Slashdot Mirror
US Should Cancel Plutonium Plant, Say Scientists
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Rachel Oswald reports that the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent science advocacy organization, says that the United States should cancel plans to build a multi-billion dollar plutonium research facility in New Mexico and criticizes Obama administration plans for nuclear facilities and weapons. They argue that the plans to build new fissile-material handling plants are unnecessarily ambitious given the expected future downward trajectory of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement plant (CMRR) building at Los Alamos would replace a Cold War-era site at a cost of $6 billion. It is intended to assist in ensuring new and existing plutonium pits are in working order absent a return by the country to nuclear-weapons testing. The 81-page UCS report, 'Making Smart Security Choices,' (PDF) says if the U.S. carries out limited reductions of its nuclear arsenal over the next-quarter century — as President Obama has said he would like to do — current facilities at Los Alamos can produce sufficient plutonium cores to maintain the warhead stockpile. The CMRR complex is designed to have the capacity to produce between 50 and 80 plutonium pits annually even though no more than 50 cores are needed yearly and Los Alamos currently has that production capability, says report co-author Lisbeth Gronlund. 'The idea that you would need to produce up to 80 [cores] is not warranted,' says Gronlund. 'We think it's time just to cancel the whole thing.'"
What about using this to make scientific-grade plutonium for ourselves? There has been some news lately that the US has only a few dozen kilograms of non-weapons-grade plutonium left, putting the future of NASA's deep-space exploration program. If we had access to a dependable supplies, we might be able to really think about missions to Europa, Enceladus, and other places in the solar system where life may exist.
What no one seems to get is that no one in federal government(*) cares what's right for society, for the people, or even for their own survival.
The purpose of government is to siphon funds away from individuals and give it to corporations. That's the length and breadth of it, there are no other considerations.
The purpose of airport security is to give money to scanner companies. (Oh, these scanners don't work? We'll throw them out and purchase your newer model.) The purpose of Obamacare is to give money to insurance agencies. The purpose of Obamaphone is to give money to the phone companies, the purpose of military spending is to give money to military contractors, and the purpose of the war on drugs is to give money to private prisons.
Every time one of these "this is the right move, but the government is doing the opposite" articles come up (one or two a day, it seems) it's framed in terms of an isolated, poor choice within a sea of government actions that are generally benevolent to the population and make our life better.
It's not an isolated incident, everything the federal government does has one purpose and makes sense within that framework. Occasionally it also benefits the people, but that's more happenstance than plan. It's the "random guess is occasionally correct" principle.
Federal government is a runaway train that's going to crash and burn, taking the country down with it. We can let this happen, or we can curtail it beforehand. Either way works, but fixing it beforehand would seem a better plan.
*Note: I'm making a distinction between federal and state government. Most of the federal government could disappear without negative impact on the people. And yes, I said "most".
The Union of Concerned Scientists includes some scientists, but is an anti-nuclear political organization. This headline is like saying "Teenagers have unhealthy fantasies playing D&D, say mothers" amd omitting from the headline that "mothers" really refers to "Mothers Against Dungeons and Dragons".
This is not even close to correct about the policies of UCS. See:
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/
and
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-and-our-energy-choices/nuclear-power-and-global-warming/house-testimony-on-nuclear.html
They are very strongly looking at nuclear safety issues, but specifically are neither pro-or-con on nuclear power itself. The organization does a great deal of research into all matters related to energy and safety and sustainability issues. They are well aware of the carbon-free nature of nuclear power, and that if it would be managed safely, it could be highly beneficial.