Re: [All-E] Re: nuclear power is the answer?
You wrote: "But why would anyone wanting to make weapons start with a Western style power plant?"
You also wrote: "And just what would a satellite see about a nuclear plant producing power and one making weapons?"
Two questions - same answer which I already supplied. Here it is again:
I wrote: "The reason it's not done is that the process is easily detectable by satellite photography."
If you want to be spoon fed, it won't be by me. I supplied you with the Wikipedia source. All you have to do is read it. It's all explained in detail.
You wrote: "Because just about all nuclear plants being built around the world are Western style."
The operative word being "just about", meaning not all of them (thank you John). You make it sound like they all need to be breeder reactors (for example) in order to supply weapons grade material. This is another distortion by you.
You wrote: "MIKE, pay attention! Your site is talking about enrichment plants, NOT power plants!!! I bet you do not know the difference!"
LOL! Absolutely. I refuse to believe that you could miss the point so completely. It must be some kind of silly game or maybe it's pure fanatical dedication. The nuclear power industry which includes power plants AND enrichment facilities, have the capability to make materials for weapons. Your fixation on power plants alone is a convenient way to assume limitations for weapons production.
...then you tell me to "pay attention". I love it!
"Name just one Western style power plant that has been used for weapons production."
ROFLOL! You're still not getting it.
Wait! Let my try one!
Name just one Western automobile that has been used for plastics and synthetic rubber production. Yep, it sounds just as silly. The only difference is that in theory, "Western style" power plants CAN supply materials for weapons, as I've already mentioned.
Here it is again, just for the hell of it:
"...the same plants and technology used to enrich uranium for power generation can be used to make the highly enriched uranium needed to build a bomb."
John A Grant wrote:
--- Michael Redler <redlerm@yahoo. com> wrote:
> John Grant wrote: "If you are talking about nuclear
> proliferation, then Western style power plants do
> not produce weapons
> grade material."
> That's misleading John. You carefully point out that
> they "do not" which doesn't mean they cannot.
But why would anyone wanting to make weapons start
with a Western style power plant?
>The reason it's not done is that the process
> is easily detectable by satellite photography.
And just what would a satellite see about a nuclear
plant producing power and one making weapons?
> Since weapons proliferation is an
> international concern, I'm not even sure why you
> would focus on "Western
> style" reactors in the first place.
Because just about all nuclear plants being built
around the world are Western style.
> Now, here's why nuclear weapons proliferation is
> such a concern.
> "...the same plants and technology used to enrich
> uranium for power
> generation can be used to make the highly enriched
> uranium needed to build a bomb."
MIKE, pay attention! Your site is talking about
enrichment plants, NOT power plants!!! I bet you do
not know the difference!
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Nuclear_prolifer ation
> John, if the benefits of nuclear power matched your
> zeal for it, you
> wouldn't need to cherry-pick and leave out
> information about the
> industry and it's connection to weapons production.
Name just one Western style power plant that has been
used for weapons production.
- Rubberhead? ROFLOL! The child speaks!
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 it
> you to debate an issue without looking foolish.
You're a COMPLETE idiot. Prove me wrong. :)