Carbon-Free Energy Is Possible -- Without Nukes

[PamW]

32. Nothing erratic

Of course there is absolutely NOTHING erratic about a SPOT ON critique of the article from "The Nation". The bonehead that wrote it didn't understand the first thing about the science; especially when stating that fission produced Plutonium, when the actual mechanism is radiative capture.

Besides, the only thing classification officials care about is whether classified information is revealed, and certainly that has not been the case here. It is totally unclassified that the materials produced by the IFR can NOT be used to make nuclear weapons. US Senators Simon and Kempthorne stated that in the following rebuttal to a New York Times editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

You are mistaken in suggesting that the reactor produces bomb-grade plutonium: it never separates plutonium; the fuel goes into the reactor in a metal alloy form that contains highly radioactive actinides. A recent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study indicates that fuel from this reactor is more proliferation-resistant than spent commercial fuel, which also contains plutonium.

The fact that IFR Plutonium can not be used to make nuclear weapons is totally unclassified. How the IFR accomplishes this feat has not been revealed by either Senators Simon, Kempthorne, nor myself. So the secrets are safe and that is ALL that classification officials care about.

Additionally, the post from caraher demonstrates that he doesn't understand "compartmentalization" which is de riguer in the world of classified information. Not everybody gets access to classified information; unless they are "in" the compartment. In the 1990s, Selden worked for Los Alamos. DOE gave the job of evaluating the IFR proliferation resistance to Lawrence Livermore. So people from Los Alamos had no "need to know"; and hence Selden was NOT privy to the specifications of the IFR. The Lawrence Livermore scientists had that covered. Since Selden wasn't privy to the specs on the IFR; he can't know how the IFR accomplished its proliferation resistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_%28information_security%29

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

The only scientists that were privy to the information and had the expertise to make their conclusions, were the weapons scientists at Lawrence Livermore. The conclusion of the Lawrence Livermore scientists, as detailed by US Senators Simon and Kempthorne in their rebuttal to the New York Times editorial is that the IFR could NOT be used to make nuclear weapons. End of story.

PamW