AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] FW: Nuclear Fuel Recycling

Fri Jul 10 13:45:16 CDT 2009

RADSAFErs,

We have now on RADSAFE a classical troll - somebody who has not the
slightest idea about the discussions going on, ridiculing real experts on
certain topics of which I think I am a member of. 

I wonder how this is handled at RADSAFE?

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von marco bähler
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Juli 2009 19:08
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Fwd: AW: [ RadSafe ] FW: Nuclear Fuel Recycling

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:

> Von: marco bähler <m.c.baehler at bluewin.ch>
> Datum: 10. Juli 2009 18:55:49 GMT+02:00
> An: Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
> Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] FW: Nuclear Fuel Recycling
>
> franz
> was habens denn seinerzeit gelernt, warum haben die usa überhaupt  
> mit dem ganzen begonnen was
> heute reprocessing oder wiederaufarbeitung genannt wird?
> richtig! zur pu abtrennung! zur bombardierung nagasakis. punkt.
> und so ist es auch heute noch möglich. man kann nirgendswo pu  
> herstellen ausser im reaktor und man kann es nur mit "reprocessing"  
> herausholen,
> soweit ich bescheid weiss. ausserdem ist die "wiederaufarbeitung "  
> mit einer verfielfachung des bilogisch verfügbaren abfalls verbunden.
>
> so geniessens doch einfach den ruhestand!
>
> mfg
> marco b
> Am 10.07.2009 um 15:54 schrieb Franz Schönhofer:
>
>> RADSAFErs,
>>
>> 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
>> MOX?
>>
>> 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
>> proliferation?)
>>
>> 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".
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> Franz
>>
>> Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
>> MinRat i.R.
>> Habicherg. 31/7
>> A-1160 Wien/Vienna
>> AUSTRIA
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]  
>> Im Auftrag
>> von Mercado, Don
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Juli 2009 00:12
>> An: 'radsafe'
>> 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,
>> reduce, reuse)
>>
>>
>>
>> Editorial
>>
>> Nature 460, 152 (9 July 2009) | doi:10.1038/460152b; Published  
>> online 8 July
>> 2009
>>
>> Adieu to nuclear recycling
>> Top of
>> page<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7252/full/ 
>> 460152b.html#top#t
>> op>
>> Abstract
>>
>> 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:
>> 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/
>

_______________________________________________
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/