Re: Long term risks

From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 19:09:35 MDT

  • Next message: Harvey Newstrom: "RE: [WAR] amazing new photo history"

    --- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
    >
    > > Low-enriched uranium is 1-3%. Enriched uranium for weapons could be
    > > as low as 30% or as high as 90% or more. Lower concentrations
    > > require more than just proportionally more mass.
    >
    > Mike, I'm not sure I understand this.

    Non-weapon isotopes act as neutron absorbers. Therefore, where you
    might need 9 kg of 90% for an explosive reaction, you will need a lot
    more than 90 kg of 10% to achieve the same thing, if it is at all
    possible. If 20% is the lower threshold of 'weaponized' uranium, there
    is an horizon about that point that an asymtotic curve of required
    minimum mass has a relationship to.

    >
    > > The process to enrich low to high is more strictly high tech than
    > just
    > > enriching ore to low levels of enrichment, and more time consuming,
    > > since at each increase in enrichment, you have to process less at a
    > > time to reduce the radiation produced.
    >
    > But isn't most of the enrichment done in automated facilities (e.g.
    > the centrifuges being installed in Iran or those that I believe are
    > in N. Korea, or the very old ones we still seem to have at Oak
    > Ridge)?

    Yes, but how many terrorist groups have massive automated facilities to
    play with? While rogue states are a concern, they are one we can deal
    with as a government. At worst we can sink every ship and every
    aircraft that leaves North Korean air and sea space. The real threat we
    can't deal with is some group hacking together a nuke in their mountain
    cave redoubt. It is potentially possible for such to do so, but would
    likely have lots of comrades die of radiation poisoning, and take a
    long time.

    >
    > If it is all automated facilities why does one care about the
    > radiation
    > "density" (unless one is concerned about it "aging" the equipment
    > faster
    > than would otherwise be the case)? Or is it necessary to reduce the
    > possibility of reaching "critical mass"?

    The problem they deal with is also the amount of radiation they put out
    to the environment increasing the risk of their detection.

    =====
    Mike Lorrey
    "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                                        - Gen. John Stark
    Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
    Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
    Pro-tech freedom discussion:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
    http://calendar.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 19:20:17 MDT