STOP CASSINI Newsletter #249 -- December 30th, 1999

Copyright (c) 1999

STOP CASSINI Newsletters Index

To: Subscribers, government officials, members of the press
From: Russell David Hoffman (still trying)
Re: 50% of capacity: STOP CASSINI #249
Date: December 30th, 1999 (early edition)

This issue's subjects:

*** (1) More information on reactor dangers from Lewis and Shannon:


Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:53:34 -0500
Subject: Re: [y2k-nuclear] Inherent design flaws in GE Boiling Water
        Reactors: STOP CASSINI #248 December 27th, 1999
From: "Marvin I. Lewis" <>

Dear Russell;
        Perhaps I stated in previous emails that I am a metallurgical
engineer. I have also written on shroud cracking and the 'new' geometries
of spent fuel pools in comments to the NRC. I lost my comments due to a
waste pipe break in my garage a few years ago.
        Jack Shannon is minimizing the dangers of shroud cracking and
spent fuel pool reengineering.
Spent fuel pool : If I remember my comments correctly, even without
actual testing , the calculations were questionable and contained many
unsubstantiated assumptions. I think that the NRC would have been
allowing a dangerous experiment if the configuration were tested. The
'new' designs should just be shut down. Some pools have more than "twice"
as suggested by Major Shannon.
Shroud cracking. This is indicative of several hidden dangers.
1.Corrosion control. Many of my comments pointed out that the corrosion
control was suspect in nuclear power plants. The corrosion control by
hydrogen injection  was one of the problems whose masking allowed TMI2 to
operate during the time of the accident. I could go on about corrosion
control until everyone is bored so I shall stop.
2. Hydrogen embrittlement. There are several sources of hydrogen such as
corrosion control mentioned above. Suffice it to say if you have free
hydrogen, you can have embrittlement which can affect the structural
integrity of most ferrous alloys.
3. Although neutron embrittlement is supposed to affect only PWRs (not
BWRS) midline, what 'spozed to be aint always so.' HOPEFULLY THE CRACKING
        I like Major Shannon's idea about getting together. Some people
like me work alone. I request that all are allowed under the tent: those
that work well together and those that work alone.
Marvin Lewis


Last night a pipe burst in my kitchen.  Hot water spilled all over the sink at about a rate of a couple of gallons a minute.  What a messy nightmare!  Pipes burst; electrical connections fail, things go wrong.  We all have to be prepared. -- rdh


Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:04:54 EST
Subject: Nuclear Power

Mr. Lewis:
I am sure I did minimize the shroud cracking and spent fuel storage systems.
I have only recently become aware of these problems and I am still becoming
My background is primarily with pressurized water systems and the Naval
Reactor designs. Spent fuel is not stored at Naval Reactor sites but at the
central processing [?] facility in Idaho.
I became aware of the shroud and storage problems when I was asked to speak
at Oswego, NY about the nine mile one plant. I went on a quick study program
and found out as much as I could in about two weeks.
The shroud cracking is a disaster waiting to happen and I don't know how or
why the NRC allows these plants to run.
The storage matter is also a disaster waiting to happen and the NRC has yet
to insist [as far as I know] that the utilities do up to date studies to
ensure the safety of these facilities. I did not mean to infer that the NRC
mockup a full blown storage facility experiment. What I was trying to get
across was that the NRC should ask the DOE, who has the capabilities, to
perform experiments that can at least mock up the spectrum if not the leakage
characteristics of a storage facility. Monte Carlo calculations such as KENO
are only good to +/- 5% under the best of circumstances and even then only if
one has a base line to normalize too.
You comments are well taken. I would like to discuss some of these at length
with you at your convenience.
The commercial nuclear industry is headed for some real disasters if the
technical matters are not addressed. I think it is just a matter of time
Thank You for your comments and please call me at you convenience. I would
like to hear more about the metallurgical aspects of the shroud problem.
Jack Shannon


*** (2) "There is no way to simulate the Y2K moment":

I hope the nuclear industry does not think anyone will thank them for planning to continue to operate over the Y2K holiday, when even according to John Koskinen, the Y2K "Czar" for Clinton, we only need about 50% of our electrical capacity at that time anyway.  So there is no reason the plants cannot be shut down all across America, by Executive order, today. -- rdh

----- INCOMING EMAIL: -----

Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:23:46 EST
Subject: Worlds' Nuke Plants Prepare for Y2K
Monday, December 27 9:53 PM SGT

World's nuke plants prepare for Y2K ground zero
VIENNA, Dec 27 (AFP) -
Nuclear plants worldwide are on high alert this week ahead of Friday's
millennium computer rollover, which experts admit could become a leap in the

Attention is focussed on ex-Soviet plants like Chernobyl in Ukraine, scene of
the world's worst ever nuclear accident in 1986. But critics say incidents
could occur anywhere.

