Iran Will Pursue Nuclear Technology

[chlamor]

Iran Will Pursue Nuclear Technology

Tuesday May 3, 2005 4:16 PM

By CHARLES J. HANLEY

AP Special Correspondent

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - With the world watching its every nuclear step, Iran on Tuesday declared it is ``determined'' to pursue all legal areas of nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment.

Addressing a U.N. conference on the nonproliferation treaty, Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said his government is ``eager'' to provide guarantees its nuclear-fuel program will serve only peaceful purposes, as sought in current negotiations with European governments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4979537,00.html

[madhat]

1. Are they running out of oil?

[jayfish]

4. Why Should They Be Forced To Burn Fossil Fuels?

Did it ever occur to you that they don't want to use oil?

Jay

[dhinojosa]

11. I agree.

Let the Americans buy the oil, they'd get more money that way.

[megatherium]

12. They have the fifth largest oil reserves

in the world, and the second largest natural gas reserves. Their oil production is 9% of the world's total, a bit less than 4 million barrels a day. In the 1970s, they produced 6 million barrels per day but their current policy is to conserve their oil.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/oil.htm

[KittyWampus]

21. Conservation Seems Wise. It's A Big Source Of GNP For Them, Yes?

things might get difficult for them when it runs out.

Don't know what other natural resources they have.

[cliss]

23. I read in a recent article at Counter Punch that Iran

has the world's #1 supply of natural gas, a staggering amount.

That article was speculating that Iran in fact might have the world's #1 supply of oil. Apparently Saudi Arabia's reserves are dwindling. Looks like Prince Fahd might have to smelt that lovely gold border on his cape.

Dick Cheney lays up at night and dreams of Iran's oil. But he also has dreams of natural gas running through his veins. He's OK with that. Just a problem with those pesky people on top of it all...

[Strelnikov_]

24. Yes, They Are

Gas Use At Issue In Iran As Oil Production Sags

Judy Clark
Senior Associate Editor

http://ogj.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ONART&C=GenIn&ARTICLE_ID=226732&p=7


. . .

Iran is losing 350,000 b/d/year of oil production capacity, Fesharaki said, and the decline rate could increase to 500,000 b/d/year by the end of the decade. Onshore decline rates have risen to 8%/year from 7%/year and offshore decline rates to 13%/year.

"These numbers are alarming, particularly as they come at the same time as runaway demand," Fesharaki said. "It is now possible to see a future with little or no oil export revenues within 2 decades."

. . .

[UCLA Dem]

2. Peaceful and nuclear weapons...peaceful and nuclear weapons...peaceful and

nope, no matter how many times you say it, "peaceful" and "nuclear weapons" don't work in the same sentence.

[phantom power]

3. I didn't see any mention of "weapons" in this.

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are two very different technologies.

[chlamor]

6. Nuclear Power is the Problem, Not a Solution

Nuclear technology is inherently violent even if not weaponized. to look at violence as only a 'BOOM' does not take into account a panoply of violent activities.

[phantom power]

7. I'm a big supporter of nuclear power.

What's "violent" about nuclear power?

[chlamor]

10. A number of

processes involved. I hope to carry on this dialogue and sway you on the nuclear power issue-there is so much wrong with it, but I must be out the door. I'll post to you tonight.

Peace

Small is Beautiful

[nittygritty]

22. Are you kidding?

You mean besides nuclear power plant accidents and the fact that there is no safe way to transport or store radioactive waste (google 'radioactive waste leaks') that remains deadly for 25,000 to 250,000 years? Or the fact that the waste or plants themselves make prime terrorist targets?


Nuclear Power Plant Accidents

1952
Dec. 12, Chalk River, nr. Ottawa, Canada: a partial meltdown of the reactor's uranium fuel core resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water accumulated inside the reactor, there were no injuries.
1957
Oct. 7, Windscale Pile No. 1, north of Liverpool, England: fire in a graphite-cooled reactor spewed radiation over the countryside, contaminating a 200-square-mile area.
South Ural Mountains: explosion of radioactive wastes at Soviet nuclear weapons factory 12 mi from city of Kyshtym forced the evacuation of over 10,000 people from a contaminated area. No casualties were reported by Soviet officials.
1976
nr. Greifswald, East Germany: radioactive core of reactor in the Lubmin nuclear power plant nearly melted down due to the failure of safety systems during a fire.
1979
March 28, Three Mile Island, nr. Harrisburg, Pa.: one of two reactors lost its coolant, which caused overheating and partial meltdown of its uranium core. Some radioactive water and gases were released.
1986
April 26, Chernobyl, nr. Kiev, Ukraine: explosion and fire in the graphite core of one of four reactors released radioactive material that spread over part of the Soviet Union, eastern Europe, Scandinavia, and later western Europe. 31 claimed dead. Total casualties are unknown. Worst such accident to date.
1999
Sept. 30, Tokaimura, Japan: uncontrolled chain reaction in a uranium-processing nuclear fuel plant spewed high levels of radioactive gas into the air, killing two workers and seriously injuring one other.
2004
Aug. 9, Mihama, Japan: non-radioactive steam leaked from a nuclear power plant, killing four workers and severely burning seven others.

more detailed list of accidents, major and 'minor':
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/nwa/index.html


LET THE FACTS SPEAK

This is a factual statement about the nuclear industry from the mining of uranium to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. It confronts advocates of the nuclear option with a stark catalogue of nuclear accidents, plant failures, unsafe plant designs, faulty plant constructions, secrecy, public misinformation, financial disasters, radioactive contamination, and radiation related diseases and deaths.

AN INDICTMENT OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
ACCIDENTS, LEAKS, FAILURES AND
OTHER INCIDENTS IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
- INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY

1. Although scientists understand the physical properties of radiation and are familiar with its devastating effects on Hiroshima and Chernobyl victims, extremely little is known about how or why radiation induced chemical and molecular changes occur in our bodies. As more has been learned of these changes the maximum allowable radiation exposure for workers in the nuclear industry has been drastically reduced. It is becoming more widely held that no level of exposure to radiation can be considered safe. Of great concern also is the likelihood of radiation-induced genetic damage having widespread effects on future generations.

2. Nuclear waste (most of which is manmade and not found in nature) is virtually indestructible. Some nuclear wastes will remain radioactive for thousands of years. For example Plutonium-239, with a half-life of 25,000 years, will be radioactive for a period of some 250,000 years. In due course, radioactive contamination on one side of the globe will be washed into the sea or carried up into the air and rains, possibly permeating all living matter on Earth. This is graphically illustrated by the effects of the Soviet Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. Apart from the millions of Soviet adults and young children plagued with leukemia and other radiation induced diseases, this accident raised the Earth's background levels of Caesium-137 by an average of 3% (Caesium137 - a manmade radioactive element, is toxic for over 300 years).

3. A very small radioactive spill can go a very long way. In the understated entry no. 641, dated March 1984 in Juarez, Mexico, a cancer therapy machine (x-ray), was sold to a scrap merchant. People saw some leaking luminous powder and thought it was a healing ointment, and rubbed it on their bodies.

When it started causing radiation burns, they tried to wash it off thereby contaminating their homes, sewers and affecting others. News spread and the town panicked. Pregnant women and other non-involved casualties became contaminated by ambulances that had previously carried contaminated people; in the panic, no one thought to decontaminate the vehicles. While many fled, 30,000 were rounded up in the local stadium and many were screened. Two hundred people were located with high exposure to radiation. Five died from radiation poisoning and were buried in lead lined coffins in six foot concrete graves, to keep them isolated from the environment. The contaminated town stadium, sewerage and other facilities will remain dangerous for many lifetimes. The cost to Mexico in lost exports alone for that year, was $US 70 million. Considering the financial and human costs, the significance of this incident is that it involved an amount of radioactive Caesium 137 powder that would fit into a matchbox.

4. Even though nuclear power may be viable in theory, the dictum that "familiarity breeds contempt" seems to apply to the nuclear industry as much as to other industries, despite the possible long lasting consequences of radiation contamination. This publication attests to what can go wrong in practice. The nuclear industry has been shown to be plagued by circumnavigation of regulations, corporate greed, human error, cutting of corners and the many other unsafe corporate practices which have been witnessed in other industries. However, nuclear power differs from other industries because of its close association with nuclear weapon production and national security. This relationship has fostered a lack of political commitment in making the industry accountable, has cultivated a high level of secrecy and has encouraged public ignorance regarding nuclear accidents and contamination. As a result, the public scrutiny of the nuclear cycle is not of the same standard as that exercised in other industries, despite the certainty of the hazards involved in the industry.


links:
www.nuclearfiles.org
www.nonukes.org

An encyclopedic list of anti-nuclear links from
the Proposition One Committee:
http://www.prop1.org/prop1/azantink.htm

[chlamor]

36. thanx

Now there are also a host of processes such as extraction, manufacturing, construction etc. that result in various forms and degrees of degradation and usually result in displacement of people, ground water contamination, cancers etc. Sadly we are trained to look at only the end result, and as you pointed out the end result isn't so peachy. There have been millions of deaths caused by nuclear poisonings in various places and as Rosalie Bertell points out we probably don't know the half of it.

Who lives downstream-Who lives downwind

[jpak]

16. Not really

The same gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plants used to produce A-bombs during the Manhattan Project were also used to enrich uranium for commercial reactor fuel.

Gaseous diffusion was later supersceded by gas centrifuge enrichment - and it can produce either weapons-grade or fuel-grade enriched uranium.

The same chemical methods used to extract plutonium from irradiated uranium (target planchets or fuel) in the Manhattan project (PUREX) is the same method used today to reprocess plutonium for weapons (Israel, India, North Korea and the other Nuclear Powers) or for mixed oxide (MOX) reactor fuel.

The US light water reactor program was a direct descendant of the US naval reactor program.

In the US, TVA reactors are used to produce tritium for the US nuclear weapons program, and weapons-grade plutonium and uranium are being blended down into reactor fuel.

And Al Queda can turn commerical nuclear reactors into weapons of mass destruction (an attack against an operating nuclear reactor or spent fuel pool would produce a Chernobyl-sized disaster).

To (sorta)quote Condi Rice "who would ever think they would do that?"

Anyway you look at it, nuclear technology is dual use...

[phantom power]

18. Yes, but not all reactor designs can produce weapons grade output

As I understand it, the particular tech under consideration by Iran is of the type that doesn't yield any output useful for weapons.

Furthermore, the fuel and waste of the plants is to be monitored, and so it seems like effective precautions are in place, even if there were potential for mis-use of the waste.

[jpak]

19. Uranium gas centrifuges can produce bomb-grade uranium (HEU)

just as easily as they can produce fuel-grade uranium.

The spent fuel from the Iran's Russian-made reactor can be reprocessed to produce plutonium for weapons as well.

Only a rigorous intrusive inspection regime can prevent the Iranians from producing HEU (or Pu) for weapons.

[underthedome]

5. People here now defending Iran, a terror state, to have nuclear access

Iran supports terror against Israel, why are there people who defend Iran over this?

[chlamor]

8. Don't include me in that

I do not support Iran getting nuclear. However if Israel were serious they would begin to decommission their programs. They could lead by example. They could then join the world community to pressure the US to do the same.

There is not a shred of legitimacy for the US Gov't or Israel Gov't on the Nuclear issue(s) due to their massive build-ups.

[jayfish]

9. What Right Does The USA Have To Stop Any Country From...

developing nuclear power?

Jay

[Nihil]

15. Now try reading your own post but this time ...

... with the words "Iran" and "Israel" swapped over ...

> Israel supports terror against Iran, why are there people who defend
> Israel over this?

The one major difference (of course) being that Israel has had illegal
nuclear weapons for decades.

But don't let that get in the way of your fishing ...

[underthedome]

20. Israel is using terror against Iran?

Please cite some sources.

[Charles19]

25. Here's a Couple

Threating to bomb their country.

Threatening to destroy Al-Aqsa, third holiest site in Islam.

[underthedome]

26. Actually you are wrong not once but twice.

Israel has made no threat against Iran to use these bombs in fact Sharon has said there are no plans to attack Iran and just because a citizen in Israel questions if the purchase was a symbolic warning to Iran does not make it a threat.

Your 2nd example is about a group of extremists which the Israel police force banned from going to the religious site and in fact set up road blocks (hundreds of extra police were called on duty) so they could not get to it and did not get it, how the F is that an Israeli threat?

Iran openly calls for Israel's destruction and gives support to terror groups. In the furture please don't distort the facts when trying to prove a point that is incorrect to begin with (especially with examples to easy to debunk). Thank you, utd.

[Zhade]

28. No, Sharon has said Israel won't attack UNILATERALLY.

When you correct someone, you should actually be correct (in this case, you're not).

[underthedome]

31. No, actually he said Israel was not planning any military attack on Iran

So really you ought to follow your own advice before handing it out to others. Go grab ther CNN transcript rather than an ap article.

[Zhade]

27. We're the #1 terrorist state - I presume you support reducing our WMD?

Iran has a reason to be paranoid and seek weapons - the army next door in Iraq.

I don't like it, but I sure as hell can understand why they'd want something to ensure they don't get invaded illegally, too.

[IranianDemocrat]

29. Nuclear Power is the Right of Every Country.

The United States has already shown the ability to indiscrimately use atomic weaponry against a civillian population. Where is the outcry over that?

[underthedome]

32. Your bringing up the use of the bomb during WWII?

I don't understand the argument here and what it has to do with Iran's quest for the Bomb.

[IranianDemocrat]

33. Easy

Iran has no plans for nuclear weaponry, nor has shown the capability towards using any WMD. However, the United States has already shown it will use atomic weaponry against a civillian population. Shouldnt that bother you more?

[underthedome]

34. Two different subjects

The use of the bomb during WWII is a debate all its own. One side argues that it’s use saved millions by avoiding nasty ground battles and traditional fire bombings by ending the war early while others say it was used towards the end of the war for political reasons. I’m not going to debate that issue in this thread though.

What I'm concerned with is that fact that Iran openly calls for Israels destruction and supports terror activity against Israel. Iran sits atop one of the world’s largest oil reserves in the world and have rejected energy incentives if they give up the program, thus the claim they have no plans to use make nuclear weaponry does not sit well with me.

Another angle is if Iran does make a bomb it will give credence to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike and the EU as well as the UN will lose any credibility as their calls for diplomacy made way for another nuclear state. I don’t want this to happen.

[rugger]

38. Iran a "terror state" according to US Israeli apologists

What basis does the US have for calling Iran a terror state? Basically, because Iran supports Hezbollah, an organization created to fight the TERRORIST expansion of Israeli military into Lebanon. Hezbollah has never attacked the US, only Israel and its interests.

Here is the double standard, and why the Middle East hates the US. If uniformed soldiers with tanks and planes kill 1000 civilians, even as collateral damage, it's called a retaliatory or pre-emptive strike. Yet if a Civilian kills 3 people with a suicide or car bomb it's terrorism. The middle easterners are carrying out a war with the only means at their disposal, they do not have a military to confront the US supported Israeli military. They have no addressal at the UN, all other legitimate means havce been denied, although the rest of the world resoundly criticizes Israeli actions, has passed numerous resolutions against Israel, these resolutions are either ignored or vetoed by the US at the UN.

