FW: [DOEWatch] Understanding the tsunami threat to coastal nuclea r power plants

["Michael Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>]

I am forwarding the following from Don Mercado, personal replies to him,

thanks.



> From: "Mercado, Don" <don.mercado@lmco.com>

> Subject: FW: [DOEWatch] Understanding the tsunami threat to coastal nuclea

r power plants

> To: "'radsafe'" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Message-id:

<D14BEF7AFC99D3118F6500508B121221064838E2@emss01m02.ems.lmco.com>

> MIME-version: 1.0

> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)

> Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

> Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT

>

> I don't know if many of you subscr*be to DOEWatch, but here is something

> amusing to read.

>

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Russell D. Hoffman [SMTP:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com]

> > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 5:07 AM

> > To: grobbins@ocregister.com

> > Cc: letters@ocregister.com; Cathy_Taylor@ocregister.com; Dianne

> > Feinstein, Senator (CA, D); Barbara Boxer, Senator (CA, D);

> > graydavis@governor.ca.gov

> > Subject: [DOEWatch] Understanding the tsunami threat to coastal

> > nuclear power plants

> >

> > To: Gary Robbins, Science Writer, Orange County Register

> > From: Russell Hoffman, Concerned Citizen

> >

> > Date: June 19th, 2001

> >

> > Re:  Additional comments based on our meeting today:

> > 1) Understanding the tsunami threat to coastal nuclear power plants -- a

> > report personally prepared for you including a number of great quotes

from

> > respected, named and linked-to sources.

> > 2) Questions about your plans for the story about the "loophole".

> > 3) What I've learned so far at UCI -- for one thing it really is a mess

> > just like everyone said it would be.

> > 4) Britannica on tsunamis

> >

> > Dear Mr Robbins,

> >

> > I appreciate you meeting with me today (Tuesday, June 19th, 2001).  Now

> > that I know that you have only about six months' experience even

thinking

> > about nuclear power issues, it's much easier to see how you could be

> > confused, especially when everyone at the NRC and at San Onofre wants

you

> > to buy a pig in a poke -- or rather, wants to enlist your help to sell

one

> > to the public.  I've thought about it for about 30 of my 44 years.  I

> > can't remember how come I figured it out so young.  I've questioned

myself

> > about it ever since, always doing what I can to challenge my thinking,

> > wondering why I thought nuclear power plants were wrong, when so many

> > other otherwise-reasonable people (like you seem to be) seemed to think

we

> > need them.

> >

> > It turned out, most people weren't thinking about them at all, and most

of

> > the others were still dazed by dreams of meterless power.  Maybe Tesla

had

> > it right, but these guys (the nuclear energy industry) never came close.

> >

> > Today, you and I didn't have time to talk about much.  You wanted to

talk

> > about earthquake codes and tsunamis.  I consider neither to be topics of

> > much interest, frankly.  The only debate about tsunamis, as the rest of

> > this letter proves (IMHO), is about the rate of occurrence.  A typical

> > tsunami would destroy San Onofre if it happened to come ashore there.

As

> > for earthquakes, one big enough to cause catastrophic damage to San

Onofre

> > can occur at any time. I really think that's a simple "given" to most

> > rational people.  That it can, indeed happen.  Again, the question

they've

> > got you asking really has only to do with the rate of occurrence, so

> > that's exactly and only, what the so-called geologist for the CCC was

> > supposed to give us: A prediction. That what good science gives society.

> > Numbers.  So we can decide what gambles we want to take.  San Onofre is

> > only built to a 7.0, and I wouldn't want to gamble on that, either.  But

> > actually, the idea of building a nuclear power plant in an earthquake

zone

> > OR a tsunami zone (coastal area) is ludicrous!  Or an asteroid zone.

That

> > doesn't leave many places that are the least bit practical, does it?

> >

> > Of course, you also have to have a very complete and accurate

> > understanding of the magnitude of the disaster.  When fire engulfs a

> > chemical factory, it can be pretty devastating to the local community.

> > Cancers follow in the area, and so forth.  Radioactive waste, more or

> > less, does the same thing only worse, when it is spread into the

> > environment.  And being odorless, colorless, and tasteless, and

effective

> > at any dose level (albeit, at a lower rate the lower the dose), it

causes

> > its damage in insidious ways.  And perhaps one of the saddest things is,

> > no matter how small the dose, if it has an effect on you at all, it will

> > be the same effect as if you had received a thousand or a million times

> > that dose (up to high levels, where you get immediate fatal effects or

> > nearly immediate fatal effects nearly all the time among people who

> > receive those dose levels).  Cancer, leukemia, birth defects.

> >

> > But they have us asking how often a tsunami might hit, or an earthquake,

> > or an asteroid, or a grenade, or a airplane.  Wrong question!  These

> > things WILL happen.

> >

> > And the very idea that an NRC official would try to claim that a 747

> > couldn't go through a containment building is just amazing.  For one

thing

> > they are loaded with about 1500 lbs of Depleted Uranium.  It's used in

the

> > tail (and maybe some in the control surfaces) as a counterweight,

because

> > they couldn't figure out a smarter way to build the airplane (come on,

> > there had to be one!).  Depleted Uranium is used by the military to go

> > through hardened bunkers -- but only a pound or two at a time, usually

(it

> > should be banned entirely on the battlefield, as a weapon or as armor,

for

> > which it is also used). A bullet goes very fast, and is designed to

> > penetrate, but I'll point out that a 747 goes pretty fast too

(especially

> > when it's knifing into the ground, I reckon) and is designed to slip as

> > best it can through air, and that takes a certain amount of

streamlining.

> > And anyway, the stuff outside the containment building would be quite a

> > mess, too, including all the control equipment.  One 747 could really

ruin

> > their day over at San Onofre.  And the thing is, they are such obvious

> > structures, so if a pilot went crazy, they would have no trouble

> > identifying their target.  (It is believed that a 747 pilot went crazy

on

> > the East Coast and nosed his airplane, full of passengers, into the

water

> > up in Canada a few years back.)

> >

> > Yet Charles Marschall at the NRC had the nerve to tell me everything

would

> > be okay, there would be no meltdown, the plane wouldn't penetrate the

> > containment building, blah blah blah blah blah.  And you wonder why I'm

> > upset?  I don't like being lied to, that's all.  Containment buildings

are

> > full of holes, anyway.  If the reactor has a meltdown everything will

get

> > pushed out by the incredible heat and pressure build-up inside the

> > reactor.  The "ultimate heat sink" -- the Pacific Ocean -- would be a

> > catastrophe if it was ever used in that manner.  No one could live near

> > the plant for I don't know how long -- but for Cassini, the official

> > government word for how long people could have to be evacuated from an

> > impact area, which for Cassini they (the government) estimated could be

> > 10s of miles or even more, was "permanently".  There was 400,000 Curies

of

> > Plutonium on board Cassini when it was launched in 1997, a bit less when

> > it did its flyby of Earth in 1999, because some of it had decayed.  How

> > many Curies of Plutonium are there at San Onofre?  How many will be in

> > each Dry Cask?  I don't know exactly, why not ask Ray Golden?  (Of

course,

> > there are vast quantities of many other elements besides plutonium at

San

> > Onofre, including over 200 "daughter" radioactive products.  That waste

is

> > complex stuff, which is one reason it's "waste" in the first place.

> > There's "good" stuff in there (to a nuclear scientist, or a bomb

> > manufacturer), but it's very difficult (read: expensive) to get it out.)

> >

> > Today, I wanted to talk about this incredible regulatory loophole the

> > nuclear industry has been operating under.  Your seeming lack of

interest

> > makes me wonder if we should hand that matter over to someone who

reports

> > on legal issues at the Orange County Register.  I think it's a big, big

> > loophole that needs to be closed immediately!  And NOT by the NRC taking

> > more power away from the other agencies!  Nuclear power has matured;

> > surely there is no reason to exclude them from OSHA, CAL-OSHA, etc., if

> > there ever was a reason (there wasn't, I'm sure).  If no reporter at the

> > OC Register wants the story, I will go waste my time with another paper

> > about it (guessing as one might, which paper you consider your main

> > competition, I'll feed it to them if I don't hear from you quickly, just

> > to give you some incentive to hustle on this!).  The OC Register will

have

> > no choice but to be known as the (first?) paper that dumped the story.

> > Personally, I find the loophole business absolutely appalling and I am

> > amazed you aren't equally worried by its ramifications, now that I have

> > explained in person and in writing, exactly what the loophole is and how

I

> > happened to discover it.  I don't know why I didn't think of asking to

> > talk to a different reporter, who reports on environment, law, business,

> > or politics, any one of which might be interested.  Anyway, if you want

to

> > pass it along, please do so but if I don't hear from you or someone else

> > at the OC Register about it by the end of today, or at the latest early

> > tomorrow, I'll run along to another paper.  They're done putting Shaq on

> > the front page now anyway, and will need something new.

> >

> > Anyway, today, we didn't talk about half-lives, criticality accidents,

> > meltdowns, SCRAMs, LOC accidents, cancer, leukemia, birth defects, where

> > the NRC gets its data (it's NOT all "peer reviewed"!) and many other

> > things.  We didn't talk about the nuclear fuel cycle and its many

> > chemicals and radioactive waste dumps that result (where many of the

pumps

> > no doubt cost $1.5 million dollars to dispose of, as I mentioned they do

> > for Hanford now) , and the enormous amounts of energy required to

separate

> > the elements, and the leaks, spills, etc., which occur before the fuel

is

> > ever put into a nuclear power plant.  There's a lot one has to know to

> > understand nuclear power and its various effects on humanity.

> >

> > I hope you now realize that the letters I sent you in the past few days,

> > while they may have seemed "excited" to you, were actually very

carefully

> > written, I spent a long time on them and read and reread, and rewrote

> > them, many times before sending them.

> >

> > I hope you now have a better understanding of the many angles I have

> > looked at this issue from, and how hard I have had to research the

matter

> > before daring to speak out.  Dare?  Well, sure.  Look how I was attacked

> > in the North County Times letters sections last week for merely

mentioning

> > the crane drop incident (oh, yeah, I suppose calling for SONWGS to be

> > closed might have had an effect too.  But I wonder where the heckler

> > works?).  Would that the NCT would some day print the whole truth about

> > what is going on at SONWGS:

> > <http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/cass2001/nct2001f.htm>

> >

> > Would that the Orange County Register would.

> >

> > There are a number of points from our conversation I would like to go

over

> > in greater depth, but one really bothered me.  There seemed to be some

> > confusion about what exactly a tsunamis is, and what their threat to San

> > Onofre might be.  Well, when I'm away from my office, away from my

phone,

> > away from the Internet, unable to check facts, a guy can pretty much

tell

> > me a zebra is a horse, and I'm liable to go with it if he seems sure

> > enough.  It's a bad trait to have, alas, and it did me no good today.

> > It's a trait a lot of people in the nuclear industry have, but I guess

> > they don't go home and check their facts.  I do.

> >

> > You seem to be confused about the behavior of a Tsunami out in the

"deep"

> > ocean ("deep" being a bit of a misnomer, as explained in the Britannica

> > article shown below), versus its behavior once it gets to the shore.

> >

> > The article below was copied from the Britannica web site.  I think it

> > should clarify the matter for you.  I don't know what kind of swell rose

> > the boats two feet in the harbor you mentioned (a Navy boat did it down

> > here a couple of days ago, at least that's what they think it was), but

it

> > wasn't what we are talking about with tsunamis.

> >

> > A large wave washing up onto "SONWGS" (remember, the "W" is ignored)

would

> > flood the entire facility, kill all the workers, and smash up and short

> > out all the equipment. This would be an absolutely catastrophic

accident.

> > Shall I get one of the nuclear engineers I know to tell you that, since

> > you didn't seem to want to believe me when I said it?  I would have

> > thought it was kind of obvious.

> >

> > From:

> > <http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/exhibits/tsunami/tsun_bay.html>

> > "On July 10, 1958, an earthquake triggered a landslide, which created a

> > wave that wiped out trees 1,700 feet up a hillside on the opposite side

of

> > Lituya Bay, Alaska."

> >

> > We have lots of places that can have rock slides similar to what started

> > the Lituya Bay tsunami.  The wave could even start somewhere on our own

> > coast, then bounce off the islands off our coast, and bounce back and

hit

> > San Onofre!

> >

> > More on the Lituya Bay earthquake (an 8.3) appears here:

> >

<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1029/Tsunami1958LituyaB.html>

> > html

> >

<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1029/Tsunami1958LituyaB.html>"

> > The giant rock mass had more than 40 million cubic yards of material and

> > extended as high as 3,000 feet, with a center of gravity at about 2,000

> > feet above sea level. Driven by gravity force of almost 1g, this rock

mass

> > plunged practically as a monolithic unit into Gilbert Inlet at a very

> > steep angle of perhaps as much as 75-80 degrees, as the sides of the Bay

> > were truly precipitous."

> >

> > And from that the NASA page linked to above is also this:

> > <http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/exhibits/tsunami/tsun_bay.html>

> > "April Fools' Day 1946. A day for tricks and fun everywhere...everywhere

> > but Hilo, Hawaii, that is. It was 7:00 a.m. and as the fishermen were

> > getting the last of their early morning catch, the sea decided to play a

> > trick on them. Suddenly the ocean rushed out, leaving fish and boats

> > stranded on bare sand. The fishermen, quite aware of the impending

danger,

> > rushed to shore to warn the town of the approaching disaster.  Within

> > minutes a wave that had traveled 2,500 miles from the Aleutian Islands

in

> > Alaska came crashing into Hilo. It killed one hundred fifty-nine people

> > and caused millions of dollars in damages. The wave that destroyed Hilo

is

> > one of the most powerful and most feared natural disasters of all: the

> > tsunami!"

> >

> > At the very least, shouldn't the NRC require the licensees of coastal

> > reactors to install fuzzy-logic ocean-depth monitors, and if the level

of

> > the ocean suddenly starts to recede, a SCRAM should be instantly begun

> > (for all the good it will do)?  There are only minutes, at most, when

the

> > waters start to recede.

> >

> > Here's a nice quote about tsunamis from PBS's web site:

> > <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageearth/tsunami/index.html>

> > "Though it's true that tsunamis are ocean waves, calling them by the

same

> > name as the ordinary wind-driven variety is a bit like referring to

> > firecrackers and atomic warheads both as 'explosives.' Triggered by

> > volcanic eruptions, landslides, earthquakes, and even impacts by

asteroids

> > or comets, a tsunami represents a vast volume of seawater in motion --

the

> > source of its destructive power."

> >

> > How very appropriate for our discussion, that mention of "atomic

> > warheads", don't you think?  I mean, considering how many thousands of

> > times more nuclear material is at SONWGS than in one atomic warhead.

That

> > page also states:

> >

> > "But by far the most frequent tsunami-maker is the buckling of the

> > seafloor caused by an undersea earthquake."

> >

> > Tsunamis travel great distances, and I can't be sure what effect our

> > particular coast would have, but it might be of some consideration that

> > San Onofre is said to be a great surfing beach, so it seems reasonable

to

> > think that it is NOT a very "protected" beach from big waves.  Maybe

from

> > REALLY BIG waves there is some peculiar protection, from underwater

> > shelves or something, but I doubt it, and I doubt anyone would know if

it

> > were true, and so I think it's a fair guess that what is supposed to

> > protect SONWGS from Tsunamis is just dumb luck.  That's not good enough

> > for the most valuable coast on the planet.  Or any coast.

> >

> > From:

> > <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageearth/tsunami/index.html>

> > html <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageearth/tsunami/index.html>"The 1960

> > earthquake off the coast of Chile generated a tsunami that had enough

> > force to kill 150 people in Japan after a journey of 22 hours and 10,000

> > miles. The waves from a trans-Pacific tsunami can reverberate back and

> > forth across the ocean for days, making it jiggle like a planetary-scale

> > pan of Jell-O"

> >

> > It can't happen here?  Why sure it can!  And when it does, watch out!

> >

> > Also from that page:

> >

> > "Impelled by the mass of water behind them, the waves bulldoze onto the

> > shore and inundate the coast, snapping trees like twigs, toppling stone

> > walls and lighthouses, and smashing houses and buildings into kindling."

> >

> > Big waves smash things up pretty good.  There's an amazing video I saw

on

> > TV a month or so back, of an 500- or a 600-foot ship (maybe it was even

> > bigger, but I don't think it could have been any smaller) getting washed

> > over (with the loss of all hands) in a storm by a rogue wave of enormous

> > size -- 50, maybe 80 feet high or even greater.  Boats are built to

> > withstand rough water, but even they can't stand up to things like that.

> > The people on the bridge could see the rogue wave (this wasn't a

tsunami)

> > coming across the whole boat, as could the Coast Guard people manning

the

> > infrared cameras.  I don't think the boat was even there after the wave

> > went by.

> >

> > My point is that at SONWGS, the piping, the wiring, the emergency diesel

> > generators, everything would be smashed up.  Water can be incredibly

> > forceful when it gets moving  (this can be good, if it's harnessed for

> > serving mankind's energy needs).  I just don't know why you kept talking

> > about a 2 foot swell at our meeting today.  As I tried to explain,

that's

> > just what happens out at sea (but it moves incredibly fast; four hundred

> > or more miles per hour).

> >

> > Here's a nice animation of a Tsunami knocking over a lighthouse:

> > <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageearth/tsunami/index.html>

> >

> > If you know anything about lighthouses, they are incredibly strong

> > structures, which smart men have built better and better for

centuries --

> > in other words, we know how to build them probably as well as anything

we

> > build, and we have many, many generations more experience building

strong

> > lighthouses than we have building nukes.  But in the animation, I just

> > want to note that the lighthouse gets totally busted up.

> >

> > Now, Mr Robbins: Do you really think all those pipes and everything at

> > SONWGS are going to somehow survive a tsunami?

> >

> > BTW, the point that was being made about global warming at the CCC

> > hearings was that it might cause the seas to rise, say, 2 feet in the

next

> > hundred years or 50 years or whatever, but that's only part of the

> > problem. From the hearing transcripts I've read, the geologist never

> > talked about the additional fact that Global Warming would also make for

> > rougher seas as all weather patterns are expected to be more

turbulent --

> > that's what happens when things heat up.  Things start to move around.

> > Hurricanes are expected to be more intense and more frequent, for

example.

> > More record high temperatures, but also more record lows.

> >

> > Again, I appreciate your meeting with me today.  I hope that you will

> > continue to think about the things I've said, and feel free to ask me

for

> > any confirming details you might need, further explanations, whatever. I

> > can also put you in touch with nuclear engineers, nuclear physicists,

> > statisticians, doctors, lawyers, activists, ex-plant workers,

you-name-it.

> >

> > After I left you, I did get over to the library at UCI, and even found a

> > crane incident report I hadn't heard about, but I wasn't able to finish

> > that research.  I'll be back frequently, if you want to talk in person

for

> > any reason again.  One interesting thing I found, though, kind of puts

the

> > topic of tsunamis in perspective -- namely, it's not listed at all in

the

> > July, 1980 SON(W)GS 2 & 3 Emergency Plan (table 4-1)!  Tornados,

> > Hurricanes, Earthquakes, Fire, Explosion, Aircraft, Flood, "Contaminated

> > Injury", and about 20 engineering anomalies (like Loss of All Offsite

> > Power, etc.) are listed, but not Tsunamis.

> >

> > I guess they just plumb forgot.  I can fax you the pages if you like.  I

> > made copies.

> >

> > In any event, I look forward to seeing what you do with this material.

> > Win yourself a Pulitzer, I hope.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > Russell Hoffman

> > Carlsbad, CA

> >

> > Attachment:  Britannica on tsunamis

> >

> > From:

> > <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=75557&tocid=0>

> >

> > tsunami

> > Encyclopędia Britannica Article

> > []

> > also called Seismic Sea Wave, or Tidal Wave, catastrophic ocean wave,

> > usually caused by a submarine earthquake occurring less than 50 km (30

> > miles) beneath the seafloor, with a magnitude greater than 6.5 on the

> > Richter scale. Underwater or coastal landslides or volcanic eruptions

also

> > may cause a tsunami. The term tidal wave is more frequently used for

such

> > a wave, but it is a misnomer, for the wave has no connection with the

> > tides.

> > After the earthquake or other generating impulse, a train of simple,

> > progressive oscillatory waves is propagated great distances at the ocean

> > surface in ever-widening circles, much like the waves produced by a

pebble

> > falling into a shallow pool. In deep water, the wavelengths are

enormous,

> > about 100 to 200 km, and the wave heights are very small, only 0.3 to

0.6

> > m (1 to 2 feet). The resulting wave steepness, or ratio of height to

> > length, ranges between 3/2,000,000 and 6/1,000,000. This extremely low

> > steepness, coupled with the waves' long periods that vary from five

> > minutes to an hour, enables normal wind waves and swell to completely

> > obscure the waves in deep water. In any progressive oscillatory wave,

the

> > actual water motion at the surface consists of a vertical orbit with a

> > diameter equal to the wave height, coming full circle during the period

of

> > the wave. Thus, a surface-water particle or a ship in the open ocean

> > experiences the passage of a tsunami as an insignificant rise and fall

of

> > only 0.3 to 0.6 m, lasting from five minutes to an hour.

> > The surface orbital motion of any progressive oscillatory wave is

> > transmitted diminishingly downward through the water, becoming

> > insignificant at a depth below the surface equal to approximately half

the

> > wavelength. Tsunamis, however, being enormously longer than even the

> > greatest ocean depths, experience significant retardation of orbital

> > motion near the seafloor and behave as shallow-water waves regardless of

> > the depth of the ocean the waves are propagated across. The velocity of

> > shallow-water waves is controlled by this friction with the bottom,

> > obeying the formula

> >

> >

> >

> > in which c is the wave velocity, g is the acceleration of gravity, and D

> > is water depth. This relationship was used to determine the average

depth

> > of the oceans in 1856, long before many deep-sea soundings had been

taken.

> > Assuming an average velocity for seismic sea waves of about 200 m per

> > second (450 miles per hour), an average oceanic depth of about 4,000 m

is

> > obtained; this figure compares very well with the modern estimate of

3,808

> > m. The relationship has enormous practical value, enabling seismologists

> > to issue warnings to endangered coasts immediately after an earthquake

and

> > several hours before the arrival of the tsunamis.

> > As the waves approach the continental coasts, friction with the

> > increasingly shallow bottom reduces the velocity of the waves. The

period

> > must remain constant; consequently, as the velocity lessens, the

> > wavelengths become shortened and the wave amplitudes increase, coastal

> > waters rising as high as 30 m in 10 to 15 minutes. By a poorly

understood

> > process, the continental shelf waters begin to oscillate after the rise

in

> > sea level. Between three and five major oscillations generate most of

the

> > damage; the oscillations cease, however, only several days after they

> > begin.

> > Tsunamis are reflected and refracted by nearshore bottom topography and

> > coastal configurations as any other water waves. Thus, their effects

vary

> > widely from place to place. Occasionally, the first arrival of tsunami

at

> > a coast may be a trough, the water receding and exposing the shallow

> > seafloor. Such an occurrence in Lisbon, Port., on Nov. 1, 1755,

attracted

> > many curious people to the bay floor; and a large number of them were

> > drowned by the succeeding wave crest that arrived only minutes later.

> > Perhaps the most destructive tsunami was the one that occurred in 1703

at

> > Awa, Japan, killing more than 100,000 people. The spectacular underwater

> > volcanic explosions that obliterated Krakatau (Krakatoa) Island on Aug.

26

> > and 27, 1883, created waves as high as 35 m in many East Indies

> > localities, killing more than 36,000 people.

> >

> > ###

> >

> >

> > *************************************************

> > ** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY

> > ** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer

> > ** P.O. Box 1936

> > ** Carlsbad CA 92018-1936

> > ** (800) 551-2726

> > ** (760) 720-7261

> > ** Fax: (760) 720-7394

> > ** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:

> > ** <http://www.animatedsoftware.com/>

> > *************************************************

> >

> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

> > Check out great fares at Orbitz!

> >

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=206662.1458837.3039162.908943/D=egroupmail/S=170006

> >

4177:N/A=682980/*http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/1114-3934-1039-0?mpt=9

> > 93038790>

> >

> >

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=206662.1458837.3039162.908943/D=egroupma

> > il/S=1700064177:N/A=682980/rand=635906563>

> >

> > The Magnum-Opus Project

> > DOE Watch List--Solver of Mysteries

> > Subscribe: <http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/doewatch>

> > DOEWatch page:  <http://members.aol.com/doewatch>

> >

> > In 1986-87 ORNL discovered that fluorides in the body cause accumulation

> > of calcium-fluoride in the lymph nodes and that this damages the

pathogen

> > destruction mechanism of the immune system.

> >

> > Oak Ridge and its industry minions employ supplanted activist

> > organizations fabricating mysterious illness directions to hide HF

> > emission/toxic effects and human nuclear experiment war crimes.

> >

> > Oak Ridge and other gas diffusion sites are primarily Bhopal-like

> > chemically affected areas and secondarily a Chernobyl-like radiation

> > affected area.  Gas diffusion sites are also affected with high coal

power

> > emissions and compounded with heavy metal and hundreds of other

emissions

> > from the plants that produce toxic effects.  These too, damage the lymph

> > nodes, as these cells are the most exposed in the body.

> >

> > These exposures cause shortened longevity, impacted learning, and

produce

> > a gullible population for political and industry profiting.

> >

> > Those whose health was affected in the Gulf War have related fluoride

> > toxic effects from nerve gases and insoluble metal oxide concentrations

in

> > lung lymph nodes.

> >

> > In common with GW and DOE gas diffusion ills are long term halogen toxic

> > and metal oxides insult via bioconcentration into the lymphatic system,

> > impairment of macrophages, and damage to mitochondria of cells resulting

> > in immune pathogen protection damage and resultant rise of viral,

> > bacterial, mycoplasma, and fungal cell damage.

> >

> > In the new millennium, the truth will set all free to enter a kinder and

> > gentler time for environment and health.

> >

> >

> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

>



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.