On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:55:03 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote
(in article ):

Andy Hall wrote:

"It is generally agreed that the FBR poses a greater risk of
proliferation of nuclear weapons than light water-moderated reactors.
An FBR can more easily produce weapons grade material."

That's a very thin argument along the lines that one shouldn't process oil
products because of the possibility of making explosives.

You misunderstand my posting.

I simply observed that FBRs are associated with weapon production,
and when challenged gave the above quote.

FBRs are not in fact regarded as a good prospect for energy production
for other reasons, in particular the vastly increased
high-level waste production.



That would appear to depend on the particular implementation.