Friday, September 11, 2026

25 years ago today, the world changed forever...

September 11, 2026

25 years ago today, the world changed forever...

Morning news shows were all live. The timing couldn't have been better. That was, of course, part of the plan.

On the West Coast, where I've lived since the early 1990s, the phone rang. It was my mother.

I recall her first words were: "Turn on your T.V." followed by: "TWO planes hit BOTH Twin Towers..."

I turned on my television and saw the smoke wafting from both towers. I went into the other room and called my mom back (most phones were still "land lines" back then) and said "this is going to change everything."

I knew that hundreds must be dead already. This was terrorism at a virtually unprecedented scale, by a virtually unstoppable method of attack. Everything, everyone, was suddenly vulnerable.

Not that we weren't vulnerable all along, but no one had taken advantage of a free society's innate vulnerabilities so thoroughly and successfully before. And it did, indeed, change everything, starting with giving U.S. Presidents an excuse to do just about anything in the name of the "War on Terror" which would begin soon after the attacks.

But that morning, that bleak day — was just beginning.

I went back into the living room, looked at the tv, and asked my wife, who was staring at the T.V.: "What happened to the second tower?!?"

It was gone.

It had fallen, and now thousands more were dead. Of course I could guess what had most likely happened, only to have it pretty thoroughly confirmed as the second tower also fell without further attacks or secondary explosions: Structural failure due to initial impacts of the strong parts of the airplane (engine turbines, wing spars, landing gear, etc.) along with fire from the airplane fuel and building contents, that burns hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel beams just enough...

And all this low enough on the tower to bring down a large enough portion of the building to collapse the rest...

...while high enough up to make bringing fire-fighting equipment up to that level take a long time — especially as they had to go up the same stairs everyone else was using to evacuate.

It was a carefully planned attack, and New York City paid dearly that day, losing hundreds of its most heroic first responders.

Nearly every American lost someone close that day: A friend or old school chum, a co-worker, a relative, a family member, a spouse, a parent, a son or daughter...

And so began the War on Terror.

We soon learned about the Pentagon plane (which still has many mysteries surrounding it). And Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvainia, which dove for the ground when the passengers bravely tried to take back control. Flight 93 may have been heading for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station, which is now called the Crane Clean Energy Center and which might be restarted to serve data centers...

And data centers are, more than anything else, being pushed for their usefulness in... fighting a modern war, or (hopefully...) having enough data to prevent its occurrence in the first place.

Or, if you're NOT one of the good guys, AI software running on massive data centers can be used to disrupt other data centers, or other infrastructure such as water desalination plants, pumping stations, filtration systems, communications systems, banking systems, industrial processes... and even for remotely destroying nuclear power plants.

And with zero-day coming (a still-theoretical moment when quantum-computing-AI can crack any known security system), nowhere is safe from infiltration, even places that were — at least in theory — previously safe from just about everything but a thermonuclear war.

Thus, we've ended up with a police state.

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



Thursday, September 10, 2026

Comments due Sept. 10, 2026! NRC-2025-1139-0001 can hinder public comment and remove advisory committees

Comments on these proposed regulatory changes are due TODAY, September 10, 2026!

Go here to leave a comment with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2025-1139-0001

Below is what Sharon and I just posted a few minutes ago. (Comment Tracking Number: mtv-tp3p-l7uv )


The NRC describes this proposed rulemaking as non-controversial and plans to move directly to a final rule unless it receives " ... significant adverse comments ... ". (The final version of the rule has specific changes to 10 CFR, and is available here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2025-1139-0002.)

It is generous to presume most of these changes are merely administrative. However, the wording of the rule doesn't make it clear what the actual impact of the changes will be, since, for example, "substantive" is an ambiguous term.

The final version of the rule has a long and detailed section devoted to "advisory committees" which is aimed at reducing the number and cost of such committees. What will the practical impact of such a change be for society, or the public, and for impacted individuals? The rulemaking does not make any of that clear, and leaves us with vague statements such as:

" ... changes are administrative and procedural in nature and do not introduce new substantive obligations for NRC licensees or other stakeholders ..."

" ... revisions affect terminology, chartering requirements, membership appointment processes, and reporting obligations ... "

Which advisory committees and advisors will be eliminated? Will the NRC be getting less input from industry organizations, such as the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), or from companies seeking nuclear licenses, or from experts in the field who do not have a vested interest? Numerous scientific studies support more-restrictive radiation standards — not less. Will support for that position be the first to be eliminated?

Similarly, the rulemaking changes the requirements for additional public comment periods after a rule is announced, because such comment periods were not actually required in some cases. (The NRC had made the requirement for these additional comment periods explicit in an 1985 amendment to 10 CFR, part 2.) The NRC explains the proposed reversal of that amendment by quoting the 1985 final rule which says: "The Commission normally provides for ... comment on policy statements and interpretive rules, and will continue to do so in the future."

However, it is not clear whether the entire 1985 amendment is being eliminated and therefore whether this vague reassurance has any weight. In addition, the underlying reasons for additional public comment periods are ignored in the new rule. How will making the extra comment period optional allow for exposing: " ... any errors or oversights that occurred in the formulation of the rule ... ” which was the intent or the 1985 change to 10 CFR part 2?

There is no discussion in the proposed rule changes for what might be lost by making current requirements for public comment periods discretionary. If the public had the opportunity to comment prior to this new rule — why shouldn't the rule specify that the NRC should give the public at least as much opportunity to comment as is currently available?

This change should be completely discarded.

Ace & Sharon 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



Sunday, September 6, 2026

Comments due Sept. 10! NRC-2025-1237-0001 weakens radiation protection for caregivers; preempts tighter state regs...

Post comments here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2025-1237-0001

(Here's what Sharon and I just submitted, NRC Comment Tracking Number: mtq-m7u1-38b4)

September 6, 2026

We oppose implementation of the changes in NRC-2025-1237-0001 which impact radiation standards for medical use of radioactive materials. We specifically ask the NRC to consider the comments and questions raised by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). (The ACOEM describes its members as "... the physicians who conduct medical surveillance of radiation workers, evaluate individuals after suspected overexposures, counsel patients and their families about radiation risk, and perform the causation analyses on which occupational illness compensation depends.")

The ACOEM states that: " ... the proposed rules as a whole reduces protection for workers, for caregivers, and for members of the public on a scientific record that the NRC itself describes as supporting the opposite conclusion." If this statement was the only concern raised about this proposed change to regulations, it should be sufficient to prevent the new rules from being implemented until the ACOEM's concerns are addressed.

The ACOEM raises important concerns about radiation exposure standards for caregivers such as a parent or spouse (quotes from the ACOEM's comment).

  • "Caregivers receive no radiation worker training, no individual monitoring, no medical surveillance, and no periodic dose accounting." Yet, the proposed standards would make it possible for caregivers to receive even more radiation than professionals whose dose limits are restricted by occupational safety standards.
  • There is no clarity about the total radiation a caregiver might receive. For example, a caregiver might be exposed to radiation while visiting the patient in a medical facility, and then be exposed to additional radiation while caring for the patient at home.
  • Special radiation limits exist for pregnant workers, but not for caregivers who may be pregnant.
  • The proposed regulations for caregiver exposure do not apply to minors, because minors cannot be designated as caregivers.

The reality is that minors and pregnant women may act as caregivers and they will almost surely be exposed to radiation if a patient is discharged for home care. It is better to acknowledge that people in these categories are particularly vulnerable to radiation and provide them with training, monitoring, and as much protection as possible.

Instead, in addition to not considering these special vulnerabilities for caregivers, the new regulation would reduce reporting requirements for radiation exposure to fetuses. The rational is that a patient might be unaware of her pregnancy when the radiation is administered. This is certainly a valid scenario, but it should not mean that the exposure to the fetus should not be reported. Instead, any child who was exposed to radiation in utero should have that fact as part of their medical record.

Finally, the ACOEM raises important points concerning state radiation protection standards, pointing out that under the proposed regulation: " ... a State could not retain an ALARA requirement, could not retain a ceiling on authorized public dose, and could not retain a lower caregiver dose allowance, even if its own legislature or radiation control program concluded that doing so was warranted for its population."

Throughout the nuclear era there have been efforts to relax the regulations for exposure to radiation. Leslie Groves claimed to have heard that severe radiation poisoning "is a pleasant way to die". In the latest attempts to reduce radiation protection, federal employees and others have promoted the blatantly false assertion that "Hormesis" is a thing — without a shred of evidence, and despite study after study indicating just the opposite: that LNT is a good approximation of radiation risk from exposure, down to the lowest possible measurable amount. BEIR VII confirmed it and literally thousands of individual research projects have contraindicated Hormesis. The physics of how the damage occurs was unknown when man-made radiation was introduced into society , but the fact that damage occurs was well-known before the Manhattan Project.

All ionizing radiation presents risks and should have a corresponding benefit to society. Both authors of this comment have benefited from the high doses of radiation given to diagnose and treat cancer patients (both are cancer survivors) and appreciate the work of organizations such as the ACOEM.

Even small radiation doses to vast numbers of people will cause cancers that need not have happened. Radiation exposure should ALWAYS be kept As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). These proposed rules will weaken protections for millions of people and will make it difficult for families and their medical providers to assess risks. For these reasons they should be abandoned.

We incorporate by reference and adopt as our own the comments submitted by the ACOEM (https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NRC-2025-1237-0006 tracking #: mtd-chbq-9vvg).

Sharon and Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad California USA (images added to the blog version)



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