Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site baylor.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!pesnta!greipa!decwrl!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!baylor!peter From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: net.bizarre Subject: Re: Re: Re: plutonium Message-ID: <377@baylor.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 18:33:08 EDT Article-I.D.: baylor.377 Posted: Mon Aug 12 18:33:08 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 26-Aug-85 01:16:50 EDT References: <541@bentley.UUCP> <499@mit-vax.UUCP> <217@kitty.UUCP> <544@mit-vax.UUCP> Organization: Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria Lines: 15 Fine. Thanks for the flame. Noting that you need less than a critical mass of plutonium to make a bomb doesn't change the effect of my comment. In any case, I was talking about a rifle-type bomb, where 2 subcritical masses are brought together. They only made one of those because it was cheaper to do it the now standard way using an explosive detonation. It's still EASIER to build a hiroshima-bomb than a nagasaki-bomb. Particulate plutonium is pretty bad if it gets trapped in your gut. It also precipitates out of water pretty fast. Plutonium salt doesn't, but also doesn't tend to get trapped. Now if you stuck a bit of plutonium into some sort of protein that'd do the job pretty well. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076