"There is no way to simulate the Y2K moment, the zero moment, so there can't
be any guarantee that there wont be any malfunction at any technical
facilities," Greenpeace Y2K coordinator Tobias Muenchmeyer told AFP on Monday.

"There is concern that eastern plants could be more affected because the
countries have not invested as much in solving the problem. But at the same
time, Soviet reactors are less dependent on computer chips and that actually
brings them into a better position than western plants."

While public Y2K fears have focussed more on air travel and personal
computers, nuclear-linked software glitches could have more dramatic

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been working
intensively for more than a year to coordinate Y2K action among operators of
the over 400 nuclear plants in over 30 countries.

Workshops, expert exchanges and status reports have been organized, while its
emergency response centre has spent months preparing for this Friday night.

But despite all the efforts, it admitted this month that significant problems
remain -- notably due to lack of cash in struggling ex-communist states.

"There is concern that some nuclear power plant operators are falling behind
in their efforts to complete the necessary Y2K tasks owing to late actions
and a shortage of funds," said IAEA head Mohamed El Baradei.

He did not specify which plants or countries were concerned, but an IAEA
spokesman said the three main ones were Chernobyl, Ignalina in Lithuania --
of the same type as the Ukrainian plant -- and Armenia's sole nuclear

"It doesn't mean we believe there's any acute danger ... it's just that if
something unusual happens, then they may not have all of their computerized
systems working," the spokesman told AFP.

Experts insist the most serious possible consequence of a nuclear-plant
computer problem is an automatic reactor shutdown, causing power cuts but no
wider fallout.

To counter specific risks, some plants have agreed to take specific action
over the millennium period. Ignalina in Lithuania, for example, will limit
its output to 50 percent of capacity during the vital period.

On Friday night, IAEA experts will monitor the midnight computer rollover as
it sweeps from Asia through Europe and across to the Americas, to learn from
any incidents which do occur, and possibly alert other plants in advance.

In disputed plants themselves, officials play down the threat of a new
Chernobyl. "I wouldn't be here if there was something dangerous. I am a
trained engineer," said Dobroslav Dobak, spokesman at the Jaslovske Bohunice
plant in Slovakia, which is being closed early notably due to EU fears.

Environmentalists are not convinced. "There is always a risk of a major
incident, but on the millenium night the risk is obviously higher," said
Greenpeace official Muenchmeyer.

Even nuclear authorities admit there are no 100 percent guarantees.

"Although the nuclear industry has an excellent safety record, Chernobyl
demonstrated that accidents can and do happen," says the preamble to the
IAEA's emergency response system.

"During and after a nuclear accident, effective communication is essential to
enable authorities to take prompt measures and to provide reliable
information to the public at large," it adds.


Clearly the smart move would be to pre-emptively shut the nukes down. -- rdh

*** (3) A little encouraging news: [some] US Nuclear Stations to Cut Power Output During Y2K Rollover

Cutting power is a very important safety step because it increases the response time before things go from bad to worse.  It's not as good as shutting the nukes down, but it's still important. -- rdh


Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 05:39:34 +0000
From: Paul Swann <>
Subject: [y2k-nuclear] US Nuclear Stations to Cut Pwr Output During Y2K Rollover

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 19:32:58 -0400
From: pshannon <>
Subject: [sangersreviewtext] December 29, 1999

Wednesday, December 29, 1999

US Nuclear Stations to Cut Pwr Output During Y2K Rollover (Antje
Schiffler, Dow Jones Newswires -- requires paid registration)

"A number of the 103 U.S. nuclear power generating stations are expected
to reduce power output during the year 2000 rollover, according to
spokesmen at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's four regional
offices. It's easier to keep the unit online and react to unforeseen
events when power output is reduced, said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for
the Northeastern NRC region... He couldn't specify which plants will cut
power, however, because licensees aren't required to report planned
power reductions to the agency. Sheehan said power supply should be
ample, though, because this isn't a time of peak demand. Power
reductions vary from plant to plant, but are expected to be between 10%
to 20%, said Roger Hannah, public affairs officer at NRC's Southeastern

And, just in case:
NRC Staffed to Monitor Nuclear Plants During Y2K Rollover (Dow Jones
Newswires -- requires paid registration)

"The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans to keep its four regional
offices and the Joint Public Information Center in Washington, D.C.
staffed to monitor the status of commercial power plants and assist the
news media with information on the millennium rollover, the agency said
in a press release... The NRC also plans to station inspectors at every
plant site and gaseous diffusion plant site to augment staff in their
headquarters and regional incident response centers."

Upbeat Russia Says Fully Prepared for Y2K (Martin Nesirky, Yahoo!

Good for them!


*** (4) From the mailbag: Mike Orton responds:

I have interspersed my comments to this letter from Mike Orton in triple brackets [[[ like this -- rdh ]]].


Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 13:02:53 -0500
From: Mike-O <>
Subject: [y2k-nuclear] Disarmarment: How?  December 27th, 1999
To: "Russell D. Hoffman" <>

1/Have you seen this article?

 "The world's 430 operating nuclear power plants in 34
countries should operate normally during the coming millennium date
rollover, but performance problems could pop up in the weeks immediately
following the New Year, according to a report issued today by the
International Y2K Cooperation Center (IY2KCC)." IY2KCC director Bruce
McConnell said, "Unless Y2K work continues in plants where resources
have been limited, Y2K-produced errors in operational management and
monitoring systems will degrade overall plant performance in the weeks
following the date change... Over time, such a degradation in
performance would reduce the margins of safety and efficiency in these
plants." The report adds that "while many advanced nuclear plants employ
digital systems that control plant operations and systems that initiate
a reactor shutdown, the majority of digital systems are used in
non-critical functions, such as monitoring fuel usage and demand load,
and processing work orders. At the same time, however, the report
stressed the dependence of nuclear power plants on the normal
performance of 'external infrastructures,' including the electric power
grid, telecommunications, water and fuel deliveries, declaring that
'failures in these systems can require plants to modify, cut back or
discontinue operations...' The IY2KCC's report also sought to address
the popular belief that the best remedy for reducing the risk of nuclear
disaster over the New Year weekend might be simply to shut down the
reactors deemed most vulnerable to a the millennium bug. But, the report
argued, doing so could create more problems than it seeks to solve."

[[[ That argument (that shutting down would create more problems than it solves) is oft-repeated, but I am convinced it is of little substance. -- rdh ]]]

 2/ How can it be done?
Message text written by "Russell D. Hoffman"
>Is that really too much to ask?  That we just all get rid of these things
once and for all, so the world could enjoy the riches of vastly lowered
military expenditures, and vastly less risk of global genocide? -- rdh

There is one HUGE problem here, how do you know that the "other side" has
got rid of 100% of its nukes?

[[[ How do we know they have gotten rid of their Biological and Chemical weapons, either?  What is so different about the nuclear option is that it is incredibly expensive, incredibly dangerous and you can't get rid of the waste even if you come up with a political solution.  It's extremely difficult to handle (even if "anyone" can make a bomb if they really try), and it has been propped up in the public eye by lies.  Those lies -- institutionalized, corporate, government, medical and scientific LIES -- have resulted in the destruction of democracy and truth around the globe.  (Most Russians, according to a recent CNN report, have little or no idea what "Y2K" is; in America it's not much better; millions can't even spell it properly.  That might end very shortly.) -- rdh ]]]

When you are talking about 50, 500 or 5000, 90% is just not good enough.

[[[ Actually, the idea that there has to be -- not only a nuclear threat to counter a nuclear threat -- but one of equal magnitude, is utterly fallacious.  Any resort to nuclear weapons is such a risky action, even if the other side even has at most one or two nuclear weapons, that the idea that 5,000 nuclear weapons is the only way to counter 5,000 nuclear weapons is preposterous.  One is more than enough. -- rdh ]]]

Does anybody really know how many nukes Russia, USA, UK, France, China,
India, Pakistan, Israel has?

