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

Fri Jul 10 16:31:13 CDT 2009

oh, again I forgot to send it to everybody, it went only to dr  
schoenhofer.

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:

> Von: marco bähler <m.c.baehler at bluewin.ch>
> Datum: 10. Juli 2009 23:22:27 GMT+02:00
> An: Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] FW: Nuclear Fuel Recycling
>
> right so!
>
> some topics need sound consideration.
> forgive me for not having answered in english rightaway.
> what I wrote has been said many times before. for example by john  
> gofman, co-inventor of pu.
> have you ever heard his name ?
> reactor grade pu is fissible, making only cleaner or dirtier bangs,  
> according to the ratios of the different pu isotopes. me thinks  
> thats a fact.
>
> I learned it from hannes alvfén, some thirty years ago.
>
> I worked in nukeresearch and I quit. my former boss there was a ex- 
> nazi and he said many times to me i should not hinterfragen. but  
> thats just what I learned most. he died from cancer. many of my  
> former colleagues left this world in a painful way. so lets stick  
> to the facts as close as possible.
> pu from reprocessing  can indeed be used to make bombs.
> if this were not true why do you think the whole manhattan-effort??
>
> the only mistake in my german letter I see is that I wrote  
> bilogisch instead of biologisch. but it is also a fact, and I own  
> several milliliters of water drawn from the waters outside la hague  
> containing huge amounts of iodine 129 for example-
> I heard that the so-called reprocessing released far more activity  
> to air and water than all the nuclearpowerplants as a whole. take  
> only 3H in consideration and e.g. 129I...
> stuff that for the biggest part would not be bio-availabe without  
> reprocessing.
>
> marco bähler
>
> Am 10.07.2009 um 20:45 schrieb Franz Schönhofer:
>
>> 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/
>>
>