Subject: STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER #43 - September 17th, 1997
Hi!
(Your full email appears below)
~~~~~~~~ YOU WROTE: ~~~~~~~~
=============
Jim Spellman's page on how you can travel as an airline courier
http:/...../.....courier.htm [address removed]
=============
Sorry, Russell -- I DO NOT have a web page on airline courier travel. Obviously, there's somebody out there with the same name that your "new and improved" (more thorough and accurate) research has confused me with.
So who's got egg on their face now (again)? ;-)
~~~~~~~~~ RESPONSE: ~~~~~~~~~~
I did not do research: It was attached to your email to me, right below your "~JS~". Why? Who put it there? It was there when I got it and I was afraid to remove it lest you somehow accuse me of censorship of your byline... I adjusted the word "my" to say "Jim Spellman's page" lest anyone think we were working together to offer courier services. I would say sorry, but I think you need to investigate how come your email to me had that line attached in the first place!
I didn't visit the site as I have no interest in travel as a airline courier. I did think it mighty strange that you had such an interest, I must admit...
Regarding other comments of yours:
Sun's light, not Earth's light. I'm overworked...
I don't get the reference to what Bismark said...
You wrote:
Actually, it was a "slingshot" flyby to get Ulysses out of the plane of the ecliptic. It didn't go into "orbit" around Jupiter.
The word 'orbit' was used in the document you faxed me. Here's the quote: "Ulysses' orbit around Jupiter..."
So once again I have proven myself absolutely pro-space but anti-nuclear.
No, you haven't.
I am pro-space for reasonably safe solar system exploration and for turning the sensors back at Earth for scientific study of this planet, the blue jewel.
Are you suggesting that only once every 175 years we will be able to get to Saturn at all? I find this hard to believe. Or are you saying every 175 years we can travel a bit faster and get there a bit quicker than at other times because we can take advantage of various planetary alignments for speed boosts?
... Whistleblowers at NASA are destroyed by the rest of the gang there. Their names become curse words which are uttered in derision even by people who do not know what the whistleblower's accusations were! They lose their jobs, their respect, and their friends.
Where's your proof, please? Have you been walking the halls of NASA lately?
Sorry if it sounds like "Tabloid Journalism" to you. I have heard such stories from people I believe to be reliable. At their request I do not wish to name names at this time and may never be able to, but I believe them to be reliable stories, and they come from multiple sources.
I just read in Sunday's Bakersfield California an article about a prominent research scientist who died by mercury poisoning via ONE DROP of Dimethyl Mercury that seeped through her protective clothing. . .I received a direct mail plea a few days ago from some group whose spokeman stated that he nearly died of some disease after touching an infected person in some third-world country. . .I received from SoCalEdison some helpful hints addressing the reported health hazards of EMF (Electrical and Magnetic Fields).
Sounds to me as if there are more deadly incidents closer to home that your Plutonium paranoia.
Your point here utterly alludes me. Is it that what you can't see won't hurt you?
According to National Safety Council data that appeared in Sept 16 editorial of USA TODAY, the odds of dying from other causes (vs. plutonium release) are:
1 in 15 million in an earthquake
1 in 4.5 million from lighting
1 in 300,256 in a plane crash
1 in 58,752 from drowning
1 in 32,743 by poisoning
1 in 19,600 from falls
What are the odds on getting hit by a tree while driving your car? Just wondering because it nearly happened to me last spring...
How many people around the world die each year from, say, drowning if 1 in 58,752 die? About 100,000 around the world. So while YOUR chance is small, in aggregate, drowning is a serious problem for which millions is spent each year in California alone to prevent it.
(BTW -- I wasn't impressed by Karl Grossman's "Opposing View"; looks like a rehash of the same arguments he made back in '89 and '90)
I didn't see the item.
[Next item is a quote Spellman used.]
"The most pessimistic of the critics estimate that 34000 additional cancer deaths could result in the 50 years following the release of all of Cassini's plutonium in such a scenario."
The most pessimistic critic I know of, Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, has estimated nearly two orders of magnitude higher than the figure just given. Gofman and Kaku also offer substantially higher estimates than this person has found. It shows how much he (and you) have studied the opposition.
And these are, in fact, not true "worst case" scenarios at all; for they do not consider a significant plutonium release directly over a large population center such as New York City or Mexico City or Tokyo, Calcutta, Hong Kong, etc. etc.. The magnitude of such an accident is beyond calculation...
[Next item is another quote Spellman used.]
Cassini will be going 25,000 mph or faster at this point, just as you mentioned in the previous question. I don't have the exact figure yet. THIS IS NOT THE SPEED AT WHICH IT HITS THE EARTH! The Apollo 13 RTGs did NOT strike the Earth at 25,000 mph. The drag from our atmosphere of our planet both heats up the object (the reason for the heat shield on the RTG) and slows it WAY down.
This writer is unaware of the flyby, I guess, when Cassini will be traveling at about 42,300 mph. Heating increases with the cube of the velocity. What slows things down is friction, ie, heating, ie, the RTGs melt away and then some portion of everything else (GPHSs, GISs, etc.) melts away. Also collisions among pieces of the spacecraft as it breaks up can damage the containment system. Even NASA doesn't expect it to work perfectly.
"Depending on its entry angle (degrees off the horizontal), the impact velocity can be subsonic (below 800 mph) or supersonic. The heating around the tumbling spacecraft will create a coma which should keep the trajectory shallow, thus ensuring slow velocities at impact. . ."
This is inaccurate according to NASA documentation and logic. For example the craft can become uncontrollable and suffer unplanned trajectory changes which can result in a reentry perpendicular to the surface of the Earth at the impact point. Aside from that, NASA does not appear to believe that any reentry scenario can result in impact velocities in the supersonic range, or even near it. If that were to happen the containment system would almost surely be ruptured. See page 4-51 of the June 1995 EIS.
Neither of these writers appears to have NASA's Cassini documentation at hand, Jim.
Regarding your official web site JPL/NASA documentation quotes, I've answered numerous NASA documents, no need to respond to another today, is there?
I have heard that the movie G.I. Jane presents the Government-sponsored point of view on RTGs as well... Recalling your employment history, I'd have to guess you'd know all about THAT sort of propaganda campaign, right?
It's my understanding that DoD would not lend official support to the production of "G.I. Jane" because of misrepresentations in the storyline.
. . .And unless you've actually been in the profession of arms yourself (and your oft-handed comments suggest you haven't), you're in no position to make statement as to what I do or do not know, until you've walked in my shoes awhile.
Regarding G. I. Jane, DoD is not DOE is not JPL is not NASA. It seems that someone snuck in a baised plug for plutonium power packs somehow.
Regarding your profession of arms, point noted. You are correct that I am not a veteran. Apology offered.
Is obnoxiousness a profession with you, or just a personal gift?
Somebody had to get tired of the status quo and try to shake things up around here... Someone has to call it as they see it without regard to what will sell or what will make them look good. I know I look pretty ugly sometimes. Act it, too, much to my detriment. But the problems being ignored are pretty ugly, too, and ignoring them acts to everybody's detriment. Too bad I can't be nicer, you're right. Then I'd be a politician.
Based on your vicious and vindictive tones, it's probably easy to see why you (and others) haven't been included at the table; very simply, you come off as too much of a "flamer" to the mainstream media (and others -- including those who apparently are also in the "anti-Cassini" camp).
Yep, you picked up on that one pretty well! There ain't nobody out there that likes me! Yet here I am. I can't explain it, can you?
There are many other ways of getting your point across a little more diplomatically, Russell. Unfortunately, your apparent lack of social skills indicates you have a few more lessons to learn and room for improvement.
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words, Jim. There is no more valuable gift a person can give to another than constructive criticism.
--Russell D. Hoffman
At 04:26 AM 9/17/97 -0400, you wrote:
In a message dated 97-09-16 05:51:55 EDT, you write:
***** STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER Volume #42, September 15th, 1997 *****
Today's subjects:
*** A CALL TO ALL WORLD CITIZENS AND LEADERS
*** A continued correspondence with James Spellman
===========================
Jim Spellman's page on how you can travel as an airline courier
http:/...../.....courier.htm [address removed]
===========================
Sorry, Russell -- I DO NOT have a web page on airline courier travel. Obviously, there's somebody out there with the same name that your "new and improved" (more thorough and accurate) research has confused me with.
