Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
45. I'm not responsible for their delusions
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:28 PM
Jan 2012

The civilian power reactor system exists to facilitate weapons production.
===================================================

I'm know that is a "fixed point" for the anti-nukes, but it is just not true.

I'm not responsible for their delusions. People are entitled to their opinions; but they are not entitled to their own FACTS.

The fact of the matter is that the US nuclear weapons program BY LAW is self-sufficient from the commercial nuclear power program. EVERY BIT of plutonium that is in US nuclear weapons came from either the reactors at the Government-owned Hanford complex, or the Government-owned Savannah River complex.

Every bit of highly enriched Uranium (HEU) came from Government-owned facilities at Oak Ridge, TN, or Paducah, KY, or Portsmouth, OH. These facilities are also used to provide slightly enriched fuel for commercial reactors. However, that is the commercial nuclear power program feeding off the nuclear weapons program, and not the other way around.

Congress actually requires in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that the nuclear weapons program has to be self-sufficient, and only rely on Government-owned facilities.

The other special material needed in addition to Plutonium and HEU is Tritium. For decades, ALL the Tritium in US nuclear weapons came from the production reactors at Savannah River. However, in 1988; the last of these reactors was shut down.

For many years, the US had no source of new Tritium and relied on what it had on hand. However, that was not a long-term solution since Tritium is radioactive with a 12 year half-life and decays to Helium-3 with time. Therefore, the USA had to either build a new production reactor, or find some other way to make Tritium.

It was President Clinton that made the decision to resolve that problem. President Clinton decided NOT to spend money to build a new reactor, because the Government already owned some reactors. The TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority is a Government entity, and in addition to dams, it also owns some power reactors like Browns Ferry. President Clinton decided that one of these reactors could be used to produce the needed Tritium. Only since 2003 has Watts Bar been making Tritium for nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Watts Bar fulfills the mandate of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 because it is owned by the federal Government via the TVA. NO commercial power reactors owned by private corporations are allowed to make Tritium for nuclear weapons.

As I've stated in the past, if you have a beef with the US Air Force, or you don't like the US Air Force for whatever reason, then protesting against, or economically damaging the US commercial airlines is NOT a sensible way of opposing the Air Force. Even if you drove all the airlines into the ground, the US Air Force would still be whole. Just because the US Air Force gets some of its planes from Boeing, and the commercial airlines get some of their planes from Boeing, doesn't mean that the commercial airlines exist to facilitate the US Air Force.

PamW


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Here is a contribution with photos... kristopher Dec 2011 #1
Oh goody FBaggins Dec 2011 #2
So factual evidence is spam? madokie Dec 2011 #4
When posted over and over and over? Sure. FBaggins Dec 2011 #5
Facts never get old... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #21
The thing with concrete is there is no difference between a hairline as they put it, or a big crack madokie Dec 2011 #3
Another corrosion photo wtmusic Dec 2011 #6
Could just as easily be corrosion due to inhalation of radioactive particles. diane in sf Dec 2011 #7
Actually, no. wtmusic Dec 2011 #8
Yes - that's why taxpayers have spent BILLIONS to compensate nuclear workers for radiation-induced jpak Dec 2011 #9
Nope (and capitalizing lies doesn't make them true) wtmusic Dec 2011 #10
I've posted on the TWO federal compensation programs many times here jpak Dec 2011 #11
The GOGLE and the GOGGLE both show more cancer deaths from coal. wtmusic Dec 2011 #12
I did your work for you - here's some links jpak Dec 2011 #13
wt where did you go madokie Dec 2011 #14
Please chime in, madokie wtmusic Dec 2011 #16
Only someone who is in denial about the dangers their pet project will ask that question madokie Dec 2011 #25
That's correct, no evidence can be found. wtmusic Dec 2011 #28
#1 Scientific method requires a claimant to back up their own claims wtmusic Dec 2011 #15
Ha! From nuclear weapons testing. wtmusic Dec 2011 #17
Nope - it includes workers in the nuclear fuel cycle - jpak Dec 2011 #18
All for nuclear weapons. wtmusic Dec 2011 #24
Sorry - the same enrichment plants that made HEU for bombs make fuel for commercial nukes jpak Dec 2011 #26
Since your post 3 Americans have died from coal pollution wtmusic Dec 2011 #27
Nope jpak Dec 2011 #29
Didn't do the work very well... PamW Jan 2012 #40
Despite the obvious logic... That won't fly here FBaggins Jan 2012 #41
I'm not responsible for their delusions PamW Jan 2012 #45
Those programs cover uranium miners and millers, and uranium enrichment plant workers jpak Jan 2012 #48
Bright shiny object thrown... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #19
What's to 'take your eyes off'? wtmusic Dec 2011 #20
Bet you love flying... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #22
Did someone die at Fukushima? wtmusic Dec 2011 #23
This is exactly the kind of disruption an effective host could end. kristopher Dec 2011 #30
What would you propose? joshcryer Dec 2011 #31
Per unit of energy generated, nuclear is the safest form of energy available wtmusic Dec 2011 #32
I disagree with all three statements. kristopher Dec 2011 #33
Fine, your disagreements are based on personal prejudice and not on fact. wtmusic Dec 2011 #34
When you remove a critical safety feature... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #35
And when you refer to a hairline crack in millions of pounds of concrete... FBaggins Jan 2012 #43
The weight of the concrete has nothing to do with the fact that the concrete is in two pieces madokie Jan 2012 #44
It also shows a lack of engineering knowledge... PamW Jan 2012 #47
I understand that you support nuclear, but it is sad that your only response is a deflection` Kolesar Dec 2011 #37
First Energy Nuclear Operating Company Names Kendall Byrd Director of Engineering at Davis-Besse ... Kolesar Dec 2011 #36
Protesters stage skit before Davis-Besse hearing about cracks in the containment vessel Kolesar Jan 2012 #38
Don't know what caused the cracks, but don't worry, it's safe. kristopher Jan 2012 #39
You don't need to know what causes new hair to grow in your ears... FBaggins Jan 2012 #42
As you've told me.. PamW Jan 2012 #46
Environmental Coalition Challenges Davis-Besse License Extension on Shield Building Cracks Kolesar Jan 2012 #49
Before giving Davis-Besse another 20-year operating license,crack the case of the cracks:PDeditorial Kolesar Jan 2012 #50
See post #42 FBaggins Jan 2012 #51
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»First Energy Davis Besse ...»Reply #45