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

Fri Jul 10 14:23:57 CDT 2009

RADSAFErs,

I have received quite a lot of negative and sometimes even hateful responses
on my comments, but in my probably decade long time at RADSAFE I have never
received anything like that Maybe I will do this later.

I first received this message directly to my private e-mail address and I
thought to answer it politely, but then I saw that it was sent to the full
RADSAFE list.

This person does not give either his identity nor his affiliation in his
message. He writes his more than absurd comments in German. I have never
experienced that any message to RADSAFE was sent in another language than
English. 

At the moment I simply refuse to translate the message of this person to
English, but I might do in the future. It might be much simplier than the
translation of the recent "Spiegel" paper, beause it is sraightforward a
personal insult. 

He might be a Greenpeace or similar activist. We do not need them on RADSAFE
unless they provide some reasonable arguments - did they ever provide them?

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/