Environment & Energy

FBaggins

(28,705 posts)

56. Ah... but not if you read without understanding.

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:24 PM

Dec 2013

When he wrote those words (that 240 was fissile), it was mere months after the definition was refined... so he can be forgiven the error.

You cannot. Quoting his words absolutely is "ambiguous" if the words do not mean today what they meant when he said them.

The legal and technical definition of "fissile" includes only materials that are fissionable with slow neutrons (further refined to include production/absorbtion neutron cross-sections, but that's outside the scope of the conversation).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise" [View all] PamW Nov 2013 OP

Yes, the EIA publish data on expected energy future use AND all sources of energy. happyslug Nov 2013 #1

That tells you nothing of the sort kristopher Nov 2013 #2

Lack of understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... PamW Nov 2013 #11

Nope kristopher Nov 2013 #13

100% WRONG AGAIN as always!! PamW Nov 2013 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author kristopher Nov 2013 #22

It was EXACTLY the level of journalistic quality that I would have expected from "The Nation". caraher Nov 2013 #3

I don't have a favorite political publication PamW Nov 2013 #7

Well, I think we all get that The Nation is not a technical journal caraher Nov 2013 #17

It's STILL an ERROR PamW Nov 2013 #18

Kerry didn't lie, in fact he was validated by MIT a decade later bananas Nov 2013 #4

More typical anti-nuke "logic" PamW Nov 2013 #8

There are four primary problem area with nuclear technology (not counting social and systems issues) kristopher Nov 2013 #9

We can address those... PamW Nov 2013 #20

"The MIT study chooses "once through" over closed due to cost." - Nope. kristopher Nov 2013 #21

100% WRONG!! PamW Dec 2013 #25

You're morphing your previous failure into yet another failed argument kristopher Dec 2013 #27

100% WRONG as ALWAYS!! PamW Dec 2013 #29

MIT study on Proliferation Resistant Fast Reactor PamW Dec 2013 #30

I'm sure NNSA and MIT didn't have that data. kristopher Dec 2013 #31

I'm SURE NNSA and MIT had that data PamW Dec 2013 #32

The conclusions of both MIT and NNSA refute your claims. kristopher Dec 2013 #33

NOT AT ALL PamW Dec 2013 #34

You've been completely and absolutely refuted kristopher Dec 2013 #35

Non-scientist kristopher is 100% WRONG AGAIN PamW Dec 2013 #36

A "Proliferation Resistant" Reactor is like a "Water Resistant" Watch bananas Dec 2013 #39

OH REALLY????? PamW Dec 2013 #40

PamW wrote: "Iran is seeking NOT a plutonium bomb, but a uranium bomb." bananas Nov 2013 #5

Do you doubt it? PamW Nov 2013 #10

What about the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)? kristopher Nov 2013 #14

You are arguing with the SCIENTISTS!!! PamW Nov 2013 #16

No, I'm quoting the scientists kristopher Nov 2013 #19

WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #23

No, it isn't wrong. kristopher Dec 2013 #24

100% WRONG as ALWAYS!! PamW Dec 2013 #28

DOE: "Virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes...can be used to make a nuclear weapon." bananas Nov 2013 #6

Actualy; the above is NOT true. PamW Nov 2013 #12

No, PamW; Richard Garwin, John Holdren, and President Obama all know you're wrong. bananas Dec 2013 #37

Its a fools errand madokie Dec 2013 #38

BALONEY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #41

No, Pamw, you're wrong again. bananas Dec 2013 #42

Sorry... once again, you've cited something that you simply don't understand. FBaggins Dec 2013 #43

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!! PamW Dec 2013 #44

Sorry... once again, you've corrected someone when it's you that's wrong kristopher Dec 2013 #46

100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #48

I can read and Selden's language is unambiguous kristopher Dec 2013 #49

WRONG AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #50

Ah... but not if you read without understanding. FBaggins Dec 2013 #56

CORRECT!!! PamW Dec 2013 #62

bananas and kristopher certainly win on source credibility here caraher Dec 2013 #51

NOPE!! They do NOT!! PamW Dec 2013 #52

Well, it seems you are a liar, traitor or a fool - your choice caraher Dec 2013 #53

NOPE!!! PamW Dec 2013 #55

Nope. FBaggins Dec 2013 #54

EXCELLENT!!! PamW Dec 2013 #58

"If you have any type of plutonium in sufficient quantities you can make a bomb." Selden 2009 kristopher Dec 2013 #59

An we've both explained to you what that means. FBaggins Dec 2013 #60

A clear example of how he was being SLOPPY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #61

More citations on the point of plutonium for weapons kristopher Dec 2013 #63

Non-scientist kristopher MISSES the implicit assumption PamW Dec 2013 #64

"what comes out of an Integral Fast Reactor" kristopher Dec 2013 #65

Yes - I know Harold... PamW Dec 2013 #66

And that brings us full circle kristopher Dec 2013 #67

100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #68

Oh look - George Stanford says it TWICE in that interview! bananas Dec 2013 #69

bananas LITANY of ERRORS!! PamW Dec 2013 #70

Evidently bananas does NOT understand... PamW Dec 2013 #71

What's happened to HONESTY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #45

Yes, what happened to honesty? kristopher Dec 2013 #47

Pam - don't worry about him FreakinDJ Dec 2013 #57

The movie was such a blatant farce, I dont know who would waste the energy attacking or defending it NoOneMan Dec 2013 #26