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

["Stokes, James" <StokesJ@TTNUS.COM>]

Dear High Plains Drifter:



I regret to inform you of this: If anyone were to give you a specific answer

to your question, it would be a violation of their security agreement, and

subject to federal criminal prosecution.  Sorry.



Jim Stokes RRPT and former defense programs contractor

-----Original Message-----

From: High Plains Drifter

To: Bauman, Rodney L. (84U) ; RADSAFE

Sent: 7/2/01 5:04 PM

Subject: Re: So, is reprocessing in America's future?



Furthermore, most US reactors have internationally installed cameras

around

the top of the vessel to help verify that the "non-weapons grade"

plutonium

is not pulled out and made into bombs.



However, I need some info on just how say the Hanford reactor made

weapons

grade plutonium differs than much from plutonium production during

neutron

bombardment of the applicable constituents in the fuel of a power

reactor?





"In science there is only physics; everything else is stamp collecting."

                                      --Ernest Rutherford



Dean Chaney, CHP, IBA (aka High Plains Drifter)

Fairfield, CA

magna1@jps.net

----- Original Message -----

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

To: "RADSAFE" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:25 AM

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





>

> > 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.

>

>



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

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.

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

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.