STOP CASSINI Newsletter #173 -- August 15th, 1999 (late edition)

Copyright (c) 1999

STOP CASSINI Newsletters Index

To: Subscribers, Press, Government Officials


Date: August 15th, 1999 (late edition)

Time Frame: Cassini is scheduled to do the flyby of Earth in just a few days! NASA is nuts!

Today's Subjects:

(1) Scientific American article in September, 1999 issue perpetrates a fraud!:


The long awaited article in Scientific American is now available online:

To: John Rennie, Editor in Chief,. Scientific American
From: Russell Hoffman, Founder and Editor, STOP CASSINI newsletter

Date: August 15th, 1999


To The Editor:

Thank you for linking to the STOP CASSINI web site. I appreciate the link so that your web site visitors have a chance to get more information. We haven't seen the printed version of the article but we hope it includes our web address as well.

It is interesting, however, that your writer did not interview me, and more interesting still that the item which actually links to us is regarding a protest we were not involved with. As I said, I appreciate the link from the article, but I just want to note that the way you have done it is actually one of many factual errors.

More importantly, what you have printed about Cassini is not scientific at all. It does not belong in your journal. It is media hype.

Here's the start: "Controversy over the spacecraft's plutonium may threaten future missions to explore the solar system." This is wrong because there are numerous technologies (solar, and battery combined with nanotechnology and microminiaturization, for instance) which will allow the exact same missions WITHOUT the nuclear threat. So no exploration is threatened at all. Only the method by which the exploration is done. That is all that is being threatened. To imply more is propagandistic and disingenuous. In fact, most opponents of Cassini are (or were) strong proponents of space exploration, and would be again, given the chance to support a safe mission (such as the ESA's recently announced Rosetta probe, which will go about as far from the sun as Galileo, a prior controversial civilian nuclear space mission).

Not one mention is made anywhere in your article of the RHUs (Radioactive Heater Units) which have a 100% likelihood of incinerating in a reentry accident. There are about 130 of them, each with about 2.7 grams of plutonium 238 dioxide, with some Pu 239 and other isotopes. The 3/4s of a pound of plutonium in the RHUs will incinerate completely, into particle sizes of about 5 to 58 microns, averaging 10 microns in size, if the results of NASA's SNAP-9A dispersal of 2.1 pounds of plutonium (34,400 Curies) in 1964 was anything to go on. (In fact, it may have already killed millions -- there is no way to know because the deaths from SNAP-9A would be scattered in time and space -- you could do an article about the statistics of that sort of distribution, but NO! You didn't want to risk laying down any facts for people to relate to!)

All this sort of thing is unmentioned in "America's scientific magazine of record for more than 100 years". Likewise, there is no discussion of particle sizes and dosages and ratios of sizes to distribution in the wind -- none of that stuff has been prepared for your readers. So what's new in Scientific American's article? A picture of some protesters! A tiny map of the orbital trajectory! How about a picture of the Titan launch of Cassini right next to a picture of the launch of the Titan that followed shortly thereafter, which exploded on August 12th, 1998 over Florida? (How about a discussion of whether that launch had a military RTG on board?)

Here's your most critical statement of NASA in the whole article:

"Most of the tests did not damage the plutonium-fuel capsules, but some of the more severe impacts created fissures that would have released small amounts of fuel."

How much fuel? How big were the fissures? Which tests failed in which way? Got photos? How does this relate to not just to what MIGHT happen, but to NASA's averaging of thousands of accident scenarios together? If NASA is off by 10% in one place and 10% in another and the two are mutually dependent, Cassini could be capable of a total release in a flyby reentry accident! NASA actually admits this, if you read their fine print finely enough (that a 100% release is possible, over a populated area during a rainstorm). Possible, but NASA says it is "not credible". That is not the same thing, although to your magazine it is, because your magazine seems to have only gone by the press releases and spokesperson's purposefully incomplete statements. Lawyers would be proud of a NASA EIS. (In fact, some undoubtedly are.)

Why didn't you include an electron micrograph scan of a plutonium particle? A discussion of why Pu 238 is considered to be about 280 times worse than Pu 239 when vaporized into the environment (and studied (projections done) for a mere 50 years). How about an illustration showing alpha radiation damage from a plutonium particle in living tissue? How about a picture of a cancer victim? How about a computer-generated super-computer graphic showing how the probe might break up in a "worst case scenario" and the sorts of plumes that might result? You missed all this opportunity, and filled the space instead with two guys holding up a sign -- actually, one guy and most of a sign, which reads "When It Rains Plutonium It Pours Death" which is not at all untrue, but it is a general statement, and not specific to the case at hand. It's not what Scientific American should be about. There are facts NASA has not presented properly to the public. Those are what you could have presented. Those facts include the missing statements about the RHUs and many others which have been discussed in the past 172 issues of my newsletter (if your writer read any of them, he did not reference them). Instead you did a puff piece for a corrupt organization. You should be ashamed.

Science is truth, Mr. Rennie. You forgot to publish any truth. All you printed was some NASA press statements, and some opponent's responses. But you did not present the real issues. You did not present the facts about plutonium 238 which NASA claims people do not understand. You let Bob Mitchell say the public doesn't understand, and claim that "In the debate over RTGs... perceptions are sometimes more important than facts" yet you present no facts to correct the "perceptions" you clearly think are in error! You are, in short, a big part of the problem and should be ashamed of yourself.

But again, thank you for linking to my web site.


Russell Hoffman
Founder and Editor
STOP CASSINI newsletter

P.S. Your Cassini article was months late. Are you also concerned about America properly preparing for possible Y2K problems such as meltdowns at nuclear power plants and accidental nuclear war? Will Scientific American do a article about that for the January 2000 issue, when it's also too late to stand down?


(2) Resume for Dr. Jerry Grey:

The article in Scientific America has a statement by Dr. Jerry Grey in it which we discuss below. When we clicked on Jerry Grey's name in the Scientific American article, we found this:

----- FROM: -----

Jerry Grey
Phone:305-361-9972 | Fax:305-361-7231 | Email:

B.S. (Mechanical Engineering) Cornell University
M.S. (Engineering Physics) Cornell University
Ph.D. (Aeronautics and Mathematics) California Insititute of Technology

Brief Biography

Dr. Grey was Instructor in thermodynamics at Cornell, engine development engineer at Fairchild, Senior Engineer at Marquardt, and hypersonic aerodynamicist at the GALCIT 5-inch hypersonic wind tunnel. He was a professor in Princeton University's Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Sciences for 17 years, where he taught courses in fluid dynamics, jet and rocket propulsion, and nuclear powerplants and served as Director of the Nuclear Propulsion Research Laboratory. He was President of the Greyrad Corporation from 1959 to 1971, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Science at Long Island University from 1976 to 1982, and Publisher of Aerospace America from 1982 to 1987. He is now Director, Aerospace and Science Policy for the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, consultant to a number of government and commercial organizations, and Visiting Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton, where he teaches "Space Science and Technology" to students in the humanities.

Dr. Grey is the author of twenty books and over 300 technical papers in the fields of space technology, space transportation, fluid dynamics, aerospace policy, solar and nuclear energy, spacecraft and aircraft propulsion, power generation and conversion, plasma diagnostics, instrumentation, and the applications of technology. He has served as consultant to the U.S. Congress (as Chairman of the Office of Technology Assessment's Solar Advisory Panel and several space advisory panels), the United Nations (as Deputy Secretary-General of the Second UN Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in 1982), NASA (as a member of the NASA Advisory Council), the Department of Transportation (as Vice-Chairman of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee), the Department of Energy (as a member of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board), and the U.S. Air Force, as well as over thirty industrial organizations and laboratories. He was Vice-President, Publications of the AIAA, Chairman of the Coordinating Committee on Energy of the American Association of Engineering Societies, a Director of the Scientists Institute for Public Information, Vice-President of the International Academy of Astronautics, and President of the International Astronautical Federation.

He is listed in over twenty biographical publications, and has received national awards from the Aviation/Space Writers Association and the American Astronautical Society.

Back to Faculty Research Interests


(3) Letter to Dr. Jerry Grey:


To: "Jerry Grey"
From: "Russell D. Hoffman"

Date: August 15th, 1999

Subject: What does the one have to do with the other?

Dear Dr. Grey:

I saw your statement in the Scientific American article.

