STOP CASSINI Newsletter #183 -- September 9th, 1999

Copyright (c) 1999

STOP CASSINI Newsletters Index

To: Mike Orton "Mike-O"
From: Russell Hoffman (with a little help from his friends)
cc: y2k-nuclear ; the rest of the world (my STOP CASSINI newsletter list, for example)
Subject: Re: [y2k-nuclear] A response to Mike Orton's Y2K-nuclear comments -- I ACCUSE MIKE ORTON!!!!!!
Date: 9/9/99

Dear Mr. Orton;

Despite you having cleverly not mentioned my name in the attached posting on the y2k-nuclear list, it is clearly an attempt to answer my comments more than anyone else's, perhaps only mine.

And despite your having not sent me a copy specifically (as I had done in my letter to you), I welcome your challenge at debate, however indirect you pretend it to be. I hope you will post this response anywhere you have posted any other portion of these comments.

Mr. Orton, you said, regarding possible Y2K deaths in Russia, "If power reactors shut down in Russia and can't be started up quickly due to y2k, flats will get cold, pipes freeze, and people will die from the cold in the winter. Thus in a way it is true that y2k and reactors may cause many deaths, amongst the elderly and babies, and it could easily exceed the total killed by Chernobyl if the weather is bad at the time..."

But in your most recent missive you state, "The Chernobyl catastrophe was the result of unbelievable incompetence, and violation of local operating rules. When I was last in Israel I met ex Chernobyl staff, who agreed that there had been a cover-up of the public doses, but in the former USSR public health was a very low priority. Most industries there spew out uncontrolled pollution, and it is difficult to get a base line to find excess deaths." You add, "UK/USA figures for deaths cannot be used in the former USSR."

The reasoning behind what you have written is sickening. If Russians are dying in excess numbers because of other assaults from other forms of pollution, (something I whole-heartedly agree is happening) that is a reason to try to ensure they have LESS additional health burdens, not more! Instead you try to hide your nuclear deaths amongst all these other deaths.

Yes, Mr. Mike Orton, we all die. And it's more important how we live than how long we live. And any one of us might be spared the horror of Y2K by dying first. But no one, not ANYONE, not you, not me, not a baby or an old person in Kiev or anywhere else, should die even ONE DAY sooner than necessary.

If you are doing something that MIGHT threaten life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness (at least in my country, at least in theory) then THE PEOPLE have the right to use "the precautionary principal" in response to whatever you are doing -- and stop it until the facts are in. Yet you yourself claim the facts are still unattainable, at least about Chernobyl, the very same nuclear accident you cite as a "worst case scenario". Since you have 40 years of experience "in the Nuclear Industry as a Professional Health Physicist with large involvement in computing" surely you can tell me what a lethal dose of plutonium -238, for instance is, and what a lethal dose of plutonium-239 is, which are two radioactive substances I am more familiar with than most of the others. And, as I asked before, you can tell us what you think 1/10th of that dose does to people, statistically, if you give, say, 10 people that partial dose.

And you can tell us, no doubt, what 1/1000th of that dose might do to people, if given to 1000 people (in varying, or in equal, parts).

And you can tell us, no doubt, after 40 years' experience, what 1/1,000,000th of a lethal dose might do to people, if distributed not to one person, but divided out and given to 1,000,000 people.

Yet instead you cite a few dams that have bust, ignoring A) in all cases, there was almost surely human error involved, which we have never denied is a factor in accidents, and B) you ignore the relative size of the accidents. 100 people dying in a flood in not the same as what Chernobyl has done and is doing. A flood is a one-time thing. A nuclear meltdown is forever, at least, it lasts as long as it's taken us to descend (or is it ascend? I forget.) from apes. And don't tell me about how wonderful evolution is and how change is a part of nature. As long as mankind has been alive and able to keep records, "the perfect man" has pretty much stayed the same. (In fact, you can see a statue of him in Italy, and replicas of that statue everywhere. His name is David. Many consider his body as close to perfect as any there has ever been.)

Another thing I asked you which you clearly -- despite 40 years of experience "in the Nuclear Industry as a Professional Health Physicist with large involvement in computing" are not willing to answer -- was how many deaths you thought Chernobyl had caused. That, you have not answered, after citing it as an example of something in your opening salvo. Now you are claiming you can't tell, yet YOU said Russian deaths from freezing alone could exceed Chernobyl. Exceed what? Exceed how many deaths? 10,000 deaths? 125,000 deaths (which the Ukranian Ministry of Health maintains, at least as of about two years ago)? 250,000 deaths? 500,000 deaths (which I personally feel is the absolute minimum, INCLUDING those deaths which will undoubtedly occur over the next 50-100 years)? 1,000,000 deaths? Will we have figured out how to remove Chernobyl's already-leaked poison back out of the environment in 1000 years? What do you think will happen to the long-lived radioactive components in the environment in the next 1000 years, Mr. Mike Orton? In 10,000 years? What makes bad spots on fruit? What causes leukemia? What causes all the hundreds of different forms of cancer in this world? It ain't just smoking, which by the way is voluntary. THE PEOPLE do not want nuclear power, have NEVER wanted nuclear power, and any straw poll which proves different proves only that the people have been lied to or that the pollsters have missed the masses. If you say (as they did, in the 1950's when you joined the ranks, so I'm sure you remember this phrase) "too cheap to meter" then sure, people are likely to respond to that favorably. Some poll that is! If you say "expensive, dangerous, prone to failure, will create a police state, will create an unsolvable waste problem, will bankrupt your children, and won't even run all that reliably when it does work" and then explain to them that that is how things will be if there are NO meltdowns, because if there are, things will be considerably worse as millions of cancers, leukemias, birth defects, and hundreds of other assorted ailments and problems pervade, and then ask them if instead they would rather have something which, in the history of 10's of thousands of small hydro systems, might have a few hundred (or even a few thousand) die in a few dam breaks with floods of WATER, instead of with RADIOACTIVE DEBRIS, then you've got a fair poll, and see how that turns out. See who supports your beloved nukes.

Any other poll is a lie.

Let's talk about what nature will do if there are meltdowns on Y2K, or tomorrow, from an Electro-Magnetic pulse, or from anything else. Let's do this from a scientific point of view, in other words, assuming that "evolution" has been a good thing, and has in fact been happening, and has left an indelible stamp upon the fossil record, and has conquered the question no one seems to be able to answer, which is, where did the first DNA strand come from, even if the first human actually did evolve from some ape-thing? For the theory of cellular biology indicates without question, that it all can be followed, statistically, by following the DNA sequence, as it successfully divides and replicates itself, and divides, and replicates and divides and replicates. If the son looks like the father, that is usually all a man wants The only other thing that happens is "natural selection" wherein we pick our own partners and join the cleaved DNA strands with that of another. We seek, through this process, to improve the lot. To have "perfect" children. To bless this world with a little bundle of joy (or two, or three, etc.). What a wonderful world it is, too, right, Mr. Mike Orton, who will not even speak my name?

So what is evolution? What choices do we have?

I think it is safe to say, there are many wonderful choices for each of us. Proof is that many of us marry and stay happily married all our lives. Natural selection has reached a fine level, where there are many good choices around, if you try hard enough, or care enough to seek the very best. And many people (alas, not all, but the vast majority) do indeed have "perfect" children. Bundles of joy. Natural selection MAY advance, but if so, that would just be one more blessing. But it is fine the way it is. Most of us are fine the way we are. "Normal" people do not need to evolve further. Evolution is a painful process, full of discarded false attempts at new branches. We don't need our DNA strands replicating improperly. Not when they divide within us to keep our own bodies alive, and not at any other time, not in our sperm as they seek to be joined with an egg, and not as a part of the egg. Scientifically speaking, radiation harms all these things. It destroys the DNA on a molecular level. It is like a little land mine, a tiny, nano-technology land mine (actually, even smaller). It is the ultimate "devil in the details". Since you had "40 years in the Nuclear Industry as a Professional Health Physicist with large involvement in computing" I'm sure you know this to be true. Yet you do nothing. And I wonder why, but can only assume it is all those lies you've been told in your military career, which you are sworn not to divulge.

South Africa had a truth commission for the sake of human rights, and the world needs one for the sake of human health. I recommend that people like you be given full amnesty to tell the truth and that you be required to warn us each time you speak, that you have been permitted -- in fact encouraged -- for 40 years to make up stories to hide the truth. And after 40 years, it appears you have come to believe some of those stories. But the truth is, a little radiation is NOT good for you. Nuclear energy has NEVER been cheap, let alone "too cheap to meter". Problems with nuclear operators in Russia ARE indicative of problems with nuclear operators in England or the United States -- nobody, despite our hundreds or perhaps thousands of generations since we developed from apes, is perfect. Maybe we were when we were born, but it's been downhill since then. I know I am not perfect. I know you are not perfect because in your letters, you contradict yourself.

Will "evolution" select out the weak, so that those that survive can withstand radiation's microscopic assaults? That is not how evolution works, except in the grossest, most painful, inhuman, inhumane, torturous, cruel and criminal way. Discard nine out of ten babies to keep the gene pool clean? Sure, it can be done. But I would rather we be able to keep them all.

Has evolution selected out those who are immune from rocks, knives, arrows, bullets, laser weapons, biological weapons, or anything else your lips are clearly zipped to talk about honestly because of your military background? You have an agenda, Mr. Mike Orton. It's to confuse and belittle the opposition. You have not answered my charges at all, you have merely added to the muddle of misinformation. You have contaminated the truth.

You, with 40 years of personal financial enrichment from uranium, have proven that you know a lot about how some types of nuclear plants are built, but very little about why any of them really exist in the first place. Or if you do know, you aren't saying, presumably because of your past and ever-lasting military connections.

Let's face it: All your letter (shown below) really admits to is that if ANYTHING goes wrong, "in fall the rods" as you put it, and that's the end of it.

Yes, that might happen. But even if it does, that's NOT the end of it. And as many as 433 commercial reactors all tripping in a 24 period is an unheard-of action, and a greatly increased risk over an average day, when maybe one or two around the world might be shut down for some reason or other. It is never a happy moment at a nuclear power plant to have to emergency-trip the reactor, and not just because they are "a bugger" to start up again.

Rather, it is because things CAN and DO go wrong at that moment you are so confident about. Like what? Like the things I listed in a previous letter -- the one you clearly are only pretending not to answer: warped, cracked, brittle tubing, things not made to spec, things not installed right (an entire 200-ton reactor was installed backwards once, remember?), things not welded right, things not tested or inspected properly when said inspection was being relied on for quality control -- you name it, it's already happened in "onesies and twosies" and may have been one of the trigger causes of Chernobyl -- added to the legendary incompetence which continues throughout Russia (and the rest of the world) to this day. Human incompetence, indeed, is a well known fact of life. That's why we call ourselves humans and not gods. Because we fail. We make mistakes. We accuse unjustly. We ignore facts.

I accuse you, Mr. Mike Orton, of the United Kingdom (whose Queen reportedly owns the largest uranium mine in the world), of unjustly denouncing me (while ever-so-slightly-slyly disguising your comments by not naming me) and I further accuse you of gross ignorance of the facts, or of lying -- I don't know which it is. But if you are going to claim on the one hand that Chernobyl's deaths could easily be exceeded by deaths from freezing, and then on the other hand claim you haven't got a clue how many people died from Chernobyl's minor, tiny, nearly inconsequential, partial meltdown (some fuel melt occurred, but not much and it was NOT a full-blown meltdown (it probably only released between 4% and 10% of its radioactive core inventory into the environment)), you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

So to clear up the confusion, how many people do you THINK died from Chernobyl? Can you guesstimate within an order of magnitude in each direction and tell me you believe chances are pretty good (better than 50/50, say (but how would you really know?) that the number is within that range? You offered up Chernobyl, in YOUR first letter that caused all this "disturbance in the force". You come to us as a learned professional. I see you as fox trying to wear a lamb's coat, and it ill-fits you. Y2K is many things, but the worst things it poses an excess risk of, is the danger of a nuclear EMP (which is bad in particular because of the nuclear plants it will cause to meltdown), the danger of an accidental (or purposeful) nuclear war, and the dangers of meltdowns without the other two things to boot.

That is what those on this list seek to prevent with their "WASH" campaigns and such. I personally hope to see even more reason come than just a nuclear holiday, I hope that Y2K wakes the whole world up to the "Nuclear Mafia" who have been lying to the public about 1,000,000 individual spills which have been labeled "too small to worry about", who have been lying about the dangers of LLR, who have been denouncing the wonderful and honest scientists and activists who know as much as you or anyone else on the pro-nuclear side, and who have been causing increases in premature deaths for decades now -- who have, in short, been poisoning our Earth spiritually, emotionally, and physically. These are the people I hope Y2K unmasks. These are the facts I hope will come to light in the next few months, while there is still time to do something.

Regarding secrets, here is what Einstein said some time after WWII: "There is no secret and there is no defense." He continued, "There is no possibility of control except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world." He also said, "nuclear energy cannot be fitted into outmoded concepts of narrow nationalisms." Your UK reactors might be a little better than Russia's, and your operators might (or might not) be a little more competent, but when you claim (in the first half of one sentence) that you "believe that zero meltdowns is the only acceptable level", you cannot then claim that "probable" is good enough -- only "impossible" is good enough if zero meltdowns is the "ONLY ACCEPTABLE LEVEL" (my emphasis, your words). But that's what you said the risk was -- in the second half of the same sentence!

You are utterly inconsistent. I wonder why.

Eisenhower said, in 1959, "I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our government. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days, government had better get out of their way and let them have it".

I think Y2K may be that day, if people like you tell the world the whole truth of what they know in the coming months. And stop jerking our chain with inconsistencies.

You clearly have lots of information within you, Mr. Mike Orton. What you really should be doing right now is putting out all the truth you possibly can, and stop finding excuses for what you have done and trying to snow people with the minutia of the details of one or two reactor types while utterly misunderstanding the big picture. Some rods don't fall from lack of electro-magnetic power and gravity assist. Boiling water reactors for example have the controls coming up from the bottom, and should not have been permitted in the first place for just that reason (and a host of others).

And you obviously are unaware, or have forgotten, or don't care, that many boiling water reactors, such as the G.E. Mark 1 (nickname "forty minutes to meltdown") do NOT have a proper containment dome at all, which is the last line of defense. They have instead what is called a "pressure suppression chamber" and a "torus" which have their own problems -- major design deficiencies. What they have for containment is usually just the metal building roof, and there are over 50 reactors in the U.S. alone which have this system. G.E. was too cheap to build a reactor containment dome because it would have been too big to be "cost effective". Or to put it another way, safety was compromised for financial gain.

By the way the Atomic Energy Commission was told about the deficiencies as the first Mark 1 reactors were being built but they let General Electric complete them anyway and we've been "forty minutes from meltdown" ever since. Westinghouse's ice condenser plants also have all sorts of problems.

One document of particular interest for this discussion from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is called NUREG-1079, which gives the basic accident scenarios for what can lead to a meltdown for all U. S. -designed reactors, which have been shipped all over the world. (The NRC can be reached at (800) 397-4209 within the U. S. or (202) 634-3273. Ask to speak to a PDR (Public Documents Room) librarian. The cost for documents is usually about 10 cents a page, but remember it goes to the government so that's alright. NUREG-1079 was put together by the top folks at the DoE and in the nuclear industry and at universities and at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It was the draft copy and it was fully expected by the authors that it would be updated and expanded, but it wasn't. It was too scary the first time.)

Mr. Mike Orton, you have shown in your letter one thing very clearly: That you stop thinking about the dangers from nuclear power as soon as the control rods have dropped. First you have to isolate the problem -- a valve stuck open or shut, a leak, a blockage, a computer bug, a terrorist attack, a nuclear EMP 1000 miles away -- whatever.

Assuming the cause is NOT something that causes water to leak out, or a crucial valve or something which starts a meltdown (in which case you better run for your life, unless of course it's like plant Sequoyah, in Tennessee, which, in case of a station blackout and failure of its backup generators, will not simply melt down, it will explode), in most reactors, you still have to keep the core cool for years or even decades. Then starts the horrendous task of watching the waste -- virtually forever.

Your letter ends with the rods dropping. That's not the end of it. Let's say there is some kind of damage that hasn't actually affected the core (no fuel rods cracked or broken), but has rendered the reactor inoperable (unstartable) for some other reason -- for example, a crack underneath the reactor "base mat" that the reactor rests on, or some other reason. Then, you're going to have to remove the fuel rods out of the core, and stick them in the spent fuel pool, where the water has to be kept circulating continuously. If an EMP is the cause of your problem and nothing is running anywhere, you've got a hell of a mess. Without the water circulating the spent fuel pool will boil dry, the zircalloy cladding will become brittle, rods will rupture, and there will be a meltdown. In plant Hatch, Georgia, USA, the spent fuel pool is between the fourth and fifth floor levels of the building. Kinda makes you wonder if the people that built it had any sense at all. Maybe they're the same ones who installed the reactor backwards -- but there have been SO MANY accidents, leaks, spills, burps, and other distributions of radwaste into the environment that it's unlikely those particular two goof-ups were the same people. Everyone in the industry makes mistakes. What's your worst mistake ever? Betcha will claim you can't tell us for security reasons! That's what they all say!

Virtually every reactor has a spent fuel pool near them because there is no place else to put the fuel -- there is no long term storage place. There are thousands of fuel rods in every pool. As they cool (takes as much as 10 years) the fuel rods are moved to dry fuel casks which are then usually left out in the open, baking in the sun, vulnerable to terrorists, tornados, earthquakes, wars, tsunamis (many plants are near large bodies of water), and other dangers -- even asteroids. All these would come and go, do their damage and kill those who are there, and then a new generation would grow in its place. Not so with a nuclear meltdown. Nothing good grows there anymore. Nothing healthy. Nothing happy.

Y2K poses many problems, but none are greater than what might happen to the nuclear reactors. With or without the fuel rods properly dropping into place.

Your are a dreamer, Mr. Mike Orton, and your dreams are full of contradictions. The technology you support is old and decrepit and has been proven deadly and unaffordable. Come into the sunshine, Mr. Mike Orton, where truth, logic, democracy, science, peace and compassion all share a voice in what technologies we adopt and which ones are discarded. Please do so before you kill us all with your excuses, your denials, your nameless attacks on those who are already here, and worst of all, your calming platitudes in a time of desperate need around the world.


Russell D. Hoffman
Carlsbad, California, USA
(Full contact information and associated links and information appears below Mr. Orton's letter)
"There is no liberty without truth"

At 01:04 PM 9/9/99 -0400, Mike Orton wrote:
Message text written by

Nuclear safety systems:
You can think of a nuclear reactor as a matrix of uranium(or MOX, Thorium, or even Pu) in some sort of moderator, water(normal or heavy), graphite, NaK which may or may not act as the cooler/heat transfer medium.
Amongst the many elements, from 146 to 3000, there are from a dozen to hundereds of safety/control rods.
these contain Cadmium, boron, Hafnium, or a mixture. They are held out of the core by electromagnets. (Magnetic clutch).
Consider one of many safety circuits. It will be a series array of relays, again held in by electromagnets.
and of course a power supply to keep the current flowing to keep the rods out to allow the reactor to run.
Failure of any of the relays, of any power supply, or any computer that controls them will break the circuit, and the rods will fall in. Any y2k problem, that hangs a program, or even shuts down any computer will again end in a signal that should be there to not be, and in the fail safe design, will break the circuit and in fall the rods.
You won't be able to start up the beast until you have found which bit of the chain failed, and why.
This is why it can be a bugger to start up.
Certainly as far as the Magnox reactors and UK AGR's melt down was hardly credable. The Russian design would have never get approval to operate in the UK. In the UK reactors a burst duct, and it really had to be a bottom duct, would have let the CO2 leak out, and air in. If at the same time there was a channel blockage, there was a remote chance of a channel fire, but if you actually ran the computer prediations for this, and some are available as Public Domain programs, the consequences were evacuation of the affected sectors to about 5 miles, and the typical calculations were 80 to 90 hours to ERL, so there was plenty of time to evacuate the rural areas that surrounded the metal PV magnox.
And this was only under the most unfavorable conditions. In most cases it was very difficult to justify any evacuation.
There were those who argued that there was more danger in the evacuation, from road accidents etc.
The AGR's were much more safe. Dams have failed, one in the early 1900's in north wales killed over 100 people, Italy, India, China have had modern failures with many deaths. Yet this is a Green Power source!
I believe that zero meltdowns is the only acceptable level, and with modern reactors this is probable.
The Chernobyl catastrosphe was the result of unbelieable incompetence, and violation of local operating rules.
When I was last in Israel I met ex Chernobly staff, who agreed that there had been a cover-up of the public doses, but in the former USSR public health was a very low priority. Most industries there spew out uncontrolled pollution, and it is difficult to get a base line to find excess deaths. UK/USA figures for deaths cannot be used in the former USSR.
As far as the UK Magnox and AGR's were concerned, a complete loss of power would have only buggered up reactor equipment. They would have shut down, but might have taked months to start up again whilst motors, etc were checked and/or replaced. The outage time would have cost millions per reactor.
EMP would simerly bugger up the system, probably multiple failures on of safety chain, but you don't gain anything, one failure is enough to get those rods falling in!
And there is boron balls, a second belt and braces safety system, entirely separate, this can be recovered, in that the balls can be put back. Finally there is boron dust, that will totally bugger up the reactor, and this system cannot easily be reversed.
As to secrecy, the CEGB and its successors never went in for secrecy, except commercial in confidence.
An enormous amount of papers was publicly available, often in local libraries.
AWRE, and later the MOD(Navy) did have huge amounts of highly classified papers, BUT, in many cases I found that documents graded "Top secret atomic guard, UK eyes only" contained information that could have been obtained from a good scientific library. And according to a Sky Discovery program, the RED BOMB, on Aug 5th 1995, the Russians had such a good spy network in the USA/UK that their main difficulty was getting enough English speaking scientist to read the documents. A large warehouse was shown full of them. I did some research for a book, and found that another country had broken into the Philby Russian spy ring, blackmailed its members, and had copies sent to its scientists.
It is fair to say there there is a mountain of secret and above documents, but very little secret science!
Its only security officers with thirds in oriental Studies, not scientists,, who think that you can keep scientific information secret for long .
By the way I do have great reservations about nuclear power, but this concerns the fact that as soon as a country has a nuclear industry, it is very easy to develop nuclear weapons.
The basics of Nukes is today readily available, even in my local library. I have seen the Teller_Ulam configeration in children's books. Any country that can get 2 to 3 thousand scientists and engineers together can make a bomb.
And the computers that I have had in my house since 1988 have only lagged behind the total computing power of AWRE Aldermaston by 15 to 20 years! Yes weapons design is very practical on my PC.
And even small hamlets in North Wales have Pentiums, often P-2or 3! Mining with microbes, to concentrate Uranium from lean ores (details in open literature, really a third world technology), Laser separation, to 50-60%, then small array of gas centrifuges of diffusion plants is all you need. Chemical and even more so Biological Weapons are portacabin techniques, or small industrial plant.
Remember the US A and H Bombs were developed in the days of the glowing glass valve. I can remember the first transistor equipment becoming available. In my time I have gone from the large Octal valve, the transistor on a circuit board, the printed cct, then the Integrated cct, now the Pentium processor. The first supercomputer that I used had rows of glowing valves, punched card input, and large, physical size, tape units. It took up the whole building, and the floor below was for cooling. When the first PC's came along management found it hard to believe that they were at 1000 much more powerful than the "proper" computers that we had spent 50,000 on a little time ago.
To get Pu, build a Hanford reactor, pure 1944 technology!, or rather pre-technology as we know it!
Pakistan and India, both near the breadline states have found no great difficulty in going Nuclear.
Iraq would have been if first Israel and now the US/UK had not bombed its nuclear facilities.
Mike Orton
Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws. home: - Simplifying group communications

What you can do today to stop NASA's nuclear madness:

NASA needs to be told in no uncertain terms NEVER to launch nuclear rockets of any type ever again!

To learn about the absurd excuses NASA used to launch Cassini and its 72.3 pounds of plutonium in 1997, ask them for the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini mission, and all subsequent documentation. At the same time, be sure to ask them for ANY and ALL documentation available on future uses of plutonium in space, including MILITARY, CIVILIAN, or "OTHER" (just in case they make a new category somehow!). To get this information, contact:

Cassini Public Information
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.

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!
Even the smallest step forward helps. Really it does.
May God bless you for your help.
May there be a God to bless you for your help.
May the world be here tomorrow to receive God's blessing, because you helped.
Thank God (and the DoD) for the Internet!

Next issue (#184)
Previous issue (#182)



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

The Animated Software Company
Mail to:
First placed online September 23rd, 1999.
Last modified September 23rd, 1999.
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman