Operating nuclear reactors were attacked and destoryed
Tetsuo Kobayashi
--------------------------------------------------------------
January 26, 1991
We are citizens opposed to radioactive enviroment.
On January 23, 1991, Genaral Colin L, Powell announced that
U.S. and its allies have destroyed two operating nuclear reactors in
Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
Furthermore, these attacks are clearly violating the United Nation's
agreement of 1981 prohibiting any military attacks to nuclear
facilities.
The effects from these attacks are not known yet, but we can
predict some radioactive contamination in several kilometers range
around the facility.
We strongly protest to these inhuman barbarous attacks and
firmly demand these actions will never happen again.
Consumers Union of Japan Group to Measure Radioactivity in Food
Kumagaya Yomogi no Kai Decommissioning Project
Stop N-Plant Saitama Network Phasing Out From Nuclear with Tokyo Electric
Tanaka Shozo University Good-by N-Plant Tokorozawa Citizens'Group
Tanpopo no Kai Moegi no Kai
Coexit with Handicapped, Kawagoe Renga no Kai
Japan-Korea Anti-nuke Networking Bakery Yui
Women's Group to Stop War, Saitama Urawa Citizens's Union
Omiya Citizens' Group Saitama Nuclear-Free Peace News
Kunitachi Murasaki Tsuyukusa Want to Live Without N-Plant Kokubunji
From Chernobyl to Hino Studio Reef
Meguro no Sakana Anti-Nuke Delivery Group
Dendenmushi no Kai Group to Preserve the Earth
Ketobashiyama Ichizoku Kawagoe Mothers' Group
No Nukes Shimin no Kai and Its Group Pease Net News
Is Japan All Right, Shimin Rengo Fujin Minshu Club
Chieko Kurihara
--
CITIZENS' NUCLEAR INFORMATION CENTER
2-10-11 Moto-Asakusa, Taito-ku, Tokyo, Japan
TEL +81-3-3843-0596
FAX +81-3-3843-0597
Beckman
In article <30...@nttica.ntt.JP> Tetsuo Kobayashi and other Japanese
fundamentalists of the antinuclear religion write in a letter to
President Bush:
> We are citizens opposed to radioactive enviroment.
> On January 23, 1991, Genaral Colin L. Powell announced that
>U.S. and its allies have destroyed two operating nuclear reactors in
>Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
>release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.6 billion years and its radio-
activity is therefore barely detectable. The explosive part, U 235,
has a halflife of 700 million years, and its activity is therefore
nowhere near as high as that of the potassium and carbon isotopes
amply present in Mr. Kobayashi's brain and other parts of his body.
The release of radioactivity by ridding the world of Saddam's reactors
is therefore nowhere near as great as when the numerous priests of the
antinuclear religion signed under this message meet for their rituals.
I have, however, also written a letter to President Bush, though
on a different subject. In my opinion it concerns EVERY scientist to a
much more urgent degree than Kobayashi's antiscientific superstitions;
therefore I make no apologies for posting it in this group and I
appeal to you to answer the cry for help by the Baltic scientists.
Here is my letter:
Mr. President:
In response to the appeal by Estonian scientists published in the
British scientific journal NATURE of 1/17, I urge you to recognize the
democratically elected governments of the Baltic republics
immediately, and for the following two reasons:
1) All past presidents have honored the US position of not
recognizing the invasion and forceful annexation of the Baltic
republics in 1940; however, it was only during your presidency that
their peoples were able to elect their own governments. Your refusal
to recognize these governments and instead negotiate with an unelected
president of the occupying power, who allows unarmed civilians to be
massacred, therefore represents a CLEAR DEPARTURE FROM THE POLICY OF
PAST US PRESIDENTS.
2) Your assurances that the war in the Gulf (which I support) is
waged to prevent aggression against small neighbors, already made
highly doubtful by your alliance with a tyrant like Syria's Assad and
by granting Most Favorite Nation status to the Chinese butchers, lose
all credibility when compared with your policy toward the Baltic
republics. You are playing into the hands of the pacifist parasites
now demonstrating in the streets of US and European cities, who are
understandably exploiting your double standard to the hilt.
Your present high ratings in the opinion polls will not last
forever; but history's judgement on your policy toward the Baltics --
whether Ribbentrop's or Roosevelt's -- will.
Yours sincerely,
Petr Beckmann, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering,
University of Colorado
Beckman
fundamentalists of the antinuclear religion write in a letter to
President Bush:
> We are citizens opposed to radioactive enviroment.
> On January 23, 1991, Genaral Colin L. Powell announced that
>U.S. and its allies have destroyed two operating nuclear reactors in
>Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
>release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.6 billion years and its radio-
Cameron Randale Bass
>--------------------------------------------------------------
I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Bush reads netnews,
but who knows?
>Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
>release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
Au contraire. It is not necessarily so. Also, in case you missed
the justification, this action was necessary to avoid massive
release of explosive force in later years due to the products
of those reactors.
Another thing to consider is that Monsieur Hussein thought nothing
of fouling the Persian Gulf with oil, just imagine what he could
do with radioactive materials.
A good plan would be to think before letting your knee jerk.
dale bass
--
C. R. Bass cr...@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia (804) 924-7926
John G. DeArmond
> We are citizens opposed to radioactive enviroment.
> On January 23, 1991, Genaral Colin L, Powell announced that
>U.S. and its allies have destroyed two operating nuclear reactors in
>Iraq.
Well hey, why not. After all, Japan has nothing at risk in the war,
does it? Easy to be an arm-chair general when you ARE sitting in the
arm-chair on the sidelines. Methinks Japan's time to pay will
come AFTER the war when we've had time to add up the costs and assess
Japan's (lack of) participation.
Thanks for the laugh. Few and far between in this group.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga |
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it
Martin Brunecky
>In article <30...@nttica.ntt.JP> tetsuo%nttica...@relay.cs.net writes:
>
>>Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
>>release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
>
> Au contraire. It is not necessarily so. Also, in case you missed
> the justification, this action was necessary to avoid massive
> release of explosive force in later years due to the products
> of those reactors.
>
Nobody has a definitive *proof* that Saddam has *NO* nuclear bomb.
Judging from his statements, he seems to have an ace in his sleave.
Saddam is often compared to Hitler - the man who decided to leave
this world with the MAXIMUM damage he could make - even though it
made no sense to continue the war.
Now, imagine - just imagine - that Saddam will launch his ONE and
only BOMB (and it does not matter if on Baghdad or New York).
Where would all those anti-this/anti-that(mostly anti-Bush) put the
blame ?
I suspect their answer is: "US IMPERIALISMUS"....
--
=*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*=
Martin Brunecky {...}sunpeaks!auto-trol!marbru
(303) 252-2499 (sometimes also: mar...@auto-trol.COM )
Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404
Mike Yetsko
a mess, everybody is supposed to sit tight because there is no proof he
might use the fruit of his labor.
Right.
I have this land in Florida I'm trying to unload......
Mike Yetsko
Michael Gifford
>amply present in Mr. Kobayashi's brain and other parts of his body.
>The release of radioactivity by ridding the world of Saddam's reactors
>is therefore nowhere near as great as when the numerous priests of the
>antinuclear religion signed under this message meet for their rituals.
that the numbers at least are quite correct. However I have trouble
comparing Mr. Kobayashi's brain to Uranium of any sort. After
all, how much carbon or potassium isotopes would you need to create
the so much feared Iraqi Nuclear potential? I would also like
to know if you would like even an experimental reactor to
be blown up in your back yard..
As far as the referance to the "numerous priests of antinuclear religion"
I find it offencive for to talk of these people on merely a cultish
manner. Many in Japan have more than rights to be anti-nuclear
after the dropping of Fat man and Little Boy, which to this day
may still be killing family or loved ones who were at one
time exposed to the radiation.
On a positive note, I very much agree with the first point of your
letter to Bush, may it have some effect on events in the
Soviet Union.
These views are my own.
~S
--
Mike Gifford -- 2nd year Integrated Science Studies..
** -- I am normal.. And everyone else is wierd..
/ -- Mike_G...@cc.sfu.ca or m...@sandelman.ocunix.on.ca
\_/ -- attending Carleton University, in Ottawa..
Nick Szabo
I suppose these folks will also send a letter to Hussein about the
largest oil spill in world history? Naaah....
--
Nick Szabo sz...@sequent.com
Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter...
Raul Baragiola
>>To: Mr. George Bush, President of the United States of America
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Bush reads netnews,
> but who knows?
>
>>Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
>>release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
>
> Au contraire. It is not necessarily so. Also, in case you missed
> the justification, this action was necessary to avoid massive
> release of explosive force in later years due to the products
> of those reactors.
>
> Another thing to consider is that Monsieur Hussein thought nothing
> of fouling the Persian Gulf with oil, just imagine what he could
> do with radioactive materials.
>
> A good plan would be to think before letting your knee jerk.
>
> dale bass
>
Iraq had a reactor destroyed by Israel a few years ago. I would find it
extremely unlikely that they are making nuclear weapons in a facility
vulnerable to air attacks or that the recently bombed installations had
much military importance. I conclude this from his heavy use of decoys
and underground shielding to fool bomb raids and from a report from the
kurds (unverified, of course) that claimed that the atomic weapons plant
is hidden in the mountains.
--
Raul A. Baragiola \Internet: ra...@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
Raul Baragiola
>In article <30...@nttica.ntt.JP> Tetsuo Kobayashi and other Japanese
>fundamentalists of the antinuclear religion write in a letter to
>President Bush:
>
>> We are citizens opposed to radioactive enviroment.
>> On January 23, 1991, Genaral Colin L. Powell announced that
>>U.S. and its allies have destroyed two operating nuclear reactors in
>>Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
>>release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
>
> Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.6 billion years and its radio-
>activity is therefore barely detectable. The explosive part, U 235,
>has a halflife of 700 million years, and its activity is therefore
>nowhere near as high as that of the potassium and carbon isotopes
>amply present in Mr. Kobayashi's brain and other parts of his body.
>The release of radioactivity by ridding the world of Saddam's reactors
>is therefore nowhere near as great as when the numerous priests of the
>antinuclear religion signed under this message meet for their rituals.
>
So you think that the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor is that
small? You should not be writing about this topic.
Nico Verwer
> Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.6 billion years and its radio-
>activity is therefore barely detectable. The explosive part, U 235,
>has a halflife of 700 million years, and its activity is therefore
>nowhere near as high as that of the potassium and carbon isotopes
>amply present in Mr. Kobayashi's brain and other parts of his body.
>The release of radioactivity by ridding the world of Saddam's reactors
>is therefore nowhere near as great as when the numerous priests of the
>antinuclear religion signed under this message meet for their rituals.
Beckman is right about the radio-activity of U238 and U235, but those are not
the most dangerous materials that are released when a nuclear reactor is
destroyed.
When a nuclear reactor is functioning normally, other materials in the reactor
core and cover become radio-active, and should be treated with extreme care.
These materials, like iodine and cesium, have a short half-life. Also, they
are absorbed in human bones and organs, and can cause various forms of cancer.
As a former electrical engineer, Beckman should know better.
If he were right, there should be no reason for treating waste from nuclear
reactors with the care that is exercised now.
In Beckman's theory, the accident in the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl some
years ago would have been completely harmless.
In fact, people who lived near Chernobyl still die from the consequences of
that accident.
The area cannot be used for agriculture in the next twenty or thirty years.
Millions of tons of food had to be destroyed in large parts of Europe.
The Chernobyl disaster was first detected in Sweden, where a much higher
radio-activity than normal was detected.
I am afraid that Beckman's posting is the result not of scientific
considerations, but by his desire to desroy any country that dares to question
U.S. imperialism.
His way of glozing over the dangers that the Gulf war implies makes the
advocates of war look very foolish indeed.
> Petr Beckmann, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering,
Someone who lets propaganda prevail over science doesnt deserve his title.
--
Nico Verwer | ni...@cs.ruu.nl
Dept. of Computer Science, University of Utrecht | phone: +31 30 533921
p.o. box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands | fax: +31 30 513791
Demonstrate against the Gulf war!
Ivan Maldonado
> > Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.6 billion years and its radio-
> >activity is therefore barely detectable. The explosive part, U 235,
> >has a halflife of 700 million years, and its activity is therefore
> >nowhere near as high as that of the potassium and carbon isotopes
> >amply present in Mr. Kobayashi's brain and other parts of his body.
> >The release of radioactivity by ridding the world of Saddam's reactors
> >is therefore nowhere near as great as when the numerous priests of the
> >antinuclear religion signed under this message meet for their rituals.
> >
***************
For Information
***************
The bulk of radioactive release in a nuclear reactor comes from what
is known as "fission products". These are the by-products which arise from
the fissioning of the U-235 atom and are, by far, the leading source
of radioactivity. One can literally carry nuclear fuel "pellets"
(~97% U-238, ~3% U-235) in ones pocket *prior* to fissioning, of
course, that's illegal yet not hazardous. Following fission, which
can only take place under very specific conditions (geometrical and
material arrangements), the "fission products" are radioactive
isotopes which are hazardous and require special handling as any
other hazardous material (i.e., oil).
From unconfirmed reports I have heard, the power rating of Iraq's
nuclear reactors is of the order of 1-5 MW (thermal power). This can
be compared to a typical light water reactor (LWR = PWR or BWR) in the
US with thermal power ratings of around 3000 MW, noting that the
amount of radioactivity release would be pretty much proportional
to the thermal power rating. Now, to really put things in perspective,
just thing of all the horrible deaths and mutants walking around after
TMI (..I believe ZERO), and then note that the real concern with
Iraq's reactors is their plutonium/tritium producing capabilities,
which indeed with the proper know-how could be employed to assemble a
nuclear bomb.
-Ivan
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Guillermo Ivan Maldonado | Internet: iv...@nepjt.ncsu.edu |
| Dept. of Nuclear Engineering | BITNET : maldonado@ncsune |
| North Carolina State University |-------------------------------------
| NCSU Box # 7909 | ... que viva Quito ! |
| Raleigh. NC 27695-7909 | ... que viva el ECUADOR !! |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wilber
>Petr Beckmann writes
>>nowhere near as high as that of the potassium and carbon isotopes
>>amply present in Mr. Kobayashi's brain and other parts of his body.
>>The release of radioactivity by ridding the world of Saddam's reactors
>>is therefore nowhere near as great as when the numerous priests of the
>>antinuclear religion signed under this message meet for their rituals.
