[ RadSafe ] Re: Editorial: No convincing evidence to increase Pu atLLNL

Thu Dec 8 12:17:43 CST 2005

Dimiter,
To a technologically ignorant public, any amount of plutonium is deadly.
Twice as much is twice as dangerous.
Unfortunately, LLNL officials cannot effectively defend their plutonium
operations without the possibility of breaching security. Anyway, they
probably do not want to,  because the increased level of public concern
allows them to obtain increased budgets ostensibly to control this
"serious hazard".

Jerry Cohen.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dimiter Popoff" <didi at tgi-sci.com>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:02 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Editorial: No convincing evidence to increase Pu
atLLNL

> Frankly I do not see the difference it would make to the public
> if they store 700 rather than 1400 kg - or am I missing something?
> Yet another easy to use attention grabber, I suppose.
>
> Dimiter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments
>
> http://www.tgi-sci.com
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >  -------Original Message-------
> >  From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
> >  Subject: [ RadSafe ] Editorial: No convincing evidence to increase Pu
at LLNL
> >  Sent: Dec 08 '05 17:59
> >
> >  >From Nature 438, 712 (8 December 2005)
> >
> >  Enough, already
> >
> >  Abstract:No convincing case has been made for
> >  increasing the amount of plutonium held at a
> >  Californian lab.
> >
> >  The US Department of Energy is planning to double the
> >  amount of plutonium that can be stored at the Lawrence
> >  Livermore National Laboratory in California. Under new
> >  rules announced last week, the nuclear-weapons lab can
> >  keep up to 1,400 kilograms, or enough for around 300
> >  bombs.
> >
> >  Not surprisingly, antinuclear activists are up in arms
> >  about having so much bomb-grade metal in such a
> >  heavily populated area. But researchers who want the
> >  US nuclear-weapons laboratories to set a good example
> >  for the rest of the world should be equally dismayed
> >  at the plan.
> >
> >  Since 1992, the United States has maintained a
> >  moratorium on the testing and development of new
> >  nuclear weapons. There's no real need for this
> >  research lab, which accommodates an outstanding
> >  civilian research programme next to its
> >  weapons-related activity, to be playing with this
> >  quantity of plutonium.
> >
> >  Livermore is expected to use some of the expanded
> >  inventory in nuclear-weapons research, including
> >  experiments at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), a
> >  massive laser facility that will recreate some of the
> >  conditions inside nuclear weapons at detonation. The
> >  facility's original function was to perform such
> >  experiments on hydrogen isotopes, rather than
> >  plutonium. Officials at the Department of Energy never
> >  formally excluded the option of using plutonium in the
> >  NIF, but a 1995 report prepared by scientists in the
> >  department's non-proliferation office warned that its
> >  use at the facility could be seen as provocative by
> >  other nations.
> >
> >  The other main reason why Livermore wants to hold more
> >  plutonium, according to energy-department documents,
> >  is that it will start to lay the groundwork for the
> >  renewed mass production of plutonium pits, used in US
> >  nuclear weapons. Livermore will be charged with
> >  developing new technologies for manufacturing the
> >  pits, for use at a proposed industrial-sized
> >  production facility. But questions remain over whether
> >  this facility is either necessary or appropriate, and
> >  this year Congress declined to appropriate the money
> >  needed to begin planning for its construction.
> >
> >  Most of Livermore's new plutonium stocks would be
> >  shipped there from the Los Alamos National Laboratory
> >  in New Mexico, where the Department of Energy's track
> >  record in handling plutonium does not inspire much
> >  confidence. According to a report released on 29
> >  November by the Institute for Energy and Environmental
> >  Research, a watchdog group based near Washington DC,
> >  Los Alamos has managed to lose between 300 kg and 600
> >  kg of the material over the years. The group suggests
> >  that much of it was dumped indiscriminately in the
> >  desert during the early days of the nuclear age, or
> >  was mislabelled when shipped off elsewhere for
> >  long-term storage.
> >
> >  And Livermore has had its own problems with plutonium.
> >  In January, its plutonium facility, where scientists
> >  work with the metal under heavily controlled
> >  conditions, was shut down amid safety concerns.
> >  Problems cited at the time included cracks in the
> >  building's ventilation systems and poorly constructed
> >  'hot boxes' for handling the metal. The facility was
> >  allowed to reopen at a reduced capacity last month.
> >
> >  The laboratory is wasting its time researching pit
> >  production for a facility that may never actually be
> >  built.
> >  In light of all this, Livermore's plan to double its
> >  inventory of plutonium is ill-advised. A case for
> >  plutonium experiments at the NIF has not been made,
> >  even to review groups that have the security clearance
> >  needed to assess it. And the laboratory is wasting its
> >  time researching pit production for a facility that
> >  may never actually be built. For a mixed-use
> >  scientific facility in a residential area, 700 kg of
> >  plutonium is enough, already
> >
> >  +++++++++++++++++++
> >  "Efforts and courage are not enough without purpose and direction."
> >  "John F. Kennedy, U.S. President and former Naval Officer
> >
> >  -- John
> >  John Jacobus, MS
> >  Certified Health Physicist
> >  e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
> >
> >  __________________________________________________
> >  Do You Yahoo!?
> >  Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >  http://mail.yahoo.com
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> >  Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> >
> >  For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/