Copyright (c) 1999

From: Russell David Hoffman, deeply concerned citizen

Re: The "demon hot atom": STOP CASSINI #213

Date: October 22nd, 1999 -- 70 days before Y2K

This issue's subjects:

• (1) James Oberg debate (followup part 1)
• (2) James Oberg debate (followup part 2)
• (3) Small Chemical Plants: Government assessment dire
• (4) From the mailbag: Why don't they get it?
• (5) United States Government official contact points
• (6) Subscription information
• (7) Authorship notes and associated links

(1) James Oberg debate (followup part 1):

After I sent out my answer to the student Andrew M. about space debris, which I presented in the last issue of this newsletter (#212), this morning's email contained a response from James Oberg to the student, Andrew. In other words, my "trick" of sending it to Oberg worked, and Oberg was successfully drawn into yet another debate with me, and has once again blessed my humble electronic newsletter with his words (which I hope everyone realizes, unquestionably cost other people (like ABC TV) a lot of money, and they don't even get the most controversial stuff!).

It should not go unnoted that the only "trick" was sending what I believe to be a legitimate letter from a student somewhere to Oberg and to Nick Johnson at NASA (who, unfortunately, didn't "take that bait"), along with my own answer.

It fired up Oberg, as hoped. Boy did it ever!

Note in the beginning of his response, the phrase "substiture for accuracy". I could not find a dictionary that had the word "substiture" and one presumes he meant "substitute", and certainly typos are no big deal in email, right? But I find the position of that error, in that phrase, haunting and unfair to YH&OS. He cannot accurately say, that I am inaccurate! -- rdh

----- INCOMING EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TO ANDREW M.: -----

From: JamesOberg@aol.com
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:56:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Re: space debris (questions for a science project)
To: ANDRUSHKA8@aol.com
CC: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com, nicholas.l.johnson1@jsc.nasa.gov

Andrew, I've made a few comments in all caps. As you research, you will realize that sincerity and vehemence, especially from people who admit they don't have the technical competence to really understand such subjects, is no substiture for accuracy and authenticity, and is no true determinator of truth.

JimO
www.jamesoberg.com

In a message dated 10/21/99 9:42:00 PM, rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
wrote:To: Andrew Mitchell ANDRUSHKA8@aol.com
cc: "James Oberg" JamesOberg@aol.com
"JOHNSON, NICHOLAS L. (NICK) (JSC-SN3)" nicholas.l.johnson1@jsc.nasa.gov
From: Russell Hoffman

Hi! Thank you for your letter, but I'm afraid I cannot officially help you, because I am not a scientist. I am a computer programmer, which doesn't carry a degree at this time, though perhaps some day it might (but I doubt it).

Hi. My name is Andrew Mitchell and for part of my science project i have to interview a scientist, and i was wondering if you could help me out by anwsering these questions:

1.) What is most space debris made of? Where does it come from?

Hoffman: Most of the debris in orbit about the Earth is manmade, and is the result of careless operations on the part of early and current space voyagers and unmanned missions. For example, one U. S. military mission released 400,000,000 needles into space, each traveling at about 17,000 miles per hour, for a reflection test. That's so bone-headed it's beyond belief, but worse than that, the Russians have sent up literally dozens of nuclear reactors, some of which are leaking primary radioactive coolant into space. The coolant bubbles thus become radioactive space debris, damaging in two ways! After use during the Cold War (still going on, if military expenditures are anything to go on), these Russian reactors were normally boosted to a "parking orbit" of about 400 miles and 1000 year's duration, after which time the radioactive components, along with the rest of the rockets, will return to Earth, unless they violate the laws of physics. Thus, prior to that time, they should be cleaned up, but how? No one has come up with a good method. And there is no way to remove 400,000,000 "space needles" from orbit either! We sent up a few nuclear reactors ourselves, also for "Cold War" applications.

JimO: BY LIMITING THE QUESTION TO 'IN ORBIT', OF COURSE, -ALL- OBJECTS ARE MANMADE, AND THAT'S NOT SURPRISING. IN ALL WEIGHT CLASSES, OBJECTS HITTING EARTH FROM SPACE ARE NATURAL, AND THE THREAT TO SPACECRAFT IN ORBIT IS CALLED 'MICRO-METEEOROID AND ORBITAL DEBRIS' (MMOD) COMBINED. ORBITAL DEBRIS IS USUALLY MORE DANGEROUS STATISTICALLY BECAUSE OVER TIME ANY SINGLE OBJECT HAS REPEATED SHOTS AT YOU WHEREAS INCOMING NATURAL OBJECTS MAKE ONE PASS. AT ALTITUDES THAT MANNED VEHGICLES OPERATE, THERE IS A NATURAL WINNOWING EFFECT FROM AIR DRAG, THAT TENDS TO THIN THE POPULATION. AT HIGHER ALTITUDE, PIECES CAN HANG AROUND FOR CENTURIES OR LONGER. ONE HAZARD IS FOR OBJECTS THAT TRAVERS BOTH HIGH AND LOW ALTITUDE -- GEOSYNCHRONIZE INJECTION STAGES, FOR EXAMPLE -- THAT COULD IMPACT THE THICKER DEBRIS CLOUDS HIGHER UP, THEN BECOME A DEBRIS CLOUD IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AND SWOOP DOWN INTO AREAS NEARER EARTH.

HOFFMAN: Many, if not most of the hazards were/are created by "unexpected" rocket explosions. I put "unexpected" in quotes because after 60+ years of rocketry, it's not really proper to call accidents "unexpected" events but NASA does it all the time.
JimO: Andrew, you'll soon learn to recognize such gratuitous insults s a sure symptom of a 'true believer' who's selling snake oil, although you'll have to judge the qaulity of the snake oil on its own merits, whatever the intellectual and emotional failings of its proponents and opponents. NASA rocket sages used to occasionally explode, but new standards in fuel venting seem to have been very effective in preventing this. Most exploding stages were and are Russian, which NASA can't be blamed for (at least, not rationally blamed for) -- and there were also some spectacular Soviet killer-satellite experiments that left a lot of debris behind.

3.) what happens to parts of space shuttles that are deployed in space(i/e the large red fuel tank)? Are these things considered space debris?
Hoffman: The fuel tank, I believe, returns to Earth but burns up in the upper atmosphere. Maybe this takes a few weeks or months; I don't really know.

JimO: NEVER LET LACK OF KNOWLEDGE PREVENT YOU FROM VOICING AN OPINION, SEEMS TO BE THE MOTTO OF SOME FOLKS. SHUTTLE 'ETS' ALL RE-ENTER DURING THE FIRST ORBIT OF THE EARTH, IN SPECIFIED ENTRY ZONES DELIBERATELY AIMED AWAY FROM POPULATED REGIONS -- SUCCESSFULLY, SINCE NOBODY HAS EVEN SEEN A PIECE OF AN ET ON THE GROUND, MUCH LESS HAS BEEN DAMAGED OR INJURED BY ONE. IMPACT POINT DEPENDS ON ORBITAL INCLINATION, PLUS LAUNCH MODE. THERE ARE TWO MODES OF SHUTTLE ORBIT INSERTION, DEPENDING ON WHETHER AN OMS-1 BURN IS MADE SHORTLY AFTER MAIN ENGINE CUTOFF OR NOT. IF AN OMS-1 BURN IS MADE, THE TANK HITS OVER THE FAR SOUTHERN INDIAN OCEAN; IF IT IS NOT MADE, THE TANK HOTS THE AIR OVER THE MID-PACIFIC SW OF HAWAII.

