Friday, October 12, 2007

Another pro-nuker wins another Nobel Peace Prize...

October 12th, 2007

Dear Readers,

Ho Hum. Today, pro-nuker Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental charade. He shares it with the UN's IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change).

A few years ago (2005) the International Atomic Energy Agency -- pro-nukers in all possible ways, as long as they get to watch -- received the "prestigious" award.

In 2002, ex nuclear-navy reactor operator Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize. Carter was President during the Three Mile Island accident and toured that facility to prove it was safe (it wasn't). He campaigned on the promise that we would only use nuclear power "as a last resort," only to get into office and -- ho hum -- declare that "we are down to our last resorts" because the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) raised the price of a barrel of oil a couple of bucks (to about 1/4 of what it is now).

Extreme pro-nuker Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 (probably nobody has done more damage to the earth through radiation poisoning than the Russians).

In 1967, Japanese Prime Minister Sato received the Nobel Peace prize when he decided Japan would never possess, create, or import nuclear weapons. But they have over 50 nuclear power plants, which poison their land, air, and water every day, and could result in "Genpatsu-Shinsai" (a meltdown caused by an earthquake) any day.

On the plus side, the Pugwash movement was the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1995, and Dr. Helen Caldicott is a past Nobel Peace Prize nominee (a movie about her, If You Love This Planet, won an Academy Award for best documentary in 1983). However, Dr. Caldicott was not a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Harvey Wasserman, who ALSO should have won it by now, hasn't even been nominated (and nor was John Gofman or Alice Stewart, both dead now, nor many others who deserve such honors for speaking out against the nuclear madness that infects the planet).

The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War received the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for educating the public about the dangers of nuclear weapons. But what about the dangers of attacking nuclear power plants WITH nuclear weapons (or with conventional weapons)? Dr. Bennett Ramberg warned us about THAT in his book, Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy: An Unrecognized Military Peril (1985), but never received proper recognition for it -- such as a Nobel Peace Prize.

In 1992 Dr. John W. Gofman won the Right Livelihood Award, an alternative to the Nobel Peace Prize. Drs. Rosalie Bertell and Alice Stewart received the award in 1986. Amory Lovins, who usually can't quite bring himself to speak out definitively against nuclear power, but beats around the bush regularly, won the Right Livelihood Award along with his wife Hunter Lovins (both of whom founded the Rocky Mountain Institute) in 1983. (Each year about half a dozen people and / or organizations receive the award.)

50 years ago, Senator Al Gore (Al Gore's dad) was on a committee promoting the use of nuclear energy in space, and was also pushing nukes on land and sea. Like father, like son.

What's the world coming to? Nuclear death by radioactive poison gas, that's what! I had cancer earlier this year (bladder cancer). About 1/3 of all humans will get cancer, and MOST of those will die of it. The rates of numerous other diseases caused by radiation are going up, up, UP. There is no "Nobel Environmental Prize" but obviously Al Gore would have won that this year, if there was one. Once again they've made the Nobel Peace Prize the equivalent of the Nobel Environmental Prize, and failed to give it to someone who's trying to stop war. Instead, they've given it to a pro-nuker -- again.

Al Gore is a liar. The Nobel Peace Prize is soiled -- again.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

A look back at the Nobel Peace Prize being given to pro-nukers, and a review of Al Gore's pro-nuclear ties (from previous newsletters):


From 1999:
www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/nltrs/nltr0115.htm
We are sick of your lies, Mr. President. And Mr. Vice President Al Gore, we are sick of your lies too. Right the wrongs about the environment, Mr. Gore. Tell the truth about radiation, Mr. Gore. Tell us the things your father never told us. Do not perpetuate his lies about nuclear space policies any more!

