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

["Raymond Shadis" <shadis@ime.net>]

Maury,

Thanks for the clarification. I do think that we need not be concerned about

stimulating terrorists or terrorist nations to consider nuclear options for

weapons of terror. They can take their cue from schema such as 'Mutual

Assured Destruction.' or they can just read NCRP Draft Report SC 46-41.

I do appreciate your comment on the appropriate allocation of

resources.....though I don't see global, or even domestic, concensus on that

one anytime soon.

                                Peace,  Ray



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

From: maury <maury@webtexas.com>

To: Raymond Shadis <shadis@ime.net>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 10:26 PM

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





> Ray, I failed to express myself clearly. My reference to ignorance and

> destitution was an attempt at a humorous sarcasm.. Terrorists are just as

bright

> and as well funded as most who would oppose them. I am distressed by the

> continuing elevation of nuclear problems over other human problems that

are

> different, but simply not so different that such special considerations

are

> warranted. Yes, nuclear proliferation is nuclear proliferation, but more

now to

> the point is that nuclear proliferation simply *is* ....

>

> Value judgments of good or bad are beside the point; the point is that we

want

> to make the best (in our opinions) possible use of the resources and tools

with

> which we find ourselves at any point in time. I believe, in this context,

that

> many of our resources are being grossly wasted. Can you not remember how

our

> forebears sat in the monthly council meetings debating the appropriate

level of

> our store of bows, arrows, and knives? (big tongue-in-cheek grin) And

debating

> the adequacy of our guards around that store so that those renegades

across the

> river could not steal them and do us in? In an historical perspective, I

am

> intrigued by the extent to which our resources, tools,  and circumstances

have

> changed since those council meetings in the caves while we have not

changed one

> whit. We are magnificent animals, but we sure can be mean and silly little

> buggers sometimes.

>

> Your reference to the SCUD missile potential is, of course, interesting.

In

> point of fact, recall the special flurry of activity it did cause

throughout

> Israel for protective measures against gas warfare! It is equally

interesting

> that Iraq apparently did not attempt some form of NBC warfare.

>

> We have not and will not stop nuclear proliferation and we never will be

> completely secure against abuses of ionizing radiation - or of ultraviolet

or rf

> radiation, not to mention against all potential applications of NBC

weapons and

> conventional high explosives. If anything, by devoting such inordinate

attention

> to things nuclear, we create a special attraction for terrorists and

mischief

> makers. (If that tribe is paying such special attention to that cave, then

there

> really must be something in there worth going after.) I hope we can get on

with

> constructive applications of things nuclear while exercising reasonable

(as

> contrasted with inordinate) care in how we do it.

>

> Finally, please be assured that I intended no slight on the

accomplishments or

> the mistaken forecasts of such lights as Smyth, Wigner, and Thirring. As

is true

> for all of us, their humanity preceded their professionalism.

> With sincere best regards,

> Maury Siskel          maury@webtexas.com

> ======================== reply separator ================

> Raymond Shadis wrote:

>

> > Count among those destitute terrorists nuclear pioneers, H.D Smyth and

E.P.

> > Wigner, who three days after Pearl Harbor wrote a report concluding that

the

> > fission products formed in only a single day of operating a nuclear

reactor

> > at a power of 100,000 kilowatts might be enough to render a large area

> > uninhabitable. In 1948, the brilliant Hans Thirring published a paper

> > describing the potential in the dispersal of short-lived fission product

s

> > to force evacuation of enemy cities.

> >

> >  Nuclear proliferation is nuclear proliferation.

> >

> > It is doubtful terrorists or terrorist nations are very much interested

in a

> > clean, high-yield bomb. Consider what might have followed by way of

response

> > if the SCUD missle that hit the US installation in Saudi Arabia during

the

> > Gulf War had a nuclear component to it, either a very poor bomb or just

a

> > load of mixed fission products.

> >                                                                 Ray

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>

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

> > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 12:28 PM

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

> >

> > >

> > > Amen - well put. There is no real issue here, but the various

interested

> > > parties will keep it "alive" anyway. It is kind of amusing to note the

> > > wide

> > > range of imagination and creativity shown in the process. And it is

> > > always

> > > remarkable how ignorant these destitute terrorists are.

> > > Cheers,  Maury Siskel   maury@webtexas.com

> > > ====================================

> > > PBarring@KDHE.STATE.KS.US wrote:

> > >

> > > > This is just my two cents, since everyone else is piping in.  What

needs

> > to

> > > > be said is that if somebody REALLY wants fissionable material, for a

> > device

> > > > or just to scatter isotopes all over the place, they WILL get it.

> > You're

> > > > not dealing with cretins.  You are dealing with educated leaders,

> > > > knowledgeable support personnel and LOTS of money.  Reprocessing is

not

> > the

> > > > problem, or at least not the problem the press makes it out to be.

> > There

> > > > is already plenty of material out there available for use, and for a

lot

> > > > less trouble and expense than stealing it from a reprocessing

facility

> > or

> > > > fuel shipment.  Heck, if I were a terrorist I could make plenty of

> > people

> > > > miserable and scared by touching-off a plain old chemical bomb with

> > medical

> > > > isotopes and source material strapped to it.  People don't care how

the

> > > > radiation is spread around or even what the isotopes are, all they

know

> > is

> > > > that radiation is evil stuff and that we all lie.  Again, we need to

> > > > educate people.  Maybe we should start with the press corps.

> > > >

> > > > "Just my humble opinions.  Nothing I say is endorsed by my employer.

I

> > > > also DO NOT endorse terrorism."

> > > >

> > > > Phil

> > > >

> > > >

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

>



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

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.