U.N. Nuclear Chief Foresees Curbs on Fuel

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/may/06/050603967.html

The U.N. nuclear chief said Friday he expects to win global support to begin planning ways to bring uranium and plutonium technology under stricter, possibly international control, keeping nuclear bomb-making gear out of more hands.

Such a sweeping change, a reaction to the alarm over Iran's nuclear program, would be "fraught with political and economic implications," Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview. But "we cannot just sit still, stand still - because we are facing a threat."

"Everybody understands that if we continue in that fashion, in the next 10, 20 years we'll have 20, 30 countries that I would call virtual nuclear-weapons states, meaning countries that could move within months into converting their civilian capacity or capability into a weapons program," said ElBaradei, director-general of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.

<snip>

He has asked the current treaty conference to consider several possible approaches suggested by an IAEA expert group in February. They range from simply tightening controls on current commercial sales of such dual-use equipment, to turning all enrichment and plutonium reprocessing operations - another potential bomb-making process - over to multilateral control, by region or continent.

<more>

No Uranium or Plutonium to worry about.

239-Pu and/or 235-U are needed to initially breed 233-U from 232-Th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel

http://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/reference/plambeck/chem1/p05016.htm

U-233 is fissile and can be used to produce bombs...

http://www.turkeyland.net/atomic/physics.html

In other news...

The UN is does not foresee curb on PV modules, solar hot water heaters or wind turbines.

Thanks for the link from Turkey land. Best named site I've ever heard of.

I have never heard of a solar hype type who actually understood doodly squat about nuclear physics, although lots of them mindless link google crap endlessly.

There are 1000 MT of plutonium on this planet; it is hardly difficult to imagine using it to breed uranium-233. Is the fact that fissile nuclei breed other fissile nuclei, a process that is practiced industrially world wide in 31 countries in 440 plants producing 16% of the world's supply of electricity supposed to be something bad? On what grounds? Simply because it is mentioned by someone who clearly doesn't understand what it means or what it is about?

There is not one of them who doesn't phrase scare sentences with words like "can" as meaning the same thing as IS.

Some people say that runaway greenhouse gas release "could" wipe out life on earth? So? Is there some reason that one "could" should be feared than the other? Some people say that global climate change "could" result in global famine. Other people say that there could be an accident where some spent nuclear fuel rods break on a freeway in Chicago. So what? Does the fact that illiterate paranoid twits are more afraid of a little radioactivity than they are of global famine imply any response from the remotely sane? Some people fear that global climate change "might" inundate some of the most important and beautiful cities on the planet, Venice, New Orleans, New York, and many others. Just because a subset of people exist who think that a potential leak of a little cesium 500 years in Nevada from now will be more dangerous than this, does that demand that rational people all focus their attention on the Nevadan desert?

Have these people no decency? Not a shred of it?

The fact is, that not one anti-nuclear paranoid can produce a single case of a person killed by a nuclear bomb since the early 1950's. Of course they have to appeal to nuclear weapons as a scare tactic to address all nuclear energy because they cannot support their ridiculous fears with actual injury from commercial nuclear power production since Chernobyl, Chernobyl, Chernobyl, Chernobyl. (God help them if they didn't have Chernobyl, they would look even dumber, which is very difficult to imagine.) Not one of them gives a shit or a rat's ass about coal or oil and no amount of death, environmental destruction, or emergency moves them. This is because anti-nuclear anti-environmental solar hype types have no ethics. They only have their personal phobias, phobias they put above the lives of every other person on the planet.

Moreover, not one of them can (in this case meaning "are able to") produce an instance of nuclear terrorism, or a person killed by the so called "nuclear waste" that scares their liitle illiterate heads off.

Now here's a fact that escapes these immoral twits. Fucking energy wastes are killing people right now. Climate change is happening now. Not in some fucking dream land solar future. It is NOW.

Solar twit fantasies are thus killing people NOW.

They can whine and hype and lie all day long about some fantasy solar nirvana, but it doesn't exist and no one, not even the twits at Greenpeace, imagines that any capacity greater than 10% of the world's energy demand.

The reason that no one is calling for curbs on the inevitable pollution associated with PV modules is because the industry is small and trivial, mostly because it is economically not viable. The environmental impact of PV power thus slips under the radar screen. Even in the US "sunshine state" the solar industry is hoping, not delivering mind you, not constructing mind you, not proposing mind you, not financing mind you, just hoping, for 5% of the power demand in a decade and a half.

Morons can talk and talk and talk and talk and chant and chant and chant and chant and scare and scare and scare and scare, but they do not deliver. There's nos such thing as "put up or shut up" with these people, because reality is not involved. After decades of parlor tricks, kilowatt scale demonstration plants and outright snake oil sales, they actually producing very, very, very, very, very little of the solar power that they hype as an alternative not only to safe nuclear power, but critically extremely dangerous deadly fossil fuels as well. To hear solar hype types crow about one or two percent, you'd think they'd saved the world, but the fact is, they have nothing to show for decades and decades of largely empty promises and twittery. These people do not save lives. They cost lives. They do not save the environment. They damage the environment. They do not construct a future. They impede a future.

This needs to repeated right next to every attempt to isolate safe clean reliable scalable and, oh yeah, what was that word, existing nuclear capacity from comparison to its dubious alternatives: The emergency isn't is some dreamy future. It is now.

LOL!!!!

U.S. possessions and threatening them with Freedom whether they want it or not, then maybe there would not be such an all fired rush for all these countries to try to protect themselves.