Begin forwarded message:
> From: William Tamblyn <wmtamb...@yahoo.com> > Date: September 26, 2013 7:24:11 PM EDT > To: Steve Kurtz <kur...@ncf.ca> > Subject: Atomic Goal - 800 Years of Power From Waste - NYTimes > Reply-To: William Tamblyn <wmtamb...@yahoo.com> > > The history of one country's first nuclear weapon is > irrelevant. > > The same article says: > > Although heavy water is relatively immune to neutron capture, a small amount > of the deuterium turns into tritium in this way. Tritium+deuterium mix > undergoes nuclear fusion more easily than any other substance. Tritium can be > used in both the "fusion boost" of a boosted fission weapon and the main > fusion process of an H-bomb. However, in an H-bomb, it's usually created in > situ by neutron irradiation of lithium-6. > > Tritium is extracted from some CANDU plants in Canada, mainly to improve > safety in case of heavy-water leakage. The gas is stockpiled and used in a > variety of commercial products, notably "powerless" lighting systems and > medical devices. In 1985 what was then Ontario Hydro sparked controversy in > Ontario due to its plans to sell tritium to the U.S. The plan, by law, > involved sales to non-military applications only, but some speculated that > the exports could have freed American tritium for the U.S. nuclear weapons > program. Future demands appear to outstrip production, in particular the > demands of future generations of experimental fusion reactors like ITER. > Currently between 1.5 and 2.1 kg of tritium are recovered yearly at the > Darlington separation facility, of which a minor fraction is sold.[15] > > The 1998 Operation Shakti test series in India included one bomb of about 45 > kT yield that India has publicly claimed was a hydrogen bomb. An offhand > comment in the BARC publication Heavy Water — Properties, Production and > Analysis appears to suggest that the tritium was extracted from the heavy > water in the CANDU and PHWR reactors in commercial operation. Janes > Intelligence Review quotes the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy > Commission as admitting to the tritium extraction plant, but refusing to > comment on its use.[16] > > From: Steve Kurtz <kur...@ncf.ca> > To: William Tamblyn <wmtamb...@yahoo.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 6:59 PM > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Atomic Goal - 800 Years of Power From Waste - > NYTimes > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: pete <vinc...@triumf.ca> >> Date: September 26, 2013 5:36:41 PM EDT >> To: Futurework list <futurew...@vancouvercommunity.net> >> Subject: Re: [Futurework] Atomic Goal - 800 Years of Power From Waste - >> NYTimes >> Reply-To: futurew...@vancouvercommunity.net >> >> >> From the Wikipedia CANDU page: >> >> In terms of safeguards against nuclear weapons proliferation, CANDUs >> meet a similar level of international certification as other reactors. >> There is a common misconception that plutonium for India's first nuclear >> detonation, Operation Smiling Buddha in 1974, was produced in a CANDU >> design. In fact, it was produced in the unsafeguarded Canada-supplied >> CIRUS reactor whose design is based on the NRX, a Canadian research >> reactor. In addition to its two CANDU reactors, India has some >> unsafeguarded pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) based on the >> CANDU design, and two safeguarded light-water reactors supplied by the >> US. Plutonium has been extracted from the spent fuel from all of these >> reactors;[13] however India mainly relies on an Indian designed and >> built military reactor called Dhruva. >> >> So, yes if you want to compare the CANDU to a future reactor technology >> that does not yet exist, it may have a higher plutonium yield. Compared >> to existing reactors, that argument does not fly. >> >> -Pete >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, Steve Kurtz wrote: >> >>> fwd from a concerned cyber friend: >>>> >>>> >>>> I asked my friend Michael Dittmar about CANDUs >>>> and he is not at all impressed with them, Steve, for >>>> several reasons, not least of which is the Plutonium >>>> and the likelihood of a lot more Plutonium bombs >>>> being produced. >>>> >>>> In any event, if you read his articles about peak >>>> uranium [linked above] you will see that this peak >>>> affects every sort of uranium reactor. >>>> ___ >>>> >>> >>> > > >
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
