Ace Hoffman Is Tilting at 'Nofre

The anti-nuke activist has spent years fighting the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Now, the impossible is on his horizon: its permanent shutdown

As I listen to Hoffman's surprisingly calm and measured responses, I keep waiting for the passionate flamethrower who sends those lit-up emails and posts those angry anti-nuker denunciations. But I'm not seeing or hearing any bold bitterness, harsh outbursts or rage against the nuke machine. Instead, here's a polite guy with a good sense of humor and an engineer's composed, analytical air. In conversation, Hoffman uses logic to examine a situation; he seems to appreciate and respect any displays of intelligence in his adversaries. He comes across as an ordinary man who just wants to help solve one of the planet's biggest problems.

Hoffman's demeanor is testing my Don Quixote comparison—no trace in this guy of the gaunt, slightly mad ascetic set on bringing order to a tumultuous world. I ask him what he thinks of the Don Quixote analogy.

He laughs. "Well, nuclear power plants aren't an imaginary enemy, but even so, the lance would be a laser and the horse a mountain bike. Other than that . . ." He trails off, smiling.

The old man and the sea
Brendan Klein
The old man and the sea
Ace Hoffman at rest
Brendan Klein
Ace Hoffman at rest

I pitched this story as an interview with Ace Hoffman, reigning champion of the fight against San Onofre, I tell him. Does he agree?

He laughs. "Reigning champion . . . champion of what? It's the team that is a hundred times more powerful than I ever was by myself, but besides that, we haven't actually won anything, so I'm the champion of nothing!"

I received no response from SCE's media department to my phone calls and email messages seeking comment about Hoffman and his SONGS-related activities. So I ask Hoffman instead: What do the folks at Edison think of you?

Another broad grin. "They say, 'We love you, Ace!'"

[1] Ace Hoffman changed his legal name several years ago, after the author already knew him. A correction was made to this story on Feb. 21, 2013.

« Previous Page
 |
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
All
 
My Voice Nation Help
64 comments
oflibertysons
oflibertysons

There is a LOT of money going into anti nuclear work. Who is paying this bill? 

People travel the US, lecturing against nuclear power. Who pays their expenses (most of their talks are free") 


A lot of questions need to be asked and answered about the mountain of anti-nuclear stuff our there, much of it backed by no studies or evidence. Nuclear power is the ONLY possible fuel that can scale up to provide energy to our energy-hungry modern world. Solar and wind, in the opinion of scientists like Hansen, Mann, Lovelock, and many others can never do that. So if Big Fossil fuel can knock out nuclear, they are home free. We are stuck with them and their deadly products that cause illnesses, death and Middle East wars without end. 


Could we smell a rat here? A big, nasty Fossil Fuel rat? The Koch brothers have been caught red handed trying to secretly fund political candidates, and propagandists for fossil fuel. There is just too much energy expended here that someone is doing it for free. 


Don't be brainwashed as we were by Big Tobacco for decades and decades. Studies have shown nuclear with all its hazards is by FAR the safest for humans compared to fossil fuel especially. ("How Deadly Is Your Kilowat? Forbes - 6/10/12) 

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

FWIW, I am using Chrome on a MacBook. When I run out of room, I place the cursor outside the comment box and scroll down. 

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

For those that think putting up some windmills will be a simple solution for green energy look at the following picture:

http://withouthotair.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/wind-farm-wakes.html

This picture clearly shows that windmills cannot be placed in close proximity to each other as they shield the wind from each other. More windmills diminishes the return from each added windmill.

The other factor to consider is that the renewables are on or off on nature's timetable. There is no efficient way to store electricity even if we had 5 times the required renewable generating capacity. Without are large source of stable power going into the grid, the grid becomes unstable. That power has to come from either coal, natural gas or nuclear. Even if you think renewables are the answer and nuclear is the devil incarnate, it would be extremely expensive if not physically impossible to build the coal or natural gas plants to replace nuclear in the remaining lifetime of California's nuclear plants. Germany has recognized this but has decided to rely on coal.

Somebody posted below that we made it through last summer without any problems. I'll bet he also didn't need the airbag in his car today either.

gcowan
gcowan

Our host seems to know DonQuixote's points are inconvenient, but uses Quixote's anonymity as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Now, if Quixote is on a government payroll, anonymity is smart, possibly necessary, because when the use by nuclear power stations of dollar's worth of uranium is blocked in favour of natural gas, the gas costs $16 or more, and of this, more than $2 is royalties.

But it often happens that a face one's friends, family, and neighbours are quite familiar with is unknown to one's employer and workplace associates. If you use that as an avatar, your family can know what you're doing and provide moral support.

sk8nfool1
sk8nfool1

Who cares if Security Officers have a GED? Most have extensive military training and combat experience in their resume prior to getting an interview at SONGS. Give me these folks over degreed geeks any day. Degreed folks are better suited to write for The Weekly.

sk8nfool1
sk8nfool1

Security officers at SONGS are mostly combat vets. And they know their shit. I couldn'care less if they had a GED!

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

Ummm ... I guess it takes real genius to hook up a 450 ton vessel backwards ... any more information on this?

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

Great article Ned. Just a couple of comments:

According to Wikipedia, SCE just built the electrical generation portion of the Santa Susana reactor, not the nuclear part.

Commercial reactors are not a good way to produce  weapons grade Plutonium. Which is why they haven't been used for this purpose. Relatively recently, civilian reactors (the US government's TVA plants) have been used to make tritium for existing warheads which were decaying (12 year half life). It's questionable whether we would have agreed to nuclear arms talks if we could not be sure of the efficacy of our weapons while the Russians had no doubts about theirs.

I checked out Ace's "Comic Book Guide to Nuclear Bad Things" and on page 6 he admits that the nuclear fuel cycle contributes 0.1% of the average person's radiation dose. So if nuclear power plants are "wreaking havoc on our bodies" shouldn't we all be dropping like flies from the OTHER sources of radiation?

Also on page 18 in Ace's book, a graph shows that Total Nuclear Waste Ingestion Toxicity falls below natural Uranium ore in 1000 years. Thats a far cry from the 10,000 to 100,000 years of isolation cited in your article. Check with Ace on this.

On one hand, nuclear power is a money loser yet San Onofre makes "easy money for SCE." Which is it?

It's asserted that a nuclear plant must operate for 18 years before producing a surplus of energy. The accepted metric for comparing energy sources is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested. Here, nuclear is slightly better than solar cells (10 vs. 7). And this is with using only "5% of the fuel." Sorry to say, fossil fuels are higher than either. Offshore wind and wave are higher than nuclear. Perhaps you can talk the California Coastal Commission and the surfer dudes at the Trestles to build an offshore wind/wave energy complex when you close San Onofre.

The commercial light water reactors don't heat water to any higher temperatures than a fossil fuel power plant. Superheating has a specific meaning in thermodynamics aside from your use as a boogyman.

It's interesting that Ace rails about subsidies to nuclear power yet lists acceptable alternatives on page 29 of his comic book such as solar, wind, biomass, space-based mirrors and, believe it or not, "clean coal!" Each of these will require massive subsidies and still not be able to produce the power that nuclear currently does. Biomass has an even lower EROEI than solar cells.

Anyways, that's all for now.

jrae500
jrae500

Thank you Ned Madden for your superb article featuring Ace Hoffman.  His consummate work has been a source of understanding the madness at SanO for a few years now.  The DAB safety team, blog site and his website provides many with the truth about Nuclear Energy. Much respect to you and Ace!

gcowan
gcowan

Neither does San Onofre, of course. If the Romans had had such a power station, and archeologists had dug up its spent fuel rods, these might now be displayed, unshielded or perhaps shielded only by glass cases, in museums.


They wouldn't be a very interesting exhibit, so the possibility of a museum-goer standing next to them, like a statue, for a whole year or more, and accumulating 4500000 microsieverts of radiation dose, would not concern the museum management.


And why would the management not worry about nuisance lawsuits? Well, if the Romans had had nuclear power, we'd still be using it, and the fossil fuel lobby would be long forgotten.


I'm not saying Hoffman is a member of that lobby, but with the big money he's helping, he's not nearly the maverick he may think he is.

eric.the.madman
eric.the.madman

Well written article!!  Good job Ace...your ole' bud the MadMan!

Bob Newman
Bob Newman

But I thought it was clean, safe, and too cheap to meter.

Steve Lanzi
Steve Lanzi

Concerns about nuclear energy? Perfectly valid. Intimidation, favoritism and other weird crap going on at Onofre? Not a surprise, and it wouldn't be the first reactor that was built so poorly it would probably be more useful as a pile of rubble. Major corruption and other problems at the NRC? No surprise there either, clean up that place pronto. But unfortunately this guy comes off to me like a crank. He claims nuclear weapons were being used in the Iraq/Afghanistan war? Really??? Folks don't think that would be AS BIG A STORY as 9/11 if it were true???

Nelson Mills
Nelson Mills

Great now the best source of mass amounts of reliable energy is gone

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

DQ...I asked Ace to respond to your post.  Here you go:  Well, I could spend the time...1% is what it was before Fukushima.  How many cancers do 7 billion people get when their body burden is increased by .1%?  1,000 years is a pro-nuclear figure, but assuming it's basically true, it ignores bioaccumulation of the "ignoble seven" fission products, and the dangers THAT poses.   (Bioaccumulation can increase the risk by several orders of magnitude).  It ignores plutonium, of course.  It ignores the first 1,000 years entirely.  Everyone has cost figures, but nuclear has proven to be very expensive.  However, if the public pays most of that tab, the owner can still make money.  So, it can be expensive (for society) and profitable (for the operators) at the same time.  His fine line on SCE's role at Santa Susana shows he's just splittin' hairs, while the nuclear industry splits atoms.  He's a smooth talker and wants to look like he's done his research.  The "comic book" is full of facts he has not disputed, presumably because he has no argument for them.  I wonder what he meant by, "Great article, Ned."  I wonder what he liked about it?

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

C'mon, Don.  Who are you?  Do you work for SCE?  I bet you do.  Please tell us your real name...if you love the nuke, you should be proud to stand up and be counted.  Would you please share your obviously vast knowledge about nuke plants re the Santa Susana reactor?  Your referenced Wiki article on Susana states: "A local utility company, Southern California Edison, installed and operated a 6.5 MW electric-power generating system." Please, Mr. Quixote,  enlighten this publication's readers on how that power generating system was separate and distinct from "the nuclear part," as you describe it.  Also, who did build "the nuclear part?" These details will help fill out my Susana research and be much appreciated by, I'm sure, all Southern Californians interested in this subject.  I've learned that you can't know too much about a nuke plant.

nedmadden
nedmadden

@gcowan 

So, even though it's not easy to follow your train of thought in this post, I'm guessing that you're saying Ace Hoffman is fronting Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Natural Gas?  Am I correct?  And if I am, where is your evidence? 

gcowan
gcowan

@Bob Newman Two out of three ain't bad.

GustavoArellano
GustavoArellano moderator editortopcommenter

@Steve Lanzi Wow, are you late to the party...

nedmadden
nedmadden

@Nelson Mills 

How can an energy source that is inefficient (5% from a fuel rod before it maxes out), expensive and lethal beyond measure for thousands of years be considered "reliable?"

gcowan
gcowan

@Nelson Mills Not if Californians stand up to the oil and gas lobby -- even *if* that lobby is discreet, and says "renewables and conservation". (Isn't it interesting how many more syllables euphemisms have than the things they euphemize.)

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden @DonQuixote 

Did I touch a nerve, Ned? It doesn't matter WHO or WHAT I am. You have made several specific assertions that I say are either false, irrelevant or grossly misleading. You should be able to refute what I say and provide justification beyond a malcontent's comic book. By the way, why would ACE move into a location (in 1991, years after operation started at San Onofre) if he believes the radiation from said power station is lethal?

Ned, please answer the question: If an average person's radiation dose from the nuclear fuel cycle (this means mining, enrichment, operation and disposal as well as the "bioaccumulation" of their byproducts) is 0.1%, why are there not widespread nuclear related deaths, cancers and other illnesses from the OTHER 99.9% of radiation sources? If nuclear power plant radiation is such a hazard, shouldn't the workers at San Onofre or any other reactor be dying left and right?

If the 1000 years is a "pro-nuclear figure" why doesn't ACE cite a neutral or realistic figure?

Can you cite how much bioaccumulation  of the magnificent 7 fission products takes place and what our resulting dose is? And this time give a reference as you have no technical credibility. If radiation is as lethal as you postulate, wouldn't bioaccumulation be precluded by the pre-mature death of the organisms responsible for the bioaccumulation?

How much was spent on Solyndra? And how many megawatts of power were produced by their product?

That's all for now, Ned.

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden @DonQuixote The Santa Susana reactor was built by Rocketdyne an aerospace company. I explicitly says this in the Wikipedia article. Their interest was, I suppose, in finding applications for either space based power systems or nuclear propulsion. 

FRom your writing, not only can you "not know too much," you can not know anything and think you know everything.

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden What connection is there between DU and San Onofre or any other nuclear plant? There is none mentioned in the article you cited. The Pentagon probably has tons of the stuff left over from its bomb making days.

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden How can the idle windmills I see every time I drive past Palm Springs be considered "reliable?"

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden @DonQuixote I thought we were talking about power reactors. But let's go with this. How many people were killed from the resulting meltdown? There MUST have been mass casualties, right?

Except there weren't. This was a research reactor that operates at low power for short periods of time. The kind that are used to make nuclear medicines or study materials. Bombing it fit the Bush Sr. script for destroying Iraq's "WMDs."

Bombing a reactor operating at a higher power level would not have been good PR. That's why Israel took out the Osirak reactor before it bagan operation.

As I said, Russia or China could conceivably attack our nuclear power stations. If the situation comes to that does it even matter? You can also argue that we shouldn't live in cities since large concentrations of people are inviting targets of warfare or terrorism. Perhaps we should prevent people from living within 10 miles of the coast since they are then vulnerable to tsunamis. After all far more died from the tsunami than even the highest estimates of Fukushima.

You wouldn't even have to attack nuclear power stations to wreak havoc. If the electrical grid goes down for more than a few days over a widespread area water treatment, food refrigeration, transport, life upport systems, communication return to 1900 levels. We are so dependent on a reliable, on demand electrical supply that nuclear meltdowns pale in significance.

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden @DonQuixote NOBODY disputes the fact that the waste is hazardous and needs to be isolated. The debate centers around the magnitude of the hazard and the technical feasibility of doing so. Did you know that in Africa there was a natural concentration of Uranium that was high enough to sustain a fission chain reaction for several thousand years? This was millions of years before humans appeared. By studying the crystal structure of the surrounding rocks, scientists deduced that the waste was immobilized without any engineered containment.

I don't want claims from the pro-industry side. I just want FACTS from someone more believable than Ace. 

All your opportunities for presenting the other side were of the nature of "Tell us, when did you stop beating your wife?"

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden @DonQuixote RPHP studies have been discredited by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health and others. Caldicott is a pediatrician with no background in epidemiology, radiation biology or statistics. We should accept the word of these groups because they are "outsiders"?

If living near a nuclear power station is responsible for all the deaths, cancers and deformities you  and Ace believe them to be, then shouldn't life insurance rates be higher for those in such danger? I would think it would be nearly impossible to get health or life insurance. Is there any evidence that this is the case? Note I am NOT talking about Price-Anderson which only takes effect in the event of an accident. I am talking about routine operation of a nuclear power station.

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden @DonQuixote So EVERYTHING Ace says is gospel truth? He has degrees in biology, nuclear physics, engineering? You are not a reporter, you are a stenographer.

And boy have you made a wrong assumption if you think I am a conservative. What I was getting at was that NONE of the mainstream media, the so-called "liberal media" challenged Bush on Iraq. They accepted everything Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rumsfeld said without question. Like I said - stenographers.

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

DQ writes: "WHY does it matter WHO or WHAT I am? Unless , of course, you plan on using personal attacks or intimidation rather than facts and logic."  Oh, I never threaten or intimidate.  Don't have to...you guys have brought all this on yourselves.  The greedheads at SCE knew better than to jam those replacement generators into those units, but they thought they could get away with it...and failed.  Ace admits that he didn't close the plant.  SCE did that itself.  The nuke industry ALWAYS blows itself up.  You don't have anything to fear from me.  It's the truth about your killer nuke that you're running from.

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

DQ-- You write: "Not once did you challenge anything Ace said. In fact, you still go back to him to get your story straight. What is the difference between what you have done and the way the mainstream media handled what Bush did in Iraq?  In both cases, scary stories are told to get a specific response."  Challenge Ace about what?  Argue that nuclear power is safe when all science shows that it is supremely deadly?  Mainstream media and Bush?  Now there's a clue as to where you're coming from.  I thought that "mainstream media" like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Peggy Noonan, Laura Ingraham, Goerge Will, Max Boot, Jonah Goldberg, American Spectator, Weekly Standard, Matt Drudge, etc. positively gushed over W during his illegal invasion of Iraq.  They never bothered him about the fact that he lied regarding Saddam's non-existant weapons of mass destruction as a justification to invade Iraq.

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

DQ--There's too much evidence to contracdict your lies.  Joseph Mangano is directs the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), an independent group of scientists and health professionals dedicated to research and education of health hazards from nuclear reactors and weapons.  In his book "Mad Science,' Mangano strips away the near-smothering layers of distortions and outright lies that permeate the massive propaganda campaigns on behalf of nuclear energy. In her 2006 book "Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer," Helen Caldicott goes into the particulars of which nuclides (fallout particles) cause what kinds of cancers and genetic deformities.  If anything, I went way too easy on you guys.

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

DQ--You claim: "You wrote a sensationalistic article that cited one side uncritically to reach a pre-ordained conclusion."  How many claims from the pro-nuclear power industry that nuclear power is "clean" and "safe" do I need to print to satisfy you?  I'm guessing there couldn't be enough.  But why would I repeat industry lies? They spend untold millions of dollars every year propagandizing on behalf of their murderous technology.  I gave SCE space to defend what it does. Sen. Boxer thinks they're liars, and I agree.  If nuke plants were safe, why would the federal government be trying to bury the dangerous and deadly waste from nuclear fission deep underground in remote parts of America?  You guys keep playing your big game of PRETEND, but the game is over. 

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

DQ--For example, you deny that the U.S. ever bombed a nuclear reactor.  Read "Another First for the U.S.: The Bombed Nuclear Reactor in Iraq"  at http://tinyurl.com/aphukwl.  It states: "One fact of the Persian Gulf War seems to have been recorded in invisible ink: the United States is the first nation in history to have intentionally bombed an operating nuclear reactor. The reactor the U.S. destroyed at the Tuwaitha Nuclear research Center in Iraq, just ten kilometers southeast of Baghdad, was a small Russian-made research reactor typical of the kind found at Western univesities."  I know this doesn't make any difference to you...who cares about those people, right?

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

DQ--Ace considers you a waste of time and isn't going to bother responding to you anymore.  I, on the other hand, consider you a perfect spokesman for the pro-nuke propaganda machine.  I have spent more than 15 years studying the history of nuclear power in general and San Onofre in particular, and all I can say is that I have encountered a ton of industry mouthpieces like you.  Too cowardly to reveal yourself, you hide behind anonymity to troll this site and make misleading statments.

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote 

DQ, how do you pull off such long posts?  It cuts me off after a couple of paragraphs.

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden @DonQuixote How many accidents will it take for that 0.1% body burden to climb to a full1%? It depends on the accident and the design of the facility. For Fukushima, the estimates are 1000 fatalities from THREE core melts. About the number from a coal plant or a couple of natural gas explosions which are Japan's only realistic alternatives.

I am not "avoiding" fluid elastic instability or any of the other phenomena you mention. Nobody disputes that these are the reasons San Onofre is shut down. However unlike you (and ACE), I know the limitations of my knowledge. From what I read in the papers, the NRC has concluded that Edison's response has been prudent. However, the matter is still under investigation. 

I did not say that "every organism that bioaccumulates radioactive materials dies before you have a chance to eat it." What I did say is that there is a limit to how much bioaccumulation can take place and that the 0.1% body burden accounts for this.

If what you and Ace say about radiation exposure is correct, epidemiology studies should easily prove this. To date, they have not.

You claimed that the US bombed foreign reactors. I re-read YOUR article and find what YOU actually quoted Ace as saying that "power generation sites" were bombed. You are so sloppy that you can't even correctly cite your own writing! I suppose that Russia or China could target ICBMs against our nuclear power plants. But if things get to that level, thats the LEAST of our worries. Kind of like realizing that 20000 were killed from the tsunami in Japan. 

You wrote a sensationalistic article that cited one side uncritically to reach a pre-ordained conclusion. Not once did you challenge anything Ace said. In fact, you still go back to him to get your story straight. What is the difference between what you have done and the way the mainstream media handled what Bush did in Iraq?  In both cases, scary stories are told to get a specific response.

WHY does it matter WHO or WHAT I am? Unless , of course, you plan on using personal attacks or intimidation rather than facts and logic

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

Ace Hoffman: Why don't I move?  Aside from "where would we go, this is a global problem" and "this is OUR problem, to be solved, not run away from" and so on, I'm not the one saying a properly operating nuclear power plant is more dangerous than, say, smoking cigarettes for people in the nearby population.  Or even than second-hand cigarette smoke, especially for children.  Or even than a coal plant -- although as I understand it, a "clean coal" plant can be 20 times less polluting than a dirty one.  No, we fight SanO because we love California.

This guy hasn't got the moral fortitude -- or maybe just the guts -- to come out and debate, to stand by his words.  He won't want to do that, because he libels and he knows it, and he probably also knows he can't possibly win his claim that my book is inaccurate.  Giving him a forum for his wild assertions is as much a mistake as publishing some "inventor's" "scientific" treatise on his new perpetual motion machine would be.

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

This site doesn't seem to permit long responses (though you seem to have figured out how to do it), so I'll have to break up Ace's response into sections.  Here's the first:

This is what happens when you give the floor to anonymous trolls and then favor them with a response. How many nuclear accidents will it take for that .1% body burden to climb to a full 1%? What's it at now, after Fukushima? Notice he's not talking about fluid elastic instability, void fractions, flow induced vibration, tube-to-tube wear, or like-for-like changes. He's avoiding what's really keeping SanO closed -- after all, it sure isn't me that's doing that. His claims are preposterous, that every organism which bioaccumulates radioactive poisons must therefore die before you have a chance to eat it. Absurd. Why publish such drivel, submitted anonymously so the writer doesn't have to stand by his words? You have to stand by yours, and can. And, they are not "The Magnificent Seven" though he must have thought long and hard to come up with that one. They are the ignoble seven.

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

Oh, DQ, I know what I don't know, and right now I don't know who you are.  You're so generous with sharing your knowledge.  Now's the time to share your real name.  Who are you?  Don't be afraid to tell us.

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden @gcowan I'm sure ACE considers himself to be an iconoclast and is not in the pay of "Big Oil". He does have a soft spot for "Clean Coal."

nedmadden
nedmadden

@gcowan

Again, what are you talking about.  Try clarity...it helps with communication.

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden @DonQuixote Name ONE foreign nuclear reactor the US has actually bombed. And again I ask, what does depleted Uranium have to do with San Onofre or any other nuclear power plant?

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote

DQ...did you actually READ any of this?  I asked Hoffman about security at Nofre and he responded by saying that, in general, all nuke plants are legitimate targets of war and that the U.S. has indeed bombed them in foreign nations.  He then mentioned the use of depleted uranium in Iraq as an example of nuke warfare.  Next, I responded to Steve Lanzi's comments above with a link to an article titled "Depleted Uranium Radioactive Contamination In Iraq: An Overview."  Here's an excerpt: "During 2003, military operations conducted in Iraq by the invading forces used additional rounds of DU in heavily populated areas such as Baghdad, Samawa and other provinces."  Notice how the words "depleted uranium" appear in the text.  That is the clue that "depleted uranium" was mentioned.  BTW, the Pentagon is still heavily engaged in its "bomb making days."

DonQuixote
DonQuixote

@nedmadden @DonQuixote The day those windmills will be recycled is fast approaching now that their subsidies are gone. Wasn't the older reactor at San Onofre dismantled safely?

nedmadden
nedmadden

@DonQuixote 

Gee, DQ, I don't remember ever mentioning the windmills out near Palm Springs, idle or otherwise.  You must be referring to some other story NOT written by me, in which case, your post has no relevance to this discussion.  But since you bring up the subject, it's safe to say that those windmills will one day be dismantled and safely recycled.  Whereas the nuke plant leftovers will remain deadly forever.  Big difference, or don't you think so?

 
Anaheim Concert Tickets
Loading...