Received: from JamesOberg@aol.com
for
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:02:37 EDT
Subject: Re: risk of return to Earth
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
In a message dated 9/24/99 12:58:19 AM, you wrote:
We may have taken Cassini's risk for NOTHING if we lose track of
Cassini. It still has a possibility of reentering Earth's atmosphere,
according to NASA's original 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the
Cassini mission. The risk is lower, but hardly gone (see page B-4).
Gosh, what did NASa compute that risk as? Considering the orbit it's in now, or will be by the time it passes Jupiter (even if it dies now), the odds that it will hit Earth again are about the same as the odds any of the mile-wide Apollo asteroids will hit Earth, and which would you select as more dangerous? You're starting to sound REALLY silly again....
----- END OF SECOND EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TODAY -----
----- MY RESPONSE TO JO'S SECOND EMAIL: -----
The risk without Pu is zero. The risk with Pu is higher. Every action is accountable and reckless endangerment is a crime.
----- END OF MY RESPONSE TO JO'S SECOND EMAIL -----
----- THIRD EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TODAY: -----
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
In a message dated 9/24/99 12:58:19 AM, you wrote:
And you, Mr. Oberg, are in denial of the dangers of plutonium. Of that I
have no doubt -- it's in your Space Power Theory book (which I really must
review for you soon, having read it last spring).
So -- where are all those glowing mutated llamas wandering out of the andes?
Like I said, you are in denial. Here are 44 questions about Cassini you should try to answer. I doubt even the great James Oberg knows all he pretends to know:
[ Cassini 44-question quiz included here, shown below ]
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
Ah, so you don't want to answer my question by providing facts you claim you
already had. V-E-R-Y interesting. Should I be surprised?
In a message dated 9/24/99 1:18:11 PM, you wrote:
The risk without Pu is zero. The risk with Pu is higher. Every action is
accountable and reckless endangerment is a crime.
At 03:02 PM 9/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
In a message dated 9/24/99 12:58:19 AM, you wrote:
We may have taken Cassini's risk for NOTHING if we lose track of
Cassini. It still has a possibility of reentering Earth's atmosphere,
according to NASA's original 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the
Cassini mission. The risk is lower, but hardly gone (see page B-4).
Gosh, what did NASa compute that risk as? Considering the orbit it's in now,
or will be by the time it passes Jupiter (even if it dies now), the odds that
it will hit Earth again are about the same as the odds any of the mile-wide
Apollo asteroids will hit Earth, and which would you select as more
dangerous? You're starting to sound REALLY silly again....
Dear Mr. Oberg,
Thanks for all your emails of the past few hours. They make me feel important. But philosophically crushed? Nope. Logically defeated? Nope. Even fairly debated? Nope.
You're just so far off-base it's pathetic. To watch a grown man defend himself so poorly would be laughable if I didn't like you, but I do. You're never going to live this down, my friend. Never.
Regarding your last email (shown below), are you referring to this silly question?:
"Gosh, what did NASA compute that risk as?"
I have no reason to trust NASA's silly computations of risk, Mr. Oberg. As I have made clear. With example after example of NASA screwing up for no good reason -- just because they're human. And screwing up their risk calculations as well, as shown in the 44-question quiz. Besides, I don't think they break out the number you seek exactly anyway.
But the exercise is fruitless: as you are doing now, NASA keeps equating "one in one million" or one in 10 million or whatever with "zero", "zilch", "never" etc. which is not the same thing, and never will be. You care what exact numbers NASA provides. I don't, since for one thing subsequent events to the same BS that got Galileo into orbit have proven that a 10-year wait would have eliminated the need for RTGs there, and similarly a Saturn-bound probe designed today could surely be solar-powered. So I really DON'T care what the numbers are and have no philosophical or logical basis on which I should. And if there is one, you haven't provided it.
But since YOU care so much about NASA's nutty numbers, and since you actually apparently TRUST NASA's numbers, I asked you for some specific numbers regarding the differences in how risky MCO's orbital insertion actually was (both real (experiential) and theoretical numbers, please), and how risky Cassini's flyby of Jupiter will be (if it makes it that far) and so forth.
Not surprisingly, you can't or at least haven't provided answers.
You've made statements that are in line with your determination that "a little" plutonium 238 dioxide vaporized into the atmosphere is OKAY (which it isn't --a nd Cassini was 72.3 pounds of the stuff, hardly "a little") and the rest of your philosophical ramblings sprout forth from that idiocy. And as with everyone else who pollutes the Earth by using "the dilution solution to pollution", you hide the deaths among the billions of other cancers (or the millions of healthy llamas) and say "I don't see anyone getting hurt! I don't see any unexplained leukemias, cancers, or birth defects! My mom has a box of ashes that once was my brother -- chemotherapy is a horrific thing, as cruel a medical procedure as anything humanity has devised (and they won't even legalize pot to ease the pain of it) and believe me, Mr. Oberg, it doesn't always save the patient. But nearly every leukemia patient undergoes this torture, at least in America where we once almost had affordable health care for everyone.
Yet all you can say is, you don't see any mutant llamas. All I can say is, you just aren't looking.
The precautionary principal clearly indicates that when you are dealing with 400,000+ curies of plutonium 238 which could be vaporized (NOT destroyed, it just "goes to particulate" as that strange caller to NC-WARN put it last year) you should have a clear and definable need. NASA's claim that solar will not reach far enough yet is weak at best, in fact truly disingenuous. A short wait -- one decade -- would have been enough to eliminate the risk. And what about the military launches? What about my statements about what the effects of a nuclear EMP would be? This is all a side-show compared to what Y2K is threatening, but it's the same disjointed arguments.
The invisible particles Cassini could have released are the ideal size to lodge permanently in a person's lung, and the particles would be spread among a population of 6,000,000,000 people. So it does NOT really matter what "odds" NASA has calculated. This was a completely avoidable risk, with NO loss of science return in the long run, or even, probably, in the short run (remember the D. E. Rockey et al report from 1981? That NASA/JPL report said even Galileo could have been a solar mission! (See my newsletter #148 for a more complete discussion of that issue)).
NASA never was any good at doing the risk calculations, which is part of the point of the 44-question quiz you so far have declined to attempt to answer. The other point of the Cassini quiz is that the baselines which NASA used for the amount of damage an alpha particle, beta particle, or whatever can do to a living human cell are probably several orders of magnitude off from reality. Those are the points of my whole web site, which I have no doubt now you've spent very little time at.
You ask me to "change my mind" about something like this simply because you say Cassini has more navigational gear than MCO had? But right now, aren't we hearing that it was an error that began around September 15th (according to Peter G. Neumann's statement of this morning)? So what help would it have been anyway? Somebody goofed, and after that, no one was paying enough attention to notice. Accidents happen and we should recognize the true risks and work to reduce those risks.
And talk about not answering questions! You're one to talk! I asked you what the "odds" are that NASA gives for MCO-type orbital insertions. What are the actual numbers? Are they 1000 times harder because of this missing piece of equipment? 100 times harder? What are the actual experiential numbers you claim you are working from? What are NASA's official guesses? How come I'm not the first person that never gets straight answers out of NASA, even if you somehow do (or think you do)?
And then there's the matter of why NASA aimed Cassini first over Africa, then moved the "nearest point of approach" over Earth to the South Pacific (somehow without changing the arrival time). I asked you to help me find out if there were any burns of the thrusters besides the three TCM's, and to help me find out who changed the aim-point, and why. So far, nothing. Yet you demand I haven't answered something? What? What half-way important fact have I missed? If Cassini had crashed into Earth, there would have been a tragedy. A silent killer. Mutated llamas? Maybe. Mutated, cancerous humans with leukemia would also be possible (it's possible to have all three problems, Mr. Oberg. We can't all be perfect like you.).
You complain that I won't change my mind? Over what fact that your or any of your cohorts have presented should I do so? Because Cassini has slightly better navigation equipment? Because flights near Earth are so much easier to track, even though any probe can go dead at any time, so what difference does that make? Because Cassini succeeded (as though one success proves whether a proclaimed accident rate of "one in one million" really is "one in one million" which you seem to want me to believe)?
You (and NASA) are behind the eight-ball now, Mr. Oberg. Your credibility is slipping, and your honor is at stake (at least with me). You have many questions left to answer for your nuclear friends at NASA and in Russia (who remain, as always, deep in the dark. Indeed, every time I uncover one, they haven't got a clue about what's really going on politically, medically, statistically (accidents DO keep happening) or any other way).
Y2K is coming. Beforehand, we had better get this matter resolved honestly or there may well be hell to pay -- you're not a Y2K expert, are you? Neither am I. No one is -- it's all just theory right now. But there are obvious things that need to be done, like providing additional on-site generators for the hundreds of nuclear power plants that might need them, but at the rate America is learning from its mistakes, that work will not be done.
Those plants which can be shut down (all of them, I contend) before Y2K should be shut down immediately. But again, at the rate things are going, that will not be done.
The "demon hot atom", the little unstoppable nuclear explosion known as radioactive decay, must be grudgingly admired for it's devastating ability to adversely effect human health, but it should not be worshipped as a savior. It isn't, and it never was. Those who admire it worship a false god. People like you, Mr. Oberg.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
P.S. I have never said the danger from various asteroids should be ignored. Never, ever, ever. I just don't think that danger should be added to by Cassini or other pointless plutonium probes.
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
Q: How many people did Cassini kill?
A: Zero.
Dear Mr. Oberg:
Thank you for your letter of defeat (shown below). I mean, that's what this is, isn't it? You don't really you call this a debate?
Ever hear of taking reasonable precautions? Ever hear of "safety first"?
I know this is the best you can do, but it stinks.
How many people did SNAP-9A kill?
Can you prove it? Show me YOUR evidence. Show what textbook taught you that so-called "Low Level Radiation" (there really is no such thing) doesn't kill. Who are your experts? What is their evidence?
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
In a message dated 9/24/99 1:25:22 PM, you wrote:
Well, I suppose you're going to tell me this changes everything..
Not your mind, that was always certain!
Since by now we were overlapping, this trite denigrating of me was not answered. It is I who is flexible, and Mr. Oberg whose mind is utterly closed. But Cassini's super-dooper new navigation system is smoke and mirrors compared to the real issues, which Oberg ignores. -- rdh
But Oberg was not done being trite and condescending:
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
In a message dated 9/24/99 4:56:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com writes:
Yet all you can say is, you don't see any mutant llamas. All I can say
is,
you just aren't looking.
I'll eat the first one you find.
You can eat my dead brother's ashes, Oberg, unless you can prove he didn't get leukemia from your nuke-puke friends' activities.
This ain't no game, buddy.
Mr. Sarker is the Secretary General of the Astronomy Society of Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a peaceful country which can ill-afford for NASA to poison their rivers or their land. Many people in Bangladesh were opposed to Cassini prior to the flyby (I am convinced a far higher percentage of citizens there even knew what "Cassini" was than did in America) and Mr. Sarker has been receiving the newsletters for several months and telling me about the situation there. -- rdh
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:50:13 +0600
Hi Russell,
At last , NASA has got a good somersault with Mars Climate Orbiter which might have crushed over Mars with billion dollar bill. NASA might try to justify the accident as a normal phenomena , one out of one thousand or so forth but conscience people around the world might see the matter in different way. Your prediction about 2YK is now coming up to be correct, and God knows what more to be seen within next 100 days ?
Your quotation is so pragmatic and realistic, I have read it a few times :
" There can be no democracy without truth, there can be no justice without mercy and no nuclear dispersals without ill consequences "
I thank you very much for your indomitable courage to fight against the evils .
With best wishes
F. R. Sarker
We thank Mr. Sarker for his kind words.
I might have thought they must be running out of disk space to store copies of my newsletters, but since they aren't getting any telemetry from MCO, that must not be it. -- rdh
At 11:25 AM 9/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
Dear Sir,
The STOP CASSINI newsletters are sent to Historian@mail.arc.nasa.gov for archival purposes so that NASA's records include something that reflects the true spectrum of feelings about them among the peaceful people of Earth, and so that NASA employees can be sure to access the newsletters as needed, perhaps at a future date when compassion for humanity has come to your organization, and human genocide (not to mention omnicide) is no longer threatened on a regular basis, and those threats are no longer supported by lies and absurd mathematical odds which have no basis in reality or actual experience.
I have never heard of you before this email as far as I can recall (I'll check my records if you like) and you are not, technically, a subscriber. Rather "NASA historian" is the intended recipient of a citizen's opinion, for documentation purposes, so it cannot be said NASA was not warned of their folly.
Furthermore I have been sending them to this address for many months. Why suddenly, are you responding at all, even if unfairly? What took you so long? Are you knew to the job?
If you wish to answer the Cassini Quiz it would be appreciated. I have included it below. You are already morally responsible for allowing other departments of NASA to threaten Earth with their nuclear payloads, because you have been reading my newsletters and so you know -- or should know -- exactly what is going on.
I know you've been reading them because you know how subscribers are supposed to "unsubscribe", information which is contained within them.
Thank you.
Russell D. Hoffman
FORTY-FOUR CASSINI QUESTIONS:
(1) How many RTGs (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators) are there on Cassini?
(2) How many GPHSs (General Purpose Heat Sources) are there in each RTG?
(3) How many GISs (Graphite Impact Shells) are there in each GPHS?
(4) How much plutonium is there in each one?
(5) How many LWRHUs (Light Weight Radioactive Heater Units, also known simply as RHUs) are there on board Cassini (roughly, since I'm not sure NASA ever gave a final exact figure)?
(6) How much plutonium is there in each one?
(7) What was the likelihood, according to NASA, that the LWRHUs would incinerate in a Cassini reentry accident?
(8) What is the maximum percentage of plutonium which NASA EXPECTED to be vaporized in a reentry accident, according to page 4-51 of the June 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini mission?
(9) What's the which minimum EXPECTED to be vaporized, according to that same page?
(10) What particle size range and mean can be expected from a vaporization, if it is approximately the same as for the reentry which occurred in April 1964 which provided actual data regarding the vaporization characteristics of plutonium?
(11) What particle size is ideal for lodging permanently in a person's lung if it is inhaled?
(12) How much radiation do the cells around a particle of plutonium receive, according to the late Dr. Karl Z. Morgan and related to me in a conversation in 1997, which I described in a statement published in a NASA Cassini document?
(13) How many Curies of plutonium did SNAP-9A carry?
(14) What chance of reentry did NASA give for SNAP-9A?
(15) Did the SNAP-9A reenter Earth's atmosphere?
(16) How many Curies are there in 2.1 lbs plutonium, assuming the mix is the same as for NASA's radioactive thermoelectric generators?
(17) How much plutonium was on board Russia's Mars '96?
(18) Where is it now?
(19) How much plutonium was on board Apollo 13?
(20) Where is it now?
(21) Can you prove it's there? Have you seen it? Has anyone seen it?
(22) What were NASA's official odd's against a Space Shuttle failure prior to the Challenger accident?
(23) What were NASA's official odds on the same thing shortly after the Challenger accident?
(24) What is the half-life of Pu 236?
(25) What is the half-life of Pu 238?
(26) What is the half-life of Pu 239?
(27) What is the half-life of Pu 240?
(28) What is the half-life of Pu 241?
(29) What is the half-life of Pu 242?
(30) For the next seven questions, the launch weight percentage may be given:
(31) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 236?
(32) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 238?
(33) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 239?
(34) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 240?
(35) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 241?
(36) What percentage of Cassini's plutonium is Pu 242?
(37) What percentage of the RTG fuel is oxygen?
(38) What kind of radiation does plutonium 238 give off?
(39) What is an alpha particle?
(40) If inhaled or ingested, is an alpha-emitter dangerous?
(41) If so, why?
(42) What health effects does plutonium cause?
(43) How much plutonium 239 is considered by most people in medical science to be a fatal dose, because it will almost surely cause lung cancer if lodged permanently in a lung?
(44) How much Pu 238 would it take to have the same radiological effect?
I never received anything like these before, but today, a few minutes ago, these both arrived:
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Dear Russell D. Hoffman,
Thank you for including us in your e-mail to president William Jefferson
Clinton. I hope you receive the reply you desire.
So far I have not received any reply from WJC.
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Dear Russell D. Hoffman,
Thank you again for including us in this e-mail and providing links to
sites you deem important.
I'm glad that some automated program at NASA -- or an automaton there -- is responding so encouragingly!
NASA needs to be told in no uncertain terms NEVER to launch nuclear rockets of any type ever again!
To learn about the absurd excuses NASA used to launch Cassini and its 72.3 pounds of plutonium in 1997, ask them for the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini mission, and all subsequent documentation. At the same time, be sure to ask them for ANY and ALL documentation available on future uses of plutonium in space, including MILITARY, CIVILIAN, or "OTHER" (just in case they make a new category somehow!). To get this information, contact:
Cassini Public Information
Daniel Goldin is the head of NASA. Here's his email address:
Here's the NASA URL to find additional addresses to submit written questions to:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/facts/HTML/FS-002-HQ.html
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT NASA IS DOING TO YOUR HEALTH.
Be sure to "cc" the president and VP and your senators and congresspeople, too.
President Bill Clinton
Vice President Albert Gore
Secretary William Cohen
Secretary Bill Richardson
Always include your full name and postal address in all correspondence to any Government official of any country.
Thanks for reading! Welcome new subscribers!
Home page of our STOP CASSINI movement:
To subscribe, simply email the editor at
To unsubscribe email me and say
Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
Received: from JamesOberg@aol.com
for
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:03:31 EDT
Subject: Re: Pu
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
----- END OF THIRD EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TODAY -----
----- MY RESPONSE TO JO'S THIRD EMAIL: -----
----- END OF MY RESPONSE TO JO'S THIRD EMAIL -----
----- FOURTH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TODAY: -----
Received: from JamesOberg@aol.com
for
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:37:37 EDT
Subject: Re: Re: risk of return to Earth
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
----- END OF FOURTH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TODAY -----
----- MY RESPONSE TO JO'S FOURTH EMAIL: -----
Founder and Editor
STOP CASSINI newsletter
"There is no freedom without truth, no democracy without freedom, and no truth without democracy."