(Includes a piece about Dr. Rosalie Bertell on DU weapons used in Yugoslavia)


From 2002:
www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/loudobbs.htm
The website of the Nuclear Energy Institute www.nei.org includes a page of "Endorsements of Nuclear Energy" and among those quoted are Al Gore: "Nuclear power, designed well, regulated properly, cared for meticulously, has a place in the world's energy supply," he is reported to have said.
From March 22nd, 2005:
www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2005/20051007_IAEA_MysteriouslyWinsNobelPeacePrize.html (also published in CounterPunch and elsewhere)

IAEA and its head, Mohamed ElBaradei, share the Nobel Peace Prize -- only giving it to the DOE, the NRC, or the nuclear industry itself would be more ridiculous!


From February 26th, 2007:
www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2007/20070226_Al_Gore_Wins_Oscar_For_Acting.html

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:33:46 -0800

From: "Russell 'Ace' Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Al Gore wins an Academy Award for acting like an
environmentalist -- but it's just acting; he's really a pro-nuker!

February 26th, 2007

Dear Readers,

Last night was the 79th Academy Awards (Oscars) where the motion picture industry honors its members for great acting.

And if you watched the Academy Awards last night, you saw Al Gore acting like an environmentalist. But don't be fooled -- it's just acting.

There's a lot of nuclear power promotion masquerading as environmentalism, and Al Gore's movie is no exception. His support for the theory of Global Warming comes at a price no one should have to pay: We will all be irradiated by the results of his (secret) pro-nuclear agenda.

Perhaps the truth about nuclear power is just TOO INCONVENIENT for Al Gore, hence, it's not discussed in his Academy Award-winning documentary.

Radiation is mentioned only once, and then, he is only talking about solar radiation. Nuclear power is mentioned only once, and he's only talking about his trip under the Arctic Ice in a nuclear-powered submarine. And nuclear weapons are mentioned only once, for their shock value.

The closest the movie comes to talking about commercial nuclear power is during the credits, when viewers are told to ask their utilities for "renewable" and "green" energy.

Global warming is happening, but watch out for this man -- his solution is worse. The inconvenient truth about Al Gore is that he's a big, fat liar.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA


From February 27th, 2007:
www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2007/20070227_Al_Gore_Is_A_Closet_ProNuker.html

To back up my comments in the previous newsletter, here are some clips and quotes from the past decade, indicating Al Gore's pro-nuclear stance and his reluctance to admit it.


From March 3rd, 2007:
www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2007/20070303_Flame_re_Al_Gore_From_Elizabeth_Furse.html

A rude, erroneous, and libelous flaming email from a former member of the United States House of Representatives (defending Al Gore).


From March 22nd, 2007:
www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2007/20070322_Al_Gore_Is_A_Master_Of_Dishonesty.html

Al Gore is a master of dishonesty, and knows how to tell big lies to Congress (and to the American People). He states the he "assumes" that we will "solve the waste problem." He claims to be "from Tennessee and immune to radiation." (He was actually born in Washington, D.C..)


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, October 11, 2007

Re: Oct 23 nuclear hearings in Oceanside, CA--be there

October 11th, 2007

Dear Readers,

It should be noted that the property value ALONE of San Onofre, if it were converted to condos, a seaside resort, hotels and such, even though it's a relatively small nuke facility in terms of land-area allocated, would probably FAR OUTWEIGH its "income" to the state as a nuke facility -- not even counting against it the deaths it causes in the local community, from both regular (as in, daily) and "unplanned" (but common enough to be called regular, too) radioactive poison gas releases; not counting the problem of what to do with the highly radioactive and dangerous used nuclear reactor cores; not counting the risk of an accident or terrorist act that could kill hundreds of thousands of Californians; not counting the fraud involved in keeping the plant open (SCE, the owner, lies about everything and nearly went bankrupt several years ago because they are so greedy); not counting the fossil fuel used by the 1400 or so workers going to and from the plant each day; not counting the valuable metals (such as titanium) that are made unrecycleable by being used in a nuke facility where they become poisoned with radiation; not counting the AGENT-PROVOCATEURS who infect our society and destroy our democracy in order to keep the local activists confused, the press silent, and the plant running; not counting the cost-benefit to the state that a renewable energy industry would bring in jobs and exports; not counting the unreliability of the power they mistakenly call "baseline;" not counting the FACT that Yucca Mountain will probably never be built (and shouldn't be); and not counting thousands of other things.

Shutdown is the only reasonable alternative -- unless we LIKE a future consisting of dying gruesome and painful deaths in poverty-stricken quarantine zones, which will be our fate -- perhaps as early as tomorrow or today -- if we keep San Onofre open.

In the press release shown below, among other mistakes, it should say "thousands of tons" not "hundreds of tons." It should demand IMMEDIATE SHUT-DOWN of San Onofre. It should recognize that Senator Kehoe has been on NUMEROUS committees which have, one by one, continued to permit San Onofre to operate FOR DECADES. She has abdicated her responsibilities OVER AND OVER AGAIN. This meeting won't change a thing, except to make it look to some like democracy is in action. It's not.

Naturally, the meeting is being held during regular business hours so that most people cannot attend. They never miss a trick.

Sincerely,

Ace


At 12:36 PM 10/11/2007 -0400, "Michael Mariotte" <nirsnet@nirs.org> wrote:

Dear Friends:

Below is an Alert from our friends at Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. We hope as many of you as possible will take advantage of this opportunity to tell your state legislators what you think about nuclear power!
Michael Mariotte
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirsnet@nirs.org


A4NR PO 1328 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406
www.a4nr.org
(805) 704-1810
ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS
>KEHOE, Chairwoman
When: Oct 23, 2007 Time: 2pm to 6pom
Where:: Oceanside City Hall Chambers
300 North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA
What: INFORMATIONAL HEARING
Subject: A Status Report on Nuclear Power

Please take this opportunity to speak to California's legislators on the economic impacts of California's reliance on aging nuclear plants and new reactor designs proposed for our state.

Last year, California's legislators tasked the California Energy Commission to analyze the costs, benefits and risks of the state's reliance on aging nuclear plants and this year we have seen a few legislators propose possible future reactors in our state. These actions call for public participation to ensure that all concerns are addressed to ensure California's energy future will be a product of responsible energy planning.

The generation of energy using nuclear reactors has led to the production of hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste currently stored on our fragile coast. What are the real costs of this energy source and should our state continue to allow these reactors to continue to operate beyond current license terms? Among the issues that must be reviewed in depth to determine the economic impacts of operating reactors beyond their original design life are:

Plant aging
Waste production, safety, storage and eventual transportation
Terrorism, acts of malice and insanity
Offsite waste possibilities (including reprocessing and deep geological storage)
Safety culture
Aging workforce
Impacts from problems at other reactors (ex. Davis-Besse)
Seismic issues (including lessons learned from recent quake in Japan 7000 MW offline indefinitely)
Radioactive isotopes found offsite and in the environment (ex. Tritium)
Water issues (including 316 (b) 2nd Circuit Court decision)
Fuel supplies (rising costs of Uranium)

The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility respectfully requests that all other legislative actions to further nuclear relicensing or new reactors be held in abeyance until the CEC analysis is complete, adopted and recommendations are implemented. Furthermore, the Alliance requests that this Committee recommend that no further actions be taken by California's utilities towards license renewal or new reactors until the above criteria are met.

California is blessed with a coastline that is beyond compare. Billions of people flock to our beaches, visit our theme parks, climb and ski our mountains. Are we willing to risk this abundance on a short-sighted, expensive and heavily subsidized energy future that will leave behind a legacy of highly radioactive waste on our fragile earthquake active coast forever?

California does not need to make a Sophie's Choice for our energy future; we have made great strides for a clean energy future that will be the template for the world. We thank Senator Kehoe's Committee for the opportunity to share our concerns.

