Wednesday, September 30, 2026

Is a guaranteed accident-waiting-to-happen really an accident? Or is it poor planning?

Here is an AP News Alert today (September 30, 2026):


Netanyahu says a pilot on a FlyDubai flight stabbed another and apparently tried to crash the plane

September 30, 2026

A pilot stabbed another pilot and then apparently tried to crash [the] aircraft carrying dozens of Israelis, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. Passengers and crew subdued the attacker, and the plane eventually made an emergency landing in Saudi Arabia.


This is hardly the first, second, third, fourth... time something like this has been attempted. Suicidal hijackings of airplanes are often successful: The plane crashes and all aboard die. On 9-11 the planes were used as missiles against specific targets. Nearly thirty years before that, hijackers threatened to target nuclear facilities — but settled for flying to Cuba, where they were promptly arrested.

This latest event won't be the last. This was one of the few times the suicidal hijacking attempt was successfully defeated. Aircraft flown by airlines from Germany, Malaysia, China and military aircraft in the U.S.A. have all been intentionally crashed into the ground, into mountains, into the ocean...

After 9-11, cockpit doors were reinforced (at no small expense in added weight and fuel usage) but obviously that doesn't prevent a crazed pilot from doing something like what reportedly happened today. And one doesn't need a weapon to overpower another person, so checking pilot's carry-on baggage more carefully than apparently happened might help, but is not a complete solution. Sure, everyone wants AI to be able to solve this problem (no more pilots!) but we're a long way from that as a reality — let alone a safe reality. (AI can do what it wants, that's the problem with AI. And, it has even less morals than your average human... because AI has NONE. And it's already proven that it can be malicious, too.)

So is there a solution to this problem?

Actually, not entirely. Just plain no. But there are a multitude of things the world can do to reduce the risk. Some might seem unrelated — but are useful anyway.

For example, High Speed Rail (HSR). Getting from the center of city A to the center of city B should be as easy as grabbing a downtown bus (and not much more expensive). And come to think of it, AI programming for HSR is undoubtedly far simpler than for an aircraft!

This would help by destroying the commercial aircraft industry. Less planes in the fleet means less opportunity for crazy behavior.

Also, corporate aircraft need to pay their fair share in landing fees, excess-pollution fees, wasted resources (can't they use Zoom?!?). And with fewer commercial aircraft, those landing fees are going to skyrocket! GOOD! They can take the train like normal people. We'll even let them have a private rail car (for a fee...).

But that only reduces the risk of an event by reducing the opportunities. It can be a very significant reduction, though: 95%? 98%? 99.9%?

Not bad for making travel cheaper, easier, and safer for everyone!

However, there is still the question, or problem, of targets. The twin towers are gone, but what's next on the next terrorist's list? As mentioned above, nuclear sites are expected (by experts, and by historical example) to be targets.

And yet America is spending tens of billions of dollars to build "Small Modular" nuclear reactors (called "SMRs" by the media). But let's call them what they are: Targets. Each SMR, no matter that they are called "small", can devastate a city if the SMR is destroyed while operating, or after having operated for even a few moments, once. Once long ago, for that matter. Long-lived radioactive isotopes, short-lived radioactive isotopes, and everything in-between are created in massive quantities in order to produce the tremendous heat needed to turn turbines to produce electricity (or even just to direct-connect heat transducers to plutonium-238 for space missions. It takes an awful amount of Pu-238 just to light a lightbulb!)

Right now there are 93 operating targets — pardon me, commercial nuclear reactors — in America, plus spent fuel sites, university reactors, military reactors in port and at sea, etc.. If we add the 1000 SMRs that are planned, and if we keep flying huge aircraft above them, there's going to be a match (or rather, a horrible mismatch) at some point.

It might be intentional, but it might not. Planes fall out of the sky due to accidental mid-air collisions, loss of control due to hot-dogging maneuvers, mechanical failure, weather (cross-winds during landing, icing, lightening strikes, etc.), fuel loss, loss of orientation, pilot medical emergencies, etc. etc. etc..

Less targets equates to less chance of both accidental and intentional catastrophic events.

Taking precautions that save money, lives, and the environment while making the planet more livable for everybody makes sense. Distributed renewable energy, high speed rail... these are just a few things that are safe, doable, and beneficial for society as a whole and for every individual on earth.

by Ace Hoffman

###



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 24, 2026

Comments on a revised cask design are due tomorrow (Friday 9-25-26)) for NRC-2026-2806-0001

Post comments here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2026-2806-0001

Identify comments with: Docket ID NRC-2026-2806

Our comment (posted Sept. 24, 2026) has NRC Comment Tracking Number: mug-cuvr-z1vx (yes, they call that a "number")

The final version of the rule, which contains far more detail than the proposed rule, and will automatically be finalized on November 9, 2026 unless " ... the NRC receives any significant adverse comment ..." is available here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2026-2806-0002

We oppose implementing the proposed rule covered by docket id: NRC-2026-2806. In particular we object to moving this proposed rule to a final rule without a full explanation, disclosure, and understanding of the potential environmental impacts.

According to the Federal Registry publication of this proposed rule, the NRC plans to approve a design change for a particular spent fuel storage cask design: TN Americas, LLC StandardizedNUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System. More specifically, the rule allows an " ... improved basket design using staggered plates ...". Whether this design offers more protection or less to the public and the environment is not specified and there is no "plain language" (as required by law) that explains exactly what is changing.

The NRC says that the change " ... does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask." This statement leads directly to the conclusion that the rule change entails: " ... no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents." Without a definition of "significant" and a clear explanation of the tradeoffs that led to this requested design change, the public cannot evaluate the proposed rule. For example, ML26103A252 (which describes information about the proposed new design) includes the phrase: " ... a unique design and a higher heat load ...". This certainly sounds significant. If a "higher heat load" is NOT significant, why mention it? More to the point, in what way would that be insignificant and yet be the whole point of the "unique design"? (ML26103A252 is available here: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2610/ML26103A252.pdf)

Equally important, the design is a moving target. Less than two years after the original submission (November 5, 2024) the design of the system is being revised. What was wrong with the previous design? Were there engineering flaws, or did the applicant simply find a way to cut costs without (according to the applicant) impacting safety? Similarly, somewhere in the many pages of technical jargon we find that the " ... applicant requested to withdraw Change No. 2 during the process of the review ...". Why? How much of the evaluation was completed before Change No. 2 was withdrawn? How much time did the NRC waste on "Change No. 2"? What was the cost to the public of uselessly evaluating Change No. 2?

This proposed rule should be rejected because neither the applicant nor the NRC has explicitly addressed whether this design change would improve safety which should be the primary criteria for a spent-fuel cask design. Rather, it appears that it will increase RISK by allowing an increased thermal load, which will have a corresponding increased radioactivity load. In fact, why is it referred to as an higher "heat" load when that is a direct result of an increased radioactivity load?

Once we stop producing more nuclear waste (since nobody has a solution for storing it for the millennia it remains dangerous), it might be worthwhile to consider these design changes in light of the need for eternal storage of nuclear waste. However, the argument that it will be more expensive for licensees to prepare exemption requests and for the NRC to review them than to reject the design change is disingenuous.

We incorporate by reference and adopt as our own the entirety of the comments submitted by Steven Singleton (https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NRC-2026-2806-0003 tracking #: mtw-cjsu-atw9)

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



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