Posted 9/13/1999
Final Noflyby Newsletter

The Action Site to Stop Cassini Earth Flyby
P.O. Box 1999, Wendell Depot, MA 01380 USA

NASA-Plutonium-NoFlyby Correspondence

The following is correspondence with NASA, which shows the main
points of our differences and the scientific evidences that show why low
level radiation is much worse than what NASA is currently projecting from
limited scientific analyses since the atomic bomb explosions on Japan in
1945. References for more information on this subject is in the following
letter, including the website for Radiation and Public Health Project, Inc.
Please, do what you can help to push on the side of caution and peace, stop
the development of weapons and technologies threatening the mass destruction
to life.

*****************************************************************************

To:
Earle K. Huckins III
Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Science
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Headquarters - Attention: Mail Code: S
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Re: Your letter to me dated August 12, 1999

August 30, 1999

Dear Dr. Huckins:

Thank you for your reply to my June 16, 1999 letter to President Clinton
concerning the Cassini mission to Saturn. I am grateful that the Cassini
Earth swingby maneuver was carried through without an incident that could
have dispersed 400,000 curies of radioactive plutonium into our atmosphere.
However, I am still very concerned about future plutonium fueled missions
passing near or through Earth's atmosphere. In this letter I will try to
help you understand my perspective and the main consideration of our
differences of opinions.

In your letter you wrote that the work by Hei, et all, published in the
April 1997 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was
taken into account in the risk/benefit analyses of the mission. It is true
that based on this evidence that a single decaying atom of plutonium can
cause cancer, the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) stated that tens ofthousands
of deaths could occur. However, based on the one-in-a-million risk
assessment and possible benefits, the report supported the mission, (and
President Clinton's science advisor, Dr. John Gibbons). Yet the SER
recommended that the launching of Cassini should be delayed for two months
to increase the safety factor 30 to 100 times by reducing the speed of the
probe during the Earth flyby. Why wasn't this recommendation put into
effect, if safety is in the number one priority in NASA's missions?

You wrote that the consequence and risk analyses of the Cassini mission
reflect the internal dosimetry models presented in the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 30 and the
radiation health effects' estimator for the induction of fatal cancers as
outlined in ICRP Publication 60, both of which are accepted by the national
and international radiation protection communities. However, these standards
are not based on accurate updated analyses on low level radiation, but on
the tests conducted after the two atomic bombs were unleashed on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. Based on the findings of Hei, et all, and other analyses, such
as Dr. Ernest Sternglass' measurement with the "Baby Tooth Project" (see
www.radiation.org) I urge you to conduct new investigations on the
disproportionate harm that could come from low level radiation, and until
those investigations are complete, to stop NASA's use of plutonium in its
space programs.

Plutonium radioactive isotopes are relatively new. They have only been
developed in the last sixty years, initiated by the fear that Germany would
produce the first atomic bomb during World War II. This is very little time
compared to these substances long-term toxicity to generations of human
beings and our environment. The scientific standards that you are using
today in measuring the possible harm of low level plutonium radioactive
isotopes are most likely inaccurate. Yet, knowing that the U.S. military has
strong interests in using plutonium for space-based weaponry, knowing that
NASA operates with the military on many space missions, it is practical to
assume the close involvement with NASA and the military in its development
of plutonium for the space program.

Before 1997 there was no experimental evidence that a single inhaled or
ingested particle of plutonium caused cancer. With this relatively new
information, I hope NASA will reassess the use of plutonium in its space
program, and refrain from any risk that could jeopardize the health of life
on Earth for thousands of years.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Mark

For important references see:

Radiation and Public Health Project, Inc.'s status report of the Baby Teeth
Project http://www.radiation.org/whatsnew.html

"No Safe Dose "- a Letter of Concern by Dr. John W. Gofman
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/LetterOfConcern.html

Landmines at the cellular level
http://www.pgs.ca/pages/nl/lmcells.htm

Bart Jordan Commentary on ancient civilizations and development of dangerous
isotopes
http://www.nonviolence.org/noflyby/ref/bart.htm

NoFlyby Newsletter No. 19
http://www.nonviolence.org/noflyby/alerts/19nl.htm


*****************************************************************************

The following is a copy of the letter from:

Earle K. Huckins III
Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Science
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Headquarters - Attention: Mail Code: S
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

August 12, 1999


Thank you for your letter of June 16, 1999, to President Clinton concerning
the Cassini mission to Saturn. Your letter was forwarded to me for a
response because the NASA Office of Space Science is responsible for the
Cassini mission.

Page E-94 of the Cassini Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
clearly states "The GPHS-RTGs modules and the Light Weight Radioisotope
Heater Units (LWRHUs) were designed to withstand reentry from Earth orbit."
In the preceding paragraph the SEIS explains that "The analysis
differentiates between the orbital and VVEJGA (EGA swingby) reentry
conditions." Though the radioisotope thermoelectric generator modules (or
"containers") were designed to withstand reentry from Earth orbit, NASA didnot
say or imply they were designed to withstand a reentry during the
Cassini Earth swingby.

You reference work by Hei, et al, that was published in the April 1997 issue
of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The
consequence and risk analyses performed for the Cassini mission is in accord
with this NAS study. Furthermore, the EIS and SEIS results reflect the
internal dosimetry models presented in the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 30 and the radiation health
effects estimator for the induction of fatal cancers as outlined in ICRP
Publication 60, both of which are accepted by the national and international
radiation protection communities.

Before Administrator Goldin sent the request for launch approval to the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), two separate
processes were completed to address the environmental and safety aspects of
the mission. NASA completed an Environmental Impact Statement in June 1995
and a supplement in June 1997, as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act and NASA policy.

Consistent with long-standing Presidential policy, the Department of Energy
(DOE) prepared a comprehensive Safety Analysis Report (SAR). In addition, an
Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel, including safety experts from DOE,
NASA, the Department of Defense (DOD), the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and a technical advisor from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
conducted a comprehensive evaluation in a Safety Evaluation Report. This
panel was supported by over 50 scientific experts from academia and industry.

DOD, EPA, and DOE wrote to the NASA Administrator confirming that, in their
view, the safety analysis conducted for the mission was comprehensive and
thorough. Additionally, the SAR and SER were presented to the NASA
Administrator and OSTP. Then OSTP Director, Dr. John H. Gibbons, who signed
the launch approval, said of the SAR and SER, "NASA and its interagency
partners have done an extremely thorough job of evaluating and documenting
the safety of the Cassini mission. I have carefully reviewed these
assessments and have concluded that the important benefits of this
scientific mission outweigh the potential risks."

Safety is the number one priority in all NASA missions, regardless of
whether humans or robotic spacecraft are doing the exploring. Extensive and
updated information about the Cassini mission related nuclear safety matters
can be found on the World Wide Web at: www.jpl.nasa.gove/cassini.

Again, thank you for your interest in the Cassini mission.
Sincerely,
Earl K. Huckins III
Deputy Associate Administrator
for Space Science