Re: Reprocessing (and Giga-tons of CO2)

[NeilKeeney@aol.com]

Jim Dukelow wrote:

Date:   10/10/00 6:22:34 PM SA Pacific Standard Time
From:   jim.dukelow@pnl.gov (Dukelow, James S Jr)
Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu

>Finally, civilian nuclear reprocessing is not, in any way, the source for
>weapons plutonium.  All nations known to have built weapons have obtained the
>plutonium using reactors and reprocessing facilities dedicated to that task.

Jim:

Thanks for pointing out that I failed to communicate fully;  I clearly 
understand that commercial nukes are not the typical source for your standard 
fission/fusion warheads (although we still need all that security around 
checking our lunch-boxes, briefcases, and watching steel doors to keep 
terrorists from swiping the "spent" fuel...)  This is what happens when I get 
on my Yea-Nuclear Soapbox.

I was also at the Morris Facility except I went during the mid-80's 
participating as a Rad Prot. Tech. delivering the Monticello Spent Fuel to GE 
for storage.  I agree there were a lot of "design" troubles in those days; it 
appears many of the other countries learned many lessons from out mistakes.

I couldn't help but notice how, in the timeline described by your response, 
the politicians figure prominently in strategic planning.  This is as it 
should be (and is in Japan for example) but ours do this on a Tactical basis 
- making up a new strategy with each administration.  The politicians who 
reversed decisions made during previous administrations, that had reversed or 
changed decisions from previous administrations did the industry no favors.

I regard this as somewhat analogous to reversing the decision to send a 
manned mission to the moon midway during the trip, then reversing that 
decision, and finally just saying, oh well, let Boeing pay for it now...

The original "deal" and premise for LWR designs and nuclear in general was 
more of a partnership between government and commercial nuclear, at least to 
the extent that government would not actually create barriers to the 
technology.  If this were the other way around, it would be regarded as 
Treason.

The viewpoint I hold and wanted to convey is that the US is not being 
responsible in this area from a global energy production and management 
perspective.  We're creating and continue to create problems for ourselves in 
this area that originate in the political arena not in technological areas.  
The "Effect" of this degree of irresponsibility carries over into other areas 
such as the "Giga-tons" of CO2, etc. previously posted to this server.  And 
finally, that these so-called problems (that weren't problems before we made 
them so) are being so confused and balled-up by the newsmedia as to make a 
Rubiks Cube look like toddler play in comparison.  To me the "Right Why" is 
clear, the future of the technology will never improve in the United States 
so long as it is wrapped-up with politicians self-interests.

You referenced the Reagan Administration decisions during the early 80's; 
very disappointing for me, I didn't recall that and I really liked the guy's 
kutz-bah.  Where's Ross Perot when you need him?

Best Regards,

Neil Keeney
neilkeeney@aol.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html