|
On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source.
i totally agree with this up to the last point.
how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future!
|
On December 14 2010 20:25 undyinglight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 09:30 Krigwin wrote:
Why would they keep a lid on this if it provides justification for the entire war effort? I was wondering the same thing, wow future history books will look upon this period differently, now that this info has come to light.
did you read any of the posts in the page you posted?or the article?
no wmds in Iraq,remnants of pre gulf war,nothing in wikileaks,and author of the *article* biased nutjob.
Please edit the op,it'd be a shame that 50% of the people reading it think it's true :/
|
On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source.
Nuclear Energy isn't clean. It's the cleanest one available to produce the amount of power we need, yes, but clean ? hell no.
As seen in Iran centrifuges used in making 'civilian' grade uranium can be used to make bombs. If Iraq had a way to refine uranium for a reactor then they had the capability to make bombs. But they had neither.
|
On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source.
So it's like I thought after reading the OP. They have the ingredients but it doesn't mean they'll make it 
Thanks for the extended explaination though. U gotta wonder though what if he did have that technology to refine it enough to get U235.
|
On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future!
The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment?
|
On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! Okay I am bias I use to be Nuclear power plant operator in the Navy but Nuclear power is clean. It has no effect on the environment. The plants normally run off of heated steam that does not come in contact with fission particles and steps are taken to ensure than not even a small amount of radioactive material leaks out of the core. If it did then it would only leak into the primary system and that is self contained also along with the secondary system. The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site. Nuclear reactors even exist in nature, there are 2 reactors in Africa that are naturally occurring found in underground cave systems and then the of course the sun is a huge a reactor. So if you can tell me how reactors hurt the environment and aren't clean I will believe that they are a viable green energy source.
Let me have a guess. You've received your education in Texas. I could enlarge upon my impression of your conception of what Nuclear Power plants run on but somehow I believe it will be self-evident to every perceptive reader of your statement. I don't really mind your attempt at appealing to authority but the rest speaks too clearly a picture of educational opportunities thoroughly missed.
TL;DR: "omg".
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment?
You answered your own question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stop trolling or start to think for a second before posting.
Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O Before the waste decays our planet will be filled with nuclear waste everywhere!
|
On December 14 2010 21:12 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! Okay I am bias I use to be Nuclear power plant operator in the Navy but Nuclear power is clean. It has no effect on the environment. The plants normally run off of heated steam that does not come in contact with fission particles and steps are taken to ensure than not even a small amount of radioactive material leaks out of the core. If it did then it would only leak into the primary system and that is self contained also along with the secondary system. The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site. Nuclear reactors even exist in nature, there are 2 reactors in Africa that are naturally occurring found in underground cave systems and then the of course the sun is a huge a reactor. So if you can tell me how reactors hurt the environment and aren't clean I will believe that they are a viable green energy source. Let me have a guess. You've received your education in Texas. I could enlarge upon my impression of your conception of what Nuclear Power plants run on but somehow I believe it will be self-evident to every perceptive reader of your statement. I don't really mind your attempt at appealing to authority but the rest speaks too clearly a picture of educational opportunities thoroughly missed. TL;DR: "omg".
He fucking operated a nuclear power plant. He knows what he's talking about. You don't. Stop buying into sensationalist popular movements that go wild at the mention of nuclear and read a book learn about how nuclear reactors work. France gets 80% of its power from nuclear energy, with no environmental consequences.
Edit: And also to stay on topic, it seems the first pages of responders never bothered to read the NYTimes article, which shows that the discovery is no surprise at all and completely in line with the orthodox view. Read the Washington Examiner article, scroll down and read the last comment and you realize that it is nothing but uninformed, biased reporting.
|
On December 14 2010 21:23 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment? You answered your question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O
How does it have an effect on the environment? It is normally in concrete/lead encase caskets and miles underground. Most of the materials half-life has already been depleted before its allowed offsite anyways. ie. it is hardly radioactive when it is put in the ground.
|
This is old news and doesn't change anything.
|
On December 14 2010 21:12 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! Okay I am bias I use to be Nuclear power plant operator in the Navy but Nuclear power is clean. It has no effect on the environment. The plants normally run off of heated steam that does not come in contact with fission particles and steps are taken to ensure than not even a small amount of radioactive material leaks out of the core. If it did then it would only leak into the primary system and that is self contained also along with the secondary system. The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site. Nuclear reactors even exist in nature, there are 2 reactors in Africa that are naturally occurring found in underground cave systems and then the of course the sun is a huge a reactor. So if you can tell me how reactors hurt the environment and aren't clean I will believe that they are a viable green energy source. Let me have a guess. You've received your education in Texas. I could enlarge upon my impression of your conception of what Nuclear Power plants run on but somehow I believe it will be self-evident to every perceptive reader of your statement. I don't really mind your attempt at appealing to authority but the rest speaks too clearly a picture of educational opportunities thoroughly missed. TL;DR: "omg".
Please show how what he wrote is wrong in any way, I would love to see that. (Except the sentence that they have no effect whatsoever, but that is wrong only if you are a nitpicker, and they are still cleaner than basically anything else we have).
Nuclear power generation is maybe not clean in some ideal sense, but I would like you to show me what power generation system is cleaner except maybe tidal wave-based power plants. Yes there is potential danger in nuclear power plants mostly related to storing waste, but if done properly there is no realistic danger, and even the worst nuclear disaster caused very small damage compared to other viable power plants(relative to power output of course).
|
On December 14 2010 21:23 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment? You answered your own question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stop trolling or start to think for a second before posting. Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O Before the waste decays our planet will be filled with nuclear waste everywhere!
No, and you are not the one who does not think. There is not enough uranium on Earth to fill much of anything so there is no worry about there being waste everywhere. Also waste stored deep in the stone caverns has no effect on environment if by that you mean biosphere, otherwise your definition is useless for this discussion. Also please do show what cleaner practical options we actually have to generate power.
|
|
|
On December 14 2010 21:29 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:23 Nizaris wrote:On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment? You answered your question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O How does it have an effect on the environment? It is normally in lead encase caskets and miles underground. Most of the materials half-life has already been depleted before its allowed offsite anyways.
Think for 1 sec. Burying it or not it's still nuclear waste.
Even if you put it lead. What if somehow one day it gets released. You can't guarantee the thing will stay there unaltered for 1M years.
Drilling holes in the earth and stuffing highly toxic and dangerous materials is destroying our planet aka our environment.
Its radioactive decay will strongly influence the long-term activity curve of the SNF around 1 million years
SNF = Spent Nuclear Fuel. 1 million years it stays there....
|
On December 14 2010 21:12 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! Okay I am bias I use to be Nuclear power plant operator in the Navy but Nuclear power is clean. It has no effect on the environment. The plants normally run off of heated steam that does not come in contact with fission particles and steps are taken to ensure than not even a small amount of radioactive material leaks out of the core. If it did then it would only leak into the primary system and that is self contained also along with the secondary system. The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site. Nuclear reactors even exist in nature, there are 2 reactors in Africa that are naturally occurring found in underground cave systems and then the of course the sun is a huge a reactor. So if you can tell me how reactors hurt the environment and aren't clean I will believe that they are a viable green energy source. Let me have a guess. You've received your education in Texas. I could enlarge upon my impression of your conception of what Nuclear Power plants run on but somehow I believe it will be self-evident to every perceptive reader of your statement. I don't really mind your attempt at appealing to authority but the rest speaks too clearly a picture of educational opportunities thoroughly missed. TL;DR: "omg".
So in an effort to counter his argument, you make blind statements about where he received his education from and then proceed to insult that place. I would love to hear what you have to say about what is wrong with his post, maybe you can show us your so valued education.
|
On December 14 2010 21:44 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 21:29 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 21:23 Nizaris wrote:On December 14 2010 21:00 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 20:37 nehl wrote:On December 14 2010 19:35 Jswizzy wrote:On December 14 2010 17:33 shannn wrote:
So to be very simple. They had the ingredients to make WMDs / nuclear reactors. But they already had oil so nuclear reactors would be stupid to have. So because of this assumption the US goverment (Bush?) thought it was only for WMDs?
Am I correct to think like this? Hum Yellowcake doesn't really mean they were going to make nuclear weapons. It is commonly used to make fuel rods with but it needs to be enriched atleast twice which Iraq didn't have the capabilities to do to get a high enough percent of U235 to make a bomb or even use in a naval reactor. Commercial plants don't need highly enriched uranium so unless the US can prove that Iraq had a way to weapon the yellowcake it could of been just for a reactor. I mean Nuclear Technology should be a goal of any modernized country it is the only viable clean energy source. i totally agree with this up to the last point. how can nuclear power ever can be clean? it is not. it will never be! so it is not an arcievement you want to archive if cou care about nature and the future! The waste that a plant produces decays after a few thousands years and while this happens the material is stored onsite or in a large underground site so how is it bad for the environment? You answered your question yourself. I'll bold the important parts.... Stuffing crap underground that stays there for 'a few thousands years' is the opposite of protecting our environment :O How does it have an effect on the environment? It is normally in lead encase caskets and miles underground. Most of the materials half-life has already been depleted before its allowed offsite anyways. Think for 1 sec. Burying it or not it's still nuclear waste. Even if you put it lead. What if somehow one day it gets released. You can't guarantee the thing will stay there unaltered for 1M years. Drilling holes in the earth and stuffing highly toxic and dangerous materials is destroying our planet aka our environment. Show nested quote + Its radioactive decay will strongly influence the long-term activity curve of the SNF around 1 million years SNF = Spent Nuclear Fuel. 1 million years it stays there....
You haven't mentioned a single way how this remotely affects the environment.
|
Someone needs to seriously edit this OP title because it's just false.
|
Why wasn't the name of the topic edited yet?It's basically propaganda
|
Scary how many people have fallen for this without any kind of fact checking/googling/reading the source.
I hope some moderator would edit the thread title so not more people waste their time.
|
953 Posts
First of all, the thread title in sensationalistic. Wikileaks don't (haven't and can't) confirm WMDs in Iraq. Its the opinion of a partisan columnist that the documents wikileaks released prove that they were _planning_ on making WMDs, although he opens his column by stating they had WMDs even though he later clarifies the point.
There is literally nothing new or interesting about the article. No new evidence has come to light.
The yellowcake that was removed in Iraq in 2008 was known to the international community and catalogued and stored by U.N representatives. It had been there for decades, since before the first gulf war, remnants of an old abandoned nuclear reactor program.
It was merely removed in 2008 for safety reasons/disposal.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
Edit: Saw link was posted earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
