Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise" [View all]bananas
(27,509 posts)42. No, Pamw, you're wrong again.
Garwin didn't say Pu-240 was fissile, he said
The point is that "non-fissile" Pu-240 is fissionable with the
fast neutrons that carry the chain reaction in plutonium
metal; in fact, even pure Pu-240 has a critical mass of 40
kg-- smaller than pure U-235-- for use in a nuclear weapon.
fast neutrons that carry the chain reaction in plutonium
metal; in fact, even pure Pu-240 has a critical mass of 40
kg-- smaller than pure U-235-- for use in a nuclear weapon.
And he's absolutely correct.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes, the EIA publish data on expected energy future use AND all sources of energy.
happyslug
Nov 2013
#1
It was EXACTLY the level of journalistic quality that I would have expected from "The Nation".
caraher
Nov 2013
#3
There are four primary problem area with nuclear technology (not counting social and systems issues)
kristopher
Nov 2013
#9
DOE: "Virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes...can be used to make a nuclear weapon."
bananas
Nov 2013
#6
No, PamW; Richard Garwin, John Holdren, and President Obama all know you're wrong.
bananas
Dec 2013
#37
"If you have any type of plutonium in sufficient quantities you can make a bomb." Selden 2009
kristopher
Dec 2013
#59