RE: So, is reprocessing in America's future?

["Bauman, Rodney L. (84U) " <84u@BECHTELJACOBS.ORG>]

> I hope everyone on RadSafe knows that "weapons-grade" plutonium is very 

> different from the plutonium produced in a commercial reactor. The 

> difference is in the amount of Pu-240.

> 

[Bauman, Rodney]   I've heard this over and over again and understand the

physics behind the Pu-239/Pu-240 weapons-grade vs. reactor-grade plutonium

argument.  But if in fact, commercial reactor spent fuel plutonium is not

suitable for weapons production, then why all the hoopla?  Why did Jimmy

Carter renounce (by Executive Order) the reprocessing of spent commercial

reactor fuel?  I've always been told that it was due to nuclear

proliferation concerns - due to the production of plutonium.  But, everybody

who knows plutonium says that reactor-grade plutonium is useless for

weapons.  Something stinks.



Rodney Bauman, CHP, RRPT

84u@bechteljacobs.org





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.