ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise"

[PamW]

48. 100% WRONG!! AGAIN!!

kristopher,

YOU are the one that is WRONG. Once again the NON-SCIENTIST "thinks" he knows better about science than the SCIENTIST.

As a non-scientist; you do NOT know the terminology and don't understand the meaning of "fissile"

The definition of "fissile" means that the nuclide will fission with neutrons of ANY energy; including SLOW or "thermal" neutrons.

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

In nuclear engineering, a fissile material is one that is capable of sustaining a chain reaction of nuclear fission. By definition, fissile materials can sustain a chain reaction with neutrons of ANY energy. The predominant neutron energy may be typified by either slow neutrons (i.e., a thermal system) or fast neutrons. Fissile materials can be used to fuel thermal-neutron reactors, with a neutron moderator; fast-neutron reactors, with no moderators; and nuclear explosives.

Whether a nuclide is "fissile" or not is a material property and depends ONLY on the material, and NOT on the energy of the incident neutrons.

Since kristopher has done his usual "cut and paste" / "cherry picking" of reports instead of giving us the whole report in context, I can't tell if the statement presented is kristopher's construction or if Selden actually made that statement; but in any case; the statement that Pu-240 is fissile is just plain WRONG!

From the definition above, when they say "fissile", it means the nuclide can be fissioned with neutrons of ANY energy; that includes SLOW neutrons. There is another term that means can be fissioned by only FAST neutrons; and that word is fissionable.

So it doesn't make sense to say something is "fissile" with ONLY FAST neutrons.

The determining factor is the behaviour with SLOW neutrons.

If a nuclide will fission with BOTH FAST and SLOW neutrons; then it is termed "fissile".
If a nuclide will fission with ONLY FAST neutrons; then it is termed "fissionable"

Therefore, it doesn't make sense to say "fissile with fast neutrons"; because we already have a term for that, namely "fissionable".

Once again; kristopher demonstrates that he doesn't have an inkling of acumen when it comes to this technology.

I agree with Selden's statement about "denaturing" Plutonium. The misunderstanding here is all kristopher's misunderstanding. "Denaturing Plutonium" is when you have Plutonium that COULD be used to make nuclear weapons; and you attempt to do something so that it can't be used. That's a "fools errand" because you can always recover the weapons usable Plutonium by UNDOING the denaturing process.

What kristopher FAILS to COMPREHEND is that the IFR-made Plutonium is NOT weapons usable to begin with. Therefore; the is NO NEED to denature it; and hence there no process that can be UNDONE to yield weapons usable Plutonium.

I can see where this is CONFUSING to people who have ZERO COMPETENCE in science and nuclear technology. If an aeronautical engineer tells you that a given vehicle will NOT fly; then it may be difficult to comprehend how he can say that when one doesn't understand Bernoulli's principle and why aircraft fly in the first place.

Selden has been long gone from Los Alamos; and evidently doesn't know about the more recent advances in nuclear reactor technology that have resulted in proliferation resistant ( proliferation proof ) reactors like the IFR.

Besides as stated elsewhere; this whole notion of talking about what is fissile or fissionable is really a "red herring". As FBaggins stated in one of the other posts; EVERYTHING that is being said about Pu-240 being able to be fissioned with fast neutrons; whether you call that (INCORRECTLY) "fissile or "fissionable"; the EXACT same thing can be said about Uranium-238. Uranium-238 will fission when struck by fast neutrons.

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

Uranium's most common isotope, U-238, is fissionable but not fissile (meaning that it cannot sustain a chain reaction by itself but can be made to fission with fast neutrons)....It cannot sustain a chain reaction, because its own fission neutrons are not powerful enough to cause more U-238 fission.

The above says it quite clearly; something that can be made to fission with fast neutrons is fissionable; but that does NOT mean that it can sustain a chain reaction by itself, which is what a "fissile" material can do.

So as ANYONE knows that you can't make a self-sustaining bomb out of Uranium-238.

It is true that one can use U-238 to "augment" the yield of a Hydrogen bomb. From the above Wikipedia entry:

The neutrons released by fusion will fission U-238. This U-238 fission reaction produces most of the energy in a typical two-stage thermonuclear weapon.

However, the fusion driven thermonuclear weapon is WAY beyond the technical competence of even the most advanced would-be proliferator.

I can't "prove" my technical competence on an open forum. There's no "certificate of nuclear weapons expertise" that I could post to an unclassified forum.

However, I CAN address kristopher's last paragraph and TRUMP the qualification of a single individual.

I can TRUMP the qualification of a single individual by citing the qualifications of a WHOLE LABORATORY.

When a WHOLE LAB of MULTIPLE scientists of equal or greater expertise than Selden ( even if you don't know their names; because the Dept of Energy doesn't go around letting everyone know WHO the REAL experts in nuclear weapons design are. That's BAD for security. The fact that Selden has been acknowledged by the AAAS is actually a mark AGAINST his expertise. The REAL experts, DOE doesn't advertise.

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in response to a request by Congress which was debating the continuation of IFR at the time; performed a study on the proliferation resistance of the IFR in PARTICULAR. Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne(R) cite the results of that study in a rebuttal to a New York Times editorial:

New Reactor Solves Plutonium Problem

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

You are mistaken in suggesting that the reactor produces bomb-grade plutonium: it never separates plutonium; the fuel goes into the reactor in a metal alloy form that contains highly radioactive actinides. A recent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study indicates that fuel from this reactor is more proliferation-resistant than spent commercial fuel, which also contains plutonium.

So much for the FAILED attempt for non-scientist kristopher in his attempt to "correct" SUPPOSED errors on my part. As one can see, the discrepancies are due to kristopher's LACK of scientific understanding.

Kristopher do you argue like this with your medical doctor. Do you tell your doctor that since you got the Boy Scout "First Aid" badge that you know more about medicine than your degreed M.D. that underwent an intense study of medicine in medical school, followed by intense training as both an intern and resident?

Do you actually pit the knowledge that you gleaned in a few days of study against someone who has had intensive study for years.

Do you really think that much of yourself?

If you don't do it with your M.D.; then why do you do it here with me?

The good thing about science is that it is true; whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW