Saturday, April 9, 2011

Iran, a Nuclear Weapons Program to Cure Disease, and Centrifuges

Maybe Iran's ayatollahs really are planning to cure incurable diseases with research reactors.

Maybe Iran has no intention at all of producing nuclear weapons.

Maybe.

Then again, maybe not.

A pacific, beneficent nuclear program - even one pursued in defiance of United Nations demands - would be a nice change of pace from "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." (October 6, 2007)

If it wasn't the same lot in charge in Tehran, I might be more willing to believe what Iranian officials said today.

From recent news:
"Iran gained another nuclear achievement as it marked the National Day of Nuclear Technology.

"The Head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Fereidoun Abbasi said on Saturday that the country is to launch a unit of Ceramic Grade Uranium Dioxide with natural purity at uranium processing firm in central city of Isfahan soon....

"...He also added Tehran and Arak research reactors enjoy unique facilities to produce medical radioisotopes for incurable diseases."
(ISNA)

"Iran's foreign minister has confirmed claims by an exiled Iranian opposition group that a factory west of Tehran is manufacturing centrifuge parts.

"Ali Akbar Salehi, quoted by the state news agency IRNA, says the facility is no secret and that many other facilities in the country are involved in manufacturing parts for Iran's nuclear program.

"Iran has long said it produces centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium, a process that the U.N. has demanded Tehran halt...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)

"...The comments by Ali Akbar Salehi came two days after the Mujahedeen-e Khalq announced at a press conference in Washington that its spies identified the factory, called the TABA facility, saying workers there produced centrifuge casings, molecular pumps, tubes and bellows for the centrifuges.

"Iran has long said it is producing its own centrifuges for its uranium enrichment program. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead...."
(Associated Press)
Related posts:
In the news:

2 comments:

CrisisMaven said...

The problem is that nuclear accident probabilities were never calculated but are pure "off the cuff" estimates, since there are no statistical data on parts or whole plant failures like e.g. in the automotive industry. And the only failures ever recodred were those never foreseen by those calculations, i.e. they are, if anything, a proof of failure of the methods themselves! Absent these data these calculations may look "precise" after a decimal point but they're like saying "once in a million years with an error margin plus or minus TEN million years". It's ludicrous! See:
The only questions you need ask your governments to end the nightmare for good are here:
http://crisismaven.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/how-i-brought-down-the-nuclear-industry-in-my-country-and-how-you-can-do-it-in-yours/

Brian Gill said...

CrisisMaven,

I'm not quite sure how you see your comment in relation to this post.

From my point of view, the risk presented by Iran's leadership is not so much an accident happening at one of their facilities, as their making good on their slogan "death to Israel." Or anybody else non sufficiently Islamic by the ayatollahs' standards.

As for nuclear reactors and other technology: I acknowledge that it's dangerous. As is every sort of technology.

I've discussed this in another blog:

"Lemming Tracks: Plutonium Perils, Poisoning the Pacific, and Getting a Grip"
Apathetic Lemming of the North (April 4, 2011)

"Seven-Point International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale: and a Ranting Lemming"
Apathetic Lemming of the North (March 16, 2011)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.