• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Inspectors find evidence of uranium enriched beyond that needed for reactors in Iran

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
What cost is that?

Or is it the other way around- where we pretend that the boogeyman is out to get us, a la Iraqi WMD's? Niger Uranium? "Pretty well confirmed" reports of AlQ meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague?

Anybody who puts much faith in what intelligence agencies & our govt tell us about such things when they're beating the drums of war is a chump, forgetting that they manipulate public opinion to serve an agenda. Not to mention that any American who trusts the Israelis any more than they trust the Iranians has been hopelessly propagandized.

I mean, wtf? Do I need to quote Goering again?
What argument are you trying to make here? If you're arguing that our government is out of control and not to be trusted, you're preaching to the choir. Shall I point out the same the next time you post in a thread telling me to rely on government to wipe my ass for me? Sheesh.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,747
13,866
136
So while this interests those clamoring for war, it verifies nothing with regards to weapons development.
Indeed. Practical nuclear weapons use 80%+HEU, with 93.5% apparently being the point of diminished returns. Plutonium cores of the right isotopic mixtures are preferable, with ~1/4 the mass of uranium cores.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
Indeed. Practical nuclear weapons use 80%+HEU, with 93.5% apparently being the point of diminished returns. Plutonium cores of the right isotopic mixtures are preferable, with ~1/4 the mass of uranium cores.
I don't think anyone is saying that this evidence proves they are close. If I understand the posts correctly, some of us are merely arguing that 27% was not achieved by accident and is reason for concern.

There isn't a magic threshold from which we cross from "OK" to "gravely concerned". This just illustrates a growing concern with Iran's actions.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Modern medicine uses isotopes produced by different means.
Source? I've found this 2007 paper suggesting LEU can be used in place of HEU for such purposes, but nothing to suggest the use of HEU has actually been phased out.

On a side note, what if for example Iran decided to reconvert the reactor we helped them build in the '60s back to running off HEU, and enrich their own HEU for if? I get the impression that you'd prefer Iran be bombed to pieces rather than allow anything of the sort, eh?
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
Source? I've found this 2007 paper suggesting LEU can be used in place of HEU for such purposes, but nothing to suggest the use of HEU has actually been phased out.

On a side note, what if for example Iran decided to reconvert the reactor we helped them build in the '60s back to running off HEU, and enrich their own HEU for if? I get the impression that you'd prefer Iran be bombed to pieces rather than allow anything of the sort, eh?
Look I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't plausible reasons as to why Iran could potentially have use for 27% enriched Uranium. I think the argument is that the 27% enriched Uranium is simply the next item on the laundry list of items that increase suspicion.

I don't think anyone would "prefer" that we bomb Iran, it just seems that people with increased skepticism are automatically labeled war-mongerers.

-GP
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
People who deny the peaceful applications of uranium enriched far beyond 27% and downplay the fact that 27% is far below what has ever been proven to make an effective weapon come off as warmongers who would prefer to bomb Iran to me.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
People who deny the peaceful applications of uranium enriched far beyond 27% and downplay the fact that 27% is far below what has ever been proven to make an effective weapon come off as warmongers who would prefer to bomb Iran to me.
Considering that Iran says it wants nuclear power and that requires 5%, so that's not it. Enlighten us with specific vital applications where HEU is indispensable.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
People who deny the peaceful applications of uranium enriched far beyond 27% and downplay the fact that 27% is far below what has ever been proven to make an effective weapon come off as warmongers who would prefer to bomb Iran to me.
Once again, I don't think that anyone in this thread has ever denied that there are peaceful applications beyond 20%. The only argument I have seen is that 27% raises suspicions as it is far above what Iran was allowed/original claimed (Not to mention they still refuse to be open to IAEA inspectors).

-GP
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Considering that Iran says it wants nuclear power and that requires 5%, so that's not it. Enlighten us with specific vital applications where HEU is indispensable.
You're not actually responding to what you quoted from me there, and you're completely ignoring questions I asked you in my post prior to what you quoted too.

Once again, I don't think that anyone in this thread has ever denied that there are peaceful applications beyond 20%.
Hayabusa seems to trying to with his "Modern medicine uses isotopes produced by different means" in response to Acanthus's mention of medical isotopes produced with HEU. Granted, it's a rather lame try given the fact that Hayabusa has yet to produce any source to support his claim.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
You're not actually responding to what you quoted from me there, and you're completely ignoring questions I asked you in my post prior to what you quoted too.
I had missed that which is why I didn't respond. Light water reactors, which are the most common, use 5% enrichment. It's not like they are theoretical constructs. They exist and they work.

Hayabusa seems to trying to with his "Modern medicine uses isotopes produced by different means" in response to Acanthus's mention of medical isotopes produced with HEU. Granted, it's a rather lame try given the fact that Hayabusa has yet to produce any source to support his claim.
A cursory search will show that other isotopes are used for just about everything. I mentioned that to Acanthus, but I did't feel obligated to seek out specifics any more than following up with papers designed to demonstrate that water is wet. I still don't. Others may and I'm confident that you will need a towel when a bucket of room temperature H2O is poured on you.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Light water reactors, which are the most common, use 5% enrichment. It's not like they are theoretical constructs. They exist and they work.
Other types of reactors use far higher than 5% enrichment, and it's not like they're theoretical constructs either, they exist and work too. So again I ask: what if for example Iran decided to reconvert the reactor we helped them build in the '60s back to running off HEU, and enrich their own HEU for if? I get the impression that you'd prefer Iran be bombed to pieces rather than allow anything of the sort, eh? And the same probably goes for enriching to the 19.75% which the reactor currently uses, eh?

A cursory search will show that other isotopes are used for just about everything.
My search has turned up statements to the contrary, such as this one the NNSA posted just a few months ago:

Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) is used to produce technetium-99m (Tc-99m), a medical isotope that is used in about 100,000 diagnostic medical procedures globally every day. Today, Mo-99 is produced at aging facilities in Europe, Canada and South Africa primarily using highly-enriched uranium (HEU) – a weapons-usable material.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
Oh come on, everyone knows as long as there's a single plausible non-weaponized use for such Uranium Iran is perfectly innocent. :rolleyes:

This thread is lulz worthy. Iran could buy a million AKs, publicly state it was "for sporting purposes" and a good chunk of the posters here would believe them.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Other types of reactors use far higher than 5% enrichment, and it's not like they're theoretical constructs either, they exist and work too. So again I ask: what if for example Iran decided to reconvert the reactor we helped them build in the '60s back to running off HEU, and enrich their own HEU for if? I get the impression that you'd prefer Iran be bombed to pieces rather than allow anything of the sort, eh? And the same probably goes for enriching to the 19.75% which the reactor currently uses, eh?


My search has turned up statements to the contrary, such as this one the NNSA posted just a few months ago:
Regarding your first point- Iran doesn't need HEU. They wants its Precious, but they don't need it and neither will the two they plan to build in 2014.

As for the second part lets look at the rest of what the nnsa has to sayoops looks like HEU won't be needed

Indeed Europe plans to be completely switched over by 2015 and remember Iran is planning to start building those reactors in 2014 to be ready when Heu will be obsolete. You left that part out. Now you can split hairs or dance on the head of a pin or whatever. Oh note that they aren't using HEU for treatment? Its technology used to produce something else and being phased out. Time to tapdance.
 
Last edited:

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Regarding your first point- Iran doesn't need HEU.
Nobody necessarily needs uranium of any sort, as millions of years of human existence proved. However, that does nothing to change the fact that Iran is legally entitled to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, HEU and otherwise.

As for the second part lets look at the rest of what the nnsa has to sayoops looks like HEU won't be needed
I read the whole page, but nothing there changes the fact that what I quoted from the page conflicts with your claim that "Modern medicine uses isotopes produced by different means."

Time to tapdance.
I'd prefer you stop your tapdancing and answer the questions I asked you. Again: what if for example Iran decided to reconvert the reactor we helped them build in the '60s back to running off HEU, and enrich their own HEU for if? I get the impression that you'd prefer Iran be bombed to pieces rather than allow anything of the sort, eh? And the same probably goes for enriching to the 19.75% which the reactor currently uses, eh?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Nobody necessarily needs uranium of any sort, as millions of years of human existence proved. However, that does nothing to change the fact that Iran is legally entitled to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, HEU and otherwise.


I read the whole page, but nothing there changes the fact that what I quoted from the page conflicts with your claim that "Modern medicine uses isotopes produced by different means."


I'd prefer you stop your tapdancing and answer the questions I asked you. Again: what if for example Iran decided to reconvert the reactor we helped them build in the '60s back to running off HEU, and enrich their own HEU for if? I get the impression that you'd prefer Iran be bombed to pieces rather than allow anything of the sort, eh? And the same probably goes for enriching to the 19.75% which the reactor currently uses, eh?
Here is how it is. Iran says it wants nuclear power. The west doesn't trust it and "accidental" over enrichment doesn't help. So a solution is proposed that gives something to both sides. You come along and declare that Iran should have what it wants, not what it needs and the 5+1 and everyone should in effect screw off. Fine. Now they aren't and with no reason to do so from a nuclear power perspective, Iran is going to be trusted less. That means not only do sanctions tighten but military options are back on the board. Please send protest letters to the several governments in question and one of support to
Tehran urging them to stay the course no matter what. The consequences of sanctions and possible strikes aren't important. That you believe there cause makes up for it. The reality is that Iran can cooperate and have power, the main stated reason or pay the consequences that you can't nullify.

Also, HEU isn't a medical isotope but can be a way to make a specific derivative, is being phased out and therefore there isn't a need for Iran to produce especially since Iran will have shitcanned itself if continues to think like you and won't be able to give it away because it will be embargoed and unneeded in any case.

But have it your way and stand on your principles at the expense of Iran's well being.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,747
13,866
136
I prefer metaphor. But then again you're a 9/11 truther, makes sense you'd call out the inherent falsities in any metaphor as a straw man fallacy. Conspiracy theorist rationalization techniques 101.
I'm no truther, and what you offered is a strawman nonetheless.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
You come along and declare that Iran should have what it wants
No, I'm only declaring that countries should be allowed to do what they are legally entitled to do, Iran included.

Also, HEU isn't a medical isotope
Did you imagine I claimed otherwise?

Technically, so is any metaphor. A strawman argument is an "informal" fallacy.
A metaphor a form of analogy where one asserts that one thing is another, Shakespeare's "all the world's a stage" being one classic example. On the other hand, a strawman is when one misrepresents another's position rather than actually addressing it, such as your "Iran is perfectly innocent" nonsense. I don't presume to be in a potion to know if Iran is innocent, perfectly or otherwise, but I do know that no publicly available evidence proves them guilty of working to develop nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY