ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise"

[PamW]

64. Non-scientist kristopher MISSES the implicit assumption

kristopher,

As a non-scientist, you are missing something important! You are MISSING the fact that in ALL those studies, "reactor grade" means spent fuel from a "Light Water Power Reactor". ALL those studies are on LWR fuel.

The IFR is NOT a "Light Water Reactor".

There is a DIFFERENCE in the composition of what comes out of a Light Water Reactor, and what comes out of an Integral Fast Reactor.

It's like saying the stuff that comes out of a brewery is all frothy and fizzy; so the stuff that comes out of a winery is also frothy and fizzy.

A brewery is NOT a winery.

A Light Water Power Reactor is NOT an Integral Fast Reactor.

ALL those studies that Selden, et al are talking about have to do with Light Water Reactors. At the time most of those studies were done; the IFR didn't exist.

In addition; the ONLY study of the proliferation risk of the Integral Fast Reactor, specifically, that I'm aware was done by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the early '90s. I've NEVER seen any other proliferation risk studies on the IFR.

I also know the people who are responsible for archiving the specifications of the IFR; and they tell me that NO OTHER studies save for LLNL were done. Since they are the "keepers" of the specifications; they would have to know if there were other studies. If someone wanted to do a study; they would need to get the specifications from these "keepers" as to what the IFR is.

So you can "cut and paste" till the cows come home; and it is all MEANINGLESS because ALL those studies you "cut and paste"; EVERY LAST ONE was done with Light Water Reactor spent fuel in mind and NOT IFR fuel.

PamW