ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise"

[PamW]

41. BALONEY!!!

bananas,

You are NOT a nuclear weapons designer; and just achieving a "critical mass" is NOT SUFFICIENT to make weapons.

Garwin is just plain WRONG in saying that a material is "fissile" just because it is in a bomb. For Heaven's sake; look at the DEFINITION of the word "fissile" in the nuclear context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fissile

By definition, fissile materials can sustain a chain reaction with neutrons of any energy. The predominant neutron energy may be typified by either slow neutrons (i.e., a thermal system) or fast neutrons.

If you read the article; you get a better understanding.

"Fissile" means that the material can be fissioned with neutrons of ANY energy fast or slow.

Some materials, called "fissionable" can only be fissioned with neutrons that have an energy above a certain threshold.

So if we have "fissionable" material like U-238, which will only fission with neutrons above about 1 MeV; and will not fission with low energy neutrons like U-235 does.

So if U-238 is outside of a nuclear bomb and a slow neutron comes along; the U-238 knows not to fission.

However, Garwin would have us believe that if the U-238 is IN a bomb that somehow the U-238 knows that and will fission with a low energy neutron?

Give me a BREAK!!!! It just goes to show the degree to which someone like Garwin with PERVERT the Physics when the FACTS disagree with his politics. I really don't have much respect for scientists that do that. It's IRONIC that Garwin decries those that interpret their own wishes as facts; when that is EXACTLY what he is doing.

Fissile really means "will fission" in slow systems. Therefore, any definition that says "fissile in fast systems" is an OXYMORON.

Evidently you also missed the fact that there is MORE to the inability of IFR Plutonium working in a nuclear bomb than just the fact that Pu-240 is non-fissile.

The article by Selden is DATED. The IFR produces higher burnups than ANY burnups contemplated by Selden when he wrote that article in November 1976. See reference 33 of:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v283/n5750/abs/283817a0.html

When Selden wrote that article in 1976; the only "spent fuel" or "reactor grade plutonium" came from Light Water Reactors which were ejecting fuel at burnups of about 40,000 Megawatt-Days/metric tonne. Today's LWRs eject fuel at 55,000 - 60,000 Megawatt-Days/metric tonne. But Selden never envisioned in 1976; an IFR-type reactor with even higher burnups, and a fuel cycle that was doctored to make the fuel USELESS for nuclear weapons. That type of technology wasn't even on the horizon when Selden wrote that paper.

Bananas whole diatribe above is based on OUTDATED information.

Is an argument based on OUTDATED and OBSOLETE information, the best you can do?

Better come up with something that is more CURRENT bananas; or just admit that you are out of your field.

PamW