[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: So, is reprocessing in America's future?
Without violating any security agreements, I can refer you to Nuclear Weapons
Frequently Asked Questions by Carey Sublette at
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/nukeweap/Nfaq0.html
for questions concerning Pu-239/Pu-240 production and ratios and why it
matters. The more Pu-240, the harder it is to make a bomb without blowing
yourself up, first.
See in particular sections 6.2.2, 6.2.2.3, and 6.2.2.6
The rest of the document is a worthwhile read.
Joe Alvarez
"Stokes, James" wrote:
>
> 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.
************************************************************************
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.