RE: Give Me You Opinion

["Gee, Robert Franklin (XRF) " <XRF@ornl.gov>]

I have a reference titled "Uranium Enrichment and Nuclear Weapon
Proliferation," published in 1983 by the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute and it contains the following passage on page 118:

"Chemically, UF6 is a highly reactive substance.  It is a strong
fluorinating agent and, for example, reacts violently with water and
many organic compounds, such as oils and lubricants.  For this reason
all systems used for carrying or processing UF6 must be extremely clean
and free of leaks.  One result of the search for non-reactive lubricants
for UF6 compressor seals and bearings has been the development of
fluorocarbon and chlorocarbon materials such as 'teflon'
(polytetrafluoroethylene)."

The reference that this cited for this passage is Villani, S. (ed.),
Topics in Applied Physics, Vol. 35, Uranium Enrichment (Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1979).

Robert Gee
Lockheed Martin Energy Systems
Oak Ridge, TN


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Scott D Kniffin [SMTP:Scott.D.Kniffin.1@gsfc.nasa.gov]
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 27, 1999 11:56 AM
> To:	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:	Re: Give Me You Opinion
> 
> Mike, 
> 
> Yes the fluorine aspect is the problem for UF6.  I had a professor at
> U of
> Maryland that inhaled some at Oak Ridge in his youth and his voice
> sounded
> gravely and hoarse all the time from it.  Nasty corrosive stuff.
> Rumor has
> it that Teflon was invented/discovered/figured-out-to-be-excellent for
> dealing with UF6 because it ate at the plumbing of the permeable
> membrane
> gas separators in the early enrichment work.  Anyone out there know
> the
> answer to this?  I've always wondered.  
> 
> Scott Kniffin
> 
> RSO Unisys Federal Systems, Lanham, MD
> CHO Radiation Effects Facility, GSFC, NASA
> mailto:Scott.D.Kniffin.1@gsfc.nasa.gov
> 
> The opinions expressed here are my own. They do not necessarily
> represent
> the views of Unisys or NASA.  This material has not been reviewed by
> my
> manager or NASA.  
> 
> At 10:19 01/27/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >I agree with your response.  I do have a question about the UF6. Are
> you
> >concerned about the fluorine aspect?  The specific activity of U238
> is
> >180,000 times less than Pu 239.  Assuming its all U235, then were
> talking
> >28000 time lower SA.  The biological half lives are 9-15 DAYS for U
> and 200
> >YEARS for Pu.  Inhaled U is not a major threat.
> >
> >Of course my own opinion.
> >
> >Mike Dempsey
> >
> 
> **********************************************************************
> **
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html