Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby negi » 15 Jul 2008 10:39

arnab wrote: and on that breathtakingly original response by Negi (he remembered to bold it thereby creating a new response altogether), he should be promoted to Admn with immediate effect :lol:

You did not get the drift...

You did reply to it none the less.. and what prevents any poster whether you/me or Ldev ji to reply to the same irrespective of whether it is posted by and Admin or ordinary member ?

My point is Arun_S is a member first and then an Admin... he can be factually right or wrong and has right to have an opinion like any of us ; similarly if we can get away with Admin warnings while using improper adjectives while addressing the PMO or the GOI, the same rules do apply for the Admin too .

My point is exchange between Idev and Arun_S should be allowed to progress and settled akin to any other discussion on the WWW,as long as there is no misuse of Admin privileges to infuelnce the argument I don't see why an Admin can't argue his pov like any other BRF member.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 15 Jul 2008 10:49

.>>>Wasn't his daddy (Ajit Jogi) in the INC?

yeah, Amit Jogi is the son of Ajit Jogi.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby arnab » 15 Jul 2008 10:57

negi wrote:
arnab wrote: and on that breathtakingly original response by Negi (he remembered to bold it thereby creating a new response altogether), he should be promoted to Admn with immediate effect :lol:

You did not get the drift...


My point is exchange between Idev and Arun_S should be allowed to progress and settled akin to any other discussion on the WWW,as long as there is no misuse of Admin privileges to infuelnce the argument I don't see why an Admin can't argue his pov like any other BRF member.


Sigh, no one is saying that an Admin cannot argue his / her pov just like any member. Least of all to Arun_S, whose posts I (and most others I'm sure) do read with a lot of interest and which offer a great learning opportunity. The 'misuse' of power that you do not see, actually happened the moment Arun_S became a judge (he used the words to effect - "with Admin hats on" when claiming that the "response was insufficient") in a situation where he was also clearly a petitioner ('I want an apology' etc etc). The moment this happens then the 'debate' between Ldev and Arun_S is no longer on a level playing field. This affects the quality of the debate and impacts my ability to learn. Hence I care :)

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby negi » 15 Jul 2008 11:11

arnab wrote:Sigh, no one is saying that an Admin cannot argue his / her pov just like any member. Least of all to Arun_S, whose posts I (and most others I'm sure) do read with a lot of interest and which offer a great learning opportunity. The 'misuse' of power that you do not see, actually happened the moment Arun_S became a judge (he used the words to effect - "with Admin hats on" when claiming that the "response was insufficient") in a situation where he was also clearly a petitioner ('I want an apology' etc etc). The moment this happens then the 'debate' between Ldev and Arun_S is no longer on a level playing field. This affects the quality of the debate and impacts my ability to learn. Hence I care :)

Arnab.. as i said let the folks speak for themselves for hair splitting semantics aint gonna help anything.

For arguments sake ... [Admin Hat On... statement 1] what gives ? why can't above be contested ? Has the other person's free speech been hindered ? Unless his/her posting rights are revoked or posts edited I don't see playing field getting uneven.

I guess Idev and Arun_S can speak for themselves and settle this, if they have a topic or issue to discuss it will be there for everyone to judge and ponder.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby arnab » 15 Jul 2008 11:24

[quote="negi].

For arguments sake ... [Admin Hat On... statement 1] what gives ? why can't above be contested ? Has the other person's free speech been hindered ? Unless his/her posting rights are revoked or posts edited I don't see playing field getting uneven.

[/quote]

I guess then we have to agree to disagree. If the "Admin hat on" thingie is mere semantics, why use it and try to elevate yourself above a 'member'? Why do I care? As I read somewhere (Godfather?), You gotta take care of the problem when it is a snowflake - else it becomes a snow ball'.

As an extreme example: I can see a jewish patriach arguing when the Nazis came to power - "For heavens sake, they are only asking us to register aren't they? Its not like our freedom of speech has been curtailed" :) Hope you get the point.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby svinayak » 15 Jul 2008 12:04

Tailpiece: Two men, Prakash Karat and Manmohan Singh, have dominated the headlines over the nuclear deal. Weirdly, neither is a member of the Lok Sabha, so neither may cast a vote in the House in that epochal vote!

The saddest part in the story is bound to be played by poor Dr Manmohan Singh. He has staked his government's future on the nuclear deal; he is now duty-bound to stick on in office until it makes its leisurely course through the United States Congress, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group -- months of bullying by 'allies' anxious to make their mark before the inevitable elections.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Philip » 15 Jul 2008 12:22

From Mrs.Gandhi's Science Advisor.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/15/stories ... 200900.htm

Judge the nuclear deal on facts, not convictions

Ashok Parthasarathi

In highly complex politico-techno-legal agreements, facts must totally override convictions, whoever’s convictions they may be.

A recent newspaper editorial says: “It always takes political courage to stake one’s government on a matter of conviction.” This is most surprising. All public policies must be based on facts — here facts about the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement. A phrase repeated ad nauseam by the deal’s protagonists has been it is in the “national interest.” Is it? I am afraid not. Why? Because of the nature, scope, content, intent, and detailed provisions of Hyde and the 123.

The Hyde Act is categorical that if we test, the whole deal collapses. It restricts U.S. supplies of fuel to only that quantity needed for “normal operating conditions” of all our nuclear reactors. Hyde is against our building up any “strategic reserve of fuel” to ensure our reactors continue to operate stably even if the U.S. terminates fuel supplies. But Hyde requires that even if we build up a reserve, the U.S. government should ensure that the size of that reserve is not so large as to enable India to ride out any fuel supply cut-off and civil nuclear sanctions that the U.S. Congress would impose as soon as we undertake any nuclear explosive test.

Hyde requires the U.S. government to extract from the Indian government a “specific future date” after which we will not produce weapon grade plutonium even from our own unsafeguarded reactors. This will be a body blow to our weapons programme. India is also required to follow U.S. diplomatic and negotiating positions on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), although our position on the Treaty differs cardinally from the U.S. position. As though this were not enough, the Act calls on the U.S. government to further tighten NSG Guidelines, particularly for India.

Not confining itself to nuclear matters, the Act requires the Indian government to adopt a foreign policy across the board fully concordant with the U.S. government. Specifically, the Indian government must follow the United States to even apply sanctions on Iran. How can we accept such a stipulation when we have longstanding cordial relations of a civilisational character with Iran, and are about to conclude two very major 25-year natural gas supply agreements vital to our energy security?

As for the 123 agreement, a key Bush commitment in the U.S.-India Joint Statement of July 18, 2005 was that the U. S. would ensure “full” civil nuclear energy cooperation, that is, covering the entire nuclear fuel cycle from making uranium fuel to reprocessing spent fuel to extract plutonium – a key input into our Fast Breeder Reactor Programme. However, the actual 123 does not cover U.S. supply of technology and technical facilities relating to two crucial steps in the fuel cycle, namely uranium enrichment and heavy water production. Moreover, even in the case of the third crucial step of reprocessing, there will be no supply of technology and facilities, but only the U.S. agreeing to our reprocessing using our own technology and technical facilities. In contrast, 123s with Japan and South Korea provide for U.S. supply of technology and technical facilities for all three steps in the nuclear fuel cycle. Moreover, in regard to reprocessing, these have already been provided by the U.S. to Japan.

Reprocessing plat

However, to operationalise this major concession of ‘allowing’ us to reprocess spent fuel, we must build, at our own cost, a national reprocessing plant, estimated to cost Rs. 10,000 crores. Furthermore, before we actually start building such a plant, we must provide all detailed drawings and other technical documentation, data, calculations, and so on to the International Atomic Energy Agency to review and clear. This means providing highly sensitive and classified documentation, embargoed to us by the West and generated by us after many years of R&D, formally to the IAEA, which is as much a political body as anything else.


Another requirement is our accepting a whole range of “arrangements and procedures” stipulated by the U.S. to run our own national plant. After that we have also to sign another agreement with the U.S. government, under Section 131 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, which must be approved by Congress. This Section 131 approval is not even alluded to, let alone indicated, in any way, in the 123. Why did our negotiating team not insist on its inclusion? Or did it not know about it?

Shockingly, 123 contains no arbitration clause. Japan spent two years to negotiate and get an elaborate arbitration clause from the U.S. The clause on “Dispute Settlement” in our 123 merely says: “if any disagreement between the Parties [India and the U.S.] arises, they will be negotiated and settled.” This is an amazing blunder on the part of our negotiators of the 123 for which we will pay a very high price in future. What happens if disagreements cannot be resolved through negotiations? Even commercial contracts incorporate arbitration clauses. Yet our 123 is silent on this vital matter.

One-sided provisions

The termination clause has several one-sided provisions. One is that if, after “either party” notifies the other that it proposes to terminate the 123, consultations will be “promptly” held. However, the party seeking termination has the right to cease further cooperation if it decides not just that a mutually acceptable resolution of its reasons for seeking termination has not been possible, but that it cannot be achieved through consultations! So, all the U.S. has to do is to hold two consultation meetings and then say: “we have decided our reasons for seeking termination cannot be resolved through consultations”! If not consultations, then how? The 123 is silent on this. Without a satisfactory arbitration clause, India will totally be at the mercy of the supplier over the 40-year life of the 123.

As for nuclear testing, the 123 states: “Parties agree to take into account whether circumstances that may lead to termination [pursuant to a nuclear test by us] resulted from a Party’s [that is, our] serious concern about a changed security environment or as a response to similar actions by other States which could impact national security.” Firstly, the U.S. only agrees to “take into account” our circumstances, not necessarily accept them. Secondly, as soon as we test, all hell will break loose! Nobody will look at the elaborate convoluted wording in the 123. The U.S. Congress will immediately demand the cancellation of the nuclear deal under Hyde. So statements by top officials of the Ministry of External Affairs and the Department of Atomic Energy that neither the Hyde Act nor the 123 prevents us from testing are totally incorrect.

Finally, a sub-clause of the termination clause relating to “arrangements and procedures” stipulated by the U.S. for our operating our National Reprocessing Plant -- without which the plant cannot be operated -- shall be subject to suspension by either party in “exceptional circumstances.” What is need at all for such a clause? It gives a strong impression that the consent to reprocess that is being given with one hand is being taken away with the other. And what is the nature and scope of “exceptional circumstances”? There is no description, let alone definition.

How long will suspension last? What will be the terms and conditions of suspension? What will our rights and obligations be during the period of suspension? Will the U.S. pay us damages for our Rs.10,000 crore nuclear reprocessing plant having to lie idle because of suspension? A sub-clause states that “exceptional circumstances” will be defined by the two parties after consultations. However, it goes on to state that such consultations are for reaching a mutually acceptable resolution of “outstanding issues.” This makes it clear that suspension is on account of “outstanding issues.” But no reference to such issues has been made in first part of the clause dealing with suspension or anywhere else.

Badly-worded clause

How are “exceptional circumstances” and “outstanding issues” related? The clause is extremely badly worded and full of ambiguities, with key phrases remaining undefined. As it is worded, the clause cries out for disputes and differences that would normally inevitably lead to arbitration. However, here dispute settlement will be prolonged, open-ended, and finally result in infructuous negotiations, as in the Tarapur case.

These facts and the analysis based on them clearly establish that in such highly complex politico-techno-legal agreements, facts must totally override convictions, whoever’s convictions they may be. No amount of ad nauseam repetition that the nuclear deal is in the national interest will help. As the great Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping prescribed to his party and people (quoting Mao Zedong): “Seek the truth from facts.”

(The writer was Science Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.)

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby amit » 15 Jul 2008 12:31

Raju wrote:- that I was accused of being a member of the Congress party

I thought you were Amit Jogi.


Raju Saar,

I demand an apology from you for this "libelous" statement.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

PS: But its good to see The Prodigal Son! :wink:

joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby joshvajohn » 15 Jul 2008 14:44

Did Advani fail to convince BJP on backing nuke deal?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Did_ ... 236321.cms

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoob » 15 Jul 2008 17:05

Posted by narayanan >>(kindergarten knickers on)<<:

Amit, Ur response has been RAFI. :mrgreen:
Is it being assumed that the US of A will look at Putin (or whoever) sternly in the eye and demand Russia give up billions of dollars worth of business because the US has to abide by the provisions of the Hyde Act? Sorry this argument looks too much like a Red Herring.


There is a seemingly-innocuous statement in the "Preamble" to the GOV-2008-20 (the draft IAEA agreement). It goes something like:

"Whereas India and the United States of America have agreed to ...... "
It refers to the 123, no doubt. It also honestly explains why the IAEA is moving its musharraf on this. But I wonder if it could be used as grounds for invalidating the IAEA/NSG action saying the US has not ratified the US-India whatever. Before the missiles are launched, gentle readers, let me ask you to add a few more because this what I am implying: note that "not ratifying" the 123 on the US side, is actually less of a haraami than what the Opposition, incl. the Left-out Left, is asking GOI to do.

But... I don't see Russia yielding to that argument. I DO see Russia, Closeaustan, Poodlestan and 'Roostan all raising prices as a cartel. But they could do that anyway. We can then deal with Niger or one of those "non-NPT Suppliers of Uranium" that are supposed to exist somewhere.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 15 Jul 2008 17:09

BARC scientist: India laying thrust on a futuristic system
Cryogenic scientist of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) Trilok Singh on Thursday said India is laying greater thrust on the revolutionary futuristic system of Accelerator Driven Subcritical System (ADSS) to ensure inherent safety of nuclear power reactors.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 396
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Prabu » 15 Jul 2008 18:41

Philip wrote:From Mrs.Gandhi's Science Advisor.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/15/stories ... 200900.htm
Judge the nuclear deal on facts, not convictions
Ashok Parthasarathi
(The writer was Science Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.)



A very Good article. The more and more I read, I get more confused on the deal !
What is yur opinion on this article ? Ramana Garu, N-Rao, N3 and other Gurus ?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 15 Jul 2008 18:58

From Mrs.Gandhi's Science Advisor.
Judge the nuclear deal on facts, not convictions
Ashok Parthasarathi


From Indira's Science Advisor to the Indian Pugwash Society?

Pugwash Workshop on The Abolition of Nuclear Weapons
Indian Participants
Shri Ashok Parthasarathi, Member, Executive Committee, Indian Pugwash Society


Thankfully he doesn't appear to be the typical JNU peacenik....

http://www.pugwash.org/reports/pac/56/papers1-6.htm
Some Aspects of Nuclear Disarmament & Horizontal Proliferation by China & Pakistan
Last edited by Gerard on 15 Jul 2008 19:04, edited 1 time in total.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6029
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Amber G. » 15 Jul 2008 19:00

Arun_S wrote:
Amber G. wrote:It is clear, that it was Arun_S, who gave the BJP reference.


Wrong. Please read what I posted,

Really! Let us see, some simple pairwise matching of the quote you have just quoted, For clarity I will remove additional sentences.
Arun_S wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:What I want ......

.........

BJP’s ‘questions’ on IAEA draft
apprehensions on the question of fuel supplies to India’s nuclear reactors “a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel …”

Corrective measures in hands of India after disruption of non-guerenteed fuel supply is .... nothing! Unless fuel for all reactors for their lifetime (typical 100 years) is procured and kept in India
Now Anil Kakodkar in his IISc presentation ...["Magic", "Waking on Water" "Vapor ware" etc.. to be clear, those adjectives were there from your previous description..]

3. FBR using indigenous 3 stage fuel cycle, 275 GWe: $1.03 Trillion (for ordinary Abdul that is $1,030 Billion)[/list]

...
Excuse me, what was the investment capital inflow in India last few years?
Or for that sake investment capital inflow in China last few years?

Am I the only one who feels being lost in the mirage?


Do you still insist on [being, but telling me that I am] "wrong"?
BTW, Checkout Amit's post about about why making a 100 year worth of Meru purvat of Uranium is not very relevant because, among other things, 100 years from now, reactor technology, in all likelihood will change.

Also, I have asked, previously, how are you getting 4 significant figures from some rather imprecise figures. I am sure, you know, in any scientific discussion, that kind of numbers are laughable.

Also, what exactly is your point in quoting those "billions/trillions" in "100 years". I recently read some where, that US would spend $900 billion in next 100 years on flea treatment on dogs. So?

Hope that helps.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Philip » 15 Jul 2008 19:08

My opposition to the deal is that it will open the door for the hordes of iniquity,as was done with Iraq and UNSCOM,actually many of whom were agents,who will torture us endlessly and scuttle and steal our nuclear independence for ever.We are better off without them.Why then did Russia sell us reactors and is wiolling to sell us more?What great act of proliferation of India existed then or now?So who really needs this despicable deal?Only the servile lackeys,flunkeys and jackals of the current GOI and the nations who want to castrate our nuclear deterrence.

PS:Shamelessly.the nuclear deal and the debate which should've been the perogative of the house,is now in the hands of the most disreputable horse traders,a feuding family and a host of vultures all waiting for the gravy train to arrive and how much they can squeeze out of the crisis and gorge themselves with ill-gotten gains.Indian democracy has never plummeted so far below ground level.It has reached the bottom of the septic tank,the stink of which will forever pollute the memory of "snake-oil Singh".
Last edited by Philip on 15 Jul 2008 19:24, edited 1 time in total.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 15 Jul 2008 19:12

Prabu wrote:A very Good article. The more and more I read, I get more confused on the deal !


there is no need for confusion, everything is clear and all sides are batting for self-interest.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6029
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Amber G. » 15 Jul 2008 19:17

Arun_S - Also, if may help if you check out Ramana;s link on "logical falicy"
specifically:

A. X's figures are wrong.
B. Y's figures are wrong.
It does not follow, that one is saying, X belongs to Y.

Hope that helps.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 15 Jul 2008 19:18

Why then did Russia sell us reactors and is wiolling to sell us more?


There will be no more Russian reactors without the IAEA and NSG

When Russia agreed to full scope safeguards, it agreed to squeeze India's cojones.

All NNWS were already under effective IAEA full scope, it was just three nations - India, Israel and Pakistan that NSG full scope was aimed against.

Now Israel has just one reactor. It has no civilian nuclear power sector.

Pakistan is a beggar nation and doesn't have the money to pay for Russian reactors. Nobody will lend them money for that anyway.

So who was full scope really aimed at?

India.

And Russia readily signed up to that.

actually many of whom were agents,who will torture us endlessly and scuttle and steal our nuclear independence for ever.


India has had decades of experince dealing with IAEA inspectors.Some facilities (six reactors now) are under permanent IAEA safeguards. Others (the fuel fabrication plants and the Plutonium reprocessing plants) are under campaign safeguards.

Inspections are nothing new to India
Last edited by Gerard on 15 Jul 2008 19:22, edited 1 time in total.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoob » 15 Jul 2008 19:20

>>Posted by narayanan with aam abdul lungi on<<
Since we're talking about the next 42 years (by 2050), here are a few points that are concealed by the evil supporters of this Deal, and the MMS Govt has not informed the Parliamentary Opposition or even their own Cabinet Colleagues on:

1. OVER 1 BILLION INDIANS WILL DIE in that period, including many of us here.
2. Nuclear Fusion Energy is available TODAY, and, as it happens, has been available for the past 1,700,000,000,000 years.
3. Nuclear Fusion Energy was known to the Ancients. Certainly when the Holy Epics were written.
4. Even today, over 1 billion Indians will get irradiated with nuclear reactors IN INDIA, from both fission and fusion reactors. :(( Exempted are the 2000 BRF subscribers who mostly sit in dark damp corners worshipping glowing screens.

There needs to be a Blue Ribbon Panel and an Inquiry Commission headed by a Retired Supreme Court Judge on this whole Deal.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby RajeshA » 15 Jul 2008 19:26

narayanan wrote:1. OVER 1 BILLION INDIANS WILL DIE in that period, including many of us here.


Talk for yourself Mister. This Indian plans on living for ever with the help of cybernetic implants and Horcruxes.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoob » 15 Jul 2008 19:33

From links posted above, ISRO and DRDO are said to be working on those too. "Operational within a decade".

In the 1990s, NASA had numerous such plans, such as people living on Mars etc., always, BY THE YEAR 2018. As the remaining time to 2018 came down, the scope of what was going to be present in 2018 also dropped sharply.

Take heart, and be sure to collect an Assured Supply of MrtaSanjeevini and Amrit for at least 100 years. And may u never need it.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6029
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Amber G. » 15 Jul 2008 19:39

2. Nuclear Fusion Energy is available TODAY, and, as it happens, has been available for the past 1,700,000,000,000 years.


I think, you got your numbers wrong by 2-3 orders of magnitude or so. Sun (or even the universe) has been here for only a few billion years, not 1.7 trillion years.

BTW, Interesting fact, believe it or not, Earth did have a natural working Uranium reactor.. (about 2 billion years ago).. when U at a certain place was in abundance and water there acted like a moderator..
see, for example: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml
Last edited by Amber G. on 15 Jul 2008 20:05, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Kanson » 15 Jul 2008 19:55

John Snow wrote:Kanson saab, thanks for breaking your promise, It is never good to leave any forum to the anti nationals, please keep up the fight for what you believe in.

All said and done,

'Promises proclaimed and costs projected are seldom kept in near future what to say into distant future'
Sprinster uvacha

Need example

LCA
Kaveri
Arjun
Uranium resource planning, before 123

"they say jove laughs at lovers perjuries" Shakespeare

Remeber Doris day song

"Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera"

From the Man who knew too Much :mrgreen:


Thanks Sir,for the reply & invitation. :) While I'm struggling to keep many promises i made, I hope i will keep this one. :oops:

If i understand you, no need to look at LCA or Arjun. Just take a look once again what is said in the ppt. Ak's is referring the figure $1700/KWe for 700MWe PHWR, which is yet to be constructed. So, you can understand he is comparing just apples with apples( i.e. Estimated Cost of PHWR Vs PFBR). I think it doesnt need any explanation further.

Nice to read your uvacha. If i can add, It is by keeping the promise of delivery within the timeline the projected cost is brought down. :)

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Kanson » 15 Jul 2008 20:08

What amuses me more than the complaint is the connotation that the complaint makes.

The party in question is a legally registered party and a national party in India. One can understand the contention if the referrence is made to any terroist orgainsation like Naxalite or Al-Qaida. By taking that complaint as serious offence to demand an apology, is the arbitrator saying or implying BJP, the party in question, is comparable to organisation like Al-Qaida ?

Normally a judge/arbitrator wont take up a case unless he sees it fit for the trial, so will the arbitrator explain before proceeding further why it is an offence first of all ( i.e. referrence to BJP) ?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby svinayak » 15 Jul 2008 20:15

Philip wrote:My opposition to the deal is that it will open the door for the hordes of iniquity,as was done with Iraq and UNSCOM,actually many of whom were agents,who will torture us endlessly and scuttle and steal our nuclear independence for ever.We are better off without them.Why then did Russia sell us reactors and is wiolling to sell us more?What great act of proliferation of India existed then or now?So who really needs this despicable deal?Only the servile lackeys,flunkeys and jackals of the current GOI and the nations who want to castrate our nuclear deterrence.

PS:Shamelessly.the nuclear deal and the debate which should've been the perogative of the house,is now in the hands of the most disreputable horse traders,a feuding family and a host of vultures all waiting for the gravy train to arrive and how much they can squeeze out of the crisis and gorge themselves with ill-gotten gains.Indian democracy has never plummeted so far below ground level.It has reached the bottom of the septic tank,the stink of which will forever pollute the memory of "snake-oil Singh".

This is what it has come to. The national interest is not the top priority here in this vote. The vultures who are waitng for the gravy are the biggest threat to the country and have corrupted the govt and policymaking.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ldev » 15 Jul 2008 20:30

Amber G. wrote:Also, what exactly is your point in quoting those "billions/trillions" in "100 years". I recently read some where, that US would spend $900 billion in next 100 years on flea treatment on dogs. So?

Hope that helps.


The exact quote is:

Going by the same power point slides the capital cost of erecting those plants by 2050 is:

1. LWR plants 50 GWe capacity: $100 Billion + $303 Billion for lifetime fuel reserve
2. FBR using LWR spent fuel, 330 GWe: $1.65 Trillion (for ordinary Abdul that is $1,650 Billion)
3. FBR using indigenous 3 stage fuel cycle, 275 GWe: $1.03 Trillion (for ordinary Abdul that is $1,030 Billion)

Total capital cost over 42 years : $3.08 Trillion ($3,081 Billion)
Cost per year (assuming even averaging): $73 billion/Year for next 42 years.


To put this number into perspective let me state the following and I am sure that Suraj (the acknowledged Economics Guru will be able to make some comment on it).

Last year, India's investment to GDP ratio was 38% i.e. total investment in India amounted to 38% of GDP. So if the GDP was US $ 1 trillion, then total investment was $ 380 billion.

This number has been rising from approximately 30% a few years ago.

Simple extrapolation (which is incorrect) will indicate that by 2050... in the next 42 years..... if the investment to GDP ratio in India remains at 35%..... then the total cumulative investment in India from now till 2050 will be ..... hold on to your breath.....$ 188 trillion. So a total investment of $ 3 trillion in a crucial sector such as nuclear power plants out of a total investment of $ 188 trillion should be very affordable.

Let me add a very significant caveat here. As an economy becomes more developed, the investment/GDP ratio will decline and decline quite dramatically. But nevertheless, the total investment in India over the next 42 years should be.... well into the trillions in double maybe even triple digits.

Numbers are funny things. You can frighten people or uplift people with numbers.

joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Somnath - a statesman

Postby joshvajohn » 15 Jul 2008 20:33

Somnath writes to Karat, says don't make me quit

The Speaker, a veteran Communist who was elected on the CPM ticket from Bolpur in West Bengal, has reportedly written a letter to Karat asking him to explain what would be the Left's "advantage" if it voted along with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) against the UPA during the July 22 trust vote.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Somn ... 237822.cms

My comment - History will not forgive those who vote against this deal!! I do not mind whether it is congress or any party this deal is needed at this time. Even in US regardless of the differences in Politics leaders have stood by for the deal for the sake of their interests (ofcourse there are a few who would oppose). In India it is a shame that political groups had fallen and using votes against this deal as political vengeance. Every vote against this deal is every vote against Indian people their wish to grow with energy and with power, in spite of all the limitations around the deal!!

Congress will somehow get enough votes. But it is who votes against that counts!!!!
Last edited by joshvajohn on 15 Jul 2008 20:34, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby shiv » 15 Jul 2008 20:33

ldev I have sent you a pmail. Could you check it please?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 15 Jul 2008 20:34

Amber G. wrote:BTW, Interesting fact, believe it or not, Earth did have a natural working Uranium reactor.. (about 2 billion years ago).. when U at a certain place was in abundance and water there acted like a moderator..
see, for example: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml


Yup, that is teh one teh Chinese stole and the US blamed India through the IAEA and actually found it in Syria because Pakistan got it from Chicom ..............

Dunno guys. In 2050 I think there will be ever lasting peace. No need for electricity either.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ldev » 15 Jul 2008 20:35

shiv wrote:ldev I have sent you a pmail. Could you check it please?


Responded

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoob » 15 Jul 2008 20:37

Normally a judge/arbitrator wont take up a case unless he sees it fit for the trial,


That's the part that got me to come out into the street. The part about " If u disagree with me I will put on my >>Admin hat<< and get my Fellow Admin to sit in Judgement". And the sheer (fill in the blanks) of said Fellow Admin to get involved in bullying a postor on behalf of someone so clearly abusing his Admin-ness. Hence my request that both relinquish their Admin titles until they either cool down and show maturity. Otherwise it seriously erodes the Mawral Haigh Gryaund (MOHAWG) of the BRadmins.

AmberG: (OT - posting with Wacko Hat on) Age of Universe that u cite is based on evil western "Aryan Invasion" conspiracy against Eastern Astro-Technology. Completely flawed extrapolation based on improperly observed and totally misunderstood physical laws and mass of Universe. It's like extrapolating using a parabolic curve fit to the 45 degree phase of a sine wave and predicting the "origin". Even there the extrapolation is known to be quite flawed as the mass and rate of expansion don't make sense. If it is actually a periodic phenomenon then 1.7 trillion years is just a few cycles upstream. And "Earth" in our definition may be construed to constitute a generic location which may not have been in same geometric appearance of contiguity that is now sensed by human senses. 8)

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6821
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: Cry My Beloved Motherland for--Parthasarathy Sudarshan

Postby archan » 15 Jul 2008 20:39

R Vaidya wrote:cry my beloved motherland --for parthasarathy sudarshan--

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?news ... 5&pageid=3

rvaidya

Since this was posted here, I respond here. I am sorry this professor of IIM is a racist, thinks America is about "white people" and is a "wretched country". As for Sudarshan, I was looking into this article about the fake certificates that he provided before purchasing the equipment from the US suppliers. There was no mention of that. I cannot make an informed decision about his innocence/lack thereof with what he provides in the article. And whoa, and = = with Xerox Khan! all India needs now is to learn from Pakistan.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Somnath - a statesman

Postby svinayak » 15 Jul 2008 20:48

joshvajohn wrote:Somnath writes to Karat, says don't make me quit

The Speaker, a veteran Communist who was elected on the CPM ticket from Bolpur in West Bengal, has reportedly written a letter to Karat asking him to explain what would be the Left's "advantage" if it voted along with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) against the UPA during the July 22 trust vote.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Somn ... 237822.cms

My comment - History will not forgive those who vote against this deal!! I do not mind whether it is congress or any party this deal is needed at this time. Even in US regardless of the differences in Politics leaders have stood by for the deal for the sake of their interests (ofcourse there are a few who would oppose). In India it is a shame that political groups had fallen and using votes against this deal as political vengeance. Every vote against this deal is every vote against Indian people their wish to grow with energy and with power, in spite of all the limitations around the deal!!

Congress will somehow get enough votes. But it is who votes against that counts!!!!


During all this there is not one news report from US about the deal.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby negi » 15 Jul 2008 20:48

Amber G. wrote:BTW, Interesting fact, believe it or not, Earth did have a natural working Uranium reactor.. (about 2 billion years ago).. when U at a certain place was in abundance and water there acted like a moderator..
see, for example: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

Sir ji.. interesting find..however I wonder how come this chain reaction was controlled and not a runaway reaction ;
What was that served as the control rods ?

What is your take on this ?

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6138
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby CRamS » 15 Jul 2008 20:55

Acharya wrote:
Philip wrote:My opposition to the deal is that it will open the door for the hordes of iniquity,as was done with Iraq and UNSCOM,actually many of whom were agents,who will torture us endlessly and scuttle and steal our nuclear independence for ever.We are better off without them.Why then did Russia sell us reactors and is wiolling to sell us more?What great act of proliferation of India existed then or now?So who really needs this despicable deal?Only the servile lackeys,flunkeys and jackals of the current GOI and the nations who want to castrate our nuclear deterrence.

PS:Shamelessly.the nuclear deal and the debate which should've been the perogative of the house,is now in the hands of the most disreputable horse traders,a feuding family and a host of vultures all waiting for the gravy train to arrive and how much they can squeeze out of the crisis and gorge themselves with ill-gotten gains.Indian democracy has never plummeted so far below ground level.It has reached the bottom of the septic tank,the stink of which will forever pollute the memory of "snake-oil Singh".

This is what it has come to. The national interest is not the top priority here in this vote. The vultures who are waitng for the gravy are the biggest threat to the country and have corrupted the govt and policymaking.


This is precisely the point. Whether or not 123 has explict language that allows this is not the point. Its the intent. The gora macho bahadurs are waiting and licking their fingers at the thought of getting acces to India's facilities. And boy oh boy will there be a blanket of CIA, MI-5, you name it descending into Indian facilities. Perhaps even ISI proxies used by western agants to pass off as Indians into sensitive facilities (and every time these inspectors display their racist machismo against us recalcitrant SDREs, you can be rest assured that Fox/CNN/BBC will be providing running commentary). Plus, can you imagine the $s and green card power that will be brought to bear by these prowling vultures to buy off cash-starved Indians? I mean the list goes on. Of course, die-hard pro-dealers like R-man will dismiss all these concerns using some logical subterfuge:

Indian leadres say X is good.
Indian leaders are corrpt
Therefore X is bad.

Or something similar to mock the concerns of those of us who point out the real agenda of the US behind this deal.

Finally, for those who say once India gets the NSG waiver, India will not have to buy a single bolt from US; with all due respect I say BS. True, contray to all the cacophony in India, India in general, and this deal in particular, hardly make it to radar screen of US foreign policy. But neverthless, for those in US who stand to benefit, US did not put Nicky and others burning the midnight oil, so India gets to do whatever it wants after NSG and US will sit by idly and watch Russia/France make all the moola. Not a leaf moves in this world without Unkil's blessing, make no mistake about that. And that icnludes the French loud mouths who talk but remember, are members of NATO (no action talk only) when it comes to challenging US.
Last edited by CRamS on 15 Jul 2008 21:00, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50030
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2008 20:58

Meanwhile op-ed in Pioneer

We need nuclear tests

Venkata Vemuri

When will India stand up for its own rights? The ongoing debate on the India-US nuclear deal skirts long-term issues linked to India's nuclear deterrence. It's facetious to describe the deal, as it exists, as good for India -- it is exactly the opposite

The level of political debate in India on the nuclear deal with the US is as abysmal as the surreptitious attempt by the Indian bureaucracy to push it through on the ground that it is a matter of 'national pride'. Neither the Left, nor the Opposition, and certainly not the Manmohan Singh Government, has taken the people of India into confidence on the real issues that are of concern.


