Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iran To 'Remove Fuel' From Bushehr Nuclear Plant

Posted by timothy on from the ha-ha-biff-stuxnet-ha-ha-that's-rich dept.

mangu writes "Iran said on Saturday it is removing the fuel from the reactor of a Russian-built nuclear power plant, a move seen as a big blow to its controversial nuclear program. The plant was first launched by the shah using contractors from Siemens. It was shelved after the Islamic revolution and it lay unfinished through the 1980s. In the early 1990s, Iran sought help for the project after being turned away by Siemens over nuclear proliferation concerns. In 1994, Russia agreed to complete the plant and provide the fuel, with the supply deal committing Iran to returning the spent fuel. The plant has faced hiccups even after its physical launch, with officials blaming the delays in generating electricity on a range of factors, including Bushehr's 'severe weather.' But they deny it was hit by the malicious Stuxent computer worm which struck industrial computers in Iran, although they acknowledge that the personal computers of some personnel at Bushehr were infected with it."

11 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. Re:more concerned about israels nukes. by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    then you understand why iran wants them. If israel has then then you agree iran needs them for a deterrence.

  2. Re:more concerned about israels nukes. by Cwix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    New York Times good enough?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html

    CNN International work?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

    Washington Post?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702221.html

    How about the BBC?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4384264.stm

    Now what the fuck were you saying again?

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  3. all this crap about israel by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i don't care about israel. israel doesn't matter: iran shouldn't have nukes because it is a theocracy. it believes in power invested in some grumpy old men who are believed to have a sort of monopoly on the interpretation of the will of god. this is not the kind of person i want with a nuclear weapon

    this is the constitution of iran:

    1- General Principles
    Article 1

    The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji' al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

    Article 2

    The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

    1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
    2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
    3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
    4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
    5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam; ...

    http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html

    you want a government who believes these things in possession of a nuclear weapon?

    and please, don't get me wrong: i don't have any problems with islam. if this document was centered on christianity or judaism i would have the same repulsion. i have problem with religious power structures, period. some religious kooks who think some invisible mahdi dude will reappear at armageddeon, with freaking NUCLEAR BOMB?! self-fulfilling prophecy? hello?

    no, no fucking thanks, no nuke for iran

    again: i don't care about israel. i have no problem with islam. i simply have a major serious problem with religious kooks possessing a nuclear bomb. NO THANK YOU

    and please, i don't want any asshole lecturing me about false equivalency: that it's the same as pakistan, or israel, or the usa, or whatever: no, it isn't really the same. iran is EXPLICITLY a theocracy. A THEOCRACY. do you understand that? it really is different than saying "well gw bush is religious". yeah, good for him. but the fucking government he is part of isn't based on the fucking pope or some rabbi holding all ultimate power. that difference is real

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:all this crap about israel by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hi circletimessquare! I hate ta break the news to you but guess what our mid east policies are based on? Ready? "Jesus won't come back!". Yep, fraid so, wish I was kidding, sadly not. I live next to a heavily conservative college that donates to the right wing and gets many movers and shakers to lecture there, and I'm afraid that is pretty much it.

      So I hate to tell you that while I agree that Iran is batshit, sadly when it comes to religion our leaders are just as batshit as they are. I mean when you base your foreign policy for an entire region, as well as give away BILLIONS of dollars you don't have to a country that routinely tells us to go fuck ourselves in return, all because some text written on a sheep's ass by goat herders half a world away 20 centuries plus ago says that if we don't a two thousand year dead man won't have a place to park his fluffy cloud?

      I'm sorry but that is seriously fucked up and the fact that we prop up monsters like in Egypt just because they will play ball with "the chosen people" according to a sheepskin just means they have EVERY reason to hate us. Personally we should tell them "good luck!" and pack up our shit and go home. I have a feeling Israel wouldn't act like giant pricks if they knew they couldn't snap their fingers and have the USA cut them a check or send them some killer weapons tech.

      Of course one thing you have to give them credit for is their skills in propaganda. I mean nobody in power dares say shit about Israel for fear of being labeled a Nazi loving antisemitic. Doesn't matter if their policies make things ever worse, or what they do to the Arabs, you say a word you'll be called antisemitic before you even set the mike down. Gotta give them credit where credit is due, and they are damned good at playing that card.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:all this crap about israel by thePig · · Score: 5, Informative

      India - a nominally democratic country that has nucs so it can ward off Pakistan.

      I guess you are using nominally - as - existing on name only - right?

      From this sentence, I take it that you have never been to India - and dont even really know about it. There are many negatives for India, but being non-democratic is not one of them.

      Democracy is the most important thing in our collective psyche. And when people kick your country down on the biggest thing it believes, due to their ignorance - it really really feels bad.

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    3. Re:all this crap about israel by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not quite the same. What are the actual limits on power of the Supreme Leader? What checks and balances are there to make sure the Supreme Leader follows the will of the people/democratic process? It appears while there might be some limits in theory in practice the Supreme Leader has the Pasdaran and Basiji to do whatever the hell he wants. Iran has the trappings of a democracy but in actual practice it is a very corrupt absolute theocracy. Which is a real shame since all the Iranians I meet I really like as generally intelligent, warm and humerous people.

    4. Re:all this crap about israel by boxwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But the Guardian Council gets to decide who is allowed to stand for election. You're a reformer? Yeah the Guardian Council says that you're not allowed to run for political office.

      Iran is actually closer to how the Vatican is run. Yeah the Cardinals decide who gets to be Pope, but the Pope gets to decide who gets to be Cardinals. This ensures that there isn't going to be a new Pope with radical new ideas like allowing priests to marry, or promoting the use of condoms in Africa, even if most catholics might want the church to move in this direction.

      The Iranian government isn't doing what the people of Iran want, as indicated by the protests there.

  4. Re:more concerned about israels nukes. by Cwix · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please supply a source that it was mis-translated.

    No? If you read my sources you will see stuff like this...

    BBC...

    Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

    Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity".

    Hes not claiming he was mistranslated...

    Washington post..

    Most Arab countries have no diplomatic relations with Israel. But the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said, according to the Associated Press: "We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and . . . we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran. This is unacceptable."

    Are you saying the Palestinians mistranslated him? You'd think they'd be able to get a good translation there.

    Your WRONG! He said it, he admits it. The Palestinians even told him he shouldn't have said it.

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  5. Re:more concerned about israels nukes. by wmac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are 400,000 links listed in that google query. If you cannot look at them it is your problem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_controversy
    ---
    From Wikipedia , section on "Translation controversy"

    Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime." [15][16][17]

    Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[18]

      Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—"wipe Israel off the map"—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[19][20][21]
    ---

    It is not just my opinion that Zionism is extremist, at least several hundred millions of people agree with me.

  6. Re:more concerned about israels nukes. by gambino21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Israel has never threatened to destroy Iran

    You sure about that?

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133899,00.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7440472.stm

    http://peoplesworld.org/coincidence-israeli-palestinian-talks-to-open-israel-threatens-iran-attack/

    And of course the US has made similar threats against Iran:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/hunter-giuliani-on-using-nukes-against-iran/

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml

    But IMO, actions speak louder than words. Israel has invaded several countries within the last 50 years, when was the last time Iran invaded anyone? More than 100 years ago? With that said, I don't believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, but I believe it's hypocritical of Isreal and the US to keep a large stockpile of long range nuclear missiles while beating the war drums about how "dangerous" Iran is and that we need to invade them, and expect them to not try to defend themselves.

  7. A litttle bit of nuclear physics helps by mbkennel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Civilian nuclear plants are not optimized for the production of weapons grade plutonium. The most economically efficient way to produce power creates Pu-239 (the bomb stuff) and Pu-240, which will result in predetonation in an implosion nuclear weapon. (It is totally impractical to isotopically separate Pu-239 from Pu-240 because they're sufficiently radioactive)

    However, if you remove the nuclear fuel in a civilian plant prematurely, such as what Iran is doing, then less of the Pu-239 being produced will be turned in to Pu-240 (just a small amount poisons the reactor). And it can be used to make weapons, though a purpose-designed plant to make weapons grade plutonium is more economically efficient (e.g. graphite instead of water moderated).

    This premature removal of fuel rods (and likely reprocessing) along with Iran's other actions show a renewed committment to producing nuclear weaponry.