Why Is It Okay For Iran To Build A Reactor??

[mudwhistle]

Okay, the Tree-huggers want us to get rid of our nuke plants. Germany is shutting down theirs and doing a full review, everyone is worried about nuclear energy in the free world, but nobody give a damned that Iran is still building theirs and doing so in a haphazard manner by some reports. They're basically building theirs with bailing-wire and ball-bearings.

Hasn't anyone taken this into account??

If people in California are worried about radiation reaching them from Japan, why not worry about Iran's nuclear energy program?

It's hard to believe nobody noticed this.

 

[FuelRod]

Totally photoshopped that douchbag never wears a tie

 

[Ravi]

A lot of people were fooled into thinking nuclear power was foolproof.

Japan proves this to be un-factual. The biggest problem with nuclear power is human error.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

A lot of people were fooled into thinking nuclear power was foolproof.

Not anyone with only the most vague education on the subject. And NO expert has ever claimed it's "foolproof."

"A lot MORE people" have irrational, idiotic fear of nuclear power, because they are conditioned to have.

But of course, you didn't answer the OP's question.

 

[mudwhistle]

A lot of people were fooled into thinking nuclear power was foolproof.

Japan proves this to be un-factual. The biggest problem with nuclear power is human error.

Well it seems human error is a major concern in Iran.

Intentional sabotage is another.

Forget about the threat of WMDs. This is a worrisome prospect and nobody even broaches the subject.

 

[mudwhistle]

Totally photoshopped that douchbag never wears a tie

He and Lil Kim Jung Il are the last Members Only members.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Russians learned a lesson with Chernobyl, but the Iranians are trying to learn as they go.

Guess they figure the risk is worth it just as long as they get their big bang-bang.

 

[ScienceRocks]

humanity has become pussies and cowards. The damn quake was a 9.0 and the nuke plant was designed for a 8.2 quake...No fucking crack within the reactor or anything even after being hit by a 30 foot tsunami...My friends; no, I wouldn't put one on a mega thrust fault like the one off oregon and washington, but most of this country is safe. This is from a 40 year old design too...It was the generator that fucked up.

We have become a nation chicken shits that don't take risk anymore. We don't deserve to be a super power.

Iran as long as it is for power...I don't have a problem with it if that remains so. We should be ready to nuke them if they use nukes. MAD my friends. SHIT!

 

[Toronado3800]

Wonder how theirs compares to the first of ours? Time will tell I suppose. Do we hold them up to our safety standards? To some extent we subsidize safety standards in the third world. Should we do this for Iran?

What countries do not have atomic power?........If Myanmar went to build a nuclear power plant I suppose we would help.

(In particular for Iran I am still as for bombing it with the excuse to the UN of "We don't trust them, right or wrong" as anything else, just making conversation as safety seems to be the concern here)

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wonder how theirs compares to the first of ours? Time will tell I suppose. Do we hold them up to our safety standards? To some extent we subsidize safety standards in the third world. Should we do this for Iraq?

What countries do not have atomic power?........If Myanmar went to build a nuclear power plant I suppose we would help.

(In particular for Iraq I am still as for bombing it with the excuse to the UN of "We don't trust them, right or wrong" as anything else, just making conversation as safety seems to be the concern here)

It should be up to a nation to choose if they went nuke power or not.

 

[Toronado3800]

Ideally yeah. If I stood in my yard like an idiot yelling I was going to kill you then got in my car to go buy a hunting rifle you might be tempted to stop me. Same applies to Iran.

 

[westwall]

Wonder how theirs compares to the first of ours? Time will tell I suppose. Do we hold them up to our safety standards? To some extent we subsidize safety standards in the third world. Should we do this for Iraq?

What countries do not have atomic power?........If Myanmar went to build a nuclear power plant I suppose we would help.

(In particular for Iraq I am still as for bombing it with the excuse to the UN of "We don't trust them, right or wrong" as anything else, just making conversation as safety seems to be the concern here)

The Japanese reactor is a 40 year old GE design. So it is one of our old ones. And considering it's advanced age it has held up remarkably well. The main reactor is still contained, the radiation is coming from the breached cooling pools that hold the expended
fuel rods. They lost the water that is supposed to keep them cool.

I find it hilarious that people are panicking over this. Please, educate yourselves.

 

[mudwhistle]

Wonder how theirs compares to the first of ours? Time will tell I suppose. Do we hold them up to our safety standards? To some extent we subsidize safety standards in the third world. Should we do this for Iraq?

What countries do not have atomic power?........If Myanmar went to build a nuclear power plant I suppose we would help.

(In particular for Iraq I am still as for bombing it with the excuse to the UN of "We don't trust them, right or wrong" as anything else, just making conversation as safety seems to be the concern here)

The Japanese reactor is a 40 year old GE design. So it is one of our old ones. And considering it's advanced age it has held up remarkably well. The main reactor is still contained, the radiation is coming from the breached cooling pools that hold the expended
fuel rods. They lost the water that is supposed to keep them cool.

I find it hilarious that people are panicking over this. Please, educate yourselves.

We've got one in TN that they started building in 73' and they're still waiting for all of the government requirements to be met before they can go online. Figure the odds it ever will now.

 

[editec]

Okay, the Tree-huggers want us to get rid of our nuke plants. Germany is shutting down theirs and doing a full review, everyone is worried about nuclear energy in the free world, but nobody give a damned that Iran is still building theirs and doing so in a haphazard manner by some reports. They're basically building theirs with bailing-wire and ball-bearings.

Hasn't anyone taken this into account??

If people in California are worried about radiation reaching them from Japan, why not worry about Iran's nuclear energy program?

It's hard to believe nobody noticed this.

What we DO notice is that per usual, a right wing crank is attempting to speak on behalf of his mythical boogiemen..the TREE HUGGERS.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, old Mud and his ilk are always setting up strawmen to make themselves feel that they have a point.

Short of war, how do you make a belligerant nation cease and desist from going nuclear?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Okay, the Tree-huggers want us to get rid of our nuke plants. Germany is shutting down theirs and doing a full review, everyone is worried about nuclear energy in the free world, but nobody give a damned that Iran is still building theirs and doing so in a haphazard manner by some reports. They're basically building theirs with bailing-wire and ball-bearings.

Hasn't anyone taken this into account??

If people in California are worried about radiation reaching them from Japan, why not worry about Iran's nuclear energy program?

It's hard to believe nobody noticed this.

For once you made a good point. Of course it's a problem, a problem begging for a solution. What solution do you suggest?

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - dey's tryin' to sneak around the sanctions...

UN diplomats: Report says Iran buying for reactor
Dec 9,`14 -- Iran is being accused of illicitly stepping up purchases for its heavy water reactor, which if completed will produce enough plutonium for several nuclear weapons a year, U.N. diplomats said Tuesday.

What to do with the research reactor, which is under construction in the city of Arak, is among the disagreements between Iran and the U.S. at ongoing talks meant to put long-term curbs on Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The U.S. and its partners want Iran to agree to re-engineer Arak to a light-water reactor that produces only minuscule amounts of plutonium. The Iranians would rather re-engineer it to produce less plutonium - but that process is reversible, and therefore opposed by the Americans. The allegation against Iran by an unnamed country, if true, would suggest that Tehran is rejecting the U.S. reconfiguration into a light-water reactor.

The accusation was contained in a report to the Security Council sanctions committee prepared by experts monitoring sanctions against Iran, according to two diplomats familiar with the report. They spoke anonymously because the report hasn't been made public. Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said he had no information about the purchase of any new equipment for Arak. "Iran has agreed not to set up new equipment in Arak facility and it has not done so ever since," he said. The Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions against Iran because of concerns it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and its refusal to suspend enrichment. Tehran claims its nuclear program is peaceful and exists only to produce energy for civilian use. The sanctions, which have chipped away at Iran's economy, include a ban on the import of nuclear and missile-related materials. If the overseas purchases for Arak are confirmed, they would violate sanctions.

In theory, purchases for the Arak reactor could be a deal breaker in negotiations between Iran and six major powers on a long-term nuclear deal. But the Americans appear determined to try and work out an agreement nonetheless, even while acknowledging that Iran is trying to evade sanctions on its nuclear program. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Washington not only knows - and is concerned - about "Iran's illicit procurement activities," but has spoken about them publicly and has imposed penalties on companies involved. "Indeed it is in part precisely because of our concerns about Iran's procurement activities that we believe it is vital to see if we can conclude a comprehensive agreement that gives us transparency into Iran's nuclear program," she said.

Harf noted that Iran has upheld its commitments under last year's interim deal signed in Geneva between Iran and world powers and aimed at testing Tehran's claim that it does not seek atomic weapons. A yearlong effort by the two sides to seal a nuclear deal by a Nov. 24 deadline failed and talks have been extended for seven months. Among the major unresolved issues are how many - and what kind - of centrifuges which can enrich uranium Iran should be allowed to have. Diplomats said the expert panel's report cites a "relative decrease" in procurement related to centrifuge enrichment by Iran in recent months.

News from The Associated Press