From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V3 #42 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Wednesday, October 15 1997 Volume 03 : Number 042 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Central Jersey [cspacerage ] Sais nO Sais [neile@sff.net (Neile Graham)] Re: Central Jersey [Joseph S Zitt ] Re: Cassini is no threat [chris@neuron.uchc.edu (Chris Sampson)] Re: Cassini is no threat [Joseph S Zitt ] Re: sTuff [Richard ] Tara and Sarah [Richard ] Re: Cassini is no threat [Steve VanDevender ] Re: Cassini is no threat [chris@neuron.uchc.edu (Chris Sampson)] Re: reminder Sessions [Valerie Kraemer ] Re: Cassini is no threat [Steve VanDevender Subject: Re: Central Jersey There's a dive called the Brighton Bar, small (intimate) but active & pretty well known to the local musicians & a busy quasi-underground music scene, in Long Branch on Brighton Avenue (central coastal NJ). It's home to an eclectic mix...from hard-core punk to wednesday night poetry reading. They also feature a nice little vegetarian kitchen. I wish I knew the phone number, but being out-of-state anymore it's not immediately at hand. Actually, I seem to recall that for a while, the only phone there was the payphone in the back, but it's a good scene for word-of-mouth advertising. It's a hit-or-miss venue...I've been there moshing wall-to-wall people and as one of five watching (which led to an interesting audience-participation show). If this isn't the place for you, the man who books the shows is a unique and beloved character named Jacko, (ask any local musician to give you his Jacko impersonation) who is a good man to speak to about where to play in Central NJ. I can send you an email address for someone who does a bit of video there, and they could help you contact the management. hope this helps. back to the pieces scattered around me... ~!@L. "I never said it was possible. I only said it was true." - Charles Richet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:29:51 -0700 From: neile@sff.net (Neile Graham) Subject: Sais nO Sais Hello, music-listening ears: Just to prove that those damn listening machines at Tower do sell some records, I bought a disc that I'd never heard of before I picked up the headset in the World Music area: Sais nO Sais, a group from France. Damn, they're good. And strange! The band is three people, from the names it's two guys and a girl, but from the pictures either one of the women has a boy's name (I should talk) or one of them is a crossdresser, but anyway, the music. The music has all kinds of influences: the first song "Caravan" reminds me of _Birds of Passage_ era dancey Bel Canto but with Middle Eastern influences. The woman's voice even reminds me of Anneli Drecker's. The sound is poppy, but definitely harder-edged than most world pop. In other songs the lead singer's voice reminds me of Boo Trundle, an obscure alternarock singer-songwriter, who mostly yells her way through her songs (she's great--my comments on her are in the Ectophiles' Guide). The sing in English for whatever that matters. I can't find any info about them on the web, other than a minimal page put together by RCA, their label, though there are a couple of pages in French that may have some more info if I can just get my intellectual energy up enough (and my physical energy to lift my French dictionary--my Petite Robert isn't by most people's standards Petite) to try to read them. Anyway, I'd be interested in other's opinion about this group, and I highly recommend the disc. Jim liked it so much he's got it at work with him today. And damn, I won't have time to obsess on it as I'd like to since on Friday I'm off to England for two weeks (for a jetlag recovery visit with Lisa and Steve Fagg [bless them], then a week-long writing workshop, then World Fantasy Con). - --Neile in between books and in between stereos - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Neile Graham ..... http://www.sff.net/people/neile ..... neile@sff.net The Ectophiles' Guide to Good Music .... http://www.smoe.org/ectoguide - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:58:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Joseph S Zitt Subject: Re: Central Jersey On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, cspacerage wrote: > There's a dive called the Brighton Bar, small (intimate) but active & > pretty well known to the local musicians & a busy quasi-underground > music scene, in Long Branch on Brighton Avenue (central coastal NJ). > It's home to an eclectic mix...from hard-core punk to wednesday night > poetry reading. They also feature a nice little vegetarian kitchen. Thanks! This sounds like it may be just what we're looking for. > I can send you an email address for someone who does a bit of video > there, and they could help you contact the management. hope this helps. Please do. It will help! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:14:41 -0400 From: chris@neuron.uchc.edu (Chris Sampson) Subject: Re: Cassini is no threat Calling in from the periphery... I don't describe myself as an alarmist, but I urge caution, and I *do* have misgivings about the Cassini launch (well, now I have misgivings about the fly-by)... First: I am aware that *some* engineers (a small but significant percentage) will do just about anything that "seems cool"... regardless of personal (or other) risk, and that, as a corollary, they frequently have a different idea about risk than I do. Second: I am suspicious of nearly everyone's stated motivations, objectives, etc... *including/especially* those of the government or a government agency (which NASA is close enough to being for the purposes of this discussion)and especially when there are lucrative contracts and remuneratively rewarding careers up for grabs. Third: I don't believe that anyone *knows* the consequences of a hypothetical disintegration of the plutonium, or for that matter, that it *can't* happen. And, with not knowing, there comes a terrible responsibility not to cause irreparable damage or to even risk possibly irreparable damage. Fourth: Certain probabilities have been bandied about regarding the fly-by and the failure on the launch pad of the Titan rocket. I forget the latter probability, and I don't think that 1 in 300,000 odds are acceptable, given the aforementioned assertions. To compare the consequences to those of an airplane landing on your head seems a bit flippant... IF the "alarmists" ARE right, we'd be talking about an airplane landing on EVERYONE's head. Just my $0.02... Chris Sampson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:04:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Joseph S Zitt Subject: Re: Cassini is no threat On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Chris Sampson wrote: > Third: I don't believe that anyone *knows* the consequences of a > hypothetical disintegration of the plutonium, or for that matter, that it > *can't* happen. And, with not knowing, there comes a terrible > responsibility not to cause irreparable damage or to even risk possibly > irreparable damage. OK, what kind of evidence would you need to satisfy you that the answer to this was known? And what degree of risk is allowable? Remember, as Maxwell said, there's always an infinitesimal but real possibility that all the air in a room will suddenly rush to the other side and leave you in a vacuum. Does that mean that by putting people in air-filled environments we are subjecting them to irreparable danger? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:37:06 -0700 From: Richard Subject: Re: sTuff Meredith inquired: > > >I buy 90% of my CDs at Bull Moose Music, a locally owned and operated > >chain of four stores in Southern Maine and New Hampshire; > > Do they have a web presence yet? I've never managed to go to one of their > locations when I've been back up that way, but I've been hearing great > things about them for years. It sounds like they're doing well, too, which > is a good thing. Maine was in *desperate* need of a good record store > before they came along. No website and I don't know if they're planning on one, but you *should* get to a Bull Moose next time you're here- The one in Portland shares a basement with Videoport, the antidote for the vacuous Blockbuster eyesores, and a true videophile's store. If you get hungry from browsing these two resources, between them is Anthony's Italian Kitchen which specializes in Boston North End style cooking... I've inhaled a calzone or two there between plowing through the used CDs in Bull Moose and cruising the "incredibly strange films" section of Videoport and I can heartily recommend just about anything on the menu. There are also Bull Moose stores in Windham, Lewiston, Brunswick, and Portsmouth NH. And none other than Happy Tyler Rhodes thinks BM is a nifty place... a ringing endorsement in MY book :) r ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:52:24 -0700 From: Richard Subject: Tara and Sarah Neal enthused: > > Enjoy all those great shows. I'm jealous! (Rosh Hashona with a bang!) > Be sure to say hi to Lisa. She's really sweet and friendly (and small). Unfortunately, I had to leave before Lisa played, but I DID catch Tara MacLean at 2pm- She performed on a makeshift stage on the sidewalk outside HMV in Brattle Square and did mostly stuff from her album + one new piece. I didn't realize just how powerful her voice is: she's a petite and kind of frail looking young woman but I noticed the discomfort of someone's greyhound in the audience when she hit and held certain notes... ;-) She had tastfully handled accompaniment on electric guitar and vocals by a guy who was obviously her S.O. and ended her 40 minute set with a gorgeous acapella rendering of "Silence" and sent more than a few bystanders to the table where copies of her CD were being peddled. Switch locale to Boston City Hall Plaza at 7pm where a huge crowd in the tens of thousands waited on a cool sparkling evening for the main attraction after performances by Paula Cole, Lisa Loeb, and Barenaked Ladies, among others- Sarah McLachlan has attained stardom and I have to say she wears it well, notwithstanding a reportedly less-than-complimentary article in Atlantic Monthly; She was charming, good-humored, and apologetic for a delay due to technical glitches and was decked out in black top, black bell bottoms, black waistcoat, and a short pink skirt... and her voice was, as always, just stunning. She had her full band and did a mixture of stuff from FTE and Surfacing for a full hour. My wife admitted that she choked up a bit when Sarah did an emotional treatment of "Hold On" and again later when she did "Adia" playing electric piano and with only a bowed double bass for accompaniment. The set list: Building a Mystery Circle Hold On Good Enough Witness Angel Adia Elsewhere Possession encore: Ice Cream Sweet Surrender An enjoyable experience, especially considering the tariff: $5.10 in subway tokens. r ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:01:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve VanDevender Subject: Re: Cassini is no threat Chris Sampson writes: > First: I am aware that *some* engineers (a small but significant > percentage) will do just about anything that "seems cool"... regardless of > personal (or other) risk, and that, as a corollary, they frequently have a > different idea about risk than I do. This isn't a matter of "it would be cool to use plutonium, so let's use plutonium". Spacecraft have tremendous constraints on weight, energy requirements, and long-term reliability of components. In the case of Cassini, its power sources have to be self-contained because it's traveling far enough away from the Sun that it won't receive enough sunlight to make solar power at all effective. Solar-powered spacecraft are only feasible out to about the orbit of Mars. This is why the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft, Voyager 1 and 2, Galileo, and Cassini used RTGs (Radioisotope Thermal Generators). They are relatively light (certainly compared to the quantity of solar panels that would provide the same amount of power at that distance from the Sun), provide uninterrupted power for years (Pioneer 10 and the Voyager spacecraft are still being tracked), and have no moving parts to break. > Second: I am suspicious of nearly everyone's stated motivations, > objectives, etc... *including/especially* those of the government or a > government agency (which NASA is close enough to being for the purposes of > this discussion)and especially when there are lucrative contracts and > remuneratively rewarding careers up for grabs. I guess the question here is, why are you suspicious and what reason do you have to justify that suspicion? It's not that I'm blindly trusting or expect other people to be blindly trusting, but suspicion without justification is dangerous and antisocial. I don't believe in widespread government conspiracy, and I believe that most of the mistakes and injustices of the government are the result of short-sightedness and stupidity rather than malice. As far as I'm concerned the motives of the people who designed Cassini are about as pure as anyone's. They are seeking knowledge, were given the means to achieve that goal, and designed a spacecraft that has to last for over ten years in the harsh environment of space and be able to send back observations of Saturn from that great distance, while also addressing the safety concerns for its launch and travel. > Third: I don't believe that anyone *knows* the consequences of a > hypothetical disintegration of the plutonium, or for that matter, that it > *can't* happen. And, with not knowing, there comes a terrible > responsibility not to cause irreparable damage or to even risk possibly > irreparable damage. I think some of what we deal with here is that any responsible person won't tell you something improbable but physically possible could absolutely never happen. However, it's important to understand just how improbable the alarmist scenarios are. An RTG is, in essence, a canister of plutonium oxide ceramic (not pure plutonium metal) with a very sturdy metal casing. The casing is sturdy, not just to contain the helium gas that builds up from alpha particles released by the radioactive decay inside the canister, but to address the safety concerns of having the canister survive a possible launch accident or re-entry without releasing fine particles of plutonium oxide. RTGs are metal-coated bricks, not foil-wrapped bundles of plutonium dust as the alarmist scenarios would make them out to be. When a rocket explodes, it doesn't spray a fine mist of metal into the air; components are recovered intact or in large pieces, and the RTGs are among the sturdiest pieces there are. Furthermore, we do know what happens when RTGs are exposed to launch accidents and atmospheric re-entry, because _they have been_. Life on Earth hasn't ended yet. And the reason these RTGs survived these accidents is that they were designed and tested to do so; they weren't placed in those rockets without any planning for safe results in those contingencies. > Fourth: Certain probabilities have been bandied about regarding the > fly-by and the failure on the launch pad of the Titan rocket. I forget the > latter probability, and I don't think that 1 in 300,000 odds are acceptable, > given the aforementioned assertions. You and millions of other people are more likely to die from car accidents or disease than from any effect of a Cassini re-entry. You have more than a 1 in 300,000 chance of dying _any day of your life_. The realistic analysis of the risks of a Cassini launch failure (which didn't happen; it's on its way) or re-entry during a gravity-assist pass involves statistical probabilities of injury that are smaller than the errors in the statistics we have. It's nowhere near the "certain death for millions" scenarios that some alarmists are trumpeting. The only way the plutonium in Cassini could kill anyone for certain is if it was manually extracted from the RTG casings, refined back into pure metal, ground into dust, and stuffed up people's noses. > To compare the consequences to those of an airplane landing on your > head seems a bit flippant... IF the "alarmists" ARE right, we'd be talking > about an airplane landing on EVERYONE's head. The alarmists aren't right. I'm sure most or all of them are sincere in their concerns, but ignorant or misguided in their understanding and analysis of the risks. Some of this comes from an absolutely paranoid fear of radiation and continuing unchecked hype about the toxicity of plutonium. I'm not saying plutonium is good for you, but we really do know how and why plutonium is toxic because people have been exposed to it (many before its toxic properties were really understood). Plutonium is toxic in small amounts _but only if distributed in exactly the right way_. You've probably breathed dozens of atoms of plutonium in your life purely from naturally occuring rock dust (our planet's core and mantle are molten because they're heated by natural radioactive decay). Obviously you're not dead yet. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:23:15 -0800 From: "Ron Starr" Subject: Off-List? (Was Re: Cassini is no threat) I realize this may be presumptuous, but would those of you who care about this discuss it off-list? It's been free of ecto content from the beginning and shows no clear signs of terminating. - - Ron Starr (rstarr@eskimo.com) ==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+= "It was, indeed, the Age of Information, but information was not the precursor of knowledge; it was the tool of salesmen." -- Earl Shorris, A Nation of Salesmen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:06:32 -0400 From: chris@neuron.uchc.edu (Chris Sampson) Subject: Re: Cassini is no threat Chris Sampson replies (from behind the tipped table he uses as a shield from the fire he's drawn) Joe Zitt writes in to say: >> Third: I don't believe that anyone *knows* the consequences of a >> hypothetical disintegration of the plutonium, or for that matter, that it >> *can't* happen. [edited for your convenience] >OK, what kind of evidence would you need to satisfy you that >the answer to this was known? And what degree of risk is allowable? Oh... I don't know... who can assure me that they *know* (I mean really *know*) the all possible consequences of the disintegration of the RTG? All of them... then let's, together, sift through the insignificant probabilities, rather than impatiently dismissing the concerns of the lay individual. And then realize that, coming from and agency that uses numbers on the order of billions and trillions, a probability of 1 in 300,000 sounds small, in comparison. Let's start with the agreed upon facts and debate those, rather than debate... in the popular press... the decision-making methods of the parties involved. After that, move to the disputed facts, then the various scenarios, and THEN the decision making. Degree of risk is always best considered in terms of the expected gains... to whit... I may eventually be given the opportunity to have a SPECT scan done of my brain (purely for research purposes, as a volunteer). In order to do so, I will be injected with a radioisotope (Techetium?). Seeing ANY kind of imaging of one's own brain is interesting (readers of Vanity Fair will remember the MRI of Laurie Anderson)... BUT... I would be a fool not to ask... someone whose opinion I trust... about the risks, however minimal, of being exposed to the radioisotope. Ask after, not worry about. Now... they do these scans everyday... *on people with some medical indication of need*... possible tumors... unexplainable cognitive dysfunction... etc. The risks are not comparable. Someone who enters a hospital with symptoms that lead a neurologist to wonder about a space-occupying lesion has a greater potential pay-off (early diagnosis leading to a possible treatment/cure) than I do (Hey... cool). The scenarios are not comparable. >Remember, as Maxwell said, there's always an infinitesimal but real >possibility that all the air in a room will suddenly rush to the other >side and leave you in a vacuum. Does that mean that by putting people in >air-filled environments we are subjecting them to irreparable danger? I would point out that the alternative to launching the Cassini as-is is NOT launching the Cassini as-is and that the alternative to being in an air-filled environment is NOT being in an air-filled environment... Some of my best friends are in air-filled rooms. ________________________________________________________________________ Steve VanDevender contributes: Chris Sampson writes: >> First: I am aware that *some* engineers (a small but significant >> percentage) will do just about anything that "seems cool"... [edited...] >This isn't a matter of "it would be cool to use plutonium, so let's use >plutonium". Spacecraft have tremendous constraints on weight, energy >requirements, and long-term reliability of components. In the case of >Cassini, its power sources have to be self-contained because it's >traveling far enough away from the Sun that it won't receive enough >sunlight to make solar power at all effective. Solar-powered spacecraft >are only feasible out to about the orbit of Mars. This is why the >Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft, Voyager 1 and 2, Galileo, and Cassini used >RTGs (Radioisotope Thermal Generators). They are relatively light >(certainly compared to the quantity of solar panels that would provide >the same amount of power at that distance from the Sun), provide >uninterrupted power for years (Pioneer 10 and the Voyager spacecraft are >still being tracked), and have no moving parts to break. I was unclear, and for that, I apologize... What I meant was that, and I know of where I speak, there are some people who will figure out how to accomplish a certain task and will be so elated that they will rationalize and minimize the risk to themselves and to others of actually DOING it. If there are people involved in nuclear power because they think plutonium is cool, I was not referring to them. I meant that, yeah, it's cool to send up space probes, but if, in order to get the endeavor to actually come about, we have to do this, or do that, or strap this RTG to a rocket with a (perhaps undeserved) reputation of crashing, etc... We have to at least glance back at our starting point to see if what we're trying to do is worth all that. The conflict between apetite and satiety is eternal, and not always ruled by reason... consider drug addiction. Consider ANY compulsive behavior. I have heard that solar power would work, but I believe your argument that it wouldn't. In any case, I never mentioned solar power... the possibility exists that the solution to this "problem" may be the null set. If it's not... then NASA and the US Government had ought to either bring the (sometimes slow) American people (and the rest of the world's citizens) through the series of arguments that yields this finding... or else, don't be surprised at the resistance. >> Second: I am suspicious of nearly everyone's stated motivations, >> objectives, etc... *including/especially* those of the government or a >> government agency (which NASA is close enough to being for the purposes of >> this discussion)and especially when there are lucrative contracts and >> remuneratively rewarding careers up for grabs. >I guess the question here is, why are you suspicious and what reason do >you have to justify that suspicion? It's not that I'm blindly trusting >or expect other people to be blindly trusting, but suspicion without >justification is dangerous and antisocial. I don't believe in >widespread government conspiracy, and I believe that most of the >mistakes and injustices of the government are the result of >short-sightedness and stupidity rather than malice. I suppose I don't doubt EVERYone's stated motivations... I have seen people in places of power and responsibility rationalize the irresponsible wielding of their power as being "in the greater good"... for less than is at stake in a space program threatened with real or imagined cutbacks in funding. The most impressive realization being the casualness with which they did so. I don't regard belief in widespread government consipiracy and blind trust at the only options on that particular continuum... and I am suggesting short-sightedness and stupidity as the operative forces, here... with only a little malice on the side... Genuine malice would imply that the decision-makers are more than happy to risk the entire population of the planet and *know* that they are doing so... I don't believe this to be the case, either. Money doesn't equal malice... it merely introduces clouded judgement into the equation... >As far as I'm concerned the motives of the people who designed Cassini >are about as pure as anyone's. They are seeking knowledge, were given >the means to achieve that goal, and designed a spacecraft that has to >last for over ten years in the harsh environment of space and be able to >send back observations of Saturn from that great distance, while also >addressing the safety concerns for its launch and travel. At the risk of sounding more dangerous and antisocial... Why am I not comforted by the assertion that the motives of the Cassini designers are as pure as anyone's? I respect and admire the ingenuity and dilligence that went into designing a spacecraft that will endure what Cassini will have to endure. But, let us suppose that they were able to solve all parts of the riddle but one... a small (very small) risk that the navigation of Cassini won't actually work right... I could see them racking their brains for months or years and finally saying... "this is the best we could do"... That's all. I trust very few people I KNOW with making the "right" decision under those circumstances... Too often, I have heard doctors, mechanics, or lawyers say..."I wouldn't worry about it"... which does nothing for me, since I don't know how they are weighing the facts against their beliefs or to what extent they feel invested in the situation at hand. >> Third: I don't believe that anyone *knows* the consequences of a >> hypothetical disintegration of the plutonium, or for that matter, that it >> *can't* happen. And, with not knowing, there comes a terrible >> responsibility not to cause irreparable damage or to even risk possibly >> irreparable damage. [description of RTG's omitted only for brevity's sake... read the original] >re-entry without releasing fine particles of plutonium oxide. RTGs are >metal-coated bricks, not foil-wrapped bundles of plutonium dust as the >alarmist scenarios would make them out to be. When a rocket explodes, >it doesn't spray a fine mist of metal into the air; components are >recovered intact or in large pieces, and the RTGs are among the >sturdiest pieces there are. Again, I am not an alarmist... I merely ask that the reasoned, non-agenda-laden arguments be made in a suitable forum. NASA press-releases are no more credible than those of the DNC or the GOP, etc. and I don't trust the popular press outlets to really delve into the particulars. >Furthermore, we do know what happens when RTGs are exposed to launch >accidents and atmospheric re-entry, because _they have been_. Life on >Earth hasn't ended yet. And the reason these RTGs survived these >accidents is that they were designed and tested to do so; they weren't >placed in those rockets without any planning for safe results in those >contingencies. I am given to understand that this particular RTG has ~73 lbs of Plutonium in it... This is a large one, no? Is the fly-by procedure being used an established one, or is it more experimental than that? Are the RTGs indestructible? Are the safety plans adequate? These are my questions... no hysteria, no armageddon... >> Fourth: Certain probabilities have been bandied about regarding the [edited] >You and millions of other people are more likely to die from car >accidents or disease than from any effect of a Cassini re-entry. You >have more than a 1 in 300,000 chance of dying _any day of your life_. >The realistic analysis of the risks of a Cassini launch failure (which >didn't happen; it's on its way) or re-entry during a gravity-assist pass >involves statistical probabilities of injury that are smaller than the >errors in the statistics we have. It's nowhere near the "certain death >for millions" scenarios that some alarmists are trumpeting. The only >way the plutonium in Cassini could kill anyone for certain is if it was >manually extracted from the RTG casings, refined back into pure metal, >ground into dust, and stuffed up people's noses. I take certain exception to the logic in these arguments. Whether we intend to or not, millions of people and I decide to drive as the result of a complex decision-making process, regarding an activity that is, at least somewhat, under our own control. Averaging my probability of dying on any given day over the number of days in my life expectancy is a surreally flawed way of looking at it... and not just because the alternative to living is not living... though that is one fascinating aspect of it. Again, I am not an alarmist (and I don't play one on TV)... I am simply asking for a reasonable discussion of the available facts... and let's be "a little more explicit in step two". [my comments regarding universal anihilation omitted] >The alarmists aren't right. I'm sure most or all of them are sincere in >their concerns, but ignorant or misguided in their understanding and >analysis of the risks. Some of this comes from an absolutely paranoid >fear of radiation and continuing unchecked hype about the toxicity of >plutonium. I'm not saying plutonium is good for you, but we really do >know how and why plutonium is toxic because people have been exposed to >it (many before its toxic properties were really understood). Plutonium >is toxic in small amounts _but only if distributed in exactly the right >way_. You've probably breathed dozens of atoms of plutonium in your >life purely from naturally occuring rock dust (our planet's core and >mantle are molten because they're heated by natural radioactive decay). >Obviously you're not dead yet. Beginning with the premise that the alarmists aren't right is tautological... and it may surprise you to know that I don't automatically cut them the slack of being sincere... not all of them, not necessarily even most of them... Many people have agendas. Unchecked hype cuts both ways, y'know... And, yes, I know that I've probably ingested plutonium, and other nasties (thanks to the companies that process my food and spray malthion on my vegetables and treat my coffee filters with chlorine and defoliate railroad tracks with Agent Orange)... but I also tested my house for radon gas prior to closing (though, I did blindly trust the accuracy of the test and the integrity of the testing lab), and wouldn't have bought if it'd been unacceptable. I am given to understand that I also contain a small amount of plutonium in my testicles as a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is this true? Time and time again, officials in charge have been less than forthcoming with details of this or that disaster (3 Mile Island, Chernobyl) when to do so would be embarrassing or uncomfortable. I believe the art-form has advanced to the point that these same bodies might now do so in advance... not out of malice, but out of fear. Chris Sampson (still alive behind the table) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:19:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Valerie Kraemer Subject: Re: reminder Sessions Joseph Zitt wrote: >BTW: does anyone know of any venues in Central NJ that would be >interested in booking an experimental (or avant-garde or something like >that) vocal trio? My group, Comma, is looking to do a quick run up the >East Coast in mid-January, and it would seem to make sense to play New >Brunswick or Princeton or somewhere like that on the way. We're doing >original pieces and improvisations, along with pieces by John Cage, >Pauline Oliveros, and possibly David Hykes and Meredith Monk. Any clues? >(We have the beginnings of a Web page, which will soon include sound >samples, http://www.artswire.org/~mrd/comma .) If you're interested in venturing a bit North of NYC, you might want to check out a gig at the Buttonwood Tree in Middletown, Connecticut. They are a non-profit arts organization. The space is very small but charming, and they book a lot of very alternative artists. (I met a bunch of Ecto folks there at an Ingrid Karklins gig earlier this year.) The person who books music is Steve Allison (steve@buttonwood.org). >n.r. Brian Eno: A Year with Swollen Appendices I adore Brian Eno. Is this a new book or an old book? - --Valerie Kraemer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:43:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve VanDevender Subject: Re: Cassini is no threat I don't really want to prolong this debate any longer, and I've already said everything I feel needs to be said. However, for those of you who are still curious, the Cassini project web site contains comprehensive materials covering RTGs, nuclear safety, plutonium toxicity, and the process the spacecraft designers went through to get government approval for the launch: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cassini/rtg/ Of particular interest to me was the article the late Carl Sagan wrote about the Galileo launch, which also drew heavy (but similarly unjustified) criticism from anti-nuclear activists. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:14:24 -0500 (CDT) From: "Michael P. Hayes" Subject: Mea Culpa For References To Ned Ludd You're absolutely right... After I logged off last night, just as I was drifting off to sleep, the thought occurred to me that I *really* chose the wrong description to describe the Cassini protesters. I disagree with the anti-Cassini people, but still, what I was thinking to have chosen that phrase, I don't know. I am sincerely sorry for stirring all of this up, especially as it was not my intent to offend anyone here. -- Mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:49:28 -0700 From: "Neil K. Guy" Subject: More off-topic pontificating (was Re: Cassini is no threat) Steve VanDevender wrote: >Just repetition of the phrase "plutonium, >the most toxic substance known" (several biologically-produced >chemotoxins are as bad) Joseph S Zitt wrote: >Remember, as Maxwell said, there's always an infinitesimal but real >possibility that all the air in a room will suddenly rush to the other >side and leave you in a vacuum. Does that mean that by putting people in >air-filled environments we are subjecting them to irreparable danger? Well, I wasn't going to get into this one since it's really not apropos of anything. But these totally specious and kinda insulting arguments prompt me to offer a few one-off remarks. Hit "D" if you're more interested in discussions about music. :) Frankly, I find it quite fascinating that the people who object to the launch of the probe are being painted as irrational, foolish, alarmist Luddites (automatically a bad thing, of course, because Luddites are by definition idiots who are Standing in the Way of Progress) as opposed to the calm, sensible and wise scientists responsible for designing the thing. My comments. First, all this nonsense about the probability of something dreadful going wrong. All kinds of numbers (1 in 300,000, 1 in a million) are flung around with great authority. Where do these numbers come from? Well gee, they're total guesses. Clever guesses from clever people, sure, but still guesses; nothing more. Yet they are reified and imbued with significance because they're numbers. Even the 1 in 300,000 number is pretty suspicious considering that 1 of 19 Titan IV rockets has suffered a serious failure. (NASA's assures us that the "problem has been fixed," as though that rules out the possibility of other problems arising) Second, even if the probability of something going wrong is low, so what? The point is that the possibility for disastrous consequences may be high. Like proponents of nuclear power who would insist that nuclear power was safe because the likelihood of something going wrong was low. But the problem was not just the likelihood of a nuclear station going wrong - the problem is that if something *did* go seriously wrong, it'd affect a hell of a lot of people in a very nasty and permanent way. I might accept a one in hundred risk of me getting a bruise; I wouldn't accept a one in hundred risk of being maimed. To clarify, I should say that I don't think it's likely that a lot of people would necessarily be at risk in the event of a Cassini-type launch accident. But I think it's foolish not to admit that in the end, the whole thing is a gamble, because weird things always happen. And who decides that the public must undertake that risk? Third, it is completely irrelevant whether plutonium is the nastiest substance we know of or merely one of the most nasty. The point is that it's very, very nasty. It's just like the pedants who get all hot and bothered when the ignorant uneducated masses talk about the "atomic reactors" on board the probe. Yeah, so they're radioisotope thermoelectric generators, not fission devices. So bloody what? The issue is the presence of fair whack of plutonium on board. Fourth, what public debate has there been on this? Nothing significant that I know of. (publishing an "environmental report" as a PDF does not qualify) The probe's launch was decided by a very small number of American scientists, researchers and ultimately politicians. A few people protest this fact, and are assailed as being ignorant Luddites by the offended elite. We are meant blindly to trust the chaps in white lab coats, just like people were supposed to in the 50s. Interesting. Problem is, "those wise scientists did their homework!" just doesn't cut it anymore for a lot of people, and unsurprisingly so. I'm not talking conspiracy theories here - I'm talking basic human fallibility. The smartest people fuck up or fall prey to human failings; the most ingenious devices go wrong. Fifth, who benefits? All the arguments about how utterly essential the plutonium is, because it's the only option and because solar cells can't work out to Saturn, etc., etc., totally ignore the main point - which is how essential is the probe in the first place? The null option (ie: just don't send the thing) is never discussed. Frankly, the Cassini probe is of great interest to space weenies like me who enjoy learning about our universe. I think it's pretty cool. On the whole, I believe such basic inquiry into the nature of the place we live in is great, although unfortunately we as a species aren't really responsible enough to deal with the power that our knowledge has given us. But for the average Joe or Jill Taxpayer who's footing the bill, astrophysical research is pretty damn low on the priority list. It sure isn't going to cure AIDS or bring peace and justice to the world. We've got lots of time - why rush solar system exploration when we've got a lot of garbage to clean up down here first? I think it's quite understandable and right for people to object to potentially dangerous launches when the purported benefits are both intangible and dubious to the vast majority of people on this planet. Sure, we're all assured of fabulous future spinoffs and whatnot of scientific research, but there are always many routes to the same goal. Sixth, if it had gone wrong I bet you it won't affect the people responsible for making the decisions. Take the Soviet satellite that crashed in Canada's North in the 1980s with radioactive isotopes aboard. It was dismissed as no big deal, as nobody lives up there. The Inuit and cariboo sure the hell would dispute that. But all this rambling doesn't matter. The probe was launched, luckily didn't blow up, and hopefully will return all kinds of useful scientific data about Saturn. But I also hope the debate around the launch has brought a little awareness of the whole question of public safety vs: the importance of scientific research. This is not 1955 anymore, and public faith in Big Science is pretty low these days, despite the odd shining star like the Mars mission. Scientists would do well to tone down the know-it-all arrogance about their work if they expect public support for future missions. Nobody likes to be criticized by outsiders who have no knowledge of the field - but applied science directly affects everyone, not just the scientists. - Neil K. np: "Here is a picture," Veda Hille's upcoming release. Pretty interesting - - haven't formed an opinion yet, really. - -- 49N 16' 123W 7' + Nettwerk Productions + (604) 654-2929 Vancouver, BC, Canada + nkg@nettwerk.com Technical Services - bringing that attitude to a desktop near you ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V3 #42 *************************