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)
21. "..at least I won't be unoriginal."
Sat Dec 14, 2013, 12:22 PM
Dec 2013

"...at least I won't be unoriginal."
--Will Hunting ( Matt Damon ) from the movie "Good Will Hunting".

Scientists have heard this old LIE from the Union of Concerned Scientists over and over, about diversion from enrichment plants.

What they don't tell you is that the reactor fuel is about 3% to 4% U-235; when the material required for bombs called HEU for Highly Enriched Uranium is 93% U-235.

You can divert all the 3% enriched fuel you want; you can NOT make a bomb out of it.

As for the Yucca Mountain claim; spent fuel is about 95% to 96% U-238. That U-238 is no more radioactive and no more dangerous than the day it was dug out of the ground. There's ZERO reason U-238 has to be put into Yucca Mountain; except that's what the anti-nukes want so that it limits the available space.

It's like restricting the size of your curbside garbage bin so that the amount you put in the landfill is limited. But then requiring that the fallen leaves you rake up have to go into the garbage instead of being mulch on your lawn.

Of course, if we allowed recycling / reprocessing; we wouldn't need Yucca Mountain.

The French reprocess / recycle and they are not hollowing out one of the Alps.

PamW

Recommendations

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

The vast majority of MEDICAL sources PamW Dec 2013 #1
Even if what you say were true (and given your track record that's a Grand Canyon sized if) kristopher Dec 2013 #2
Evidently the logic went over kristopher's head... PamW Dec 2013 #3
Was that supposed to make sense? FBaggins Dec 2013 #4
Is someone advocating for a massive expansion of reactors for medical use? kristopher Dec 2013 #5
Did you just miss the point... or was that an intentional dodge? FBaggins Dec 2013 #6
"How does the theft/loss of material that has nothing to do with the number of reactors" kristopher Dec 2013 #7
Dodging again? FBaggins Dec 2013 #8
Your quoted statement is pure bullshit. kristopher Dec 2013 #9
Are you going to dodge all day? FBaggins Dec 2013 #11
FBaggins is CORRECT, and kristopher is 100% WRONG!!! PamW Dec 2013 #12
You are just digging yourself deeper and deeper ..... oldhippie Dec 2013 #19
WHO is playing fast and loose with the facts????? PamW Dec 2013 #10
"READ the article. The items that were stolen were SOURCES." kristopher Dec 2013 #24
NOPE!!! PamW Dec 2013 #26
Your vast ignorance of nuclear technology is obviated here. NNadir Dec 2013 #22
Pretty sobering isn't it? madokie Dec 2013 #13
DU is fortunate... PamW Dec 2013 #14
Yes it is. kristopher Dec 2013 #15
Oppenheimer quote about radioisotopes... PamW Dec 2013 #16
The list of lost and stolen material is not limited as you are claiming. kristopher Dec 2013 #18
Because I said so!! PamW Dec 2013 #20
Existing and aspiring nuclear power states kristopher Dec 2013 #17
"..at least I won't be unoriginal." PamW Dec 2013 #21
That's a presentation by John Holdren, one of the MIT 2003 nuclear study authors kristopher Dec 2013 #23
DOES NOT MATTER!!! PamW Dec 2013 #25
Less Well Known Cases of Nuclear Terrorism and Nuclear Diversion in Russia kristopher Dec 2013 #27
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»WashPost infographic on r...»Reply #21