>I am not attempting to question your data, for I am sure
>that the numbers at least are quite correct. However I have trouble
>comparing Mr. Kobayashi's brain to Uranium of any sort.
Why? Do you think that radioactive materials are something mystical and
other-worldly? Why should you differentiate an atom of radioactive carbon
from an atom of radioactive uranium? Does it really matter what is
producing the radiation as long as the radiation is the same?
>After
>all, how much carbon or potassium isotopes would you need to create
>the so much feared Iraqi Nuclear potential?
He was not discussing the creation of bombs from calcium in brains. He was
comparing the radioactive effects of the two situations.
Personally, I would be much more worried about the creation of bombs in those
Iraqi facilities than the tiny amounts of radioactive material likely to
be released by bombing them.
Just think how many otters and dolphins it might kill! ;-)
>As far as the referance to the "numerous priests of antinuclear religion"
>I find it offencive
I find it offensive for people to boldly make scientifically and morally
absurd statements using a badge of "friends of humanity/the planet" as
a means of protection. I also find it offensive for people to demand
(at virtual gunpoint) that I refrain from honest activities which are
truly in my own best interest (like eating food, having a job, living in a
nice home, driving my car, etc.) all for the benefit of some rat, or slug.
>for to talk of these people on merely a cultish manner.
But they ARE cultish, don't you think? If they are, why not call them so?
>Many in Japan have more than rights to be anti-nuclear after the
They ought to be opposed to a country like Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons
shouldn't they? By the way, being opposed to nuclear power because of a
fear of nuclear weapons is pretty silly. The two are completely separate
issues in most cases and only marginally intersect in issues of proliferation.
>dropping of Fat man and Little Boy, which to this day
>may still be killing family or loved ones who were at one
>time exposed to the radiation.
May be? You may be right, but then again, I have seen very little medical
evidence to support such a claim.
Consider their fate had they been blown up by conventional bombs 50 years
ago. Which is more aweful? Instant death, or 50 years of life after the
war? Think about it.
Beckman
>So you think that the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor is that
>small? You should not be writing about this topic.
but the anti-nuke superstition mongers. As far as I know, the Iraquis
never had a working reactor since Israel, in the only successful act
of non-proliferation ever, destroyed the Osirac reactor in 1981. What they did
apparently have were enrichment facilities, perhaps by lasers, possibly
by centrifuges and perhaps even by gas jets, inefficient as the latter may
be. None of these involve anything but uranium, and I insist that the
radioactive release caused by its bombing is less than that from the
meetings at the Japanese antinuke rituals.
Petr Beckmann
new user
|>
|> >Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
|> >release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
|>
|> Au contraire. It is not necessarily so. Also, in case you missed
|> the justification, this action was necessary to avoid massive
|> release of explosive force in later years due to the products
|> of those reactors.
|>
|> Another thing to consider is that Monsieur Hussein thought nothing
|> of fouling the Persian Gulf with oil, just imagine what he could
|> do with radioactive materials.
|>
|> A good plan would be to think before letting your knee jerk.
|>
|> dale bass
Mr. Bass, I must say I agree with and appreciate your sense here. I
have not bought into a lot of this 'madman' talk, but the release of
oil into the gulf by Saddam has convinced me of his lack of conscience.
Raul Baragiola
If the reactor was not operational, then it did not produce plutonium
for a bomb, so why bother in destroying it?
An enrichment facility of any of the types you described cannot be
contained in the buildings of those reactors. If they can, they
would produce very small amounts of enriched uranium, and would
therefore pose no threat.
I do believe the iraquis are building (or have already built) nuclear
bombs, but more likely, in undergroud facilities not accesible by
air attacks, and using Plutonium or enriched Uranium obtained
illegally from the west, or from China, for instance. After all, it
shouldn't be impossible to find a few kg of plutonium when you have
billions of dollars in your military budget. A lot of money can also
buy you bomb designs and consultants from many countries around the
world, unfortunately.
james c oconnor
> In article <1991Jan28....@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
> cr...@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> |> In article <30...@nttica.ntt.JP> tetsuo%nttica...@relay.cs.net writes:
> |> >Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
> |> >release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
> |> of fouling the Persian Gulf with oil, just imagine what he could
> |> do with radioactive materials.
> |> A good plan would be to think before letting your knee jerk.
> |> dale bass
> Mr. Bass, I must say I agree with and appreciate your sense here. I
> have not bought into a lot of this 'madman' talk, but the release of
> oil into the gulf by Saddam has convinced me of his lack of conscience.
Funny how killing Kurds, invading Kuwait, beating our airmen, bombing
civilians in Tel Aviv, calling for terrorist actions around the world,
etc. wouldn't convince you the man has no conscience, yet releasing oil
into the gulf does.
I don't think that Hussein is insane, or mad, but I haven't had much
difficulty believing that he has no conscience as we would recognize it.
Releasing oil is one of his less atrocious acts. And it does make a
certain amount of sense - stirs up protest against the war from the
EnviroNazis (distinct group from those who are rationally
environmentally concerned), increases the preceived costs of continueing
the war.
Jim
rex jones
>In article <30...@nttica.ntt.JP> tetsuo%nttica...@relay.cs.net writes:
>>
>>[Japanese groups protest bombing of Iraqi nuclear reactors]
>I suppose these folks will also send a letter to Hussein about the
>largest oil spill in world history? Naaah....
One of the more interesting aspects of the oil spill is how it is being
covered by the media. We've all seen the oil washing up on shore being
linked to the terminal dumping. Now, it turs out, the media is reporting
that the terminal dumping slick has yet to reach land, and that the oil
which has washed up on the shore is from the Iraqi tankers which were
bombed by Coalition planes. Amazing. The report that none of the dumped
oil was washing up on shore came from CNN, who has been linking the two
spills via the images which are presented.
>--
>Nick Szabo sz...@sequent.com
>Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter...
--
Alt.desert-storm...the beginning of George Bush's 1992 re-election campaign
"Study war no more"--Jesse Jackson (1-14-91, from his MIT talk)
--------------------------
jon...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu -- Standard disclaimers apply....
ben a green
One of the more interesting aspects of the oil spill is how it is being
covered by the media. We've all seen the oil washing up on shore being
linked to the terminal dumping. Now, it turs out, the media is reporting
that the terminal dumping slick has yet to reach land, and that the oil
which has washed up on the shore is from the Iraqi tankers which were
No, from the Saudi storage tanks hit by Iraqi artillery.
--
Ben A. Green, Jr.
gre...@crd.ge.com
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Lorenzo Sadun
>One of the more interesting aspects of the oil spill is how it is being
>covered by the media. We've all seen the oil washing up on shore being
>linked to the terminal dumping. Now, it turs out, the media is reporting
>that the terminal dumping slick has yet to reach land, and that the oil
>which has washed up on the shore is from the Iraqi tankers which were
>bombed by Coalition planes. Amazing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the smaller slick is due to
IRAQI shelling of a Saudi oil facility, not from ALLIED bombing of
Iraqi facilities.
On a side note, has anybody in the net.readership WEAKENED his support
or opposition to the war as a result of the slick? I imagine the
supporters of the war (myself included) are saying
"This is further evidence of how evil Hussein is and how he
must be stopped at all cost",
while opponents of the war are saying
"This is further evidence of how evil and messy war is, and
how this war should never have been started",
and so everybody is feeling as self-righteous as ever. Any counter-
examples out there?
