Subject: N. Jasentuliyana, Apologist for NASA at the U.N. -- STOP CASSINI #120
Date: May 5th, 1999
Time Frame: There are 50 days left until the flyby of Venus, 7 weeks before the flyby of Earth.
This letter was published at the NASA/JPL web site, clearly proving that NASA considers this to be a valid "final" opinion on the subject. It is in fact a letter full of some of the worst obfuscations the editor has ever seen.
----- FROM: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cassini/rtg/un/unletter.htm -----
UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT VIENNA OFFICE DES NATIONS UNIES A VIENNE
OFFICE FOR OUTER SPACE AFFAIRS
VIENNA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE
P.O. BOX 500, A 1400 VIENNA, AUSTRIA
TELEPHONE (43-1) 26060-4950; FAX (43-1) 26060-5830; (43-1) 232156
E-mail: OOSA@unov.un.or.at . URL: http://www.un.or.at/OOSA_Klosk/index.html
2 November 1998
Ms. Selma Brackman
War & Peace Foundation
32 Union Square East
New York, NY 10003
United States of America
Dear Ms. Brackman
With reference to your letter dated 24 September addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I wish to inform you that the United Nation Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) is well aware of the problems associated with the safe use of nuclear power sources (NPS) in outer space. This item had been on its agenda since 1978.
Through deliberations among the Member States of the Committee (currently numbering 61 countries) have led to the preparation of legal Principles Relevant to the Use of NPS in Outer Space. These principles were finally agreed by consensus of the Committee at its session in 1992, and adopted by General Assembly Resolution 47/68 of 23 February 1993.
The principles recognize that the use of NPS may be essential to some space missions, though such use involves some risk of accidental exposure of the public to radiation or radioactive material. The principles provide that missions using NPS should be designed with inter alia malfunction correction systems and redundancy, physical separation, functional isolation and adequate independence of their components in order to prevent or minimize exposure of the public to radiation. The principles also provide that a State launching NPS should make a safety assessment of the system publically available. The United Sates of America provided this information to the United Nations before the launch of the Cassini mission (UN Document A/AC.105/677 of 4 June 1997).
The question of the safety of the Cassini spacecraft flyby near the earth [is] covered, in detail, in this assessment. One of the safety provisions is that the spacecraft, at its present trajectory, would pass at a distance of over a thousand kilometres from the Earth. While the original flight plan called for the Cassini fly 700 kilometres above the Earth surface on 18 August 1999, the current proposal is for a distance of 1160 kilometres. The United States has thus provided the necessary information requested by the United Nations according to the Principles relevant to the use of NPS in outer space to provide assurances of the sufficient degree of nuclear safety of the Cassini spacecraft.
With best wishes
Deputy to the Director-General,
United Nations Office at Vienna, and
Director, Office for Outer Space Affairs
----- END OF LETTER FROM N. JASENTULIYANA NOVEMBER 2ND, 1999 -----
Clearly, N. Jasentuliyana is an apologist for the space nuclear atrocity that is being committed against the people of Earth in the name of "science" but really in support of secret military applications.
----- LETTER FROM HANS KAROW, March 18th, 1999 -----
From: Hans Karow email@example.com
Subject: letter from Earl Budin
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 10:10:24 -0800
Re Earl Budin's letter to Director Outer Space Affairs, UN March 10,1999 and letter from Director for Outer Space affairs to Selma Brackman [shown above]:
The second is NASA's fine way to assure the public that no one needs to worry about! [Their method of choice is to let others lie for them. It saves the bums later, if Congress ever awakens. -- rdh]
This letter demonstrates that they increased the height of the fly-by as a response of safety concern.
The letter writes: "The principles recognize that the use of NPS may be essential to some space missions, though such use involve some risk of accidental exposure ..."
Who decides that a mission is essential?
Who decides that the use of NPS is essential?
Who decides what is a tolerable "minimize[d] exposure of the public to radiation"?
Who decides what is tolerable of "minimize[d] exposure of radiation" in the environment, in this case meaning the living species (other than humans (plants/animals)?
Is there a rule that tells that there should be a minimum amount of days/ or months when "safety assessment " information should be publically available before a launch? (There must be!!!) Is just one day before the launch early enough? One week? One month? Three Months? I think even one year or two years are not enough, where they admit in their own report that 5 billion people could be exposed to radiation!
