| |
|
Iranian events in plain English
BBC News -- UN hails Iran nuclear agreement
Just after sending in the 3 links (Hidden news about Iran), I noticed more articles going up on the Internet covering the deal made between Iran and the UN’s IAEA. The BBC News title rather resembles the one the Iranian news site used, so it attracted me.
According to the article, if Iran holds to the deal, a number of SIGNIFICANT questions about Iran’s nuclear work could be cleared up. Using Wikipedia articles and other non-technical articles I tried to understand what the deal involves in plain English.
First, the deal involves inspectors going to the Arak heavy water facility, which Iran says is a research reactor set up for medical and other peaceful uses. Heavy water reactors can use natural uranium and don’t require enriched uranium. It’s due for completion in 2009.
Secondly, the deal allows the IAEA to set up safeguards at the Natanz uranium enrichment
|
|
Since Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant reactor is of the pressurized light-water reactor type (the most common nuclear reactor in the world -- 358 out of 439 as of this year), it requires low-enriched uranium enriched to 3 to 5% (vs. highly enriched uranium, HEU, enriched to 90% or more for weapons), so Bush’s efforts to stop Iran from doing enrichment means they can’t run the plant.
They have a right to have it and to run it (using their own uranium) and a right to enrich uranium for it, given the agreements they have signed.
|
|
|
|
|
plant. Safeguards are basically requiring, inspecting, and verifying the records of all the nuclear materials used. The reason Iran needs this plant is that they want to produce their own “indigenously-made” nuclear fuel since they don’t want to be dependent on costly supplies from other countries that could be undependable.
There is uranium in Iran. Since Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant reactor is of the pressurized light-water reactor (PWR) type (the most common nuclear reactor in the world -- 358 out of 439 as of this year), it requires low-enriched uranium (LEU) enriched to 3 to 5% (vs. highly enriched uranium, HEU, enriched to 90% or more for weapons), so Bush’s efforts to stop Iran from doing enrichment means they can’t run the plant. They have a right to have it and to run it (using their own uranium) and a right to enrich uranium for it, given the agreements they have signed. The UN Security Council’s sanctions were to punish Iran for not stopping its enrichment efforts.
The Bushehr plant was actually backed by the US and started by the Shah in 1974, but the revolution stopped the work on the plant. Then, during the Iran-Iraq war the plant was damaged. Finally, in 1995 Russia and Iran signed a contract for a nuclear power plant with an electrical output of 1,000 megawatts (MWe) to be completed in 1999, but there have been over 8 years of delays and IT’S STILL NOT FINISHED.
That Iran does want to produce their own nuclear fuel is clear, because they have uranium mining facilities and the ability to turn the mined uranium into a powdered form, a facility to convert the powdered uranium into a gaseous form for enrichment, and then they have the Natanz plant for uranium enrichment which, when completed, is supposed to produce the fresh fuel (about 25 tons of LEU) required each year by Bushehr. However, it seems that at this time the Natanz plant has nowhere near enough equipment (e.g. centrifuges) to do this. Bushehr’s reactor will also need about 75 tons of LEU in its core to start working. When it does, it will produce heat that will become steam to drive steam turbines and electric generators. Iran also has a couple of nuclear waste storage sites.
As for Iran’s enrichment activities, what the articles seem to say is that the same equipment can produce both types of enriched uranium and that there is a direct relationship between the equipment and what can be produced. Thus, by inspecting the equipment and the records on the equipment, the possible amounts of either type can be accurately predicted. Iran has said they are producing LEU, so it should be there to be verified or if put to use, accounted for.
One thought occurs to me related to highly enriched uranium (HEU) and nuclear weapons. Surely, it’s no easy matter to go from producing HEU to producing nuclear weapons. No doubt, nuclear weapon technology itself is complex.
Finally, the BBC News article indicates that the head of the IAEA said that deals such as this could defuse the diplomatic crisis surrounding Iran. It makes you wonder if this deal is big enough to put a crimp in the warmonger’s plans. I HOPE SO.
| |
"The Bushehr plant was actually backed by the US and started by the Shah in 1974" -- I think I was aware of that, if only deep in the back of my mind, but it's good to be reminded. So the whole Bush-made controversy about Iran's nuclear ambitions is, at least in part, just more blowback.
And yes, I do think this modest change of heart from the Iranian government, allowing inspections, could interfere with Bush-Cheney's plans for complete military domination of the Middle East. And it's curious that I'm not seeing this news in American media, given the coverage it clearly deserves.
|
|
Our front page is free from nudity and profanity, but interior pages and external links may not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want it published, say so plainly. Of course, we publish all incoming hate mail.
Unknown News is more fun and more informative with your participation, so please don't be shy. Consider yourself invited to speak your mind.
|
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication.
When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever.
We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong.
You can contact Helen & Harry at <newsuneed at yahoo.com>. If that address ever fails, our back-up email address is <unknownnews at inbox.com>.
But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send the publishers of News a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else.
Please don't send attachments or other cr*p we don't want.
If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread.
If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
|
|
| |
We sell our own progressive bumper stickers:
pro-peace, anti-Bush,
pro-freedom,
anti-Republican
stickers you won't find anywhere else.
bumper stickers
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
