Iran To 'Remove Fuel' From Bushehr Nuclear Plant 240
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."
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do I feel like epimetheus on this site... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, maybe Slashdot should change it's title to "News from yesterday, stuff that might still matter".
I realize Slashdot isn't a news site, but seeing news or stories about things that happened days or weeks ago is a little ridiculous.
-rt
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rambling summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Removing (possibly some of the rods or even all of them) for safety and maintenance is not something that never happened in other reactors. It is something that happens frequently in the world.
Re:What OS was that? (Score:0, Insightful)
Linux nor BSD nor Windows is 'safe' enough for critical infrastructure.
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:5, Insightful)
New York Times good enough?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html [nytimes.com]
CNN International work?
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/ [cnn.com]
Washington Post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702221.html [washingtonpost.com]
How about the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4384264.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Now what the fuck were you saying again?
all this crap about israel (Score:5, 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:
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html [iranonline.com]
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
Re:all this crap about israel (Score:3, Insightful)
Russia - which a decade ago imploded and nearly lost control (or perhaps has lost control) of nuclear weapons which cost us hundreds of millions of dollars to get under some degree of temporary security.
Pakistan - a nominally secular country in the midst of imploding into something that might make Afghanistan look sane.
India - a nominally democratic country that has nucs so it can ward off Pakistan.
Israel - again, a nominally democratic, secular country in the middle of a bunch of batshit insane theocracies. While they would be unlikely to first strike with nuclear weapons, they have been involved in three or four major military conflicts with their neighbors. Any resumption of major hostilities carries the real risk of nuclear weapon use, irrespective if Iran has them. Whether they're used for defensive or offensive purposes, starting a nuclear war in the Middle East doesn't strike most people as a good idea.
I think we should give them all to Canada.
Re:What OS was that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Running a critical machine on a general purpose computer is a terrible idea no matter what OS you have. But it's also extremely common practice.
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel has never threatened to destroy Iran
You sure about that?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133899,00.html [foxnews.com]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7440472.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://peoplesworld.org/coincidence-israeli-palestinian-talks-to-open-israel-threatens-iran-attack/ [peoplesworld.org]
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/ [cnn.com]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml [cbsnews.com]
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.
Re:all this crap about israel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Facts please. When did Israel threaten another country with nukes? They don't even acknowledge they have them.
Actually Israel has used it's nukes as part of a threat when US aid was restricted.
Of course it wasn't acknowledged. But when you roll out a certain squadron from bunkers with the clear intention of allowing it to be seen by the people who know what it is, and the purpose of that rollout was to say, "We need aid, or these are all we have left to defend ourselves." The threat is quite clear.
Essentially, Israel used their nukes as leverage in negotiations to say that they didn't want to use them, but they would if that's all they had.
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Zionism is not racism
That's a matter of opinion [wikipedia.org]. The main reason we have the palestinian problem is that Isreal will not allow them to return because recognising them as citizens would fuck up their majority jewish demographic. The gigantic palestinian concentration camps have a different history to South African Apartheid but the end result is the same.