AW: [ RadSafe ] FW: Nuclear Fuel Recycling
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Fri Jul 10 08:54:37 CDT 2009
Can somebody enlighten me? I am not subscribed to Nature, but always had the
impression that this was a very reputated journal, where only high quality
contributions after severe per review was published? This editorial (!) is
at the level of the worst boulevard paper. It is full of scientific faults
and it has a political agenda, namely to "highlight" a "very important role"
of the USA, which simply does not exist. Anybody interested in reprocessing
in this world may consult the IAEA homepage to find out, how many countries
use reprocessing and how much fuel is reprocessed worldwide - you will be
surprised! Yet proliferation seems not to be of any concern! Ever heard of
I have not heard anything recently about the deal of the USA with India to
deliver uranium for nuclear power plants - so India will be able to use
their own domestic uranium unaccounted for for nuclear bombs. (Second hand
I find again in this editorial the fairy tale, that uranium and plutonium
from reprocessing of used nuclear fuel can be used to construct nuclear
bombs. Obviously the facts did not reach "Nature".
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von Mercado, Don
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Juli 2009 00:12
Betreff: [ 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,
Nature 460, 152 (9 July 2009) | doi:10.1038/460152b; Published online 8 July
Adieu to nuclear recycling
President Barack Obama should be applauded for his decision to scrap
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
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:
More information about the RadSafe