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

["Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA>]

David Pyles wrote :



I don't think that I mentioned in my previous post that during the GESMO 

hearings DOE said that it had made a Hiroshima-sized bomb from reactor 

grade Pu.

<><><><><><><><><><><>



Comment : For the benefit of those who may have missed it the last time I

posted it, here's the low-down on that bit of DOE "spin" :

Jaro



Discussion of the "Hiroshima-sized bomb from reactor grade Pu" may be found

in Dr. Jeremy Whitlock's web-posted text, "How easily can an atomic bomb be

made with spent CANDU

fuel?", on The Canadian Nuclear FAQ,

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/cnf_sectionF.htm#x2



<begin quote>



The only publicly known US test of a reactor-grade device was a 1962

explosion, partially declassified in 1977. However, in 1962 the term

"reactor-grade" included any purity less than 93% Pu-239 [14]. The plutonium

for the 1962 test came from a British MAGNOX reactor (a dual-purpose

electricity/plutonium-production design), and is suspected of being in the

range 80-90% Pu-239, although this fact remains classified [15,16]. 



[14] DOE Facts, "Additional Information Concerning Underground Nuclear

Weapon Test of Reactor-grade Plutonium", Washington, D.C.,

http://apollo.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html, June

1994. 



quote from [14] :



Prior to the 1970's, there were only two terms in use to define plutonium

grades: weapon-grade (no more than 7 percent Pu-240) and reactor-grade

(greater than 7 percent Pu-240). In the early 1970's, the term fuel-grade

(approximately 7 percent to 19 percent Pu-240) came into use, which shifted

the reactor-grade definition 19 percent or greater Pu-240. 

-------------



[15] A. DeVolpi, "A Cover-up of Nuclear Test Information?", Physics and

Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, http://physics.wm.edu/~sher/aoct96.html, October

1996. 



quote from [15] :



The 1962 detonation involved plutonium of a quality below that of weapons

grade. To reinforce its 1967 announcements that "high-irradiation level

reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons," the US

government added in 1977 that "a nuclear test was conducted using reactor

grade plutonium" and "it successfully produced a nuclear yield." As a result

of the Openness Initiative formulated by Secretary O'Leary, DOE announced in

1994 that the plutonium was "provided" by the UK and the upper limit of

explosive yield was 20 kt. [1,2] 

<snip>

In fact, the missing data are likely to be quite discouraging to potential

proliferators, thus fortifying existing perceptions about inherent

difficulties in weaponization of civilian plutonium. 

<snip>

Fresh disclosures from London indicate that the plutonium could not have

been what we now consider to be reactor-grade[3]. DOE now implies, but

doesn't assert, that the plutonium was fuel grade. 

Meanwhile, other nations have publicized their disagreement with the DOE

"spin" on declassified test information. In fact, the French "scorned the US

government affirmation that it successfully exploded a weapon made with

'reactor-grade' plutonium."[4] During the 1950s the British carried out two

tests with sub-grade plutonium that they considered disappointing. Based on

these results, they went on to make weapons only from high- grade materials.

Although the results of the tests were reported in an official UK book, the

information is considered classified in the US. This British data is not

consistent with the 1962 test conclusions reported to the American public.

<snip>

The glaring shortfall in data and information released about the 1962 test

is cause for suspicion about the quality, origin, or success of the

experiment. The unreleased information can hardly be of more proliferant

value than the specific data already divulged for other nuclear-explosive

experiments. In fact, the missing data are likely to be quite discouraging

to potential proliferators, thus fortifying existing perceptions about

inherent difficulties in weaponization of civilian plutonium. 

------------

<END QUOTE>



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

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.