[ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony!

[farbersa at optonline.net]

Hi Bob & all:
I have to respectfully disagree with the comments by both Greenpeace and Bob about the radioactive waste issues related to fusion electric generation. While there are many short lived radioactive waste products from fusion, there is also a great deal of very, very long-lived neutron activation products generated in any conceivable set of materials forming the confinement system.  So Greenpeace's assertion that:
``Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in  the production of radioactive waste..." is not accurate or meaningful. 

The radwaste problems are different in fusion vs. fission but both involve substantial radwaste material handling and disposal issues, with fusion having more of a challenge related to long-lived activation products from what I have read.

For both fusion and fission electric plants,  the radwaste issues are not a real obstacle to electric generation. However, the issue would have to be managed and dealt with responsibly.

Stewart Farber

=========================

----- Original Message -----
From: bobcherry at cox.net
Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:08 pm
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Absurd? Oh, the irony!

> ``Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in 
> the production of radioactive waste, the risks of accidents and 
> proliferation,'' said Frederic Miller, head of Greenpeace France's 
> nuclear campaign, in an e-mailed statement. ``France seems 
> hypnotized by this absurd project.'' 
> --------------
> 
> I wrote a high school English paper on controlled nuclear fusion 
> back in 1963, at a time when fusion power plants were about "ten 
> years away." At one time, I intended to get my PhD in plasma 
> physics, but the local draft board altered my plans and diverted 
> my course.
> 
> In my opinion, controlled nuclear fusion to produce electricity is 
> the primary long-term solution to humanity's energy needs. Once it 
> is online, it can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels 
> (hydrogen produced from water using hydrolysis would replace 
> gasoline and natural gas) and nuclear fission for almost all 
> needs. 
> 
> It is well known that the radioactive wastes are relatively short-
> lived and highly manageable, despite whatever Greenpeace might say 
> to further its agenda. The reaction is so difficult to maintain 
> that it can't run away; if something goes wrong, the reaction 
> stops (some plasma physicists compare controlled nuclear fusion to 
> squeezing Jello). And I would like an explanation of how 
> controlled fusion leads to nuclear proliferation.
> 
> The physics was done in the 30s. The engineering remains a 
> formidable task of scaling and control. We need to get to it.
> 
> Bob C
>