Re: Saturn Probe Pu Power?

[Ron_Dobey_at_MU-EHS-PO1@ext.missouri.edu]

        More environmental scare tactics and hype based on LNT.  If 5.5 
     billion (or whatever the latest planetary count is)bowling balls hit 
     each person on the planet on the head, you'd have a lot of headaches!  
     If this rocket fails and splashes into the Atlantic, I'll still eat 
     red snapper caught from Florida waters!
     
     Ron Dobey, CHP
     University of Missouri-Colombia
     ehsron@muccmail.missouri.edu    
        
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Saturn Probe Pu Power?
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at internet-ext
Date:    5/5/97 2:46 PM


I got this message from a friend of mine today, and wondered if radsafers 
in a position to know the answers could respond:
     
>"This is a message regarding your future. It is intended to reach as many 
>internet users as possible as fast as possible. Thank you for taking the 
>time to read the following and forwarding it to friends, listservs, 
>newsgroups, should you judge it necessary.
>
>Excerpt from the article "Risking the World" by Karl Grossman, 
>Professor of American Studies/SUNY:
>
> "Despite enormous danger, huge expense, and a clear 
>alternative-solar powerthe US government is pushing ahead with the
>deployment of nuclear technology in space. In October 1997, NASA plans to 
>launch the Cassini probe to Saturn. Carrying 72.3 pounds of plutonium-238 
>fuelthe largest amount of plutonium ever used in space, the probe will sit 
>atop a Lockheed Martin-built Titan IV rocket. This same kind of rocket has 
>undergone a series of mishaps including a 1993 explosion in California 
>soon after takeoff which destroyed a $1 billion spy satellite system and 
>sent its fragments falling into the Pacific Ocean.
>
> Space News, the space industry trade newspaper, reported that "the 
>high risk and cost of the Cassini mission to Saturn troubled NASA
>Administrator Daniel Goldin so much that he would cancel the program if it 
>were not so important to planetary science."
>
> But it is not science alone that is driving the project or causing 
>scientists, politicians, and the military to discount the risks. NASA 
>Chief Scientist Frances Cordova acknowledges that the Titan IV "does not 
>have a 100 percent success rate" and admits that using it for Cassini "is 
>truly putting all your eggs in one basketyour 18 instruments on one 
>firecracker." She says, "We can't fail with that mission. It would be 
>very, very, damaging for the agency."
>
> To say nothing of the Earth and the life on it if something goes 
>wrong. Plutonium has long been described by scientists as the most toxic 
>substance known. It is "so toxic," says Dr. Helen Caldicott, founder of 
>Physicians for Social Responsibility, "that less than one millionth of a 
>gram is a carcinogenic dose. One pound, if uniformly distributed, could 
>hypothetically induce lung cancer in every person on Earth."
>
> In addition to the specter of radioactivity spread by an accident
>on launch, another, potentially more lethal, scenario is causing concern. 
>Because Cassini does not have the propulsion power to get directly from 
>Earth to Saturn, NASA plans a "slingshot maneuver" in which the probe will 
>circle Venus twice and hurtle back at Earth. It will then buzz the Earth 
>in August 1999 at 42,300 miles per hour just 312 miles above the surface. 
>After whipping around Earth and using its gravity, Cassini would then have 
>the velocity, says NASA, to reach Saturn. But during that Earth fly-by, if 
>Cassini comes in too close, it could burn up in the 75 mile-high 
>atmosphere and disperse plutonium across the planet.
>
> Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of nuclear pLysics at the City
>University of New York, explains the catastrophic consequence of such a 
>fly-by accident:
>
> If there is a small misfire [of Cassini's] rocket system, it
>will mean that [it] will penetrate into the Earth's atmosphere and the 
>sheer friction will begin to wipe out the heat shield and it will, like a 
>meteor, flame into the Earth's atmosphere ... This thing, coming into the 
>Earth's atmosphere, will vaporize, release the payload and then particles 
>of plutoninm dioxide will begin to rain down on populated areas, if that 
>is where the system is going to be hitting. [Pulverized plutonium dust] 
>will rain down on people's hair, people's clothing, get into people's 
>bodies. And because it is not water soluble, there is a very good chance 
>that it could be inhaled and stay within the body causing cancer over a 
>number of decades.
>
> Indeed, NASA says in its First Environmental Impact Statement for
>the Cassini Mission, that if an "inadvertent reentry occurred" during the 
>fly-by, approximately five billion of the seven to eight billion people on 
>Earth, "could receive 99 percent or more of the radiation exposure."
>
>(...)
>
> Starting in 1961, General Electric's RTGs were put into use for 
>space satellites until a 1964 accident in which a SNAP-9A (Systems for 
>Nuclear Auxiliary Power) fell to earth burning up in the atmosphere.
>According to a 1989 report by European nuclear agencies, the satellites 
>2.1 pounds of plutonium-238 "vaporized" and "dispersed widely." After 
>conducting a worldwide sampling, scientists found "SNAP-9A debris to be 
>present at all continents and all latitudes." Dr. John Gofman, professor 
>emeritus of medical physics at the Unversity of California at Berkeley, an 
>M.D. and Ph.D. and a codiscoverer of isotopes of plutonium and uranium as 
>a member of the Manhattan Project, has long attributed an increased rate 
>of lung cancer to the SNAP-9A incident."
>
>For access to the article in its entirety or for further action, please go 
>to http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~icousin/
>