To Catherine Cesarsky, IAU President,

I am writing to you regarding the "new" definition of a planet, approved
by a very small faction of the voting members of the International
Astronomical Union (IAU). I must add that when I first read the
definition in August 2006, I was confused and angered.

As a resident of Streator, IL, hometown of Clyde Tombaugh, I saw this as
a biased and calculated move to have Pluto "stricken" from the record
simply because an American discovered it. Of course, we are proud of
this great feat of Clyde Tombaugh back in 1930. Why shouldn't we be?
What he did was, at the very least, incredible. His subsequent
contributions to the world of science and astronomy will forever be
recognized .

The inconsistency of the definition in relation to what is now considered
to be a planet is the term "cleared the neighborhood" . What most
intelligent people recognize to be the nine planets, all orbit the sun
and have sufficient mass for hydrostatic equilibrium. However, five of
the nine planets have a "neighborhood" which is NOT completely
cleared. So if we go by the current IAU definition, Pluto, Earth, Jupiter,
Neptune and Mars are not planets. That would be fine if the IAU
applied the definition evenly when discriminating what is and what is
not considered to be a planet.

The issue is not that planet Pluto was reclassified.The issue is not if
most Americans agree or disagree with the definition. Your recent
statements in the various articles I've read are insulting to the
thousands of us who believe the IAU "screwed up" and now, through
your comments, are trying to justify this by saying "Nobody cares".
I know that countless scientists and lay people all over the world,
have and will, continue to oppose this "new" definition. Also, to say
only the people tied to the New Horizons project are the ones pushing
for the reinstatement of Pluto is ridiculous.  To minimalize their
"expertise" of the littlest planet is ludicrous. Who would know better if
Pluto was a planet than the very scientists working on the New Horizons
Mission?  With that thinking, it would be O.K. to have a dentist remove
my appendix rather than a surgeon, simply because he was "in the room".

Just so there is no future misunderstanding on your part, I will do what
I can to contact as many people as possible and have them also send
you their thoughts (on this very controversial issue)which you seem
to think "nobody cares" about.

So here is the issue.... the current definition is inconsistent.
It is not applied evenly to what some even consider, the 12 planets.
Because of all these things.....the IAU has lost its credibility. Until
this organization can stand up and admit their mistake, I believe
most will feel the same. The IAU will not only have lost the support
of people all over the world, but it will also lose the very membership
which made it a "once credible" organization.


Mrs. Siobhan Elias