Note: These hearings were canceled due to the raging fires

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Pro-nuker masquerades as Anti-nuker; San Onofre nuke waste route masquerades as congestion-relieving toll road

October 3rd, 2007

Dear Readers,

Two items today: One about a proposed toll road near the San Onofre Nuclear (Waste) Generating Station, and the other about an essay by the Union of (Un)Concerned Scientists which was published in the San Francisco Chronicle this week.

Sincerely,

Ace


San Onofre Toll Road essay (originally sent to a local news organization, slightly modified):

I've studied nuclear issues for more than 35 years -- since I was about 14 or so (I'm now 51). I've looked at the issues surrounding Yucca Mountain (the proposed national nuclear waste repository), and the 4 million+ pounds of extremely toxic high level nuclear waste now being stored at San Onofre, and thousands of other related issues.

I've interviewed hundreds -- literally hundreds, if not thousands -- of scientists on BOTH sides of the issues. I've attended scores of public hearings, sometimes traveling over 1000 miles (for example, round-trips to Sacramento) to do so.

Let me tell you about the San Onofre Toll Road. Sure, lots of road construction people want it -- they'll make hundreds of millions of dollars. And lots of housing construction people want it -- they'll make hundreds of millions of dollars, too. And city tax collectors all along the proposed route want the extra revenues these extra citizens will bring them.

But the REAL REASON for that road will be to take nuclear waste from San Onofre Nuclear (Waste) Generating Station to Yucca Mountain.

That way, they avoid getting the waste anywhere near Hollywood, which would generate ACTIVISM FROM ACTORS -- the absolute WORST kind of publicity the nuclear industry could possibly have, with national and even international repercussions. AND, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Department of Energy studies have undoubtedly suggested that trucking the waste anywhere near such a populated area as Los Angeles is a bad idea to begin with, to be avoided "if at all practical."

Frankly, Yucca Mountain probably won't ever be completed -- but the nuclear industry doesn't really care, because saying it's coming works just as well as actually having it, for now. I've attended several hearings on the subject in Nevada, and the people there absolutely HATE IT. You can't get elected there if you say you're for it. And it's fraught with technical difficulties which SHOULD stop it (but then, so are ALL nuclear power plants, and they managed to get built, somehow).

The Bush Administration believes they can ram Yucca Mountain down Nevadan's throats, and the government's nuclear regulators consider it a perfect solution to an intractable problem -- even if it won't actually work! Everyone in the nuclear industry loves it, too (just ask the San Onofre spokesperson, for example).

Even if Yucca Mountain (or some other central repository) is built, and all of San Onofre's current waste stock is transported there safely (two really big "ifs"), the very next day, we'll have hundreds of pounds of new nuclear waste at San Onofre -- enough to completely destroy SoCal, if it gets released to the environment in an earthquake, terrorist act, tsunami, or some other way (PLUS, of course, the dangerous reactors themselves (possibly three or four by then) will still be operating).

The toll road WILL be built and any vote to stop it will ONLY delay it.* To me, the real sadness is that nobody understands the reason for it. But look at a map, and you can see were it really goes.

Nuclear waste, when transported, gives off dangerous levels of radiation all along the route. That's why the trucks are not permitted to stop at rest areas or gas stations for extended periods -- so any individual member of the public (especially children) will not get what even the government considers to be too much radiation (but really, "any dose is an overdose").

The proposed transport vehicles will be HUGE, and have as many as 96 wheels and more than a dozen axles, so any terrorist will be able to spot them easily, and shoot a Rocket-Propelled Grenade at them, or drive a pickup truck near them and fire hundreds of rounds of 50-caliber bullets at them -- more than enough to breach the containers.

Some proposals are for rail transport, but that's considered unlikely because few of the nation's old railroad tressels are strong enough to carry the waste safely. NONE of the proposed containers -- the rail ones or the truck ones -- are strong enough to protect the waste in ANY serious accident -- the proposed standards are too weak to be effective (because effective standards would be too expensive to be "practical").

Quite a boondoggle, with lots of criminal negligence mixed in!

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

* (This note added 2025): After Yucca Mountain was abandoned and San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station shut down, the toll road idea seems to have been abandoned as well. Coincidence? We'll never know!


To: Mary Olson <nirs@main.nc.us>
Mary Olson,

Your endorsement of Jon Block's comments are shameful. Please see below, and if possible, please forward this email to Mr. Block.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA


October 3td, 2007

Jon Block,

I am distressed by numerous comments in your essay in the SF Chronicle (shown below).

First of all, you say, referring to global warming solutions: "Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria." You imply therefore that nuclear power could solve global warming, with a few changes. This is untrue.

Second, you say: "Nuclear power plants are not as safe as they should - and could - be." This implies that you think they can be made safe enough to operate. In fact they are inherently too dangerous for a planet inhabited by humans (or other living things).

Third, you say: "If it had gone undetected for another several months, it could have caused a worse accident than the 1979 core meltdown at Three Mile Island." While I completely agree the potential accident could have been worse than TMI, I see no reason to suggest that Davis-Besse had "several months" left -- the reactor head was already destroyed and only the thin inner stainless steel liner was stopping the catastrophe -- and the liner itself was bulging. It could have been mere hours before an accident occurred.

Fourth, you say: "This lack of meaningful nuclear industry oversight is potentially life-threatening." The idea that better oversight could make nuclear power safe is ludicrous. Even "perfect" oversight could not stop a tsunami, earthquake, terrorist act, or scores of other disasters.

Fifth, in the same paragraph, you say: "Congress needs to ensure that the NRC enforces its own regulations before additional nuclear power plants are built." This not just suggests or implies, but clearly states that you think additional nuclear power plants just need the NRC to enforce its own regulations to be safe. That's hogwash -- they can NEVER be made safe.

Sixth, you say: "As a part of that effort, nuclear power research should continue, but with a focus on enhancing safety security and waste disposal।" This clearly states that you believe in nuclear power, albeit with reservations. You should know better, especially if you are going to speak for the opposition. Others can do much better.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA


Shortened version left at SF Gate web site (but not published there because it said I used "inappropriate language" -- try to guess what they are talking about!)

Nuclear power in inherently dangerous. Earthquakes, tsunamis, terrorist attacks, and even meteors from space all render it so.

Furthermore, Davis-Besse's reactor head had a hole clear through it, and only the stainless steel liner was protecting Ohio from catastrophic failure -- and the liner was already bulging outwards. It is unlikely that it had "months" left before the explosion.

Yucca Mountain, even if built (Nevadans despise it) could not hold all our nuclear waste and tomorrow there will be more, so it's no solution. And transport accidents are inevitable with so many shipments planned (about 100,000), not to mention terrorism against the huge transport vehicles.

To say: "Lack of meaningful nuclear industry oversight is potentially life-threatening" is a grotesque understatement -- oversight can't stop a catastrophic accident such as the aforementioned earthquake, tsunami, etc..

The writer's pro-nuke feelings come out in the end: "nuclear power research should continue."


At 12:00 PM 10/3/2007 -0400, NukeNet wrote:

>NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Community to Confront Nuclear Weapons, "Complex
> Transformation" (Marylia Kelley)
> 2. Nuclear Power Is Not Today's Solution for Global Warming --
> SF Chron -- GO --JON BLOCK!! (Mary Olson)
> Message: 2 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:55:37 -0400
From: Mary Olson <nirs@main.nc.us>
Subject: [NukeNet] Nuclear Power Is Not Today's Solution for Global Warming
-- SF Chron -- GO --JON BLOCK!!

To: nnn <no-new-nukes-yall@yahoogroups.com>, Nukenet <nukenet@energyjustice.net>

On U.S. Energy Policy - Nuclear Power Is Not Today's Solution for Global Warming:

San Francisco Chronicle, by Jon Block (Union of Concerned Scientists), October 2, 2007

<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/02/EDBJSHS4A.DTL&hw=Jon+Block&sn=001&sc=1000

For the past year, former Environmental Protection Agency head Christy Todd Whitman has been working as a paid spokesperson for the nuclear power industry. As part of the industry's multimillion-dollar public-relations campaign to promote new nuclear plant construction, she recently wrote an Open Forum piece for this paper touting nuclear power as a key solution for global warming.

Whitman's prescription for our nation's energy future is misguided. Her glowing description of nuclear power's benefits ignores serious issues of nuclear plant safety, security against sabotage and terrorist attack and waste disposal. To effectively address global warming, we need to deploy solutions that achieve the largest emissions reductions with the least cost and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

Nuclear power plants are not as safe as they should - and could - be. While the United States has strong safety regulations, they are not consistently enforced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the federal oversight agency. In 2002, for example, after several deferred inspections, operators of the Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo, Ohio, discovered that boric acid had eaten a football-size hole in the reactor vessel. If it had gone undetected for another several months, it could have caused a worse accident than the 1979 core meltdown at Three Mile Island. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. Regulatory complacency for the past three decades permitted the deterioration of U.S. reactor safety systems to reach the point where, on 38 occasions, it took more than a year to restore requisite safety levels.

This lack of meaningful nuclear industry oversight is potentially life-threatening. A major accident could kill thousands of people and contaminate large regions for thousands of years. Congress needs to ensure that the NRC enforces its own regulations before additional nuclear power plants are built. Whitman would do well to acknowledge this need and call for improved oversight, because a nuclear accident would derail any increase in nuclear power capacity.

Nuclear plants also pose serious security risks. Nuclear plants store highly radioactive waste in fuel pools and above-ground canisters. Both are potential terrorist targets. A large aircraft flown into a fuel pool could cause a fire that would release sufficient radioactivity to contaminate tens of thousands of square miles. Above-ground canisters could be hit with grenade launchers, which are readily available. On-site storage needs to be made more secure.

The waste is accumulating at U.S. reactor sites because there is no permanent underground repository for it. Highly radioactive waste must be isolated for at least tens of thousands of years, if not longer. The U.S. government already has spent billions of dollars studying the suitability of a site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. However, technical questions remain unanswered, and the facility may never be licensed.

Historically, nuclear power has been plagued by cost overruns, making it a financial risk. The first round of U.S. nuclear reactor construction from 1966 to 1977 experienced 200 percent to 380 percent cost overruns. Problems included difficulties with concrete pours and welding, increased capital costs and evolving designs during construction. Today, similar issues are dogging new reactor construction in Finland, Taiwan and China.

Wall Street was rightly worried about the industry's sorry track record when it pulled the plug on nuclear investments decades ago. Investors are still reluctant to back the industry's self-proclaimed renaissance, even with the subsidies in the 2005 federal energy bill for six new reactors. So now the industry is looking for federal loan guarantees to sweeten the pot. Provisions tucked into both the Senate and House versions of the new energy bill would require taxpayers to bail out nuclear plant loan defaults that could amount to as much as $50 billion in the short term.

The most sensible strategy to reduce global warming is to quickly deploy the cleanest, fastest, lowest risk solutions first. Conservation and increased efficiency by energy producers and consumers are the cheapest and quickest measures by far. Likewise, a wide range of renewable energy resources, including wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power, have enormous potential and are inherently safe-and they would encourage economic development. Prudence dictates that we pursue many options to reduce global warming. As a part of that effort, nuclear power research should continue, but with a focus on enhancing safety security and waste disposal.


End of Nukenet Digest, Vol 939, Issue 1 [Second article]
Contact information for Ace Hoffman:

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