::::::::
Since the February 10th debris-cloud-forming collision between two satellites in Earth orbit, a lot of strange things have been falling from the sky. Five days after the collision, a fiery object streaked across the Southern skies spurring numerous 9-1-1 calls from folks in Texas. U.S. Strategic Command later insisted that it was a fireball and not satellite debris. Then metallic blocks began crashing through peoples' roofs in New Jersey and Dallas that were later identified as components of nearby wood-chipping machines.
As strange and freaky as these incidents are, it could be worse. It is something that the FAA, U.S. Strategic Command and the nightly news aren’t telling you about.
Dozens of U.S. and Russian satellites containing nuclear reactors and plutonium-powered electrical systems are no less likely to be smashed up by the space debris – and begin falling out of orbit - than the thousands of other non-nuclear ones out there. If no corporation or government could predict or prevent this most recent satellite crash – they only learned of the incident because Iridium told them they lost contact with one of their own satellites – then there’s no telling when, if it hasn’t already happened, nuclear reactors are coming apart and headed to a rooftop near you.
Why aren’t governments and corporations concerned? Or at least sharing their concern with us in the interest of our safety? Why is there no mention of nuclear-powered satellites? Have you read about it or heard it or seen it on any television broadcast of the mainstream news? Who’s telling us of these dangers and alerting us to not touch anything that comes down from space? Why aren’t governments worldwide stepping up and finding a quick solution to stop an event that could increase the radiation background levels of the globe by a fraction of a percentage point, if not several percentage points? Why aren’t governments pledging to halt the use of radioactive materials in space-applications?
In the Cold War, Soviet military agencies and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission conducted thousands of nuclear tests that sent radioactivity into downwind communities, the food chains of nations far and near, and the bones and tissues of nearly every living being on this planet. I can think of maybe one thing worse than what has been done by nuclear testing to unknowing, innocent citizens. What is that? It’s the idea of a space-borne nuclear reactor or its remains landing on a home, a community center, a playground or a city. The odds of such a disaster may be very low, but why in the heck are we faced with the probability of such an occurrence when the threat can be removed? If we landed on the moon in 1969 and flew spacecraft to the edges of our solar system, then you can’t tell me that NASA and the Russians can’t remove these orbiting Chernobyls. NASA and the Russians aren’t planning on doing anything about it though, and who is there to prod them anyway? So few know about these orbiting reactors and even fewer know that they are needlessly endangering human life. It’s the same story for our Cold War legacy. So few know (or knew) about the extent of fallout from global nuclear testing and fewer know that global exposures have needlessly destroyed human life. You might say that corporations and governments discourage widespread awareness on these topics so they can cover up incidents when they occur and spare themselves culpability and financial settlements. But there are times when peoples’ well-beings are more important than money and reputation. And this is one of those times.
Further reading:
The Problem of Space Junk, RIA Novosti, February 13, 2009
Nuclear Rockets and Spacecraft, Idealist.ws
