From: len@math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re: Japanese breeder plans
Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:49:01 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec28095152@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> The following is an excerpt from a U.P. story.
> 
> 	     Despite domestic and international criticism, Japan
>      plans to continue to develop fast breeder reactors.
> 	     Sources told the newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun that
>      Japan's Atomic Energy Commission decided to build a second
>      prototype fast-breeder reactor.
> 	     Japan's first prototype fast breeder reactor, Monju,
>      is scheduled to reach its full capacity next October
>      operated by the government-run Power Reactor and Nuclear
>      Fuel Development Corp. The reactor has been the focal point
>      of the country's aggressive program to reduce its dependency
>      on foreign supplies of nuclear fuel.
> 	     The second reactor will be more advanced than Monju,
>      the sources told Yomiuri, and constructed by the electric
>      power industry with government assistance. This marks a
>      shift from the previous policy of letting the private-sector
>      electric power industry take the initiative in developing
>      fast breeder reactors.
> 	     Fast breeder reactors contain a type of uranium that
>      does not burn as nuclear fuel but are fueled by the spent
>      material, plutonium, the most dangerous radioactive material
>      according to some scientists and the basis of atomic bomb.
>      Critics maintain there is no way Japan will be able to
>      consume the more than 80 tons of plutonium it plans to
>      create over the next two years.
> 
> 1. Contrary to the implications of the _New York Times_ "Japan's
> Nuclear Fiasco" article, the Japanese are going ahead with the
> breeder program.  Good for them.  We'll eventually be buying
> nuclear technology from them.

The N. Y. Times article in fact explicitly stated that the
Japanese were very likely to go ahead with the program.  `Implications'
may be in the mind of the reader.

> 
> 2. The U.P. writer mixes his anti-nuclear opinions into his news
> stories on a consistent basis.  The A.P. is a little better about
> not letting writers include editorials in news stories.

This article seems basically a report of a press release by a 
Japanese government source.   The reporter doesn't really attempt
to go much beyond this, and as McCarthy points out, where he does,
he gets something wrong.   The New York Times article was meant to
be analysis rather than straight reporting.  In such an article, one
would expect a mixture of fact and opinion.

> 
> 3. The writer is consistently confused about what a breeder reactor
> is.  He has not bothered to learn, although he has been writing
> the same story for many months.
   [Some discussion of what a breeder recator is deleted]

> 
> The main question about breeder reactor development is that of
> when it will be important to use them.  At the present rate of
> building of reactors, it will be quite some time.  However, if
> the greenhouse effect turns out to be serious, or if pollution
> from burning coal becomes important in the public mind, then
> the rate of building reactors will spurt.  Then the price of
> uranium will go up, and those countries that don't have their
> own breeder reactor programs will end up buying them from Japan
> and France.

As I indicated in a previous posting, the New York Times article
made the point explicitly that the Japanese might very well prove
to be right in the end.   One other main point of the article
is that the program has proved much more involved and expensive
than originally envisioned.  This I think is confirmed by what
the AP article reports.

	Let me add that I am more or less neutral on the issue
of nuclear power.  Like anything else, there are both positive
and negative features to its use, and, moreover, these depend
on just what form of nuclear power is envisioned.   I think it is quite
reasonable for proponents of nuclear power, like John McCarthy,
to educate us about the facts and to try to put things in
perspective.   Likewise, opponents of nuclear power should make
their case. (That doesn't mean I think the best debater should
win.)   However, to suggest that anyone who makes arguments
on the other side is guilty of propagandizing, obviously for
some nefarious purpose, does not add any light to the discussion.

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Newsgroups: sci.environment