space missions, and 3) the Nation's nuclear research and development needs.

Considering the recent situation with the Cassini spacecraft, item #2 is uppermost on my mind. After reading much e-mail from an organization opposed to the fly-by and the counter arguments on NASA's website, I concluded that concern over the fly-by was probably over-stated. The odds of an accidental release of plutonium occurring as a result of collision with earth's atmosphere seemed very small (one in a million by NASA's reckoning).

Then came the news last week regarding the navigational errors that led to the Mars explorer vaporizing in Mars's atmosphere. Apparently, the JPL's risk evaluations do not sufficiently account for the most common cause of accidents -- human error.

Considering this recent very indisputable evidence of the very real dangers of the use of radioactive materials in spacecraft that could potentially release their radioactive contents and expose humans to ionizing radiation, I have concluded that NASA should abandon its current dependence on plutonium and further develop the solar alternative. (As far as I know, the Mars explorer did not contain any plutonium, as this is used only in deep space flights. However, the incident clearly demonstrates that the risks of miscalculation are much higher than originally estimated for the Cassini mission and others like it.)

I am also concerned that the FFTF at Hanford would be the site for plutonium-238 production. I live in Washington State and have followed the Hanford clean-up issue for years. As I understand, the clean-up is far from complete and many serious problems with progress have recently been reported in the news. Until DOE can prove its reliability in this area, I do not want to see it producing more dangerous material that could add to an already huge problem.

Included in the list of industrial uses is food sterilization to which I am adamantly opposed. Civilization has done a great deal to improve the quality and abundance of our food supply through numerous human improvements on nature -- by which I mean everything from agriculture to refrigeration. It seems to me food irradiation is overkill as well as potentially harmful.

As for the third use, "…nuclear research and development needs" I would rather see the DOE spend a greater effort on alternatives to nuclear and carbon-based fuels. Rather than further promote nuclear fuel usage by providing assistance to commercial reactors seeking license renewal or helping with international fusion research, the DOE could be helping lead humanity towards the cleanest, most renewable and potentially cheapest source of energy we know of: the sun.

Finally, the last use mentioned, "non-proliferation programs" contains an encouraging concept: "… to safely convert plutonium-based materials for disposition …" Otherwise, I do not see any of the uses outlined in the statement as sufficiently benefiting humanity to outweigh the risks of ionizing radiation that would be promoted under the proposed program.

In conclusion, I am for the "No Action" alternative, although an even better alternative would be for the DOE to start to move away from nuclear energy altogether and take leadership in the area of providing energy from the source (the sun) that has the highest potential for providing clean, safe, low-cost energy for endless generations to come.

David Sokal
Seattle, WA


for letters to the DOE by Jonathan Mark and Russell Hoffman of the Stop
Cassini Homepage.


Additional letters may be sent to Post Cassini Flyby Feedback list. If you want to get these, just reply with "subscribe post cassini feedback" in subject field. If you wish to be removed from this list, please reply with "remove" in the subject field.


(2) Cassini is NOT like MCO! IT's NOT! It's Not, it's not it's not!:


Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:40:34 +0100
From: K (Berkeley)
Subject: MCO

Hi Russell,

I've noticed how you've gleefully reported on the failure of MCO, and that this failure "proved" you correct in your argument against Cassini. However, I think it is easily argued that this mode of failure during the Earth Swingby (english to metric conversion) could not have occurred on Cassini. First of all, the initial swingby was at Venus. The failure occurred with MCO at it's initial orbital insertion burn. Presumably, if the same error had occurred with Cassini and gone uncorrected, it would now be a lump somewhere on Venus. Second, the maneuvers to set up Cassini for the swingbys occurred well in advance of the actual event. An error such as this would have been quickly discovered when the post-burn trajectory was analyzed, with ample time to correct the error. Finally, Cassini is completely under the control of JPL, with no influence from an outside vendor. In the case of MCO, Lockheed-Martin stubbornly continued to use english units, while the NASA navigators have long switched to the metric system. It is also the case of a "better, faster, cheaper" $125 million dollar mission suffering from the lack of checks that a billion dollar mission like Cassini has. The more there is riding on your calculations, the more checks and rechecks are done.

I hate to say it, but despite what has been reported in the news, JPL does not use the metric system exclusively. The do for navigation purposes and science gathering, but all the machined parts and fasteners on most mission are english. There is a huge resistance in the aerospace industry (and most others) to go metric, though things are slowly changing. My bet is the MCO failure will result in more stringent metric policies within NASA.



----- MY RESPONSE: -----


Thank you for your letter, however, I think it's amazing. Like I said, if the only thing different had been the names, you would be now explaining to me that that difference is enough to mean the one that crashed was totally different from the next one you want to launch. There's just no end to your excuses.

Blaming the English/Metric conversion error is probably correct, but the broader picture is simply that humans goofed, as humans do. With MCO it's just a tiny thing, but with Cassini it would have been a catastrophy if it impacted Earth.

Furthermore, I read in New Scientist that normally NASA provides a trajectory and an error estimate, say, 10 km (which I think was the number given in the article, though I don't have it in front of me).

Cassini was reported as being within a second or so and a km or so of the target. WAS THIS DONE BY ADDITIONAL FIRING of the rockets? Each firing was a danger-point.

As for "more rechecks" being done on Cassini because of the cost, in fact in worked the other way: Because of the enormous cost, instruments were not given the normal "shake test" prior to launch. And what part of "better" has you confused, as in FBC? MCO was 10 years' newer technology; one would think they could get a little better at it in that time, even if it is cheaper too.

Also, Cassini could have failed before Venus, and been a little off when it did that flyby, and headed towards Earth (the bias wasn't all that much, really). It could fail tomorrow, and return to Earth later after the containment system has had time to become brittle and useless. We aren't out of the woods, and I'm still amazed that none of you pro-Cassini folks can put two and two together. As I have often stated, I think Cassini would have to land on your own heads before you realized the dangers you've thrust upon us.


Russell Hoffman

----- END OF MY RESPONSE -----

I was wondering who was going to break the ice and make this preposterous claim next. Nuclear missions are foolhardy, but clearly, the fools in this case are extremely hardy. I am certainly not about to take back my claims that NASA scientists' heads are the hardest, thickest, densest substance known to the human race. There were always two halves to the debate, namely, how many people might die, and how likely an accident is in the first place. There is no longer any question about the inaccuracy of NASA's estimate about the chance of an accident, making the entire EIS invalid, and pointing out a standard invalidating factor of every nuclear EIS ever written -- namely, that they lump together the size of the accident and some made-up number about the possibility of an accident, and present that as a "worst case scenario" when it is nothing of the sort, and is in fact, mere fiction. (Another trick they use, especially for EISs for military nuclear reactors, is to only do an EIS for one that is properly operating, claiming failure is somehow impossible, when in fact, we've already lost at least TWO reactors at sea depths, and many if not most of their radioactive pollutants have been released to the far corners of the Earth!) -- rdh

(3) A student is curious about space debris -- I sent him to some "experts":


From: Andrew
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:53:09 EDT
Subject: space debris

Hi. My name is Andrew M... and for part of my science project I have to interview a scientist, and I was wondering if you could help me out by answering these questions:

1.) What is most space debris made of? Where does it come from?

2.) Are asteroids considered the largest form of space debris? How large is an average asteroid?

3.) what happens to parts of space shuttles that are deployed in space(i/e the large red fuel tank)? Are these things considered space debris?

4.) How much space debris has fallen on Earth? Has any caused major damage or injury/death? If so where are some places that some has fallen?

5.) Where is the largest concentration of debris in space? Is it threatening our planet at all by falling on us?

thanks for all your help!



----- MY RESPONSE: -----

To: Andrew M
cc: "James Oberg"
From: Russell Hoffman
re: Your letter to me (shown below)
date: October 21st, 1999


Thank you for your letter, but I'm afraid I cannot officially help you, because I am not a scientist. I am a computer programmer, which doesn't carry a degree at this time, though perhaps some day it might (but I doubt it).

However, I've taken the liberty of answering your questions anyway, and suggest you contact James Oberg, who IS a scientist, and who can (hopefully) give you the answers you seek.

His email address is:

You might also want to contact Nick Johnson, who is NASA's space debris "guru". His email address is:


I have taken the liberty of forwarding this email to them, as I think they will both be heartened to hear that students in America are concerned about this growing and serious problem (though perhaps dismayed that they are asking me about it!), and perhaps they will respond directly to you with their own comments.


Russell Hoffman

Attachment: Your letter, with imbedded comments [[[ in brackets -- rdh ]]]

At 07:53 PM 10/21/99 -0400, Andrew M. wrote:

Hi. My name is Andrew M..... and for part of my science project i have to interview a scientist, and i was wondering if you could help me out by anwsering these questions:

1.) What is most space debris made of? Where does it come from?

[[[ Most of the debris in orbit about the Earth is manmade, and is the result of careless operations on the part of early and current space voyagers and unmanned missions. For example, one U. S. military mission released 400,000,000 needles into space, each traveling at about 17,000 miles per hour, for a reflection test. That's so bone-headed it's beyond belief, but worse than that, the Russians have sent up literally dozens of nuclear reactors, some of which are leaking primary radioactive coolant into space. The coolant bubbles thus become radioactive space debris, damaging in two ways! After use during the Cold War (still going on, if military expenditures are anything to go on), these Russian reactors were normally boosted to a "parking orbit" of about 400 miles and 1000 year's duration, after which time the radioactive components, along with the rest of the rockets, will return to Earth, unless they violate the laws of physics. Thus, prior to that time, they should be cleaned up, but how? No one has come up with a good method. And there is no way to remove 400,000,000 "space needles" from orbit either! We sent up a few nuclear reactors ourselves, also for "Cold War" applications.

Many, if not most of the hazards were/are created by "unexpected" rocket explosions. I put "unexpected" in quotes because after 60+ years of rocketry, it's not really proper to call accidents "unexpected" events but NASA does it all the time. -- rdh ]]]

2.) Are asteroids considered the largest form of space debris? How large is an average asteroid?

[[[ I think yes, asteroids would be considered the largest form of space debris. I don't know the size of the average asteroid; I really doubt anyone could give you a very accurate guess, because not nearly enough money has been spent studying what sorts of asteroids are out there and how they threaten us. We barely even know the properties of the space junk we've left up there ourselves! -- rdh ]]]

3.) what happens to parts of space shuttles that are deployed in space(i/e the large red fuel tank)? Are these things considered space debris?

[[[ The fuel tank, I believe, returns to Earth but burns up in the upper atmosphere. Maybe this takes a few weeks or months; I don't really know. I would expect that yes, they are considered space debris after they have served their purpose and been let go. The U. S. Military tracks over 8,000 pieces of space debris, but there are many millions which can do significant damage, but are not tracked. The further away from Earth, the larger the pieces need to be in order to be tracked. Out in the Geosynchronous Orbital area, 25,000 miles above the surface of the Earth, they can barely track something the size of a dishwasher. Closer to Earth, they can track stuff about the size of a small grapefruit, although by no means is all of it tracked, and it sometimes gets lost. Also, something the size of a small grape, or even perhaps the size of a pea, would probably destroy any spacecraft ever put into orbit. Probably, many rockets have been destroyed by space debris, but no one knows exactly how many. The space shuttle windows come back pitted quite frequently. I heard you can buy a used one for about $600, plus shipping. -- rdh ]]]

4.) How much space debris has fallen on Earth? Has any caused major damge or injury/death? If so where are some places that some has fallen?