[[[[ I DO!  TOO _______ MANY! -- rdh ]]]

And what is a nuke? Is a "quick assembly kit" a WEAPON?

[[[ What are you trying to do, bog peace down in details? -- rdh ]]]

And what about CW and BW? The UN hasn't been able to stop Saddam, even when
there were inspectors there.

[[[ It certainly would have helped a lot if we (the U.S., namely the CIA) hadn't given Saddam the CW and BW in the first place!  It's really a drag when your friend becomes your enemy.  In fact, there is nothing worse.  Conversely, there is little better (and nothing I can talk about in a "family" newsletter) than when your enemy becomes your friend.  That is why after more than 2000 years it is still true that (as a great philosopher once said, long ago) "Treat your enemy as though he may one day be your friend, and your friend as if he may one day be your enemy."  It's all the more true today. -- rdh ]]]

I suspect most countries have  CW/BW "in the basement", just in case!

[[[ Me too.  I mean, I suspect it as well, I don't mean I have CW/BW in my basement.  (I don't actually have a basement, if you want to get technical.  I rent an apartment. -- rdh ]]]

It took several decades until Vanunu, by his treachery, disclosed that
Israel had more than 100 nuclear weapons.

[[[ "Call it "Peace" or call it "Treason,"
Call it "Love" or call it "Reason,"
But I ain't marchin' any more."
(-- Phil Ochs).

Or as Dr. Strangelove put it, "WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL US?!?!"  What good are 100, or 10, or 1, or 1000 or 10,000 nuclear weapons if no one knows you've got them?  What good are they anyway?  I don't know the details of the case, but it sounds like something the world needed to know.  I'm glad someone told us. -- rdh ]]]

Before then, the numbers ranged from zero to 20-ish. There are rumours that
Iran has two or three of the ex KGB suitcase weapons, but nobody really

[[[  It amazes me how much foreign policy is based on baseless rumors.  Meanwhile, the CIA could not tell us that India was about to set off a nuclear explosion, the CIA arranged to bomb the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (supposedly by accident, but I doubt it!) during the Yugoslav war, the CIA has had spies unmasked within it at virtually every level, and the CIA has undoubtedly infiltrated several if not all of the major news media in the U.S.A. and elsewhere.  So do you want to talk about what we know, or what we think we know? -- rdh ]]]

It is an unfortunate fact that a country with only a few nuclear weapons,
can do more damage, as they HAVE to strike at the major cities. It only
takes 48 nukes to destroy 33% of the old USSR's population in 48 large
cities, and take out 50% of the industry, but hundreds are needed for
strikes on military targets.
What if we all disarmed and then Iraq suddenly announced that it had a few
dozen nukes?

[[[ Do you think that would make them King of the World?  It would make them a hated pariah. -- rdh ]]]

They would be able to become the major world power.

[[[ I'm shaking in my boots, Mike, shaking all over.  Such a situation is utter fiction.  Owning nuclear weapons do not make anyone invincible, which is what you are claiming, and it just ain't so. -- rdh ]]]

A nation with nuclear weapons is like the gorilla! "Where does a 40 stone
gorilla sleep? Anywhere he wants to!"

[[[ America is a gorilla!  Russia is a gorilla!  Israel is a gorilla! -- rdh ]]]

Is there really much difference between a space research rocket and an

[[[ All the difference in the world, Mike.  One is (ideally, not like it's done in America these days, what with Cassini) a tool of science, an open project which creates a benefit for all the human race, and one is a tool of destroying thousands of years of culture and millions of lives in an instant. -- rdh ]]]

Even the Boeing Jumbo jet can carry a spare engine bolted on to the wing.
(Not allowed if it is carrying passengers though!) so what is to stop it
carrying a NCBW Cruise missile?

