THE REAL NEWS PAGE
The Cassini Debate--and Beyond

Webster's Dictionary: Disingenuous =
"insincere, unforthcoming, withholding vital information."
TRNP's Dictionary = "To depend on reporters and viewers to be
ignorant, stupid or have no memory."

"There have been no previous failures.
The plutonium RTG's have always performed
exactly as designed."

--Beverly Cook, Dept of Energy, 10-15-97, 10 minutes before
Cassini launched with 72 pounds of deadly plutonium, speaking live to CNN reporter,
broadcast around the world.

* * *

WE INTERRUPT THIS SNOW-JOB
TO GIVE YOU THE FACTS:

1.

In 1964, a SNAP 9A satellite failed to achieve orbit, re-entered the upper atmosphere over Madagascar and burned up. Its RTG released its full plutonium 238 contents. It was not designed to survive re-entry. The SNAP-9A RTG "performed exactly as designed" by dispersing plutonium worldwide, nearly tripling the amount of that lethal isotope detectable globally in the environment up to that time. (Hardy Report, 1972)

Cassini's RTG's were designed to contain their plutonium on launch and to the greatest extent possible in an inadvertant re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere on flyby in Aug 1999. But no matter how well designed for containment, no design can keep them from vaporizing and releasing much of their plutonium contents when, if an accidental re-entry occurs, they speed into the Earth's atmosphere at nearly 42,000 miles per hour--faster than a comet. It's worthwhile noting that Cassini's 72 pounds of plutonium dwarf SNAP 9A's 2.1 pounds.

2.

The plutonium capsule from Apollo 13 fell into the Pacific. It "performed exactly as designed" by remaining intact when it fell into water, although it's so deep we have no way of knowing. If Apollo's plutonium RTG had landed on a hard surface, according to NASA, it would probably have broken open and released its radioactive contents.

3.

A Nimbus B satellite exploded after takeoff from Vandenberg in 1968 and its two Pu RTG's fell into the Santa Barbara Channel. Again, they "performed exactly as designed" by remaining intact when they fell not onto a rocky hard surface (although close to one) but into water.

The "design" of modern RTG's depends largely upon the luck of where they land. If they land on water, they're designed to survive without breaking open. If they land on land, they're designed to most likely not be able to remain intact but instead to spread their Pu contents all over the place. Luckily, that hasn't happened yet.

Let's listen again to Beverly Cook of the Dept of Energy as she glibly told the world and an ignorant CNN reporter 10 minutes before Cassini launched:

"There have been no previous failures.
The plutonium RTG's have always performed
exactly as designed."

Feeling reassured?

Latest news 2-12-99:

T h e C a s s i n i G a m b l e

Earl Budin, M.D.
Associate Clinical Professor of Radiology,
UCLA Medical Center

F.H. Knelman, Ph.D.
Former Prof. Env. Studies,
University of California, Santa Cruz

N. Meshkati, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
University of So. California
The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration launched a space vehicle on October 15, 1997 on a 7-year flight to study the distant planet Saturn in hope of "understanding the birth of evolution of our solar system" (from Final Environmental Impact Statement, FEIS, June 1997, page 1). However, because the ship contains 72 pounds of radioactive Plutonium (P-238), it poses a major public health threat if NASA follows through with its plans to return it from Venus to circle Earth (for a so-called Earth Fly-By) to increase its speed on route to Saturn.

Federal regulations require an independent evaluation whenever radioactive material is introduced into space. A Nuclear Safety Review Panel consisting of a representative of the U.S. EPA, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Defense, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and NASA issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) July 1997, which noted major discrepancies in the various Environmental Impact Statements by NASA:

1. NASA claimed the Plutonium containers "were designed to withstand re-entry" into our atmosphere (FEIS p. E94 et al.). Yet the SER noted that they were not designed to withstand the heat of an accidental re-entry at the planned flyby-by speed of 10 miles per second (p. 3-24).

2. NASA claimed that almost none of the Plutonium could become airborne in any accident (FEIS p. E44). In contrast the SER notes that 9 kilograms could become airborne in respirable form, the only hazardous state (p. 3-19).

3. NASA estimated that in the event of an accident the Plutonium could cause 120 fatal cancers (Final Supplemental EIS, p.4-9). Yet, the SER states "tens of thousands" cancer deaths could result from a major accident (p. ES-4).

4. NASA discusses the cancer-causing potential of Plutonium on the basis of the cancer dose from general ionizing radiation. Yet the SER notes "the probability of a single inhaled particle inducing a cancer" (P. 3-12). This was reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (April 1997) from experiments performed at Columbia University, financed in part by NASA, yet completely ignored in all their EIS's. The SER however omits mentioning that each kilogram of Plutonium contains trillions of radioactive atoms, and the number of fatal cancers might be many times greater than the tens of thousands estimated by the SER.

5. NASA claims the chance of an accidental re-entry of the space-ship into our atmosphere is less than one in a million. Yet a Jet Propulsion Lab report (May 1997) lists 18 different types of malfunctions that may occur, including electrical short-circuits, meteors and space debris striking the space probe, and erroneous ground commands. At the planned Fly-By speed of 10 miles per second, a loss of control lasting only 42 seconds could result in the Cassini's re-entry into our atmosphere where the ship will burn up.

In view of the multiple major conflicts between NASA's claims and the SER findings, and NASA's gross error in the carcinogenicity of Plutonium, NASA should not be permitted to risk thousands of civilian lives by the Flyb-By without an evaluation by an independent scientific group such as the National Academy of Sciences. A recent report by the Government Accounting Office merely repeated NASA's claims, but completely ignored the findings of the SER.

The optimum time to safely redirect the Cassini space probe to cancel plans for a dangerous Earth flyby maneuver is well before June 24, 1999, which is the date NASA plans to send the probe toward Earth from the the final Cassini Venus flyby.

If you missed the pre-launch excitement,
review "The Cassini Debate--and Beyond"
updated through Oct 15, 1997.

Return to Home/Contents of
THE REAL NEWS PAGE