[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7722-H7724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           IMPORTANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE CASSINI SPACE MISSION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is recognized 
for the remaining time, until midnight, as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Members of this 
House and this Congress and this country to take a close look at the 
facts surrounding the planned launching by NASA of the Cassini space 
probe to

[[Page H7723]]

Saturn next month. Then we must do a very simple thing: We must 
reconsider that launch.
  I support space exploration, Mr. Speaker. I deeply believe that 
discovering more about our solar system, as the Cassini probe is 
designed to do, has the potential to yield crucial data about our 
universe and to enrich the lives of all of us here on Earth. But we 
have to ask, at what cost, at what risk?
  We must look at the Cassini probe objectively and responsibly, 
considering all the facts available to us. We must look at the danger. 
We must think about that danger realistically and critically. We must, 
with open eyes, take the responsibility of ensuring that lives are not 
put needlessly at risk.
  The Cassini space probe will carry 72.3 pounds of plutonium-238 as 
fuel to power the probe's instruments. Plutonium-238 is 280 times more 
radioactive than plutonium-239, the material used in atomic bombs and 
nuclear reactors. This plutonium will be stored in three radioactive 
thermoelectric generators, or RTG's.
  Now, it is well-known that plutonium is one of the most toxic, most 
carcinogenic, most deadly substances known. So if we intend to launch 
this into space, it is incumbent upon us to ask, what are the risks? 
What happens if the rocket containing the Cassini probe with all this 
plutonium, all of this toxic carcinogenic material, explodes? What 
happens if it crashes? Will the plutonium escape into the atmosphere? 
Will it cause potentially millions of cancer cases and fatalities?
  NASA claims this cannot happen. NASA says the plutonium pellets and 
the RTG's are heavily shielded and will survive any explosion, will not 
be dispersed into the atmosphere; the shielding will hold them. But Dr. 
Horst Poehler, for 22 years a scientist for NASA contractors at the 
Kennedy Space Center, provides a different analysis. He points out that 
the so-called heavy shielding consists of an iridium shell, 3/128 of an 
inch think, two one-quarter-inch graphite shells, some insulating foil, 
and a one-sixteenth of an inch aluminum housing. As Dr. Polar says, the 
shielding around the plutonium is really fingernail thin, hardly what 
one would call heavily shielded.
  Alan Kohn, who for 30 years was a NASA emergency preparedness 
operations officer for NASA, puts it this way: ``They call the RTG's 
indestructible, just like the Titanic was unsinkable.''
  Common sense would seem to suggest that these plutonium casings are 
not impervious to damage. But we do not have to rely on common sense, 
Mr. Speaker. We can look at NASA's own reports.
  In the final environmental impact statement for the Cassini mission, 
NASA acknowledges that there are three main contingencies in which 
plutonium could be released. First, it could be released in an 
explosion during launch, if the capsules, RTG capsules, then impact on 
a hard surface.
  Second, NASA says, plutonium could be released during the subsequent 
flight up to orbit, if an accident occurs while the probe is flying 
over Africa and the capsules then impact on rock surfaces below.
  Third, plutonium could be released in 1999 when Cassini returns to 
Earth after flying to Venus for a fast and low fly-by of the Earth. In 
what NASA calls a slingshot maneuver, Cassini is designed to use 
Earth's gravity to increase its velocity so that it can reach Saturn by 
buzzing by, buzzing past the Earth, less than 500 miles up, at 42,000 
miles per hour.
  If there is a slight miscalculation, or a slight defect in the rocket 
burn in outer space for the midcourse correction, and Cassini comes in 
too low, it could burn up in the Earth's atmosphere, and its plutonium 
payload would be dispersed to the winds.
  These are the scenarios which NASA itself cites as ways in which an 
accident could take place. Now, we must ask, what would be the result 
of such an accident? NASA has some ideas about this, too. If the 
plutonium comes down on natural vegetation, NASA speaks of 
decontamination methods. What are the decontamination methods NASA 
recommends? If it comes down on natural vegetation, NASA says, remove 
and dispose of the topsoil, relocate animals. In other words, eliminate 
the farms.
  If it comes down on an agricultural area, its proposal is to ban 
future agricultural land use. Eliminate the farms. And if plutonium 
rains down on a populated area, on an urban area, NASA says, ``Demolish 
some or all structures, relocate affected population permanently.''

  Mr. Speaker, as a representative of part of New York City, I, for 
one, do not consider tearing down some or all structures and relocating 
the population permanently to be acceptable solutions.
  What if the probe breaks up in the atmosphere on its 1999 fly-by? 
NASA thinks that much of the plutonium fuel would disperse as ``vapor 
or respirable particles,'' the form in which lethal lung cancer doses 
of plutonium could be breathed in by thousands or millions of people. 
NASA goes on, ``Approximately 5 billion of the estimated 7 billion to 8 
billion world population,'' that is billion, not million, 
``approximately 5 billion of the estimated 7 billion to 8 billion world 
population, could receive 99 percent or more of the radiation 
exposure.'' In other words, most of the world's population would be 
exposed to radiation in that eventuality.
  NASA thinks the cancer death toll from such an accident would be only 
2,300 people; only 2,300 extra people would die of cancer if an 
accident happens to Cassini. Independent scientists cite figures closer 
to 20,000, or even 200,000, and some say millions.
  These are the dangers posed by the Cassini mission. These are the 
dangers NASA itself admits are within the realm of possibility. So why 
is the mission going forward? Why are there only weeks left before 
Cassini is scheduled to be launched? Why are we taking this risk? Is 
this risk justified? How do we justify putting at risk the lives of 
thousands or millions of people to gather information about outer space 
and about Saturn? Because NASA said that although any of these 
accidents would be devastating, they are very unlikely. But we have to 
look at the odds and see how unlikely they are and see not just what we 
want to see, but what the facts are. We have made that mistake before. 
NASA has made that mistake before.
  Before 1986, NASA put the odds of a catastrophic space shuttle 
accident at 1 in 100,000. Then the Challenger blew up. Not 
surprisingly, after the Challenger disaster, even with all of the 
improvements, all the safety improvements made to the space shuttles as 
a result of the investigation into the Challenger disaster, the odds of 
a space shuttle, of a catastrophic space shuttle accident are now 
stated to be not 1 in 100,000, but 1 in 76.
  This time NASA says the odds of something going terribly wrong are 1 
in a million. Mr. Speaker, very few events which can be affected by 
human error are 1 in a million. Which is more likely, that an unnamed 
engineer might completely by accident put a gasket in backwards, or 
that any of us will walk outside later tonight and immediately be 
struck by lightning?
  There are other reasons to doubt the 1 in a million estimate. Cassini 
is scheduled to be launched by a Titan IV rocket. In the past, Titan IV 
rockets have exploded during launch about 1 time out of 20. That is 5 
percent of the time; 1 time out of 20, not 1 time out of a million.
  As for the possible success of the 1999 fly-by, in science one can 
only know the odds through empiricism, through tests and experiments 
and experience. There have been only two similar Earth fly-bys 
involving U.S. space devices. Can we be confident of any odds advanced 
with such limited data?
  In response to these objections, NASA said a great deal about the 
time and money already invested in this mission. But those arguments 
are not a defense. They boil down to we have gone to so much trouble, 
so let us close our eyes and hope everything goes OK. Let us play 
Russian roulette with thousands of people because we have already gone 
to a lot of trouble. That is not enough of a justification to take the 
sort of risks that have made 30-year veterans of NASA stand up and 
object.
  Opposition to the Cassini mission is not a case of Chicken Little 
saying, the sky is falling. In fact, I would say right now that the sky 
is not about to fall immediately, in all likelihood. Cassini may very 
well be launched in October, and everything may go fine. The odds are 
it will go fine, but the odds are not

[[Page H7724]]

big enough: Five percent of Titan IV launches, that it will explode, 
that when we are talking about the possibility of a disaster that could 
kill thousands or millions of people, 5 percent odds of a disaster are 
pretty high odds.
  The Cassini mission is like a game of Russian roulette. You put a gun 
to your head and pull the trigger. The chamber might be empty, you 
might live, but then again, you might not, especially if you do this 
over and over again. And Cassini is just one in a continuing series, 
the biggest so far, the most plutonium, if we are going to do this 
again and again and again, and when we have 20 such launches and 30 and 
40, eventually the chamber is going to be loaded, and there is going to 
be a catastrophe.

                              {time}  2330

  That is not a risk we ought to be willing to take. It does not take a 
rocket scientist to realize that very real scientific questions have 
been raised and they must be answered before we permit this and other 
missions like it to go forward.
  That is why I have invited my fellow Members of Congress to join in 
signing a letter to President Clinton asking him to delay the launch of 
Cassini, not cancel it but delay it, until a detailed, realistic, real, 
not propaganda, threat assessment has been conducted.
  The time to reconsider this mission is now. As elected officials, we 
must have the courage to do so. I only pray that the President will 
have the courage to say, ``Stop this game of Russian roulette and let 
us take a hard, hard look,'' before we have a Challenger disaster that 
does not put 7 lives at risk, but 7,000, or 7,000,000, or 7 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for having this 
special order and starting this conversation on the House floor about 
the Cassini mission.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of space exploration and a 
strong supporter of NASA. NASA has made many exciting and valuable 
discoveries over the years, discoveries that have been important to all 
of us in one way or another, worldwide. The motto for NASA, which is 
supposed to be better, faster, cheaper, not risky, hazardous, and 
expensive, actually is not what we had hoped to have in this country. 
We want the better, faster, cheaper. We do not want the risky, 
hazardous, and expensive. The Cassini mission does not live up to this 
better, faster, cheaper motto, and NASA should delay and redesign the 
Cassini project.
  Mr. Speaker, the Cassini spacecraft, which is scheduled to launch 
from Cape Canaveral next month, carries an unprecedented amount of 
plutonium, 72.3 pounds of plutonium. That poses a danger to all of us. 
An accident at launch or in space during a swing-by around the earth 
could send the craft and its plutonium-powered batteries crashing down 
upon us.
  If an accident occurs during launch, it is possible that individuals 
may be exposed to radiation. If an accident occurs during the swing-by, 
the spacecraft may burn up during reentry, scattering over 70 pounds of 
plutonium throughout our atmosphere.
  Some argue that the chances of such an accident are slim, as my 
colleague said, and that even if one did occur, the health impact from 
exposure would be small. Prominent scientists and safety experts have 
questioned both of these assumptions, however. The Challenger disaster 
proved that NASA can still suffer catastrophic failures. In fact, three 
of the 24 U.S. space missions and six of the 29 Russian missions using 
nuclear power met with accidents.
  Given this track record, Mr. Speaker, it is understandable that 
notable scientists and even a former NASA safety expert, Alan Kohn, 
believe that risks in this mission are simply too high. Several 
scientists have also stated that the health impact from exposure to 
plutonium following an accident would be much higher than what NASA has 
claimed. Since plutonium is one of the most toxic substances we know 
of, these assertions deserve further scrutiny. We do not want to find 
out after an accident that these critics were right.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, alternatives do exist. An advanced solar-
powered craft, while not available now, could be ready within a few 
years. Other alternatives are viable right now. NASA's discovery 
program has shown that the United States can launch a planetary probe 
without relying on vast amounts of plutonium, and they do not rely on 
it as part of their primary power source.
  For example, Mr. Speaker, instead of sending one large plutonium-
powered spacecraft to Mars, NASA launched the Mars Pathfinder using a 
fraction of the plutonium Cassini is planning to carry. Over the next 
10 years, NASA is planning to send six additional spacecraft to study 
the red planet using electrical energy obtained through solar panel 
technology. Not only are these planetary probes safer, they are also 
much cheaper.
  Considering that most discovery projects cost less than $200 million, 
NASA could launch several planetary probes to Saturn without using 
large amounts of plutonium. Even the old Voyager and Pioneer programs 
used much less plutonium for their deep space travel. It is just bad 
policy for the United States to rely on such large quantities when NASA 
can design missions at a lower risk and cost to the public.
  I would also note that in such controversial missions, public concern 
must play an important role. We must also note that experts have given 
us disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, so possibly they are 
making a mistake with Cassini, too.
  However, NASA's predisposition to the use of plutonium as a power 
source has led the agency to simply reaffirm their position, rather 
than consider the concerns of the public. That is why I support the 
establishment of a neutral review panel, to provide a voice for both 
the public and scientific dissenters.
  Finally, we cannot ignore a tear in Cassini's heat insulation that 
has now delayed the launch. As a result, the window of opportunity for 
a successful launch is now much smaller. Quite frankly, NASA does not 
have the luxury of running into any new problems, because the agency is 
now scrambling to launch Cassini in time. Because of that, this rush 
could create additional safety risks.
  If NASA does not succeed in launching before November 4, this delay 
could cost taxpayers over $100 million, and the spacecraft will be 
required to travel 2 years longer than originally planned. In other 
words, for a lot more money, we will get much less data.
  In a little more than 2 years another launch window will open for a 
mission to Saturn. NASA should postpone the planned Cassini launch in 
October and use the time wisely to redesign the mission so it carries a 
safer power source. Even if it takes longer than 2 years to make this 
project safer, Saturn and its moons will still be there, waiting for 
exploration. They have been there a long time, Mr. Speaker. A few more 
years for the safety of our Nation and our world and our planet will 
make very little difference in the long run.
  Space exploration is vitally important, not only to the practical and 
theoretical sciences, but to humankind's very destiny. It is too 
important to squander the public's trust on a risky mission. Americans 
will support a NASA that instills hope for the future, but not fear of 
tragedy.

                          ____________________