This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Friday, December 27, 2019
Charlie said...
Charlie Verdon assures us that pit production goals can be met:
Ironic since we literally built thousands of pits in a shorter period of time at lower cost using 1950s technology. Savannah River might be up to that task if Los Alamos people hold their hand and the DOE and DNSFB “experts” stay away.
We don’t need new pits, since aging is not an issue:
This is from the JASON report (https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/pit.pdf):
As a result of the Los Alamos/Livermore efforts, JASON concludes that there is no evidence from the UGT analyses for plutonium aging mechanisms affecting primary perfor- mance on timescales of a century or less in ways that would be detrimental to the enduring stockpile.
The need for new pits is largely a fabrication of LANL for the purpose of funding a make-work pit facility. This debate has been going on for years with LANL winning the argument in the face of contradictory scientific evidence.
6 comments:
Ironic since we literally built thousands of pits in a shorter period of time at lower cost using 1950s technology. Savannah River might be up to that task if Los Alamos people hold their hand and the DOE and DNSFB “experts” stay away.
"Ironic since we literally built thousands of pits in a shorter period of time at lower cost using 1950s technology.
12/27/2019 11:11 AM"
Things that have gotten demonstrably better with modern manufacturing technology:
V-8 Engines
Mobile Phones
Refrigerators
Submarines
Stealth fighters
.
.
.
Pits? How would you know? They can't be tested!
Pits that COULD be tested were plenty good enough.
We don’t need new pits, since aging is not an issue:
This is from the JASON report (https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/pit.pdf):
As a result of the Los Alamos/Livermore efforts, JASON concludes that there is no evidence from the UGT analyses for plutonium aging mechanisms affecting primary perfor- mance on timescales of a century or less in ways that would be detrimental to the enduring stockpile.
The need for new pits is largely a fabrication of LANL for the purpose of funding a make-work pit facility. This debate has been going on for years with LANL winning the argument in the face of contradictory scientific evidence.
Right now, pits are a non-renewable resource.
But not non-reusable, with a little modeling.
Post a Comment