RE: Tritium editorial

[David Biela <bielad@wv.doe.gov>]

>Date: 26-Sep-96 17:34:57 -0400
>From: RADSAFE@smtp (radsafe){radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu}
>To: RADSAFE (Multiple recipients oflist){radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu}
>Reply-to: RADSAFE@smtp{radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu}
>Subject: Tritium editorial
>Message-id: 39FA4A3201CC2B79
>O-SMTP-Envelope-From: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>
>  From: rick_strickert@pc.radian.com
>
>There is an interesting editorial in Science (13 Sep 96) by Harold Agnew
>regarding the question of where to get replacement tritium for our
>nuclear weapons once US stockpiles decay.  Agnew discusses the pros and
>cons of four sources:
>
>     1. A DOE-built combination production/power reactor;
>     2. An DOE-built accelerator;
>     3. Canadian surplus; or,
>     4. Russian stockpile and surplus.
>
>According to Agnew, buying foreign tritium will prevent a $2B "fleecing
>of America" and contribute to world stability.
>
>Rick
>
>Richard G. Strickert, Ph.D.          |    "Education is what survives
>Radian International, Austin, TX     |     when what has been learnt
>512-310-5259, FAX 512-244-0160       |        has been forgotten."
>Internet: rick_strickert@radian.com  |         -  B.F. Skinner
> ---> "All written IMHO." <---       |
>
Even though I do not like nuclear weapons, we as a country can not have our supply of tritium in the 
hands of another country.  We have to maintain control of enough of it whatever that may be.
Dave Biela