It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tehran plans nuclear weapon test.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
urrm, didnt saddam allow access to ALL factories?
where as IRAN didnt?

doesnt sound like there helping, compared to the PREVIOUS IAEA incidents.

fool me once, shame on you, fool me again, shame on me
They've been given access to numerous iranian military sites including parchin and allowed to take sample enviro tests from Lavizan site. Lavizan military facility is like iranian Area 51.
from Elberadei's report, it is very clear that iran did not have a nuke development program.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
And the plants that IRAN is working with, have been concluded by officials as NO WHERE NEAR large enough for civilian energy processes, yet they are the perfect size to produce NUCLEAR MATERIALS.


apparently, iran has a plan to expand and equip the iranian Natanz uranium enrichment plant with some 5000 P1 centrifuges in 2 years time. that's enough for the bushehr reactors.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
When youve got a man, whom considers himself on a mission from God, and who believes when he DIES, he'll be sent to his god with his virgins ( the greatest moment of his religous life ) then what does he care?


Look at him, even virgins won't sleep with him.

he's not in charge of the military anyway.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
why not remove israel from the planet.. as he's already said is his dream...
ESPECIALLY now the world are starting to stamp there feet at him.
He knows one way or another, he's gunna get attacked by either Israel, or the western world.

well, that's the dream of almost all 1 billion muslims, to wipe israel off the map. but not nuking them off the map. from muslims' perspective, land of palestine has to return to palestinians, they are not going to scrap a piece of land coz they don't want israel to exist. not to mention, Jerusalem (Qods) is the 2nd holiest site after Mecca.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
why not destroy your mortal enemy before they have the chance.

fine, mate. go ahead. my advice to you, don't go into a war when you know you are not going to win it.

RESPECT




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I am surprised there are still people who think Iran's nuclear programm is for energy production. If this was the case there would be no problem to build so called "caramel reactors" which are able to produce energy, but are unsuited for nuclear weapons production. However the Iranian reactors are dual use reactors - the can be used for both energy and nukes. That clearly shows Iran has no intention to use them just to make electricity, they want to have nukes, period.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
I am surprised there are still people who think Iran's nuclear programm is for energy production. If this was the case there would be no problem to build so called "caramel reactors" which are able to produce energy, but are unsuited for nuclear weapons production. However the Iranian reactors are dual use reactors - the can be used for both energy and nukes. That clearly shows Iran has no intention to use them just to make electricity, they want to have nukes, period.


Please don't make such claims without proof.

Heavy water, graphite moderated reactors are used for energy, and also produce a large amount of Plutonium.

The Iranian Bushehr Light Water Reactor is NOT what you describe.

And the worry is about the enrichment facility, not the reactors themselves.

If completed the enrichment facility could produce several nuclear weapons every year if converted for that sole purpose.

As of now it could not produce a nuclear weapon in two years, but maybe in three...



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Not only can Iran build
light water reactors
instead ofheavy water ones, but they rejected on offer from Russia to have their Uranium enriched in Russian instead of Iran. For a country that claims it’s nuclear program is peaceful they sure do seem to be rejecting every offer that would legitimize that claim. I don't know how anyone can still believe in what they say, their actions and reactions prove only one thing, and its not what Iran is preaching.

And a heavy water reactor can produce weapons grade plutonium

[edit on 24-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Not only can Iran build
light water reactors
instead of heavy water ones, but they rejected on offer from Russia to have their Uranium enriched in Russian instead of Iran. For a country that claims it’s nuclear program is peaceful they sure do seem to be rejecting every offer that would legitimize that claim. I don't know how anyone can still believe in what they say, their actions and reactions prove only one thing, and its not what Iran is preaching.


You must have missed my post above.

Iran is not building a heavy water reactor.

Bushehr is a light water reactor.

They rejected a Russian offer, and all you have to do is ask Ukraine if they trust Russia as an energy supplier.[Russia shut down the gas pipeline to the Ukraine]

Why should Iran trust another nation with a poor history of integrity to do something that they could do themselves at a lower cost when they are allowed this under all international law.

Iran has the RIGHT to enrich Uranium for its light water reactors, and anything different could spell the end of the IAEA, NPT, and nuclear controls in general.

Instead of hacking at the branches, strike the root.

Reform the NPT, do not destroy it.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

You must have missed my post above.

Iran is not building a heavy water reactor.



Oh, Really? I guess all of Iran's dis-info has worked on you.


Iran Constructing the 40 MW Heavy Water Reactor at Arak Despite Calls Not to Do So by the European Union and the IAEA Board of Governors

New satelllite imagery obtained by ISIS from Space Imaging and DigitalGlobe supports the Iranian statement and other statements of unnamed sources that, "Iran has laid the foundations for the research reactor at Arak," as reported by Reuters on March 3, 2005.

The construction complicates negotiations currently underway between the European Union and Iran. The Europeans are asking that Iran abandon all uranium enrichment activities, reprocessing-related activities, and the heavy water reactor project. The Europeans have offered to replace the heavy water reactor with a light water research reactor that would be more proliferation resistant. The spent fuel from this imported reactor could be sent out of Iran, a step that Iran has agreed to do with the fuel from the Russian-supplied Bushehr power reactors.

Adjacent to the reactor construction site is the heavy water production plant, which is anticipated to supply the necessary heavy water for the heavy water reactor. The Secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, Dr. Hasan Rowhani, said on February 7, 2005 on Iranian television, "We may be able to produce heavy water soon, within the next few weeks."


February 29, 2004


February 17, 2005


February 27, 2005

Arak HWR


Irans 40MW Heavy Water Reactor
Arak Heavy Water Reactor

As you can see Iran is developing a heavy water reactor, and the articles above are all from last year, by now Iran’s Arak reactor in nearly finished. So I ask, do you still believe IRan?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

New satelllite imagery obtained by ISIS from Space Imaging and DigitalGlobe supports the Iranian statement and other statements of unnamed sources that, "Iran has laid the foundations for the research reactor at Arak," as reported by Reuters on March 3, 2005.


A small research reactor like this cannot produce very much Plutonium.

Heavy water reactors are cheaper, and safer to run than the light water reactors like they have almost finished at Bushehr.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
So, now it goes from they “are not building a heavy water reactor“ to a reactor like this “cannot produce very much Plutonium”?
Well, lets check that claim.


The 40MW heavy water research reactor is significant because it produces high quality plutonium, the most important component for a compact, nuclear device. If Iran wishes to develop a nuclear weapon small enough to launch on top of its Shahab 3 or 4 missiles, it will most probably be an implosion device with a plutonium (Pu) core.

The only way to acquire that is through reprocessing irradiated fuel. Bushehr is a light water reactor that has received much international attention and most probably will continue to be closely scrutinised, making it difficult to clandestinely remove its spent fuel for reprocessing. Even if the reactor has just as much attention, the Iranians would have a better chance of removing irradiated fuel or irradiating natural uranium targets for Pu production in this reactor.

Indeed, a heavy water reactor is among the most dangerous in existence from a proliferation perspective. One reason is that the low neutron cross section of heavy water facilitates a high number of U238 (uranium-238 isotope) atoms to absorb neutrons, resulting in the production of a greater quantity and better quality of plutonium product.
According to David Albright, Director of the Institute for Science and International Security, the IR-40 will be able to produce 8-10kg of plutonium per year – approximately one to two bombs’ worth of nuclear material. The IAEA holds that 8kg of plutonium constitutes a “significant quantity” – enough to build a nuclear weapon.

Arak HWR



Originally posted by ArchAngel
Heavy water reactors are cheaper, and safer to run than the light water reactors like they have almost finished at Bushehr.




In nuclear jargon, light water refers to plain, ordinary water. Water is used in a reactor as a moderator to slow the speed of nuetrons fired at U-235. By slowing the nuetrons, the chance of a nuetron attaching to a U-235 atom (causing fission) is increased. The advantage of using light water in a reactor is that it is both cheap and plentiful. To produce weapons-grade material from a light water plant requires an enrichment facility.

Some reactors are built to use heavy water (water whose atoms contain an extra nuetron) as a moderator. Heavy water is expensive to produce, but allows the creation of plutonium without a costly and high-tech enrichment facility. The IAEA monitors transactions involving heavy water because of the proliferation risk.

Nuclear Reactors


So, a heavy water reactor is only cheap if a plutonium enrichment facility is built, which begs the question, why does Iran need a plutonium enrichment facility? If they don't build the facility a HWR is cheaper then a light water reactor. Why is it that there are way more light water reactors then there are heavy water ones?

[edit on 24-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

So, a heavy water reactor is only cheap if a plutonium enrichment facility is built, which begs the question, why does Iran need a plutonium enrichment facility? If they don't build the facility a HWR is cheaper then a light water reactor.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by WestPoint23]


Please read your source again.

You got it backwards:


Heavy water is expensive to produce, but allows the creation of plutonium without a costly and high-tech enrichment facility.


Heavy water plants do not require URANIUM enrichment because they can be fueled with natural un-enriched Uranium metal.

Canada has proven that the tech is cheaper, and safer.

The reasons light water reactors are so common today is because the military forces of America, and the Soviets needed compact long life reactors for their navies.

Light water tech received much more early development so it became the most common.

Not because its safer, and not because its cheaper.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
A HWR allows the creation of a Weapons Grade plutonium without a “costly and high-tech enrichment facility.” Now isn't that convenient?. You build a more expensive heavy water design so you can produce weapons grade plutonium easier. I know a light water reactor requires an enrichment facility, but a HWR is more expensive to build and design, based on that the cost between the two is not that great.


The reasons light water reactors are so common today is because the military forces of America, and the Soviets needed compact long life reactors for their navies.


Is that why the US has 40+ Light Water reactors all over the country?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
A HWR allows the creation of a Weapons Grade plutonium without a “costly and high-tech enrichment facility.” Now isn't that convenient?. You build a more expensive heavy water design so you can produce weapons grade plutonium easier. I know a light water reactor requires an enrichment facility, but a HWR is more expensive to build and design, based on that the cost between the two is not that great.


Heavy water reactors are safer, cheaper, and can use natural [Non-Enriched] Uranium.

Whoever told you that Pressurized Light Water Reactors were the best alternative was mistaken.

While its true that PLWRs are the most common the reason is that the American, and Soviet military needed compact reactors that could go long periods without refueling.

The development of PLWR tech for naval use carried over to civilian power plants, and we went with what we knew best.

A very interesting article on the history here:


Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock–in
.....
Not only is the LWR used almost
exclusively in the USA today, but this type, based largely on technology developed in the USA, is being used
for about 80 percent of all the reactors built or under construction in the world today.”1 While an appropriate
decision at the time, it now seems that light water may have been an unfortunate choice. One of the interesting
features of this history is the belief held by many that light water is not the best technology, either
economically or technically. The evidence in support of this belief, while not incontrovertible, is strong
enough to support the contention that light water is not the superior technology. This suggests that other
technologies should still be present in the market.
.......
The average annual load factors of light water and gas graphite
reactors have been approximately equal at 63 percent. Heavy water reactors, however, have had an average
annual load factor of 73 percent.
......
Hugh McIntyre estimated that the heavy water Candu reactors at Pickering generate power at about 75
percent of the cost of the light water reactors of equivalent size at the Zion 2 generating station in Illinois
.15
This is consistent with analyses done by Ontario Hydro, which suggest that if Ontario Hydro had a mature light
water reactor program, the costs of nuclear electricity would be 20 to 25 percent higher than with the current
heavy water systems.


There are many reasons for developing Heavy Water Reactors including safety, cost, efficiency, and natural Uranium fuel.


Is that why the US has 40+ Light Water reactors all over the country?


Yes, it is the reason.

Heavy water reactors are cheaper, safer, and do not require enriched fuel.

Canada has proven it through years of operation.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Heavy water reactors are safer, cheaper, and can use natural [Non-Enriched] Uranium.


Look, here is what it boils down to.
A LWR is less expensive to build but requires an expensive enrichment facility.
A HWR is more expensive to build but requires no enrichment facility.
The HWR has the added bonus of producing weapons grade plutonium.

Also Canada had unique reasons that favored a HWR rather then LWR. However, besides Canada no other county has a significant amount of HWR. One would think that if they were safer and cheaper countries would be rushing to build them, this however is not happening. Even developing countries are favoring LWR.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   


The Foundation for Democracy citing sources in the U.S and Iran offered no further information.


Is that like the National Iraqi Congress that was run by chabali who said"Iraq had nukes" I think someone is making this up in order to invade Iran.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join