On a second side note, have the major environmental organizations
(e.g. Greenpeace) issued any denouncements of Iraq's dumping of oil
into the gulf? They were (rightly) quick and loud in denouncing Exxon
for the Valdez disaster, and if they have a smidgeon of consistentcy
they should loudly denounce Iraq now, but I haven't heard anything.
Have they been silent, or has the press just not covered their statements?
Lorenzo Sadun
anmar mirza
>From article <1991Jan29.1...@b11.ingr.com>, by pe...@mokey.ingr.com (new user):
>> In article <1991Jan28....@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>> cr...@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> |> In article <30...@nttica.ntt.JP> tetsuo%nttica...@relay.cs.net writes:
>[some text deleted]
>> |> >Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
>> |> >release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
C'mon guys, could we please move this out of sci.energy?
--
Anmar Mirza # If a product is good, # I speak only my # Space, humans next
EMT-A # they will stop making # opinions on these # goal in the race
N9ISY (tech) # it. Unless it is # subjects, IU has # for immortality.
Networks Tech.# designed to kill. # it's own. # --- me
Brent H. Besler
centrifuges for enriching uranium. Left unchecked SH probably would try
having a breeder reactor built.
Gene Gross
Hey, Mike, how about that bridge in New York!? He might also want to
consider some ocean front property in Arizona, as well. 8-) 8-)
Gene
John Wilber
>In article <1991Jan29.1...@csn.org> beck...@csn.org (Beckman) writes:
>If the reactor was not operational, then it did not produce plutonium
>for a bomb, so why bother in destroying it?
Geez. I guess you are the type who upon seeing a guy sneek into your house
with a gun in the middle of the house at night would say "If he hasn't
stolen anything yet, why should I bother calling the police?"
Do you have any doubt that he would have started producing plutonium?
Isn't it better to blow it up before the plutonium is produced rather than
after?
>An enrichment facility of any of the types you described cannot be
>contained in the buildings of those reactors. If they can, they
>would produce very small amounts of enriched uranium, and would
>therefore pose no threat.
Why would he even have an enrichment plant if it were not to produce
bombs?
James A. Houchens
>To: Mr. George Bush, President of the United States of America
.....
> We are citizens opposed to radioactive enviroment.
> On January 23, 1991, Genaral Colin L, Powell announced that
>U.S. and its allies have destroyed two operating nuclear reactors in
>Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
>release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
..... signed, lots of groups in Japan.
>CITIZENS' NUCLEAR INFORMATION CENTER
>2-10-11 Moto-Asakusa, Taito-ku, Tokyo, Japan
I was really suprised to see this coming from a group whose country was
devastated by nuclear weapons. Do they realize that these attacks were made
prevent development of an atomic capability by Iraq? Does anyone have a
doubt that Saddam would use atomic weapons given the capability.
Out best hope against future use of nuclear weapons is to prevent pro-
liferation.
-- Jim Houchens
Richard Foy
#In article <30...@nttica.ntt1.JP> tetsuo%nttica...@relay.cs.net writes:
##
##[Japanese groups protest bombing of Iraqi nuclear reactors]
#
#I suppose these folks will also send a letter to Hussein about the
#largest oil spill in world history? Naaah....
#
#
#--
#Nick Szabo sz...@sequent.com
#Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter...
As a long time member of an Amnesty International adoption group, I have
written many letters to a number of dictators, every bit as brutal as
Saddam. The collective impact of letters from many people have had the
effect of getting political prisoners released.
However I don't feel it would be worth the effort to write Hussein about
the oil spill. If he was too busy to read President Bush's letter a while
back, he is probably too busy to read anything I write now.
f...@aerospace.aero.org (Richard Foy) Standard Disclaimer
"Almost anything you do will seem insignificant, but it is very
important that you do it." -Ghandi
Jure Marn/;093091;magrad
>>nowhere near as high as that of the potassium and carbon isotopes
Subject: Re: Operating nuclear reactors were attacked and destoryed
Summary:
Expires:
References: <30...@nttica.ntt.JP> <1991Jan27....@csn.org> <1991Jan29....@Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles
Keywords:
In article <1991Jan29....@Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca> m...@Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca (Michael Gifford) writes:
>Petr Beckmann writes
>>nowhere near as high as that of the potassium and carbon isotopes
>>amply present in Mr. Kobayashi's brain and other parts of his body.
>>The release of radioactivity by ridding the world of Saddam's reactors
>>is therefore nowhere near as great as when the numerous priests of the
>>antinuclear religion signed under this message meet for their rituals.
>I am not attempting to question your data, for I am sure
>that the numbers at least are quite correct. However I have trouble
>comparing Mr. Kobayashi's brain to Uranium of any sort. After
>all, how much carbon or potassium isotopes would you need to create
>the so much feared Iraqi Nuclear potential? I would also like
>to know if you would like even an experimental reactor to
>be blown up in your back yard..
>
>As far as the referance to the "numerous priests of antinuclear religion"
>I find it offencive for to talk of these people on merely a cultish
>manner. Many in Japan have more than rights to be anti-nuclear
>after the dropping of Fat man and Little Boy, which to this day
>may still be killing family or loved ones who were at one
>time exposed to the radiation.
Let me get that straight:
a) Japan seems to be the only nation in the west really hurt
by high oil prices
b) The only plausible alternative (and much cleaner BTW) to fossil
fuels is fission produced energy
c) Many in Japan have right to detest nuclear energy
Let me then conclude that the Japanese have every right to go
and fight for themselves in Iraq and stop building their
nuclear plants. Their nuclear plants are obviously used to
make cheap (and clean) energy to make toys to sell them to
Americans, which in turn die for them and sell them their
land.
Or I got it all wrong?
--
Jure Marn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ma...@wright.seas.ucla.edu ! Kdor to bere ...
Thank you for flowers, flames and fun ! ... si zasluzi cigumi
rex jones
>jon...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (rex jones) writes:
>>One of the more interesting aspects of the oil spill is how it is being
>>covered by the media. We've all seen the oil washing up on shore being
>>linked to the terminal dumping. Now, it turs out, the media is reporting
>>that the terminal dumping slick has yet to reach land, and that the oil
>>which has washed up on the shore is from the Iraqi tankers which were
>>bombed by Coalition planes. Amazing.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the smaller slick is due to
>IRAQI shelling of a Saudi oil facility, not from ALLIED bombing of
>Iraqi facilities.
Every thing I've seen (Including a summary of a British report)
indicates that the slick which has made landfall was caused by the
bombing of Iraqi oil tankers by the Coalition forces.
>On a side note, has anybody in the net.readership WEAKENED his support
>or opposition to the war as a result of the slick? I imagine the
>supporters of the war (myself included) are saying
> "This is further evidence of how evil Hussein is and how he
> must be stopped at all cost",
>while opponents of the war are saying
> "This is further evidence of how evil and messy war is, and
> how this war should never have been started",
>and so everybody is feeling as self-righteous as ever. Any counter-
>examples out there?
>On a second side note, have the major environmental organizations
>(e.g. Greenpeace) issued any denouncements of Iraq's dumping of oil
>into the gulf? They were (rightly) quick and loud in denouncing Exxon
>for the Valdez disaster, and if they have a smidgeon of consistentcy
>they should loudly denounce Iraq now, but I haven't heard anything.