HOFFMAN: I would expect that yes, they are considered space debris after they have served their purpose and been let go.
JIMO: THEY ARE NEVER IN ORBIT, THEY DON'T COUNT AS SPACE DEBRIS.

HOFFMAN: Probably, many rockets have been destroyed by space debris, but no one knows exactly how many.

JIMO: JUST BECAUSE ONE ADMITTED NON-EXPERT DOESN'T KNOW IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT NOBODY KNOWS. IT IS NOT PROBABLE THAT MANY SATELLITES (NOT ROCKETS) HAVE BEEN DESTROYED. THERE IS ONE SUSPECTED CASE OF A SATELLITE DISABLED BY A SPACE DEBRIS IMPACT.

HOFFMAN: The space shuttle windows come back pitted quite frequently. I heard you can buy a used one for about $600, plus shipping..
JIMO: PITTING IS USUALLY FROM TINY DEBRIS, OFTEN PAINT FLECKS.

4.) How much space debris has fallen on Earth? Has any caused major damge or injury/death? If so where are some places that some has fallen?

HOFFMAN: A lot has fallen to Earth. The worst problems would be from the radioactive stuff. SNAP-9A, for example, which fell to Earth in 1964, contained 17,000 Curies (2.1 pounds) of plutonium, mostly Pu 238, which was dispersed into the environment. In 1978 Russia lost a large radioactive object called Cosmos 954 which broke up over Canada; it was never properly cleaned up of course.

HOFFMAN [sic -- this is JO here:]: USING PHRASES LIKE "OF COURSE" IS ANOTHER DEAD GIVAWAY THAT SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO PULL ONE OVER ON YOU. THE CANADIANS SPENT A LOT OF MONEY RETRIEVING FRAGMENTS AND CONTAMINATED DIRT FROM THE IMPACT ZONE, AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE I'VE SEEN THAT THE CLEANUP WASN'T THOROUGH AND EFFECTIVE.

HOFFMAN: More recently, in 1996, Russia lost a probe called Mars '96, which also contained Plutonium and probably came down over Bolivia or Chile, but no one knows. No one knows if it survived the reentry. I doubt it, for geopolitical as well as technical reasons (what little can be gather from official and other sources), while Mr. Oberg expects it did, for whatever reason.
JIMO: THE PROBE CONTAINED SEVERAL HEAT-SHIELDED SUB-PROBES TO LAND ON MARS, WHICH MEANS THEY WERE DESIGNED TO SURVIVE ATMOSPHERIC ENTRY. THEY HAD THE SMALL PLUTONIUM BATTERIES INSIDE. I'VE BEEN SEVERELY CRITICAL OF MOSCOW AND WASHINGTON REFUSING TO LOOK FOR THE OBJECTS, INSTEAD PRETENDING -- LYING -- IT LANDED SAFELY IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN. STILL, THERE'S NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE FROM IT, BUT IF THE SUB-PROBES WERE FOUND BY UN-WARNED LOCALS, AND BROKEN OPEN FOR SCRAP METAL, THE PLUTONIUM COULD FATALLY EXPOSE THEM AND THEIR NEIGHBORS.

HOFFMAN: These are only some of the known nuclear losses and near-losses. Plus there have been hundreds of other accidents, some of which might have been nuclear, but they are classified as secret military payloads, so we can't tell. (I don't believe this classification is actually for military reasons, because the Russians can probably tell what we put up, but they don't want to alarm the American public, so they don't admit what they are doing. The Constitutionality of this behavior is in serious doubt, but that's what the "Cold War" is all about!)
JIMO: I SUSPECT YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT SPACE JUNK OBJECTS THAT LANDED AND CAN ACTUALLY BE PICKED UP AND SEEN, INSTEAD OF INVISIBLE SECRET GHOSTS AND GOBLINS. YES, LOTS AND LOTS OF SPACE HARDWARE REACHES EARTH'S SURFACE, SURVIVING ENTRY. THEY ARE USUALLY TANKS, SOMETIMES OTHER HUNKS OF METAL. THEY USUALLY REACH 'TERMINAL VELOCITY' AND HIT THE GROUND GOING A FEW HUNDRED FT/SEC. THEY HAVE NEVER HURT ANYBODY, AND IN EVERY WEIGHT CLASS, THEY ARE OUTNUMBERED BY NATURAL INFALLS.

IT'S IMPORTANT IN ASSESSING ANY HAZARD TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF DIFFERENT CAUSES, SUCH AS DEBRIS REACHING EARTH, OR SATELLITE BREAKDOWNS, OR EVEN RADIOACTIVITY IN THE ATMOSPHERE. IN ALL THESE CASES, OTHER CAUSES EXIST, BESIDES 'SPACE JUNK', WHICH ELEVATE SUCH RISKS. AND OFTEN THESE OTHER CAUSES ARE MORE EFFECTIVELY COUNTERED, AT LESS EXPENSE, IN ANY EFFORT TO REDUCE OVERALL HAZARDS. IF ONE CONCENTRATES ON ONE SPECIFIC TYPE OF CAUSE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE 'BIG PICTURE' OF HAZARDS AND OF THREAT REDUCTION, YOU WIND UP WITH A SKEWED AND INEFFECTIVE STRATEGY.

5.) Where is the largest concentration of debris in space? Is it threatning our planet at all by falling on us?
HOFFMAN: The greatest threat is undoubtedly the nuclear stuff, but perhaps the absolute greatest threat is that more and more of this nuclear stuff is being lofted into space each year, and not always successfully!
JIMO: THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF MY LAST PARAGRAPH.

HOFFMAN: The container MIGHT work during a failed launch to protect the population from these incredibly hazardous materials, but if the container has been in space for, so nearly 100 years, the radioactivity might only have gone down by half, but the container might well have become completely brittle and useless.
JIMO: OR MAYBE IT GETS HARDER WITH AGE. WHO KNOWS?

HOFFMAN: So perhaps a successful flight, where the plutonium payload circles the Earth (or leaves the Earth's gravitational pull but then returns later, as can happen) is worse than a failure!
JIMO: THE NOTION THAT AN OBJECT CAN LEAVE EARTH'S GRAVITY AND ACCIDENTALLY 'RETURN LATER' IS SO PREPOSTEROUSLY IMPROBABLE THAT IT'S HARD NOT TO BURST OUT LAUGHING AT THESE KINDS OF STATEMENTS.

HOFFMAN: A tenth of a millionth of a gram of Pu-238 WILL kill you, and less will probably kill you in proportion..
JIMO: RADIATION HEALTH PROFESSIONALS KNOW THIS ISN'T TRUE. YOU CAN HOLD A GRAM OR A KILOGRAM OF PU-238 IN YOUR HAND. IT WON'T HURT YOU. A TINY PIECE MUST LODGE IN YOUR LUNGS TO GIVE YOU CANCER TEN OR THIRTY YEARS IN THE FUTURE. OF COURSE, IF YOU KNOW YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED, YOU CAN SEARCH FOR THAT TINY PIECE -- IT DOESN'T HIDE, IT ANNOUNCES ITS PRESENCE TO APPROPRIATE RADIATION SENSORS. BUT PLUTONIUM DUST HAS KILLED PEOPLE, NO DOUBT, PERHAPS AT A RATE OF A MILLIONTH AS GREAT AS CIGARETTE SMOKING DOES.

----- END OF JAMES OBERG'S LETTER TO ANDREW M. -----

----- MY RESPONSE: -----

Hi Andrew!

Mr. Oberg makes several assumptions (including that I don't know anything) which are unproven or even invalid. For example, he assumes that Mars '96's heat shields would have protected it, however, since we don't know what kind of accident it had (hit by space debris? exploded?) there is no reason to assume the plutonium was safe.

As for Cosmos 954, you can read all about what was done in an article by a Canadian, Michael Bein, which is posted at my web site, located here:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/spacedeb/canadapl.htm

As for the quantity of space debris falling to Earth, what I was pointing out was that it's not the quantity that matters but the quality. Radioactive particles are extremely dangerous in any size, including the invisible particles. The breakdown of a radioactive particle is not stopped by incineration in the atmosphere, by chemical bonding, or any other way -- it is an unstoppable nuclear explosion, but very very small (see quote from Dr. Schutz, shown below). To fully understand the dangers from the radioactive material, you would need, obviously, a good medical background (maybe even a degree!) which Mr. Oberg does not appear to have (either the good background, or the degree). However, if you wish to pursue that area of understanding, here are some good web sites to check out:

Here is the web site of the STAR foundation (Standing for Truth about Radiation): www.noradiation.org

Here is the web site of the Radiation and Human Health Project: www.radiation.org

It would be nice if Oberg visited these sites as well.

As for Oberg's personal attacks on me, you can probably guess he has an ax to grind with me which you might be hitherto unaware of. I believe his anger is because lately, I've been expecting (hoping against hope would be a better way to put it) him to do something many people have a lot of trouble with: Apologize for something. In his case, it's for his part in supporting Cassini, which the recent Mars Climate Observer (MCO) failure proved was a mistake, as did all the Titan rocket failures that occurred after Cassini was launched.

Note where he suggests that the containment system might get "harder with age". This is very nearly preposterous. The effects of radiation are normally to break down the molecular and physical structure of the thing being irradiated. That's pretty much a universal truth. Oh sure, it might happen differently in this case, but the smart money doesn't expect it, the smart scientist won't, and the smart space enthusiast should plan for the inevitable failure and work to reduce the consequences of that failure. Does that seem like so much to ask? This is especially a better plan than to risk contaminating future generations of Earth inhabitants with radioactive fallout, since it is one thing to risk your own life for science, as when astronauts go aloft, but it is quite another to risk other people's lives, especially those as yet unborn. I would go on a space shuttle tomorrow (if they weren't all grounded for safety reasons at this time), but I wouldn't force others to go if they didn't want to.

In any event, I'm glad Oberg has added his 2 cents to my comments, since now you have the comments of a "real" scientist! Also, if you read his comments carefully, you'll probably see that despite the harshness of his attack on me, he actually only corrected one thing -- that the space shuttle booster tank doesn't complete a single orbit of Earth. Big deal, considering I even said I was unsure of its exact fate!

And note that the thing he says is "hard not to burst out laughing about" is actually taken from NASA's own documents, so the last laugh is on Oberg! Here's what NASA says about a late reentry to Earth by Cassini "Over a long-time period, the Earth impact probability is dominated by third-body perturbations to the spacecraft trajectory and by accidental planetary gravity-assist swingbys while the errant spacecraft is drifting in a sun orbit. Therefore, the long-term Earth impact probability would have to be controlled by designing the spacecraft and mission operations so that the failures probabilities would be low." It continues, "Not all failures would place the spacecraft in an Earth-impacting trajectory." (From page B-4 of the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini mission.) If not all errors would, then certainly SOME errors would!

This is not "laughable" at all! I stated it could happen, and NASA agrees. The only difference is that NASA (and Oberg) downplay the consequences of such an accident and keep telling you about the "probabilities", as if they knew within several orders of magnitude what those exact probabilities are.

As to the long-term survivability of the containment system, in the same EIS, on page 4-104, NASA admits not knowing: "With respect to the long-term inadvertent reentry accident, the performance and behavior of the materials used in the RTGs after many years (a decade to a millennia) in a space environment is highly uncertain." What is not nearly as uncertain is the consequences of failure, although, as I have tried to make clear, NASA does deny many of the dangers FROM failure, as well as the risks OF failure.

Oberg's closing comments are absolutely disingenuous. His words are, in a word, wrong, as many other scientists (obviously, not the one's Oberg listens to) will tell you. Sure, you can hold plutonium in your hand, because the alpha radiation it gives off cannot penetrate your skin even a few sheets of newspaper can stop them, although for long-term storage, that wouldn't work because the newspaper would disintegrate from the constant bombardment of alpha particles!). But things are very different if you get some plutonium in your lungs by inhaling or ingesting a particle! Then, the statistics of Low Level Radiation (LLR) effects takes over, and there, the "Radiation Health Professionals" have NOT proven that a little radiation won't kill you -- it can! And you can't search for that tiny piece inside you as Oberg claims! I don't know where he came up with that fantasy! Since, as I said, a plutonium particle gives off alpha radiation particles, they don't go very far and cannot be detected outside the body once inhaled or ingested. However, as the late Dr. Karl Z. Morgan put it to me in a conversation a few years ago about this very subject, the cells near the plutonium particle will be irradiated with "10s of thousand of REM". The ones closest will die from the exposure, but ones further way may only be mutated, which causes cancer, leukemia, and birth defects. There is no known level of exposure where this does not happen, although the RATE at which it happens goes down as the dose goes down -- as I stated previously. Also, particle might travel though the body, irradiating millions or even billions of cells without killing them outright.

Dr. Karl Z. Morgan was known as "the father of health physics". He was very upset that so many people in his field have tried to deny the true dangers, and that people outside the field have fallen for their statements. And he most assuredly was a real scientist, no matter what Oberg things of me (and he should check the dictionary definition of "scientist" anyway).

Lastly, while it's undoubtedly true that smoking probably kills many times more people than plutonium does in today's environment and with today's behavior patterns around the world, it is certainly NOT a million times more people, as Oberg states. That is absolutely false by any reasonable look at the data. Perhaps a 100 times more, or even 1000 times more, but I doubt it could be more than that. And, most of those people made the decision to smoke, and it was not forced on them by elitist groups of scientists who utterly denied the dangers. Rather, it was offered them through advertisements and other enticements by "big business", who utterly denied the dangers (however, I understand Philip Morris no longer denies the dangers from smoking).

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

This quote was brought to our attention by Pamela Blockey-O'Brien and we originally published it in STOP CASSINI newsletter #140:

----- CLIP FROM W. W. SCHUTZ, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 1951 -----

"It is possible to eliminate certain hazards by suitable physical or chemical treatments. Harmful bacteria can be destroyed by heat or by suitable chemicals. An acid can be neutralized by a base. A capacitor can be discharged. In contrast to this, there is nothing that can be done to a radioactive material that will change the characteristics of its radiation. Its temperature may be raised or lowered and it may be subjected to severe mechanical treatment or combined chemically with other elements, but it will still continue to radiate as before. There is no switch available which can turn the radiation on and off. No matter what treatment they receive, radioactive materials will continue to emit radiation in accordance with definite natural laws."

-- From: Radiation and Radiation Hazards, by W. W. Schutz of the General Engineering Laboratory of the General Electric Company, written in 1951.

----- END OF CLIP -----

----- END OF MY RESPONSE TO OBERG'S LETTER TO ANDREW M. -----

There were a number of other items in Oberg's letter which I should have responded to. For example, he says, "Never let lack of knowledge prevent you from voicing an opinion." I would agree with that, in a democracy! Also, I didn't say I was a "non-expert" whatever that is, I said I didn't have a degree. And, I stand by my statement that "nobody knows" how many rockets, satellites, or whatever, have been destroyed by space debris. -- rdh

(2) James Oberg debate (followup part 2):

The above letter caused James Oberg to respond again, briefly this time, but yet ,his response was somehow even more demeaning. His letter is imbedded at the top of the next letter, which is my response. -- rdh

----- LETTER TO ANDREW, JAMES, AND NICK: -----

To: Andrew M., James Oberg
cc: Nick Johnson
from: Russell Hoffman
Date: Friday, October 22nd, 1999

Dear Andrew,

First, let me reprint what I am responding to:

----- LETTER FROM JAMES TO ANDREW -----

At 03:10 PM 10/22/99 -0400, James Oberg wrote:

In a message dated 10/22/99 12:59:33 PM, rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com wrote:
The breakdown of a radioactive particle is not stopped by incineration in the atmosphere, by chemical bonding, or any other way -- it is an unstoppable nuclear explosion, but very very small (see quote from Dr. Schutz, shown below)

You've had a good chance to compare two interpretations, as well as two presentations of facts. And it would hard to give a better example of carelessness with facts than for somebody to label radioactive decay a "nuclear explosion" of any kind. Thanks for the chance to weigh in. Check out my home page (www.jamesoberg.com).

----- END OF LETTER FROM JAMES TO ANDREW -----

----- MY RESPONSE: -----

Hi!

I am deeply offended by Mr. Oberg's tone. I do not need to be "careless" with my facts, and have made no such effort. Radioactive decay is as I have described it. This letter, long though it is, and I apologize in advance for that, responds not just to the exact issue of whether what I said was accurate (which I go into in detail near the end of this letter), but also to the tone and clear underlying intent of Oberg's comments (which appear to be closing comments, for some reason, since he no longer debates, but only insults me and sends you to his web site.).

As you know, because you sent me your letter, it was my choice to "cc" Nick Johnson and James Oberg with my answers to you. Ask yourself: Would I have done that if I were unsure of my statements? If I were not willing to discuss the details, including any relevant facts, whether they are political, historical, economic, statistical, mechanical, electrical, chemical, medical or some other "scientific" aspect, or even a spiritual one or humanitarian consideration about the matter? We are talking about enormous quantities of plutonium, here, 72.3 pounds, for example, of Pu dioxide was on board Cassini. That is over 400,000 Curies -- about as many Curies of plutonium as was released in all the weapons testing America ever did. Those tests are believed to be responsible for a million deaths, according to good, respected scientists (whom you can read about at my web site and at the URLs I have given you). There is no reason to doubt these people. Cassini, in one blow, could release just as much of a radiological burden upon the world. The only difference is that in one case, the plutonium is Pu 239, and in the other, it is Pu 238. When vaporized into the atmosphere, Pu 238 is far worse because of its half-life of just 87.75 years, while Pu 239 has a half-life of 25,000 years. In the environment over thousands of years, obviously, Pu 239 becomes the greater threat. But spilled into an environment with 6,000,000,000 people on it, and studied for only 50 years (as NASA did in the projections in their Environmental Impact Statement for Cassini), Pu 238 is the greater threat.

The net result is that one nuclear rocket -- Cassini -- carried as much radiological threat to humanity from its plutonium as all of our testing did from its plutonium! And sure, they have slightly better RTGs coming. But if you want to look at the scale of the various threats to humanity's health, nuclear space shots are a prime danger and should not be trivialized. The doctors who have estimated that Cassini could have killed a million people, or even 10 million, are very highly respected.

So you don't have to respect me! But the things I have been saying, are quite reasonable and are being said by many, many people. Mostly on the Internet, because, as discussed endlessly in my newsletters, the media chooses to remain silent about the real issues.

I am willing to discuss these matters with James Oberg, or with Nicholas Johnson, in any of the areas I mentioned which are involved, because I feel that my background and my efforts to study the matter are, indeed, sufficient. Naturally I like doing this via email, because I know that I have resources to get answers and can take my time if I need to (one can never take as long as one likes, but this letter and most others, and all the newsletters, I will have reread many times before hitting "send").

I may indeed make a mistake now and then, and I certainly try to correct any errors that might happen. But to denounce me as having "carelessness with facts" is unfair. My reputation matters to me, and I have no ax to grind with Oberg. He's the best writer in space that I know of, and just about the only person concerned about space debris that I know of, beside YH&OS!

What is it about this awful nuclear issue that makes him and I unable to work with each other, and causes us to communicate with barbs instead of cooperatively? I don't know, but the anti-nuclear people have been treated unfairly since long before I ever came along and started making my own fuss about the issues, that's for sure. Some of that treatment was transferred to me, but it did not originate against me, and Oberg is not the first to denounce us so vigorously, and yet without any firm evidence to support his claims.

Long before I had ever heard of James Oberg (although I must have seen him on T.V.), I was writing software, working with engineers, doctors, experts of all sorts, creating all sorts of educational tutorials. Nothing like the abuse I have gotten in the nuclear debate had ever happened to me in any other field I have worked in. Then, on the last day of 1996, I opened a package I received from Karl Grossman, an award-winning investigative reporter (James Oberg is award-winning as well, let's not leave that out). That package contained a dozen or so of his own articles about Cassini. Grossman wrote to me because of the article you might have read about space debris, my 1995 "High Tech Today" radio transcript. His package has changed my life.

At first, I was just shocked by what I was reading. But now, what have I learned in nearly three years of my own investigation? I have learned that the nuclear industry is a tight-knit organization that bounces the serious inquirer around and around and from office to office and specialist to specialist and report to report and sooner or later you find yourself out the door and on the street, wondering where the answers are.

Here's how they do it: This is an example from a completely different nuclear agenda, namely homeporting of nuclear carriers in San Diego Bay, but the same principal was also used by NASA in the Cassini EIS. This is from Appendix D, of the slightly unclassified (but mostly still blacked out in large chunks) document called Aspects of Nimitz Class Reactor Design, Operation, and Safety. In Part 7, Summary, it says, "The risks to the surrounding population associated with these accidents (defined as the product of the probability of accident occurrence and the consequence (cancer fatalities) of the accident) are very small and result in negligible contribution to an individual's total risk."

What they have done here, and it is very clever, is they have combined two completely different variables and presented just one value. The two different variables are, the size of an accident, and the likelihood of an accident. My very first complaint to NASA was that they do this with the Cassini EIS, coming up with 120 deaths, which is almost surely an underestimate. That combining of various accidents (large and small, and even non-accidents) into one value is wrong, and it is still a main complaint I have of EVERY nuclear Environmental Impact Statement I have ever seen. They do not present a true "worst case scenario".

Oberg's complaint about my description of radioactive decay as an "unstoppable nuclear explosion, but very very small" is absurd. It's an aside, anyway, because we should let the facts speak, and they do indeed, speak volumes. Others have described radioactive decay as like a land mine -- you don't know where they are, you don't know when they might go off, and you don't have any way of finding them -- and they can kill you. Like a land mine's shrapnel, a particle of plutonium, being probably made up of millions of atoms of plutonium, shoots out its "shrapnel" (alpha particles) continuously, according to the principals of its isotopes. (I wrote extensively about this in newsletter #146.)

The issues are complex, and there are many of them. That is why I'm up to newsletter #212 now -- because there are so many details, all of which are important, just as every bird's broken wing is important, in its own way.

I described the radioactive decay as an "unstoppable nuclear explosion, but very, very small" because that is what it is, as I shall explain. But note that words are just that -- words. Concepts, however, are timeless, and occupy no space or specific place, and the proper words to describe them may not even exist. However, the actual laws of physics are undoubtedly unbending, except by God, which we try to ignore for the sake of science, since, after all, we suppose that He does not show himself. (Thus, ignoring the Almighty (whomever he may be) always works in any scientific experiment, whether he exists or not. This is, I presume, by Grand Design.)

The effects of nuclear damage to health and the effects of Low Level Radiation (LLR) dispersals, and indeed the effects of any environmental damage, are at this time, as with all the laws of nature, unbending. (I say "at this time" because there are a few cures for some of the health effects caused by radiation, but those cures which do exist (such as "chemotherapy") are generally painful, uncertain, expensive, and not to mention degrading and humiliating. Perhaps some day there will be real, painless, 100% reliable, inexpensive cures, or some sort of "cancer pill" that guarantees you will be protected. But there is no scientific evidence to suggest such a thing at this time. None! Right now, eating your greens is probably your best hope. When that day comes when people don't get cancer, then space-nuclear, with all its failures, might make some sense. But with current technology and conditions, it's absurd.)

But what are the facts? Mr. Oberg acts as though my facts are in dispute. They are. But good scientists are saying very similar things. I say what I say of my own accord, and try my best to be accurate or to state where I am unsure, and others are free to disagree. But to accuse me of "carelessness with facts" for the stated crime of calling radioactive decay an "unstoppable nuclear explosion, but very very small"? My description is accurate, and he is unfair. He is grasping at nuances and calling them decisive victories for his side, but they are not. I have every right to call it that, and I backed it up with a statement by someone who was a pro-nuclear person at General Electric, which explains in detail what I meant, and it is not "carelessness with facts". Nor is calling it the "demon hot atom" careless, although I suppose I would have a slightly more difficult case supporting that description if someone ever asks me to. But most people, I think, find it quite accurate and don't need it explained.

But these are just words! It is the wrong battle to fight, which I think, is precisely why Oberg wishes to make me fight it. If Oberg has proof that I am wrong, all he has to do is supply it. Instead, he assures you that a little radiation won't hurt you, but I assure you there are scientists just as qualified to speak on the issue, or more so, who will tell you any amount CAN hurt you, and the rates are significant and serious cause for concern. This is a matter of great debate, and I am not alone thinking there is a danger. So truly, Oberg wastes his time (and yours) attacking the messenger, because I am not the only messenger. And if the world is going to survive in pleasure rather than cancerous pain, it must overcome this monumental stupidity! This message MUST get through!

In fact, since Oberg has tried to show you how my writing is somehow "tainted", as, for example, by the use of the rather harmless pair of words "of course", I will say in response, that when Oberg tries to shoot the messenger over such minor trivialities, that should be a sure sign that it's the message he fears, NOT the messenger.

In any event, it is certainly true that very fundamental principals upon which the nation and the world must take a stand are really at issue here, which is undoubtedly the reason so many of these "scientists" at NASA and elsewhere, who promote this "demon hot atom" in a thousand different forms, have taken such great issue with the things I say. It is not because I am wrong, but because I threaten the fundamental principals on which they have lived their lives. I do this not with a sword, nor a gun, nor a hot atom, but with a concept. (Note: We ALL have some plutonium in our bodies, from previous NASA experiments-gone-haywire (and from weapons testing). This plutonium, I contend, others contend, and Oberg evidently denies, causes random cancers throughout the human race).

What is needed is to obey the medical principal of "first, do no harm", and also the scientific principal known as "the exclusionary principal" which says if you don't know how much harm something you want to do can cause, then don't do that thing until you do know. Or in plain English, it's better to be safe than sorry.

And my way is to support the fundamental principal that human health includes access to education, to alternative views, to nutritious food, clean water and land, and that each of us has access to those who sit in power and decide our fate. These are basic democratic principals which Oberg's insults attack, as much as they do my own reputation. For these are the things my fight against the "demon hot atom" are about -- all the basic human rights, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even the aimless pursuit of happiness. That is what I seek to protect, and Oberg attacks me for this. Surely there must be a good reason? Could it be that Oberg's military background bites his tongue, or blinds his mind, for he thinks that America needs nuclear weapons and nuclear warships -- and no doubt, nuclear rockets -- and it is THAT agenda he seeks to support? His resume, and his book Space Power Theory, lend much credence to this possibility.

But it is possible to be patriotic, and to love America, and NOT want it to slowly poison itself and bankrupt itself by the nuclear and other environmental mistakes it makes. It is possible to start to correct these mistakes. (It would be highly advisable to do that before Y2K, just 70 days away.)

Some of us have noticed the reports of increased cancer rates around superfund sites, after atmospheric weapons tests, around nuclear dumps and after nuclear accidents. Some of us have grasped the concepts of how radiation damages the human body, at the cellular and molecular level. I personally have spoken to many good, honest scientists, who, if they don't feel exactly like I do, come very, very close and have shaped my thinking. I've already given you some web sites to visit, and more names of people you can contact appear below and at my web site.

This entire discussion relates to your questions about space debris because of all the debris out there, the most dangerous is the nuclear payloads that have been put into orbit way too often and carry way too much plutonium each time they are sent up. Also, the nuclear industry is tightly linked to the space industry for many reasons, one of the obvious ones being that rockets are the standard delivery system for nukes. Accidents in both the civilian and the military nuclear programs are dangerous, covered up, and they occur repeatedly.

