Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site proper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!qantel!proper!mikevp
From: mikevp@proper.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: poll  (nuclear disarmament verifiability)
Message-ID: <106@proper.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-Mar-85 19:57:53 EST
Article-I.D.: proper.106
Posted: Sun Mar 10 19:57:53 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 12:48:22 EST
References: <527@decwrl.UUCP> <680@sdcsvax.UUCP> <610@tty3b.UUCP>
Reply-To: mikevp@proper.UUCP (mikevp)
Distribution: net
Organization: Proper UNIX, San Leandro, CA
Lines: 22

>Ed's point about restricting weapons-grade plutonium and its connection
>to nuclear power is a very good point.  Amory Lovins and others have
>pointed out that one of the major problems with nuclear power is that
>it is very easy for countries with nuclear power to rechannel spent
>fuel to be used for developing nuclear weapons. 
>            tim sevener   whuxl!orb

This isn't true.  Nuclear power plants are very poor sources of weapons-
grade plutonium, because the stuff stays in the reactor for the duration
of the fuel cycle, typically about a year.  The result is that you get
quite a lot of Pu240 and Pu242, neither of which are fisionable, and which
must be separated out before you can make a bomb.  And if you have that
capability, you can more easily separate U235 from U238-- bigger mass
difference, and none of those ugly fission products to deal with.

It is significant in this regard that India, when she decided to produce
a nuclear weapon, did not attempt to use power plant plutonium.  They
built a special reactor to breed weapons grade plutonium.  One can assume
that with India's economic position, that they would have used readily
available power plant plutonium if that had been at all feasable.
  
  Mike Van Pelt