This sort of posting shouldn't happen. Whether we agree or disagree with Mr. Krell's opinions on this matter, he shouldn't promote his unrelated interests on Bee-L, no matter what they are nor how important he considers them. It's no different from advertising. On Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:26:00 +0002 "Krell, Rainer (REUS)" <[log in to unmask]> writes: >Dear concerned all, > >The following is for your information and if you consider it >worthwhile it >is also for your participation, further distribution or at least your >own >awareness. Whether all the details are correct I cannot guarantee, >but the >fact alone of sending another spacecraft with a large load of >Plutonium into >space is enough reason for concern - not out of anti-technology >sentiment >(as is often argued by the pro-nuclear proliferation side), but out of >simple safety concerns, particularly when there are other (just as >high-tech) solutions available. > >Regards > >Rainer Krell > ---------- > >The mission is called Cassini and intends to explore the rings around >Saturn >a.o.. > >In Italian, a casino is a whore house and "fare casini" means making a >big >mess. Accidental? > >The speed of the space craft at its most critical point (leaving earth >or >reentering and burning up in its atmosphere) near earth is supposed to >be >711.666 Miles per minute. If you believe in numerical symbology this >means >"playing dice (gambling - casino) with the devil". Accidental? > >Accidental, accident or not, puns aside. > >No big deal if this would be just an ordinary space mission; but the >payload >is a Saturn explorer with 72 lbs of plutonium on board. The published >risk >analysis seems highly understated if considering case histories and >keeps >changing; and the worst case scenario is that enough Plutonium is >distributed in the earth atmosphere to cause lung cancer in every >human >being; no speculation on what it might do to the rest of nature. > >The deal can supposedly be avoided by a few years' delay for >redesigning >the spacecraft with solar panels. No risk versus high risk? > >Are we that much in a rush or willing to gamble with a saved billion >against >trillions of dollars of damages to risk global health (i.e. possibly >more >Plutonium released than during all nuclear testing combined) for just >a >little bit more of scientific knowledge? OR? > >For more information read the attachment >Cassini.doc< or check >http://www.lovearth.org/ > >What can we do? For suggestions see the attachment >todonext.doc< > >"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is >to >survive." Albert Einstein > >Your help and awareness will make a difference > >Rainer >