🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeff Skinner (tigger@bnr.ca) wrote:
> In article <5j0mdl$8ec@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, jostroff@chat.carleton.ca (joshua ostroff) writes:
> _]
> _]Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, 412-1 Nicholas Street, Ottawa,
> _]Ontario, K1N 7B7

Oh, bite me.

> _]CNP ACTION ALERT
> _]
> _]WEAPONS PLUTONIUM TO FUEL CANDUs?
> _]
> _]NO THANKS!
>
>  Well why not ? Is it impure ?

I like your response Jeff.  :)

Until we find a *better* energy source in Canada, we should get our
collective heads out of our collective asses.  Nuclear energy is still the
cleanest, most reliable energy source in Canada.  The only other viable
alternative at this point to power Canada is Hydro, but then you get people
(rightfully so) bitching about destroying vast tracts of land.

And there is nothing special about Pu-239 over U-235 (which by the way is
shipped FROM Canada) as far as danger is concerned.  So a terrorist would
have to convert the Uranium into Plutonium or make a physically bigger bomb.
So what?

FYI:  the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was made with uranium, and the one
dropped on Nagasaki of plutonium.  (I *may* have that backwards -- but
the point stands).


In my opinion, using weapons-grade plutonium to power nuclear power plants
is the *best* idea I have heard in a while.  It will take a little work
to get CANDU reactors to use Pu, but what better to do with the stuff?

Not to mention that said plutonium is CREATED in nuclear reactors of other
designs, so it is not *necessarily* from "weapons use".

What we need in Canada is a few people with clues.  The original poster
(and the twit who wrote the letter contained in it), are not such people.

I am tempted to write a letter to my MP(s --  as I am moving) in support
of the plan.  We have more than enough ignorant people spouting rhetoric in
this country.  Get an education on how nuclear reactors work before babbling.

As for the concerns with civil rights being violated during shipping,
I am afraid you guys have no clue yet again.  You would have no idea at
all that this plutonium was or was not being shipped, as the US government
is *very* good at hiding its actions.  Not to mention that the security
would not necessarily be much of a problem as the plutonium would likely
be transported in military aircraft, and there is not much chance that
shipments would be intercepted.


As for plutonium getting in the atmosphere:  You wouldn't know if it did.
The radioactivity levels would not be high enough to do much to anyone
unless they were at the sight of the explosion at the time of the explosion,
in which case they have bigger problems.  And it is not as if it would be
shipped as chunks of metal.  They would likely be embedded in large chunks
of other materials to prevent radioactivity from leaking.  About the same
danger as being near a shipment of barium, radio-gold or radio-iodine as
it is shipped to a hospital (which is done by conventional couriers!).  Or 
alternatively, about the same as shipping uranium from the mines in NWT.


The *only* concern is the nuclear waste created by reactions in the reactors.
This will be no different than what we have now.  While it is a problem,
using yet another fuel will not exasperate the problem any.


Anyways, I'd better get back to studying before I fail.


-- 
	Gavin J. Hurlbut		  gjhurlbu@beirdo.uplink.on.ca
   4B Electrical Engineering		---------------------------------
     University of Waterloo			School sucks.
	 My Homepage:  http://amprgate.uwaterloo.ca/~gjhurlbu/