[CWebster]

13. Can't say I blame them

just to keep the US at bay.

[NNN0LHI]

14. The USA planned on building 23 nuclear reactors in Iran. Weird huh?

http://www.answers.com/topic/iran-s-nuclear-program

The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid in the 1960 under auspices of the US within the framework of bilateral agreements between the two countries. In 1967 the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was built and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a US supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor. Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place plans were drawn by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Iran's King) to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with USA by the year 2000.

By 1975, The US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels of oil a day, compared with an average of about 4 million barrels daily today.

President Gerald R. Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle".

The shah, who referred to oil as "noble fuel," said it was too valuable to waste on daily energy needs. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

Numerous contracts were signed with various western firms, and the German firm Siemens began construction on the Bushehr power plant. Work was halted with the 1979 Iranian Revolution and Siemens withdrew from the project. Shortly afterwards Iraq invaded Iran and the nuclear programme was stopped until the end of the war. In 1990, Iran began to look outwards towards partners for its nuclear programme; however, due to a radically different political climate and punitive US economic sanctions, few candidates existed. In 1995 Iran signed a contract with Russia to resume work on the half complete Bushehr plant. It was not until 2002 that the USA began to question Iran's nuclear intentions after the MKO revealed the existence of the Natanz and Arak facilities.

[adigal]

17. Perhaps Ritter/Hersch were right about June??

Is this the preamble to our invasion of Iran??? I wonder how Americans will react if we send jets over and we bomb them? Will they be happy, like they were with the invasion of Iraq? Or will they realize Bush failed again, as he did with North Korea?

[CHIMO]

30. Pentagon Papers Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg Blasts U.S. Nuclear Prolifer

Pentagon Papers Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg Blasts U.S. Nuclear Proliferation Policies


DANIEL ELLSBERG:.........
..........The United States, the world's richest power, has made it clear that we're quite in favor of proliferation to our friends, if you're friendly with us..............

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/03/1357233

It's not what you know but who you know.

[kineneb]

35. Ok, the leadership of Iran are rats.

But then you have to look at where they are located: they now have US occupation armies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan has the bomb as does India, Russia and China. They don't like the way Israel has treated the Palestinian people, which is, one has to say is savage. Given these realities, wouldn't you be just a little paranoid if you were in Iran today?

[plasticsundance]

37. Memo: The US doesn't wear a white hat.

The US used Islamist fundamentalist to thwart the communist influence in Iran, just as the US did in Iraq. The latter gave rise to the power of Saddam. You can also include Afghanistan on that list. The US has committed some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity, including the millions of civilians killed in Vietnam:

Translation


The Hanoi government revealed on April 4 that the true civilian casualties of the Vietnam War were 2,000,000 in the north, and 2,000,000 in the south. Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded in 21 years of war. These figures were deliberately falsified during the war by the North Vietnamese Communists to avoid demoralizing the population.
End Translation

Note: Given a Vietnamese population of approximately 38 million during the period 1954-1975, Vietnamese casualties represent a good 12-13% of the entire population. To put this in perspective, consider that the population of the US was 220 million during the Vietnam War. Had The US sustained casualties of 13% of its population, there would have been 28 million US dead.

Casualties - US vs NVA/VC

Now, should we mention Latin America? Should we mention the current abuse by the US in Iraq? Plu-eeze, cut the pretentious pious self-righteous tone.

Yes nations with power conspire to maintain power, and will do some rather nefarious activities to retain that power, even to conspire with each other at the expense of all the populaces. If we are to be a voice of change and peace, we should do it in our own backyard. Yes, this is leading by example, and taking responsibility for the actions of our own nation. Or in the words of Thomas Jefferson: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"

These other nations will develop their technologies whether one pouts about it or not. They will not live in an era where everything defaults to the US and the West in general. Those days are over, so get use to it. This simple brick-on-the-head-realization has not dawned on the neocons.