Slashdot Mirror


New Production of Plutonium 238

Saeed al-Sahaf writes "According to the New York Times (login req, but you can google for it as well), the Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war. Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory. Officials denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space, but rather would power 'secret espionage devices.' Plutonium 238 has no central role in nuclear arms. Instead, it is valued for its steady heat, which can be turned into electricity. Nuclear batteries made of it are best known for powering spacecraft that go where sunlight is too dim to energize solar cells. For instance, they now power the Cassini probe exploring Saturn and its moons."

79 comments

  1. bugmenot by applegoddess · · Score: 1

    http://bugmenot.com/ useful website people always neglect to mention for logins to websites like nytimes.com :(

  2. Hmmm by madaxe42 · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our secret espionage device overlord. 330lbs of Pu must make one hell of a secret espionage device. Maybe they're got an SEP field set up?

    1. Re:Hmmm by cheezedawg · · Score: 2, Informative

      330lbs sounds like a lot, but its probably about the size of a 12 pack of coke.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    2. Re:Hmmm by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I just hope noone steals their Plutonium 238 Explosive Space Modulator(*). There could be an Earth-shattering kaboom as a result.

      * Note: Yes, I know, it was originally an Illudium Q-36 model, but that was a long time ago; things change.

    3. Re:Hmmm by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1
      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    4. Re:Hmmm by luna69 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it would be a cube 20cm on a side.

      I think...checking:

      330lbs = 149,685 grams. 149,685 grams at 19.84 grams / cm^3 is about 7545 cm^3. The third root of 7545 is 19.6.

      Can that be right? Wow. I knew it was dense stuff, but holy sh*t!

      --
      No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
    5. Re:Hmmm by sydres · · Score: 1

      which is why the "loss" of 60 pounds of plutonium a couple months was so funny their was at least one pundit screaming that it could used to make I think he said ten nuclear weapons. at the time I guesed that it would be a chunk roughly the size of a tennis ball and hardly enough to be critical mass.

    6. Re:Hmmm by luna69 · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that the physical size of the core has pretty much nothing to do with it. If it can reach critical mass, particularly when surrounded by appropriate materials (beryllium reflector, u-235 shell, etc), then it can...whether it's the size of a basketball...or a golf ball.

      The smallest warhead made ("Davy Crockett") was a shoulder-launched, tactical size unit whose business end was the size of a cantaloupe.

      --
      No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
  3. NY Times by haskellcompiler · · Score: 0

    You can always read NYTimes with user=teste, password=teste.

  4. Spacecraft RTGs by justanyone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like this is used to power Radioisotope Thermal Generators. this is a very good thing; we need more experience with RTGs to power spacecraft, both nearby (spy satellites) and far (science missions). It's the only power we can generate when we're beyond Mars orbit (solar cells are much less effective the farther you get from the Sun.

    My wife brought up the pollution aspect - not from polluting outer space (I explained already about the fact that space is far more radioactive than the plutonium is, we're not 'polluting' space). Rather, the Hanford (Washington State USA) processing facility created / processed lots of plutonium during the cold war and ended up creating massive environmental damage with radionucleides in the groundwater, soil, etc.

    Where exactly is this processing plant and is the DOD allowing the EPA to supervise environmental maintenance/protection?

    (Note: I don't care where it is; if telling me hurts security that's fine I don't need to know, but I don't want this kind of a plant showing up next door to me without someone having filed an environmental impact statement).

    1. Re:Spacecraft RTGs by JustAnotherBob · · Score: 2, Informative

      From TFA "The Idaho National Laboratory, founded in 1949 for atomic research, stretches across 890 square miles of southeastern Idaho... The site is dotted with 450 buildings and 52 reactors... New plutonium facilities there would take five years to build and cost about $250 million."

    2. Re:Spacecraft RTGs by ericspinder · · Score: 1

      IYRTAYK, if you read the article you'd know or even just made an assumption from the summany. Idaho, is of course the location of the Idaho National Laboratory (go figure), which is near Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Looks like they'll run into a lot of local opposition to the plan, but personally I hope it passes. They dutifully elect Republicans, now, let them deal with some (more) long term environmental damage.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    3. Re:Spacecraft RTGs by Clockwurk · · Score: 1

      Its right here. I found it using the locations they gave on their site(it's one of the only places in Idaho that google maps can zoom in all the way).

    4. Re:Spacecraft RTGs by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      This is NOT good news. In fact, I think it sucks. Let me be perfectly clear, I think we need Pu238 and the RTGs it's used in for space missions that travel beyond the area close enough to the sun for solar cells to be useful. The Cassini mission to Saturn is the prime example of this, the amount of incredibly fantastic science being done by that mission is impossible without RTGs. There is a small risk of Pu dispersal if the probe explodes on launch, but after that these things are looong gone and pose no environmental risk on earth. This new push for Pu production is not for science though. It is for espionage and military satellite purposes and as far as I know we're not terribly interested in the goings on between bacteria on Isidis Planitia. These RTGs will thus be used in low earth orbit satellites. These satellite orbits WILL decay, and they WILL burn in the atmosphere. It comforts me very little to know that the Pu (in ceramic oxide form I should hope!! (unlike the RTGs of the 1960s which were actually designed to burn the Pu metal contained within in the atmosphere)) capsules are designed to survive accidental atmospheric re-entry. They have their protective design as a contingency, not as a matter of expected orbit disposal method. Further, this is not a "very good thing because we need more experience with RTGs to power spacecraft". The actual production and utilization of Pu in the design of new RTGs or other energy conversion devices (such as sterling engines) is totally unnecessary. The Pu lump is merely an energy (heat) source and it is trivial to simulate during the design of new more efficient RTGs which usually involves the subtle modification of the semiconductor PN junction of the RTGs thermocouples.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    5. Re:Spacecraft RTGs by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Wrong. There is zero risk of dispersal even if the launch vehicle explodes or if the vehicle should burn up on re-entry. The RTG's were designed to survive these types of events completely intact which is some serious, hard-core engineering. Frankly I was rather impressed and I don't impress easily when it comes to engineering.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    6. Re:Spacecraft RTGs by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken. If you had read the full environmental impact statement for Cassini you'd know that a significant portion of the RTG heater units were expected to burn up and disperse on re-entry should that've occured. These things are not indestructable. A fast flying shard of metal during an on pad explosion could easily slice right through an RTG.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    7. Re:Spacecraft RTGs by The+Real+Muha · · Score: 1

      And if you had done some more research you would know that RHUs are not the same as RTGs. To enlighten you, RHU are as you correctly stated heater units. However, these are very small units containing a tiny amount of plutonium to heat instruments etc. RTGs basically are large stacks of plutonium that have to generate much larger amounts of heat so that they can produce electricity for use in the spacecraft. The RTGs are designed to survive explosion of the launch vehicle, subsequent reentry in the atmosphere and impact on solid ground without releasing any plutonium into the environment. If you still don't feel secure about these features, there have been two crashes involving RTGs in the past, and the design worked, no plutonium was spilled into the environment. Baseline: RTGs are very safe.

    8. Re:Spacecraft RTGs by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Uh yeah thanks but I think I just MIGHT know what I'm talking about here. The RTG heater units (NOT the 1 watt RHUs) are called GPHS modules (general purpose heat sources). Read this chapter!! The probabilities of RTG breakup and dispersal in the atmosphere are calculated for you, you don't even have to think. THE PROBABILITY IS NON ZERO! I can't make this any clearer.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    9. Re:Spacecraft RTGs by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1
      I, for one, do not consider Wikipedia an authoritative source, but that is beside the point. Did you actually even read the report completely and examine the probabilities associated with the various accident scenarios? Judging from your somewhat hysterical postings you did not. If that were the case, and I were you, I'd be far more worried about the coming near miss scenario with that asteroid in the future.

      In other words, the probabilities are very low of an accident occurring and even were one to occur, you have to consider the follow on probabilities of a catastrophic release which are also low (re: nose cone fragments, etc.). Aside from being a (nuclear, ...) engineer, my first degrees were in statistics and I've been working and teaching in the field since I was 14. I think I might know what I'm talking about as well, especially when it comes to probability theory (my favorite).

      That's the problem with so many people when you introduce the word nuclear into whatever discussion you may be having. Rational risk assessment goes right out the window despite presentation of the numbers.

      Oooo..., it's nuclear, it must be bad!

      BTW, thanks for the EIS, it was one of the more readable ones I've ever encountered.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    10. Re:Spacecraft RTGs by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      So you claim to have a degree in probability theory yet cannot seem to tell the difference between zero and finite risk. wow. nice. you must've graduated at the head of the class.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    11. Re:Spacecraft RTGs by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1
      Nice troll. Sarcasm aside, what I said was that the probabilities are extremely small and when combined with the probabilities involved to achieve a worst case scenario you should be far more worried about an asteroid colliding with the earth than your worst case scenario. I actually read and analyzed the report and I understood the numbers.

      There is a non-zero probablility that a nuclear reactor can be in cold shutdown and go (nearly) instaneously supercritical to meltdown. Similarly, there is a non-zero probability that all the molecules of atmosphere in a room can all move to one corner of a room leaving you sucking vacuum. There's even a non-zero probability that an X-particle/anti-particle pair can appear inside your body and consume it on the spot (X-particles are quantum size black holes if you didn't know ;-).

      However, that they are non-zero does not make them likely or even risky. Evaluation of risk is something humans get wrong time and again as they put feelings ahead of rational risk assessments. We see that in everyday behavior (DDT, Alar anyone?), we see it in decisions about (personal, homeland, computer) security, every arena really. John Stossell got this one right *sigh*. You are simply proving my point that inserting the word nuclear and it must be bad, despite numbers to prove that this is not risky at all.

      I'm rational. I wonder about you. Sorry, but true.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  5. Also good practice for breeder reactors? by mc6809e · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nuclear power really won't take you very far unless you use breeder reactors. About 40 years by some estimates.

    By using breeder reactors, we can have up to 40,000 years of energy.

    Breeder reactors let you take U238, which is mostly useless for reactors, and turn it into Pu238, which is a great source of energy.

    Maybe this is also practice for a larger project down the road.

    1. Re:Also good practice for breeder reactors? by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Nuclear power really won't take you very far unless you use breeder reactors. About 40 years by some estimates.

      I've heard that if the existing weapons-grade plutonium were converted to reactor fuel (by "diluting" it with other isotopes) we would have enough to last 250 years.

      BTW, don't you mean breeder reactors produce Pu-239 instead of Pu-238? I've never heard of Pu-238 being used for fission before.

    2. Re:Also good practice for breeder reactors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never heard of Pu-238 being used for fission before.

      Well, now you have, and halving is half the battle.

    3. Re:Also good practice for breeder reactors? by mc6809e · · Score: 1

      BTW, don't you mean breeder reactors produce Pu-239 instead of Pu-238? I've never heard of Pu-238 being used for fission before.

      Ooops. You're right, of course. Pu-239 is correct.

    4. Re:Also good practice for breeder reactors? by KDN · · Score: 1

      Pu239 is used for reactor fuel and for bombs. Pu238 is used for RTG generators. Pu240 is a spiking agent used to make nuclear reactor fuel go off prematurely if it were used in a bomb. Well, its not actually added to reactor fuel, its a byproduct of the process. But in a reactor it doesn't matter much. In a bomb it makes the reaction go off prematurely, and really cuts down on the yield.

  6. secret missions by lowrydr310 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Project managers say that most if not all of the new plutonium is intended for secret missions and they declined to divulge any details.

    Secret Missions? Come on, we all know that plutonium is the perfect fuel to produce the 1.21 Jigawatts that our flux capacitors need.

  7. Pollute Canada by ndansmith · · Score: 1, Insightful
    From the article:
    "Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming."

    North and upwind of Grand Teton, eh? Sounds like we are going to be sending some pollution up Canada's way. On behalf of all Americans, I apologize.

    1. Re:Pollute Canada by ndansmith · · Score: 1
      Or, in other words, "all our radiation are belong to you."

      Ugh, I cannot believe I just made an "All Your Base" joke. I think I am going to be sick.

    2. Re:Pollute Canada by ivan256 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      On behalf of all Americans

      Uh.. You don't speak for me at least. I bet there are a whole bunch more of us you don't speak for either. If you did, we could build somehting like this somewhere else that wasn't out of everybody's way and on the border with another country.

      Not to mention that you make that statement with no facts to back it up... I have a good idea! <sarcasm>Let's just kick ourselves in the asses on the off chance it'll please some other country that gives some small portion of our population an inferiority complex.</sarcasm> Or not...

    3. Re:Pollute Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you ought to apologize on behalf of all the Americans who flunked their geography classes - Grand Teton is in the USA, in Wyoming, which is a state. A state which doesn't even border Canada. In fact, more than the entire state of Montana lies between Idaho Falls and the Canadian border - a distance of over 200 miles.

      I'll bet that an American modded this insightful, too.

      Look at a map sometime, eh?

    4. Re:Pollute Canada by ndansmith · · Score: 1
      D'OH
      "Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming."

      I read that "west" as "north" and deduced that the wind from the plant would be moving north into Canada, not west into my beloved home state of Oregon. OK I'll read more carefully next time.

    5. Re:Pollute Canada by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Speaking of Grand Teton...do you know how the name translates into English?

    6. Re:Pollute Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still off. The article is saying that the wind blows east into Wyoming.

  8. DIY is too expensive by GlobalEcho · · Score: 2, Funny

    program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory

    If we're running low, why not just buy some more from North Korea?

    1. Re:DIY is too expensive by centauri · · Score: 2, Funny

      If we're running low, why not just buy some more from North Korea?

      Do they deliver?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    2. Re:DIY is too expensive by signingis · · Score: 1

      Yes. Via ICBM. 2 hour delivery or your order's free.

      --

      I prefer a void in conversation to a vacuous one.
    3. Re:DIY is too expensive by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Yes. Via ICBM. 2 hour delivery or your order's free.

      2 hours? I think you mean 20 minutes.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    4. Re:DIY is too expensive by a+whoabot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah...paper, or ICBM?

    5. Re:DIY is too expensive by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      Roughly half an hour delivery time, but they can't guarentee it'll get to the correct address. Kinda like Domino's.

      As for pickup? Just look for the flash, then follow the sirens. Some of your order should still be in the area.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  9. How much is that? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Informative

    330 pounds of plutonium occupies a volume of about 7.5 liters.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    1. Re:How much is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, and if you put all 330 pounds into the 7.5 liters volume, how much of explosive yield would you get?

    2. Re:How much is that? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 3, Informative

      None. Pu-238 isn't bomb material.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:How much is that? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      330 pounds of plutonium occupies a volume of about 7.5 liters.

      Huh? What's that in hogsheads?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:How much is that? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      .03405 Hogsheads, unless you meant metric hogsheads

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  10. Not one. by pavon · · Score: 1

    330lbs of Pu must make one hell of a secret espionage device.

    My guess would be that this is going to fuel thousands of small unattended ground sensors, not big devices. Because the are unattended, they need steady fuel for a long period of time, and because they are transmitting data (perhaps in an ad-hoc swarm manner), they will need need a moderate amount of energy.

    So the correct slashdot cliche here is - in Soviet Russia a beowolf cluster of secrete espionage devices welcome you!

  11. Marvin will be happy to hear... by HeighYew · · Score: 0

    that he can go forward with his plans for an Illudium P238 explosive space modulator.

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't...what about the other 8?
  12. Its about time. by Momoru · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This plutonium is sorely needed to aid in our national defense. Thanks to treaties signed by some nancy pants presidents of the past we are only down to a measly 4,000 or so ICBMs.

    1. Re:Its about time. by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you meant nuclear bombs? You know.. The things that make an ICBM something other than a big metal tube filled with fuel? Too bad you don't need this stuff to make one though...

      I think it's for much cooler stuff. Like a spy cellphone that runs linux with a standby time of 600 hours!

    2. Re:Its about time. by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      > Thanks to treaties signed by some nancy pants presidents of the past we are only down to a measly 4,000 or so ICBMs.

      Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush? Yeah, what pansies.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    3. Re:Its about time. by cmsavage · · Score: 1

      This is only enough plutonium to make a dozen or so nuclear weapons- that's hardly a significant addition to the thousands of warheads we already have.

    4. Re:Its about time. by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      Insightful?
      Those 4000 ICBMs are quite enough to make Earth uninhabitable several times over. You really don't need more.

    5. Re:Its about time. by Momoru · · Score: 1

      Maybe because I was being facetious.

  13. Hmm... by Evro · · Score: 2, Funny

    What, no Mr. Fusion?

    --
    rooooar
    1. Re:Hmm... by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

      That's right no Mr. Fusion, and sense it's Pu 238 no Mr. Fission either.

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
  14. Top secret projects my butt! by vertinox · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    George just wants to not have to replace his iPod batteries... EVER!

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  15. secret espionage devices? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    Nuclear batteries made of it are best known for powering spacecraft that go where sunlight is too dim to energize solar cells.

    So what exactly are they planning on spying where the sun don't shine?

    1. Re:secret espionage devices? by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking about undersea devices that are used to tap comm cables. Bury some seismic sensors in a hole in the Mid-East.

      There are any number of possible applications that could be powered by radio-thermoelectric generators.

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    2. Re:secret espionage devices? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well they have used them for undersea cable taps. Could also be used for long range autonomous underwater craft.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:secret espionage devices? by trongey · · Score: 1

      "...spying where the sun don't shine?"

      There you go. Answered your own question. Now you won't need heated seats in your car any more.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  16. "So radioactive that a speck can cause cancer!!!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:
    The substance, valued as a power source, is so radioactive that a speck can cause cancer.

    Excuse me? Where did they pull that "fact" from? (Yes, the linked article is about Pu239, not Pu238, but the risks are similar.)

  17. Military applications, not NASA by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Interesting
    On the second page of the article gives this relevant fact:

    Today, the United States doesn't make plutonium 238 and instead relies on aging stockpiles or imports from Russia. By agreement with the Russians, it cannot use the imported material -- some 35 pounds since the end of the Cold War -- for military purposes.

    So what it sounds like is the goverment needs the plutonium for military applications, not for NASA since they can already get Pu-238 from Russia for NASA missions.
    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Military applications, not NASA by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Espoinage (earth-facing satilites that use optical,infrared, or radar imaging that are in the government's name, pretty much) would be considered a military use. They can't use Russia's Pu-238 for them.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  18. Re:Bush family has investments in weapons and war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you seriousely that much of a jackass that you cant even read the summary that says non weapons.

    man you are truely a useless tool that cant even comprehend a single political topic without bringing bush into it.

    you dont have many conversations with real people do you. they are always the first to leave when you speak

  19. One federal official by kutuz_off · · Score: 1

    was quoted as saying "Victory shall yet be mine!". Mr. S. Griffin refused to comment further.

  20. Thanks George.... by tacocat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sorry, but I think it will take decades for the United States to recover from the damage that this president is doing to our country.

    George managed to blow of the Kyoto Accord in the name of economics, but have pissed off most of our trade nations in the process.

    George invaded Iraq and didn't have the intelligence to know that there was no such thing as Weapons of Mass Destruction there. Making us look like a bunch of fucking idiots.

    George continues to deny that there is any such thing as a human contribution to Global Warning and as such is managing to piss off what few allies we have in Europe as they being experiencing another summer of heat waves and droughts.

    And he thinks Pu is going to solve the problem with this nation consuming almost 80% of the worlds energy supply? Not unless he plans on making a Mr. Fusion for every car.

    While we spend Billions on Fuel Cells, he forgets the concept of a global economy. Who in their right mind would purchase a Fuel Cell vehicle when the only place you can get Fuel for it is in the US? Considering that the American market makes up

    I would like to see him sponsor something a little more reasonable as a fuel source, like bio-diesel. Check it out for yourselves, but it's just diesel from the sun. Good economics, proven technologies, easy to distribute, and you can sell bio-diesel fuel and diesel vehicles everywhere. What's better is we have the agricultural capacity to become a diesel fuel exporter nation.

    But Bush seems to be totally ignoring all of this and all the while he's just pissing everyone off.

    I'm in Toronto right now and whenever I get into a conversation with someone here, they are rather polite in expression how fucked up they think we are. Personally, I think we have made a lot more mistakes in the last 6 years than we have done things right.

    No longer proud to be called an American, I have to apologize for our president and government policies.

    1. Re:Thanks George.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reading this I see you have no idea at all what you are talking about. If ignorance is bliss, you must be in ectasy.

      First clue: Clinton didn't sign Kyoto. Why? Maybe because the SENATE wouldn't approve it? So don't go blaming that one on Bush.

      Do a little research and you'll find out more about the rest. And that you're wrong on those too.

      And I apologize for people like you who are just too darn stupid to get the facts straight.

  21. FYI by swelke · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wikipedia article here
    Plutonium 239 is the one used in nuclear weapons and some nuclear power plants. Pu238 has a halflife of 88 years, and the decay mode is fission (so it outputs quite a lot of energy) or alpha emission. Quoth the wiki:

    "The plutonium isotope 238Pu is an alpha emitter with a half-life of 87 years. These characteristics make it well suited for electrical power generation for devices which must function without direct maintenance for timescales approximating a human lifetime. It is therefore used in RTGs such as those powering the Galileo and Cassini space probes; earlier versions of the same technology powered seismic experiments on the Apollo Moon missions.
    238Pu has been used successfully to power artificial heart pacemakers, to reduce the risk of repeated surgery. It has been largely replaced by lithium-based batteries recharged by induction, but as of 2003 there were somewhere between 50 and 100 plutonium-powered pacemakers still implanted and functioning in living patients."

    Those 238's before the Pu's are supposed to be superscripted, but slashdot doesn't think that's good enough, apparently.

    --
    Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
  22. A little worrying by gilzreid · · Score: 1

    Are they going to use it for weapons in space?!?!

    "Officials denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.."

    Oh, good.

    "..but rather would power 'secret espionage devices"

    Man, is that reassuring.
    How is it a good thing that it will be used for secret espionage rather than space warfare again?

    1. Re:A little worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that China is gearing up for war to kick our asses, right?

      Maybe you should spend a little less time being politically correct, and a little more worrying about what's going to happen to our Country when they invade Taiwan in 3 years and start lobbing nukes all over the place.

  23. MOD parent up by benjamindees · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's right. Other than for the benefits in powering espionage/space devices, this move could be laying the groundwork for full scale Pu238 production, to mix with Pu239 (from fast breeders), as a deterrent to the use of Pu239 for weapons. The world will need breeders soon, and neutralizing their potential for weapons use will be a priority.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  24. There are no RTGs in orbit by briancnorton · · Score: 1

    I can't think of the exact agreement, but nuclear material is not allowed in orbit because satellites must be deorbited and could cause massive contamination. More likely the secret espionage devices are about the size of a nickel and run for years.

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

    1. Re:There are no RTGs in orbit by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, you're dead wrong.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:There are no RTGs in orbit by briancnorton · · Score: 1

      I never claimed that they never HAD BEEN, but that they no longer do. That is of course subject to change.

      --

      People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

  25. Nuclear batteries by g0dsp33d · · Score: 1

    They could use some of it to make batteries for laptops. It would be great for that warm burning sensation that they already cause.

    --
    lol: You see no door there!
  26. Hypocricy abounds... by aybiss · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So it's OK for the US to start making nuclear substances AT THE SAME TIME as they tell Iran not to?

    Not just being hypocritical, they are having the gall to think noone can connect the dots.

    AT THE VERY SAME TIME? I just can't believe it. How long will the rest of the world just stand there while you hold the gun America? We have a right to bear arms defending agaist (your) tyranny too, you know. (We just don't point it out to each other every day of the week.)

    Can you honestly believe anyone else will listen while you try to monopolise weapons of mass destruction?

    Pfft I could go on for hours rephrasing just how ridiculously stupid this is. I don't necessarily agree with their leader's social attitudes but it's about time somebody told you to back off.

    I can see Bush's TODO list now: Finish of with Iraq and then raze Iran. If those guys ever decide to unite against you (and I hope one day they do) you will all be f*cked. But then, you already know that, which is why you need to cull the population install new dictators about once every 20 years.

    C'mon people, you gotta get your transparent voting procedures back and vote that guy out (again).

    Screw the lot of you, there is no inviolable universal law that says I give you the right to manage all the nuclear power and all the nuclear bombs for me. I think I'll try to convince the Australia government to set up its own arms programme.

    Screw it, the pople that need to hear this message are chronically incapable of listening anyway...

    --
    It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    1. Re:Hypocricy abounds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should read the nuclear non-proliferation treaty before you think the US is telling Iran they can't have nuclear weapons.... maybe what you will discover is that Iran made their own decision Why Iraq was not allowed to have them? Maybe they agreed not to develop them after the gulf war in exchange for us not obliterating them for unprovoked attack against their neighbor? Do a little research before you think GWB is being dictator of the world