Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!ncar!tank!oddjob!mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Transmutation
Message-ID: <1754@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>
Date: 25 Aug 88 19:03:00 GMT
Sender: news@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
Reply-To: jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt)
Organization: JHU-Applied Physics Laboratory
Lines: 22
References:

In article <6413@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
}In article <1073@cfa183.cfa250.harvard.edu>, willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes:
}
}> Speculating on the economics of advanced societies is a dubious
}> proposition, but it seems to me that transmutation would be
}> economically more attractive because of the shorter payback period
}> and thus the lower cost of capital equipment.  In fact, I would turn
}
}Unless I'm missing something, we should be able to transmute
}small quantities of elements with current technology.

Guess what - current technology allows large-scale transmutation!
There is no such thing as "natural" plutonium.  

Well, maybe a pound or two, but not enough to go out and mine.
ALL of the stuff in our bombs and such is the result of transmutation.



Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)