FLASH: Iran has removed nuclear fuel from core of Bushehr reactor, IAEA says, gives no reason

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters FLASH: Iran has removed nuclear fuel from core of Bushehr reactor, IAEA says, gives no reason Expand twitter.com...


Why would fuel be removed from a reactor?
Testing "potency" since it's new to the country?
Installation into a war-head?

Lots of questions, but IAEA has a right to know yes? That was part of the post-talks agreement?





CNN BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: U.N. nuclear watchdog: Iran not cooperating enough for agency to conclude nation is conducting "peaceful activities."
edit on 16-11-2012 by CALGARIAN because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


I don't think this is going to be a good thing!

Not for Iran anyway!



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


I would expect that they're moving it so as to keep it from being blown up in an Israeli attack on the facility. Netanyahu is on the war path and they know it.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


I would expect that they're moving it so as to keep it from being blown up in an Israeli attack on the facility. Netanyahu is on the war path and they know it.



First thing I thought of



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Fuel from a reactor can't be used in a warhead, as it's not pure enough. That's why they talk about "weapons grade" when they are talking about nuclear weapons. Nuclear plants use a combination of U-235 (3-5% in fuel) and U-238, and a nuclear warhead uses over 90% U-235 or 93% Pu-239.

The U-235 fissions easily, so they use it in reactors to start the reaction, but the levels are so low that they can't explode. You can go backwards, and make warhead Uranium into reactor fuel (you have to go through a lot of steps, but it's doable), but you can't go straight from a reactor to a warhead.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Maybe somebody sent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a Christmas card with a picture of his family as seen from a Reaper.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


It would be sufficient for a dirty bomb though!

Useless...but sufficient!



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Would it be pure enough for a 'dirty bomb'? Not that they would want to use that option though.

eta: you beat me to it
edit on 16-11-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


It would be sufficient for a dirty bomb though!

Useless...but sufficient!

Doubt a dirty bomb would ever be used. Keep in mind, they are trying to conquor the area, not destroy it for everyone forever.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jerryznv
 


Just about any uranium would be, but a dirty bomb isn't nearly as effective as the media and fear mongering folks make them out to be. Yeah, it would affect a small area pretty badly, but it wouldn't wipe out a city as people claim it would. The biggest thing with a dirty bomb is the terror involved because people are so scared of radiation.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Could this be cleaning up in case of an Israeli attack? I agree with the above poster. Although it seems to me that the only reason to do this is if they are planning on joining the attacks on Israel. I hope not. With some people against Israel and some against Palestine along with US troops told to make sure that they have everything ready, I don't like the feeling on this...



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Explain a dirty bomb please for those of us that may not know.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Ffs as if Iran are going to bother with a dirty bomb. Give them some credit

Yes they sponsor terrorists but they will give them the best missiles and conventional weapons they can, as mentioned the fall out from a dirty bomb could harm many Muslims and damage the whole area for decades



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



A dirty bomb is a speculative radiological weapon that combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. The purpose of the weapon is to contaminate the area around the explosion with radioactive material, hence the attribute "dirty".



A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for one year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high", but not fatal.


I found this surprising though!


Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.

I guess it does fit the meaning of WMD, but wow.
All above from link.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Explain a dirty bomb please for those of us that may not know.



A dirty Bomb is radioactive material including waste or more pure uranium/plutonium that is spread around and pulverized by a blast.. This irradiates an area for a long time...


I don't think this has anything to do with a dirty bomb though.. Could they not have many dirty bombs by now, just waiting around?

I wonder if their other facilities can hold the extra uranium? I'm assuming mucho extra space but who knows I also assumed world leaders were not stupid..

I think they try and hide all the radiation under a mountain somewhere... In preperation...



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


So if Israel was to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities they could actually be using their own material against them as a dirty bomb?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by superman2012
 


So if Israel was to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities they could actually be using their own material against them as a dirty bomb?


Smart man. Wouldn't be the first time Israel has bombed a nuclear facility. Operation Opera



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Tbh I don't think Israel would do this, there would be international outcry and its a war crime



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stinka
reply to post by intrepid
 


Tbh I don't think Israel would do this, there would be international outcry and its a war crime



Since when do they care about war crimes? I don't think there would be an international outcry (government level anyways) but there would be serious consequences for them.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stinka
reply to post by intrepid
 


Tbh I don't think Israel would do this, there would be international outcry and its a war crime



But hasn't Tel Aviv already said they were going to do this? While Amenanutjob talks loud I don't take his words seriously. The Israeli's on the other hand I take very seriously.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join