Then they say: "The principles also provide that a state launching NPS should make a safety assessment of the system publically available." PARDON ME? NOT " MAKE PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE" they should inform the public in details several times as with any other application i.e. a company is building a factory that involves emissions to the environment (air, water, land) with exact details of what and how much possibly is emitted, then the government authority are calling for a public hearing and decide about yes/or no, in case of yes they decide about limits of emissions!
How come NASA, DOE, DOD can get around that? This is discrimination according to the fundamental human right as noted in the UN Charter! Well, I used to work for the government (Ministry of Environment, senior technical civil service in provincial/regional administration and management in Germany, and here in Canada is the same procedure!) and NASA should be exempt? We have to have liabilities in every aspect, and NASA can limit their liability (Price-Anderson Act)?
I understand the situation with other possible dangerous countries. But that's why we have the UN. They should look after the fundamental human rights, and based on that contact all countries and come to certain agreements to protect these rights. If international laws/conventions/treaties are breached, then there has to be penalty, (embargoes of all kinds: food, raw material, oil, import/export whatsoever, ships, planes, tourists, ...). So, if there is such a "embargo" threat, the US would not have a reason to necessarily breach the international laws/treaties etc, in order to be able to protect the world from the enemy.
It's like with the cancer story: All the money they are collecting and spending goes in treating cancer, but never in preventing cancer!
The cancer story will always be kept alive!
The same is already happening with plutonium! We can not treat threats from other dangerous countries with Plutonium, we have to find other ways how to prevent the threat and hence the application of Plutonium. I close with Dr. Gofman's words: "If we do not have a meaningful dialogue, we may go the way of the dinosaurs-by methods not even remotely suspected" (in 'The Wrong Stuff,' K. Grossman)
The Outer Space treaty has to be revised!
I have a feeling that the Director of Outer Space affairs, UN will take Dr. Earl Budin's letter not in any serious consideration. What you think?
----- END OF LETTER FROM HANS KAROW -----
The following is a letter from Earl Budin to the Director of the Office for Outer Space Affairs at the U.N. at their headquarters in Vienna, Austria, responding to a letter sent to Jonathan M. Haber of the NOFLYBY web site (http://www.nonviolence.org/noflyby/).
Dr. Budin's letter outlines the misinformation and apparent deception from NASA and the U.S. on the safety of the Cassini space probe. Please support the recommendation of Dr. Budin for an independent review of the Cassini Project in support of the legal Principles adopted by the U.N. on 23 February 1993 relevant to the safe use of nuclear power sources in outer space.
----- DR. EARL BUDIN LETTER, MARCH 10TH, 1999 -----
Earl Budin, M.D.
2415 Stanwood Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93103-1634
Director, Office for Outer Space Affairs, U.N.
10 March 1999
In your 16 October 1998 reply to Jonathan M. Haber's letter you note that information provided to you by the U.S.A. on 4 June 1997 "assured a sufficient degree of nuclear safety of the Cassini space craft." However one month later new information came to public knowledge in the form of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) July 1997 submitted to NASA by an Independent Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP) composed of representatives of 5 U.S. federal agencies (including NASA!). This report noted multiple serious errors in the various Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) published by NASA about Cassini, which indicate that the document submitted to the U.N. would "fail to assure...safety" of Cassini. Some of the reasons for this are:
1. NASA predicted that during the Earth fly-by planned August 1999 an accidental re-entry of the spacecraft into Earth's atmosphere might cause as many as 3,480 fatal cancers (Final EIS, page 4-63); NASA later changed the figure to 120 cancers (Final Supplemental EIS) with no explanation for the new figure. In stark contrast the INSRP estimated the possibility of tens of thousands fatal cancers (SER p. ES4) due to the possible release of 9 kgs. of Plutonium in respirable form (SER p. 3-19).
2. At no time in any of the multiple EIS did NASA acknowledge the fact that a single Plutonium atom is capable of causing cancer (even though NASA funded the most recent experiments demonstrating this - published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S., April 1997) and that a partial release of Plutonium from its containers would involve trillions of Plutonium atoms and the number of fatal cancers could be many times greater than the tens of thousands predicted in the SER.
3. NASA claimed that the Plutonium containers in Cassini were "designed to withstand re-entry" into our atmosphere (FEIS p. 2-17 and Suppl. FEIS p. E-94). But the INSRP noted that the container were NOT designed to withstand the heat of an accidental re-entry at the planned fly-by speed of 10 miles per second (SER p. 3-24).
4. As a result of #3, the INSRP on 23 September 1997 requested the U.S. president to delay the launch of Cassini for 2 months since the Earth fly-by would then be at considerably less speed and the health risk would be less by a factor of 30-100 times! This was not done.
5. NASA based its estimate of the number of cancer deaths on the small average dose received by the world's population in REM of ordinary ionizing radiation (FEIS p. 4-83) - but the SER notes the "probability of a single atom of Plutonium causing cancer" (p. 3-12) since Plutonium emits alpha radiation. The INSRP then strangely concluded its report in direct contradiction to this, reverting back for some inexplicable reason to the effect of an average dose to an individual from ordinary radiation (SER p. 3-12).
6. The Plutonium on Cassini is placed next to liquid oxygen and hydrogen containers, a potential serous hazard, according to former NASA scientist Dr. Horst Pohler.
7. When the current administrator of NASA first assumed his post, NASA's chief scientist stated that Mr. Goldin would have preferred to cancel the Cassini project because of "enormous risk factors" (Space News, March 1994, p. 3).
8. NASA claims that a serious accident with Cassini such an inadvertent re-entry into Earth's atmosphere is virtually impossible (less than one in a million chance). But a report by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (May 1997) lists some 18 different types of malfunctions which may occur such as electrical short circuits, meteors striking the craft, and erroneous ground commands. These are beyond the realm of human prediction. NASA recognizes the possibility that the craft might become "uncommandable" (FEIS p. x). Just in the past 12 months there have been multiple space ship malfunctions, some of which resulted in total loss of the craft, including an error in control of the Cassini craft on 11 January 1999 with loss of its orientation which took 4 days to correct. At the Earth fly-by speed panned of 10 miles per second, it would take only a minute for the craft to re-enter our atmosphere and be incinerated.
9. On 12 August 1998 a Titan IV rocket exploded during launch. This was not the first malfunction of a Titan IV, the same rocket propelling Cassini.
10. NASA recently announced it was contracting outside organizations to help monitor its space operations, expanding the possibility of a loss of control (Aviation Week & Space Technology, 5 October 1998),
In conclusion, the Cassini Project does not meet the legal Principles adopted by the U.N. on 23 February 1993 relevant to the safe use of nuclear power sources in outer space:
1. The U.S. withheld information it had (the SER) on the safety assessment of the nuclear power system.
2. The U.S. failed to acknowledge the special carcinogenicity of Plutonium.
3. The Plutonium containment system does not prevent nor minimize exposure of the public to radiation.
4. The requested increase in distance of the fly-by from Earth does not significantly increase safety at the planned speed of 19 km./second.
The Cassini Mission cannot be considered to supply a "sufficient degree of nuclear safety" when it neither prevents nor minimizes the exposure of the public to radiation. An immediate review of the project by an independent scientific organization not affiliated with the U.S.A. is urgently needed, preferably with the possibility of redirecting the probe prior to the 24 June 1999 planned approach of the space craft's return to Earth.
Earl Budin, M.D.
Associate Clinical Professor of Radiology, UCLA Medical Center
Los Angeles, CA
----- END OF DR. EARL BUDIN LETTER, MARCH 10TH, 1999 -----
Note that the June 24th date is the date of the flyby of Venus. -- rdh
----- INCOMING FORWARDED EMAIL -----
Earl Budin M.D. former Associate Clinical Professor of Radiology UCLA Medical Center Los Angeles California
The letter was sent to N. Jasentuliyana Director Office for Outer Space Affairs U.N. dated 2 April 1999
This letter is to help clarify an important contradiction in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the Cassini Mission by the Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP) which I referred to in my letter of 12 March 1999 (#5) faxed to you 14 March and to supply you with a copy of important pages of the SER. The SER may not have been submitted to your office with the evaluation of Cassini's safety by the U.S.A. date 4 June 1997 since the SER is dated July 1997. The contradiction is the grossly different estimates of the number of fatal cancers which may result from an accidental re-entry of the spacecraft into our atmosphere during the Earth Fly-by planned by NASA for 18 August 1999: tens of thousands fatal cancers and nearly zero in the same paragraph (pages ES-4).
The estimated tens of thousands fatal cancers is based on the following facts noted in the SER:
1. The Plutonium containers were NOT designed to withstand the heat of an accidental re-entry at the planned fly-by speed of 10 miles per second (despite NASA's claims to the contrary) - SER p. 3-24.
2. As much as 9 kgs. Of Plutonium could be released in respirable form (particles small enough to enter the lung) - SER 3-19.
3. "The probability of a single atom of Plutonium causing cancer" SER 3-12.
One additional very important fact was omitted from the SER (and from all of the Environmental Impact Statements by NASA) - each kilogram of Plutonium contains trillions of Plutonium atoms thus the estimated tens of thousands fatal cancers could actually be millions of cancer deaths if the Plutonium enters a large metropolitan area such as London or New York.
A Letter to the U.S. president from INSRP (printed in the SER inside the back cover dated 23 September 1997) requested a 2 months delay in the launch of Cassini to enable a slower fly-by speed and thereby decrease the health risk by a factor of 30 to 100 is hardly consistent with a near zero risk (the launch was not delayed!).
The estimate of near zero cancers is based on a mis-interpretation by INSRP that cancer from Plutonium results only from a certain dose of ionizing radiation received by an average person a faulty reasoning since 1) an average person dose not exist - some will receive more, some less radiation; those who receive more being at greater risk of cancer and 2) Plutonium causes cancer by the alpha ray emitted by each atom and a certain radiation dose as with ordinary radiation is not required.
The planned Cassini Mission does not meet the legal Principles relevant to the safe use of nuclear power sources in outer space adopted by the U.N. 23 February 1993 on the basis of the following facts:
1. The U.S. withheld information it had (the SER) on the safety of the nuclear power system.
2. The Plutonium containment system does not prevent nor minimize exposure of the public to ionizing radiation.
3. Rather than isolating the Plutonium containers they are placed next to liquid oxygen and hydrogen containers potential serious hazard according to former NASA scientist H. Pohler.
4. The U.S. failed to acknowledge the special carcinogenicity of Plutonium known to NASA which funded the most recent study demonstrating this fact.
5. The requested increase in height of the Earth Fly-by does not significantly increase safety since the fly-by speed of 19 km per second only 20 seconds are added to the time for accidental atmospheric re-entry.
6. The minor delay in launch date requested by the INSRP to improve safety was not accepted.
I therefore respectfully request an urgent review of the Cassini project by an independent scientific body not affiliated with the U.S. preferably prior to the 24 June 1999 start of the space craft's return toward Earth.
Earl Budin 24 Stanwood Drive Santa Barbara CA 93103-1534 (telephone 805-965-7327)
cc. Secretary-General U.N. U.S. Delegation U.N.
----- END OF INCOMING FORWARDED EMAIL -----
In addition to the fine arguments presented above, here are some other reasons the U. N. should NOT approve or permit this flyby:
1) There is the very real possibility of a reentry far later -- decades to millennia. By then the containment system could have become brittle and useless (after nearly 100 years, only about 50% of the plutonium would have decayed). That is why the probe must be smashed into Venus instead, on June 24th, 1999.
2) NASA's predictions are the grounds for the approval of the mission -- and NASA's predictions have been proven to be way, way off! Three Titan IV-launched missions in a row have failed since Cassini. What did NASA say the chance of THAT was?
3) The alternative solar option exists for Cassini or a similar if slightly smaller mission, making nothing "essential" about the use of plutonium -- an essential requirement for U.N. approval!
Roger Herried' RADBULL reprinted an important article from 1994 regarding Depleted Uranium. The URL for the article is given below:
----- FROM RADBULL, MAY 5TH 1999 (CLIP) -----
12 NATO ANTI-TANK AMMUNITION IS MADE OF TOXIC DEPLETED URANIUM
by Henk van der Keur NRC Handelsblad
17 February 1994
----- END OF RADBULL CLIP , MAY 5TH 1999 -----
...you have the wrong email addresses (according to nasa's x.500 directory) for
Daniel S. Goldin
Washington DC 20546-0001
(Woody is employed by Boeing)
READ THE RESOLUTION! http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/petition/reso1999.htm
SIGN THE PETITION! http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/petition/cass1999.htm
CANCEL CASSINI by JUNE 24th, 1999!
To Cancel Cassini start by asking NASA for the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini Mission and all subsequent related documents (on paper, please!). Tell them you need it IMMEDIATELY (members of the world press should do this too). All citizens of the world are ENTITLED to these documents because of the global threat Cassini poses. Here's where to get information:
Cassini Public Information
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena CA 91109
NASA states that they do not have the resources anymore to answer most emails they receive. Liars! They have $13 billion dollars to play with. They can answer the public's questions. At least, ask them one specific question: How many letters did they get opposing Cassini today? (And tell them you oppose it too!) If each reader asks them that...
Here's NASA's "comments" email address:
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:
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.
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, email the editor at
firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
Please distribute these newsletters EVERYWHERE!
WHAT YOU DO MATTERS!
*** CANCEL CASSINI BY JUNE 24TH, 1999! ***