Talk:Plutonium-239

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] Lovelock and Pu-240

A question has arisen on the James Lovelock article, about the sentence This is because the Plutonium-239 from a nuclear reactor power plant is contaminated with a significant amount of Pu-240, so it is not weapons-grade. It is easier to enrich Uranium than than to separate the Pu-240 from the Pu-239. that was removed from there as unsupported. This article appears to discuss the same matter, though from my reading of it, it does not state that reactor-Pu can't be used; and it isn't sourced either William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Which part of the quote is being questioned? The statements you quote here are standard and uncontroversial, and the Lovelock article even does appear to have a reference for them, but the conclusion that reactor grade plutonium is of little use for bombs is debatable, although conventional wisdom and frequently stated. You might want to look at Reactor grade plutonium nuclear test, Nuclear weapons design and Weapons-grade among others. Also, fusion boosting which is used anyway in all modern nuclear weapons mitigates the predetonation problem from Pu-240. --JWB (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The article *now* has "although reactor-grade plutonium can successfully be used in weapons[10][11]." [1] in it, which rather alters the previous sense, and I think fits with what you are saying William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)