On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:01:34 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:41:17 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:55:04 -0000, dpb wrote:

On 12/10/2018 4:29 PM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:12:56 -0000, dpb wrote:

On 12/10/2018 1:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news ...

I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do
explode...."
You said "Wrong."

Only Fukushima exploded.
...

And that was _NOT_ a nuclear explosion but conventional hydrogen gas
(which came from decomposition of water and collected). It isn't
physically possible to create a supercritcal mass from the
low-enriched
commercial reactor fuel.

But don't commercial reactors create weapons grade stuff on behalf of
the military? It's why the governments subsidise them in the first
place.

No, and no they don't subsidize commercial generation (at least outside
places like N Korea and the like).

They do both in the UK.

Not anymore, and not for a long time now.

Or they certainly did when Margaret Thatcher was still with us.

Long time ago now.

I'm not that old am I?

Winscale was shut down in 57 after the fire.

Yet another whoops.

There is no reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel at all in the US
and
afaik, none currently going on anywhere world wide outside the few
rogue
states that may be doing some.

Enrichment for weapons is a totally separate enterprise from commercial
nuclear power; it's a very inefficient way to do so so only those
needing to subvert other restrictions would go at it that way.

Like governments doing it secretly.

Not many do.