Re: leventhal on nuke security and Yucca - CNN

["Michael Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>]

The following from Tim Steadham:



> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:28:44 -0800 (PST)

> From: Tim <tstead@ntirs.org>

> Subject: Re: leventhal on nuke security and Yucca - CNN

> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> In-Reply-To: <3C609BA6.81D11997@home.com>

> MIME-Version: 1.0

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> 

> I just wanted to comment on a couple of items.

> 

> First, after $6 billion and >20 years of study, why is

> the safety of Yucca still in question?

> 

> Second, fuel-grade plutonium from US NPPs is

> not suitable for weapons material.  It contains too many

> poisons and not enough Pu-239.  The alpha emitters in

> it make it highly unsuitable for a bomb alone since

> there are no known explosives that can take the heat

> that would be given off by those isotopes.

> 

> Third, reprocessing technologies exist such that ALL

> of the Pu and ALL of the U stay together in a stream -

> the Pu is not extracted.  So, what you have is a

> material whose most abundant isotope is U-238.  Can

> someone please explain to me how a bomb can be

> constructed with such large quantities of a

> non-fissile material?

> 

> Fourth, if someone had the capability to perform

> isotope seperation on the spent fuel to collect the

> Pu-239 and ditch all the other isotopes contained in

> it, wouldn't it make sense that they would just go

> mine some Uranium and use their reprocessing plant to

> enrich the Uranium and make a U-bomb?  U-bombs are

> reportedly much easier to make than a Pu bomb.  That

> would be much easier than trying to divert material

> from the reprocessing cycle and there is a whole lot

> of Uranium just waiting to be mined in Africa and

> Australia...

> 

> For these reasons alone, I neither see where Leventhal

> is coming from nor why you call his remarks, "middle

> of the road."

> 

> Regards,

> Tim Steadham, P.E.

> 

> --- Norman Cohen <ncohen12@HOME.COM> wrote:

> > >                  Levanthal: Both from a site

> > security standpoint and a

> > > nuclear non-prol iferation

> > >                  standpoint, since spent fuel

> > contains a lot of plutonium

> > > (a nuclear weapons

> > >                  material) it's better that the

> > spent fuel be put for final

> > > disposal in a geological

> > >                  repository. And the site that's

> > been selected, in this

> > > country, is Yucca Mountain.

> > >                  But, there's a lot of controversy

> > about whether this is

> > > the appropriate site and

> > >                  whether it has been fully

> > characterized to be safe. And it

> > > looks like it's going to take

> > >                  several years before they are in

> > a position to speak

> > > authoritatively on that question.

> > >

> > >                  We very much hope that the site

> > can be safely

> > > characterized, so that the spent fuel

> > >                  can be gotten out of harm's way.

> > There's another issue

> > > too. There are some in the

> > >                  nuclear industry and bureaucracy

> > that would still like to

> > > reprocess that spent fuel to

> > >                  extract the plutonium, so that

> > the plutonium can be

> > > recycled as fuel. This is a

> > >                  program that has been shut down

> > in the United States since

> > > the late '70s, early '80s.

> > >                  But there are some die-hard

> > supporters that think that the

> > > plutonium is too valuable

> > >                  a resource to throw away.     The

> > problem is that in

> > > addition to being a potential

> > > fuel, it is also a potential atom     bomb

> > material. It is one of the two

> > > principle materials

> > > used in nuclear weapons. So  our institute has

> > been strongly advocating

> > > disposing of

> > > the spent fuel without    reprocessing --

> > disposing of it in unaltered

> > > form, deep

> > > in the earth.

> 

> __________________________________________________

> Do You Yahoo!?

> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!

> http://greetings.yahoo.com



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

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 can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/