NYTimes Op-Ed: International community can’t ignore nuclear reactor on fault line — Hundreds of thousands of lives depend on its safety

Published: January 2nd, 2013 at 5:26 pm ET


Title: The Next Chernobyl?
Source: New York Times Op-Ed
Authors: Gary M. Sandquist, professor emeritus of mechanical and nuclear engineering at the University of Utah.; Khosrow B. Semnani, author
Date: Jan 2, 2013

[…] haphazard planning and ongoing technical problems mean [Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant] could be the next Chernobyl, igniting a humanitarian disaster and explosive economic damage across the oil-rich region.

[…] Bushehr sits on an active fault line, raising the risks of a Fukushima-type catastrophe. Unless action is taken, the likelihood of an accident is far too high for the international community to ignore.

[…] Iran simply lacks the civil preparedness capabilities to respond to a tragedy on the scale of Chernobyl or Fukushima. […]

The I.A.E.A. should focus on the safety of the Bushehr plant with the same eye for detail that it uses to detect any weaponization program. Hundreds of thousands of lives depend on it, as do world oil markets, the global economy, and the world’s collective security.

See also: [intlink id=”nytimes-computer-worm-used-to-attack-iran-nuclear-facilities-had-broken-free-like-a-zoo-animal-that-found-the-keys-to-the-cage-it-began-replicating-itself-all-around-the-world” type=”post”]{{empty}}[/intlink]

Published: January 2nd, 2013 at 5:26 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. NBC News: ‘Devastating’ quake strikes near nuclear plant (VIDEO) April 9, 2013
  2. “Seawater is being poisoned at a continuous rate” from Fukushima plant — Source of life on which our lives depend is being corrupted September 9, 2013
  3. NYTimes Front Page: Computer worm used by U.S. to attack nuclear facilities ‘had broken free, like a zoo animal that found the keys to the cage’ — In 2010 ‘it began replicating itself all around the world’ June 2, 2012
  4. NYTimes: “Enormous orange flash” seen around suspected nuclear site as mysterious explosion rocks one of world’s largest cities — US Gov’t: We are “monitoring the situation closely” — Reports: Windows broken 9 miles away, all trees burned over large area (PHOTO) October 6, 2014
  5. AP: IAEA inspectors at Iranian nuclear facility say no explosion -Source January 29, 2013

79 comments to NYTimes Op-Ed: International community can’t ignore nuclear reactor on fault line — Hundreds of thousands of lives depend on its safety

  • Sol Man

    To be sure, Russia and Japan lacked the civil preparedness capabilities to respond to the tragedies on the scale of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nobody on the face of the earth can plan for the black swans that they NEVER SEE coming. ALL of the NPP's must be closed down while we still have an earth to save! The risk of total calamity is beyond calculation!

  • Ace33

    why talk about Iran's nuclear program when there are plenty of examples in japan did they not restart OI npp and thats a plutonium genarater and im sure theres alot more examples brashir is currently in shutdown mode and having fuel removed

  • richard richard

    This article is simply a dig at Iran. It's not anti-nuke. The author is a nuke engineer.

    They're simply finding ways to excuse blowing up iran's npp when it happens.

    Of course, the same issues apply to npps worldwide, but the nuler author doesn't want to admit to that.

    Typical nuker twisting of truths.

    • ForwardAssist ForwardAssist

      Precisely my thoughts, that it's another example of spooks in the new rooms.

    • aigeezer aigeezer

      You got it, richard and ForwardAssist. Sandquist sang a very different tune in 2011, once Fukushima was in the news:

      "Gary M. Sandquist: Nuclear power is still safe, reliable"


      • HoTaters HoTaters

        Agree, they're still looking for a pretext to go to war with Iran. Someone here pointed out Iran was a signatory nation on the treaty whereby nations agreed to pursue nuclear development only for peaceful purposes. That was the non-proliferation treaty, I think.

        As such, according to this 'Newser's logic (maybe AGreenRoad?) Iran should be able to pursue nuclear power generation as long as it's proven they are not using it to develop nuclear weapons.

