Wednesday, November 2, 2011

RE: Fw: Scientist Presents Data Confirming Hot Particles- response from Tim Brown

To: "Brown, Tim" <BrownT@san-clemente.org>, "Scarborough, George" <ScarboroughG@san-clemente.org>

November 2nd, 2011

Dear Tim Brown,

Dust storms created in the African deserts are clearly visible on satellite images thousands of miles out over the Atlantic ocean, and they are even visible to the naked eye in the West Indies when they pass over -- and settle out -- there. Insects far larger than a fuel flea are carried aloft -- and alive -- for thousands of miles through the air.

It doesn't take a scientist to know which way the wind blows.

My wife and I attended the public portion of the National Academy of Science's meeting on the current state of epidemiological studies of low level radiation dangers from nuclear power plants, held in Irvine this past July. Scientists from several different countries were Skyped in. Others appeared in person. A scientist from the Hiroshima bomb study group was one of the presenters.

I didn't see any representatives from San Clemente there to make a request that their community receive extra scrutiny. Although San Onofre Nuclear (Waste) Generating Station had several employees present, none spoke. The only members of the public to speak during the opportunity provided were my wife and myself.

When I spoke, I mentioned that although I'm not an "expert", I have programmed a statistics tutorial (written by my father, who taught statistics for nearly fifty years) and it's currently used by students in over a thousand universities. I said that: "I can program a two-way Analysis of Variance [an 'ANOVA', a standard statistical analysis technique] in three different computer languages".

I then said that the overriding theme of the day seemed to be that reliable statistical data regarding cancer clusters around nuclear power plants is very difficult to collect. I pointed out that no definitive results have come after more than half a century of research, and none are likely in the near future, because everything is going to be drastically under-funded, short-term, small scale, half-measures, and, in the end, ANY results will invariably be considered unreliable, because the results will be full of possible confounding factors.

I added that I hadn't heard the word "Fukushima" all day, where theory has turned to gruesome reality.

Afterwards, in a conversation with the scientist who I felt had presented the most pro-nuclear views of the day (I tend to gravitate towards those people, for information, but in this case I just plain liked his style and his honesty), I was told that after a lifetime of research, he has NEVER found the slightest proof that "hot particles" are any more dangerous (that is, cause proportionately more cancers) than the same amount of radiation delivered as vapors or any other way (what organ is targeted by the radioactive isotopes is far more important, for example). I was also told that yes, we're a long way from knowing for sure if "Linear, No Threshold" is correct, and in a hundred years, we probably still won't be sure. But we'll be closer to being sure.

Like you, I'm not a scientist, either. But like you, I know what a plume of poison gas can do. I know what happened in Ypres during World War One. I know San Onofre was partially evacuated today because of non-radioactive poison gas. I know that "LNT" is the accepted scientific theory, and has been for decades, and according to that theory, Fukushima IS poisoning us all. And so is San Onofre. Whether its daily releases are significant or not can be debated forever, because it will be long closed before definitive data exists, if the NAS meeting is anything to go on. But San Onofre's vast potential for suddenly devastating San Clemente, Carlsbad, and all points in-between, and much farther out too, is undeniable.

My educational software, that I wrote, and/or programmed, is used by scientists and engineers all over the world. My animation of a Fukushima-style reactor, done several years ago, is so accurate that it's used for training in reactor engineering classes, by emergency responders, and by the nuclear industry. My book, The Code Killers, has been out for three years, and I've begged for anyone to make corrections, and I've put it in the hands of dozens and dozens of San Onofre employees -- every one of whom has been polite thus far, by the way. Some have even said they've enjoyed reading the book. None have been able to disprove its conclusion.

During the NAS session, the KIKK study from Germany was talked about quite a bit. That's the study cited by Helen Caldicott on October 11th as one of the cornerstones of the current epidemiological debate against operating nuclear power plants. But in Irvine, conflicting results of an apparently more complete study were presented. But the "more complete" study wasn't very good, either! I don't refer to the KIKK study to support my opposition to nuclear power, I don't need to. Nuclear power doesn't make sense anyway, even if it DOESN'T double the likelihood of childhood leukemias among those living nearby.

I don't recall that the Chernobyl Consequences book (translated in 2010 by my friend Janette Sherman, who is a medical doctor and radiation expert) was mentioned at all during the NAS hearing. I read that book very carefully shortly before publication, with the eye of someone who can program any basic statistical function, and I was absolutely aghast. Aghast, not by the lack of scientific credibility of each individual study, many of which had essentially none whatsoever, but by the overall emotional effect of reviewing the results of THOUSANDS of studies. THAT had impact. The author's conclusions -- that Chernobyl appears to have already killed nearly a million people -- seems very, very plausible. But there will be no proof. Even a hundred years from now, there will be little "scientific proof" that Fukushima killed millions, including thousands in California alone, but it will.

Exact numbers are impossible to find, but as late as August, 10 trillion Becquerels of radiation were still being released every hour at Fukushima. The half-lives vary from seconds to days to centuries to millennia.

All that radiation IS going to kill people all around the world for generations to come. That's the nature of LNT, combined with massive releases of poison gas. It doesn't take a scientist to know this.

You and I are both qualified to know that San Onofre can do the same thing -- release massive amounts of poison gas -- in a heartbeat. San Onofre can lay waste to San Clemente for generations, starting today.

You and I are also fully qualified to know that if they shut the reactors down, many of the "routes to catastrophe" are immediately eliminated, and additional fission products are no longer being created once criticality is stopped. We are qualified to assess the fact that in 65+ years, the so-called scientists have not solved the waste problem because ionizing radiation destroys ANY container you put it in -- by definition. And for that matter, we know that "finding a place to put it" isn't the same as solving the problem anyway!

Lastly, we can plainly see that all the "experts" in the world can't put Fukushima together again -- or even stop it from going critical again right now!

We are all experts in one thing: Ourselves. We each have a right to try to protect ourselves and our loved ones. We each know it is also our duty to live in peace on this earth, not to harm others, not to leave anything but daisies popping up from our graves, and a good impression among those we influenced during our lives.

Highly irradiated workers, as happened in Idaho some years back when one was impaled on the ceiling of a building by an ejected control rod, have to be buried in lead-lined coffins, and even then, it's a inadequate solution.

It does not take a scientist to know that there are cleaner energy alternatives. If two scientists want to argue whether coal or oil is worse than nuclear, so be it -- let them argue. In the meantime, any economist worth their title can tell both scientists that there are vastly cleaner alternatives than either coal, oil, or nuclear, available to San Clemente's residents, and for everyone else, too.

There is nothing good about nuclear energy. Prolonged debate over exactly how bad an idea it actually is, isn't necessary. The facts are overwhelmingly against nuclear power, and were before San Onofre was ever built, and long before the chickens came home to roost in Fukushima.

We can hope and pray Fukushima doesn't happen here, but that's not being very scientific.

Instead, we can make it IMPOSSIBLE to happen here, by shutting the plant down, removing the waste, and turning to clean energy.

If we can't remove the waste today, that's no reason not to shut the plant down and switch to clean energy. Two out of three ain't bad. For now.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
www. animatedsoftware.com
www.acehoffman.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 06:34 PM 11/2/2011 +0000, "Brown, Tim" <BrownT@san-clemente.org> wrote:
>Ace/Roger,
>
>I have corresponded with Mr. Kaltofen about his findings, and there is actually no scientific paper to accompany the announcement right now - just a summary page and a powerpoint. The final paper will actually be Mr. Kaltofen's doctoral thesis for his PHD - no word on when that will be available.
>
>As there is not data to confirm the hot particles, just a powerpoint, the video presentation is somewhat premature. I have no doubt at some point I will receive the paper, which should be subjected to peer review and analysis before making broad statements of confirmed facts. I am not a scientist, but I do believe in the scientific process - which we should stick to when making decisions and reviewing the facts here.
>
>I am also copying the City Manager on my response in case he feels the Council may benefit from the findings.
>
>Tim
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Ace Hoffman [rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 5:31 PM
>To: Brown, Tim
>Subject: Re: Fw: Scientist Presents Data Confirming Hot Particles- response from Tim Brown
>
>Hi Roger,
>
>I believe the important thing, from Tim's perspective, is that it's usually pronounced "wooster" (with the "oo" pronounced more or less as in the word "wood" (not "rooster")), although when locals denounce their city, the first part is pronounced more like "wus".
>
>Ace
>
>At 04:57 PM 11/1/2011 -0700, you wrote:
>Can anyone dig into this so we can respond to Tim Brown. You can respond yourself or get back to me and I will reply to him since I passed this video on to the council.
>
>R. Johnson
>
>----- Forwarded Message -----
>From: "Brown, Tim" <BrownT@san-clemente.org>
>To: r johnson <r66nj@yahoo.com>; "Tucker, Jen" <TuckerJ@san-clemente.org>; CityManager Mail <CityManager@san-clemente.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 4:44 PM
>Subject: RE: Scientist Presents Data Confirming Hot Particles- please watch short video
>
>Mr. Johnson,
>
>The video is nice as is the website on APHA - but there is not scientific paper available for review. I have emailed Mr. Kaltofen for the original. He is currently studying at Worcester for his PHD, I believe this is his dissertation. Having tracked this pretty closely, his results are not typical - particulary when compared to UC Berkley's findings. I would be interested to know who is wrong here.
>
>Check out the following from UC Berkley Nuclear Lab:
>
>http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3801
>
>http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4503
>
>and another take from Energy News:
>
>http://enenews.com/university-researcher-topsoil-8000-pcikg-cesium-fukushima-10000-higher-highest-levels-found-uc-berkeley
>
>I would be interested more in this paper once it has been peer reviewed. You may also want to email Mr. Gunderson and let him know that it is Worcester Polytechnic and not Worchester Polytechnic.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tim
>________________________________
>From: r johnson [r66nj@yahoo.com<mailto:r66nj@yahoo.com>]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:44 AM
>To: Tucker, Jen; loridonchak@gmail.com<mailto:loridonchak@gmail.com>; City Council; CityManager Mail
>Subject: Fw: Scientist Presents Data Confirming Hot Particles- please watch short video
>
>
>R. Johnson
>
>----- Forwarded Message -----
>From: r johnson <r66nj@yahoo.com<mailto:r66nj@yahoo.com>>
>To: "r66nj@yahoo.com<mailto:r66nj@yahoo.com>" <r66nj@yahoo.com<mailto:r66nj@yahoo.com>>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 11:43 AM
>Subject: Fw: Scientist Presents Data Confirming Hot Particles- watch short video
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[cid: 1.1478430718@web38604.mail.mud.yahoo.com<mailto:1.1478430718@web38604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>]
>
>
>VIDEO UPDATE: October 31, 2011
>Scientist Marco Kaltofen Presents Data Confirming Hot Particles
>Watch Video Now< http://fairewinds.com/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=34&qid=39934 >
>Washington, DC - October 31, 2011 ­ TToday Scientist Marco Kaltofen of Worchester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) presented his analysis of radioactive isotopic releases from the Fukushima accidents at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association (APHA). Mr. Kaltofen’s analysis confirms the detection of hot particles in the US and the extensive airborne and ground contamination in northern Japan due to the four nuclear power plant accidents at TEPCO’s Fukushima reactors. Fairewinds believes that this is a personal health issue in Japan and a public health issue in the United States and Canada.
>
>Watch Video Now< http://fairewinds.com/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=34&qid=39934 >
-----------------------------------------------------------------


************************************************