Dear Sir,
In the issue of Spacenews March 13, 2000 page 12, I read a letter from you, concerning space pollution. As counsellor of the CNES, I am interested by this subject. Have you more informations concerning your own analysis?
For advance, thank you. Sincerely,
Dr. Jacques Arnould
------------------------------------------ CNES Direction générale
2 place Maurice Quentin
F-75039 Paris Cedex 01
phone : 33 (0)1 44 76 75 20
fax : 33(1) 44 76 79 50
<<<<< END OF LETTER FROM DR. JACQUES ARNOULD <<<<<
>>>>> ITEM 5: MY RESPONSE TO DR. JACQUES ARNOULD >>>>>
To: Dr. Arnould Jacques
From: Russell Hoffman
Re: Space Pollution
Date: March 28th, 2000
Dear Dr. Arnould Jacques:
Thank you for your email this morning regarding my letter published recently in SPACE NEWS.
There are many interlocking details regarding the dangers from space pollution. An analysis has to cover what is out there already (natural and manmade), what is being put out there now, and what both the collision hazards are to other spaceships and astronauts, and what the medical hazards are of what is being done, to humans (and other living things) on Earth (since most debris will eventually fall to Earth).
On top of all that, one has to decide what the sociological behavior of humans (and other living things) will be a hundred, or a thousand, or a millions years from now or whenever. The conclusion that there will always be intelligent humans has no concrete evidence to support it (in fact, many apparently good civilizations have died out in the past). It's certainly what every human hopes for, but the "Planet of the Apes" scenario is hardly impossible! Perhaps if we had "seed colonies" on the moon, on Mars, deep under the oceans and in tunnels here on Earth, and so on, on as many other planets and space stations as possible, it would be logical to assume that human life will definitely continue as planned. But can we be sure, as things now stand, that some as-yet-undiscovered asteroid will not make life on Earth impossible for humans, starting tomorrow and lasting for decades or even a few centuries (or even forever)? Can we be sure we won't blow ourselves up (undoubtedly for little or no good reason, in the big scheme of things), what with 50,000 (or so) nuclear weapons around, and only a few hundred (or perhaps a few thousand) needed to wipe out humanity, if they are all set off during a short --but very furious -- war?
Can we even be sure that future generations will be able to afford space travel at all? After all, we are burning their oil (oil needed for plastics, which can be highly recyclable), and we are using up hundreds of other natural resources which this planet alone, and none other that we know of, once had in abundance. We are not building sustainable technologies, instead much of our space quests are little more than searches for resources, such as minerals.
We are hoping future technology will be able to make up for our many shortcomings and wastes, but that is unlikely (and besides, "money doesn't grow on trees"). I expect this past century will be looked on as the Age of Waste and Indiscretion. We don't even have the good sense to be embarrassed by what we do, but some day, future generations will scorn us.
Indeed, can we be sure that we won't have used up vital resources needed to build space transport vehicles to be used to get to other planets, moons, and asteroids, places which would yield comparatively "limitless" quantities of some vital resources but not others (only the "crown jewel" of the universe has them all), if only we had the resources to get there in the first place? We use up future generation's resources with reckless abandon now, but what if some day plastic rockets make space travel phenomenally cheaper (because of their light weight and strength) -- but rocket fuel being by then 1000 times more expensive than it is now, the benefits of the plastic rockets are for the most part lost to society? It would be a shame, indeed.
What will actually happen is of course impossible to know for sure. None of us know what the future holds, but we do hope and expect that it will be our descendants, and the descendants of those we love, who will inhabit this planet (and perhaps others). It is our duty to provide for them as best we can. We should not be expecting to have solved all their problems for them, and thus we should do as much as possible not to create new problems as well. But in space that is exactly what we are doing. Creating problems for future generations.
Once all the data has been collected on all these subjects I've just touched on (a theoretical and unachievable state), it then all comes down to risk analysis, naturally. Technology can only get you so far, and then the odds for or against disaster come into play, no matter what you've done to protect yourself. That's the nature of all ventures into space. 50 years of space exploration, space exploitation, and space expropriation have proven a few things, including the constant threat of utter failure which accompanies every mission, every double-checked and triple-checked calculation, every item of every checklist -- everything.
Have humans been considerate enough in the first 50 years of space exploration? Not nearly!
They have treated the area around Earth itself as a space dumping ground. There are dozens of nuclear reactors orbiting Earth (most of them Russian) which are right now: a) Falling to Earth, with an expected impact time of about 1000 years (for most of them) and for some, as little as a few centuries (or less???). b) Being impacted by other space debris at speeds which can blow the reactors apart if they hit something even the size of a lentil bean (or smaller???). (Debris speeds average nearly 20,000 miles per hour (nearly 30,000 km/hr) and collisions can occur head-on (worst), side-impact, or rear-ended (mildest).) And c) Some of the reactors are already leaking primary reactor coolant into outer space, which falls to Earth at the same rate, but disperses away from the reactor itself over time. The coolant is a hazard since the droplets are moving fast enough, and are big enough, to be capable of smashing through, for example, a space station's walls, possibly destroying the structural integrity of the space station, and certainly irradiating everyone and everything inside. Also, the loose droplets cannot easily be cleaned up before they reenter Earth's atmosphere. (Perhaps the worst or saddest part is the simple-minded reason most of these reactors are up there in the first place: Cold War spying.)
How does one clean up even the non-leaking reactors, which will otherwise eventually reenter Earth's atmosphere, incinerating as they do so, dispersing their radioactive contents globally?
No one knows. The attitude of the space community to global dispersals of radiation has been frighteningly lax. The recent flyby of Earth last August by NASA's Cassini spacecraft, with its 60 pounds (25 kilos) of plutonium 238 (and a couple of pounds (a kilo or so) of Pu 239 as well) was one of the most hazardous things NASA has ever done. This was proven beyond question when it was followed a month later by a Mars flyby failure of another NASA probe. What NASA said they could do without any reasonable possibility of failure, they failed at miserably a month later. Coincidence or fate? Who knows? It happened.
And what of the containment system? It is not designed to prevent dispersal of the plutonium in the event of a flyby reentry at all! It is designed to maybe work a little, but its main purpose is simply to ensure that any dispersal that occurs, occurs at high altitude, which eliminates any possibility of assigning direct blame to the space agency involved for the scattered cancers, leukemias, and other problems (such as birth defects) which radioactive particles such as plutonium cause (Pu is an alpha emitter, so it is particularly dangerous if inhaled or ingested). NASA nearly committed genocide, and is planning to continue risking such actions.
The danger from radioactive particles is a matter of some debate in the medical community. However, two things are certain: a) There are many professions where "it would be best not to know" if there is cause for concern about low-level radiation (LLR) (especially from internal emitters, such as vaporized Pu can become), and b) Those who study radiation dangers are generally NOT those who engineer space missions.
So what happens, is everyone "passes the buck" as we say in America, where the engineer relies on the medical person to assure him that the radiation, if released, will not harm anyone, because he knows the radiation can be released (no containment system is perfect), while the medical professional relies on the engineer to assure him that it will never (or only in the rarest of circumstances, whatever that means) be released, because he knows that 400,000 Curies of Plutonium (for example; that is what is on board Cassini) is very, very dangerous, but he lets it go as being "nearly impossible" (whatever that means) to be released. So the doctor relies on the engineer to make what is, in essence, a medical decision, by assuming the engineer can contain the poison, while the engineer relies on the doctor to make what is, in essence, an engineering decision, by assuming that a dispersal will be harmless if it's done "right". And worse, both the doctor and the engineer turn to the statistician when they do get a little worried, who can make up a variety of numbers because thousands of separate factors have to be analyzed to determine the overall risk of a particular space venture, and if each one is slightly underestimated (or overestimated, as the case may need), the final result can be off by many orders of magnitude. So NASA manages to conclude that 400,000 Curies of Plutonium, if spread around the world, would cause approximately 120 dead, worldwide, from a reentry accident, but in reality NASA's guesswork might be off by 4 to 6 orders of magnitude -- 10,000 times or more! It might be off by chance -- the radioactive plume descends upon Earth in a more populated place, and in a more concentrated way, than NASA expects. Or it might very evenly disperse as NASA expects it would, but the radiological burden of LLR might be much worse than NASA's complex guesswork indicates. Or both.
