ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise"

[PamW]

8. More typical anti-nuke "logic"

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Bananas treats us to another example of anti-nuke "logic".

We can see this one demonstrated in the following analogy.

There are a whole plethora of different types of mushrooms. However, the type called "The Destroying Angel" is fiendishly toxic and will kill you if you ingest it. Since we know that the "Destroying Angel" is toxic, it is OK to eat the one called the "Death Cap" because we've already identified the "Destroying Angel" as the one that is toxic.

Bananas is engaging in the same FLAWED logic. Since the MIT report says that the once-through fuel cycle is proliferation resistant; then all the other fuel cycles must be non-proliferation resistant. Do you see the INHERENT FLAW in the logic; and how it parallels the case with the mushrooms. The inherent flaw is the assumption that there is ONLY ONE proliferation resistant fuel cycle; just as the assumption above that there was only one toxic mushroom.

NO, bananas; the once through cycle is proliferation resistant; but the IFR fuel cycle is even MORE proliferation resistant because the IFR is specifically designed to burn up Pu-239, which is the isotope of plutonium that makes good nuclear weapon fuel.

The MIT study chose "once through" because it is cheaper than recycling. However, "once through" also leaves one with long-lived waste to dispose of; and the MIT study didn't put any value on that. They didn't consider the long-lived waste that needs to be disposed of as a major negative point. I think a lot of people here would disagree with that assessment, as one of the most common arguments I hear from anti-nukes is "What do we do with the long-lived waste?" The MIT study didn't put any value on that argument.

The IFR cycle in which one recycles the fuel is more expensive; but doesn't leave any of the multi-thousand year waste problem. The IFR burns down the fuel until the waste is mostly short-lived fission products:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.

The longevity of the waste from the IFR has the relatively short lives that Dr. Till speaks of; and there's no multi-thousand year waste disposal problem.

So the IFR fuel cycle has an answer for those who ask, "What about the long-term waste". The "once through" cycle doesn't have an answer for that question; it leaves you with multi-thousand year longevity waste that needs to be disposed above. It trades off the waste problem for lower cost.

For me, and my values; I'd rather spend more than the cheaper "once through" cycle; and with that extra expenditure of money; I'd implement the IFR cycle; and clean-up the waste, and not leave it to an unspecified disposal method.

Of course, all of this has NOTHING to do with Kerry and the LIES he told in Congress.

As per the letter to the NY Times editor posted by Senators Simon(D) and Kempthorne(R); the Congressionally-requested report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, whose scientists are THE EXPERTS as to what can and can not be made into nuclear weapons, because they are the ones that design the USA's nuclear weapons; the IFR from their determination as weapons physicists; is proliferation resistant. The scientists said that the IFR was proliferation resistant.

It's a scientific question, not a political question, as to whether or not weapons can be made with IFR plutonium.

Our own nuclear weapons EXPERTS said NO!.

Kerry said the opposite of what the scientist say on a scientific question; so Kerry LIED.
Q.E.D.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW