At 11:15 PM 10/13/97 -0400, you wrote:
>"In case of an accident." NASA realizes
>that there is no such thing as 100% absolute risk-free (Life itself is a
>series of risks and percentages).
>
>As Dr. Kaku is fond of saying, "a chain is only as strong as its weakest
>link." Anytime you put a human being into the equation (with all their
>fallacies), you're going to introduce an element of risk. Even NOT doing
>anything invites risk.
>
You answered your own answer.
>The key is to reduce it to the lowest possible chance for failure -- with the
>current technology that's available -- and then take your chances. . .before
>somebody else does and beats you at your own game (Like the Brits beating
>USA's Craig Breedlove [the former World Land Speedholder] today on Black Rock
>Desert in breaking the sound barrier).
>
> + + + + +
>
>Something I spotted in one of your own "links" that I really appreciated:
>
>(Source: Miami Herald Editorial)
>
>". . ."Nobody at NASA wants to poison the whole planet,'' astronomer and
>Cassini project scientist Stephen J. Edberg told me this week. "The science
>is not as important as risking people's lives. We on the project feel that
>all the testing that has gone into this says the risk is so small that this
>is a good thing to be doing. . .''
>
>". . .It's curious that activists who trust scientists warning of global
>warming, acid rain, rain forest degradation and the dangers of pesticide
>ingestion now are afraid to trust the scientists launching Cassini. Besides,
>you'd think they'd be happy to rid the world of 72 pounds of nasty plutonium.
>. ."
>
> [Good Point: Cancel Cassini and take the stuff off the bird. Now what do
>*you* propose to do with the stuff? Bury it? ... ~JS~].
You answered your own question again. But first it should be made as
harmless as possible. It came out of the ground, and the earth has an
incredible capacity to transmute, sift, whatever. The important thing is
to bury it someplace REALLY safe, with no chance of earthquake or seepage
into groundwaters.
I'm glad scientists are researching ways to transport this stuff -- and
even, to a degree, transform it -- relatively safely, for of course it
ultimately must be transported somewhere, permanently, and R&D will be
going into other types of energy. My guess is that the energy grid of the
future will be a combination of things, including intelligent architecture,
and educating children in schools how to make simple solar batteries,
windmills, thermal taps, etc. You get the drift.
By the way, I don't spend much time watching science fiction, too busy
reading. I like to read speculative fiction. A lot of NASA's current good
ideas came out of speculators' fertile imaginations, coupled with engineers
who knew how to manifest them.
Maybe someday it will be possible to make a truly safe plutonium which has
phenomenal properties of speed, consistency, no moving parts, all that
desirable stuff, but at the moment what you're working with is not truly
safe, and (forgive me if I offend you) I think you're deluding yourself if
you think it's worth the risk.
>". . .Logic suggests NASA isn't inclined to take a foolish gamble with
>Cassini: If the
>agency blows this launch, a whole lot of aerospace scientists are going to
>find
>themselves selling used cars.
Or dead. Or wishing they were.
>
>In any case, fear is like water: It's good as long as you have the right
>amount of it.
>A lack of fear invites recklessness and poor judgment; too much leads to
>paralysis
>and paranoia. A healthy fear -- of the sort I believe NASA is demonstrating
>--
>leads to prudence, attention to detail, conservative estimates, and redundant
>safety
>protocols. . ."
>
>
I don't think NASA is showing any signs of fear (other, perhaps, than
putting intelligent spokespersons on the internet to argue with the likes
of me).
I think NASA is evidencing reckless behavior, in the guise of scientific
curiosity. Saturn isn't going anywhere, and if it takes longer to get to
Saturn, that means it gives people jobs for longer. You want jobs?
Redesign Cassini so it's safe, and send it out five years from now, if
that's the next ideal moment. Taxpayers are much better served paying your
salaries for new, better ways of using the sun, than they are by this (some
might say diabolical) gamble with their lives. And if, God forbid, the
launch goes with plutonium, then redirect it so it slingshots around some
other planet than Earth. Even if it takes a little more "time."
You know, when I heard about those scientists standing outside the gates
with their children and grandchildren, I thought it might be perfect irony
in the cosmic scheme of things if they are the ones radiated by an
unexpected flaw somewhere in the intricacies of Titan. But it is so
unnecessary. I wouldn't wish that on anyone's families. Do you have a
family?
Looking forward to further communication