The military spy satellite engineering requirements for power sources capable of operating reliably for years, mostly at night (for spy/listening operations), while moving in and out of the sun's light every 90 minutes, indicate that plutonium would be an ideal solution, were it not for the radiological dangers. But since NASA underestimates those same dangers, it can be assumed the military does too -- and then justifies its crime against humanity, its environmental assault -- if there is any lingering doubts left among those making the decisions -- by claiming those crimes are done in the interests of "National Security".
But in fact, the entire human race suffers the burden, even from wars that never happen, but are only prepared for.
In addition to these radiological hazards to humans on Earth, there is the growing problem of space debris to humans and their machines in space. Space debris around Earth is a "routine" risk for all space travelers, and we have certainly not seen the worst of its effects, since we have never lost a life to it as yet, as far as we know. But to predict a death from space debris would be like predicting that eventually autos would kill people, when the Model A was the only car around. (It was a pedestrian.) That space debris collisions will happen, and deaths will occur, is inevitable; the only question is, what is the rate, and what are the consequences?
A spent satellite in orbit around the Earth, or a nut, bolt, glove (there was at least one lost in space already) is a collision hazard to all other travelers. Although the United States military tracks a small number of objects that are relatively huge (at least 4 inches in diameter, about 10 cm), in fact millions of objects are deadly hazards to every mission being launched, because of the incredible speeds at which the objects all travel. Each year, the number of objects in orbit around Earth increases, despite some of it falling to Earth each day as manmade "shooting stars". In fact, some scientists have calculated that the amount of debris already in orbit is enough to cause a sustained chain reaction, wherein, the debris hits other debris, creating more pieces, which each hit each other, and so on, eventually (after many millennia) forming a cloud around Earth, and after that, perhaps, rings shaped much like the ones Saturn has. Environmental effects might include light blockage and blockage of all possibilities of leaving Earth for space or returning to Earth if one is already out there or survives "running the gauntlet". The most immediate effect is already happening: Solar panels become damaged quickly and need to be replaced (very costly in outer space). Thus nuclear (more compact) solutions start to look good to the designer who for whatever reason, isn't particularly worried about global dispersals of radioactive materials.
One might ask, Is it our job to worry about something that might happen, millions of years from now? Certainly it is! But perhaps more importantly, the space debris right now is a hazard so severe that there are only a few mad scientists left who believe that rocketing nuclear waste into outer space and towards the sun for final burial is a viable solution. But there are still a few.
I hope this letter has provided you with a brief summary of what the human race has been doing wrong in space. I have interviewed scores of scientists on these matters, and can provide you with additional articles, essays, and so forth on each of these topics, if you like, or would be happy to try to answer any additional questions you might have.
I believe space can provide humans with many opportunities. I believe that is why I am so worried when we trash the exit path to and from Earth. I also believe that all human (and other) life on Earth is precious and should be protected, and that is why I am so worried about the radiological burden current space policies are inevitably causing to this planet.
Thank you again for your email.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Hoffman
Carlsbad, California, USA
<<<<< END OF LETTER TO CNES <<<<<
Dr. Arnould responded with thanks, and that it would take him a while to respond. We continue to wait...
<<<<< END OF ITEM #5 <<<<<
>>>>> ITEM #6: REFLECTIONS ON A SLIME BALL: >>>>>
At 12:25 PM 4/5/00 -0700, a fellow local activist wrote:
Hi Russell!
Bruce Gagnon will be in California in August and some folks in San Diego are thinking of doing a program with him here. Is he a good speaker? What's your take on this?
...
<<<<< END OF INCOMING LETTER <<<<<
>>>>> MY RESPONSE: >>>>>
Dear ...,
Regarding Bruce Gagnon, I've watched his actions fairly closely, for 3+ years. I've interviewed dozens of scientists and Internet-based activists who have worked with him. I've read his material and seen his interviews with the media.
I am utterly convinced he's a CIA agent, or NSA or FBI or NASA or whoever does that sort of thing these days -- disrupt and destroy legitimate movements.
I'm sure many people will waste time with him and he will appear to appease those in need of a "leader" -- however false their god turns out to be. He will appear to bring them to an important precipice -- how "now is the time for this" and "we finally have the recognition we need for that" and so on, but in the end he will do nothing when the time for action appears.
If I were to go (I'd be more likely to volunteer for jury duty at a Mafia kingpin murder trial), I certainly would only attend to know what sort of malarkey he had spouted that needed to be corrected later so the truth could be heard. Or to connect with the other activists, who after obtaining his help, will lose yet another battle they should have won. He was instrumental in thwarting every legitimate attempt at activism I saw. I wonder who funds him, considering he didn't have the money to even take samples of the local water after the Titan IVA blew up in August, 1998 (among 100 other crimes). We had people lined up to test the water for Pu 238 concentrations, but no one in Florida to actually go out and scoop around a filter in the water around the launch site (which had to be done within the first day or so, and certainly before the hurricane that blew through the neighborhood shortly thereafter).
He's reportedly called me a "loose cannon" for suggesting the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators on board Cassini and such, are built to release their contents intentionally -- which is in fact, true, as I'll explain. (In fact, that was apparently his original excuse for excluding me from all the activist functions when I got involved in the issue. Now I think he just pretends it's some sort of mutual animosity, which it isn't. I admire his professionalism tremendously! He's probably among the best "operatives" they've got.)
Anyway, the fact is, that the RTGs and GPHSs and GISs and so forth (each layer) all have vent holes for the helium to escape (there's a scandal there about quality control, which he's ignored, as well), and when the Pu boils after liquefying (which it may very well get hot enough to do), it will probably escape out those same holes. And anyway, most of the "GPHSs" (or at least some of them) will break apart high in the atmosphere and spread their Pu poison around the environment -- only some will make it to Earth whole, but those (perhaps few) that do is why they dare to call it a containment system at all.
Gagnon knows all this, but really couldn't care less, I'm quite sure. Instead he spends his energy calling me a "loose cannon" over some nuance of interpretation of complex engineering principals which NASA uses to baffle the Congressmen, the public, and the press. One of the scientists involved (one whom Gagnon ignores virtually completely for no good reason and to the serious detriment of the movement) had the honesty to say to me "Of course he's a fake!" when I expressed the opinion some time ago.
Gagnon destroys the effectiveness of all who truly understand and oppose what the U.S. government is doing -- and is planning to do -- in space.
Feel free to share this word of caution with whoever you wish -- it's all already pretty well documented at my web site in the 253 ignored issues of the Stop Cassini newsletter.
Gagnon himself certainly already knows I feel that way about him. He's never publicly denied it, as far as I know.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
P.S. Of course he's a black-belt in speaking persuasively. That helps to hoodwink the masses, like the poor folks at WILPF and elsewhere. He probably took public speaking lessons at the School of the Americas or something.
<<<<< END OF MY 1ST RESPONSE <<<<<
>>>>> FOLLOWUP: >>>>>
So how do you really feel? Well, this is complicated since they'd like [us] to co-sponsor a program with him. Frankly, I value your opinion...I'm now rather intrigued, however, to see this guy for myself and see how he presents himself in person. Oh well...
<<<<< END OF FOLLOWUP <<<<<
>>>>> MY RESPONSE: >>>>>
Hi!
I have compiled what I feel is quite a lot of evidence against The Gag Man. You have to do what feels right, but in the final analysis, however, if no one confronts him, or challenges him, or at least points out what is really happening, to others, then his power -- and his destructiveness -- will continually grow. In reality, he is a big fish in a pond he intentionally keeps as small as possible. It would be a moral outrage for me to keep silent about what I have seen first-hand about the way that guy operates.
Thus far, there has been an utter failure of the space peace and environmental movements over the years, especially in the face of undeniable scientific evidence of the dangers from the path we are on, and not to mention golden publicity points (such as the recent Mars mission failures) brought about by God-knows-who (timing is everything).
Yet the movement remains at a standstill (don't believe anything he might say to the contrary; it isn't so, but he'll always claim interest is finally rising, to anyone who joins. His best line ever was "We make up millions of people" referring to those in his own movement, but he'll claim it was taken out of context. I don't think so.).
What caused this bleak history; a disorganized and ineffective movement in charge of such an important global environmental issue?
It is no doubt due, in large part, to the crimes against humanity perpetrated in the name of the movement by frauds such as Gagnon. A few high-placed agitators can destroy so much. (He's at the top of the game; he was in the movement for about a decade before I got involved and I'm sure if he wasn't good at what he does, he'd have been replaced.)
Thus, if [your organization] is going to put its name to an event welcoming this charlatan, this farce, this criminal (he has violated my civil rights, and yours too, to say the least), I say, let it be done having been fully warned in advance, that what you are being a part of is a fraud. "I didn't realize what was happening" is a lousy excuse.
He's censored me ruthlessly, I might add. There has never been a mention -- not so much as a mention -- of the Stop Cassini newsletter (253 issues spanning 3 years) in any literature he has ever produced (his organization was sent every issue), nor has his site ever linked to mine, nor am I listed on any document he has ever distributed as a "who's who" of protesters, agitators, writers, reporters, activists, or any other list one might expect to find me on which he would be expected to have developed. Nor are dozens of other activists who became involved, only to have their own efforts negated as mine have been. Calls for protests invariably have phone numbers, dates, and times wrong. It's blamed on "overwork", of course.
You might ask, before accepting his offer, to have an accounting of his organization's finances. Are they paying for this? Try getting a mailing list from him of other activists. Try getting any significant, concrete information about other activists besides Drs. Caldicott or Kaku or something (whom he works closely with in order to confound, confuse and neutralize!). Ask him for the last half dozen articles published on the subject in major magazines -- you'd think he could guide you to such things, but he almost never will. He's truly a black hole of information.
His own statements are invariably vague and untimely, and more often than not are produced simply to counter some other poor activist who is trying to get some real attention paid to the dangers we face in outer space.
Did I mention he makes me sick?
See you at the A-16 or Earth-Day events...
Yours,
Russell
<<<<< END OF ITEM #6 <<<<<
>>>>> ITEM 7: DEFENSE WORKERS TESTIFY! >>>>>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:16:45 -0700
A new page with articles from affected DOE workers from across the nation. Please help spread the word!
http://www.downwinders.org/victims.html
<<<<< END OF ITEM #7 <<<<<
>>>>> ITEM 8: SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION >>>>>
To subscribe to Nukes, Kooks, and Spooks, please send your request to:
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
Please be sure to include a personal comment of some sort. Subscriptions are electronic only, and are free.
To unsubscribe, please send a letter to the same email address, stating your request to unsubscribe from Nukes, Kooks and Spooks.
The home page of Mr. Hoffman is:
Copyright (c) 2000 by Russell D. Hoffman. Please distribute everywhere!
From: Carol Jahnkow
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/whoisrdh.htm
STOP CASSINI WEB SITE
COMPLETE TABLE OF CONTENTS
This web page has been presented on the World Wide Web by:
The Animated Software Company
http://www.animatedsoftware.com
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
First placed online April, 2001.
Last modified April, 2001.
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman