Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 27, 2006
Heavy Water What?

The NYT is back to spread disinformation about a perceived U.S. enemy. NYT staff reporter Michael Slackman writes: Iran Opens a Heavy-Water Reactor

On Saturday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a provocative, if symbolic, gesture by formally inaugurating a heavy-water reactor. The Iranians say the plant would be used for peaceful power generation. But nuclear experts note that heavy-water facilities are more useful for weapons because they produce lots of plutonium — the preferred ingredient for missile warheads.

That paragraph hardly includes a relevant fact:

  • Iran did not open a heavy-water reactor, but a plant to produce heavy water. It is building a heavy-water reactor, but that reactor will not open any time soon. The now opened plant will have a capacity of 16 tons of heavy water per year. The 40 megawatt research reactor to be build will need about 80 to 90 tons of heavy water to start operating. It will not be finished before 2009 and the needed amount of heavy water will only be available on an even later date.
  • The experts claiming that heavy-water reactors are more useful for weapons than for electricity production should explain why all 18 operational Canadian nuclear plants are heavy-water types and why Germany and France do use heavy water research reactors as neutron sources for material science projects
  • The perfect ingrediant for missile warheads is definitly not Plutonium. About 99.999+% of missile warheads in this world use non-nuclear explosives. Iran has neither the missile- nor the nuclear technology to produce any threatening guided rocket with a nuclear warhead.

Starting with headline up to the very end, the readers of the article are not informed about the issue but dragged into assumptions of an immediate danger.

Judith Miller would have been proud had she written that piece.

Comments

It is my understanding that heavy water reactors are “fail safe” in the sense that left to rage on their own their nuclear cores do not “meltdown” but “go out”.
A key feature of heavy water reactors seems to be their ability to use naturally occuring uranium as fuel. So why are the Iranians enriching uranium if they are going to be building heavy water reactors?
I hope someone hear might explain. We certainly won’t be reading anything in the NYTimes’ print that’s not fitted to its propaganda purposes. Does anyone besides b read the NYTimes anymore?

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Aug 27 2006 10:39 utc | 1

I don’t

Posted by: jlcg | Aug 27 2006 11:38 utc | 2

Another interesting “test” by Iran today.

Iran on Sunday test-fired a sub-to-surface missile in the Persian Gulf during large-scale military exercises, state-run television reported.
“The army successfully test-fired a top speed long-range sub-to-surface missile off the Persian Gulf,” the Army’s Navy commander, Gen. Sajjad Kouchaki, said on state television.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Aug 27 2006 11:46 utc | 3

Wow, that was a fabulous post. Why don’t you write a letter to the paper with these details? If what you say is correct (and I have absolutely no expertise to judge but I assume you are; hope others on here will weigh in as well) then this is one of the worst pieces of journalism I think I’ve ever seen. How is it possible the Times could botch it so badly, unless they are either idiotically naive (ie, accepting info from government sources without double checking it) or completely in the service of the overall mission… which is a pretty horrifying thought?

Posted by: Bea | Aug 27 2006 12:17 utc | 4

thanks b

Posted by: annie | Aug 27 2006 14:29 utc | 5

@John Francis Lee – So why are the Iranians enriching uranium if they are going to be building heavy water reactors?
Like most other countries who started nuclear energy projects, the Iranians are takeing a multipath strategy. The light pressure reactor being build by Russians in Bukanir is one path. The heavy water reactor is another one.
Some countries, especially with not as much Uranium as Canada, prefer other technologies because of fuel efficiency. For the same input of raw Uranium heavy water reactors only deliver 60% of the electricity reactors with enriched Uranium.
But there are other reasons to build such a reactor. It’s relative small size (40 MW versus 1000MW for a big commercial reactor) is typical for research, but it would produce plutonium too. As long as Iran is in the NPT, the IAEA would have full access to that reactor.
For some research applications of HW reactors as neutron source see the right bar here

Posted by: b | Aug 27 2006 14:46 utc | 6

“Wow, that was a fabulous post. Why don’t you write a letter to the paper with these details?”
Agreed. Not only the NYT, but post it on KOS, if you haven’t already.

Posted by: JM | Aug 27 2006 15:47 utc | 7

While you are analyzing this ‘reality’ of shoddy NYT reporting, they are creating another reality of re-positioning assets in the seas surrounding the region.
Second verse same as the first.

Posted by: gylangirl | Aug 27 2006 17:47 utc | 8

The experts claiming that heavy-water reactors are more useful for weapons than for electricity production should explain why all 18 operational Canadian nuclear plants are heavy-water types
My God! And the fuckers are right next door! Why didn’t Rummy tell me about this?

Posted by: Cheney | Aug 27 2006 17:56 utc | 9

Recently reports were given in the Indian press about unauthorized individuals gaining access to an oprerational reactor in India. A little investigation about the reactors in India revealed that it was a CANDU reactor. Like most heavy water reactors, it offered the attraction that it can be refueled on the run (a feature it shares with most of the old Soviet graphite moderated reactors like the one at Chernobyl). The operators only need to push fresh uranium elements into one side of the reactor core and pop out the consumed unenriched uranium elements on the other side. The reactor doesn’t need to be shut down totally for refueling as light water reactors do. That is an attractive feature for third world nations which need every kW-Hr they can generate.
Unfortunately, this feature also means that transmutated uranium is coming out of the reactor on a constant basis. One of the by-products of the process is plutonium, which can be separated chemically from the unenriched uranium and fission daughter products. Controlling the disposal of the spent fuel becomes a vital concern.
Just think of it as slurm.

Posted by: PrahaPartizan | Aug 27 2006 19:00 utc | 10

Israel, India and Pakistan all have been ‘given the bomb.’ None of them are signatories of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. (Iran is.)
North Korea quit the treaty in 2003.
The countries who had, or vaguely developed nukulear arms (e.g. South Africa, Argentina, etc.) is very long.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists keeps up with all this and has a lot of interesting articles (scroll down a bit for Iran)
link
All this is about the “New Middle east” and control of energy:
Blood borders : How a better Middle East would look
By R. Peters, Armed Forces Journal (click on the map at top right)
link

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 27 2006 20:47 utc | 11

noirette, where’s palestine?

Posted by: annie | Aug 27 2006 22:02 utc | 12

For Palestine (status undetermined), click on the map to go to #2, then click to enlarge it. Israel goes to pre-1967 borders in the proposed changes.
The map has all kinds of unlikely borders and states.

Posted by: Owl | Aug 28 2006 1:29 utc | 13

I am impressed to finally see someone analyzing these “playing with words” that show up every day in popular media. As an Iranian who reads on news from a variety of sources (from Farsi sources all the way to CNN), I laugh every day at the way the news are getting misinterpreted. One funny thing, is the way CNN translates the names of the Iranian missles!

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 28 2006 2:32 utc | 14

Iranian anonymous fellow – nice that you have discovered this place.
There are lots more –
Here is one, devoted to the unpleasant job of analysing Fox TV (I’d rather help with wastewater treatment research, and have, in the past.)
Newshounds
We watch Fox so you don’t have to
IRAN. NUKE. SHOWDOWN.
Reported by Chrish – August 24, 2006 – 95 comments
Just think about that for a moment. It’s simple, it’s concise, it’s scary, and it’s a warning. Are you good and scared? Enough to support the administration in another pre-emptive attack against another country that poses no threat to us? That’s what the drill is and has been at FOX News for months and months now.

Posted by: Owl | Aug 28 2006 4:40 utc | 15

A scenario, and an interesting fact.
First the fact. Prior to the fall of the Shah, there were numerous western countries engaged in delivering nuclear reactor technology to Iran. Once the Islamic Republic of Iran was established, these contracts were discontinued.
For Iranians, it’s a point of pride to be able to show the west that they are capable on their own.
Then the scenario.
Let’s say there is such a thing as peak oil. Who better to assess this than a major oil producing country, in the region with the assumed greatest oil reserves? In addition a country with ample connections into Saudi Arabia, and thus with the ability to assess the truth of Saudi reservoir claims. (The Shi’ite dominated Gulf region of Saudi Arabia has all the oil. Though run by Saudi Aramco and Sunnis, there is no way to keep the Shi’ites (and thus Iran) out of the loop.
Let’s even imagine that peak oil is a lot closer than you thought. Maybe even here? (Which would explain Cheney’s mad dash for oil over the past few years).
What would a sensible Iranian ruler do, I wonder, if not look into alternative sources of energy?
Which does not mean that they are disregarding the added “benefit” of weaponizing their research. But it’s worth going with the Iranians on this one, at least to try and see through the jingoism of western media now bent on portraying them as atom bomb addicts.

Posted by: SteinL | Aug 28 2006 6:00 utc | 16

SteinL, you don’t even need to posit peak oil to make nuclear energy sensible for Iran. Burning precious oil to make electricity is stupid if you even expect increased demand – from China and India for instance – to keep the price of oil reasonably high in the long term. For some reason lots of people in the West expect the Iranians to act against their own interests.
You could talk about other alternative energy sources – sun and wind for instance – but nuclear power has political aspects that appeal to authoritarian regimes. They’re big projects, impressive and prestigious (in a certain sense) and with big budgets that make them good for creaming a bit off the top for that retirement fund in a Swiss bank. You also have the problem of providing base generation load from a reliable source.

Posted by: Colman | Aug 28 2006 7:43 utc | 17

Me, I refuse to even analyse Iran’s motives for developing nuclear technology. Since Iran is one of the many countries in the world that left to it’s own devices, minds it’s own business, as far as I am concerned they can do what they like. The nations to be concerned about are those who go into other countries and stick guns in the locals faces. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe it has a long time since Persia as it was known then ,instigated a blue with another country.
A government concerned to protect it’s citizens from outside attack would have the Islamic Republic of Iran a long way down the list of countries to keep an eye upon.
I make this point because we all know what this blue is really about (well more intimidation than blue, really. I still reckon that the penny has dropped even with Dubya) amerika won’t be able to ‘win’ a war against Iran, so they are hanging in still trying to intimidate and hopefully bluff Iranians right up until Cheney finally blinks.
Every day this balance of terror that amerika began continues, is another day of amerikan capitalists banking outrageous profits on the energy market which they monopolise.
Why quit until you absolutely have to? It’s not as if any of them are paying for this brinksmanship. It’s being funded out of amerikan taxpayer dollars and Arab lives. Eventually some Iranian lives may be lost but that could be problematic because it would push Iran into wasting the overfed, and over here types cowering in the Green Zone and other assorted little ersatz USAs dotted around Iraq.
THe pigs may yet succeed in keeping their monopoly on the oil market, but it’s difficult to understand how Russia and China could see any benefit for themselves in allowing the monopoly to continue.
Unless of course BushCo got pushed so far into a corner by there outrageous deceit that they ended up giving a huge chunk of the oil monopoly to Russia and China to get them to allow a bit of a blue with Iran in order for the rethugs to have a little showboat thru the mid term elections. Cutting off yer nose to spite yer face is the usual term for that sort of action.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 28 2006 10:33 utc | 18

Good thoughts Did, I personally don’t see em blinking till and they are run out of office, which is doubtful will ever happen. And your clear and insightful writing again comfirms my alligation, that the system is set up where the citizens pay for their own bondage.
Why would a family of criminals give that up..

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 28 2006 13:35 utc | 19

@Noirette
That article was penned by none other Ralph “exterminate the brutes” Peters, who’s got a column for the NY Post where he sings risible militaristic hymns to US martial glory.
Just the sort of bloke qualified to redraw the ME map.

Posted by: ran | Aug 28 2006 13:51 utc | 20

gabriel kolko’s latest thoughts, The Great Equalizer: Lessons From Iraq and Lebanon, makes mention of this

Technology is now moving much faster than the diplomatic and political resources or will to control its inevitable consequences — not to mention traditional strategic theories. … the U. S. Army has just released a report that light water reactors–which 25 nations, from Armenia to Slovenia as well as Spain, already have and are covered by no existing arms control treaties — can be used to obtain near weapons-grade plutonium easily and cheaply. Within a few years, many more countries than the present ten or so — the Army study thinks Saudi Arabia and even Egypt most likely–will have nuclear bombs and far more destructive and accurate rockets and missiles.

that study is Taming the Next Set of Strategic Weapons Threats

Posted by: b real | Aug 28 2006 14:42 utc | 21

Debs is Dead, I went back 500 years in Iranian history and found not a single instance where Iran has acted aggressively outside its own borders. Could have gone further back, but what other countries on earth have 500-year non-aggression histories?

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 28 2006 15:04 utc | 22

Beautiful web site on Iranian culture and history: Iranian Treasures
via Juan Cole, more on Iran’s essentially non-aggressive nature:
Ahmadinejad: We are Not a Threat to Any Country, Including Israel
Juan Cole says: “Believe it, don’t believe it, that’s up to you. But at least we should know what exactly he said, which is not something our US newspapers will tell us about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech on Saturday:”

Kayhan reports that [Pers.] Ahmadinejad said, “Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression.” He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections:
“Weapons research is in no way part of Iran’s program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections.”

Juan Cole again: “Ahmadinejad seems to be explaining what his calls for the Zionist regime to be effaced actually mean. He says he doesn’t want violence against Israel, despite its own acts of enmity against Middle Eastern neighbors. I interpret his statement on Saturday to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for. The result would be a government about half made up of Israeli ministers and half of Palestinian ones. Whatever one wanted to call such an arrangement, it wouldn’t exactly be a “Zionist state,” which would thus have been dissolved.
“Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei’s pledge of no first strike against any country by Iran with any kind of weapon, and his condemnation of nuclear bombs as un-Islamic and impossible for Iran to possess or use, was completely ignored by the Western press and is never referred to. Indeed, after all that talk of peace and no first strike and no nukes, Khamenei at the very end said that if Iran were attacked, it would defend itself. Karl Vicks of the Washington Post at the time ignored all the rest of the speech and made the headline, ‘Khamenei threatens reprisals against US.” In other words, on Iran, the US public is being spoonfed agitprop, not news.
“Although Iran’s protestations of peaceful intentions are greeted cynically in the US and Israel, in fact Iran has not launched a war of aggression in over a century. The US and Israel have launched several during that period of time.
“Ahmadinejad made the remarks in a speech inaugurating work on a heavy water nuclear reactor in Arak.”

Posted by: Bea | Aug 28 2006 17:12 utc | 23

The ArmsControlWonk: Heavy Water Plant Not Nuclear Reactor

I was annoyed that most of the major news outlets incorrectly described Iran’s heavy water plant (which cannot make plutonium) as a nuclear “reactor” (which can).

Posted by: b | Aug 29 2006 8:49 utc | 24