🚀 go-pugleaf

jpyoung@io.com (J. P. Young) wrote in message news:<2ac8b827.0310042346.1fd61ede@posting.google.com>...
> kenpangborn@aol.com (Kenpangborn) wrote in message news:<20030930161026.18868.00000029@mb-m15.aol.com>...
> >>From: hulsmo@care2.com  (Hunter Smoot L. Smoberg)
> >>Newsgroups: alt.true-crime, sci.physics, soc.men,
> >>milw.general, fl.general
> >David why did you reply to a weeks old post and
> >TRY to make it appear as if it were posted today?
> 
> Those posts of mine that you had no response to were from September
> 22nd -- 8 days ago at the time of your post. Hardly "weeks old" as you
> claim.


   The google.com archives proves that what you have just read is one
way that the lying trial consultant from Palm Harbor, Kenneth
Pangborn, uses smokes screens.  He completely ignored your exposure of
his lies and chose instead to invent a new lie. He has done this for
years, thinking that readers will forget his original lie. No one has.
No one does. Kenneth R. Pangborn is a pathelogical liar.




 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2ac8b827.0309221102.5c065e3a%40posting.google.com
> 
> I guess you figure that there is a statute of limitations on your
> blatant and repeated idiocy. Eight days ago is ancient history as far
> as you're concerned. I think you're really just upset that someone has
> pointed out what a beating you took yet again. You hate to be
> interrupted while you're trying to slink off and pretend that
> something never happened. Want to rectify that perception, Ken? Below
> are my summary points AGAIN. Care to explain how my logic is flawed?
> Care to present any more 'evidence' for me to casually refute? Care to
> actually address even one of my many cites? Somehow, I doubt it.
> 
> Ken's claims in this discussion were:
> 
> 1) "Plutonium is 'enriched Uranium'"
> 2) "Plutonium is made by enriching Uranium in a reactor."
> 3) While on the surface, the process of making Pu-239 is referred to
> as a process of "decay", because you add protons, it is called
> "enrichment."
> 
> My summary refutation is:
> 
> 1) Enriched Uranium is DEFINED AS, "uranium containing a greater mass
> percentage of uranium-235 than 0.72%," by the IAEA. Thus, enriched
> Uranium is still Uranium with a greater concentration of the desired 
> uranium isotope, uranium-235.
> http://www.iaea.or.at/ns/CoordiNet/safetypubs/iaeaglossary/glossarypages/u.htm
> 
> 2) The process of "enrichment" is defined as "the process of
> increasing the concentration of U-235 and decreasing that of U-238."
> http://www.usec.com/v2001_02/HTML/Aboutusec_enrichment.asp
> 
> 3) As Gault has already stipulated, "Uranium 235 and Pu-239 are not
> the same," so it is unclear why he thinks that a process to take raw
> uranium and increase "the concentration of U-235" would have anything
> to do with plutonium.
> http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2522248856d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=bjfdlj%241g56%241%40news1.ij.net
> 
> 4) The reason for enrichment is that, "natural uranium contains about
> 0.7% U-235. The fuel assemblies that power a nuclear reactor generally
> need uranium with a 4% - 5% concentration of U-235. Accordingly,
> utilities deliver natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to an enricher,
> such as USEC, to enrich the material to the desired U-235
> concentration."
> http://www.usec.com/v2001_02/HTML/Aboutusec_enrichment.asp 
> 
> 5) Ken has already stipulated that, "They don't deliberately use
> Pu-239 for electrical generation, too dangerous," so it seems strange
> that he is claiming that a process specifically used to create nuclear
> reactor fuel is actually creating plutonium.
> http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1108029755d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=20030711090606.04181.00000140%40mb-m14.aol.com
> 
> 6) Finally, here is an entire article written on the DIFFERENCE
> between plutonium and enriched uranium that I presented at the
> beginning of this discussion. The title is, "Enriched Uranium versus
> Plutonium: Proliferant Preferences in the Choice of Fissile Material".
> The entire paper explains the difference between using enriched
> uranium and plutonium in the context of weapons programs, along with
> the choices that several nations have made when pursuing a nuclear
> weapon. If "plutonium is enriched uranium" as Ken claims, then this
> paper would make no sense. There would be no choice to make between
> the two.
> http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol02/21/ullom21.pdf