Discussion on:

Controversial nuclear technology alarms watchdogs

Bert Saboy Piedmont (facebook.com/QASIMARA) reminds SmartPlanet that SILEX has to work 99.10% of the time in tests, even if it is not actually implementId. People feel good about teh traditional gas centrifuges because its employees are mentally alert and morally straight (and try to be physically strong). Saying that SILEX "uses less energy" does not explain why so. The reason is that the SILEX system goes through people like they were fast-food workers and it burns them out. SILEX employees caught sleeping on the job is a common occurrence. They are worked so hard and treated like trash, then dismissed, they end up at one of those churches that runs a combination bread line and soup kitchen that also gives out rotten fruit and veggies to take home. Gas was burned to transport the volunteers and the bad food to the church for distribution to discarded SILEX employees, but I doubt the author did not include the cost to the churches for taking care of discarded SILEX people. Ad this cradel to grave cost into the equation and now SILEX is not looking so energy efficient. Come examine gas centrifuge social systems and intergenerational support methods and you will be amazed at the humane peoplehood and personness gas centrifuge enrichment allows for and provides. Going on would be revealing more than I care to reveal at this time, but thanks for rolling the dice David Worthington...I am in teh Unted States and I hope my noobish knowledge is enough to inform the rest of the world that U.S. is capable of regulating and limiting SILEX tech. worldwide and preventing its creul consequences from taking hold.

Mr. Worthington, do you think the Soviet Union obtained the "secret" of the atomic bomb due to spies inside the Manhattan Project, or do you ascribe to the modern opinion that they had their own fission research program from 1940 anyway, and would have become a nuclear weapons power on their own? If the US had not built Little Boy and Fat Man, would this have prevented the rest of the world from developing nuclear weapons? Of course not. Similarly, if the US abstains from building a cheaper method of enriching uranium, e.g. SILEX, this will not prevent other countries from doing so. Those raising hysteria about a scientific advance that can facilitate the usage of low-enriched uranium in nuclear power reactors are quite conceivably acting as part of the fossil-fuel financed chorus. You quote from them, but not from those with a differing opinion, apparently revealing your bias.

Your comment about espionage are a nice contribution. Beyond that - I quoted the NRC and spelled out the pros of the technology. I've also written an article called "America's nuclear future" and have opined about the "fossil-fuel financed chorus" on more than one occasion. People who are looking for bias find what they want to see. I merely saw an interesting viewpoint that was worth sharing. The purpose of this comment section is for people to discuss it.

...to regard the NRC as a pro-nuclear organization. Progressive people are familiar with the concept of "regulatory capture" by targeted industries and often assume that to be the case with the NRC. However, with anti-nuclear zealot Rep. Markey's trained agent, Jaczko, as NRC chief in recent years, it became apparent that "some other" industry had captured the NRC, and the fact that Markey is beholden to natural gas entities might provide a clue as to who they are. As well, it is explicitly not part of the NRC charter to promote nuclear power. That might explain why it takes decades to get a reactor design OK'd by them. There isn't a pro-nuclear campaigner that I'm aware of who regards the NRC as a pro-nuclear organization. Nor does use of the term "watchdog" as applied to anti-nuclear zealots connote objectivity. If scientific advances cannot be sequestered, it then follows that these "watchdogs'" concern about "proliferation" is bogus; in fact their concern is to throw up obstacles to nuclear power at every opportunity. Far from watchdogs, they appear to be, what the Red Chinese used to call, running dogs, i.e. of their fossil fuel masters.

The way that the NRC in general & Jaczko in particular performs it's function & the motivations for doing so are, at best, a tangent to the issue. Will a GE-Hitachi/Global Laser Enrichment SILEX facility near Wilmington make it more likely that this technology will proliferate to nations that wish to build nuclear weapons but can not due to an inability to enrich uranium?

The author cited the NRC as a pro-nuclear entity. This is manifestly untrue. I provided reasons. For an example of a pro-nuclear entity, that eviscerates the preposterous nonsense of anti-nuclear zealots such as those the author thought worthwhile to cite, dwell on, and treat with much respect, read this: http://canadianenergyissues.com/2012/08/02/game-changing-enrichment-technology-offends-fossil-supporters-at-bas/ Now THAT is an example of a pro-nuclear point-of-view.

you can't stuff it back in. Knowledge doesn't "want to be free", but once it is known, it can be recreated by dedicated or driven researchers. Whether we use it or not, it's out there now.

The fact that SILEX is practical is public knowledge but the specifics of constructing 1 are not. There's any number of technologies that are restricted. Those that contribute to nuclear proliferation are among the most restricted & for good reason.

As others have said, knowing something is possible means anyone with enough intelligence and resources can do it.