On Monday, Oct. 13 at 4:55 a.m., EDT the Cassini space probe bound for Saturn [was] launched.

If you support basic science, then this mission should have appealed to you.

Many people however, including Ben Jones of the Daily editorial staff, have opposed the mission. They cite the inherent risk of the plutonium-powered nuclear device that delivers electricity for the various scientific equipment on board.

A quick look at the facts shows that these worries are unnecessary.

Ben Jones states that the plutonium on board could be distributed across the surface of the earth if the Titan IV rocket were to explode during takeoff.

The Titan rocket has a 95 percent success rate. This is quite good. The one failure was found and has been corrected.

If the probe did explode during takeoff, like the Challenger accident as Mr. Jones suggests, very little if any of the plutonium could become dangerous to humans. This is because the plutonium is in the oxide form. This assures that the material will stay in large chunks. Chunks far too large to ingest or inhale.

Furthermore, the RTG device that the plutonium dioxide is contained in is a well-known and well-tested design that has been in use since 1965.

The device was designed to survive an accident. For these reasons it is very unlikely that a human could become exposed to any plutonium in the unlikely event of an explosion.

If all odds were beaten and an accident released plutonium, and if people inhaled some of the fine particles from such a release, the radiation dose an individual would receive over a 50-year period would be on the order of 1 millirem.

In that same 50-year period people are exposed to about 15,000 millirems from natural sources. So if a worst case scenario occurs, an effected person would receive an additional 0.0067 percent of any natural radiation exposure.

Ben Jones asks if I’m willing to take such a risk. I say: “Yes, I am.”

Mr. Jones also fears the “sling-shot” orbital path chosen by NASA. I will forgo the physics of why the probe has to take this approach; see your favorite physics professor for an explanation.

Mr. Jones states that this has never been done before. In fact, this is NOT a new method.

The Voyager missions of the 1970s used this technique, and many other space probes have used this technique.

In fact, the Galileo mission currently exploring Jupiter and its moons used this method as they passed Earth a couple of years ago.

The point is that none of these missions have had any problems. Scientists at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory know what they are doing.

Independent estimates of the risk of such an occurrence are one in 1 million.

Even so, it is unlikely the probe would collide with earth since most objects that reach the upper atmosphere burn up long before they reach the ground.

Yes, NASA is launching a space probe with plutonium aboard. Yes, there is a MINISCULE risk involved.

The potential gains, however, are large for the scientific knowledge of the human race.

People need to stop cringing in fear each time the word “nuclear” is said.

And if you do want to be fearful, direct your energies towards the huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons the world has.

These provide no benefit toward society and, unlike the plutonium in the Cassini probe, they ARE designed to kill people.

---

Jim Stevenson

Senior

Ceramic engineering