ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise"

[PamW]

55. NOPE!!!

caraher,

The FACT that the IFR is NOT a proliferation risk is NOT classified.

After all; Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne(R) presented that to the world in their rebuttal to the 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.

The FACT that the IFR can NOT be used to make bombs is NOT classified.

The details of HOW you do that is what is sensitive; because you need to know the details of how bombs work.

As an analogy; the FACT that nuclear weapons work is NOT classified.

So if someone says that an entire city can be wiped out with the explosion of just a single device that works on nuclear energy is NOT classified.

The details of HOW that is done; i.e. the details of how bombs work is classified.

I'm NOT giving the details. I wish I could.

But I'm giving you the results which are unclassified.

How do you know whether to believe an unverifiable claim?

How about believing in what your elected legislators say?

Then Senator Paul Simon is a DEMOCRAT. Now why would one of our own LIE to us?

Sorry; when you RETIRE you no longer have "need to know" and you don't get information.

Besides; all the IFR studies were done at LIVERMORE, and Selden was at Los Alamos at the time.

If you don't know that access to these subjects are CONTROLLED and not just anybody gets access just because they were a high ranking official at another facility; then you don't know how the system works.

PamW