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

[xrftom <tom@XRFCorp.com>]

And in the case you make it dosent need to be plutonium either.

Tom Hazlett



NECNP wrote:



> Actually, weapons grade plutonium is needed only to create "clean"

> weapons.  One can still get a critical mass from reactor grade plutonium,

> or barring that one could just use it to contaminate an area.  It would be

> a simple matter for a terrorist to contaminate something like the elevators

> in the World Trade Center and have the non-weapons grade plutonium tracked

> all through the buildings shutting them down for a long time.  It really

> doesn't need to be a bomb.

>

> Dave Pyles

> former laboratory supervisor for

> Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. West Valley, NY

>

> At 07:34 AM 07/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:

> [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.

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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.