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