Bush Administration to Support Nuclear Recycling 169
Ironsides writes "The Washington Post is reporting the the Bush Administration is planning to re-enrich spent nuclear fuel so that it can once again be used in nuclear reactors. Included in the plan is a proposal to take spent fuel from other countries and re-enrich it for use as well as domestic spent fuel. This would be a break with a policy set forth by President Carter in an attempt to discourage nuclear proliferation. Currently $250 Million as been proposed for FY 2007 to start developing the technology."
White House (Score:5, Funny)
Re:White House (Score:2)
No way! Can you imagine what will happen if we get a radioactivity-fed BushZilla?
Re:White House (Score:2, Funny)
1. Start war with foreign country
2. Go to said country
3. Destroy everything with depleted uranium rounds
4. Go to 1.
Re:White House (Score:2)
No more dictators in the white house...
Re:White House (Score:3, Insightful)
stop worrying and learn to love plutonium! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:stop worrying and learn to love plutonium! (Score:5, Insightful)
Our current methods for nuclear generation and the treatment/disposal of spent nuclear fuels is short-sighted, wasteful and environmentally irresponsible. Anti "nook-yoo-ler" sentiment aside, nuclear generation is potentially far safer and far less environmentally devastating than fossil fuel generation. IANANE, but I'm at least moderately conversant for a lay-person and it seems to me that there are numerous options, including various types of 3rd and 4th generation breeder/fast reactors, that will result in greater safety (the Integral Fast Reactor design is virtually melt-down proof), less waste (virtually zero transuranics and actinides ever leave some types), higher output, higher fuel efficiency (from about 1% in current thermal reactor designs up to 95%+ for IFR and some other types) and significantly reduced expense (there is at least one lead-cooled design that is intended to be a turnkey operation for small-grid/developing country type deployments, requiring very little maintenance and with a 15-20 year refueling interval)
There was an interesting article on this subject in the December Scientific American and wikipedia( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor [wikipedia.org] )has numerous articles, if you want a quick rundown on the operation, advantages and disadvantages of various designs.
Large-scale transition to safe, efficient, modern reactors could break the stanglehold that the #@$&ing oil companies and OPEC (Organized Petroleum Extortion Cartel) have on the energy market and, by extension, on much of the world's economy. Further, introducing smaller, inexpensive, self-contained designs could go a long way toward elevating living standards in much of the developing world.
Re:stop worrying and learn to love plutonium! (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
It does a lot of things:
1. We have control over all this wonderful nuclear stuff.
2. Encourages more Nuculear power.
3. Reduces our dependence on foreign oil.
4. Hey - we're recyling!
--LWM
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anybody argues that nuclear power isn't dangerous. Only that modern nuclear power technologies are less dangerous than our current fuel of choice: Coal.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text
Acy
Re:Makes sense (Score:2, Insightful)
If you can be sure that the waste will be stored with care at proper facilities with no leakage problems, then there's not much of a problem.
But as long as there are kilograms of waste "disappearing" from these facilities all the time, I'd opt for coal anyday.
Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident would have h
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Like what various purely chemical disasters have done? All of the various superfund sites?
Truth is, nuclear power would need several accidents on that scale to even catch up with coal.
"What if" is generally all I hear out of those who oppose nuclear power. My first thought is generally "Stop being a luddite and examine the evidence".
For example, look at Bush's decision. We're going to spend some money, and rather than mine more radioactive materials, we're going to take it out of the storage pools and recycle it into more fuel, thus reducing the amount of hazardous stuff around. And we get nice clean power out of it!
Re:Makes sense (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
Doesn't make sense now either (Score:2)
The dodgy paper on ORNL surfaces once again - if there was more to it then nuclear advocates would have more than one paper on the subject to refer to.
First consider that pollution control equipment is designed to get even gasses like NOx and SOx - so what do you think happens to dust as the exhaust goes through scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators or even bag filters?
Second, consider that the coal described in the paper is not typical and then the
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
The claim is not that coal produces more radioactive waste, it is that it disperses more radioactive materials into its environment. Considering that virtually 100% of the spent fuel from a reactor is retained in solid form and carefully contained, and that the majority of coal wastes are spewed into the air, I'd say the claim still holds.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
This fits with the man-on-the-street's poor understanding of nuclear dangers (of which they are overstated, no matter which way you try to twist it), and even demonstrates that the parent poster has been watching too many movies.
The truth of the matter is simple: Nuclear power is one of the safest options on the planet. Coal (of which America burns a LOT of) spews radioactive nuclear contamination all across our cities and country-side, yet everyone is worried about the tiny amounts of nuclear waste which are (all things considered) quite safe. The problem is that the media has played up the whole "Radiation == EVIL" to such a degree that the populace is scared stiff at the very idea. If they had it their way, nuclear materials wouldn't even be kept on this planet.
Yet these same materials happen to exist in your backyard, your body, your car, your house, and millions of other locations all around you! As long as the spent materials are kept in properly shielded containers, there is no danger. Even if you're standing right next to it.
But what of the waste that will last millions of years? All that's needed there is a bit of common sense. If the material is going to be radioactive for millions of years, then it can't be very radioactive to begin with, can it? If it WAS highly radioactive, then it would convert all its mass to radiation in a very short period of time.
So I personally think Bush is on the right track here. The previous non-proliferation attempts were poorly conceived and implemented. If Bush can change that around, then I salute his attempts.
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
For the record (Score:3, Informative)
I hate to break it to ya, but at least one of the byproducts of nuclear power (Plutonium) isn't around in your backyard (or if it is, you're in trouble). It also happens to be one of the most toxic substances we know of (ok, inhaling pure cesium is probably pretty bad as well), and that's before we consider that it's radioactive. Nasty stuff.
Anyway, I have a very hard time swallowing "safest options on the planet."
What happens if the US descends
Re:For the record (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but there's plenty of Uranium [cameco.com]. Plutonium should be burned up rather than stored as waste.
It also happens to be one of the most toxic substances we know of
Bullshit. It doesn't rate even close. [atomicinsights.com] Let me ask you, which would you rather ingest: 20 grams of caffine or 20 grams of plutonium? [wikipedia.org]
If you value your life, you'll go for the plutonium.
What happens if the US descends into anarchy as a re
Re:For the record (Score:2)
Re:For the record (Score:2)
I hate to break it to ya, but 5 tons of Plutonium was released into the atmosphere between 1945 and 1963 - so some of that is in your backyard.
Nuclear waste is still gonna be dangerous tens of thousands of years from now
After a few hundred years, the waste is about the same danger as the original ore.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
Look at the TWO WORST nuclear power accidents in the world.
Three Mile Island, with no recorded fatalities.
Chernobyl, of which I studied fairly extensivly in high school, was a combination of a number of factors:
1. Dangerous experimental design
2. Improperly trained people placed in charge. The director came from a coal plant background, not nuclear. The technictians came from the soviet nuclear submarines, which were a much safer design(see void coefficient). They weren't trained on the differences.
3. A test was being done, resulting in the bypass of a number of safety systems.
4. No containment dome. US reactors are housed in concrete containment domes that will limit release of radiation if all else fails. Chernobyl doesn't have it. Instead it has the sarcophagus which was placed after the fact, quickly, in hazardous conditions. It suffers from this.
More at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Basically,Nuclear power has been shown to be extremely safe when handled correctly. For a severe disaster, the flaws would have to start in the very construction of the plant. Modern reactors would be orders of magnitude safer and efficient than our old reactors that still beat coal power in safety and pollution.
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Informative)
here is a good example of an excellent reactor design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor [wikipedia.org]
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree with the latter part of your argument, the former part is incorrect. The worst nuclear accident in history (Chernobyl) failed to "wipe out" even the population of the local city. A total of 56 people have died to date, with an expected final death rate of 4,000 due to Chernobyl-related illne
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
Hrm... which would you rather take? The potential hazard posed by nuclear disasters which very rarely become actual, or the actual, real hazards created by coal plants?
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Informative)
Amazing the amount of ignorance that prevades here. Carter was busy pushing nukes back then. He did oppose breeder for power, but was never opposed to further studying of them.
In fact, under Carter, he started our drive towards alternatives AND helped push towards LWR, which he believed were safe options. Considering that Mr. Carter IS a nuclear engineer, I think that he had a better understanding of the technology back in the 60's/70's, then all most poster here
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
Also, while it does stretch our supplies of fissile materials, it produces a hell of a lot of radioactive, liquid, toxic waste that has to be stored until its safe to solidy and bury. There have been large leaks and spills of this material before.
Nuclear reprocessing in its current form is a bad idea and makes it harder to discourage in other states. Then again, it goes along great with the curr
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
Encouraging other countries to send us their nuclear waste is a great way to reduce proliferation.
See, if you run a nuclear reactor rod through the normal power-generating fuel cycle, by the time you reprocess it, you will have plutonium that's so contaminated with Pu-240 that you cannot use it in nuclear warheads.
Remember, enrichment seperates U-235 from U-238. That's easy -- three atomic numbers apart. Seperating Pu-239 and Pu-240 is hard because that's one atomic nubmer apart.
If you wan
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
Those aren't the atomic numbers, they're the atomic weights. U has an atomic number of 92, Pu is 94.
You're correct, though, that the difficulty in separating isotopes of the same element (same atomic number, different weight) increases with decreasing atomic weight differences. It's like buoyancy: oil and vinegar separate more readily t
Energy Needs (Score:3, Insightful)
As a trained physicist, I learned that there is one universal currency: energy. In fact, it can be said that energy is the only thing of value to us. One of our jobs as a trained physicist is to discover new and better ways of accessing the
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Conservation is evil. Efficiency is good. You want to make your process more efficient, great.
If you want to say that I can't be allowed to buy the power I need to do what I want, then you are denying me the most basic right in existance.
If someting is rare, then let the market determine its price. Market forces will cause people to find alternatives.
Conservation-- government mandated rationing-- causes people who could even afford the high price (Because the benefit to society is so great) to be denied
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
Hey, why don't you practice what you preach and conserve energy by turning your computer off?
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
I'm not a fan of Bush either, but the main concern here isn't that we'll make weapons-grade nucelar material -- we have plenty of that -- it's that other countries who don't have nuclear weapons yet will say, "Oh, yeah, we're just recycling the same as you are" and secretly build up a stash of material to start their own weapons program.
It's not about what Bush and/or the US will do. It's about minimizing nuclear proliferation, i.e. mini
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me more that he is being practical instead of making emotional decisions. Almost universally, people who oppose nuclear power don't understand the tradeoffs, or refuse to believe the reality.
Surely we need to conserve, but that only gets us so far. Nuclear fission is currently safer and far cleaner than what we use now (coal), plentiful enough to reduce our oil consumption while we figure out practical alternatives, and capable of providing us with enough power to transition to renewable sources without reduced economic output of quality of life.
We have three choices essentially, and the best scientists and engineers in the world are explaining this to the president: We can continue to pollute and rely on foreign sources for energy with increasing competition from Asia. We can cut energy consumption to the point where our GDP is reduced, jobs are lost, and people's lifestyles are altered. Or, we can build nuclear power plants, reducing coal emissions, generating hydrogen to ease off oil consumption, and grow economically. Not only that, but it's stupid to let the highly radioactive waste products of older reactors just sit around. We're not going to build bombs with the output, so why not generate more electricity with it instead of burying it in the desert (which the people who oppose reprocessing oppose as well).
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
We even have technology (gasification, scrubbers, etc...) to make coal burning pass Kyoto.
Nuclear on the other hand, has some issue that have been glossed over. First off, spent fuel storage. This program would actually reduce that problem, so I think it's a great idea. Second, corrupt, incompotence, and lack of over sight. Check out the nuclear energy system in France. It's heavily governed, has strict regulation, design requirements, etc... In the US we have reactors that are in use beyond their expected life, storing significantly more spent fuel then designed, cutting corners on down time, bribing inspectors, and of all different designs and natures. Third, existing Nuclear power plants are heavily susidized by the government, which means the power they generate is not as cheap per kW as they claim.
I'm not saying Coal is perfect either, it is still significantly more dirty (even with gasification), it takes huge tracks of land to mine coal, and is getting more expensive as requirements to cut emissions and mercury are being increased.
Me, I like nuclear, but our current system is an accident waiting to happen. We should take after the French [shudder] and design the nuclear infrastructure of our country with safety and security in mind.
-Rick
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)
In analyzing this point, it's very important to ask the question, "Why is the system this way?" The answer is quite simpl
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)
None of that technology would change the fact that half of our carbon gas emissions come from burning coal. Which would you rather get rid of, cars and trucking, making a 20something% dent in our emissions, or coal, getting rid of 50% of our emissions?
Not only that, but it's still unsafe. There have been more deaths by coal mine accident than nuclear power accident by far.
We should take after the French [shudder] and d
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
I remember reading somewhere that oxygen levels are measurably lower now than they were a hundred years ago.
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
We're killing the oceans. Even if you don't like seafood you should be concerned, because oceanic algae is the single largest contributor to oxygen levels. The rainforests, all put together, don't even begin to come close, because decomposition takes oxygen and the rainforests grow super fast, then fall down super fast (well, trees and other plants in them do anyway, they have much shorter lifetimes than your average european or north american forest-dwelling plants) and decompose. This enriches the soil, because some of the plants fix valuable nutrients.
And, if you're wondering why we care about them, rainforests act as filters (all that activity means there's more plant respiration per square foot there than in any other land-based environment) and they also help cool the globe. Plus, if you slash and burn, and then grow crops or graze food animals on the land, then you're depleting the topsoil which will eventually blow away after depletion and uncovering (and plowing) and leave us with desert where the rainforest used to be. This happened a whole lot in Egypt...
Short sighted... (Score:2)
Overheard 100 years ago: "We have enough food to last forever!!!one!eleven"
And 50 years ago: "We have enough oil to last forever!!eleventy!!!"
And 500 years from now: "How are we going to feed 150 billion people without nuclear fuel?"
Re:Short sighted... (Score:3, Interesting)
So yes, there is a finite limit to our coal supply, but if we are still primarily powering our country with coal 250 years from now, we will have other issues.
But as great as nuclear is, I think distributed generation is an
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
We have three choices essentially, and the best scientists and engineers in the world are explaining this to the president:
You obviously haven't been paying attention to Bush's appointments to science related positions. Bush has the best lobbyists and old friends explaining it to him.
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
Actually, both countries have performed successful tests. I'm not sure how you get to eight without counting those two... Even then I still only count seven...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_wi
Recycling... (Score:2)
Anytime you come up with a fairly large mass of fairly pure metal it's worth it.
Paper, glass, and plastic are tough.
Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about the rest of you, but it is January 26 in Detroit and there still hasn't been a single piece of ice in the river. Something is up. Moving from fossil fuels to nuclear may not fix the problem long-term, but it definitely won't make it any worse.
Get us over to a nuclear/renewables/hydrogen economy and another side benefit would be no one giving a crap about how much oil is in the middle-East.
Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:2)
Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:2)
Indeed. In fact, if a solution could be found to protecting reactors against high-seas piracy, I'd love to see our merchant ships switch over from fossil fuels. I mean, these big suckers burn through gallons of fuel per foot, and burn some of the dirtiest crap left over from the petroleum distillation processes. In addition, these fuels take up a significant
Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:2)
Ships already have balast tanks that they fill as they burn fuel or hold less cargo weight to ride lower in the water. This is partly why an oil tanker doesn't bob like a top when crossing the ocean empty.
As for putting reactors in ships, US Nuclear carr
Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed. But ballast tanks add additional storage room and cannot entirely compensate.
As for putting reactors in ships, US Nuclear carriers are probably a start for anyone attempting to do this.
I can do you one better than that. Meet the good ship NS Savannah [wikipedia.org], a 595ft long, 22,000 ton merchant ship capable of cruising the oceans full of 8.5 kilotons of cargo at a blistering 21 knots. The shi
Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:2)
Maybe it's not global warming, but pollutants in the river that are keeping it from icing?
Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:2)
Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:2)
Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:2)
In fact, I'm failing to see the downside.
Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels (Score:2)
Everybody say it with me... (Score:3, Funny)
Mr. Burns (Score:2)
Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not the same (Score:2)
Iran wants to enrich the stuff in the first place to create more nuclear waste later from power production (ya right).
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see how the U.S. stacks up to the rest of the world with regard to nukes:
1. The U.S. has more nukes than anyone else on the planet. Check.
2. The U.S. is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons. Check.
3. Not only that, we used them on an entirely civilian population. Check.
4. As recently at 2 years ago the U.S. was still trying to develop nuclear weapons (nuclear bunker busters). Check.
So, given those points, what gives the U.S. any rig
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2)
That's the problem, check your source... at least according to the US government.
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2)
I think history clearly shows that 9/11 was directly brought about by Al Qaeda and that Iraq and Sadaam had exactly nothing to do with it. I think history also clearly shows Bush and his administration knew this before going to Iraq.
I'm not saying Sadaam didn't have to be removed from power. But saying that has anything to do with 9/11 or was high on the list in the war on terror is just wrong.
Sorry, I'm not going to produce any sources... (Score:2)
Even Bush said that Iraq and Saddam Hussein wasn't involved in 9/11.
Re:Sorry, I'm not going to produce any sources... (Score:3)
But invading Iraq was sold 100% as part of the war on terror, when in reality it was a major distraction to the war on terror.
If you have 2 neighbors, Dan and Sam, and Sam's dog bites your daughter, do you go and kill Dan's dog, even though it's the one you dislike
Re:Sorry, I'm not going to produce any sources... (Score:2)
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2)
Democracies do not start wars WITH EACH OTHER. And so far history has born that out.
And that is not just the US government saying it, it is pretty much the opinion of every political science expert.
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Yep, we do. It comes from being the first to have them and the arms race between the USSR. We don't have as many as we used to, though. The number is dropping.
2 & 3. Try to find anyone that's proud of it. However, in the big picture, the bombs, horrid as they were, stopped the war short of an outright invasion that would have resulted in far, far greater casualties on both sides. Japan was going kamikaze left and right and almost didn't surrender a
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:3, Insightful)
2 & 3. Whether the nukes were needed is a matter of opinion and speculation [doug-long.com]. Personally I think the evidence says they weren't needed, but that changes nothing and is still just an opionion. There is no reason to discuss these points further. My original statements are still exactly true.
4. The ONLY reason we don't have nuclear bunker busters being used in Iraq right now is because there is still enough collective brain power in congress to keep Bush and
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2)
It would also be far better, in every way, for magical unicorns to fly me to a happy candy land where everything is free and dogs never die. But so long as that's not credibly happening in the fore
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2)
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2)
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2)
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now lets get back to the US... Iran and North Korea are working to build nuclear weapons, while the US is actively reducing the number of weapons it possesses. Will you at least give the US credit for moving in the proper direction? Past actions of a state, unli
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:3, Insightful)
But the same rules that apply to them should apply to everyone.
It's not just nuclear weapons that are affected. We are telling them they can't have anything nuclear in any way, shape, or form.
Policies should be put in place that govern the safe use of nuclear technology in EVERY country. That way we can tell countries "Play by the rules or not at all" instead of "You can't
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2)
Okay, good, I'm glad we agree on THAT.
That is not true! The U.N. (note that this is not only the position of the U.S.) is saying that they cannot enrich uranium. Highly enriched uranium can be used as a bomb fuel. The problem is that the sa
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2)
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same... (Score:2)
You forgot the rest: "...so that they [bbc.co.uk] can [washingtontimes.com] annihilate [ynetnews.com] Israel [ynetnews.com]."
Say whatever you want about the U.S. and Bush, but we don't have any desire to commit genocide or set a world-destroying nuclear exchange in motion. We aren't insane. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler, folks. If history repeats itself again, we might not survive WW III.
about freakin' time (Score:2)
Re:about freakin' time (Score:2)
The thing about parking these waste products in the Yucca Mountain style storage is folks tend to think we are planning to store it there until time/decay makes it safe again - requiring centuries, millenniums, etc.... I strongly suspect we will have the technology to do something meaningful with the current by products in the next 50-100 years (possibly less) as we figure out how matte
Re:about freakin' time (Score:2)
SciAm Article: Smarter Use for Nuclear Waste (Score:5, Informative)
IFR (Score:2, Interesting)
Cognitive dissonance... Hurts head... Ack! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Owwwwww, make it stop!
I loathe the current administration. Everything about him/them. I look forward to the impending impeachment proceedings, led most satisfyingly of all by the Republicans.
But...
I agree with this one! I've argued that we need to recycle spent fuel for years.
So this confuses me and hurts my head. Bush double plus bad, but recycling good... Bush bad, recyc
Re:Cognitive dissonance... Hurts head... Ack! (Score:2)
Personally, I'd go for the fast-neutron reactors.
Reprocessing and efficiency (Score:2)
Obligatory SNL quote (Score:3, Funny)
I have an idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is very frightening. (Score:2)
Re:This is very frightening. (Score:2)
While we're at it, let'd criticize Howard Stern for how he pronounces "mall", Ted Kennedy for how he pronounces "water", or Clarence Thomas for not speaking English as a first language. Oh, wait, people have done that.
Re:Inspection (Score:3, Funny)
Inspections are to make sure that people who say they *don't* have WMDs aren't lying. If a country admits to having the weapons, you don't need any inspections.
Wait... wait... don't tell me... (Score:2)
Ooh, yeh, if the US did that, they could develop atomic weapons!
Wait a sec...
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask the Chinese about how nicely the Japanese treated civilians in Nanking in 1938.
Ask the POW's who weren't executed by the Japanese how they were treated in captivity.
FWIW, the Japanese were preparing to use bubonic plague infested fleas in 1944 - fortunately for the Japanese the submarine carrying the fleas was sunk - had the Japanese used those fleas as intended the US would likely ha