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

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@PITT.EDU>]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Bauman, Rodney L. (84U)  wrote:



> 

> > 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.



	--Reactor grade Pu can be used to make a poor quality bomb --low

and unpredictable yield. But no such bomb has been produced for military

purposes as far as I know. 

	But much more important is the fact that people who worry about

proliferation should be very much more worried about situations arising

from the break-up of the Soviet Union, making available quantities of bomb

grade material and knowledgeable scientists desparate for money to sustain

their families. These people should be concentrating all of their efforts

on that problem rather than worrying about U.S. reprocessing.



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

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.