[[[ So what's the point?  The world's a dangerous place? -- rdh ]]]

My present PC with easily obtainable HW and SW could easily become the
guidance system for a "drone of death".
The auto-pilot systems even in jets is so much more primitive than my
Pentium-200/64, and GPS add-ons to PC's can now be bought for under 400 UK
pounds from adverts in computer mags! ( Review in last months PC Mag).
Here again we see a convergence of the home PC with military systems. If
anything the best home PC's are more powerful.
Deterrence is really the only protection against NCBW, but it would be
better if there were less on immediate alert.
A hardened second strike capacity is much safer than a launch on warning

Mike Orton, CPhys., MInstP.,DCT(Batt)., MSRP., PGCE(Wales).
"40 years in computing from Stretch to the networked Pentium, 35 years as a
Health Physicist. 25 Years in Safety Training"

[[[ It is my opinion that socio-political changes in the level of hatred and disrespect for thine enemy, co-mingling and intermarrying of the populations, the teaching of tolerance and compassion, the expression of love for thine enemies, and the recognition of the full extent of the damages that are inflicted during a nuclear war, along with exchanges of scientists, students, athletes, poets, Internet journalists and other cultural mixings, are far, far safer techniques to protect the world from the threat of nuclear holocaust than creating an even greater threat is. -- rdh ]]]


Here's a great site with the lyrics to scores of protest songs throughout the ages:

The next issue of the STOP CASSINI newsletter, due out later today, will contain some additional comments which are relevant here, in the form of a response to comments presented in Newsletter #246, to a longtime STOP CASSINI subscriber, titled: "Big arguments over fine lines." -- rdh

*** (5) From the mailbag: More response to newsletter #246:


Subject: RE: Never a dull moment: STOP CASSINI #246: December 26th, 1999
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 04:02:46 -0500


Your welcome, I've always noticed in your letters that while you defend your
positions fiercely, you also always appear to be in search of the truth,
even if it means you have to admit you were wrong. I have always thought
that this is what distinguishes the truly intelligent. One has to be able to
discard "facts", even cherished ones, once better information comes along. A
common theme in your letters is the numerous rebuttals by tired hacks
repeating their unsupported facts and ignoring all of the contrary and well
documented data that you have amassed to refute those claims. I can't recall
any of the many frequent critics whose emails you've reprinted who have
altered their viewpoint even in the slightest. I suspect it was these same
types who gave Copernicus such a hard time.

I also wanted you to know that I only became aware of these issues through
your news letter. I had read of the upcoming Cassini flyby in a Science
piece in the Atlanta paper early last summer. The paper mentioned that there
was a small radical group who had protested its launch and were again
protesting its impending close encounter with the Earth. I did a Web search
to find out more about the flyby, thinking I might get to see it, not
because of any concern over it. The Alta Vista search engine came back with
quite a few hits, many of which I visited, all of which sung its praises, a
few mentioned the protest but clearly labeled it as based on unscientific
people generally opposed to this sort of thing. However one search hit was
your STOP CASSINI news letter. I was curious as to why you were opposed to
this glorious scientific endeavor so I pulled up the current issue. I was
immediately impressed by your deep understanding of the issues, your
extremely well thought out objections, your strong evidence that the worst
case scenario was much much worse than NASA was admitting and what struck me
most was your reasoning as to "What's the rush?" If we can't get to Saturn
for another decade because we can't yet build solar cells for the job, so
what? Saturn will still be there and even if NASA's estimate came with a
gold plated certificate of accuracy it still wouldn't be worth the potential
risk, even based on the relatively low mortality that NASA was willing to
own up to.

Reading that one newsletter made me go back and visit your Web site and
start reading from the beginning and then subscribing to it. I just mention
this, because if I hadn't bumped into your letter by accident, I'm sure I'd
be just as ignorant of the potential Y2K dangers associated with nuclear
power plants and related industries. This is sad considering I read the
newspaper daily, try to keep up with general scientific issues, work in a
technical field, travel 100,000 miles a year in the US and abroad and when I
do I generally read the local papers, thus giving me a fairly wide sampling
of the public news. All this and the only opposing view I ran into, I ran
into accidentally!

Since then I've been pretty vocal with friends, family, coworkers and the
people I meet in my travels about the issue, but I have to tell you even
though I've stirred up a number of people, there seems to be a major gap
between being upset about the issue and being able to channel that with any
hope of making any difference. At this point, all I've been able to do is
help to spread the word, suggest writing to their elected leaders and refer
them to your newsletter. Substantial change will take something more I
think, but I love the blue ribbon idea, I'm making some up tomorrow!

Warmest regards.



The editor is touched by this and the many wonderful comments that have come in from subscribers and other activists!  My gratitude is unmeasurable; my sadness is that we have not managed to prepare the world for what lies ahead (if not at Y2K, then sooner or later there will be nuclear pestilence and war if we do not dismantle, de-alert, and rethink the nukes).

*** (6) Television show about Cassini planned:


ate: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 16:18:43 +0100
From: Thomas D
Subject: cassini!

I am working for german television. we want to make a film about cassini
and the cassini problem.
some questions:
are there any other mission planned like cassini?
or are there any other cassini-like satellites in the orbit?

i am sure there will come up a lot of other questions, but some are already
answered by your kantastic (sic) web-site and the links

thank you

thomas d


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


Thanks for your email [shown above].  I'm delighted that you are interested in doing a show about Cassini!

There are a number of missions planned which also will contain large quantities of deadly plutonium 238.  I don't know the exact number but it is probably more than 6 and may be as many as a dozen.  These missions will probably use slightly less plutonium than Cassini's enormous 72.3 pounds of plutonium dioxide (400,000 Curies).  Slightly less might be as little as 40,000 Curies but is probably more likely to be around 200,000 Curies.  These are enormous amounts!  .001 Curies would be more appropriate for what are essentially unregulated launches --the international treaties are utterly toothless.

As to other "Cassini-like" satellites in orbit, there are a number of nuclear satellites in orbit around the Earth right now (Cassini itself is not in orbit, but rather is heading towards Jupiter right now, on its way to Saturn eventually (in 2004)).  The worst problem in orbit right now is probably several dozen nuclear reactors that Russia put in orbit during the "Cold War" (which was actually very "hot", spreading nuclear waste throughout the environment!).  They are in orbits which are decaying; the lifespan for most of them, before their flaming return to Earth, is about 1000 years, sometimes less.  During the wait before they touch our atmosphere and are incinerated, they are prone to being smashed by space debris (there are millions of pieces in orbit right now, left there by early space explorers who were supremely arrogant and careless).

There are probably a number of other nuclear satellites in orbit around Earth, some of which undoubtedly contain plutonium but because they are for military missions, the truth is kept secret from the public.  The danger from these missions is extreme, however, both during launch and due to the fact that "what goes up, must come down" (unless it reaches escape velocity, but even then it might randomly cross our path).

The half-life of Pu 238 is about 88 years; that of Pu 239, about 24,100 years.  The extremely short half life of Pu 238 makes it a particularly dangerous substance when vaporized and spread throughout the atmosphere among 6 billion people, which is exactly what Cassini was capable of doing (still is, but the odds against it have gone down significantly since they Earth flyby last August).

Again, thank you for your letter and I hope I've answered your questions sufficiently to get you started!


Russell Hoffman
Peace Activist
Carlsbad, CA

----- END OF MY RESPONSE -----

I'm sure if someone from NASA wants to present a different view, they will contact me to find out who the contact in Germany is.  On the other hand, they probably won't bother because by now, 249 issues into the STOP CASSINI newsletter, NASA hopefully knows by now that I'll be fair. -- rdh

(7) Tell Clinton how you feel -- Official government contact points:

To contact the top government officials:

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

Vice President Albert Gore (same address)
Phone -- (202) 456-1414  Fax -- (202) 456-2461
e-mail --

Secretary William Cohen
1000 Defense
The Pentagon
Washington D.C. 20301
Phone -- (703) 695-6352  Fax -- (703) 695-1149

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

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:

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:


NASA should never have been allowed to launch monstrosities like Cassini and Galileo, 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"

For Pluto-Kuiper Express:
"Pluto-Kuiper Express comments"

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, 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).

(8) Newsletter subscription information:

Thanks for reading!  Welcome new subscribers!

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.
This newsletter is free and is not distributed for profit.
The opinions expressed are those of the individual authors.
Please distribute these newsletters EVERYWHERE!
Written in the United States of America.

(9) Newsletter Authorship notes and additional URLs:

Russell D. Hoffman, Carlsbad, California, Peace Activist, Environmentalist, High Tech Guru:

Hoffman's Y2K Preparedness Information:

Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:

** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** Carlsbad CA
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:

Next issue (#250)
Previous issue (#248)



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

The Animated Software Company
Mail to:
First placed online December 30th, 1999.
Last modified December 30th, 1999.
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman