Ich brauche hier sicher nicht auch noch meinen Senf zu dem Desater geben, aber zwei Links halte ich für lesenswert:
Michael Lewis (1989): How a Tokyo Earthquake Could Devastate Wall Street & World Economy
Plutonium, MOX, and Chicken Little (Mish Shedlock):
Darin findet sich eine "interessante" Info zu den "abgebrannten" Brennstäben in bzw. Reaktor 3 (oder 4?):
"The damaged number three reactor was undergoing its first fuel cycle using MOX at Daiichi. MOX fuel was first used in a thermal reactor in 1963, but it did not come into commercial use until the 1980s. One reason proponents of MOX reactor fuel support its use is because, once the fuel is burned in a reactor, it is so hot that terrorists would not be able to steal a fuel assembly.
Lawless, who worked at the DOE’s Savannah River Site and first exposed massive contamination there in the early 1980s, says MOX being used as a way of controlling weapons proliferation is a myth: “You will decrease the amount of plutonium minutely but you will increase the amount of waste inside the fuel rod greatly into something that is very contaminated for a long period of time and they think is that it would be too deadly to handle for a terrorist…This is not necessarily following the best scientific plan or the best engineering decision; this is more a political decision, the MOX.”
Lawless, who worked at the DOE’s Savannah River Site and first exposed massive contamination there in the early 1980s, says MOX being used as a way of controlling weapons proliferation is a myth: “You will decrease the amount of plutonium minutely but you will increase the amount of waste inside the fuel rod greatly into something that is very contaminated for a long period of time and they think is that it would be too deadly to handle for a terrorist…This is not necessarily following the best scientific plan or the best engineering decision; this is more a political decision, the MOX.”
1 Kommentar:
Es amüsiert mich immer wieder wenn die eingesetzen radioaktiven Materialien gegeneinander abgewogen werden und das Argument die Halbwertszeit ist. Wenn Sätze fallen bei denen angepriesen wird, dass die Halbwertszeit nur 24.000 Jahre und nicht zb 80.000 ist, knalle ich jedesmal grinsend mit dem Kopf auf den Tisch.
Kommentar veröffentlichen