2011年3月20日星期日

核的疑惑-2

核能專家會說﹐鈽燃料是否用來作為核武器之用﹐燃料棒的構成完全不同﹐一看就知道﹐日本不可能在這個問題上欺騙外界。

然而﹐還是解決不了兩個核的疑惑。

第一﹐日本福島核電站三號反應堆使用鈽燃料﹐可能只是作為一種核武的戰略儲備。畢竟﹐日本核武政策的目標不是擁有核武﹐而是“如果需要﹐可以在一年內製成核武器”。平時使用民用級別的鈽燃料棒﹐但在需要的時候﹐可以很快轉化成為武器級別的燃料棒。

第二﹐就算日本福島核電站三號反應堆的鈽核廢料是按民用程序處理﹐也不代表其中一定完全沒有可疑之處。如果日本有秘密的核武計劃﹐在現在階段﹐也只是試驗性質﹐需要用的武器級別的鈽核廢料不需要太多。並不需要整個三號反應堆都是為核武計劃服務。

不管怎樣﹐如果是出於發展核武的考量﹐而選用了毒性高幾萬倍﹐並且經濟效益很低的鈽代替鈾﹐出了這樣的問題﹐總是自食其果。

在這個問題上﹐日本政府這次是很需要向外界解釋的﹐尤其是美國和中國政府。否則人家的疑心很難消除。

2 条评论:

依馬打 说...

此時此刻,北韓提議,願意無條件重返六方會談,會否因得悉日本的核燃料組合,令它估計日本可隨時製造核彈所致?

http://news.rti.org.tw/index_newsContent.aspx?nid=286612&id=5&id2=2

Sun Bin 说...

(see also my comment in your previous post)

1. Pu fuel is about 5%, waste fuel is of much lower concentration. Weapon grade Pu is 95%. So all Japan needs is the enrichment process to increase the concentration. sort of like distilling rice wine into hard liquor -- but much more complicated.
Japan has the enrichment technology, this is how the 1-year readiness comment is based on

2. again, Pu or not it totally a non-issue. HK media has no clue about this.

3. Pu is not more expensive, actually cheaper if u have the technology to enrich from waste Pu into something of 5%. Japan has the technology.

4. toxicity statement is wrong as well. as previously discussed...also byt he squirrel site.

in my view, there is nothing japan needs to explain. since this is v straightforward for the experts. the issue, however, is whether US should take away the waste and monitor the re-processing in Japan.