Sunday, November 1, 2026

Comments due Wednesday, Nov. 4. 2026 on NRC-2025-1568-0002 (here's ours (NRC Tracking # mvy-h0ho-ntvm))

Submit comments here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2025-1568-0002

Re: Docket ID NRC-2025-1568

November 1, 2026

We oppose the proposed "Exemptions from Materials Licensing" described in NRC-2025-1568-0002.

The NRC: "... considers this action to be noncontroversial ..." and therefore will proceed to a direct final rule, effective on December 21, 2026 unless the agency receives: "... significant adverse comments ..." to the proposed rule. As of November 1, 2026 (the date of this submission) more than 500 comments have already been submitted. That hardly seems insignificant!

According to the widely-accepted Linear, No Threshold (LNT) theory of radiation damage, any exposure to radioactive materials may be hazardous, and only the rate is linear without a lower threshold, the effects (all the way up to cancer and death) can result from ANY dose. As a result, communities and individuals want to limit such exposures as much as possible. The NRC's mission statement says that the agency: " ... protects public health and safety ... for the benefit of society and the environment." (source: https://www.nrc.gov (emphasis in original)).

The proposed rule would weaken radiation protection and thus protection of public health in the environment in several ways:

  • "... expands the exemptions from licensing for Department of Energy (DOE) contractors ..." Why should the NRC or the public assume that DOE contractors know how to handle materials they are not licensed to handle?
  • " ... will update the quantities of existing radionuclides ... " It is safe to assume that most (if not all) of the updates will increase, rather than decrease, allowable quantities. Why is that not stated explicitly?
  • " ... will expand radionuclides that are currently not listed in Schedule B ... " The list of radionuclides in Schedule B of 10 CFR Part 20 is being replaced by a more extensive list from appendix C to 10 CFR part 20. This means that many radionuclides which currently require licensing for ANY quantity will not always require a license.

Proposed regulations could potentially permit radioactive materials that were previously strictly regulated to be disposed of in landfills or used in building materials and consumer goods. There is no indication that the public would even be informed of the resulting potential for radiation exposures. Not only would the proposed changes reduce the NRC's obligation to control radioactive materials, it would make it even more difficult for individuals to protect themselves and their children from unneccessary radiation exposure.

We strongly disagree with the NRC's contention that this rulemaking is noncontroversial. The proposed changes are in direct contradiction to the NRC's mission, which is certainly controversial. Additionally, the changes would potentially put NRC regulations in conflict with tribal, local, and state regulations, which would surely be controversial. The 500-plus comments also show that many individuals and organizations find the rule-making controversial.

Similarly, all comments should be classified as "significant" because the proposed rule makes changes that would potentially impact the health and safety of every human on earth.

Finally, it is a fair assumption that many comments are "adverse". Therefore, the NRC should withdraw the direct final rule, address the comments received, and either abandon the proposed changes, or open a new, extended public comment period that includes public meetings.

We incorporate by reference and adopt as our own the entirety of the comments submitted by Lynda Williams (https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NRC-2025-1568-0107 tracking #: mvq-6fm3-uqi0).

We incorporate by reference and adopt as our own the entirety of the comments submitted by Molly Johnson (https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NRC-2025-1568-0531 tracking #: mvv-i4ax-1jyb).

Sharon and Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA

###



Contact information for the author of this newsletter:

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company



Saturday, October 31, 2026

The push for nuclear power was well-established BEFORE the double-helix of DNA was discovered. It's time to connect the dots...

Was the Atoms for Peace program actually a psy-op response to the discovery of the double-helix form of DNA, and the realization that radioactivity damages the DNA of EVERY LIVING THING?

The double-helix was revealed as the basic form of DNA in 1953, perhaps as early as "between January and March 1953" (1). Atoms For Peace was announced December 8, 1953 (2).

Coincidence? I think not!

And is it a coincidence (or another psy-op) that tritium's beta release is consistently described as a "low energy beta release" as if that protects humans from harm compared to a "high energy beta release"? It does nothing of the sort (as explained to me by retired LLNL/Manhattan Project tritium expert Marion Fulk):

Beta particles are charged particles which become electrons once they've slowed down to "terrestrial" speeds. Beta particles are ejected at about 99.7% the speed of light. Beta releases with more energy than tritium's do travel a bit further (still at microscopic distances), but during that time they are moving past other sub-atomic particles far too fast to impact them. Once a beta particle slows down, however — near the end of its track — it can knock other electrons out of their orbits, push atoms around, and generally cause disruption. This chart of the electromagnetic wave spectrum, which was created with the help and at the suggestion of Dr. Fulk, shows how much more powerful a "low-energy beta release" is compared to chemical bonds in the human body: Thousands of times more powerful.

Is it a coincidence (or yet another psy-op) that the latest plan for collecting nuclear waste in one place is called a "Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus"? Lifecycle? REALLY?!? Campus? To learn WHAT?!? The plan for every one of them is to take in nuclear waste — which is the most dangerous, toxic stuff on earth — and "reprocess" it, store it, use it, MAKE MORE OF IT, and then MAGICALLY dispose of it somehow. Not that anyone, in 80+ years, has figured out a safe disposal method, but they always talk about it as if nuclear waste disposal is possible to do safely, cheaply, and permanently. None of that is possible!

Is it a coincidence (or yet another psy-op) that nuclear power is being called "green energy" with "zero emissions" when there's STILL no solution to the problem of nuclear waste (and there never will be a safe, secure, cost-effective, workable solution to that problem)? Additionally, nuclear reactors continuously release radioisotopes — including the one (tritium) that they insinuate is essentially harmless because it gives off a: "very low-energy beta release"?

Is it a coincidence (or yet another psy-op) that they make sure everyone knows that alpha particles "can't get through the skin" and "can be stopped by a piece of paper" when the big danger is ingestion of alpha-releasing radioactive atoms (such as plutonium, polonium, astatine, ruthenium and uranium)?

Is it a coincidence (or yet another psy-op) that the name "Small Modular Reactor" doesn't have the word "nuclear" in it, and doesn't properly describe these massive, unworkable, unaffordable, unsafe contraptions?

Is it a coincidence (or yet another psy-op) that we're told we need data centers for "National Security" when data centers are, in fact, the #1 target of enemy forces in ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, and would be the primary national security target in any future conflict? Adding power for the data centers from "Small [Nuclear] Modular Reactors" (that don't exist yet) makes the data centers even more tempting targets for any enemy aiming for MAXIMUM DESTRUCTION from MIMIMAL EFFORT. And once hit, data centers burn exceedingly hot and toxic, and if a nuclear reactor is burning too (even hotter — and far more toxic!)... evacuate! The safest protection for ANY society is for the entire society to be both widely spread out and yet highly interconnected: Distributed energy sources (such as solar and wind), distributed and varied food sources, distributed data.

Is it a coincidence (or the biggest psy-op of all) that the ENTIRE so-called "commercial" aka "civilian" nuclear industry is just a COVER for the military use of nuclear power and nuclear weapons? No country needs nuclear power. No country needs nuclear weapons. Yet every country with nuclear power is capable of having nuclear weapons with very little additional effort (many have already made the transition; at least one won't admit it), AND the entire absurdly expensive nuclear fuel cycle would all be charged to the military-industrial complex if there were no civilian reactors. And the biggest part of this psy-op is the waste problem: Solving the problem of storing spent commercial reactor nuclear fuel (that was enriched to about 5% or less and used for about 6 years in a reactor) barely compares to the problem of storing spent military reactor fuel, which has been enriched far beyond 5% and used for a quarter of a century. And then there's the problem of storing tens of thousands of unused (thankfully!) nuclear warheads. Storing them is unsafe. Disposing of them is impossible. Returning them to "service" (ready for use) is threatening and sadistic. Yet the current administration wants to make more!

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

(1) What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5

(2) Atoms for Peace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace ###



Contact information for the author of this newsletter:

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company



Monday, October 19, 2026

Comments due TODAY (Monday, October 19, 2026) on NRC-2022-0052-0007: Regulatory Guide (RG): Acceptability of Probabilistic Risk Assessments...

Last day to comment is TODAY (Monday, October 19, 2026)!

Submit comments here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2022-0052-0007

Our comment (shown below) was submitted and has this Comment Tracking Number from the NRC: mvf-gwfz-bthx

Re: Docket ID NRC-2022-0052

October 19, 2026

We oppose the plan to open a new evaluation period for the trial Regulatory Guide (RG): Acceptability of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Results for Non-Light Water Reactor (non-LWR) Risk-Informed Activities.

The original two-year trial of this RG ended in May 2024, and the NRC plans to reopen it for an additional three years. The NRC does not explain what data they collected during the initial evaluation, or what additional data will be available as a result of a new/extended evaluation. "Non-LWR" refers to reactor designs that have only been built experimentally, such as sodium-cooled reactors. The trial RG ignores the unique risks of these untested reactor designs.

The plan to reopen the evaluation period also ignores the misuse of PRAs for existing reactor licensing rules. According to the NRC a PRA is: "A systematic method for assessing three questions that the NRC uses to define 'risk'. These questions consider (1) what can go wrong, (2) how likely it is, and (3) what its consequences might be." (Source: https://www.nrc.gov/education-regulatory-research/glossary/probabilistic-risk-assessment-pra). According to this definition, PRAs should help a society evaluate the consequences of events that are inevitable but unpredictable (such as 100-year floods) as well as the consequences of events that are extremely rare but still inevitable and unpredictable such as a major earthquake. Considering the history of nuclear reactors worldwide, meltdowns occur on average at least once every decade, globally. Preventing extremely unlikely events has never been possible; properly predicting their likelihood, as well as their outcomes, is a vital part of any PRA.

Instead, the nuclear industry has traditionally used PRAs to define the inevitable as if it were so unlikely that the consequences don't even have to be considered. However, the opposite is true -- the release of nuclear waste is virtually inevitable because no civilization has ever protected living things from a hazard it creates that remains dangerous for hundreds of millennia. Whether by war, neglect, mismanagement, careless mistakes, intentional or unintentional operator actions, intentional or accidental airplane strikes, AI-based infiltration/cyber attacks, earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, space debris, etc. catastrophic meltdowns can and WILL happen. There is no "short history" of strange and obscure near-misses in the nuclear field. Instead, there are entire books that discuss them. Bennett Ramberg's Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy is one of them. Many other books have long lists of such "rare and unlikely" events — that have already happened.

In addition, the hazards of such "accidental" (but more or less inevitable over time) releases are far greater than the regulations acknowledge (otherwise there would be NO releases allowed from operating reactors and they would all be forced to shut down immediately). PRAs that ignore or misuse these facts are already being used to license existing reactor designs and this misuse should not be extended to new reactor designs.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sharon and Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad California USA



Contact information for the author of this newsletter:

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company