ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise"

[PamW]

70. bananas LITANY of ERRORS!!

bananas states
You've been proven wrong by George Stanford, Richard Garwin, John Holdren, Robert Selden, all recognized experts.

WRONG AGAIN bananas; because Stanford, Garwin, Holdren, are NOT nuclear weapons experts.

Because of the EXTREMELY sensitive nature of nuclear weapons design; and that's what this question involves is can a nuclear weapon be designed to use IFR plutonium; the ONLY true experts in nuclear weapons design are at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. Nobody else is even allowed to know the workings of nuclear weapons.

So in order to answer the question, we need two conditions. We need the people who are answering the question to be EXPERTS in the field. Secondly, they have to KNOW the features Argonne designed into the IFR to make it proliferation proof.

The ONLY experts are at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. Selden was at Los Alamos and is familiar with weapon design; however, he doesn't meet the 2nd criterial Selden doesn't know what Argonne did to make the IFR proliferation proof. Selden RETIRED before the study was done, and it was NOT Selden's lab (Los Alamos) that was given the job of the analysis.

So Selden COULD have rendered an accurate determination IF he were still active at Los Alamos, and if Los Alamos was given the data on the IFR. Since the IFR data was NOT given to Selden or his lab; we can rule him out as an "expert" for this determination.

Garwin, and Holdren are NOT nuclear weapons designers. Evidently, you don't understand how closely guarded this HIGHLY CLASSIFIED information is. Unless, someone is on staff at one of the nuclear weapons design labs; the they just plain do NOT get access to the data.

It doesn't matter how smart or how credentialed a scientist is; if they do NOT have access to data; then they can NOT render an ACCURATE assessment.

Suppose you are a financial planner. I ask you whether something is a good investment in my circumstances. However, I don't tell you what my circumstances are. You don't know how much I earn, how much I have in the bank, other investments.... You could be the WORLD'S BEST financial planner. But if I don't tell you anything about my circumstances; then you can NOT give good advice.

That's the predicament that Garwin and Holdren are in.

Stanford is not a nuclear weapons designer either; but evidently has been informed of the results of the analysis by Lawrence Livermore. Sanford states,

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html

But there is plutonium in IFRs, along with other fissionable isotopes. Seems to me that a proliferator could take some of that and make a bomb.

Some people do say that, but they're wrong, according to expert bomb designers at Livermore National Laboratory. They looked at the problem in detail, and concluded that plutonium-bearing material taken from anywhere in the IFR cycle was so ornery, because of inherent heat, radioactivity and spontaneous neutrons, that making a bomb with it without chemical separation of the plutonium would be essentially impossible - far, far harder than using today's reactor-grade plutonium.

Evidently, bananas MISUNDERSTOOD what Sanford is talking about with regard to safeguards for the IFR. ( This is a problem when people are discussing highly technical material, when they don NOT know the science behind that material. )

If the IFR is NOT MODIFIED and is run as it SHOULD be run; then there is ZERO capacity of someone to make a nuclear weapon.

However, supposed someone took an IFR and MODIFIED it and they did NOT operate it properly; then it is a "no brainer" that it could be misused.

Say you buy a GM car that is certified to meet California emission requirements. It will do so. However, suppose you take that car and MODIFY it. You "supe" up the power by bypassing a lot of the GM-designed emission controls. You also put leaded-gas into it.

It isn't going to meet emission requirements any more. You MODIFIED it; you turned an environmentally friendly car into a polluter.

There's NO WAY to make a car to be clean no matter WHAT MODIFICATIONS are done. The modifications can include bypassing all the clean car engineering.

That's why when you re-register the car, and they do a smog check; they CHECK to be sure you haven't modified the car in a manner that makes it dirty.

Same with the IFR. If you MODIFY it; you could turn it into something else. HELL, you could dismantle it, melt down the parts and recast it as any type of reactor you want.

You think there is something that can PREVENT that???

However, just as with the DMV; you are going to get caught if there are safeguards.

Again, I don't know why the anti-nukes can't get this concept; if you are worried about any nation misusing the technology; then DO NOT LET THEM HAVE IT.

There's only a handful of countries that we don't want to have nuclear weapons, and we want to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. Iran is one. Syria is another.

So do NOT let them have IFRs. However, the USA, Canada, European countries...., i.e. the MAJORITY of the big electric users are countries that we can trust. Even then, you can put verification schemes in place.

It takes a long time between when you start modifying a reactor, and someone discovers your trickery; until you can exploit your modified design. In the meantime, various sanctions could be in place.

There's no FOOL PROOF way of preventing a nation from getting nuclear weapons. The USA developed nuclear weapons ALL BY ITSELF. Any nation that is willing to spend the money and time to acquire the talent and build facilities can get nuclear weapons.

If your standard is that there is no possible way at all for a country to make nuclear weapons; that's a fool's errand. We can't prevent it. We can deter it. But we can't prevent it.

Evidently bananas "understanding" of the role of fissile fuel in a nuclear weapon leaves much to be desired.

I explained previously that Pu-239 is the ONLY "fissile" isotope of Plutonium.

I also gave directions in an earlier post on how to get the plots of the fission cross-section for various Plutonium isotopes from the Brookhaven National Lab Nuclear Data Center:

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/index.jsp

Just as with kristopher, you have NOT proved me wrong. Only in your DELUSIONS.

This IS my PROFESSION; and a couple of forum denizens with ZERO training in even the most basic science at the high school level; can NOT POSSIBLY "prove" me wrong on this.

I'm NOT pretending anything.

To show that one can't believe what bananas has written above; take the case where he said in post #55 that I falsely caimed: "The FACT that the IFR is NOT a proliferation risk is NOT classified".

If bananas claims that I am wrong; then he is saying that it IS CLASSIFIED

But we all KNOW that it is NOT because 2 US Senators made the statement PUBLICLY in a rebuttal to the New York Times:

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

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.

If the above statement were classified, then Senators Simon and Kempthorne could NOT have said the same thing in the open; i.e. on the pages of the New York Times.

So that statement by bananas is ERROR RIDDEN.

If the reader does a careful examination of the others, and a little homework at Brookhaven; the reader will see that the other statements by bananas are just as WORTHLESS[/b ]

PamW