From: jcliu@four-lab4.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Liu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Plutonium
Date: 12 Nov 1992 21:24:21 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley Dept. of Nuclear Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: four-lab4.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Paranoia alert

In article <BxL0zo.Cpo@world.std.com> cmr@world.std.com
(Charles M Richmond) writes:

>I must admit that I find the transfer of the bulk of the _worlds_ supply
>of fissionable plutonium to Japan to be incomprehensible. I do not 
>understand why the Japanese would want such a large supply and I especially
>do not understand why they would allow this quantity of such a dangerous
>element on their territory given their previous experience. I do not

Plutonium is over-rated as a toxin.  In oxide form, Plutonium is
very stable and not volatile. Smoking is more dangerous because of
the constant presence of the hazard. A pack and a half per day
gives the smoker and his immediate neighbors as much as 40 times
the normal background radiation (1980 Nat'l Academy of Sciences Study..
see Lamarsh, "Introduction to Nuclear Engineering."  Plutonium is
dangerous, sure, but so is arsenic, cyanide, and other substances. 

If Japan is to succeed in runnning its nuclear fuel cycle on
bred mixed-oxides (Pu-U fuel) it will need to actually have a complete
core load which is about 100 metric tonnes of mixed-oxide fuel enriched
to about 3% fissile material.

>understand why the US was willing to go along with this. (Note that since
>the original material had a US source that the US had maintained the right
>to veto any transfer, even though France was the seller) I do not understand
>why the transfer is being done in what seems to be a very vulnerable way.

I wouldn't would say that the transfer was very vulnerable.  There was
military security available, and the stuff is not like explosives.  It
was not weapons grade material, and the shipment was large and heavy.
Vulnerability to theft was minimal.

>(Note that plutonium is not just radioactive, it is also highly toxic and
>that small quantities {*can someone find the exact measures*} can poison
>large numbers of people and animals) After reading the following newsclip
>I understand why the Americans are doing this(see article) but I do not 
>understand why they are not making Japan pay heavily, especially since 
>the Americans do have the authority to stop the transfer. 

Japan bought two GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactors last year and paid
$6.2 billion or so.  This really helped the trade deficit and this
may be a reason that Japan is getting cheap fuel for its other reactors.
Also, Plutonium and Uranium are abundant and cheap on the market.  Of
course only non-proliferation treaty signers can buy fuel.

>
>        TOKYO (UPI) -- U.S. nuclear submarines are watching a Japanese

[stuff deleted....]

>        The shipment has caused an uproar in the international community,
>with a dozen nations refusing to let the ship into their territorial
>waters. The ship's route has been kept secret from the public.

This uproar just goes to show you the average technical literacy of the
average person (or political official) in the the world.  It's so
indicative of ignorance and paranoia.  Anyone who wants to debate this
please get educated in reactor engineering then post comments.  No bozo's
onegaishimasu!

Jaa, James
=======================================================================
James C. Liu |    KARAOKE Addict!     Karaoke: You're the STAR!!!!    |
             |    Wanna go? Need someone who sings worse than you do? |
             |    Know about a cool karaoke bar? send e-mail          |
=======================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,talk.politics.guns