Mechanically, what does the 1968 launch-time RTG accident have to do with a reentry at 43,000 MPH for the RTGs, let alone the RHUs? You indicate it has a lot to do with it in the September Scientific American article (according to the article, you said the accident "proved their survivability").

Speaking of the RHUs (Radioactive Heater Units), which neither you nor Scientific American mentioned, are you aware that NASA's own documentation clearly indicates that they are going to vaporize their plutonium contents in an Earth flyby reentry accident? Not might. Will. That's right: A 100% likelihood!

Do you happen to know if any RHUs were recovered from the 1968 accident (if any were on board, that is)?

Well, okay, sure: Your quote in the Scientific American article was talking about the RTGs specifically, but SOMEBODY FORGOT TO MENTION THE RHUs in the article, and your quote is utterly inappropriate for the RHUs. What do you think of that? Do you consider yourself misquoted, since your quote doesn't apply to about 3/4ths of pound of the plutonium on board Cassini? That's an awful lot of plutonium to forget about, Dr. Grey. Nearly as much as Russia lost in their Mars '96 accident.

An answer at your earliest convenience would be greatly appreciated as I expect to have several followup questions. Plus, please indicate your medical background which would show you have a complete professional understanding of the radiological burden of 400,000 Curies of Plutonium 238 (mostly, plus some Pu 239) vaporized into 10 micron sized particles (on average, if SNAP-9A is anything to go on) throughout the environment with 6,000,000,000 "souls on board" (a phrase I'm sure you're familiar with from your avaItion writing, as in "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY! WE'RE CRASHING!" which is often followed by "HOW MANY SOULS ON BOARD DO YOU HAVE?").

Also, and this is really kind of a political question, what is your understanding of what knowledge the public has been able to obtain from NASA about the exact nature of these dangers, because don't you think we should be allowed to make an informed decision based on the evidence, not a bunch of prognostications from NASA and their lackeys? For example, have you noticed that NASA's "worst case scenario" is actually an averaging of many thousands of relatively minor accident scenarios with one or two larger ones, and it is that AVERAGE that they present to the public, not a true "worst case scenario"? Have you noticed that?

Thank you in advance for your time in answering these preliminary questions. I'm sure I'll have more just as soon as these are answered.


Russell Hoffman
Founder and Editor of the Stop Cassini newsletter:

(See sig file, below, for additional information)


I fully expect to be ignored. Dr. Grey clearly has his hands deep in the till, and has pulled out wads and wads of cash from the nuclear space industry. He will never see anything wrong with what he is doing, but the public can see that he has been both a proponent and a writer of the treaties to protect us FROM the proponents of the nuclear space horror. He's plays the role of both the wolf in the hen house, and the guard dog as well!

Given time, or the luck of the draw not going NASA's way on Tuesday, and he will surely kill us with his filthy nuclear carcinogens. I wonder if Dr. J.A.G. likes him?

(4) AP BS IN SD U-T & NCT:

What's in today's papers?

My local papers, the San Diego Union-Tribune and the North County Times, both ran an Associated Press wire service article written by Matthew Fordahl (who did not interview the editor of the STOP CASSINI newsletter). I assume it ran all around the world as the voice of a free press. Maybe it was the voice of a fooled press, and maybe it was the voice of a fool, but it was NOT a description of reality.

The NCT copy of the article included a picture of Cassini before the RTGs (Radioactive Thermoelectric Generators) had been added, which in fact, stick out like sore thumbs in three directions from the probe. The article did not mention the form of the plutonium (mostly Pu 238) nor the potential size of the particles that a reentry would produce (about 10 microns, ideal for permanently lodging in a person's lungs). It did however tell us that Bob Mitchell (who is possibly the most dishonest staff member at NASA these days) said of a reentry, "It's just not a credible event... I'm not telling you it's impossible, but it's just not credible."

BOB MITCHELL is not credible!

He is the program manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He should of course, be fired immediately for lying to the public like that. The accident scenarios such as a collision with a micro-meteor or perhaps a malfunction from frayed wiring are PERFECTLY CREDIBLE. They have happened, and sooner or later they will happen again. NASA knows this, therefore, NASA is lying. Or maybe Matthew Fordahl misquoted Mr. Mitchell, but I doubt it. It all reads like a NASA press release with some whitewash attached to make it look like real journalism.

Maybe we'll be lucky this time, and Cassini will miss us, and Bob Mitchell will get a NASA feather in his cap for keeping the media properly confused about the facts, but nevertheless, statistics DON'T lie, only the people that use them do. Mitchell calling accident scenarios with 400,000 Curies of plutonium 238 (and some Pu 239) "not credible" at a risk ratio of "one in 1.2 million" is criminal, pure and simple. Even if "one in 1.2 million" is correct (which we doubt), such odds do not make it reasonable to risk spreading 400,000 Curies of plutonium around the environment. NASA first reduces the potential size of the accident, THEN tells us it has a risk of "one in one million" or "1 in 1.2 million" What they claim has a one in one million risk might in fact have a one in one thousand risk, and when they say that (one in one million) accident might kill 120 people worldwide, other CREDIBLE estimates (by learned scientists) go as high as tens of millions! That is nearly five ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE difference! Someone's very wrong. As it turns out, NASA's numbers are even contradicted by a later Government report, the SER, which gives "tens of thousands" as a possible value -- about two orders of magnitude worse than NASA's estimate!

What's it all mean? It mean's NASA is making things up.

The AP article had a bunch of quotes from Bruce Gagnon, whom we had earlier dubbed "the black hole of anti-Cassini information". Indeed, this is the same man who has ignored the STOP CASSINI newsletter now for 172 issues. Why? Because he is a fake, a phoney, a fraud, an agent provocateur, a spy, a spook, a toadie, a cover-up artist, and, besides all that, he's very difficult to get along with for whatever reason.

Interestingly, NASA gave the odds now as "one in 1.2 million" instead of the previously cited "one in one million". This is to be expected; in the next 48 hours or so, the odds will probably continue to go up because the time left before the flyby is going down rapidly. Counteracting that, the "target" (Earth) is just a fraction of a degree off from the general direction of the probe, and (from the probe's point of view) is getting bigger and bigger. Also, there is no longer any "bias" in the trajectory. So IF the probe goes off course TODAY, it's probably MORE LIKELY to hit Earth than it was YESTERDAY. But the OVERALL chances that an accident will NOT occur any time before the flyby improve each day, simply because each day, another day has gone by and that's good. Less days for things to go wrong on.

Complicated? Way too complicated for AP's reporter.

Perhaps if a reporter calls on Monday morning and asks NASA the odds, they will be saying "one in two million" or maybe "one in five million" and by Tuesday morning, with the probe just a few hundred thousand miles away (and accelerating in our general direction), they will be saying the odds are "one in ten million" and by evening, "one in one hundred million". And they will describe the horror of what happens if that "one in whatever" happens to be the right one -- either now or in a decade -- in two words, not mentioning cancer, leukemia, birth defects, worldwide pain, tens of thousands of deaths, maybe millions -- all this will be summed up with these two words:

"Not credible".

"Not credible" merely means, we figure we'll get lucky. NASA figures to be stronger after the flyby, more capable of withstanding protests, because they have new ARPSs (Advanced Radioactive Power Supplies) so that "only" about 5 kilograms might be enough for some missions -- roughly 50 or a hundred billion lethal doses. It's still going to be WAY TOO DANGEROUS and should not be permitted!

All NASA's "odds" may be off by an order of magnitude, or two orders of magnitude, or more. Or more! But the main point of interest is the way they manipulate the press from both sides. They have a NASA spokesperson saying all the opposition arguments are "not credible" and then they have Gagnon stand on the outside and act like the voice of the opposition, so that all other voices will be ignored by the media. Quite a little game they play. Thus can Astronomy magazine, and AP wire service, and the Miami Herald, and all the others, get away with pretending the movement is confused, the arguments are vague, and the issues have been reasonably decided by honest scientists, none of which is true.

In fact, we have been lied to coming and going. Or ignored. For example, does the AP news article talk about the RHUs? No, of course not, because Gagnon does not want to mention them any more than NASA does.

-- Russell Hoffman

(5) Toys for temper tantrums: Y2K and nuclear war:

We would like to thank Maggie Mandzuk for the kind words at the end of this item of interest to all those concerned about Y2K and the possibility of an accidental nuclear war to greet what is called "the third millennium". It will surely be "the last millennium" if we don't quickly learn to control our tempers and our toys for temper tantrums:


Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 01:16:52 -0400
From: Maggie Mandzuk

To: "Russell D. Hoffman"

Subject: Soft coverage of GRACE letter campaign in Canada

Hi Russell,

The Toronto Globe and Mail (Saturday, Aug. 14, 1999) published a Reuters News article by Jim Wolfe on p. 7, titled "Take finger off nuclear button for Y2k, U.S., Russia told, Peace groups contend computer glitches could cause war by falsely indicating an attack was under way". (Reader feedback: e-mail

My summary:

1. Groups try to persuade gov'ts. to stand down, approx. 2500 missiles on each side

2. What "standing down" means...more time to decide before firing

3. Cong. Ed Markey (D, Mass.) calls for "dealerting" "consistent with nat'l. security", adding that the Russian system is decaying [[implying what?, that the Russians are somehow more culpable if something does go terribly wrong? -- mm]]

4. Two paragraphs describe fears re: Y2K computer glitches, how Russia lags behind the U.S. (it's Reuters News so it must be true! NOT!)

5. Friends of the Earth (Australian) send letter signed by 271 grps. (incl. Greenpeace International) to Clinton & Yeltsin, asking for a "safety-first" approach to Y2K

6. Alice Slater, pres., Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (U.S. coordinator of the letter) describes the drive to de-alert missiles temporarily as a first step in a banning nuclear weapons ALTOGETHER

7. Pentagon invited Russian military to joint "early-warning center" in Colorado Springs, no response

8. Bruce Blair, former missile launcher & current analyzer in Washington pooh-poohs the fears, admitting "Yeltsin's the last person you'd want to wake up in the middle of the night with a request for permission to launch" (sic) on what might be a false alarm [[Yes, humour is healthy, but this is not a joking matter. -- mm]]

9. Not included: any mention of the various other potential nuclear disasters after 01/01/2000, i.e., glitches causing disastrous effects at nuclear power stations. The list goes on [[as well covered at -- mm]]


I also noticed an ALERT at (homepage) that as of August 15 India's population will reach the one billion mark, becoming the 2nd member with China of this club. "They will not be celebrating", says the Worldwatch Institute. India is now a member of the nuclear club too, and is spending 2.5 % of its GNP for military, and only 0.7% for health. I wonder what country(ies) modeled that behaviour for them. I personally moved from the U.S. to Canada in the hope that my son would be able to live a more peaceful life here. Eleven years ago the state of the world got the better of his peace-loving spirit and he took his own life. It was like a nuclear bomb had exploded in the lives of his loved ones. I doubt Clinton & Yeltsin are going to understand that. The evil of violence permeates on many levels of human life, and all life here. My son Seth Nicholson thought he wasn't "worthy" in this world of more money, more land, more cars, more toys, more houses, more clothes, more everything some people can get their hands on and think they're getting away with it. With no thought for developing more empathy, more appropriate technology, more peaceful methods of conflict resolution, more nurturance for diversity.

Russell, I think your newsletter is brilliant. Thank you for your time and energy and empathy. "Mother Nature has enough for everybody's needs, not everybody's greeds". (Ghandi) I wish the goons (with the smiley face-masks) at the Cassini Project would get that.

Maggie Mandzuk
Woman of Peace

(Feel free to reprint any of the above.)


I have no idea how to properly thank people like Maggie for caring about the environment and trying to do something to stop the madness the military folks have created. I hope others will realize, from her words, that if we all do a little, it CAN get done. This world does NOT need to blow itself to smithereens, which will be very painful and totally without justification. It will not be a quick and painless end. It would instead be a cancerous and painful torture for many generations for all species. It must be avoided at all costs. But in order not to do it, we MUST stop building and funding these weapons! NOW is the time! Y2K waits for no one. -- rdh

(5) Mystery of the high number of hits on newsletter #150 RESOLVED: A "cancel Cassini" web ring stops searches of our Newsletters index page at #150!

Last issue we presented web statistics and noted the curious fact that newsletters #150 and #149 were getting a disproportionate number of hits. This mystery has been solved! Someone added us to a "Cancel Cassini Web Ring" which LOCKED THOSE VISITORS OUT of the current newsletter index page! They were given an OLD VERSION that linked to newsletter #150!

Tricky, eh? We hadn't corrected those two newsletters with the new information about the new flyby location, (we knew we should have gotten around to it when we first learned NASA made the change!) and so our REAL newsletter #150 linked to the new NASA information, with no explanation for the discrepancy.

Techno-warriors exploited the weakness in our defenses. We gave them an inch, and they took a mile. Anyone desiring this entire web site on CD-ROM should request a copy from the Founder and Editor of the STOP CASSINI newsletter. We do not know how many "hits our counter doesn't include because of techno-tricks like that, but we trust our Internet Service Provider, American Digital Network, to provide honest numbers to us for the "hits" that actually make it to our web site. This incident strengthens our belief that the "hit count" is vastly below how many people are actually learning about NASA from our web site -- even our old and outdated documents!

NASA, you have some wonderful, talented allies.


To: Ringmaster email:
From: Russell D. Hoffman (
Re: Why DOES your web ring link to an old newsletter index page?
Ring page URL:

Your link to our STOP CASSINI web site from that page links to an old newsletter index page of mine, where #150 is the last issue. I assume this was done on purpose but by whom?

The correct newsletter index page is updated regularly and we are now at #172 (#171 is posted as of this writing) so it is clear that the index with #150 at the top has been cached somewhere by your web ring. Why? Who built that ring and who operates it, and why does it cache web pages?

Please ensure that your web ring does not cache old versions of our web pages. Thank you.

Russell Hoffman
This is the correct page your web ring should like to -- the CURRENT version:


I bet it will be fixed before anyone even gets this newsletter, but I trust my ADNC (American Digital Network) Internet Service provider, and that's that only thing that clued me in to what was happening. There just had to be SOMETHING special about newsletters #150 and 149, and now we know what it was! I wonder what next week's stats will look like?

(6) What you can do today to stop the assault against our health:

The hour is very late for Cassini. THIS IS ALSO the most dangerous time -- until the very last few minutes or perhaps, at most the last hour before the flyby (which occurs at an unknown time, probably August 17th for most of the world). THEREFORE, UP UNTIL THE VERY LAST DAY, Cassini should be redirected! It should be redirected away from the Earth's notorious man-made (about 99% manmade, at least) orbital debris field, which goes out about 50,000 miles from the surface of the Earth in ALL directions! Cassini could become a deadly hulk (as can any rocket) just for passing through this mess! If that happens, it would be left, according to NASA's own documentation (page B-4 of the 1995 EIS for the Cassini Mission), in an orbit that could intersect our own! Tell NASA to redirect Cassini TODAY!

To stop Cassini from doing the flyby and other future mad-scientist launches, please redistribute this newsletter to everyone you know! Chances are they have never heard of Cassini, never visited our STOP CASSINI web site, never heard of or considered the effects of the Electromagnetic Pulse that will undoubtedly start a nuclear war if one occurs at all. And chances are good they would not even be able to tell you who played Dr. Strangelove (and two other roles) in the movie of the same name! There is a crisis in education in America and around the world -- you can take it seriously or you can let it kill you. But if we all join together and oppose this impending global destruction, maybe, just maybe, we can convince the powers that be to put down their genocidal toys.

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

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!

Here's NASA's "comments" email address:

Daniel Goldin is the head of NASA. Here's his email address: or

Here's the NASA URL to find additional addresses to submit written questions to:


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.

(7) Subscription information

Thanks for reading! Welcome new subscribers!

Home page of our STOP CASSINI movement:

This newsletter is free and is not distributed for profit.
To subscribe, simply email the editor at and state:
Please include a personal message of any
length and subject matter. Thank you!

To unsubscribe email me and say

Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
Written in U.S.A.
Please distribute these newsletters EVERYWHERE!
What you do NEXT matters MOST OF ALL!

Next issue (#174)
Previous issue (#172)



This article has been presented on the World Wide Web by:

The Animated Software Company
Mail to:
First placed online August 16th, 1999.
Last modified August 16th, 1999.
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman