| Flyby News Home - Flyby News Archives - Casinni NoFlyby - Flyby Links |
NASA-Plutonium-NoFlyby Correspondence
NASA-Plutonium-NoFlyby Correspondence
Dear members of Government, UN Delegates, representatives of media, friends and subscribers,
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.
Post Cassini NoFlyby email will be infrequent, so I hope you will subscribe for updates from the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
Best Regards,
Jonathan Mark
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 of thousands 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 unleased 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 did not 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
**********************************************************