I have listed some of the scientists who have helped me in the "sig file" (signature file) at the bottom of this email, and there are in fact many others, although I don't have a "scientific review team" to review what I write prior to sending it out. The concepts I base my opinions on are not hard to find on the web anymore, and are based on the opinions of very reputable scientists. (Mistakes are my own, of course. -- Oh yes -- mustn't use "of course"!)

To respond specifically to Oberg's specious claim -- in fact, I'll go a bit further, and call it a vicious claim -- that I am bending words to suit my (evil, he somehow assumes) purposes, let me say this:

One has to find words among the limited choices to describe complex concepts. Describing the radioactive decay as I have done is entirely correct. It is true that I avoided using my favorite term, the "demon hot atom" because I knew Oberg would choose to "hang me out to dry" if I used it. So you can see that I did choose my words carefully, and I am happy to have the opportunity to explain them.

The "radioactive decay" Oberg refers to is utterly unstoppable, as the quote I supplied explained. That is not like "try to stop a freight train". I mean UTTERLY unstoppable! That is why the "glassification" method of storing radioactive decay products failed -- although it took them 30 years to admit it. They were going to imbed radioactive particle in glass, but guess what? The gasses that were released cracked open the glass! There were other problems as well, but I don't have the reference handy.

In newsletter #197, Item #3 ("Hanford: Not a comedy of errors, but more than enough errors to be one") I discuss another place where the utterly unstoppable nature of this beast is coming back to bite.

A nuclear bomb explosion, once it commences, it unstoppable. Likewise, the radioactive decay of the "demon hot atom" is equally unstoppable.

Here's another problem caused by the unstoppable nature of this little "nuclear explosion". And this one is really important to this discussion: It's that the fancy containment systems NASA builds all have to have holes in them! For what? To vent the helium atoms that are released. Furthermore I have received what I believe are very reliable reports that not only were there serious manufacturing problems with the venting system for the RTGs used on spacecraft such as Cassini, but that the documents themselves that describe these problems have been removed from the NASA/JPL/CONTRACTOR libraries and are now impossible to obtain. If this is not true, I challenge James Oberg to produce them for us all.

Where does the helium come from that has to be released? That's all alpha particles are -- helium atoms (without the electron). They are shot off from the plutonium as it decays, in an unstoppable breakdown, which converts a small amount of mass into energy according to the same equation that governs the big bombs -- Einstein's famous one -- which I've heard only about seven people in the world understand anyway, and even if Oberg is one of them, that doesn't mean others who side with me aren't also among the seven.

So yes, always beware the messenger (just please don't shoot him). If I wasn't so close to the mark, Oberg would probably have deferred the offer to do battle with me on these many complex issues -- his time is valuable. He wishes to prove the message wrong, but he cannot. So instead he attempts to slay the messenger, saying I have "carelessness with facts", which is just about the most insulting thing he could say to me, and I'm sure he knows it, and knows I would feel that way. Who wouldn't be insulted? And for what? What I said is accurate and a good way to understand what happens. Unless you're one of those brilliant seven who get the whole picture, it doesn't really matter that much, does it? We're describing mysteries too small to behold at this time, with current technology. Why do people get cancer? No one really knows, but it happens. Only statistical links are provable, and they are very hard to prove. The facts about radiation have been slow in revealing themselves, but they are pretty fully revealed now, in 1999. I think you will find those web sites which I gave you will be able to answer anything Oberg's might claim.

And Andrew, THIS messenger hasn't got a "hidden" agenda of any sort, as Oberg implies repeatedly. Unless truth is an agenda, but even then, my "agenda" such as it is, is not hidden. I came at this issue and was utterly amazed, day after day, by the facts I discovered. I started on the Cassini issue, in fact, after initially worrying about space debris, just as you are! True, I was generally opposed to nukes, but I had no idea of what was happening in space. Or what lengths the establishment would go to, to keep it happening. It has been quite an education!

I do what I can to help safe-guard the health of the living things on this planet, and to help spread GOOD technology around the world so that we can each make our best contributions to society (see my home page, www.animatedsoftware.com/whoisrdh.htm for more information on me). That is my "agenda". Lying or exaggerating, or having "carelessness with facts" is not my style and would serve me no purpose. I love my country, trust in my God, and care about my family and my neighbors and my friends.

I have a life outside these space/nuclear debates, which is in many ways completely separate, and which I am quite happy with, and which I think my neighbors will tell you, is a pretty typical American middle class, middle-aged life. I develop educational software, and have made hundreds of presentations of these self-developed educational programs to computer clubs, schools, universities, and even to government, all of whom have used my software for years, as have hospitals, doctors offices, pumps manufacturers and more. My reputation matters to me. (I would be happy to send your science teacher at your school a free CD-ROM so that my work can be examined by you and the students in your class, or you can visit the web site where many of the programs are available for download).

I made it my choice to study these particular issues, and if there is a truth I don't understand or a fact I can't comprehend that somehow makes it all safe and alright, I wish that James Oberg would explain it to me, just as I invited him to explain it to you. But the facts just don't match that prognostication. There are serious problems throughout the space industry and throughout the closely-related nuclear industry.

I believe there is no agenda but truth of any of us.

In this instance, however, my agenda was even smaller: It is simply to answer your question honestly, putting the most important facts first. The most dangerous objects up there are the most important. The questions you asked, to my mind, said, "what's up there that could harm humans or other life, or their space missions"? That is what I have tried to answer. The dangers of the radioactive byproducts of careless space explorers (and careless nuclear plant operators, and careless nuclear waste management corporations, etc.) is an issue the world must address completely, honestly, openly, and quickly. To delay is to add to the danger each and every day. And of course, in 70 days, comes Y2K which may be quite a bell-ringer, as the articles at my web site on how to personally prepare, and what the dangers we face might really be, discuss (URLs given below).

Below is an article that just arrived today, after most of this letter has been written. It outlines how unprepared for Y2K America is in the small chemical business area. Examining the full dangers we face is hard, but it is something we each owe to our children, our neighbors and our friends, because there are many large and important decisions to be made, and we each must play a part. Even if Oberg is right that I am wrong, which I think is (unfortunately, I should add) highly unlikely, nevertheless, he should debate the facts and provide the answers he says he has, rather than just tell you he has answers that contradict what I have told you. I don't believe he has such answers; and if he does, he has never provided them to me.

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Peace Activist,
Carlsbad, CA

Many of the issues presented by Russell Hoffman in this letter are based on conversations with Dr. John W. Gofman (who isolated the first working quantities of plutonium), the late Dr. Karl Z. Morgan (who was known as the "father of health physics"), Dr. Ernest Sternglass (a noted epidemiologist who has done statistical studies about Low Level Radiation dangers), Dr. Jay Gould (ditto), Dr. Horst Poehler, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dr. Ross Wilcock and dozens of activists, as well as many others on both sides of the nuclear debates, including ex military nuke expert Jack Shannon (responsible for the design of the D2G Navy reactor, the most widely used reactor in the U. S. navy), award-winning investigative reporter Karl Grossman, ecologist and human rights advocate Pamela Blockey-O'Brien, etc. Also, I've read a few dozen books on the various subjects. And scads of government documents purporting to explain how something so dangerous can be safe. Professionally, my pump training software is used throughout the pump industry and even in some nuclear power plants around the world to train their staff about mechanical pumps. Any errors herein are regrettably my own, but I believe it would take an extremely unlikely preponderance of errors to invalidate my basic position on these issues.

*************************************************************
Russell D. Hoffman, Carlsbad, California, Peace Activist, Environmentalist, High Tech Guru:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/whoisrdh.htm

Hoffman's Y2K Preparedness Information:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/y2k/index.htm

Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm

[The next item in this newsletter (on "Small Chemical Plants") was included, along with the following note.]

Note that this author (Russell Hoffman) does not believe the government is doing enough to protect the public regarding many important Y2K areas and suggests subscribing to the NHNE Y2K list, or to Paul Swann's Y2K-nuclear list, to learn more. (Contact Paul at: )

----- END OF LETTER TO ANDREW, JAMES, AND NICK -----

(3) Small Chemical Plants: Government assessment dire:

----- INCOMING EMAIL FROM DAVID SUNFELLOW, NHNE: -----

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:34:45 -0700
From: NHNE nhne@nhne.com
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: [sedonay2k] Y2K: NEWS: Bennett, Dodd Urge EPA, FEMA To Help Communities
X-Unsubscribe: send a blank message to SedonaY2K-off@mail-list.com

I sent out a notice yesterday concerning the Small Chemical Plants situation http://dispatch.mail-list.com/archives/sedonay2k/msg00590.html . This is a follow up to that report that deals with what Senator Bennett and Dodd are doing with this report. Thanks to Michael Dowd.

--- David Sunfellow

------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 21, 1999

CONTACTS:
Sen. Bennett - Don Meyer 202-224-5224
Sen. Dodd - Unice Lieberman 202-224-5224
Chem. Safety Board - Phil Cogan 202-261-7620
Tex. Engineering Sta. - Mike Downey 409-845-5524

STUDY SAYS SMALL CHEMICAL BUSINESSES NOT Y2K READY;
BENNETT, DODD URGE EPA, FEMA TO HELP PREPARE COMMUNITIES

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/news/pr991021.htm

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senators Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), Committee Vice-Chair, today released new data - first referenced in the Committee's September 22 A100-Day Report - that provides an unprecedented look at the lack of Y2K readiness among small and medium-sized chemical businesses.

"In the past, we have had very little information about small chemical handlers and manufacturers, and the assumption was made that they were not prepared for Y2K, said Bennett. "To a large degree, that assumption has been confirmed by this in-depth, independent report."

Based on the new findings, Bennett and Dodd said they are urging Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) head James Lee Witt and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Carol Browner to alert State Emergency Managers, State Emergency Response Commissions and Local Emergency Planning Committees.

"Ensuring the health and safety of our citizens must be our number one Y2K priority", said Dodd. "While the probability of a Y2K-related disruption is low, the potential harm even one chemical accident can cause means we must be especially vigilant."

Funded by the Nathan Cummings Foundation and prepared by the Texas Engineering Experiment Station's (TEES) Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center headquartered at Texas A&M University in College Station, the report conducted a scientific survey of firms with 200 or fewer employees in New Jersey, Kansas, California and Texas. Its results include the following:

* 86.5 percent of firms surveyed are not currently prepared for Y2K.

* 85.6 percent have not coordinated emergency plans with local/community officials. A majority have not linked contingency planning to community emergency services such as police, fire and rescue, or hospitals.

* 79 percent said they had never before been surveyed about Y2K preparedness.

* A majority of respondents do not belong to industry organizations or trade associations, which have been the primary gatherers of Y2K preparedness information in the private sector.

* 4.1 percent said Y2K presents Apotential for a catastrophic event.

In addition, the survey said that small and medium-sized chemical firms are, in general, "far-removed from technology advances, basic information and know-how, and access to technical and financial resources".

"This is the case for many small businesses outside the chemical industry as well," said Bennett. "And while small business Y2K preparedness is important for our economy, few small businesses in other industries carry the same public safety concerns with regard to their Y2K preparedness."

Dr. M. Sam Mannan, the O'Connor center director and associate professor of chemical engineering at Texas A&M, conducted the study with project manager Charles Isdale.

"We suggest that special emphasis be given to contingency planning and communications issues, given the lack of preparation time remaining," said Mannan. "Sharing contingency planning strategies and coordination with local responders is highly recommended."

"Plant managers, workers and emergency responders must redouble their efforts to coordinate contingency planning and implementation," said U.S. Chemical Safety Board member, Dr. Jerry Poje. "The time to apply an ounce of prevention is running out."

A March Chemical Safety Board report noted a lack of information about small and medium-sized chemical businesses, which the board expected had taken "less than appropriate" measures to prepare for Y2K. Also, during a Senate field hearing in New Jersey in May, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration came under fire for Y2K public education efforts with the chemical industry that Senator Bennett deemed "woefully inadequate".

The Committee's "100-day Y2K report" released in September also cited a scarcity of information about small chemical enterprises, and gave the industry a below-average rating for emergency planning.

At the Committee's urging, the White House Y2K Council held its first chemical industry roundtable on August 30, which was intended to produce government and industry recommendations for millennium preparations. At the time, industry groups attempting to survey small and medium-sized enterprises were encountering significant roadblocks in gathering information from their members.

"Now that we have more information on the chemical industry, individuals and communities can take reasonable steps to prepare for Y2K," said Bennett. "I would urge community emergency planners and local chemical firms to work together toward ensuring a smooth and safe transition to the new year."

"Time is running out, but it's still not too late if these firms act now," said Dodd. "Developing viable Y2K contingency plans in conjunction with state and local officials must be a top priority in the chemical industry."

U.S. chemical manufacturing, storage and transportation is a $392 billion industry. An estimated 85 million Americans live within five miles of one of the 66,000 sites that handle hazardous chemicals.

------------

David Sunfellow, Founder & Publisher
NewHeavenNewEarth (NHNE)
a 501(c)3 non-profit organization
P.O. Box 10627
Sedona, AZ USA 86339-8627

Primary eMail: nhne@nhne.com
Secondary eMail: nhne@wildapache.net
NHNE: http://www.nhne.com/
wild2k: http://www.wild2k.com/
eBuds: http://www.nhne.com/ebuds/
Phone: (520) 282-6120
Fax: (815) 346-1492

Current NHNE Posts:
http://dispatch.mail-list.com/archives/nhnelist/

Subscribe NHNE Mailing List:
send a blank message to nhnelist-on@mail-list.com

Subscribe NHNE Y2K List:
send a blank message to nhney2k-subscribe@onelist.com

Appreciate what we are doing?
You can say so with a tax-deductible donation:
http://www.nhne.com/main/donations.html
--------------------------------
A blank message to these addresses performs the following -
SedonaY2K-on@mail-list.com gets you on the list.
SedonaY2K-off@mail-list.com gets you off the list.
SedonaY2K-switch@mail-list.com toggles you to/from the fancy digest version.
SedonaY2K-vacation@mail-list.com toggles you to/from the vacation list.
SedonaY2K@mail-list.com posts your message to the list.

----- END OF MESSAGE -----

(4) From the mailbag: Why don't they get it?

----- INCOMING EMAIL FROM "ARTHUR": -----

To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
Subject: RE: Some things Richard Greenberg won't hear: STOP CASSINI #212,
October 21st, 1999
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:54:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0

Russell

I've been reading (almost like eavesdropping) your newsletter for a while now and what amazes me is that a significant number of the people who write you are intelligent people. Many of them, I'm sure are considered by their associates as someone who's opinion could be trusted in these matter. Thus these people have much greater effect on public opinion then their absolute numbers indicate. This is scary.

What seems to tie them tougher is their inability to connect the dots. It seems they will not even acknowledge to themselves that the dot you write so often and clearly about even exists.

In the business world we often have to make decisions, ones that represent significant outlays of time and money, based on evaluating potential projects.

One standard way of looking at a project is by evaluating potential the best case/worst case scenarios. It is often considered that if one can not survive the worst case one should not do it regardless of the best case. This is conservative but prudent.

When one looks at Cassini in a best case/worst case view then best case is exactly what?

Jupiter is over 350 millions miles from here, Saturn is much further. These large gas giants are mini suns. What ever is happening on them will not have any effect on earth in any reasonable amount of human time. Potential from exploration may in some distant future provide some value to an incredibly more advanced civilization then ours, but certainly nothing tangible within many decades. Exploring the Moon, Mars and Venus may provide some clues about planetary evolution which might possibly affect our understanding of the earths potential course, but even knowing, mankind would be totally unable to alter its course. (Think of it, with all the energy we expend on the planet daily, we might be possibly altering it's co2 content a small fraction of a percent over a century. How could we in any sense, in any reasonable measure of time do anything except clean up our own mess, let alone alter the planets immutable changes. My conclusion is the best upside is finding out some facts about Saturn that increases our knowledge of Planetary systems and provides us with a slightly clearer view of the Solar System. I can't see advances in Medicine or Agriculture, or Manufacturing or Computing or anything even indirectly improving the lot of even my children's children....

Now the down side or worst case, Billions dead not to mention drastic changes in most living organisms and potential ongoing suffering for centuries. One may argue the odds of the worst case but they can't really dispute that if the two basic the worst case scenarios line up, i.e. mischance leads to reentry which leads to global high altitude dispersal that this most truly horrible worst case could not occur.

I have to ask the most obvious question, what did they think they could gain which would be worth the risk. Worth this potential catastrophe for what pot of gold?

Regards

Arthur

----- END OF INCOMING EMAIL FROM "ARTHUR" -----

We thank Arthur for his kind and thoughtful words. We should note that the "worst case" scenarios suggested by Dr. John Gofman for Cassini were a million dead (not a billion), and by Dr. Ernest Sternglass, more than 10 million. But thus, a continued nuclear space policy policy like the one we have, could, in the long run (over the course of a few centuries or millennia) kill billions. -- rdh

(5) United States Government official contact points:

NASA needs to be told in no uncertain terms they have lied too often to the public and we want a SEA CHANGE away from their nuclear policies!

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
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 is the head of NASA. Here's his email address:
daniel.goldin@hq.nasa.gov
or
dgoldin@mail.hq.nasa.gov

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.

NASA should never have been allowed to launch monstrosities like Cassini and Galileo (which recently suffered a nine-hour "lost in space" anomoly (NASA calls it "safe mode" which is the opposite of what it really is) just before it did a flyby of Io), but the next breed -- such as Europa Orbiter and Pluto-Kuiper Express are not much better and the policy is being set for greatly increased rates of missions! The danger continues! To complain to NASA about their future nuclear space probes, here are two addresses you can use:

For Europa Orbiter:
Europa Orbiter comments" osseuropa@hq.nasa.gov

For Pluto-Kuiper Express:
"Pluto-Kuiper Express comments" osspluto@hq.nasa.gov

Be sure to "cc" the president and VP and your senators and congresspeople, too.

President Bill Clinton
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20500
Phone -- (202) 456-1111
Fax -- (202) 456-2461
e-mail -- president@whitehouse.gov

Vice President Albert Gore
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20500
Phone -- (202) 456-1414
Fax -- (202) 456-2461
e-mail -- vicepresident@whitehouse.gov

Secretary William Cohen
1000 Defense
The Pentagon
Washington D.C. 20301
Phone -- (703) 695-6352

Secretary Bill Richardson
Department of Energy (DoE)
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington D.C. 20585
Phone -- (202) 586-6210
fax -- (202) 586-4403

Always include your full name and postal address in all correspondence to any Government official of any country, because otherwise they will throw it out unread, or hand it directly to their police force to try to identify the author. (Thus, nothing good will come of it.) Also, ALWAYS include a personal message of some sort, indicating YOUR OWN VIEWS, even if you include a lot of material written by other people (me, for instance).

(6) Subscription information:

Thanks for reading! Welcome new subscribers!

Home page of our STOP CASSINI movement:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/cassini.htm (Accept NO imitations!)

To subscribe, simply email the editor at
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com and state:
SUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Please include a personal message of any
length and subject matter. Thank you!

To unsubscribe email me and say
UNSUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER

Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
Written in U.S.A.
This newsletter is free and is not distributed for profit.
Please distribute these newsletters EVERYWHERE!

"There can be no democracy without truth, no justice without mercy, and no nuclear dispersals without ill consequences."

(7) Authorship notes and associated links:

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

Many of the issues presented by Russell Hoffman in this letter are based on conversations with Dr. John W. Gofman (who isolated the first working quantities of plutonium), the late Dr. Karl Z. Morgan (who was known as the "father of health physics"), Dr. Ernest Sternglass (who has done statistical studies about LLR), Dr. Jay Gould (ditto), Dr. Horst Poehler, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dr. Ross Wilcock and dozens of activists, as well as many others on both sides of the nuclear debates, including ex military nuke expert Jack Shannon (responsible for the design of the D2G Navy reactor, the most widely used reactor in the U. S. navy), award-winning investigative reporter Karl Grossman, ecologist and human rights advocate Pamela Blockey-O'Brien, etc. Also, I've read a few dozen books on the various subjects. And scads of government documents purporting to explain how something so dangerous can be safe. Professionally, my pump training software is used throughout the pump industry and even in some nuclear power plants around the world to train their staff about mechanical pumps. Any errors herein are regrettably my own, but I believe it would take an extremely unlikely preponderance of errors to invalidate my basic position on these issues.

*************************************************************
Russell D. Hoffman, Carlsbad, California, Peace Activist, Environmentalist, High Tech Guru:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/whoisrdh.htm

Hoffman's Y2K Preparedness Information:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/y2k/index.htm

Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm

************************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** Carlsbad CA
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
************************************************************

Next issue (#214)
Previous issue (#212)

CASSINI TABLE OF CONTENTS

CANCEL CASSINI

The Animated Software Company

rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com