Re: Cassini space probe questions for David F. Doody and others at NASA
To: David F Doody <David.F.Doody@jpl.nasa.gov>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Cassini space probe questions for David F. Doody and others at NASA
Cc: governor of California
To: David F. Doody, NASA/JPL
Date: October 2nd, 2001
Re: Cassini space probe questions for David F. Doody and others at NASA
From: Russell Hoffman, Concerned Citizen
Dear Mr Doody,
Regarding your email (shown below), you should instead be answering questions I have previously asked you.
I am a U.S. Citizen. My tax dollars pay your salary, and you are intimately aware of the facts about Cassini. Facts which I have tried since 1997 to ascertain from NASA, which claims that it has outreach programs, etc. so that citizens can know what NASA does and why.
I have repeatedly asked NASA to justify its dangerous and ill-guided decision to use nuclear heaters and power units (RHUs and RTGs, respectively). Your name was listed by NASA as someone the public could contact for information. I've done so and received nothing significant whatsoever from you. On the other hand, you have worked to ensure that NASA continues to use radioactive materials, despite the threats posed by that use, from terrorists and accidents. What you are doing is inherently and unnecessarily dangerous; you have a duty to explain your actions to the public.
Until you are willing to engage in honest and forthright discussions with me about Cassini and NASA's nuclear space policies, I will continue to try to educate you about what I know about how Cassini fits into the greater scheme of nuclear lies by our government, so that when and if we eventually do have an honest discussion, we won't be starting from scratch.
The importance of having that discussion with the public is especially true in light of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. NASA facilities are likely to be prime targets of terrorism, because so many of NASA's "civilian" missions are actually military missions, and much of the Command and Control and data collection portion of our modern warfare is being waged from space these days. Plans are afoot for an even greater space-based role. So NASA is not only a likely target of terrorism, but it is a legitimate military target of war -- it's hardly the civilian program NASA's weak facade would indicate, and I'm sure the terrorists are no more fooled by this than a lot of the American public is.
Also, NASA is a potential target of terrorism because NASA has, on a number of occasions, poisoned this planet with plutonium death around the world -- and foolishly and arrogantly risked global nuclear pollution many more times -- and each time it was for no good reason. This is an assault on humanity. The United Nations, if it had any power (or any sense), would have stopped NASA's plutonium launches years ago on environmental grounds. Africa in particular, where many known terrorist cells are located amidst the abject poverty, has been threatened with NASA's nuclear pollution especially frequently, and that threat is particularly elevated because that is a late-launch failure zone, when accidents are particularly severe. We have only offered a maximum of $100,000,000.00 insurance for such accidents because of NASA's inappropriate use of the Price-Anderson Act to insure NASA's nuclear launches, like Cassini. Price-Anderson was and is an illegal act to begin with, but in any case, it was designed for stationary, domestic nuclear power plants, not flying death-bombs such as NASA launches (despite worldwide opposition to those launches).
Considering that NASA already spilled 2.1 pounds of plutonium over Africa when SNAP-9A failed over Madagascar in 1964, I'm sure there is disgust with NASA in Africa today, because nothing significant has changed. NASA added a flimsy containment system around the plutonium, that's all. And the relative value of $100 million has gone way, way down.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, NASA is a potential target of terrorism because NASA is a symbol of American technology which America is proud of. Rightly so? On some levels, certainly Americans should be proud of NASA. It's stated objective was certainly a good idea. But NASA's nuclear policy is nothing to be proud of. And it is hardly a civilian organization, except in its own myopic view.
America needs a military force, and I support a strong, forthright, honest, honorable, environmentally sensitive military that does not kill unnecessarily, that eliminates collateral damage as much as possible, that does not destroy civilian infrastructure, and that does not sow the seeds of future hatred by their actions today. There are unquestionably real threats to our society from determined, suicidal terrorists. Every one of us is a target. NASA is supposedly a civilian organization, but everyone knows it really isn't. They are part of a global military domination strategy being undertaken by the U.S. Military, for better or for worse (personally, I believe there are better ways to ensure peace, but that's a side-issue here). President Bush has said repeatedly that war has been declared on America. NASA is a prime target, both of terrorism and as a military target -- whether it is a military target or not. But most people just think that means NASA might get blown up like the World Trade Center towers or something. You and I know better, don't we? We know that a nuclear catastrophe would ensue if NASA's nuclear payloads were blown up wherever they are on the ground. What is the solution?
Stop using nuclear payloads, that's what.
All of my questions which I have ever asked you, about how much nuclear material NASA is using, about why they won't consider non-nuclear alternatives, and about how NASA managed to convince Americans to let them use nuclear alternatives in the first place, are all legitimate questions which citizens need the answers to. Just this morning I've learned that the Governor of Maine wants a 5-mile "no-fly" zone around Maine's nuclear power plants. I know -- and I'm sure you do too if you think about it a little -- that that's really way too small an area. But if they should at least do that, then NASA undoubtedly needs to do that too.
My questions were valid all along, but they are far more important than they appeared to be (to some, like you) before September 11th, 2001. Another important question is, how often has NASA launched civilian rockets which are in fact military payloads?
I am demanding honest answers from you and if you cannot handle my questions properly, you should be ashamed of yourself, and quit your job, but not before passing all our correspondence to your boss, who should answer my questions instead of you, and explain to me why you have been allowed to be so rude to the public and so unresponsive all these years.
I will expect you to send me your boss's name and email address, and I will expect a letter from him or her explaining what they know about nuclear power, the hazards of nuclear energy, the history of nuclear materials in space, and any other related matters.
You might have seen a document I wrote recently, outlining 25 "simply ways" that terrorists could destroy my local nuclear power plant, San Onofre Nuclear (Waste) Generating Station. NASA's plutonium payloads which have not yet been launched are probably far more vulnerable than a nuclear power plant. If you like, I'll be happy to prepare a similar list of inherent dangers NASA faces because of their years and years of pretending there was nothing wrong with using nuclear materials except people like Russell D. Hoffman, Carlsbad, California, complain about it, which you all are very good at ignoring.
I didn't invent the dangers I have written about -- you did, Mr. Doody, by your actions in support of NASA's use of nuclear materials. Because of that use and NASA's military connection, you have now made -- not only yourselves -- but all of the people around you vulnerable to nuclear disaster if you are attacked. One "RHU" or Radioactive Heater Unit, with just 2.7 grams of plutonium 238, has enough plutonium, if spread into the environment, to kill about 30 million people outright, without even reusing any dose. A plane crash into a NASA facility which has even one little RHU is therefore a potential tragedy that could be many times worse than the WTC disaster.
Shame on you, Mr. Doody.
Have a nice day.
Russell D. Hoffman
I have included, below, an article link, your most recent letter to me (in its entirety; previous letters are available at my web site), and a commentary by Jack Shannon which I received today and which I feel is relevant.
Here is a link to a Boston Globe article about the Maine Governor's comments:
>>>>> At 08:11 AM 10/2/01 , David F Doody <David.F.Doody@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>>>>
<<<<< END OF EMAIL FROM DFD TO RDH <<<<<
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:59:12 EDT
Subject: Re: [westcan] AND ON EACH END OF THE RIFLE WE'RE THE SAME
The American Indians were, at one time referred to as " . . . vicious savages
. . . ,". Not anymore because we have exterminated all of them, using [dare I
say it?] terrorists tactics.
We also exterminated 5,000,000 " . . . Vietnam slant eyed gooks . . . "
before they kicked our butts out of their Country.
I don't condone terrorism, no matter who does it, and that includes Americans
doing it to others.
Using B-52's from 50,000 feet might be considered a terrorist attack against
those who don't hear the bombs falling. The Iraqi troops trying to escape
from Kuwait who were slaughtered by that wonderful person, Colin Powell,
might also consider what happened to them terrorism.
I get sick and tired of the words murderers and terrorist bandied about so
Would the Afghan's be called terrorists if they had an organized Army with a
huge air force, and navy, etc., and could fight a "conventional war" against
their oppressors be called terrorists? They might be called "infamous," but I
doubt if they would be called terrorists.
About 8,000 Americans died needlessly on September 11, 2001, because of a
sick American, and in general a sick western foreign policy. A foreign policy
against which no Country in the world can now stand. A foreign policy that
basically says that we get to eat three squares a day and the rest of the
world can starve. We should be ashamed to call ourselves the products of a
Judaen - Christian culture.
I would be willing to bet that on September 11, 2001 more than 8,000 Afghans,
Iraqi's, Palestinians, Syrians', African's, etc., died needlessly while the
mega rich in the world stood around and smoked Cuban Cigars [not Americans --
we embargo that dangerous product], and didn't give a damn about anything
except what they would wear to the next party, or ball.
How many non-Americans died on September 11, 2001, from American M-16's
firing .223 caliber American bullets? Let us not forget that we Americans are
the biggest arms dealers in the world and it's all legal. Maybe not moral,
but by all means legal.
Maybe if we spent more time caring about our neighbors in a true Christian
manner, we wouldn't have so many people hating us and "terrorism," at least
as it is defined by Americans would be something of the past.
We might want to remember that the German troops invading Russia during world
War II referred to the Russian Guerilla Soldiers as terrorists.
A thing is a thing depending on ones points of reference and ones
perspective. I for one am not willing to call anyone any name just because
some sick oil tycoon like George Bush and his Father decide it is so.
Major USMC [Retired]
For more information please visit:
Learn about the effects of nuclear weapons here:
This web page has been presented on the World Wide Web by:
The Animated Software Company
First posted October 2nd, 2001.
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman