[ RadSafe ] FW: Nuclear Fuel Recycling
John R Johnson
idias at interchange.ubc.ca
Thu Jul 9 17:40:32 CDT 2009
I agree. There is not a necessary relationship between recyling and nuclear
weapons. Canada's thorium reclying plans ( at least in the '80s) used this
to justify the use of the thorium fuel cycle, as did the UK when I worked at
Winfirth in 1973-1974.
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
4535 West 9th Ave
Vancouver, B. C.
V6R 2E2, Canada
idias at interchange.ubc.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mercado, Don" <don.mercado at lmco.com>
To: "'radsafe'" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 3:11 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: Nuclear Fuel Recycling
> So much for transparency regardless of what political camp one is in.
> Apparently 'reprocessing' is not considered as one of the 3 R's (recycle,
> reduce, reuse)
> Nature 460, 152 (9 July 2009) | doi:10.1038/460152b; Published online 8
> July 2009
> Adieu to nuclear recycling
> Top of
> President Barack Obama should be applauded for his decision to scrap
> commercial reprocessing.
> This week, US President Barack Obama has been grabbing headlines with his
> efforts to revitalize the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - a US/Russian
> agreement to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both nations.
> Such efforts will be applauded worldwide, but another decision by the
> Obama administration deserves equal acclaim. On 29 June, the president
> quietly cancelled a lengthy environmental review that was the first step
> in allowing the resumption of commercial nuclear reprocessing in the
> United States. Nuclear reprocessing chemically separates uranium and
> plutonium from spent nuclear fuel so that it can be reused in specialized
> reactors. The same technique can be used to purify material for nuclear
> weapons, and it is partly for that reason that the United States decided
> to halt reprocessing in the 1970s.
> Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, sought to reverse that decision. He
> thought that reprocessing could be part of a broader approach that would
> see used fuel from non-nuclear-weapons states brought to the United States
> for reprocessing. As part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
> programme, Bush advocated the construction of a demonstration commercial
> reprocessing plant, and an environmental review was already under way when
> Obama came into office.
> Such a plant, had the plans been allowed to continue, would have been both
> costly and counterproductive. Proliferation worries aside, reprocessing is
> complex, expensive and creates a liquefied stream of highly radioactive
> waste that is difficult to dispose of. The technology is likely to be
> needed within the next two decades, so Obama is right in his decision to
> allow research into ways to improve reprocessing, while constraining the
> programme to one of basic science.
> The decision to halt commercial nuclear recycling sends a clear message
> that the United States is committed to nuclear non-proliferation. Such
> decisions, together with diplomacy such as that taking place in Russia,
> are deliberate and encouraging first steps towards building an
> international consensus on reducing the threat from nuclear weapons.
> 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:
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
More information about the RadSafe