[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: C.A. Beard (LANL) letter on MOX for Chalk
By the way, you can get a good (or should I say, unpleasant) taste of the
Canadian MOX debate by listening, in RealAudio, to a Jan. 22, 2000, CBC
radio broadcast accessible at
http://radio.cbc.ca/news/thehouse/real/00-01-22-thehouse.ram
..its about 9 min. long and begins at approximately the 28th minute of the
above audio file.
As expected, most of the time alotted to that broadcast segment went to the
antinukes.
Jaro
> ----------
> From: Eric Cowdrey[SMTP:ericc@cancercare.mb.ca]
> Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Friday January 21, 2000 6:11 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: C.A. Beard (LANL) letter on MOX for Chalk
>
> Regarding David Lee's comments:
>
> The key to understanding the Canadian involvement appears to be the
> statement concerning "...the lingering distrust and disagreement between
> the
> US and Russia" in Dr. Beard's
> letter.
>
> It would, of course, be preferable to have the two nuclear weapon states
> agree on a solution to reduce their stocks of nuclear weapons and
> associated
> materials and then implement the agreed strategy themselves without the
> need
> for third party involvement. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be
> possible at the current time.
>
> Canada is a non-nuclear weapon state that has the nuclear technology and
> reputation to act as a responsible third party, acceptable to both the US
> and Russia in this important matter. While some financial benefit for
> Canada
> may result, I think the desire to make the world a safer place through the
> elimination of nuclear weapons is the priority consideration.
>
> **************************************************************
>
> Eric Cowdrey
> Radiation Protection Officer
> Department of Medical Physics
> CancerCare Manitoba
> 100 Olivia Street
> Winnipeg, Manitoba R3E 0V9
> CANADA
>
> Tel (204) 787-2166
> Fax (204) 775-1684
> e-mail ericc@cancercare.mb.ca
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> [mailto:radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]On Behalf Of David W Lee
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 3:20 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: C.A. Beard (LANL) letter on MOX for Chalk
>
>
> RADSAFERS:
>
> Please help me to clarify my understanding of Carl Beard's letter
> below.
>
> (1) The U.S. Government pays the Russian government cash (U.S.
> dollars) for its excess weapons grade plutonium. (How much money did the
> U.S. Taxpayers pay to Russia in this transaction?)
>
> (2) The U.S. DOE funds Los Alamos National Laboratory for
> develop
> a process for the incorporation of the Russian weapons grade Pu into mixed
> oxide fuel (MOX). (How many U.S. taxpayer dollars did DOE pay LANL to
> accomplish this?)
>
> (3) The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at the time of this
> Russian weapons grade Pu non-proliferation effort, did not have an
> approved
> MOX fuel design for U.S. light-water power reactors; therefore, LANL's MOX
> design focused on making MOX fuel rods for Canadian CANDU reactors.
>
> (4) Canada will be the ultimate benefactor of this Pu
> non-proliferation effort because Canada will get MOX fuel for free from
> the
> United States, be able to use it to produce electrical power for
> Canadians,
> and if Canadian reactors sometimes sell electrical power to the U.S. power
> grid, some American taxpaying electricity consumers will have the
> "opportunity" to pay additional dollars back to Canada for electrical
> power
> that was generated with "free" MOX that originally came from the United
> States!
>
> Doesn't it strike you that there is something wrong with the
> above
> picture? It seems that the U.S. taxpayers are doing all the "paying" and
> the Canadians getting virtually all of the benefits at U.S. taxpayers
> expense!
>
> Weapons grade Pu (>93% Pu-239) that both the United States and
> Russia have, cost the taxpayers of both countries many dollars and rubles
> to originally produce. Weapons-grade Pu is rather analogous to the gold
> bars setting in Ft. Knox or in Swiss bank vaults--those gold bars took
> much
> sweat and taxpayer dollars to mine, refine, and safeguard in a safe
> repository. But rather than treat weapons grade Pu as a similar national
> "treasure"/resource by placing this material in a safe, secure repository,
> the U.S. government has only the idea of either burying the stuff or
> diluting it into MOX fuel where after burn-up, the Pu-239 will at best be
> in the form of only "reactor-grade" Pu. I am, therefore, NOT one of those
> "many people in the United States" who, as Beard alleges, favor declaring
> a
> national treasure to be "waste" worthy only of a pauper's burial.
>
> I realize that there is a major difference between Au and Pu--Au
> does not sustain a nuclear chain reaction nor does it go critical or
> supercritical, etc. But weapons grade Pu, in the form of a mere "pit,"
> does not, by itself, make a mushroom. Even a "pit" must be married up
> with
> very sophisticated, highly safeguarded and controlled technology to be a
> "weapon" capable of making a mushroom.
>
> Please clarify my understanding if you think anything I have said
> above is unfair or irrational.
>
> Best regards David
>
>
>
> At 09:46 AM 01/21/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >FYI,
> >
> > > Friday, January 21, 2000
> > > How the plutonium lift helped the world
> > > Canada, working with the U.S. and Russia, solved an impasse
> > > Carl A. Beard
> > > National Post (CANADA)
> > > In the waning days of the Cold War, the United States and Russia
> agreed
> to
> > > dramatic reductions in their nuclear arsenals. Missiles were
> destroyed,
> > > but the plutonium inside them was not. Both countries have simply put
> it
> > > in storage.
> > > This is not a problem in the United States, where plutonium stocks are
> > > well guarded. But in Russia, which employs a tattered security system,
> the
> > > situation is different. Many Russian plutonium storage facilities
> adopted
> > > primitive security methods, such as placing wax seals on doors to
> detect
> > > trespassing and theft. The possibility of terrorists or rogue states
> > > stealing plutonium is very real.
> > > Canada, though not a nuclear power itself, is doing something about
> the
> > > problem. The recent shipment of a small quantity of plutonium from the
> > > United States is part of that effort. If the Canadian project proceeds
> > > according to ambition, more than 100 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium
> > > from the United States and Russia may eventually be processed.
> > > Why is Canada's participation necessary? The answer lies with the
> > > lingering distrust and disagreement between the U.S. and Russia.
> > > Many in the U.S. favour a plutonium disposal process whereby plutonium
> is
> > > mixed with radioactive waste and buried. The Russians, on the other
> hand,
> > > see their plutonium as an asset that should be converted into fuel for
> > > energy-producing nuclear reactors. Every kilowatt of electricity the
> > > Russians generate with nuclear power permits them to sell more fossil
> fuel
> > > abroad. But the U.S. has opposed converting the plutonium to nuclear
> fuel
> > > for security reasons. When plutonium is used in nuclear reactors, it
> is
> > > degraded but not destroyed. It can still be recovered and used to
> power
> > > crude weapons.
> > > And so, by 1996, the situation had become deadlocked.
> > > Then, scientists from Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., in conjunction
> with
> > > partners at Ontario Hydro and Zircatec, developed a bold idea: The
> U.S.
> > > and Russia could transform their plutonium into nuclear fuel and ship
> it
> > > to Canada, where it would be used to produce electricity and then
> > > disposed, without further recycling, under full International Atomic
> > > Energy Agency safeguards. Canada would effectively become a plutonium
> > > escrow agent under an arrangement that would make both countries
> happy.
> > > The Russians would be paid for their plutonium, giving them cash for a
> > > fuel they do not have the technology or resources to fully exploit
> > > themselves. The U.S. would be assured the plutonium -- both its own
> and
> > > Russia's -- would never be stolen.
> > > The plutonium transported into Canada by helicopter last Friday --
> > > destined for a test reactor at Chalk River -- was part of this plan.
> The
> > > shipment marked the largest elimination of weapons-grade plutonium to
> > > date, and I am proud to say I was part of the group of scientists at
> Los
> > > Alamos National Laboratory that fabricated that fuel from a dismantled
> > > nuclear weapon. Working hand in hand with our colleagues from AECL and
> in
> > > conjunction with scientists in Russia, we have been able to make the
> world
> > > a little safer. Without Canadian involvement this would not have
> happened.
> > >
> > > And what of the dangers associated with plutonium and its transport
> from
> > > New Mexico to Canada?
> > > Plutonium is shipped under extraordinary safety measures. Release is
> next
> > > to impossible. And even if plutonium were released, what would happen?
> > > In the early part of this decade, a study was conducted at Los Alamos
> > > National Laboratory on 26 workers who had been exposed to plutonium
> during
> > > their work on the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. As of 1992, 19 were
> > > still living, 46 years after the exposure occurred. Moreover, this
> group
> > > did not exhibit any diseases (including cancer) at rates higher than
> the
> > > general public.
> > > These results are hardly consistent with the idea that the workers had
> > > been exposed to "the most toxic substance known to man."
> > > But make no mistake, plutonium is dangerous ... not because of the
> > > possibility that it might be accidentally released in transit, but
> because
> > > of the possibility that it might be intentionally released in the
> > > detonation of a nuclear weapon.
> > > Thanks to Canadian participation, that risk will be lessened
> considerably.
> > >
> > > Dr. Carl A. Beard is an assistant professor at the University of Texas
> at
> > > Austin. He has also worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he
> was
> > > Project Leader for Nuclear Fuels Research and Development activities
>
>
> DAVID W. LEE
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
> Radiation Protection Services, ESH-12
> X-Ray/Source Control Team Leader
> ESH-12, MS K483
> Los Alamos, NM 87545
> PH: (505) 667-8085
> FAX: (505) 667-9726
> lee_david_w@lanl.gov
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html