----- END OF MY RESPONSE TO JO'S FOURTH EMAIL -----
----- FIFTH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TODAY: -----
Received: from JamesOberg@aol.com
for
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:54:15 EDT
Subject: Re: Re: Pu
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
----- END OF FIFTH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TODAY -----
----- MY RESPONSE TO JO'S FIFTH EMAIL: -----
----- END OF MY RESPONSE TO JO'S FIFTH EMAIL -----
----- SIXTH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TODAY: -----
Received: from JamesOberg@aol.com
for
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:54:51 EDT
Subject: Re: Re: Excuses, Excuses: Stop Cassini #193, September 23rd, 1999
(late edition)
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
----- END OF SIXTH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TODAY -----
----- SIXTH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TODAY: -----
Received: from JamesOberg@aol.com
by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id hSRO0lnDQz (4566)
for
Message-ID: <85d5e75f.251d500d@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:07:09 EDT
Subject: Re: risk of return to Earth
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
X-UIDL: 1ca958e0373b3a423e1e6a94cc7cee40
----- END OF SEVENTH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TODAY -----
----- MY RESPONSE TO JO'S SEVENTH EMAIL: -----
----- END OF MY RESPONSE TO JO'S SEVENTH EMAIL -----
(2) A letter from F. R. Sarker:
----- INCOMING EMAIL FROM F. R. SARKER. -----
To:
From: "F. R. Sarker"
Subject: NASA's Somersault
----- END OF INCOMING EMAIL FROM F. R. SARKER. -----
(3) NASA Historian wants to "unsubscribe" the historic record:
----- INCOMING EMAIL FROM "Dr. Glenn E. Bugos"
UNSUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
----- END OF INCOMING EMAIL FROM "Dr. Glenn E. Bugos"
----- MY RESPONSE TO "Dr. Glenn E. Bugos"
Founder and Editor
STOP CASSINI newsletters
------ end of quiz -----
----- END OF MY RESPONSE TO "Dr. Glenn E. Bugos"
(4) I'm not sure what these new emails from NASA mean:
----- FIRST EMAIL RECEIVED FROM webquest@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov: -----
X-Sender: webquest@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov
Message-Id: (v03130304b411353e3189@[137.78.244.138])
In-Reply-To: (4.2.0.58.19990923215134.009e4ef0@mail.adnc.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: "Russell D. Hoffman" (rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com)
From: Cassini Webquest Account (webquest@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov)
Subject: Re: Excuses, Excuses: Stop Cassini #193, September 23rd, 1999
(late edition)
X-UIDL: 42ca26ef4545f9461ea51a76032a4564
----- END OF FIRST EMAIL RECEIVED FROM
----- SECOND EMAIL RECEIVED FROM
X-Sender: webquest@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov
Message-Id: (v03130305b41136cf8faa@[137.78.244.138])
In-Reply-To: (4.2.0.58.19990922221303.00a1fe70@mail.adnc.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: "Russell D. Hoffman" (rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com)
From: Cassini Webquest Account (webquest@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov)
Subject: Re: Y2K-100-day situation report (STOP CASSINI #191, September
22nd, 1999)
X-UIDL: 97d8809ef699775cd56c4acd1cce5bec
----- END OF SECOND EMAIL RECEIVED FROM webquest@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov -----
United States Government official contact points:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena CA 91109
(818) 354-5011 or
(818) 354-6478
Here's NASA's "comments" email address:
comments@www.hq.nasa.gov
daniel.goldin@hq.nasa.gov
or
dgoldin@mail.hq.nasa.gov
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20500; Ph. (202) 456-1111, Fax (202) 456-2461;
e-mail -- president@whitehouse.gov
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20500;Ph. (202) 456-1414, Fax (202)
456-2461; e-mail -- vicepresident@whitehouse.gov
1000 Defense
The Pentagon
Washington D.C. 20301
703-695-6352
Department of Energy (DoE)
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington D.C. 20585
202-586-6210
fax: 202-586-4403
Subscription information:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/cassini.htm
(Accept NO imitations!)
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
and state:
SUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Please include a personal message of any
length and subject matter. Thank you!
UNSUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Written in U.S.A.
This newsletter is free and is not distributed for profit.
Please distribute these newsletters EVERYWHERE!
Next issue (#196)
Previous issue (#194)
CASSINI TABLE OF CONTENTS
This article has been presented on the World Wide Web by:
The Animated Software Company
http://www.animatedsoftware.com
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
First placed online September 24th, 1999.
Last modified September 26th, 1999 (minor typos corrected 9/24/99).
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman