posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 03:31 PM
After I was discussing in another thread about the North Korea issue; it came to my attention that something isnt right. Today, I saw a story on
reuters at about ten A.M (eastern) stating that the IAEA could not confirm whether or not North Korea, had in fact, detonated a nuclear device last
monday. Heinonen(the deputy director of safegaurds at the IAEA) stated:
"I don't think that anyone on the earth - except the North Koreans - know at this point in time how much material was used for this explosion,"
said Olli Heinonen, Deputy Director of Safeguards at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Also, I noticed a couple things in the article:
Putting IAEA inspectors back into North Korea would be the only way to establish the facts, he said.
A U.S. official said on Friday preliminary U.S. intelligence analysis showed radioactivity in air samples collected near a suspected North Korean
nuclear test site.
Now, right after this article appeared another article hit the pages saying just the opposite:
U.S. says N.Korea's test was nuclear
Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:53am ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government said on Monday that the test conducted by North Korea on October 9 was a nuclear explosion of less than one
"Analysis of air samples collected on October 11, 2006, detected radioactive debris which confirms that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear
explosion," the director of national intelligence said in a statement.
The statement said the explosion yield was less than a kiloton. By comparison, the nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945
was about 12.5 kilotons.
The announcement last week by the reclusive communist state that it had tested a nuclear bomb sharply escalated world concerns over North Korea's
So how can the US know
what the IAEA cannot officially confirm; that the test was in fact
In order to know what sample the US govt. is referring to we have to understand exactly what procedure(s) are used in obtaining the criticle
information used to determine if it was a genuine nuclear test.
The International Monitoring SystemThe International Monitoring System has a global reach with a total of 321 monitoring stations in 92 countries.
It uses four different technologies to monitor all possible test-ing environments underground, in the oceans and in the atmosphere. ➊ The seismic
network, consisting of 50 “primary” sta-tions that report all data on line and 120 “auxiliary” stations from which data can be requested, is
the main tool to moni-tor underground explosions. ➋ Only 11 hydro-acoustic stations are needed to monitor the oceans as signals in the water are
transmitted with very little attenuation over global distances. ➌ A network of 60 infra-sound stations is designed to monitor explosions in the
atmosphere. They detect acoustic signals with frequencies far below what the human ear can detect. ➍ The fourth component of the international
monitoring system is the radionuclide network consisting of 80 sta-tions to detect radioactive particles, 40 of which are also equipped to detect
xenon, a radioactive noble gas. The purpose of the radionuclide stations is to monitor the unique radioactive fallout that might emerge from a nuclear
explo-sion in any environment. To analyze data from the radionu-clide stations, 16 globally distributed laboratories consti-tute part of the
system.Data from the monitoring stations around the world are transmitted on-line to the international data center at the PTS in Vienna. Modern
communications and computer technology make it possible to bring together and analyze the large amount of data created by monitoring stations. At the
data center, information from individual stations is analyzed together to detect and locate the source of the sig-nal. This is a most complex process
involving automatic sig-nal processing and analysis by well-trained experts. States are provided with the results of this analysis as well as the raw
data for their assessment
As far as I know; this is the only method used to obtain these results.
So that being the case; why is the US government saying it has confirmed the test while the IAEA has hesitated in doing so, claiming "Putting IAEA
inspectors back into North Korea would be the only way to establish the facts." and given that they obtained their results from the same source; the
PTS(Provisional Technical Secretariat) the data center where the IMS stations feed their information.
If this is not
where the US govt has gotten its information; then where?
what do you guys think?
Special thanks to TONE23 who helped me prepare and arrange this thread...