This is all well and good, but what kind of risks are we talking here.
You have not, but forward any data or numbers for anyone to look at. Are
you hiding something? Come on you have to have more than talking about
"maximal risk". Exactly how large is this risk?
As for the "dissing", give it a rest. The first article you posted was a
bunch of half truths and appeals to fear that absolutely qualifies as Junk
Science. Lets try this ground rule:
No fallacious arguments.
As for Cassini being a nuclear weapon. Nice try. Next I suppose the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Facility will qualify as a nuclear weapon. I
guess that makes Southern California Edison an Arms merchant?
Steve Verdon
--- [log in to unmask] wrote:
> In a message dated 99-05-25 22:54:31 EDT, you write:
>
> << Now...is that ethical?
>
> Steve Verdon >>
>
> Given the data and the risk, yes; it is a realistic statement of
> contingent
> risk. Starting June 24, the period of maximal risk begins, with an
> expected
> increase in solar flares and solar storms that could very easily cause
> an
> accident resulting in the release of the plutonium into the biosphere.
> These
> solar storms and flare were not fully in NASA's modeliing. Indeed in
> January
> of this year, Cassini was discovered to be off-course, and NASA could
> not
> explain why ; that made national news in the US. Additionally a grand
> solar
> eclipse and grand cross configuration occurs on Aug 11, a week before
> Cassini
> that establishes extremely dangerous celestial conditions, and increase
> Cassini's inherent risks.
>
> These risks are among the reasons why - we have been told -certain UN
> member
> states are now working to try and invoke UN Treaty on Outer Space and
> UN
> Charter provisions to force NASA to re-direct the Cassini flyby. The
> olde
> law of the common. Whether the UN could achieve such an outcome is
> another
> question.
>
> We could have an even more extended ethical discussion if we were to
> postulate that the "deep ecology" dimensions of Cassini be introduced
> into
> our discussion. Deep ecology analysis truly shows the enhanced risks we
> are taking with our very fragile biosphere-spaceship Earth.
>
> We're willing to engage in a deep ecology discussion of Cassini under
> ground
> rules: no dissing. That doesn't mean agreeing with everything said.
> But it
> means no dissing.
>
> Geri DeStefano PhD
> Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD MEd
> Vancouver, BC
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|