432f27d0   
   XPost: alt.fan.heinlein   
   From: tkoenig@netcologne.de   
      
   Michael Benveniste  schrieb:   
   > On 10/26/2025 10:25 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:   
   >> Michael Benveniste  schrieb:   
   >>> On 10/24/2025 6:34 PM, WolfFan wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> the no-nuke-kooks vastly exaggerate this. The main danger from   
   reactor-grade   
   >>>> uranium/plutonium is that they’re heavy metals and therefore extremely   
   >>>> toxic, and they also burn real good once you ignite them. Reactor-grade   
   kicks   
   >>>> mostly alphas. Alphas get stopped by a sheet of cardboard. You do want to   
   >>>> keep heavy metals away from ground water.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's a dangerous simplification.   
   >>>   
   >>> In 1962, the United States successfully detonated a low yield (< 20kt)   
   >>> nuke built with reactor grade plutonium.   
   >>   
   >> Source?   
   >   
   > https://www.osti.gov/opennet/forms?formurl=document/press/pc29.html   
      
   Thanks, interesting.  Problem appears to be the presence of Pu-240,   
   which can cause the nuclear explosive to fizzle out (complicating   
   yield predictions) and has a significantly shorter half-life then   
   Pu-239.   
      
   But they didn't say what amount of Pu-240 they had, and for a good   
   reason :-)   
   --   
   This USENET posting was made without artificial intelligence,   
   artificial impertinence, artificial arrogance, artificial stupidity,   
   artificial flavorings or artificial colorants.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)