posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by bluemirage5
Well I hate to point out the obvious, but the reactors may be being built underground for two very simple reasons that I can think of. First and
most obvious, is that if anything were to go catastrophicaly wrong at a reactor that is underground, containment of any radiological emissions threat
would be a far simpler procedure than it would be above ground.
Secondly, if I had Israel, from the very start of my interest in nuclear power, shouting abuse and threatening to turn my reactor, and the sands
around it, to dust, glass and radiological oblivion, you can bet I would be thinking about putting the reactor WELL out of the way, where its near
impossible to target with conventional weapons, and where any potential sabotage, and its consequences, can be isolated and contained without too much
fuss or danger to public health.
I will conceed that IF Iran was interested in and involved in the production of weapons grade nuclear material, that an underground nuclear facility
would be useful, but without evidence for that, I cannot see why everyone is obsessed with the idea.
I realise fully what the ecconomic situation is in Iran, but what you seem not to grasp is that if significant portions of energy production,
currently focused on fossil fuel burning, can be achieved using nuclear reactors instead, the nation will save themselves boatloads, and be able to
sell more of thier reserves to other nations, and you still havent given me a reason to ignore this or discount it from my thinking. Significant
shifts in the economy of Iran could be made with the placement of just a few reactors.