>I checked out the organization Prop1's home page. I don't have a problem
with
> what Prop1 does. Most of it I enthusiastically support. The only thing I
> don't support is Prop1's position on Cassini.
Howdy Aaron,
Thomas here. Prior to this you've been corresponding with Ellen, who's
more thoughtful than I. I'm just jumping in here, maybe I've missed
something. But, if you "enthusiastically support ... most ... of Prop1
does" then, it seems, either my head's screwed on a little crooked, or
yours is.
>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.
Agreed.
>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.
Do you know how many Titan-IV launches fail? (1 out of 20 [5%] is my
understanding. You got any different statistics? If not, why do you
consider the "risks of a disaster resulting from the Cassini project (to
be) 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.
Theoretically (assuming I've interpreted the double negative correctlty),
of course. Practically speaking, however, can you identify any **specific**
practical plan presently on the table for "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.
For awhile, back in '82 and '83 if I recall correctly, I used to suggest
that the nuclear waste problem could be solved by shooting the stuff into
the sun. I stopped thinking that was a good idea years ago, after I
realized how many times space shots don't pan out. Remember the
Challenger! Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the best thing to do with the
stuff is just leave it where it is until somebody finally discovers the
fantastic benign plutonium solution you were talking about.
>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.
Remember the big propaganda blitz of the early 50's, how they promised that
nuclear power was going to make electricity so cheap that it would hardly
be worth metering? Since I think most folks are still just about
hopelessly naive, I guess we disagree on something here.
>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.
What drew my attention to this thread was noticing Ellen's response
concerning the Sagan article.
>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'm not "scared" of anything. I've already lived a lot longer than my
family expected, done essentially everything I ever wanted to do, and am at
peace in my own mind. True, sometimes I get a little depressed when folks
who don't know as much as they think, think they have all the answers, but
it's all going to pass away in a relatively short period of time, I'm ready
to die, my mind will still be at peace (I pay virtually no taxes, and give
the socio-economic system none of my time), so I figure, "Screw 'em."
"If you're not afraid, why are you opposing Cassini?" you may ask. Answer
is that I've got an intuitive feeling that a great many folks, who consider
themselves to be exceptionally well-informed, are actually more
ill-informed than they ever suspected, and, therefore make decisions, which
they think are very wise, but are far more foolish than they'd ever imagine.
>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.
>Varactacap
For all I know, you're a Nobel Prize winning nuclear physicist who
understands more about table nucleides than everybody else in the universe
combined. Since I've heard more than one professional space engineer claim
that the Cassini mission could have been fueled by solar power if it were
only 130 pounds lighter, if you are some kind of physicist, or knowledgable
layperson, perhaps you can explain to me why the solar power proponents are
wrong, and/or why RTG's are preferable to solar power.
Thomas