Ah, another response from the latest rubberhead.
>--- In All-Energy@yahoogro ups.com,
Michael Redler <redlerm@... >
> Dear Mauk,
> Using the vocabulary of a juvenile delinquent to express your
> frustration is hardly inspiring anyone to take you seriously.
You remain an idiot and are doing nothing to dissuade me from my
opinion with this verbal spew.
It's easy to change my mind! Exhibit intelligence! Come on, you can
do it! I'm rooting for you!
> revealing your true colors which will be recorded in the archives
> everyone to see.
OH MY GOD! Please, not the archives!
>It will send a message to anyone who reads it;
> "Disagree with this person and he will turn into an unruly child,
> just having a fit, but actually expressing it as an email message".
I prefer to think of the message as: "Talk out your ass and expect
to get called on it."
Welcome to the Internet! :)
> You wrote: "Define Dual Use so we can discuss it then."
> I already did.
Please humor me and do it again. Just for clarity.
Pretty please? :)
>Reading comprehension/ retention and denial are not your
> only problems. Based on your choice of words, it goes much, much
> than that. There are a host of problems in your responses, not the
> being the ease with which you are threatened.
Oh, yeah, I'm just a walking mass of problems. :D
> I didn't start out emphasizing the connection between power plants
> weapons production.
Sensibly enough, because there isn't one. The only time its ever
been tried was with Pu gained from the old MAGNOX reactors, and those
things SUCKED. I mean, really. Most of the huge issues in the
British nuclear sector stem directly from those awful things.
Modern light water reactors? There's no practical way. Future
designs? Even worse due to multi-recycle. CANDU's? Maybe. Very
maybe. :) The Indian Thorium designs are a little worrisome. U233
is a pretty viable material. But those aren;t built yet.
>I was more focused on the facilities for >processing
Hey, lookit that. As it turns out the front-end fuel cycle IS where
most of the risk is concentrated. Spent fuel is a very, very minor
concern. Mainly, don't touch! :) Self-protective dose is...mean. :D
In a nutshell, reactors good, centrifuges bad.
And amazingly enough, this is exactly the issue addressed by the GNEP.
>However, considering your response in this matter, I've become
> even more curious. So, don't fret. You'll have many chances to
> and perhaps redeem yourself, as I collect more and more resources
> share in this forum.
This promises to be amusing as hell, watching you beat yourself
senseless against the laws of physics.
Basic question: What is the difference between Pu-238, Pu-239, and
> You still have a chance to show some composure. Perhaps you have
> you to debate an issue without looking foolish.
You're a COMPLETE idiot. Prove me wrong. :)