        Of course we all know "peaceful nuclear energy" is a ruse, and the purpose of nuclear power has always been to generate nuclear materials for weaponry.

        They can sure get the propoganda machine worked up and whip the people into a frenzy when it suits their purposes, non?

        The Iranians are some of the most advanced people on earth. They are also some of the most culturally diverse people on earth. And they have gifted us with many things.

        TPTB are just trying to stir the pot to start the war du jour. The Iranians are the bad guys du jour.

        Russia doesn't like it much. I think the U.S. and NATO powers are incredibly stupid to even contemplate messing with Iran.

        Patty B. posted a link to a really good article on this subject. Patty, would you mind posting that again? Thanks.

      • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

        In the above article they say FukU is only 10% of Chernobyl, testimony in front of CONGRESS.

        OMG… they reported to GOD, that Fuku resulted in zero deaths and was just a teensy weensy leak, no explosions, no release of anything, no one got sick or died…

        Yup, God will surely let this guy into Heaven, and receive a grand entrance with one million silver bells and one million gold trumpets, plus all the streets paved with gold, and twenty young virgins too.


      the idea that only some countries are capable of safely handling nuclear power technologies is bogus. No nation – to date – has shown any ability to safely manage this technologies. They're very good at covering up their mistakes; not avoiding them.

      "Unless action is taken, the likelihood of an accident is far too high for the international community to ignore." Is this a referral to all the international resources that have been poured into Japan, since 311? From what we've seen so far, the only concerted action on the part the 'international community' has been a virtual blackout in news reporting on Fukushima.

      Make a point of reading this 'editorial' and you'll come away thinking the world's about to end, if Iran's allowed to continue with it's nuclear 'ambitions'. They feverishly 'warn' that this region risks being contaminated with radiation. Such concern is well received by me. But I'm also curious to their position regarding the decades long – and ongoing – use of Depleted Uranium munitions within this same region?

      Perhaps, we should only be concerned when it's Muslims doing the damage…

      • richard richard

        Thanks afters for more thoughts. I wondered the same re fuku, didn't bother to write about it, which is good cos you've covered it here, thanks.


          actually richard, I want to thank you and those that preceded my post, within this thread, for turning the machine around on itself. You guys are incredibly sharp…

    • hogy

      "The author is a nuke engineer." Also, IAEA was conceived as a promoter of nuke power, its role as an inspector is compromised. Another attempt to slam Iran. That this was in the NYT is no surprise–since the newspaper is totally pro-Israel.
      How about the nukes in California?..sited on fault lines! How about in NY state, also sited on or near fualt lines.

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    No such thing as a "safe" nuclear plant.

    Scientifically impossible.

    And worse, wind carries vast amounts of radiation to countries downwind.

    So, the dangerous technology must be outlawed.

    Lets get on this, pronto.

  • PattieB PattieB

    It's just more "PC" to call them PRAVDA-FICTION rooms! Com-RADS!

    Just like the so-called "NEW" vid of #4 pool, ISN'T! That's #1 & 2 pools with all the junk sitting in it. I DID see the new 1012 of #4, but they must have burned it to DVD… then erased the file. The vid showed them PU-239 breeder-rods burned away. Sorry Nukelchen, that clip of the new #4 you got is a bait-and-switch job that most everyone missed. The rod-racks are not even the same types… nor layed-out the same as #4's if you look carefully. And #4 only has possible dispersed 15 empty rod-slots in the entire pool… they are the rods that got loaded into the #4 reactor, and burned when lost water.

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar anne

      +10000000. TY, Pattie B

    • razzz razzz

      PattieB: How do you know Unit 4's reactor was being loaded? I have no doubt some of the fuel burnt in the pool(s).

      • PattieB PattieB

        It was due to be re-started the following week, and location of the crane at time of power-loss, was over the loading channel, having already loaded a rod into the refurbished reactor. I have the status printouts from each control room at start of crisis, and the KEY THING that The Lie BA**** have spoken to the press on this… saying there were no "ACTIVE" fuels in the reactor core! TRUE! As it never got filled, closed, and run! That DOESN'T MEAN that there were not any rods INSTALLED IN IT! And when the pipe at the bottom of the #4 reactor-CORE fell off, it DRAINED EMPTY! ALSO, drained MOST of the water out of the pool, temporarily… until they got the gate to the core closed… and they had problems with THAT, as it wouldn't SEAL! They put temp BLACK PLASTIC over pool-side of the gate, to get the water to STAY IN THE POOL! However, it was bit late, and the Plutonium breeder-rods in #4 pool had started to burn already. Water doesn't put that type fire out… We then had our night-hours "Glowing Blob"! That has caused rads to stream from the pool ever since. The #4 fires, were in the reactor core, then in the cask pit.

        • razzz razzz

          PattieB: Thanks for that. Would explain the odd location of smoke from the 'unknown' fire that took place. I think you are the only one that talks about extra plutonium rods being stored in 4's pool and pretty much got 4's structure problems correct early on.

          Any link for 4's status report? I know they had recently finished the stainless steel shroud replacement. Must have wanted to unload some weight from the pool ASAP as they still had construction equipment from the upgrade on some of the floors.

          Seen any of the melted core locations lately?

          [BTW, I can hear just fine, you don't have to yell.]

          • PattieB PattieB

            they have to get the cask pit cleared first… that's what is being removed. Once that is done, they can lower a transport cask into it, fill with water, start moving rods into a cask until filled. Rinse-repeat, and to do this, you must open the door to the pool. Unlike what they would have you think? You CAN NOT remove an acctual reactor rod from the water like they SEEM to have done for the DUMB SHEEPLE TYPES! That was a reflector/moderation rod… and they don't contain any fissionables, until run in the core… Hummm… funny thing? You only would even HAVE a rod like that one they removed for public consumtion sitting in that pool, IF they were doing what I have been saying, running a weapons meterial generation program in a elec. generation type reactor!

            • razzz razzz

              The removed rods could have been fresh fuel which weren't radiated yet, no?

              Cleaned cask well or not they can't move the truly spent fuel until they finish erecting their new overhanging building with the as of yet un-manufactured fuel machine and this is if the fuel bundles hold together after all the abuse (excess boron, saltwater, heat, debris and debris hit, etc.)

              Think they could at least remove any new (used) fuel by the track crane's cable…must be a problem or they should be doing it already (damaged or locked in, common pool storage problems, already irradiated).

              • PattieB PattieB

                no! Even a new rod could only handle 10-15 min. MAX before it would heat up and start a zerconium fire. It's not a question of the fuel starting it, but the clading on such rods.

                • razzz razzz

                  Yeah, I get it PattieB if a heat source is nearby a new fuel rod's cladding will begin reacting but a new fuel rod all by itself in a open field is not going to spontaneously burst into flames. The new fuel hasn't undergone fission yet, there is no decay heat going on.

              • PattieB PattieB

                A Gundersen did a little demo of this process. The fule heats up out of water, making the zircaloy react with the air in a pyrophoric manner.

          • PattieB PattieB

            The cores of 1,2,$3 have left the buildings. The fact is, even #2 building has become too hot for robotic entry now. They are pumping nitrogen down into the lower levels like mad, as it keeps the water that is being split into hydrogen/oxygen from going BOOM! But the problem is, the corium is generating sooooo much steam… and that's pumping rads upstairs.

            Here's a little factoid to think about.

            One of the radioactive byproducts of reactors, is ARGON
            Did you know that Anderson windows uses it as the gas between paines in their double/triple pained windows, so they don't fog?

            Gee… let me just run out and buy me some of THEM!

            • razzz razzz

              I hope they would be using the stable Ar…

              • PattieB PattieB

                every other company uses nitrogen between the sheet glass.

                here's a link… it's short on tech details reg: rads.


                • PattieB PattieB

                  even the stable one is a soft beta source. What happens when you drop hot particals into it? If they paid more for the low-atomic #ed type, it would absorb the new, but the most abundant, (Cheap) edition #40… would up the beta output, one would think?

                • PattieB PattieB

                  when they say non-reactive… they are saying non-corrosive to metals etc. as nitrogen is a mild corrosive. It's more like the avail info doesn't even touch on rad-counts… but considering it can be used much the same as carbon-40, a radiation laden isotope, to do dating…? What does that say? Or, reading between the lines, what is it that they are NOT saying about it!?

                  • HoTaters HoTaters

                    Carbon 14 is used for radioactive dating. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

                    "Its presence in organic materials is the basis of the radiocarbon dating method pioneered by Willard Libby and … The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730±40 years….

                    Carbon-14 then goes through radioactive beta decay…. By emitting an electron and an electron antineutrino, carbon-14 (half-life of 5730 years) decays into the stable (non-radioactive) isotope nitrogen-14."

                    Archaelogists and paleontologists have been using Carbon 14 dating for quite awhile.

                    Patty B., you're very sharp and we need your expertise here. Just happen to know about the Carbon 14 thing because I was an anthropology major for awhile, many moons ago ….

                  • razzz razzz

                    From your link above…". Argon is produced commercially by fractional distillation of liquefied air with (for high purity argon) catalytic burning of left over traces of oxygen.

                    Isotopes: 18 whose half-lives are known, mass numbers 30 to 47. Of these, three are stable. They are found naturally in the percentages shown: 36Ar (0.337%), 38Ar (0.063%) and 40Ar (99.600%)."

                    Stable means certain isotopes don't decay or any possible decay life has never been measured so it is considered stable.

                    Analogues are radioactive isotopes of elements that a body can normally utilize but can't distinguish the difference between stable/decaying element/isotope and uptakes them into the system until the radioactive isotope pass out of the body or lodges and starts decaying (sends out a ray), then the body tries to defend against it. Not always successfully.

                    • PattieB PattieB

                      My point is, what happens when you sit it along-side of a mess of hot particulated Plutonium, and Urainium? Remember, such are throwing-out nutrons and protons. And they are not speaking to which atomic # they use, so it's possible to change your windows to a rad-source if it's a lower-#ed form of it that is used, as in, what is free to take from the air. I'm having difficulty beliving they use the "Energy-COSTLY" edition of the gas to make these. Fact is, they could actually get PAID to dispose of such gasses from reactors under the "RECYCLE" terms the claim. And many of their affiliates that they work with, like that new meterial they make the windows out of, was MADE/DESIGNED for the Nuke industry, and is what the temp-cooling rig @ Fukushima is MADE OUT OF!… coincidental?

                    • razzz razzz

                      The real question is, "Do you want your double paned windows to fog up or not?"

            • aigeezer aigeezer

              PattieB, welcome back. You always have interesting things to say.

              I need to quibble with your argon comments. I've always thought of argon as an inert noble gas. It's been used in incandescent lights for a long time.

              Consumer Reports say back in 2008: "It's worth noting that many manufacturers of high-quality windows, including all those we tested for our latest report on windows, now use argon-filled glass as the standard for their windows." so I'm not sure why you zeroed in on Anderson windows.


              I have some argon-filled windows (not sure what brand) and will test them with my GC tomorrow if I get a chance.

              Were you thinking of some other element or compound perhaps?

              • aigeezer aigeezer

                Oops, I forgot to mention another source that suggests argon is inert with respect to radiation. This is from a primer on geiger counters from the company that makes the "Gamma Scout" brand:

                "The tube is sealed and filled at low pressure with an inert gas such as argon, helium or
                neon with some gases added."


                • SnorkY2K

                  Inert gas in this usage only means that thevalence electron band is full and neither attracts or repells other atoms or radicals ionically. A gas may be radioactive and inert . In a sealed instrument such as this an inert gas is used to shield ionically reactive parts from chemically reacting with oxygen throwing off or preventing measurement.

                  Many gases, even oxygen, have radioactive isotopes. Most of the isotopes of oxygens only last a very sort time. However in the case of oxygen it is chemically reactive in all of its isotopes. All seven of hydrogen's isotopes are extremely reactive ionically (chemically) and only two are not radioactive.

              • PattieB PattieB

                Leaving a nuke plant, Argon IS radioactive… and though it's not really of muchissue re: exposure to skin, it's one of the real BAD ones when speaking of entry to lungs, as it passes into blood. And how bad it is depends on it's atomic weight. Now, when one considers just how much is being dumped on us in rain events… I'm wondering just how much collateral-type contamination of "Standard-NON-Rad" things and meterials, that adding protons and nutrons TOO them, changes their radiation signatures. Of most concern, is elements/meterials that only need the addition of a single proton etc.to start dumping rads. Argon is one that can go through this transmutation a few times, before becoming again, semi-stable… but is always a "soft Beta" source.

                • aigeezer aigeezer

                  So you're thinking that industry might now or in future be using "hot" argon from nuke plants rather than "inert" argon from air distillation? Is that a fair summary or am I getting it wrong?

                • PattieB PattieB

                  one needs to remember, just because a proton is emmited by C-137 etc. it doesn't only have the ability to bind to, or impact on other C-137 elements. Some meterials getting hit by such, change their natures… much like sticking them inside of a running reactor would do. Like Chernoble, there are issues of colateral induced radiation source generations we now must consider in our once stable environment.

                  • PattieB PattieB

                    this is why, there are a nuber of things, once exposed to a rad source, can not realisticaly be "Cleaned" again. Argon is just one element, that you can clean by distilation, but if you put it near a rad source, it become radioactive again. And the radioactive crap we have raining down on us…. and how many other items in our normal day-to-day lives, are there that once exposed, become a on-going rad source there-after?

                    • aigeezer aigeezer

                      OK, I'm starting to get it, I think.

                      I don't think you are saying that argon was never as inert as we thought, rather that it is less likely to remain inert if it is bombarded with protons from sources such as C-137, and that the chance of such reactions will increase as Fukushima (or other) radiation spreads.

                      In practical terms, how does that relate to argon in windows, or incandescent light bulbs, or Gamma Scouts and the like? Is it a significant danger in your view, or of statistical interest only?

                    • SnorkY2K

                      There are many items where radioactive materials have been added to building materials such as disposing of NORM from production water by using it as a component of sheetrock. So, you are not crazy in suspecting this. However, it has no money incentive to collect and use the argon. There is more money in dispersing it into the air so that it cannot be quantified.

                      After the Bp gulf spill, those of us that signed up to volunteer to develop clean up metheds were not allowed to submit any solutions that collected oil products. Any solutions that we would have submitted that would have collected any oil would have immediately made them liable for the diposal of toxic material an a fine of many thousands of dollars per barrel. In the end, the restrictions were so great that it wasn't possible to submit a solution.

                      Collected radioactive argon would be even a greater economic burden. I can't see any nuke facility risking that it could be reliably quantifed by selling it for manufacturing like other radioactive materials.

                      Places that centifuge or enrich isotopes from reactors really charge a lot. It even costs a lot to purchase nonradioactve isotopes such as depleted gadolinium. My last quote for it was like buying gold.

                    • While any isotope can neutron activate, this only happens in high flux neutron settings (like a breeder reactor and only really close to the core). It is difficult. Just read about Windscale (another nuclear disaster lol) to see how hard it was to turn Lithium into tritium lol. Often, people try to turn U238 into Pu: U238 + N -> Np239 -> Pu239, all via beta decay.

                      Argon 40 (normal argon) does not become radioactive from neutron or alpha activation for more than a short time or in any quantity above trace.

                      40Ar + N -> 41Ar -> K41 with a half life of 1.822 hours and beta- decay. K41 is stable.

                      Alpha activation (incredibly hard) might produce either: 43Ca, 44Ca, 42K, or 43K (I don't want to look it up or do the math this late in the night to figure out which one lol) Regardless, this mega-rare sort of activation (which I have done in my lab on 23Na and 27Al) would result in short half lives as well of 12.4h (K42) and 22.3h (K43)

                  • PattieB PattieB

                    Far to many folks don't realize the pervasive issues that crop-up, when you start dropping radioactive rain on everything!The windows may have been just fine… but with radioactive rain hitting them regularly… it's like dipping them into a reactor, then putting them back in your window… BECAUSE of the fact that it's argon in them, they become a soft beta emiter again. And that's just a single item that my mind connected due to the gas involved.

                    • aigeezer aigeezer

                      Thanks, our posts crossed in cyberspace – you answered what I was wondering. If you add more detail that's cool too.

                      I appreciate it.

                    • PattieB PattieB

                      I'm making an issue of this due the fact that they are "Outside?" and exposed to the rain. Light bulbs and such, unless outdoors, are not. But many things we don't think about are exposed in our environs, and one would not normally consider to be hazards to our health… but rapidly DO when doused in radioactive rain events.

                    • SnorkY2K

                      Don't put a bottle of pepto bismol by the window and you will be fine.

              • aigeezer aigeezer

                PattieB and SnorkY2K – many thanks for your comments on the argon issue yesterday.

                As promised, I've done some testing on an argon-filled window. Methodology is "casually-curious sloppy", so nobody should take what follows as proof of anything.

                I disconnected my PRM-8000 from the radiation network and moved it about six feet away to a window-ledge, propped it up on a small (untested) box, with the GC quartz window end touching the argon-filled room window. The GC quartz window is indented slightly in the case so winds up about 0.5 cm away from the window glass.

                I did not want to lose my accumulated results by resetting the GC (304 days, average 14CPM, Maximum 35CPM June 13, total count 6142145), so I only watched it informally. Very close scrutiny the first few minutes in case the thing started to spike (it didn't), then more casual glances every couple of minutes.

                My reasoning for such casual methodology is that if something significant is being emitted, it will probably give a reading higher than the present 304-day maximum of 35CPM. I'm not expecting to see the average increase in a short test, just the possibility of a highish "current reading" when I check randomly or a new maximum.

                Nothing unusual yet, total count is up to 6142793, each "current count" is "normal-looking", and no change to maximum yet. I'll leave it on and go for lunch. More anon.

                • aigeezer aigeezer

                  More on the argon test: I had to go out for a while, so the test ran for about 4 hours in total. While out, I could not look at "current reading" values, so of course they may have bounced around. I know for sure that the overall average held at 14 (completely expected – if a few hours exposure had changed an almost year-long average it would have been extremely significant). I also know for sure that the maximum (35CPM) built up over the last year or so wasn't replaced with a new maximum during the test. Finally, a quick calculation based on the total counts at the start and end of the test divided by test length suggests no significant change in average during the test.

                  So, for my little test, the good news is that the argon window seems to make no difference yet in this location. There are plenty of questions not addressed though, for example:

                  1. Does the window really contain argon? The label says it does, but the label could be incorrect and/or the gas may leak out over time.

                  2. Does my generally-low normal reading mean I never get exposed to high-radiation rain events? I think this is true. I'm a very long way from Fukushima and I have never noticed the surges (radon or other) that some people report after rain.

                  So… reassuring for my particular situation, but completely inconclusive for the big picture. Please consider doing some tests if you have "hot rain" and argon windows. Keep us posted.

                  • PattieB PattieB

                    One side-issue, the named "High-E" type specificaly… they have a coating on the inside of the outer glass, this lets energetic particals in, but acts as a reflector on out-bound ones. This is GREAT for holding heat in your home! BUT!? It also would have any decay, %70 guess? radiated-away INSIDE of the home, as it is a metalic coating. So. End effect would be a single direction acumulator… short term, that dispences the rads into the home.

