550 Metric Tons of Uranium Removed From Iraq 647
Orion Blastar tips us to an AP report that 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" uranium has successfully been removed from Iraq. The operation lasted three months, and it required 37 separate flights and an 8,500-mile trip by boat to reach a port in Montreal. Quoting:
"While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called 'dirty bomb' -- a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material -- it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth 'tens of millions of dollars.' A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors."
Thanks, media, (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody panic! (Score:5, Insightful)
So the primary hazard is mass panic.. exactly the same as a (uranium based) radiological dispersion device (dirty bomb) then. Also not too dissimilar to what the US have been doing for the last 5 years - shooting uranium all over the place.
Quick question (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any radioactive material that is potent enough for a dirty bomb? Wouldn't blowing the material up just spread it out so that it's doesn't emit enough rem to do damage?
Even if you could find a material potent enough how would you store it? How would you move the bomb into a strategic position without killing yourself from radiation poisoning?
I think a dirty bomb is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
Wow. So a lot of that was much ado about nothing? (Score:1, Insightful)
So all the fuss about Bush lying about Saddam trying to get large quantities of yellowcake was pretty much blustering and arm waving on both sides of the political aisle over nothing, eh?
I mean, if the guy already had 550 tonnes of the stuff, why should the right make it a big deal that he's looking for more? I'm certain you can get enough fissionable material from 550 tonnes of yellowcake to make a good bomb or two.
Also, on the left, if the guy already had 550 tonnes of the stuff, why make this big deal out of the fact that it turned out to be a lie that he was trying to acquire more? If a guy already has a gun with half a clip in it, does it really make him less dangerous if he's not out looking for the rest of the clip?
Like comparing rust to steel (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people always feel the need to stress that yellowcake could be made into weapons, no matter how far from being a weapon it presently is? It's like saying:
...though making a high quality steel tool from rust is significantly easier than making a weapon from yellowcake. The ubiquitous anti-nuke meme (it's radioactive, be afraid!)? Or just boilerplate like measuring energy use in average households equivalents or heavy things in adult male elephants?
-- MarkusQ
It's about time... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is gratifying to hear we've disassembled the last remnants of Iraq's non-existent WMD program.
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Insightful)
You choose a material that is biologically available. Then that brings strong alpha emitters up close to cells in the body. For example you might want something that could replace small amounts of calcium in people's bones and teeth with a radioactive isotope. Or something that would replace carbon in the fat in internal organ, skin and brain. That way when you spread the radioactive material far it can quickly be concentrated into human beings doint maximum damage. It also can decimate the environment due to bio-accumulation.
The point was the lie itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because the lie was used to trick the American people into starting a war that has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, wrecked our economy, undermined our position in the world and put us in a far less secure position, killed hundreds of thousands of people, destabilized the middle east, and lined the pockets of the friends and supporters of the people who told the lie with money stolen from the US treasury on the basis of that lie?
The problem was it was a lie, crafted and used to achieve a specific dishonorable result. The fact that other claims that could have been made about superficially similar subjects were true (and were known to be true at the time) has absolutely no bearing on the situation.
--MarkusQ
WMD argument ender (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if this yellowcake was a WMD, it wouldn't be harmful on its own. The only WMD we ever had to worry about is the "Death to America" attitude. All the physical WMD's in the world won't kill many people if they're not wielded with the motive to kill.
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the yellowcake we knew they had since the UN inspectors bagged and tagged it a decade and half or so ago.
That's what Bush meant by WMDs...
Why he didn't just say "the WMDs we left there last time" I'll never know.
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Quick question (Score:3, Insightful)
there is at least one radioactive element dirty enough.
do you remember the UK person who was 'poisoned' on an airplane with a microscopic dose of a radioactive element and then died 2 weeks later, as well as the person who targeted him? (apparently the assassin got enough contact with the stuff to die himself!) very nasty, the main problem being, how do you refine enough of that highly toxic stuff, since only machines can safely handle the stuff,
oh yeah, i think it's also very rare, and perhaps a byproduct of manufacturing weapons grade radioactive stuff.
but IMO if you really want to be a terrorist, instead of focusing on humans, you'd try to get mad cow diseased meat into the US food supply. as i recall, just from 3 cows with the disease caused japan to stop importing US beef, imagine if you could get a hundred cows of diseased meat into the food supply!
the Us beef industry would practically collapse, nobody would want to import US beef. even Americans might stop eating so much beef, if the problem kept cropping up.
Wouldn't be surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
In order to keep up appearances, the American government will be forced to give Iraqis some sort of democracy, and they (as a Shia majority) will absolutely elect someone friendly to their neighbor Iran. This was probably pre-emptive move to get the uranium out the grip of Tehran.
As we all know, countries cannot be left to conduct business on their own terms, because it could possibly be harmful to the only interests that matter: ours.
Re:Troll prophylactic... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is your point?
Bush did not make an argument about Yellowcake that Saddam had. He said he was buying more... which ... was...a... LIE.
Re:Wow. So a lot of that was much ado about nothin (Score:3, Insightful)
Nuclear bombs aren't like gunpowder. You can't build them by mixing uranium with charcoal in your backyard.
And that assumes you have uranium at all. The yellowcake would have to be heavily refined ("enriched") first, by spinning it in a centrifuge an unbelievable number of times to separate the heavier isotopes from the lighter ones. It takes years to produce any appreciable amount of weapons-grade uranium. So Yellowcake is about as easy to turn into nuclear weapons as raw iron ore can be turned into fighter airplanes: You need knowledge, manpower, technology and years of work.
That's why the claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake was not so much a big deal but rather ridiculous - whether or not it was true, he couldn't have done anything useful with that stuff for many years, during which he could not have kept his intentions hidden.
Re:Everybody panic! (Score:1, Insightful)
It is exactly the same danger as dispersing a lot of tiny pieces of paper that have "this paper is ricin contaminated" written on them. Considering that Iran is known to have paper mills...
depleted uranium (Score:4, Insightful)
all the while, pumping the iraqi countryside full of depleted uranium [globalresearch.ca]... :-P
Re:Like comparing rust to steel (Score:1, Insightful)
It's remnants from when Saddam did have a nuclear program. From the article,
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:5, Insightful)
Try reading the article. I know it's a lot of words and all that, but persevere till the bitter middle and you will find:
"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
In case your memory needs refreshing, the first US vs Iraq war was in 1991 and there was great worldwide support for it. The next US vs Iraq war was in 2003 and there was not much support for it worldwide (I'm sure you still wonder why).
I bet the most US people seeing the headlines will think a similar way - "Hey Bush was right".
So it's going to be yet another wonderful "mission accomplished" by the "news people". Like shooting fish in the barrel.
Thanks media alright.
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of the sketch on Bremner, Bird and Fortune (British satirical show) where the Defence Minister was being interviewed.
Interviewer: How did you know that Saddam had these weapons? Minister: Well, ah... receipts, mostly.
Yes indeed. The UK sold both chemical weapons and obvious CWpn precursors to Iraq.
But before that's used as support for Iraq having WMD (as the USA and UK of course both do), experts agreed that such weapons were volatile and would long since have expired at the time of the invasion of Iraq by the US led coalition in March 2003. Had concern about WMD been the real motivation, then Hans Blix of the UN would have been allowed to finish his inspection. The Iraqis were co-operating after all. However, this couldn't be allowed as he would have returned a verdict of "no WMD" and the US and UK's pitiful excuse would have exploded completely.
The question of why the US has the right to possess the world's largest arsenal yet tell other people they must remain unarmed, is a separate issue, of course. But as there were no WMD (stupid term), it doesn't arise except as a means of highlighting hypocracy.
Re:Can we build more nuclear reactors now? (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I *hate* to stick up for Bush, the truth of the matter is that Saddam bluffed and we called him on it. He did everything he could to make everyone believe he had WMDs.
That still doesn't justify the invasion, and it doesn't justify the continuing occupation.
Re:The point was the lie itself (Score:1, Insightful)
But everyone knew he had that since 1981 and it was under UN supervision. You should try to read the article, this yellowcake is not new or unknown, its been known the last 27 years and under observation by the UN and its not even "dangerous" since its not even FUELGRADE!
This proves nothing except stupidity that it took 27 years for it to be used in something useful. And think about it, who in the hell would sell weapongrade uranium to a company? And should we arrest you since your backyard probably has this yellowcake uranium in low quantities?
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, neither the chemical weapons (which everyone except the US government had acknowledged for years) or possession of materials that showed that he wanted nukes (which, again, was never disputed) shows that he was anywhere near having weapons which posed an imminent threat - let alone had the intent of threatening the US or its allies (which would have been suicidal).
The invasion was illegal under international law in any case.
Finally, this stuff was found at the time of the invasions, and no-one thought it proved anything then: why does it prove something now, just because it has been sold?
Re:Can we build more nuclear reactors now? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? He said he didn't have any, and (after dicking around a bit) he let in UN weapons inspectors, and they said he didn't have any [wikipedia.org]. The the US ignored this info, fabricated their own with faulty intelligence, and invaded.
I don't like Saddam at all, but I knew, as did a large portion of Americans who were listening to more than just the US administration, that Iraq did not have WMDs and that an invasion was a bad idea. I had arguments to this effect with many people at the time, but about 2/3 of the nation was in a rabid war frenzy. I'd say about 1/2 still are.
Our nation fucked up -- please stop trying to rewrite history.
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:1, Insightful)
"The next US vs Iraq war was in 2003 and there was not much support for it worldwide (I'm sure you still wonder why).
How quickly we forget. The second war against Iraq was in Dec 1998. Interesting that no one holds the Clintons accountable considering they made us believe the same thing the Bush administration did.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, how bad... he has yellow cake uranium... stuff that - as the article states - can't even be used for dirty bombs... let alone for real fission bombs.
But if there's no WMD, then how will you justify killing more than half a million people (according to the Johns Hopkins university) and wasting half a trillion dollar and cultural assets things that will be lost forever.
This stuff is what you will use in a reactor... you know, like the 104 you have in your country, who use even more dangerous uranium.
War is wrong. Always. Period.
The people of the USA are my friends (even the religious ones). Our governments are our common enemies (= "terrorists", "dictators"). Let's work together. ;)
Re:Everybody panic! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the primary hazard is mass panic disproportionate to the actual risk. Remember, the primary goal of terrorism is terror, physical damage is a secondary (sometimes even a non-) factor. So an attack which doesn't do much real damage (and thus is cheap to carry out) but causes widespread mass panic is ideal from a terrorist's perspective. A yellowcake "dirty bomb" is a good possible candidate for that. DU shells so far have been ho-hummed by the public.
If we were making decisions about radioactivity based on real risk, the first thing we'd do is shut down all the coal power plants [wikipedia.org]. Not only do they release more radiation than nearly anything else we do, but they release it in the most dangerous form - microscopic particles in the atmosphere which can be breathed in and lodge in our lung tissues where the alpha and beta decay processes can cause maximum damage.
A bit confused on the concepts (Score:2, Insightful)
Of "wrong" and "lying", are we?
And yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:4, Insightful)
Had concern about WMD been the real motivation, then Hans Blix of the UN would have been allowed to finish his inspection. The Iraqis were co-operating after all. The question of why the US has the right to possess the world's largest arsenal yet tell other people they must remain unarmed, is a separate issue, of course. But as there were no WMD (stupid term), it doesn't arise except as a means of highlighting hypocracy.
mmmmmm....I am an opinionated redneck from Italy, so everyone should take my words with a pinch of salt, but I remember Saddam cooperating little, or not at all; to quote Blix himself, [un.org] "Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly."
P.S.: as to the "separate issue", the US has been the ONLY nuclear power for about four years, [wikipedia.org], but as far as I recall no US president talked liberally about "pushing an entire population into the sea", as many arab leaders have done, and Saddam in particular. I do have to remind you that you sleep at night in a house without a moat because the policemen in your country carry submachine guns. do they scare you? are you clamoring against their insistence to control the amount and type of similar weapons on sale? If so, My apologies.
Re:The US is DESTROYIING its stockpiles (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah that's right, the sanctions that where working and containing Saddam.
You're also right that the US did n't invade Kuwait, it invaded Iraq after buts thats okay because Iraq invaded first, but granted the US did n't gas Kurds.
The UK also got to invade Iraq twice (before it was Iraq) and had already bombed Kurds the first tie. Winston Churchill at the time (1920) infact also wanted to gas the Kurds. A chilling quote: "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes".
Anyway like you say apples and oranges, but at the end of the day its all fruit when it comes to causing suffering.
The Tibetans and Taiwanese would disagree (Score:1, Insightful)
Not.
You are very scary sir. You want everyone to be the same? You would have loved the Cultural Revolution [wikipedia.org].
Re:Can we build more nuclear reactors now? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't like Saddam at all, but I knew, as did a large portion of Americans who were listening to more than just the US administration, that Iraq did not have WMDs and that an invasion was a bad idea.
That's bullshit. Virtually all the US media (even places like the NY Times) was reporting that Saddam likely had WMD. The vast majority of Americans believed he had it. What sources are you referring to when you say: "a large portion of Americans who were listening to more than just the US administration", since virtually all the media was highly uncritical and passed on reports from the administration?
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, though, when it's about depleted Uranium everybody gets paranoid, even if depleted uranium is obtained when the radioactive uranium is taken out of "the yellow cake". When it's yellow cake only, it's nothing ...
Re:And yet... (Score:2, Insightful)
you are in for a rude awakening should Obama win - and I expect that to be the case.
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The US is DESTROYIING its stockpiles (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah that's right, the sanctions that where working and containing Saddam.
With all due respect, what planet are you on? Gore Vidalpia?
The sanctions were definitely *not* working, in that most of the Oil-for-Food funds were being siphoned off for Saddam's personal use while his people starved. Containing? If you mean, "wasn't invading any other countries", perhaps.... but he was about as contained as a mob boss in a medium security jail cell, already directing and planning his activities/revenge by phone for when he gets out.
The evidence for this was apparent, but became even more convincing once the invasion had occurred and we saw how much corruption there actually was in the Oil-for-Food program. Thanks France.
In addition, the "containment" was being performed at the hest of the US Military, who'd every so often have to blow up an Anti-aircraft gun that locked onto them in the No-Fly zones (where Saddam was "contained" from gassing his domestic enemies). Each and every one of those incidents was adequate reason to throw out the armistice and resume hostilities against Iraq, since they were all violations of the negotiated agreements.
The WMD program was a red herring. Despite the pre-existing resolutions that allowed the use of force against Saddam, the US (or UK) felt the need to get political cover for finding a reason to go after Saddam *now*, since the general public and random kleptocracies out there didn't understand that our defensive posture had changed after 9/11. They bet that Iraq had WMD, and so used that as the focal point. Bad call... but if they'd used the war crimes against the Kurds, no-fly incidents, or Oil-for-Food corruption as the focal points instead no one would be complaining today (for that).
...its all fruit when it comes to causing suffering.
If you're a bona-fide pacifist, fine. Otherwise, there's a moral difference between good and evil in human actions, and if you can't tell the difference then I pity you. And your students.
Re:What the FUCK! (Score:3, Insightful)
You give your beer too much credit.
Re:The US is DESTROYIING its stockpiles (Score:2, Insightful)
The poster unlike yourself makes a relevant point.
There are many people in the world, and not the Islam world, who want the current US administration to face war crimes tribuneral in the Hague, and we hope on eday they will. Ypur claim that pre existing resolutions authorised this is at best laughable, and disingenous.
Re:YAY!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Your spelling aside, what exactly are you putting your ass on the line for? You said it best yourself:
"Hell, someday, maybe there will be an administration that will stop thinking of military troops as a well equipped police force, I doubt it but one can hope."
Why enlist if you disagree? We should boycott the army and stock up on privately owned weapons to defend ourselves if our representatives won't withdraw the troops. The war is totally wasteful and we're just going to prompt more criminal attacks. We should be investing in defense and alternative fuels and research instead of bullets and gasoline and the paychecks of reluctant troops. It's diplomatically and economically more sound.
Re:And yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah...
It's not so much 'pull out in 16 months', it's 'pull out gradually, finishing in 16 months'.
What happens if Iraq goes to heck in the process? Is he willing to adjust?
Right now the Iraqi security forces to have taken over responsibility over much of Iraq, and violence is dropping. Well, to the point that we're looking at having to concentrate on Afghanistan again.
Other than that, more diplomacy and aid. While I don't disagree with the aid(believing that people with jobs tend to stay out of trouble), but I tend to discount diplomacy a bit - talk doesn't do much without something to back it up.
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit, Bullshit and Bullshit. Blix did say that the Iraqis didn't have a working nuclear program, but that they would start up again if inspections ceased. Yellow cake on scuds would do fuck all, probably a short term increase in repository problems in people who inhaled the dust and some very, very mild heavy metal poisoning. Bush invaded because of Iraqi oil and the behaviour of the US under Bush has done more harm to international peace than Saddam could ever have hoped for in his wildest dreams. Yep, we need a mechanism to deal with people like Saddam, but more importantly, we need a mechanism to deal with people like Bush.
Sure, he came up with an excuse and a lot of people bought it, but it's pretty clear that the whole invasion was armed robbery. The previous Australian defence minister, now leader of the opposition, even said so publicly before he was gagged by one of Bush's partners in crime, then Prime Minister Howard.
So many people all around the world knew at the time what it was about and yet people still maintain this line that he did it for the reasons that he stated publicly. He is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of civilians, women and children, all to supply oil for American SUVs and profits for companies he and his friends own stakes in. He is a common criminal in an uncommon position. What would a Texan get in Texas for shooting one child in an armed robbery?
On a related note, why is it okay for a country to have nuclear weapons, pursue new nuclear weapons and resist international calls for disarmament when that country is the only one in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons aggressively and has a commander in chief with no regard for international law, let alone the constitutional law of his own country? Why is that okay, but Iraq or now Iran wanting nukes is not?
Yeah, I know the knee jerk emotive response that these countries are "evil", but any honest assessment of international affairs for the last 100 years will show that there is one country that consistently invades other countries or topples governments when they don't tow the line. There is one country that consistently points the finger at anyone else for criminal or terrorist activity when it is funding or committing terrorist acts itself. I am not at all surprised that Iran wants nukes given the threats it faces from Isreal and the US.
The thing that concerns me about this nuclear fuel is that now it has moved to Canada, it could find it's way into a new generation of US weapons and now that GWB looks like getting off without being gassed, electrocuted or otherwise put down, a precedent has been set making the White House even more attractive to psychopathic criminals. I kind of wish the yellow cake had been left in Iraq.
Re:Thanks, media, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The US is DESTROYIING its stockpiles (Score:5, Insightful)
None of which added up to a need to invade in 2003. (As you may recall, the US invaded over the objections of the inspectors.) Nope, we needed to gin up a bunch of lies about WMD and make up all sorts of BS to pretend that containment wasn't working.
Disengenuous? That's you. Your decision to ignore the actual facts doesn't change them. And to the extent that you spin your disregard for those facts as part of your absurd call for "war crimes" trials just shows you as the politically motivated liar that you are.
Back atcha, chief. Colin Powell did not present facts to the UN General Assembly. The US did not rely on facts to justify the war. In addition to pursuing the Iraq war with criminal incompentence at best, the US has most definitely and determinedly committed war crimes at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. And your ex post facto attempt to spin the causus belli into something legitimate, as with all the others since then, just shows you to be the politically motivated liar that you are.
Re:The US is DESTROYIING its stockpiles (Score:3, Insightful)
And you must be from planet Chenselvania.
Sanctions were meant to keep the military threat of Iraq at bay. Your argument has been proven over and over again to be wrong. Although it had natural resources that could have purchased any weapon system the military industrial complex was able to create, Iraq's military had antiquated equipment and was unable to prove even mediocre opposition to an attacking force. Had they been able to subvert the sanctions, they would have been much better equipped to defend against an attacking force. Instead, they were burying twenty year old fighter-jets in the sand in order to conceal them in hopes that they would someday be of use.
And your argument that the oil for food program was somehow responsible for the invasion due to mismanagement would be funny if it weren't just tragically ironic. The corruption in the oil for food program doesn't hold a candle to the outright corruption and mismanagement that is rampant in Iraq after the invasion.
The entire reason for invading Iraq -- and for not letting the weapons inspectors do their job -- was the idea that there were arsenals of chemical and nuclear weapons that were being developed in defiance of international law. Any of your other hypothetical and unsubstantiated reasons for invading Iraq were not used because they wouldn't have mustered a successful security council vote, much less a general assembly acceptance.
You can try to wish away the reason that was given for invading the country, but it still doesn't change the fact that the sanctions were working, the weapons inspections were working and you are just wrong.