>Have they been silent, or has the press just not covered their statements?
> Lorenzo Sadun
Beckman
>If the reactor was not operational, then it did not produce plutonium
>for a bomb, so why bother in destroying it?
That's iron logic; especially from someone who tells others they should
not write on this topic.
>An enrichment facility of any of the types you described cannot be
>contained in the buildings of those reactors. If they can, they
>would produce very small amounts of enriched uranium, and would
>therefore pose no threat.
More iron logic. Again I ask: What reactors? The reactor that was
about to breed plutonium was destroyed by the Israelis in 1981. I have
not heard anything about any other reactors. The official communique said
"nuclear production facilities", not reactors, were destroyed. How big were
"the buildings of those reactors" if they don't exist? The easy way to make
a bomb is not to try to buy BOMB GRADE plutonium, but to enrich uranium. The
centrifuges (probably) or laser separation facilities or jet streams can
be hidden in a "factory" as was done with poison gas. And most important,
uranium ore is not subject to any international controls, which would be
difficult to enforce anyway. It was my understanding that Saddam used
enrichment in hopes of making a uranium bomb after his plutonium venture
failed in 1981. The amount he could make clandestinely is not limited by
wishful thinking.
Petr Beckmann
x
plutonium >
Avatar
+release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
Shows how very precious-little you actually know about reactor design!
The containment vessel would not have been damaged in the light strikes
that were done to these installations. Principle targets were the control
facility and the pump subsystems. Rest assured that the core is intact
and that the safety systems have flooded the core with cadmium salts bath
- hence nothing to be worried about.
+Furthermore, these attacks are clearly violating the United Nation's
+agreement of 1981 prohibiting any military attacks to nuclear
+facilities.
I'd be very interested to know your source for this...exactly contrary to
anything I've ever seen. Chapter and verse, old man...
+
+ The effects from these attacks are not known yet, but we can
+predict some radioactive contamination in several kilometers range
+around the facility.
+
Your "predictions" are made on what basis? Do you know the mass of the
core? Do you know the extent of the damages? Do you know how much or of
which type of fissionable fuel were in the reactor? Of course you don't!!
+ We strongly protest to these inhuman barbarous attacks and
+firmly demand these actions will never happen again.
+
You protest despite your lack of knowledge, you assume the worst...and
you have every right to. But you still sound like silly little children
in your basic ignorance. You protest because of a gut-level reaction to
the horror of war. And to the notions of a radioactive spill, tough; this
is war! I suppose your lack of involvement, your lack of commitment in
this conflict (Japan is hardly involved, despite it's heavy use (80+%) of
imported crude oil!) is a polarizing influence. Good luck, when Japan
stops importing most of it's energy supply, then I'll take your protest
seriously...till then you guys are merely another part of the global
problem. And BTW, your electronics are getting worse every year! ;-) Ciao!
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 +-------------------------+
{csun,philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!sorgatz **
(OPINIONS EXPRESSED DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF CITICORP OR ITS MANAGEMENT!)
James W. Meritt
}sa...@acf9.nyu.edu (Lorenzo Sadun) writes:
}
}>jon...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (rex jones) writes:
}
}>>One of the more interesting aspects of the oil spill is how it is being
}>>covered by the media. We've all seen the oil washing up on shore being
}>>linked to the terminal dumping. Now, it turs out, the media is reporting
}>>that the terminal dumping slick has yet to reach land, and that the oil
}>>which has washed up on the shore is from the Iraqi tankers which were
}>>bombed by Coalition planes. Amazing.
}
}>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the smaller slick is due to
}>IRAQI shelling of a Saudi oil facility, not from ALLIED bombing of
}>Iraqi facilities.
}
}Every thing I've seen (Including a summary of a British report)
}indicates that the slick which has made landfall was caused by the
}bombing of Iraqi oil tankers by the Coalition forces.
Than might I recommend that you look some more? Given that after a
couple of manifolds leading to where it was claimed SH was pumping
the oil out were bombed the flow lessened, I would say that what
you claim to have seen is probably in error.
BTW: Are the bioagents which are being planned to be used against the
spill taylored to require the presence of sea water? It does NOT look
like a bug I would care to follow the slick back and get underground
away from the ocean. I can just envision the mideast as an area with
food mines... :-(
Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily
represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts,
however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone.
j...@sun4.jhuapl.edu or j...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu or meritt%aplvm.BITNET
Walt Leipold
>To: Mr. George Bush, President of the United States of America
.....
> We are citizens opposed to radioactive enviroment.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> On January 23, 1991, Genaral Colin L, Powell announced that
>U.S. and its allies have destroyed two operating nuclear reactors in
>Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
>release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
Are these people *American* citizens? If not, the phrase "We are citizens"
is misleading, or even dishonest, and one must wonder why George Bush would
give a hoot what they're opposed to...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Marriage is like a phone call in the night. Walt Leipold
First the ring, and then you wake up." (leipolw%es...@dupont.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
The UUCP Mailer
Gary Coffman
>In article <30...@nttica.ntt.JP>, tet...@nttica.ntt.jp (Tetsuo Kobayashi) writes:
>
>> On January 23, 1991, Genaral Colin L, Powell announced that
>>U.S. and its allies have destroyed two operating nuclear reactors in
>>Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
>>release of radioactivity and can never be tolerated by anyone.
>
>they? Of course, they might not want to due to propaganda reasons.
>>
>> The effects from these attacks are not known yet, but we can
>
>> We strongly protest to these inhuman barbarous attacks and
>
>to develop bomb-grade materials for nuclear BOMBS. The facilities were not
>power generating (remember, Iraq has OIL for things like electricity) but
>specifically set up to produce WEAPONS.
>
>Where were you when Iraq was building these facilities? Did you protest against
>the German & French companies which sold them the technology? Or was preventing
>proliferation of the technology really a concern as Japan gave billions of
>dollars in aid to Iraq?
Let me interject a voice of reason here. According to the International
Atomic Energy Commission, Iraq has *no* operating nuclear reactors. They
attempted to commission *one*, but the Israelis bombed it in 1981. The
Iraqis possess 40 kilos of reactor fuel that was intended for the destroyed
reactor and they have been attempting to bring new reactors online since
the destruction of their first reactor. A report by the IAEC in August 1990
says that all 40 kilos of reactor fuel is accounted for and *no* operating
reactors have yet been brought online. So it is unlikely that *operating*
reactors were destroyed, but rather that reactors *under construction*
were bombed.
Gary
Terence M. Kelleher
In article <1991Jan30.1...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> j...@sun4.uucp (James W. Meritt) writes:
BTW: Are the bioagents which are being planned to be used against the
spill taylored to require the presence of sea water? It does NOT look
like a bug I would care to follow the slick back and get underground
away from the ocean. I can just envision the mideast as an area with
food mines... :-(
The bioagents are far more usefull for treating of shorelines.
They're effectivness has never been tested on open waters and they are
not predicted to be able to work well in the open sea.
--
Terence Kelleher
Encore Computer Corporation
ter...@encore.com
Lucius Chiaraviglio
>spill taylored to require the presence of sea water? It does NOT look
>like a bug I would care to follow the slick back and get underground
>away from the ocean. I can just envision the mideast as an area with
>food mines... :-(
I don't think you need to worry about this, unless oil-eating microbe
technology has made a truly awesome leap in the last <4 years. At least as of
1987 (the date of publication of a book on anaerobic microbiology that I have
read; I have also found this information elsewhere), no microorganisms are
known which can consume hydrocarbons without using free oxygen. Although the
amount of oxygen required is not necessarily equal to that needed for complete
oxidation of the hydrocarbons, oil deposits are almost certainly completely
devoid of free oxygen, at least in their natural state. Even if some oxygen
were injected during attempts to get the oil out, it would be rapidly
consumed, thus bringing any oil degradation to a halt (assuming that this
started in the first place). Besides, even if you pumped oxygen continuously
into an oil well (-: not a good idea :-), it would not be much available to
oil-eating microbes except at the surface of the oil and in the volume outside
of the oil (where they won't be able to eat the oil, of course), because
oxygen doesn't dissolve very well in liquid hydrocarbons (which is why you can
store sodium and other such water- and air- reactive metals under kerosene;
the surface of such metals under kerosene does get oxidized eventually, but
it takes many years of storage for the oxidized layer to get really thick).
Completely anaerobic decomposition of hydrocarbons is
thermodynamically feasible under a variety of reasonable conditions for
microbial growth, but no one has found any organisms which do this, much to
the discouragement of those who wish to clean up oil spills with microbes,
since oil can form oxygen-excluding clots and/or seep into anaerobic areas of
soil. I would predict that if such microbes were found or engineered, the
threat to underground pools of oil would still be limited, however, by the
general lack of water within volumes occupied by oil, and also by the
lessening of thermodynamic favorability of decomposition by the buildup of
metabolic waste products. With decomposition of the oil limited to its
surface and limited in rate by the escape (if any) of metabolic waste
products, I would wager that we would still be guzzling the oil faster
ourselves than the microbes would.
--
| Lucius Chiaraviglio | Internet: ch...@midway.uchicago.edu
Lucius Chiaraviglio
> I don't think you need to worry about this, unless oil-eating microbe
>technology has made a truly awesome leap in the last <4 years.
. . . Or evolution, I should add here, for scientific rigor. To our
knowledge, this hasn't happened in all of the >3.5 billion years life has been
on earth, but I suppose there's a first time for everything. . . :-)
Seriously, it is possible (as I try to imply later on in my previous posting)
that totally anaerobic oil-eating microbes exist and we just haven't found
them. Wouldn't be the first microbial lifestyle that has escaped discovery
for a long time. . . .
> At least as of
>1987 (the date of publication of a book on anaerobic microbiology that I have
>read; I have also found this information elsewhere), no microorganisms are
>known which can consume hydrocarbons without using free oxygen.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is replaced by "saturated hydrocarbons," this statement is
correct. (This is actually what I meant to put originally, and I was even
thinking about it as I was typing, but then forgot about it when I was
proofreading. Oh well.) Completely anaerobic degradation of many unsaturated
hydrocarbons has been characterized. However, this isn't going to allow
anaerobic degradation of oil, because -- unless the oil is stirred -- surface
microbial degradation of the unsaturated hydrocarbons will cause the
(nondegradable) saturated hydrocarbons in it to accumulate at the surface,
thus blocking off access to the unsaturated hydrocarbons; diffusion will
alleviate this, but only slowly (particularly in viscous crude). The fact
that some of the microbes seem to be inclined to reduce the unsaturated
hydrocarbons to saturated ones in the course of their respiration will tend to
make the oil as a whole even more undegradable under anaerobic conditions.
Thus, oil is basically nondegradable under completely anaerobic conditions.
So don't worry. Humans are still the greatest threat to the world's
oil deposits.
Raul Baragiola
>In article <1991Jan29....@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rb...@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes:
>
>>If the reactor was not operational, then it did not produce plutonium
>>for a bomb, so why bother in destroying it?
> That's iron logic; especially from someone who tells others they should
>not write on this topic.
>
>>An enrichment facility of any of the types you described cannot be
>>contained in the buildings of those reactors. If they can, they
>>would produce very small amounts of enriched uranium, and would
>>therefore pose no threat.
> More iron logic. Again I ask: What reactors? The reactor that was
>about to breed plutonium was destroyed by the Israelis in 1981. I have
>not heard anything about any other reactors. The official communique said
>"nuclear production facilities", not reactors, were destroyed. How big were
>"the buildings of those reactors" if they don't exist? The easy way to make
>a bomb is not to try to buy BOMB GRADE plutonium, but to enrich uranium. The
>centrifuges (probably) or laser separation facilities or jet streams can
>be hidden in a "factory" as was done with poison gas. And most important,
>uranium ore is not subject to any international controls, which would be
>difficult to enforce anyway. It was my understanding that Saddam used
>enrichment in hopes of making a uranium bomb after his plutonium venture
>failed in 1981. The amount he could make clandestinely is not limited by
>wishful thinking.
> Petr Beckmann
What reactors? Read the latest Time magazine. The two reactors were
very small. One was 5 MW and the other less than 1 MW.
Your statement that the easy way to make a bomb is to enrich uranium does
not apply to Iraq. It takes a tremendous effort, and above all, time, to
enrich uranium, especially if every country is trying to avoid you doing so,
and if you don't have a large scientific/technical capability to replace
imports with local solutions, as is the case of Iraq. Also, enrichment
plants are so large that they cannot be easily hidden.
The wishful thinking here is that Iraq's nuclear capabilities has been
destroyed, together with the reactors. We should verify the reports by
Kurd rebels on underground nuclear facilities and destroy them.
Cameron Randale Bass
>
>Your statement that the easy way to make a bomb is to enrich uranium does
>not apply to Iraq. It takes a tremendous effort, and above all, time, to
>enrich uranium, especially if every country is trying to avoid you doing so,
>and if you don't have a large scientific/technical capability to replace
>imports with local solutions, as is the case of Iraq. Also, enrichment
>plants are so large that they cannot be easily hidden.
You must be joking. It does not apply to Iraq? Why? Iraq is clearly
involved in uranium centrifugation with technology stolen and
bought from european sources. It is known to western intelligence
that Iraq had in excess of 60 operating centrifuges. From there,
it is only an order of magnitude till they have an operating enrichment
capability (if they were not nearing that capability already).
As to being easily hidden, Cheyenne Mountain is not easily hidden,
but it is not easy to destroy either.
As to other countries preventing technology transfer, we have been
trying to prevent Iraq from acquiring krytrons for years. Yet earlier
this year Saddam was televised holding some.
>The wishful thinking here is that Iraq's nuclear capabilities has been
>destroyed, together with the reactors. We should verify the reports by
>Kurd rebels on underground nuclear facilities and destroy them.
>
I think that we would have better luck with satellites and planes than with
Kurds. It isn't very likely that any rebels work for the
Iraqi atomic energy establishment.
dale bass
--
C. R. Bass cr...@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia (804) 924-7926
Peter Schipperheijn
>I was really suprised to see this coming from a group whose country was
>devastated by nuclear weapons. Do they realize that these attacks were made
>prevent development of an atomic capability by Iraq? Does anyone have a
>doubt that Saddam would use atomic weapons given the capability.
>
>Out best hope against future use of nuclear weapons is to prevent pro-
>liferation.
>
>-- Jim Houchens
IMHO it is very well possible to fight a nuclear/biological/chemical war,
by simply bombing nuclear plants, special laboratories used for research
on biological weapons and serious contagious diseases (sp?) or certain
chemical plants, and perhaps other installations. This way you only need
convensional weapons, but still it seems to me that you are fightinhg a
NBC-war. I am very interested in the environmental damage caused so far
(including the direct effects of the bombing, for the bombings in WW ][
did have some effects on the weather - besides the effects of the nukes).
--
Disclaimer: the above opinions do not represent those
---------- of the KUN and are definitely not mine !!
Piotr
Raul Baragiola
>In article <1991Jan31.1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rb...@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Raul Baragiola) writes:
>>
>>Your statement that the easy way to make a bomb is to enrich uranium does
>>not apply to Iraq. It takes a tremendous effort, and above all, time, to
>>enrich uranium, especially if every country is trying to avoid you doing so,
>>and if you don't have a large scientific/technical capability to replace
>>imports with local solutions, as is the case of Iraq. Also, enrichment
>>plants are so large that they cannot be easily hidden.
>
> You must be joking. It does not apply to Iraq? Why? Iraq is clearly
> involved in uranium centrifugation with technology stolen and
> bought from european sources. It is known to western intelligence
> that Iraq had in excess of 60 operating centrifuges. From there,
> it is only an order of magnitude till they have an operating enrichment
> capability (if they were not nearing that capability already).
>
No, I was not joking. I objected the remark that it is *easy* to enrich
uranium for the iraqis. If you buy or steal technology and don't have
capacity to generate it (the case of Iraq) then you are in trouble in
the case of an embargo or during a war. It takes know-how to copy or
steal technology, even to buy it. I sustain that Iraq is very weak in
science and technology, and that therefore, it is not *easy* for the
iraqis to enrich U, as someone calimed.
"only" an order of magnitude seems quite a lot to me. Looks like it
is not *easy*. At any rate, even if they manage to get all the
centrifuges they need, they will need a large electric power station
to feed the enrichment plant. I suspect that such a power station
would be easily destroyed from the air (you cannot hide tens of megawatts
underground).
And one they manage to separate enough gas, they still have to convert it
to metallic, bomb-grade uranium. This hard road is what the iraqis are
doing to get many nuclear weapons in the long term. To get a few bombs
now, I still think it is easier (not easy) to get Pu from a source
in one of the countries of the nuclear club.
> As to other countries preventing technology transfer, we have been
> trying to prevent Iraq from acquiring krytrons for years. Yet earlier
> this year Saddam was televised holding some.
The fact that they have to go into all that trouble to acquire a tecnologi-
cally simple device shows that their technical know-how is rather limited.
>>The wishful thinking here is that Iraq's nuclear capabilities has been
>>destroyed, together with the reactors. We should verify the reports by
>>Kurd rebels on underground nuclear facilities and destroy them.
>>
>
> I think that we would have better luck with satellites and planes than with
> Kurds. It isn't very likely that any rebels work for the
> Iraqi atomic energy establishment.
>
May be you are right, but I cannot imagine it is easy to detect
something underground with airplanes or satellites. I hope those
installations are located and destroyed, I don't feel confortable
with what we know so far.
Jack Campin
| In article <30...@nttica.ntt.JP> tetsuo%nttica...@relay.cs.net writes:
|> On January 23, 1991, Genaral Colin L, Powell announced that
|> U.S. and its allies have destroyed two operating nuclear reactors in
|> Iraq. To destroy an operating nuclear reactor would lead to a massive
|> The effects from these attacks are not known yet, but we can
|> predict some radioactive contamination in several kilometers range
|> around the facility.
| Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.6 billion years and its radio-
| activity is therefore barely detectable. The explosive part, U 235,
| has a halflife of 700 million years, and its activity is therefore
| nowhere near as high as that of the potassium and carbon isotopes
| amply present in Mr. Kobayashi's brain and other parts of his body.
| The release of radioactivity by ridding the world of Saddam's reactors
| is therefore nowhere near as great as when the numerous priests of the
| antinuclear religion signed under this message meet for their rituals.
The Tuwaitha reactors are fuelled by 92% enriched uranium, so Beckmann's
mention of U-238 is pure misdirection. They have also been operating for
over ten years; there will be a damn sight more than uranium isotopes to
worry about. Depending on how burnt-up the fuel elements were when the
attack took place, the radiological inventory of the reactors could be
comparable to the fallout from the Hiroshima bomb.
Has anybody downwind been monitoring this? Indian or Pakistani sites,
maybe? Anything in the media from those countries?
--
-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6044 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: ja...@cs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp
Jack Campin
> Again I ask: What reactors? The reactor that was about to breed plutonium
> was destroyed by the Israelis in 1981. I have not heard anything about any
> other reactors.
For a refutation of both of these claims, look at Norman Moss's "The
Politics of Uranium" (Moss is a worried pronuclearist rather than an anti;
I have cited his book before, in newsgroups Beckmann reads, on exactly this
point - what does it take to get a simple fact into his head?). The Osirak
reactor was not "about to breed plutonium"; it could not have been used as
a breeder without extensive modification. There are two other reactors in
Baghdad, both enriched-uranium research reactors similar to those
distributed under the US "Atoms for Peace" programme; one is Soviet and the
other is French. Both were operated under IAEA supervision.
There are plenty of other sources from which Beckmann could have learned of
Tuwaitha's existence; most of the serious papers here have mentioned it
several times in recent weeks and I doubt if the US press has been any
different.
> The easy way to make a bomb is not to try to buy BOMB GRADE plutonium, but
> to enrich uranium. The centrifuges (probably) or laser separation facilities
> or jet streams can be hidden in a "factory" as was done with poison gas.
Iraq was trying for the centrifuge process. They only got hold of a few
centrifuges; the process requires many thousands and an ENORMOUS plant.
(Nobody anywhere has made laser separation into a practical technology yet).
There is absolutely no way the Iraqis could have concealed such a plant.
Paul Hager
1 and 5 megawatt reactors (so described by the Pentagon) as plutonium
factories. As I suggested in another post, these reactors are
far to small to useful for this purpose.
The military claimed no radioactivity was released. Two possibilities
come to mind -- if the military claim is valid. The first is that
the reactors had never gone into operation -- just as was the case
with the Osirak reactor bombed by the Israelis. The second is that
the integrity of the fuel was never compromised by the bombing.
--
paul hager hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change
its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety
with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to
combat it." --Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural, 4-Mar-1801
Paul Hager
NPR reported that it is really not clear how many spills have occurred
nor what there source is. As one analyst pointed out, Kuwait is
crisscrossed by pumping stations, storage facilities, and pipelines.
A lot of bombs have been falling and the accuracy of smart bombs has
been greatly oversold. It is quite likely that allied bombardment
really has been responsible for much of the oil problem and not
Iraq.
Eugene N. Miya
(Jack Campin) writes:
>Has anybody downwind been monitoring this? Indian or Pakistani sites,
>maybe? Anything in the media from those countries?
succ(Alsos);
John McCarthy
a while will be in the fission products. The amount depends on how
long the reactor has been running. Destroying the reactor is not a
definite term in terms of its effects on dispersion of radioactive
material. The worst case is that high explosive lands in the reactor
core and blows out the fission products, the uranium, and any plutonium
that may have been produced into the atmosphere. That could be is
bad as Chernobyl if the reactor were as big. These reactors are a
lot smaller. The best case is that the structures, cooling system,
control system are crushed and the core is crushed to lose its
structural integrity. In this case very little radioactive material
could go into the atmosphere. I suppose that if a special effort were
made to damage auxiliary structures only, the reactor could be stopped
for an extensive period with no release of radioactivity. We'll have
to wait to find out what exactly happened.
Cameron Randale Bass
>centrifuges; the process requires many thousands and an ENORMOUS plant.
>(Nobody anywhere has made laser separation into a practical technology yet).
>There is absolutely no way the Iraqis could have concealed such a plant.
Hogwash. They only got hold of a few assemblies according to reports
that I've heard, yet they have a minimum of 60 operating centrifuges.
You do not need many thousands to operate a plant, just on the order of
1000. And once you've made one making ten is not all that difficult.
Keep in mind that once you know the relevant sizes (which they to),
the techniques for stabilization (which they do), and have the appropriate
materials (which the europeans have been shipping to them in bulk),
making a cascade is not all that difficult, especially when
you are able to spend as much as you need to spend on the problem.
Additionally, there are reports that the casing material for centrifuge
construction was being shipped into Iraq as late as october (after the
vaunted embargo).
As to concealing a plant, it depends on what you mean conceal. I go
back to my Cheyenne Mountain analogy. You may know where it is,
but it is extremely difficult to tell how big the insides are,
and it would be extremely difficult to destroy.
Bill Reid
> The main radioactivity in an operating reactor that has been running for
> a while will be in the fission products. The amount depends on how
> long the reactor has been running. Destroying the reactor is not a
> definite term in terms of its effects on dispersion of radioactive
> material. The worst case is that high explosive lands in the reactor
of bombing that the nuclear power plants had been hit, but that they
were being re-targeted because "we did not detect radiation so we cannot
assume the targets were destroyed". I would doubt that such a statement
would be made again today - I would also doubt you can bomb a nuclear
power plant without creating a high risk of releasing dangerous amounts
of radiation.
On an unrelated topic, it seems to me that the US has a backdoor agreement
with Iran to double-cross Saddam. I refer of course to the very strange
situation where the cream of Iraq's air force is being allowed sanctuary
in Iran. There is obviously some type of agreement between Iran and Iraq
concerning this - Iraq is probably counting on the planes to launch an
all-out offensive to deliver chemical and possible weapons on the troops
at the Kuwait border. But the strange reaction of the US military to
these developments leads me to believe that the US has struck a deal with
Iran to double-cross the Iraqis, and not allow the planes to leave Iraq
when Saddam makes his move. The payoff for Iran will be the planes, and
the Shiite territories in eastern Iraq after the war is over. Of course,
this is completely backdoor - no Iranian leader would ever admit to making
such a deal with "the Great Satan". Pure speculation on my part, but it
would explain why the US is so sanguine about the situation, and allowing
it to happen.
Raul Baragiola
>Perhaps Mr. Baragiola would care to comment on the utility of
>1 and 5 megawatt reactors (so described by the Pentagon) as plutonium
>factories. As I suggested in another post, these reactors are
>far to small to useful for this purpose.
>
>The military claimed no radioactivity was released. Two possibilities
>come to mind -- if the military claim is valid. The first is that
>the reactors had never gone into operation -- just as was the case
>with the Osirak reactor bombed by the Israelis. The second is that
>the integrity of the fuel was never compromised by the bombing.
>
If NO radioactivity was released, the reactors were NEVER operated, so
they present no INMEDIATE risk (note that it takes a long of time to
produce enough Pu for just one bomb from such samll reactors). A
reactor is radioactive even if you take out the fuel, that's why it
is so expensive to decommission a nuclear reactor, as somebody already
pointed out. Accordin to reports from IAEA inspections that are
referred to by the press, it seems the reactors were indeed operated
in the past. I would guess that the military mean that no radiation was
DETECTED, rather than released.
David Ruderman
facilities are no more than the physics departments of various
universities. Here, at My school there is an ancient linear accelerator.
Nearby, at Brookhaven Nat'l Lab there is a small (and old) research
reactor. Even closer there is the now-dormant Shoreham Nuclear power
plant... Each of these are some sort of 'nuclear' target.
Isnt it possible that the physicists, physics departments, laboratories,
plutonium storage, power-plants, ect. have each been "targeted"?
And doesnt the same go for Biological and Chemical "weapons"?
Isnt it necessary when researching the causes of diseases to
figure out how they are caused and to maintain supplies
(i.e. stocks of diseases) for their research?? After all,
one cannot cure a disease without looking at it.
Does our country consider that all Disease research facilities together
with the scientists who run them equivalent to Biological warfare
facilities? How about Nuclear Research? Chemical?
--
David Ruderman rude...@sbcs.sunysb.edu
Department of Computer Science (516) 632-7675
SUNY at Stony Brook "The price of freedom is
Stony Brook, NY 11794-4400 eternal vigilance."
Lance Franklin
}spill taylored to require the presence of sea water? It does NOT look
}like a bug I would care to follow the slick back and get underground
}away from the ocean. I can just envision the mideast as an area with
}food mines... :-(
I may be mistaken, but I beleive that the bioagents require oxygen to do
their work, which would not be readily available underground. Anybody
have any confirmation of this?
Also, do the bioagents reproduce while doing their work, or do they just
do their job and die afterwards?
Lance
--
Lance T. Franklin +----------------------------------------------+
(l...@ncmicro.lonestar.org) | "You want I should bop you with this here |
NC Microproducts, Inc. | Lollipop?!?" The Fat Fury |
Richardson, Texas +----------------------------------------------+
David Remington
At a recent local "Pro America" rally, one of the speakers was the local
University's Biology Chair (I forget the name). He has been a reasearcher in
the Persian Gulf and Red Sea area for 10 years or so, before he came to
Arkansas to compile the results. Anyway, he said that the bacteria developed
to cope with the Exoon Valdes spill was custom-designed for the climate of the
Alaska region (very cold) and the specific mix of oil in that spill. Thus, he
doubts that a similar approach will be as successful in the Gulf. It "might"
be effective, but a new culture needs to be developed.
I am not a biologist.
| David Remington |
/_\ dav...@uafhp.uark.edu /_\
((|)) Bitnet:davidr@uafsysb ((|))
|O|__________________________|O|
| | _____ | |
| | ||+++|| | |
/ \_______/||+++||\________/ \
George Goble
>mention of U-238 is pure misdirection. They have also been operating for
>over ten years; there will be a damn sight more than uranium isotopes to
>worry about. Depending on how burnt-up the fuel elements were when the
>attack took place, the radiological inventory of the reactors could be
>comparable to the fallout from the Hiroshima bomb.
>
>Has anybody downwind been monitoring this? Indian or Pakistani sites,
>maybe? Anything in the media from those countries?
>
to be around 1.5X to 2.0X normal (normal is 8 or 9 counts/min) for about
2 weeks, starting about 2 weeks after the bombing started. Could this
be the fallout coming around the planet? It is almost returned to normal,
now, but is still slightly above the pre war days.
--ghg
Jonathan M. Strang
get from Iraq to Purdue in two weeks. It's much more likely that you
had a temperature inversion and natural airborne and gaseous radio-nuclides
increased in concentration--jon
>--ghg