  • PattieB PattieB

    Go back and look really carefully at your April vid-survey of #4 pool… count the empty rod slots, then look at the so-called second survey vid… myth-BUSTED!

  • PattieB PattieB

    It's interesting to note…. that as BAD OFF as the rods are in #'s 1 & 2 pools…. they would RATHER that you see THEM, than the current condition of what's sitting in Pool #4 !

  • Tkayshakur Tkayshakur

    I Don't know if anyone has thought of this yet but they are smart for having that on the large stock of oil because if anyone fucks with them or acts funny that supply will be contanminated. Im sure they are aware of it being on a fault line but what they are positive about is that america and "western forces" want this stock of oil and i dont blame these people for wanting some sort of currency, source of revenue, product, buisiness…ect. It is their natural born rights.

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      Iran is also one of the only countries on earth which doesn't have its currency pegged to the U.S. dollar. This does not make the international banksters happy. The Iranians are right up there in popularity with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. Hugo's not terribly popular with the banksters, either.

      Have you noticed — eventually any nation which has oil and doesn't march in lockstep gets taken over, embroiled in a pre-emptive war, or has its leadership killed in a coup of some sort.

      First the bad press, wait awhile, and then the real fun starts.

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        The banksters and TPTB are hard at work chipping away at the value of the Iranian rial. The economic sanctions have caused many Iranians to buy other currencies on the black market.


        And this:


        • razzz razzz

          US got Iran kicked out of the SWIFT system (internation payment and clearing system) in punishment for non-compliance with UN (international) nuclear guidelines and inspections. Been going on for years.

          This forces Iran, since they won't comply, to barter their oil with Russia and China in exchange for technology and foodstuffs, trade oil to India for gold and generally ruin Iran's economy because the US$ is the world reserve currency and Iran is locked out of using the US$ for anything. Creates a black market on the streets in US dollar money exchanges to buy world products smuggled in. The result is Iran's currency suffers from inflation, further bringing suffering on the population.

          The US fixed it so there is no official exchange rate for Iran's 'rial' thus bars international trading except barter and black markets.

          All this because Iran elected to go the nuclear route without international approval (inspections). Iran has oil reserves and pumps oil but not the technology to refine all of it and has to send it elsewhere to be refined and re-imported as fuels and distillates.

          Strange, because they do nuclear with Russian help but can't build enough refineries. Anyway, the US is inflecting punishment hoping for the usual regime change after the locals revolt, maybe.


  • PattieB PattieB

    another little detail most have missed…

    U-238 rods like the second vid shows, have many small "GRID-LIKE" openings at the top of them, where they rotted-away. This is because the "PELLETS" are like short & Stubed pencil in shape. HOWEVER! PLUTONIUM type BREEDER rods, have a cross-section that's like a disk! (Think backgammon peices) onlu they are like the size of just under the palm of your hand. Look at the vid of them removing that dummy moderation rod from #4 pool, to get idea of a reator=rod-size, then look at the vid of #4 CASK PIT, and take note of just what type of now EMPTY rods are sitting in it! Note they ONKY have 4 disk-type-sized slots in them? NOT the many rows that SHOULD be there to hold the 5% U-235/95% U-238 pencil-shaped segments?

    • Dogleg Dogleg

      @ PattieB Are you taken?
      I am very impressed!

      • PattieB PattieB

        Yes, I'm single… but, I'm not long for this worl, sorry/// I'm a wreck! Former SGT in Army, 83-91 and been injured to much, add-in DU damaged… as I was what was then called a (N.B.C.) Nuke-Bio-Chem responder. Hawk Missle system crew, then communications. Then did computers/ networks and such… during the time I did work @ NASA.
        I'm up in MA these days, and surrounded by Nuke-Puke!


          wouldn't care, PattieB, if you had a peg-leg and there was an IV trailing behind you. There's nothing more attractive than a courageous woman who's filled with light and wisdom…

        • Anthony Anthony

          Its good that you are posting again. You are a Bright Light.

        • Dogleg Dogleg

          I find intelligence to be very sexy. Having said that, there are many sexy ladies on this site. Each in their own beautiful way. Love all you special ladies and if any of you ever need a tree cut down or your house decontaminated, I'm here for you. Brawny

          • PattieB PattieB

            well, I have a couple of chain saws that I use to down tress on my lot… but as my entire left arm is becoming ever more non-funtional, it's even effecting my ability to bang-away on this keyboard! sad to say, my heart doesn't let me do such work anymore, even though I have many more in need of removal. I barely managed to deal with the last storm-damaged ones, one which spangged the corner of my roof! I had to rebuild and re-shingle it. I have the equipment, but the body is not so willing these days!

  • lam335 lam335

    "… Bushehr sits on an active fault line, raising the risks of a Fukushima-type catastrophe. Unless action is taken, the likelihood of an accident is far too high for the international community to ignore.

    … The I.A.E.A. should focus on the safety of the Bushehr plant with the same eye for detail that it uses to detect any weaponization program…."


    But the IAEA WON'T focus its attention on the fault-related safety issues because many operating reactors across the planet are built on or near active faults, and focusing on this issue at Bushehr would call attention to that issue at other plants as well (including several in Japan and the US).

    • gottagetoffthegrid

      Exactly. No mention of the North Anna NPP that *was* hit by a big quake, one that exceeded its design, and is still operating in spite of evidence of leakage.

      Good job NYT. Start those war drums up. The MIC needs to be fed.

  • Nukites

    PattieB can you give a link to the video you are speaking about? Thanks.

  • VyseLegendaire VyseLegendaire

    Attn NY Times – Japan and U.S. and everywhere else are also not capable of handling a nuclear accident relating to earthquake. End nuclear, end the 'Bomb Iran' Propaganda campaign.

    • aigeezer aigeezer

      Indeed, VyseLegendaire. The clash of propaganda memes is often funny at arm's length. The "good guy" (former "bad guy") Japanese are demonized for not evacuating a large area after a triple meltdown while the "bad guy" (former "good guy" – remember the Shah) Iranians are demonized for telling people to evacuate on rumors of a leak.

      Similarly, the "bad guy" Soviets are praised for their forced-labor interventions at Chernobyl while the "good guy" Japanese are condemned for not forcing people to clean up at Fukushima.

      Consistency, reason, truth and propaganda are unlikely companions. Unfortunately the propaganda issues obscure real life/death decisions for real people, as always.

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    Bushehr Nuclear Plant Explosion, Radiation Leak, Evacuation of 1.5 Million People; via A Green Road

  • spiritpen

    The International Community needs to examine the danger of California's Diablo Canyon NPP, which sits at the confluence of 13 earthquake faults and directly on top of at least one.

    On Facebook: Stop the Diablo Canyon Seismic testing

  • PattieB PattieB

    The only REALISTIC means to dispose of Nuke waste?… build a chamber to hold it in a subduction zone under the ocean. Over time that would have the stuff shoved back down into the molten core of the planet, where it would be safe from irradiating everyone for all time.

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue

    Evacuation in Iran nuke plant. http://youtu.be/fxNTxEO3mLE

  • PattieB PattieB


    This girl lives danger! She went hunting for a fuel fragment from Chernoble… and found one!

  • PattieB PattieB


    If you ever wondered WHERE these meglomaniacs come from?… watch this vid! The kid SCARES ME!

  • PattieB PattieB

    Iteresting reading… just how easy it is to set off Plutonium burning!


  • PattieB PattieB

    TO: razzz … YES, even a brand-spanking-new rod, pulled from the pool, would heatup and cause a zirconium fire to light! This would then melt and cause to atmoshpericaly disperse the radioactive elements into the surroundings. The more of these you light-off, the higher the dispersal due to "Heat Plume" type effects… ergo, the wider the resulting contamination you will have! If the entire pool 4 went? Japan, and at least 3/4 of the entire USA become uninhabitable!