Re: Cassini mission letters

[MortGold@aol.com]

Not having read the message about calling the White House until after the
"open line" period, I sent the following e-mail to the "president
@whitehouse.gov"
--------------------------------

 President Clinton:

My name is Morton I. Goldman of 6408 Danville Court, North Bethesda, MD
20852- 3710, (301)881-0914.  I am a retired consulting engineer with degrees
in environmental and nuclear engineering and a doctorate from MIT.  During my
active career I was involved in conducting and managing environmental and
nuclear safety analyses for a variety of nuclear and radiation-related
activities both for governments and industry, including aerospace nuclear
safety activities.    I have no financial relationship with any entity,
government or private, associated with the Cassini mission.  I am however an
emeritus member of the American Nuclear Society and a diplomate of the
American Academy of Environmental Engineers.

I would like to convey my very strong support for the Cassini mission, and my
very great dismay at the distorted and factually incorrect information being
disseminated by the opponents of this mission.  The assertions of the mission
opponents about the reputed risks of plutonium, both in general, and
specifically from Cassini mission accidents are frightening to the public,
but are so farfetched as to be ridiculous to those truly knowledgeable in the
field.   I would urge that your staff assess the claims by opponents against
the facts presented in a draft report by the National Council on Radiation
Protection on risks from plutonium in space applications.    It is physically
impossible for the entire inventory of the heat source fuel to be released to
the atmosphere in breathable-sized  particles either from a launch accident
or in the event of an accidental re-entry into the atmosphere during the
velocity boost fly-by.    The actual risk to the population as a whole from
either event would be minuscule.   

I know, based on my education and specific experience in the field, that the
mission is "safe" — i.e., the combination of a very conservative design of
the heat source as well as a very cautious approach to the conduct of the
entire mission ensure that the probability of a failure resulting in a
significant risk to the public is so near to zero as to make it irrelevant.
   

Accordingly, I would urge that you approve the launch of this mission on
schedule next month, and not be swayed by the exaggerated mouthings of those
whose pronouncements say much more about their ignorance or biases than about
truth. 

Thank you.