So who's got egg on their face now (again)? ;-)
. . . .Next topic in your letter. . .
YOUR original statement:
Speaking of solar alternatives, your documents say that Jupiter gets 25% of the sunlight that Earth gets, hence solar was not an option for Ulysses. Now, I read that Saturn gets just 1% of the light that Earth gets, so solar again is "not quite ready yet". Well, I don't believe it. If solar is "not quite ready" for Cassini at 1%, then I doubt that 5 or 6 years ago when Ulysses was launched, solar was "not quite ready" for 25% of Earth's light.
MY reply (after detailed explanation):
". . .That's why Jupiter gets 25% of the Sun's light and Saturn gets 1% of the Sun's light in comparison to the Earth. . ."
YOUR response:
Actually Jupiter gets about 4% of Earth's light, not 25%. Fooled you! It was indeed originally my mistake, but you let it "slip", indicating your own naivety...
Russell -- What does ". . .Jupiter gets about 4% of Earth's light, not 25%. . ." have to do with Jupiter receiving 25% of SUN's light? Surely you're not now suggesting solar power derived from "Earth's light."
But then, you've risen to president of your local chapter of the National Space Society and I am but a (misguided?) assembler language computer programmer and educational software developer who is now way over his head into politics...
Well, you said it, not me. Besides, German president Bismarck once said that "all politics is local."
Ulysses went out as far as Jupiter and it was Ulysses I was talking about and, guess where I got my data (then mistakenly transcribed the figure "4%" into "1/4th" in my mind, which then became "25%" in the essay)? I got it from stuff you faxed me a couple of months ago. Too bad I hadn't organized my desk back then and actually been able to find the document, but I've cleaned up my act a bit (to everyone's surprise and delight...) So, yes, I meant Ulysses, which was a sun orbiting probe as you say, but it went out as far as Jupiter (actually, orbited around it) and used RTGs unnecessarily...
Actually, it was a "slingshot" flyby to get Ulysses out of the plane of the ecliptic. It didn't go into "orbit" around Jupiter.
The point was, had the Ulysses mission been initiated today, I think everyone agrees that it could be planned and executed with a safe solar alternative rather than the risky RTG solution. So once again I have proven myself absolutely pro-space but anti-nuclear.
No, you haven't. Explain to me how current solar power and electrical power conversion would have kept Ulysses' instruments warm and operating from such extreme distances and extreme temps. Can you guarantee if it was initiated "today," the current orbital mechanics and planetary alignments would have even allowed the launch and trajectory to occur?
Keep in mind the following point (provided by NSS):
". . .Arrays required to power Cassini would be too heavy to launch with any rocket available today or in the near future. Individuals opposing the launch are using the same argument they used in 1989 -- that NASA ignored information that Galileo's Jupiter orbiting mission could have been performed with a concentrated photovoltaic solar array (CSA). This was not true then, and is not true now.
In 1989, NASA learned that CSAs could not be ready at least until 2010. Opponents also suggest that NASA can take its time to develop a solar alternative, that Saturn "will still be there." But it won't. The planetary alignment that provides the necessary gravity assists for Cassini occurs only every 175 years and will be lost in just a few years, long before we can expect improved solar technology or larger booster rockets. Delaying Cassini by years or decades also unnecessarily wastes the work of the many scientists who have dedicated their careers to this mission. . ."
+ + + + +
Without naming names I know (and I do know of several, some of which have not come out in public) I am absolutely positive that RIGHT NOW there are many people in NASA who oppose Cassini as much as anyone outside the agency. These people are utterly afraid to speak. What kind of public government agency can hold such a grip over people's willpower? I'll tell you: One which threatens. Whistleblowers at NASA are destroyed by the rest of the gang there. Their names become curse words which are uttered in derision even by people who do not know what the whistleblower's accusations were! They lose their jobs, their respect, and their friends.
Where's your proof, please? Have you been walking the halls of NASA lately?
You're starting to sound like some of those Tabloid "reporters" at World Weekly News, et al -- who are always quoting "a highly placed source in NASA/White House/Pentagon" -- but conveniently can't name names.
+ + + + +
". . .Plutonium is highly toxic. If inhaled or ingested in even minute amounts it can cause death by cancer. . .My understanding of Dr. Sternglass's and Dr. Gould's arguments are that the same .1 microgram, if spread out to 100 or 1000 people, will be MORE dangerous -- result in MORE THAN one probable death. Dr. Gofman, on the other hand would say that if you spread .1 microgram among 100 people or 1000 people, on average, still "just" one will die. And those are both people who are opposed to Cassini!
Clearly, the science has not been completed on the dangers of extremely low levels of plutonium poisoning.
I just read in Sunday's Bakersfield California an article about a prominent research scientist who died by mercury poisoning via ONE DROP of Dimethyl Mercury that seeped through her protective clothing. . .I received a direct mail plea a few days ago from some group whose spokeman stated that he nearly died of some disease after touching an infected person in some third-world country. . .I received from SoCalEdison some helpful hints addressing the reported health hazards of EMF (Electrical and Magnetic Fields).
Sounds to me as if there are more deadly incidents closer to home that your Plutonium paranoia.
*************************************
*** About the Gravity Assist flyby maneuver set for 1999
*************************************
The "flyby" or gravity-assist is scheduled to occur in 1999. It's the most dangerous part of the mission from several points of view, but NASA is not worried for two simplistic reasons.
First, they do not believe that there is much harm from low-level radiation. Even if 5 billion people or more get a dose -- 90% or more of the population of the Earth. Second, they do not believe much will be released. Even though just .01% holds hundreds of thousands of potentially lethal doses -- perhaps millions of potentially lethal doses (it partly depends, of course, on the population density near where it comes down, and other factors NASA has NO CONTROL OVER!)
According to National Safety Council data that appeared in Sept 16 editorial of USA TODAY, the odds of dying from other causes (vs. plutonium release) are:
1 in 15 million in an earthquake
1 in 4.5 million from lighting
1 in 300,256 in a plane crash
1 in 58,752 from drowning
1 in 32,743 by poisoning
1 in 19,600 from falls
(BTW -- I wasn't impressed by Karl Grossman's "Opposing View"; looks like a rehash of the same arguments he made back in '89 and '90)
Two responses from other individuals, whose counsel I respect:
#1 (Tom Sarko)
". . .Let's ignore, for the moment, that NASA has demonstrated its ability to target spacecraft within a couple of miles of its aim point after a journey of millions and even billions of miles.
Let's also ignore the fact that this gravity assist technique has been used successfully many times with many different planets, most significantly, a passage within 300 kilometers of Earth by the RTG-powered Galileo spacecraft on its way to Jupiter. After all, we are considering "worst-cases".
The most pessimistic of the critics estimate that 34000 additional cancer deaths could result in the 50 years following the release of all of Cassini's plutonium in such a scenario. Official estimates put the worst-case toll at 3420 over the same period. That would be in addition to the usual predicted rate of 675 million cancer deaths worldwide over the same 50-year period. While no loss of life is negligible, let's now snap back to reality and remember that this worst-case scenario is extremely unlikely to happen (that's why it's called a "worst-case" scenario, after all!). . ."
Tom Sarko, Science Teacher
Palm Beach Day School
241 Seaview Avenue
Palm Beach, FL. 33480
#2 (Ronnie Lajoie)
". . .There are two velocities to be mentioned here. One is reentry velocity, which is the speed at which the spacecraft "enters the atmosphere." This is the speed at which the spacecraft's altitude drops below 50 nautical miles. There is atmosphere above this altitude as well as below, but this point was chosen based on satellite lifetime studies.
The second is the impact velocity, the speed at which it hits Earth.
Cassini will be going 25,000 mph or faster at this point, just as you mentioned in the previous question. I don't have the exact figure yet. THIS IS NOT THE SPEED AT WHICH IT HITS THE EARTH! The Apollo 13 RTGs did NOT strike the Earth at 25,000 mph. The drag from our atmosphere of our planet both heats up the object (the reason for the heat shield on the RTG) and slows it WAY down.
Depending on its entry angle (degrees off the horizontal), the impact velocity can be subsonic (below 800 mph) or supersonic. The heating around the tumbling spacecraft will create a coma which should keep the trajectory shallow, thus ensuring slow velocities at impact. . ."
Ronnie Lajoie
Flight Mechanics engineer for the Boeing Company
Newsletter Editor and Web Manager for the NSS Huntsville Alabama L5 Society
1995-1999 Chairman of the National Space Society Chapters' Assembly
E-Mail Address: hal5@advicom.net
Web Site:
http://advicom.net/~hal5/
THE GOAL OF HAL5 AND THE NSS IS: AFFORDABLE SPACE TRAVEL IN OUR LIFETIME!
=============================================================
The following was taken from official JPL Cassini site at:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cassini/rtg/intro2swing.htm
". . .The spacecraft trajectory is specifically designed to avoid Earth's atmosphere. The trajectory is biased 5000 km (3106 miles) or more away from the swingby altitude (not less than 800 km) for all but 7 days prior to the swingby. The possibility of an Earth reentry only becomes conceivable if an extremely unlikely sequence of events and failures occurs. The vast majority of potential spacecraft failures do not alter the spacecraft's trajectory. To initiate an impact trajectory, a failure would have to cause a change in the spacecraft's velocity of exactly the right magnitude and direction.
For this reason, it is extremely unlikely that a misfire of the Cassini rocket system would result in an inadvertent Earth reentry. Another fact to keep in mind is that a number of spacecraft maneuvers will have to be successfully conducted just to bring the spacecraft within tens of thousands of kilometers of Earth. A maneuver at 7 days before swingby will ensure that the spacecraft arrives at the desired point in space for the gravity-assist but does not come closer to Earth than 800 km.
The following was taken from official JPL Cassini site at:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cassini/rtg/riskframes.htm
". . .In the extremely unlikely event that a Cassini inadvertent Earth reentry has occurred, some plutonium dioxide could be released into the atmosphere. The fine particles of plutonium dioxide that are potentially hazardous to people would remain high in the atmosphere for a long period of time. This would result in the particles being spread very thinly across the world and eventually making their way to the surface, mostly the oceans. Since the material is highly insoluble, once it reaches the surface most of it would become trapped in the oceans or soils and not pose a health hazard. Thus, most of the released material would not be breathed in by people.
The small amount of released material that would be breathed in would be distributed over much of the world. Since the amount to be breathed in is so tiny, the radiation dose that a person would be expected to receive is less than one millirem total over 50 years. This small radiation dose is indistinguishable when compared to the 15,000 millirem dose an average person will receive (over that same 50 year period) from natural background radiation.
Using the conservative approach to estimating consequences from low level radiation exposures, it has been estimated that this type of accident could result in about 120 cancer fatalities worldwide over 50 years. However, it is quite possible that such a low radiation dose (less than one millirem over 50 years) may not be capable of causing cancer in a person.
Regardless of the assumptions, the risk from an inadvertent Earth reentry is low. The risk factor, assuming there would be fatalities, would be one in one million (0.000001, the probability of inadvertent Earth reentry) times 120 (fatalities), and thus equal about 0.0001. This risk factor is much smaller -- at least 200,000 times smaller -- than any risks discussed above from asteroid impacts.
-------------------------------------------
Back to more of your comments. . .
I have heard that the movie G.I. Jane presents the Government-sponsored point of view on RTGs as well... Recalling your employment history, I'd haveto guess you'd know all about THAT sort of propaganda campaign, right?
It's my understanding that DoD would not lend official support to the production of "G.I. Jane" because of misrepresentations in the storyline.
. . .And unless you've actually been in the profession of arms yourself (and your oft-handed comments suggest you haven't), you're in no position to make statement as to what I do or do not know, until you've walked in my shoes awhile.
Battery-assisted solar calculators work fine at night if you pay any attention to them during the day... A little attention to detail, and technology can do wonders safely. I love technology, Jim. I love space exploration. I love democracy and the right to raise my voice.
(People have been telling me I need to show more love in these newsletters so now that that's done and we're all bored, I think I'll sign off and let you get back to catching up on my other foibles as you promised. Just be sure to polish those gems a little better next time.)
Is obnoxiousness a profession with you, or just a personal gift?
Again, your own (various) statements:
Beverly Cook is a liar. She distributes lies to the media:
That's EXACTLY a lie. Beverly Cook is EXACTLY a liar. She does not oversimplify. She does not exaggerate the safety or underestimate the danger. She lies.
Somehow the protests sponsored by LOVEARTH on September 20th in NYC and September 28th in Washington DC were not mentioned. WHO failed to notify the press about these other important upcoming protests? Is it the same WHO who did not invite the author of this newsletter to the press conference, which was obviously the most important press conference in the history of the anti-Cassini mission? Is it the same Who who failed to invite Dr. Horst Poehler as well, a 22-year senior scientist formerly with numerous NASA contractors? And is it the same Who who failed to invite Mark Elsis of LOVEARTH?
But of course, don't expect the AMERICAN PRESS to report the truth. That would be nearly unprecedented and clearly would buck a trend on THIS issue.
And as for Beverly Cook bringing her family down for the launch, that's fine if that's what she want's to do, but as a repeated plea for pubic sympathy and confidence, it is a cruel use of her family to put them on the PUBLIC NEWS MEDIA front lines like that. If you want to bring them, that's your business, Beverly Cook. But don't announce left and right how that proves you think the launch is safe. Sure, it proves you think the launch is safe. No one denies you feel that way. But the truth is that the launch is NOT safe. If you want to risk it with your family, that's your business, but at least have the decency to stop talking about how you intend to use them as your own private herd of guinea pigs.
The Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice
This is a grassroots group in Florida. Their leader dislikes me and they do not link to our web site.
Many of the newsletters debate people from the pro-nuclear Cassini side, including noted pro-nuclear spokespersons such as Louis Friedman, Executive Director of the Planetary Society which has over 100,000 members. (We called on him to resign, in the end.)
Based on your vicious and vindictive tones, it's probably easy to see why you (and others) haven't been included at the table; very simply, you come off as too much of a "flamer" to the mainstream media (and others -- including those who apparently are also in the "anti-Cassini" camp).
There are many other ways of getting your point across a little more diplomatically, Russell. Unfortunately, your apparent lack of social skills indicates you have a few more lessons to learn and room for improvement.
And finally. . .
******************************************************
*** A message from John McConnell, founder of Earth Day
******************************************************
This morning I received a phone call from John McConnell, founder of Earth
Day and a remarkable man. He had found the web site somehow and wanted to
let me know that he supports our efforts to bring reason to science, in
this
case more specifically to bring human compassion to NASA endeavors.
** Some NSS Experts in FAVOR of Cassini **
Mr. Bruce Anderson, Director, Industrial Liaison - Office of Corporate Relations, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): A nationally recognized leader in environmental and solar energy fields. Author of "The Solar Home Book"; President of Earth Day USA.
Dr. Gary Bennett: Consultant in aerospace power and propulsion systems; previous Manager of Advanced Space Propulsion Systems and Manager of Advanced Space Power Systems at NASA Headquarters; former Director of Safety and Nuclear Operations for the radioisotope power sources for Galileo and Ulysses.
Mr. Michael Gilbrook: An environmental scientist and president of the National Space Society's Metro Orlando Space Society (MOSS) chapter; rebutted opposition to Ulysses in 1990 at Kennedy Space Center; organizer for pro-Cassini activities.
Mr. Jeff Foust: Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, MIT Editor, SpaceViews -- http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/
~JS~
Next issue (#44)
Previous issue (#42)
********* SUBSCRIPTION INFO *********
To subscribe to this newsletter just email me at
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
with the words:
SUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Please include something else:
It can be an indication of where
you found our newsletter, or what you
read that made you want to subscribe, but
you do NOT need to include your name.
To unsubscribe email me and say
UNSUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
Available at the source by blind carbon copy
subscription ONLY--free. Subscription list never
sold or bartered or divulged (except if by
government order, and then only after
exhausting all legal arguments against such
disclosure). Subscribing in no way
constitutes endorsement of our positions and
may indicate opposition!
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman.
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/index.htm
May be freely distributed but please include all
headers, footers, and contents or request
permission to excerpt. Thank you.
******************************************
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com