prop1 wrote:
>Tell you what, buddy. If you figure out how to get it up to space without=
> potential for accident, and the gamble has been removed, I'd agree with you=
> that
>>If there's one good justifiable use for nuclear energy, it's to explore=
> deep space. =20
>
It already can be done with virtually no risk. Probability of disaster will
always be a factor in anything we do no matter how benign. No engineer will
ever tell you that there is such thing as "no risk" in anything. I believe
the risks of a disaster resulting from the Cassini project are about as great
as the chances that Earth will be hit with an astroid or comet.
Given how much money and effort has to be spent to make plutonium into deadly
weapons, it isn't logical to assume that the same amount of money and effort
could'nt be applied to making plutonium virtually benign. What's more, given
the long half life of plutonium, and the fact that it decays into a long
series of radioctive daughter elements each with longer half lives, it only
makes sense that the plutonium that is now stored on Earth will have to be
removed from Earth. The decision to generate such a surplus of plutonium was
made before I was born. I'm going to advocate removing plutionium from Earth
as well as a moratorium on it's production.
>Please, go to http://prop1.org and click "Current Events," then "Cassini,"=
> to get more on this space launch. Go to "Nuclear" then "Accidents and=
> Safety" then "Let the Facts Speak" for a list of 1,054 known nuclear=
> accidents since 1945. If you can disprove any of this stuff, please try. =
> We'll share your information, too.
I didn't find anything I havn't seen before. We all know how foolish people
were with nuclear energy, especially from the 1950's until the early 70's.
There was a time when it was actually thought that nuclear waste could be used
as a heat source for houses in colder latitudes. People will hopefully never
be that naive again.
I didn't take my opinion from the Government alone. My opinion is based on
comparing NASA's environmental impact statements with the POV expressed on at
least 1/2 a dozen anti Cassini web sites as well as some insights provided by
people who have worked with nuclear technology. Ultimately, I found that an
artical that Carl Sagan wrote summing it up quite well in favor of launching
Cassini. I hope you don't consider Carl Sagan a government conspirator.
Finally, I think it's sad how many people are scared by Cassini, yet completely
disinterested in understanding the mechanism by which the RTGs work. Nuclear
energy, if it doesn't kill you, is pretty fascinating. I don't think anyone
can make an objective decision regarding the risks of Cassini without
understanding what the table nucleides is about. Most people, with strong
opinions regarding Cassini, that I've spoken to havn't had any insight into
what nuclear energy is.
Aaron