PLXTO

Iran has expanded sensitive nuclear work: U.N. agency

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Not that I think anyone is surprised....

OTB


Iran has expanded sensitive nuclear work: U.N. agency

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran has sharply stepped up its controversial uranium enrichment drive, the U.N. nuclear agency said on Friday in a report that will further inflame Israeli fears the Islamic Republic is pushing ahead with atomic bomb plans.

The nuclear watchdog also gave details of its mission to Tehran this week where Iran failed to respond to allegations of research relevant to developing nuclear arms - a blow to the possible resumption of diplomatic talks that could help calm worries about a new war in the Middle East.

"The Agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a quarterly report about Iran issued to member states.

Iran's increase of work that can have both civilian and military purposes underlines that it has no intention of backing down in a long-running dispute with the West that has sparked fears of war.

U.S. crude futures extended a rally on the IAEA's findings, which added to concerns that Iran's tensions with the West would escalate. It gained more than $2 to hit the highest intraday price in nine months.

The White House said the IAEA report confirmed that Iran was violating U.N. Security Council resolutions with its nuclear enrichment program.

"When combined with its continued stonewalling of international inspectors, Iran's actions demonstrate why Iran has failed to convince the international community that its nuclear program is peaceful," White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.

In what would be a big expansion, Iran has increased the number of centrifuge machines enriching uranium - material that can be used to make atomic bombs if refined much further - by well over a third since late last year, the report indicated.

Preparatory work to install thousands more centrifuges is under way, potentially shortening the time needed to make high-grade uranium for nuclear weapons.

Tehran says its nuclear program is exclusively for civilian purposes, but its refusal to curb enrichment has drawn increasingly tough sanctions on its oil exports.

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA said the report had vindicated its position and insisted Tehran had no intention of giving up its nuclear march.

"The IAEA report indicated that all Iran's nuclear activities are under the supervision of the agency," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Ali Asghar Soltanieh as saying.

"It shows again that Iran's nuclear activity is peaceful."

DUTY

Israel, which has threatened Iran with pre-emptive strikes on its nuclear sites, had no immediate comment.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak has warned that the Islamic state's nuclear research could soon pass into what he called a "zone of immunity," protected from outside disruption.


The European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, said the IAEA report increased concerns over the real purpose of Iran's nuclear program.

Ashton, who represents the United States, Russia, China, Germany, France and Britain in stalled talks with Iran, also urged Tehran to cooperate fully with the IAEA.

"The findings of this new IAEA report contribute to further increased concerns on the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program," Ashton's spokeswoman said.

"Iran has to address all existing concerns and to build confidence in the nature of its nuclear program."

The confidential IAEA report showed that Iran since last November had tripled monthly output of uranium refined to a level that brings it significantly closer to potential bomb material, an official familiar with the agency's probe said.

"The concern is that they are trying to give the impression that they are putting in the capability that could much more quickly make weapon-grade uranium," nuclear proliferation expert David Albright said.

"This could all be posturing to show further defiance, but unfortunately it does concern many countries about what is Iran planning." Albright added that Iran seemed to have problems developing newer and more efficient centrifuges.

NUCLEAR WORK IN BUNKER

The failure of the two-day IAEA visit to Tehran this week could hamper any resumption of wider nuclear negotiations between Iran and the six world powers as the sense grows that Tehran feels it is being backed into a corner.

The IAEA team sought answers from Iran raised by a previous agency report in November that suggested it had pursued military nuclear technology. Those findings helped to precipitate the latest sanctions by the EU and United States.

Making clear the two sides had been far apart, the IAEA report said there were major differences on how to tackle the issue and that Iran had dismissed the U.N. agency's concerns as "unfounded." No further meetings are planned.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano urged Iran in the report to provide "early access" to Parchin, a military site near Tehran seen as central to the agency's investigations into possible military aspects of Iran's nuclear work.

His agency's report showed Iran had carried out an expansion of activities both at its main enrichment plant near the central city of Natanz and at the Fordow underground site.

Enriched uranium can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, which is Iran's stated aim, or provide material for bombs if refined much further, which the West suspects is Tehran's ultimate plan.

At Natanz, the IAEA report said Iran had declared that 52 cascades - each containing about 170 centrifuges - were now operating, up from 37 in November. At Fordow, about 700 centrifuges are now refining uranium to a fissile concentration of 20 percent and preparations are under way to install more.

Fordow is of particular concern for the West and Israel as Iran is shifting the most sensitive aspect of its nuclear work, 20 percent enrichment, to the site.

Estimated to be buried beneath 80 meters (265 feet) of rock and soil, it gives Iran better protection against any Israeli or U.S. military strikes.

Nuclear bombs require uranium enriched to 90 percent, but Western experts say much of the effort required to get there is already achieved once it reaches 20 percent concentration, shortening the time needed for any nuclear weapons "break-out."

The IAEA said Iran had now produced nearly 110 kg (240 pounds) of uranium enriched to 20 percent since early 2010. Western experts say about 250 kg (550 pounds) are needed for a nuclear weapon, although it would need to be enriched much further.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
20% is already well beyond what is needed for nuclear power, so why is anyone even debating what Iran is doing? The only real reason they would enrich that far is military, the idea it is for nuclear power is ludicrous.

Power plants run on uranium enriched to just 4% you would have to be wilfully stupid to believe Iran had any peaceful reason produce a large quantity of highly enriched uranium. There is really only one use for it in such large quantities.

Boom.
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
Iran: IAEA report proves "peaceful nature" of nuclear programme

Iran on Friday said the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on its nuclear programme proves it is of a peaceful nature, Tehran's envoy to the UN nuclear watchdog, Ali-Asqar Soltanieh said.
'The latest IAEA report again showed the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programmes and further reflected the progress Iran achieved in nuclear technology,' Soltanieh was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency.
According to the IAEA report released Friday, Iran has tripled its capacity to enrich uranium to elevated levels and doubled the number of centrifuges for enriching to 20 per cent at its fortified underground site at Fordo.
Iran is suspected by Western powers of building a nuclear weapon, for which high-grade enriched uranium is needed.
Soltanieh said the items mentioned in the latest IAEA report had already been announced earlier by Iranian officials who had confirmed production of 95.4 kilograms of 20 per cent and 5,441 kg of 5 per cent enriched uranium by Iran.
He added that not granting the visiting IAEA team access to the Parchin military complex in south-eastern Tehran was due to technical modalities but could be settled through further negotiations.
He also said that Iran was committed to both international nuclear regulations and continued cooperation with the IAEA 'but Tehran will not make any concessions over its rights to pursue peaceful nuclear programmes.'
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1692748.php/Iran-IAEA-report-proves-peaceful-nature-of-nuclear-programme
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,183
9,885
113
Toronto
And there you are Groggy, Iran on Friday said. The heck to what was actually said by the U.N.
You must learn how it works.

If the U.N. says something bad about an Arab state, then groggy uses a source other than the actual U.N. which twists what the U.N. really said, i.e. that Iran refuses to consent to 65 U.N. requests.

When the U.N. never declares that Israel is apartheid he quotes an individual who is in the U.N. but is not a valid spokesperson as to the official U.N. policy.

It's all about spinning for the sake of spreading hate, a tried and true method used by Hitler and the Nazis who had the same agenda for the Jews that grogs has.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Peaceful? I guess groggy is one of those wilfully stupid people. Nobody enriches large quantities if uranium to 20% for peaceful reasons.
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
It's all about spinning for the sake of spreading hate, a tried and true method used by Hitler and the Nazis who had the same agenda for the Jews that grogs has.
I think I'm going to have to report this post to the mods.
To accuse me of spreading hate in a post in which you accuse me of promoting genocide is too much.
That's just way beyond heinous.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
Hello again Ladies!
I have some free time & what better way to spend it than to share some facts with fact-lovin' people:

There is a legimate need for 240 lbs of 20% enriched uranium that has nothing to do with a weapons program.
The Teheran Research Reactor was a gift from the US to the Iranians under the Shah back in the late '60's. It initially ran on 90% enriched fuel, which ran out in the early '90's, at which time Argentina agreed to redesign the core to use lower-grade fuel, and to supply Iran with that fuel - 19.75% enriched.
About 2009-ish, that fuel supply was running low and there was a tentative deal between Iran & Russia, approved by the IAEA, for Russia to re-process Iran's declared stock of 3% up the the 20% required for the TRR.
BTW, did I mention that the TRR produces medical isotopes used in the diagnoses and treatment of certain illnesses? It seems that Iranians are still people who get sick and that their gov't, while not the best gov't available or possible for them to have, still wants its people to be treated for illnesses.
Here's some technical spec on the TRR:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/Tehran_reactor_note_7Oct2009.pdf

There can be a legimate need for uranium enriched to 20%
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,291
6,661
113
I guess something like CANDU reactors that run on lower than 2% enrichment is out of the question.

I hope that as evidence mounts about Iran's activities, you will be willing to change your position and not pull some kind of grog like blame game.

It will still be reasonable (and positive) to advocate against a military strike but when all sources doubt Iranian claims of non-weaponization, it's disingenuous to continue justifications.


Oh - recent news
Medical isotopes possible without a nuclear reactor
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...l-isotopes-possible-without-a-nuclear-reactor

Also funny (at least in respect to your argument) is that Canada has created much of the world's supply of medical isotopes without enriching uranium itself.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
The Teheran Research Reacto
It doesn't need the quantities of enriched uranium that Iran is producing for that purpose. A research reactor runs on relatively small quantities. There's only really one reason to enrich the quantities that Iran is enriching. Boom.
 
Last edited:

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
I guess something like CANDU reactors that run on lower than 2% enrichment is out of the question
Who said its out of the question? The Pickering Plan proposes pretty much giving them a reactor, and fuel, & expertise. Right now, with every Republican hopeful (except one) calling anything other than attack plans "appeasement", such a plan wont ever get off the ground. Gotta build some trust & goodwill, and both sides (Rep vs Dem, as well as US vs Iran) are going to have to try to accomodate a little bit.

I hope that as evidence mounts about Iran's activities, you will be willing to change your position and not pull some kind of grog like blame game.
Sure, but that cuts both ways. I try to be totally objective on these things & stick to the facts and the expert analysis of evidence rather than emotional responses. Sometimes the facts don't support my opinions, sometimes they do. And that there are uses for 20% enriched uraniuam other than making bombs is a fact.

It will still be reasonable (and positive) to advocate against a military strike but when all sources doubt Iranian claims of non-weaponization, it's disingenuous to continue justifications.
When all peaceful efforts have been tried and failed, and there's sufficient evidence that Iran is actually building a bomb, it may be time for a military option. But all efforts haven't been tried, rather its been a "more of the same & this time they'll break" case of wishful thinking. IMO their needs to be a gamechanging initiative, like Nixon with China for example. And there's just not enough current evidence of weaponization to justify the level of military action that will be required to remove that threat (not just postpone it a few years).


Oh - recent news

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...l-isotopes-possible-without-a-nuclear-reactor

Also funny (at least in respect to your argument) is that Canada has created much of the world's supply of medical isotopes without enriching uranium itself.
I was aware of that from a few days ago. Lets see if the int'l community is willing to put it on the table in a way that can work with Iran's stated goal of a nuclear energy program. Work for the diplomats, not the generals (armchair or otherwise)
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,291
6,661
113
Who said its out of the question? ...
Well it seems Iran is against it (which I think is the key problem).

I was aware of that from a few days ago. Lets see if the int'l community is willing to put it on the table in a way that can work with Iran's stated goal of a nuclear energy program. Work for the diplomats, not the generals (armchair or otherwise)
You seemed to ignore my point that Canada produces the majority of the world's medical isotopes without the need of enriching uranium. Why would Iran not be able to do the same (or even buy Canadian)?


It is pretty obvious that Iran has many many options for nuclear power and isotopes that do not involve their massive enrichment program and yet they refuse to agree to any of them.

Yes, bombing Iran is stupid but so is denying the path that Iran seems to be on.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Sometimes the facts don't support my opinions, sometimes they do. And that there are uses for 20% enriched uraniuam other than making bombs is a fact.
So here's a fact:

The research reactor that Iran runs is a small thing that only requires about 7 kilograms of nuclear fuel. Meanwhile Iran has already enriched well over 100 kilograms of the stuff.

There is only one thing they would be doing with that much enriched uranium, and it is not powering their miniature research reactor.
 
Last edited:

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
Here's the headline from Saturday's NY Times:
U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb
Even as the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said in a new report Friday that Iran had accelerated its uranium enrichment program, American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=2

I suggest that anyone who wants to post on this thread to at minimum read through the wiki page on Iran's nuclear industry. Its quite a good reference page.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

Also of interest, is a memo that's come out from 2005. Its basically a carbon copy of the warnings and threats from Israel, 7 years earlier, suggesting that Iran was an existential threat and only a year or so from building the bomb. These threats and warnings are very stale.

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05TELAVIV1593.html
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
The nyt article reiterates that Iran is building the capability but had deferred the decision as to whether to put the pieces together. Plainly unacceptable behaviour that is in flagrant violation of the UNSC resolutions.

While groggy cheers on the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a nasty dictatorship the rest of the world needs to ratchet up the pressure to achieve compliance.

As I've said simple bombing of the facilities will not stop the program. Increasingly severe financial penalties, blockade if it becomes necessary, are the only sure ways to persuade Iran to comply with the law.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
You seemed to ignore my point that Canada produces the majority of the world's medical isotopes without the need of enriching uranium. Why would Iran not be able to do the same (or even buy Canadian)?
I thought I addressed it, but apparently not to your satisfaction. I'll try again. Here's some relevent quotes from your article:

"VANCOUVER—Canadian scientists say they have developed a technique to produce medical isotopes in hospitals and clinics without the need for a nuclear reactor.The announcement, on the final day of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting in Vancouver, could signal the end to a crisis that has shaken up the medical community, politicians in Ottawa, and patients throughout Canada............................The process of developing the medical isotopes through a particle accelerator known as a cyclotron has been done for four decades but not on a commercial scale.
Adjustments made to the cyclotron now enables scientists to write a recipe to produce the finished isotopes which will make it no longer necessary to ship the raw materials to the U.S.
We have now successfully performed this process at the commercial scale,” said Paul Schaffer, head of nuclear medicine at TRIUMF.
“We’ve delivered a proof of concept.......................................B.C. Cancer Agency researcher François Bernard said it was previously thought that it would be too costly to produce the isotopes outside of a nuclear reactor but the new process has challenged that notion".

I'd have to say that you misread the article. Canada has been producing isotopes the conventional way (via enrichment):

Two ageing nuclear reactors produce about 75 per cent of the global supply of medical isotopes. One of them, the reactor in Chalk River, Ont., about 180 kilometres north of Ottawa, produces 40 per cent of the supply of the raw materials needed to produce the isotopes.
The reactor previously produced about half the North American supply of molybdenum-99, which decays into the technetium-99m isotope used in the majority of nuclear medicine procedures like diagnostic imaging and cancer treatments.
Chalk River produced the molybdenum-99 and shipped it to two processing centres in the United States, which then shipped the finished isotopes back to Canada.

There is now an advancement in an existing process that was previously considered too costly for large-scale applications. SO, like I already said (and hopefully don't have to say a third time), will the int'l community put this on the table for Iran to consider? Why would Iran not be able to do the same? If the new process was shared with them, they probably could. But as it stands, they have an existing reactor that is configured for 19.75%, and thats what they're producing. Surprisingly, they don't want to be overly dependent on foreign sources for what they consider essential materials.


It is pretty obvious that Iran has many many options for nuclear power and isotopes that do not involve their massive enrichment program and yet they refuse to agree to any of them.

Yes, bombing Iran is stupid but so is denying the path that Iran seems to be on.
There's been lots of back & forth regarding deals made and cancelled both both parties. Iran has refused lots of deals offered them, but in a similar vein, the few deals they have agreed to have been cancelled by others. If you needed firewood to heat your home, and MegaWood Int'l would only sell you firewood at terms you didn't feel were in your best interest, would you do so if there were alternatives? If SmallCo agreed to supply your firewood on terms you both agreed upon, would you get pissed if Megawood cancelled the transaction? At what point would you decide that you'll just start chopping your own firewood?
Any escalation of military action against Iran at this point would very likely be very counterproductive. The expert consensus is that although Iran has done the research on nuke weapons, they have NOT fully decided on the actual development..............think of it this way, the path Iran has been on now has a fork; they can go left, or they can go right, or they can stay exactly where they are. Some folks believe its obvious that Iran will veer hard left and build nukes, and those folks are proposing actions that will very likely push Iran to the left. IMO, the continued application of policies that over 30 years have not changed Iranian goals or behaviour is like having them stay in the same place, not moving either direction. The smartest course of action at this time is to prod them to the right, and that'll likely best be achieved throught carrots and sticks. That's not anti-Israel or pro-Iran, thats reality.

Have a good day!
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,291
6,661
113
I thought I addressed it, but apparently not to your satisfaction. I'll try again. Here's some relevent quotes from your article:
...
Not really on the topic that I was discussing.

Canada produces a significant amount of medical isotopes without enriching Uranium. Canada produces significant amounts of nuclear power without enriching uranium.

Iran is meanwhile choosing to ignore all other options, enriching uranium far more than is required for peaceful purposes, and researching nuclear weapons systems. How many logical conclusions could be drawn?
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
So Groggy if a State has stockpiled huge quantities of the two chemicals needed for a binary nerve agent will you still be arguing that since they haven't actually been mixed which only occurs when the shell is fired that they don't have nerve agent?
 
Last edited:

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
The smartest course of action at this time is to prod them to the right, and that'll likely best be achieved throught carrots and sticks. That's not anti-Israel or pro-Iran, thats reality.

Have a good day!
Exactly the same case I've been trying to make.

Much better then this:
Oil prices could hit $150 a barrel if Israel attacks Iran
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/oil-prices-could-hit-150-a-barrel-if-israel-attacks-iran/article2350286/

We have a choice.
We could negotiate and work out a fair deal with Iran, which is quite possible.
Or, Israel can attack, causing deaths, possible large scale war, possible nuclear contamination, possible end of the NPT, possible worldwide recession with only the very slightest hope of delaying Iran's nuclear industry, in fact an attack would almost certainly lead to their development of a bomb for self defense.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
The expert consensus is that although Iran has done the research on nuke weapons, they have NOT fully decided on the actual development..............think of it this way, the path Iran has been on now has a fork; they can go left, or they can go right, or they can stay exactly where they are.
A guy breaks into you house with a loaded gun, and threatens your family. He has not yet decided to shoot. Do you?
 
Toronto Escorts