[[[ A lot has fallen to Earth. The worst problems would be from the radioactive stuff. SNAP-9A, for example, which fell to Earth in 1964, contained 17,000 Curies (2.1 pounds) of plutonium, mostly Pu 238, which was dispersed into the environment. In 1978 Russia lost a large radioactive object called Cosmos 954 which broke up over Canada; it was never properly cleaned up of course. More recently, in 1996, Russia lost a probe called Mars '96, which also contained Plutonium and probably came down over Bolivia or Chile, but no one knows. No one knows if it survived the reentry. I doubt it, for geopolitical as well as technical reasons (what little can be gather from official and other sources), while Mr. Oberg expects it did, for whatever reason. These are only some of the known nuclear losses and near-losses. Plus there have been hundreds of other accidents, some of which might have been nuclear, but they are classified as secret military payloads, so we can't tell. (I don't believe this classification is actually for military reasons, because the Russians can probably tell what we put up, but they don't want to alarm the American public, so they don't admit what they are doing. The Constitutionality of this behavior is in serious doubt, but that's what the "Cold War" is all about!) -- rdh ]]]

5.) Where is the largest concentration of debris in space? Is it threatning our planet at all by falling on us?

[[[ The greatest threat is undoubtedly the nuclear stuff, but perhaps the absolute greatest threat is that more and more of this nuclear stuff is being lofted into space each year, and not always successfully! Even a success is "iffy" at best, and perhaps even worse than a failure. Why? Because they excuse themselves by putting these flimsy containers around the nuclear payload (plutonium, for instance). The container MIGHT work during a failed launch to protect the population from these incredibly hazardous materials, but if the container has been in space for, so nearly 100 years, the radioactivity might only have gone down by half, but the container might well have become completely brittle and useless. So perhaps a successful flight, where the plutonium payload circles the Earth (or leaves the Earth's gravitational pull but then returns later, as can happen) is worse than a failure!

A tenth of a millionth of a gram of Pu-238 WILL kill you, and less will probably kill you in proportion -- if you get a tenth of a sure-lethal dose, in other words if you inhale a hundredth of a millionth of a gram of plutonium, it is estimated that you will have roughly a 10% chance of dying. That's an awfully small amount! That is why the worst problem is the continued use of radioactive payloads, which invariably become space debris when accidents occur (as they invariably do). -- rdh ]]]

thanks for all your help!

[[[ Any time, and I hope Mssrs Oberg or Johnson will confirm or deny my statements for you so that you have some real scientists' points of view for your report! Here are some actual numbers the Government reported:

Report year: 1989 1995
10 cm or greater: 7000 8000
1 to 10 cm: 17,500 110,000
.01-1 cm 3,524,500 35,117,000
Total kg: 3,000,000 2,000,000

Source: Table 2 of each report.

An object a centimeter across is big enough to do significant, and perhaps catastrophic, damage to any satellite or rocket. -- rdh ]]]

[[[ Thanks again, and good luck on the project. I'll be interested in how you do!


Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
Space debris activist but not a scientist! -- rdh ]]]

----- END OF MY RESPONSE -----

(4) Japanese Y2K preparations extensive, late, "unnerving":

This next clip, from a CNNfn news article that passed by this editor's desk yesterday (posted by Paul Swann on the Y2K nuclear list), is not about what the clip appears to be about. What it's really about is the fact that with 3,000+ programs they had to "debug", it is absurd to think they debugged them all properly. Errors surely remain:


JAL said it had begun Y2K checks in 1995, and spent more than three billion yen on checking 65,000 software products containing 31.5 million program lines. An unnerving 14,000 potential bugs were detected and killed. ANA said it had to debug 2,500 of its software programs and JAS fixed 600.


Add to this, the recent Tokaimura nuclear fuel reprocessing plant accident (Japan's worst nuclear accident ever), and today's news that a Japanese official had to resign for saying Japan should consider arming itself with nukes. It's good this one was forced to resign, but how many think like that, such that one thought he could get away with saying it? And what will they think of next? Don't they all understand how crazy that idea is? Evidently not. To contact the Y2K committee of the government of America and tell them that you think Japan is crazy and NOT READY for Y2K, write to the U. S. Y2K committee:

Senate-Year 2000-Committee

To learn what's really going on (not nearly enough) regarding Y2K and nuclear issues, join Paul Swann's Y2K news list/discussion group:

Paul Swann

To learn about the effects of nuclear weapons:

(5) United States Government official contact points:

NASA needs to be told in no uncertain terms they have lied too often to the public and we want a SEA CHANGE away from their nuclear policies!

To learn about the absurd excuses NASA used to launch Cassini and its 72.3 pounds of plutonium in 1997, ask them for the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini mission, and all subsequent documentation. At the same time, be sure to ask them for ANY and ALL documentation available on future uses of plutonium in space, including MILITARY, CIVILIAN, or "OTHER" (just in case they make a new category somehow!). To get this information, contact:

Cassini Public Information
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena CA 91109
(818) 354-5011 or
(818) 354-6478

Here's NASA's "comments" email address:

Daniel Goldin is the head of NASA. Here's his email address:

Here's the NASA URL to find additional addresses to submit written questions to:


NASA should never have been allowed to launch monstrosities like Cassini and Galileo (which recently suffered a nine-hour "lost in space" anomoly (NASA calls it "safe mode" which is the opposite of what it really is) just before it did a flyby of Io), but the next breed -- such as Europa Orbiter and Pluto-Kuiper Express are not much better and the policy is being set for greatly increased rates of missions! The danger continues! To complain to NASA about their future nuclear space probes, here are two addresses you can use:

For Europa Orbiter:
Europa Orbiter comments"

For Pluto-Kuiper Express:
"Pluto-Kuiper Express comments"

Be sure to "cc" the president and VP and your senators and congresspeople, too.

President Bill Clinton
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20500
Phone -- (202) 456-1111
Fax -- (202) 456-2461
e-mail --

Vice President Albert Gore
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20500
Phone -- (202) 456-1414
Fax -- (202) 456-2461
e-mail --

Secretary William Cohen
1000 Defense
The Pentagon
Washington D.C. 20301
Phone -- (703) 695-6352

Secretary Bill Richardson
Department of Energy (DoE)
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington D.C. 20585
Phone -- (202) 586-6210
fax -- (202) 586-4403

Always include your full name and postal address in all correspondence to any Government official of any country, because otherwise they will throw it out unread, or hand it directly to their police force to try to identify the author. (Thus, nothing good will come of it.) Also, ALWAYS include a personal message of some sort, indicating YOUR OWN VIEWS, even if you include a lot of material written by other people (me, for instance).

(6) Subscription information:

Thanks for reading! Welcome new subscribers!

Home page of our STOP CASSINI movement: (Accept NO imitations!)

To subscribe, simply email the editor at and state:
Please include a personal message of any
length and subject matter. Thank you!

To unsubscribe email me and say

Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
Written in U.S.A.
This newsletter is free and is not distributed for profit.
Please distribute these newsletters EVERYWHERE!

"There can be no democracy without truth, no justice without mercy, and no nuclear dispersals without ill consequences."

(7) Authorship notes and associated links:


Many of the issues presented by Russell Hoffman in this letter are based on conversations with Dr. John W. Gofman (who isolated the first working quantities of plutonium), the late Dr. Karl Z. Morgan (who was known as the "father of health physics"), Dr. Ernest Sternglass (who has done statistical studies about LLR), Dr. Jay Gould (ditto), Dr. Horst Poehler, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dr. Ross Wilcock and dozens of activists, as well as many others on both sides of the nuclear debates, including ex military nuke expert Jack Shannon (responsible for the design of the D2G Navy reactor, the most widely used reactor in the U. S. navy), award-winning investigative reporter Karl Grossman, ecologist and human rights advocate Pamela Blockey-O'Brien, etc. Also, I've read a few dozen books on the various subjects. And scads of government documents purporting to explain how something so dangerous can be safe. Professionally, my pump training software is used throughout the pump industry and even in some nuclear power plants around the world to train their staff about mechanical pumps. Any errors herein are regrettably my own, but I believe it would take an extremely unlikely preponderance of errors to invalidate my basic position on these issues.

Russell D. Hoffman, Carlsbad, California, Peace Activist, Environmentalist, High Tech Guru:

Hoffman's Y2K Preparedness Information:

Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:

** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** Carlsbad CA
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:

Next issue (#213)
Previous issue (#211)



This article has been presented on the World Wide Web by:

The Animated Software Company
Mail to:
First placed online October 23rd, 1999.
Last modified October 23rd, 1999.
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman