Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Re: Wow... just wow.

At 04:42 PM 7/10/2007 +0000, "Amy Meister" <ringshadow at> wrote:

>Ok, so while meandering around online, I managed to find your website.
>I continue to be shocked and awed by the absolute idiocy of this country.
>Speaking as a radiation worker, your website is doing nothing but
>continuing fears that are left over from the '50s. I've been in
>containment, looked into spent fuel pools, and I say now: there is
>little any hostile force could do to create a major radiological
>crisis from a power plant.
>If NOTHING else, Three Mile Island should prove that even when
>everything goes wrong, up to and including the fuel melting, the
>accident is contained and people can walk next to containment safely.
>Furthermore, the NRC is an organization almost independent of the
>rest of the government. They are not shy about shutting plants down
>that they think are not making the cut. Not ONLY that, there are
>other regulatory committees at work. It would do you well to look up
>INPO, and WANO. And perhaps do some research into the industry.
>Also, if you knew ANYTHING about the alternate power sources you are
>suggesting, you'd know that they are not truly viable alternatives.
>Your fear mongering will only work on the ignorant.
>Have a nuclear day.
>Amy Meister
>Nuclear contractor

August 22nd, 2007

Dear Ms Meister,

Thank you for your email regarding the nuclear industry's
self-perpetuating "co-ops" for training newbies and reviewing
operator errors, design failures, and how to lie to the public (and
to government) about the dangers of so-called "low-level
radiation." INPO and the world-version, WANO, are nothing more than
cabals of criminals, now that you mention it.

Sometimes the NRC won't get involved because they're too lax (this
comes as no surprise to me but obviously is a big shock to you) and
the operators KNOW they have to work some problems out for themselves
and they need each others' help. Like, how to explain to the public
that Three Mile Island was both a big accident ("as bad as it can get
in America" according to Amy Meister (isn't that what you're saying
in your letter, above?)) and a tiny accident that didn't actually
amount to anything but raised blood pressure for Edward Teller (and
isn't that ALSO what you are saying, above?). Never mind the
billions that have been paid out in "shut up or we'll take the money
back!" deals that never made it to court to become Supreme Court test
cases. Never mind a lot of things.

INPO was formed in the wake of a near-miss, not a worst-case
scenario. The changes after TMI have been compared -- by a pronuker
-- to the improvements at NASA after the Apollo 1 fire. What
improvements? The ones that doomed the crews of Challenger and
Columbia? And what of the exponential increase in space debris which
IS already occurring, as space junk crashes into space junk?

Pro-nukers just don't get it. They think technology -- their
technology -- is ALWAYS good and always misunderstood. As if any of
you really even TRY to grasp ALL the important issues -- the economic
issues, the biological ones, and so forth. Each pro-nuker relies on
other pro-nukers to fill in the full picture. So they (you) won't
look at a three-year-old child with leukemia who lived a dozen miles
from a nuclear power plant -- downwind, even -- and ever wonder if
there is any connection. Because after all, the child was more than
10 miles away, so therefore it couldn't possibly be the plant's
fault. Even in a meltdown the child wouldn't have been evacuated.

But you've already admitted in your letter, though not in so many
words, that you're NOT a medical biologist specializing in cellular
and sub-cellular measurements of the damage from radiation, and,
especially, the epidemiological basis for the current standards.

Below is an article with a very specific complaint: Namely, that the
standards for tritium are way too lax.

Are you technically qualified to answer it? If so, then let's
talk. But if not...

Interesting how your letter didn't mention how close to a meltdown
Davis Besse came in March 2002 (and that wasn't the first time
Davis-Besse nearly suffered a meltdown).

The industry wants the public not to know about Davis-Besse's
"near-miss," mainly because it plainly shows the incompetence of the
industry AND the NRC. To even so much as mention it is, undoubtedly,
"fear mongering" to you.

And you would surely call it fear-mongering to mention that there are
10s of thousands of nuclear weapons, any ONE of which could destroy
any nuclear facility it happens to go off near. However, despite
your wishes to the contrary, telling the public the truth is NOT

If the public knew the truth about nuclear power, you'd be shut down

WHEN the public knows the truth, you'll be shut down forever.

Hopefully you'll reconsider your position at some point, as I have
tried to reconsider mine. Letters like yours don't help since they
contain no actual correction to anything I've written.

Some URLS of additional things I've created are given below.

Best wishes,


Please visit these additional web sites (all created by "Ace" Hoffman):

POISON FIRE USA: An animated history of major nuclear activities in
the continental United States, including over 1500 data points,
accurately placed in time and space:

How does a nuclear power plant work (animations of the two typical
U.S. reactor designs):

Internet Glossary of Nuclear Terminology / "The Demon Hot Atom," a
look at the history of nuclear power:

NO NUKES IN SPACE (what was on board Columbia?):
or try:

SCE Memo / One Bad Day At San Onofre (roll mouse over ONE BAD DAY and
leave it there for a minute or two to watch an animation of several
disastrous events take place at San Onofre):

List of every nuclear power plant in America, with history, activist
orgs, specs, etc.:

List of ~300 books and videos about nuclear issues in my collection:

Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:

Depleted Uranium: The Malignant Bullet:

Nuclear Power Kills: Here's How: