Are the RTG's on Cassini designed to incinerate if an accidental re-entry occurs during the Earth fly-by? A look at the evidence.

...and STOP CASSINI sample newsletters and subscription information.

by Russell D. Hoffman

Copyright (c) 1997

This web page contains two sample newsletters from our STOP CASSINI newsletter. These particular newsletters (Issues #3 and #4) announce a shocking and terrifying scenario: That the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) appear to be specifically designed to incinerate if an accidental re-entry occurs during the Earth flyby.

The STOP CASSINI newsletter is free and available by electronic blind-carbon-copy only. The subscriber list is never divulged or distributed and subscribing does not in any way indicate agreement with my positions. Subscription information appears near the bottom of this web page.


This email announces a frightening scenario. I may be wrong. But there are facts to be reconciled...

Thanks, Russell Hoffman, Webmaster, STOP CASSINI

******* STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER Volume #3 ******

Subject: Are the RTG's designed to be incinerated? A series of emails...

****** VOLUME #3 APRIL 17th, 1997 ******

I have made an announcement (starting, in a conversation to a WIRED reporter) that I believe the RTGs on the Cassini space probe are DESIGNED TO INCINERATE on accidental reentry to Earth during the flyby in 1999. My evidence is presented below.

Here is the related correspondence including my letter to the President, now an open letter. Anyone interested in nuclear issues or who just likes an amazing (but true) story should also read my DRAFT RESPONSE TO NASA'S DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE CASSINI MISSION (and don't blame me for the long name -- I call it my I.Q. Test for Space Cadets).

Here's the URL:

Please post this anywhere you think anyone might care...

Here are the emails, in REVERSE order. First up is the most recent, from Karl Grossman to me, then one from me to President Clinton from this morning, then one to Karl Grossman, and one to a reporter at WIRED.

Below was sent to President Clinton with the following note:

Dear Mr. President;

Although no letter I have ever sent to the White House has ever been personally acknowledged by a President, this time, I am absolutely SURE this letter will reach you. Greetings!

I believe that NASA's problems now go even deeper than whatever would produce the scenario described below. I believe that NASA employees are wondering who feeds me information from among their staff? I believe NASA employees are wondering who I work for.

So I thought I should tell you who I work for.

I work for you.

I believe I am a good American working on making America stronger, better, healthier, more honest, and more peaceful.

Russell D. Hoffman

To:Karl Grossman
Hi Karl!

I sent the following email (attached, below) to at least three people. One was accidental and I don't know who it is. So the cat's out of the bag.


In a world that cares about truth and justice, this is a blockbuster accusation for which I will be (rightfully?) destroyed if I'm wrong. Well, the evidence is pretty strong geopolitically and NASA-politically, but that doesn't mean it's true. I discussed those in the email, shown below.

However, my CLAIM is that the PHYSICAL evidence is strong too! Briefly here it is:

Well, Karl, I guess I have no choice but to stand on this position, because I thought of it and have already mentioned it in public. Besides the physical reasons described above, the geopolitical and NASA-political reasons why they would want this to happen are described below, and then the psychological excuse explaining how they could do such a thing and still be human.

I guess I'm sorry to have dragged you into this. What should I do now? I will state publicly that this is strictly MY OPINION and not yours or anyone else's that I know, but still, I don't want to burn you with my wild speculation. So please tell me what you think would be a smart next move, if you can think of one.

By the way, I'm up already for the day, I think (it's Thursday, nearly 4:00 am my time) so if you have a chance to call me and talk to me about it, I would appreciate hearing from you. I really sort of wish I hadn't said anything about this theory once it came to me, but what I really wish is that the evidence didn't seem so compelling. Am I missing something?

Attached, the email I refered to above describing the rest of the "plot".

Russell Hoffman

To: (A Reporter from Wired Magazine) From: Russell D. Hoffman
Subject: Cassini


Thank you for taking the time to talk to me today regarding Cassini.


In talking to you about the RTGs, I think I may have missed the following point, though:

The big advantages to NASA and the USA if the RTGs burn up COMPLETELY in the upper atmosphere are at least threefold. The first two alone can be worth many BILLIONS of dollars:

1) You will NOT be able to tell WHO dies around the world. But in terms of people dieing, it's absolutely the most dangerous, worst-case thing. But since you cannot tell who, there will be no payout.

2) You will NOT have to do a CLEAN UP because the stuff will spread thoroughly, and well below the EPA limit which NASA uses as a limiter for no good reason. But it will still kill, maim, disfigure, and harm for generations.

3) The danger of terrorism from scattered chunks of plutonium falling into the wrong hands is zero if none of the plutonium reaches the ground in a chunk.

Would NASA do this on purpose? Well, certainly 99.9% of NASA employees would not. And similarly, 99.9% do not work directly on the placement and structure of the RTGs. Maybe 99.99%. Maybe 99.999%... But still, one has to wonder if some percentage would take the chance, considering that the things are surely designed in such a way that at least one, and I think then more as I explained over the phone, will be subjected to the worst heats of the re-entry, if a re-entry occurs. And, I think shallow, long re-entries are the most likely.

Psychologically, NASA scientists in their own heads would justify this action by DENYING that "really" there are ANY health consequences at extremely low levels. Then they can feel good about themselves. They are NOT "devils" as I have heard that some anti-nukers express it. They are simply denying reality.

That's how people could do such a dastardly thing as actually designing the RTGs to actually burn up. Because they think then it actually won't do any damage, when in reality, then it will do the MOST damage.

I'm not saying NASA ACTUALLY PURPOSELY designs the RTGs to burn up. But I've explained how they could justify it in their heads. And they've done something very strange in putting them out in the open like they have done. That doesn't look "protected from the heat of re-entry" at all!

Billions of dollars in cleanup, never getting to launch ANYTHING again -- NASA views it that way and I think a lot of people would agree that IF NASA FAILS they will be in BIG TROUBLE. That's a given. That's NASA's punishment if the RTG's partially make it to Earth. But if they incinerate in the upper atmosphere? The monetary and other incentives attached to the first two items cited above are pretty strong incentives for NASA to want them to incinerate, even as they supposedly plan for them not too. If the RTGs partially incinerate and then land over water, NASA can claim they landed "intact and were safely deposited in the Tonga Trench" as they claim happened to the lunar lander for Apollo 13 and ITS plutonium... We would never know!

(There are, I believe, 5 other nuclear payloads in orbit around the Earth right now, none of them actually being used. They're just parked waiting to fall to earth in a few hundred years or be hit by space debris. Just thought you might be curious. THEY need to be retrieved. THAT should be NASA's next big project!)

The evidence that they WILL burn up is pretty strong, the way they stick out at three directions like they do, and being so incredibly dense, and with all that fuel right next to them... And the cover-up that's going on over the entire health consequences of low-levels of radiation from nuclear energy is further evidence that something is seriously askew.

And last but not least, even "environmentalists" have NO IDEA what is going on! That makes a cover-up all the easier...

Thanks again,
Russell D. Hoffman


Russell Hoffman


Sorry this is coming a little more frequently than once a week. This issue contains a bit of history of my involvement in the anti-nuke movement, and an answer to some of my detractors within the movement. And most importantly, several additional arguments that the RTGs being designed to incinerate.
Thanks, Russell Hoffman, Webmaster, STOP CASSINI


Subject: Are the RTG's designed to incinerate?
---Issue #2 on this topic---

****** VOLUME #4 APRIL 19th, 1997 ******


Yes, yes, Dr. Gofman has been an inspiration to me for several decades. I sent him a bunch of my writings around the time of Three Mile Island which he responded to quite positively -- sent me a very nice note saying he had read them and "was quite impressed by them" or something like that. So that's about 18 years ago.

I wanted to speak to him rather than Sternglass, Morgan, etc. for the article I did responding to NASA's draft, but apparently his wife is quite sick and so he is difficult to reach. So I spoke to the others, and I'm glad I got the chance to do so. They are all, these vital scientists/fathers of the anti-nuke movement, quite old now and their message will die with them if we do not carry it forward.

I believe now is the time to strike at NASA. NASA has never been more vulnerable, because they've never had to publish so much information as they do these days (those pesky environmental laws we got passed in the 60's and 70's). They may not have to again in the future. (Laws are changing.) And I DARE SAY I am one of the first to tear that information apart so thoroughly in a way that a NON-SCIENTIST with a lick of common sense can understand it.

NASA is trying to get away with stuff and I have a passion not to let them. I want to make them be honest to the world. Even if NASA is justified in what they do (which of course I doubt) they should still have to be honest. Indeed, honesty in Government is the more important battle.

But I will only succeed if I have voices behind me. Otherwise I am nothing. Just another lone, silenced voice in the wilderness. Those that read the articles I write -- they must ACT, too. Even if they disagree with some of my points, or even if they don't like me for some reason (as I have certainly heard). No one should deny something they believe to be true just because they dislike -- or even despise -- the messenger.

Get your physicists and health scientists together, your psychologists and your statesmen, and see just where my "wild speculation" falls apart. Go ahead. Make my day.

Do the anti-nukers who dislike me --and ridicule me, as this person does elsewhere in her letter -- do they really think they can silence me, when even NASA cannot silence me? My, they are pretentious! Stick strictly to facts, she writes. Which facts? The things NASA manipulates for a report? I think I know the "facts". There are many facts NASA won't touch. Many which NASA denies. I will be ridiculed by NASA. I know this. THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

I won't be around for every environmental battle, and I am not knowledgeable in every area that environmentalists must fight in -- but THIS is my battle, and I need help.

Since I believe my cause is an honest and a just one, and my actions and recommendations pertaining to it are all legal, I will fear no evil from my opponent (NASA). Or rather, I will (at least try to) ignore that fear. But from those who have claimed to be with me? Yes, I must watch my back.

If the RTGs are indeed designed to burn, or even if they merely clearly will, then the denial of the effects of low-level radiation has never been more blatant, or at least never has been more deadly. If Cassini's RTGs are actually designed to incinerate -- and the proof is actually even stronger than I mentioned in my previous newsletter (see below for several new items) -- then NASA lies. But even if they did it by accident, or because they "made a mistake", it's horrifying and needs to be rectified.

Further proof the RTGs are designed to incinerate:


Russell Hoffman

********* SUBSCRIPTION INFO *********
To subscribe to this newsletter just email me at
with the words:

Please include something else:
It can be an indication of where
you found our newsletter, or what you
read that made you want to subscribe, but
you do NOT need to include your name.

To unsubscribe email me and say

Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
Available at the source by blind carbon copy
subscription ONLY--free. Subscription list never
sold or bartered or divulged (except if by
government order, and then only after
exhausting all legal arguments against such
disclosure). Subscribing in no way
constitutes endorsement of our positions and
may indicate opposition!
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman.
May be freely distributed but please include all
headers, footers, and contents. Thank you.

This web page has been presented on the World Wide Web by:

The Animated Software Company
Mail to:
First placed online April 17th, 1997.
Last modified May 1st, 1997.
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman