Posted by
michael
on from the just-had-it-a-minute-ago dept.
jyuter writes "Apparently, Japan has lost 206kg of plutonium, enough to make 25 nuclear bombs. The official position is that it's not stolen, just 'unaccounted for.'"
The Sky is falling
by
Yokaze
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Since a non-neglectable percentage of the readership tends to skip reading the article, and the poster suggest a major mishap, I feel obliged to post a summary:
There is a large discrepancy between the projected output and the registered amount of output.
Partly, this is considered to be due to some less dramatic unaccounted ways of leaving the factory than through the hands of north-korean spies, like dillution in waste-waters and diffusion into other materials.
There is still a large amount left, which cannot have left the factory by these means. Still, it is most likely not 'lost', since it might have not been produced at all. It is a discrepancy between actual and projected numbers.
These discrepancies do always occur since no measurement is perfect. An error margin of 1% can be attributed to the measurement alone. The factory had a discrepancy of 3%.
Both numbers aren't very reassuring. But actually, I'm more afraid of the things that aren't reported.
-- "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Re:Flux copacitors, Lybians, and Time Machines
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
No, its 1.21 Gigawatts, jigawatts being the correct pronunciation thereof.
Tonnes are "missing" in the U.S.
by
radtea
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Tonnes of plutonium are "missing" in the U.S. for pretty much the same reason. Process accounting is just not all that accurate, and keeping track of things at the 1% level means that there's lots of opportunity for error.
All this story is saying that that the measured amount is 3% lower than the estimated amount, and for anyone who has ever tried to calculate the results of a complex process with an accuracy of 1%, this is not a big surprise.
On the other hand, these sorts of "accounting losses" do provide an opportunity for terrorists to get their hands on the stuff secretly. This is very much like "coin clipping" back in the days when money was made out of gold or silver--get a coin, pare a bit off the edge, pass it on at face value, and eventually you've enhanced your wealth by a significant amount. Milling of coin edges was introduced to prevent this practice, with indifferent success.
Unfortunately, there's no practical defense against this kind of thing, which should make us just a little leary about the prospects of "peaceful" nuclear power. My own attitude is "nuclear power if necessary, but not necessarily nuclear power."
Slashdot Mirror
Since a non-neglectable percentage of the readership tends to skip reading the article,
and the poster suggest a major mishap, I feel obliged to post a summary:
There is a large discrepancy between the projected
output and the registered amount of output.
Partly, this is considered to be due to some less dramatic unaccounted ways of
leaving the factory than through the hands of north-korean spies, like dillution in waste-waters and diffusion into other
materials.
There is still a large amount left, which cannot have left the factory by these means.
Still, it is most likely not 'lost', since it might have not been produced at all.
It is a discrepancy between actual and projected numbers.
These discrepancies do always occur since no measurement is perfect. An error margin of 1% can be attributed to the measurement alone. The factory had a discrepancy of 3%.
Both numbers aren't very reassuring. But actually, I'm more afraid of the things that aren't reported.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
No, its 1.21 Gigawatts, jigawatts being the correct pronunciation thereof.
Tonnes of plutonium are "missing" in the U.S. for pretty much the same reason. Process accounting is just not all that accurate, and keeping track of things at the 1% level means that there's lots of opportunity for error.
All this story is saying that that the measured amount is 3% lower than the estimated amount, and for anyone who has ever tried to calculate the results of a complex process with an accuracy of 1%, this is not a big surprise.
On the other hand, these sorts of "accounting losses" do provide an opportunity for terrorists to get their hands on the stuff secretly. This is very much like "coin clipping" back in the days when money was made out of gold or silver--get a coin, pare a bit off the edge, pass it on at face value, and eventually you've enhanced your wealth by a significant amount. Milling of coin edges was introduced to prevent this practice, with indifferent success.
Unfortunately, there's no practical defense against this kind of thing, which should make us just a little leary about the prospects of "peaceful" nuclear power. My own attitude is "nuclear power if necessary, but not necessarily nuclear power."
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.