These issues are crucial for India's long-term foreign and nuclear policies. We should be more concerned with India's strategic role vis-à-vis a futuristic -- but possible -- stand-off between China and the US, rather than the short-term gains in terms of nuclear energy or the one-upmanship game with Pakistan. India is already capable of tackling the last two.

Let us proceed step by step. What did we achieve after the 1998 nuclear tests? It is an unspoken truth that the tests failed to validate some of India's warhead designs. Couple this with the fact that India is yet to possess comprehensive missile technology which can deliver warheads up to China, not merely Pakistan. Only when we have such a combination can we be confident that India has a credible nuclear deterrent. How do we reach that stage? By conducting more nuclear tests while continuing to make progress with the missile systems.

Is India in a position to conduct more nuclear tests? India has offered a voluntary moratorium on further nuclear testing. If the nuclear deal comes through, the moratorium will no longer be voluntary, but legally binding on us. The proposed amendment to the US law that will make the nuclear deal official is that the American President will, from time to time, certify that India has not tested a nuclear device. Which means, if India conducts a test in the future, the deal becomes void.

So, without a nuclear test, any thought of becoming a nuclear power or having a credible nuclear deterrent is a pipe dream.

Then comes the issue related to availability of fissionable material for nuclear weaponisation. India has agreed, under the draft agreement of the deal, to identify and separate civil and military nuclear programmes. India has also agreed to place the civil facilities under IAEA safeguards.

There are two issues here. First, the deal will not overnight give India the status of a nuclear weapons state. Far from it. It will be recognised as a non-nuclear weapons state which is not a signatory to the NPT. To that extent, India will be better off than Pakistan. That is not what India will be satisfied with, but has no option but to accept it.

Second, once the civil facilities are under IAEA safeguards, there will be restrictions on the fissionable material for use in India's military facilities. India's nuclear doctrine depends on the availability of this material. For, the number of nuclear warheads India wishes to have to achieve the critical state of deterrence is determined by, first of all, India's threat perception and next, the material available for weaponisation.

According to India's nuclear doctrine as it stands today, the limit of critical deterrence depends on its threat perception. Which means India can increase its nuclear stockpile if the threat perception increases. Such a doctrine allows India the advantage of not having to tie itself to a certain number of warheads. However, the IAEA safeguards will mean, at least theoretically, a weakened deterrence if India's adversaries increase their stockpiles. For, in such a situation, increasing India's own stockpile will depend on how much un-safeguarded material is available to it.

According to an AP report on the draft of the safeguards agreement, a "key clause appears to call into question the effectiveness of any IAEA effort to ensure India's civilian nuclear activities do not aid its military's atomic weapons programme". The draft agreement in the preamble talks of India taking "corrective measures" to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civil nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of supplies. Possibly the only 'corrective measure' is India withdrawing some of the safeguarded civil facilities from the IAEA list so that the fissionable material can be used for military purposes.

Having said that, the safeguards issue is not as serious as the moratorium on testing. It is well known that India has the capability to develop its own nuclear plants. Moreover, despite the agreement it will remain India's right to classify future nuclear plants as civil or military, thus giving the country an escape valve.

What the entire debate on the deal boils down to, is this: Does India feel it requires a credible nuclear deterrent against China? If so, it has to clearly state its position before the current form of the deal is signed. Otherwise, its dream of having a credible deterrent and being a major nuclear power is washed out.

Yes, India needs a nuclear deterrent against China insofar as its future geo-political stakes are concerned. Then why is the UPA Government shying away from stating this to the US? One point that goes in India's favour -- and a very vital one at that -- is that the US cannot face a standoff with China without the support of India. For facing China, both need each other. It is also true that the US excursions into Asia have a black and bleak record of failure. Vietnam, for example. In the future, any standoff with China can only be on the issue of Taiwan. And the odds of the US going it alone, without India's aid, are high.

Let us just assume that the current deal actually goes through. Theoretically it is possible that the US itself may go in for nuclear testing in the future, thus allowing India to do so too. How is that possible? The current deal has a clause which says that India will assume responsibilities and reap the same benefits as accruing to states with advanced nuclear technology like the US. The flip side, however, is what if the US does not undertake tests in future? It is a big if.

The nuclear deal by itself does not much harm Indian interests as long as India retains the right to conduct nuclear tests in the future. Indian bureaucrats, like the messy mice that they are, are already indulging in vacuous arguments that India's moratorium on tests is unilateral and, therefore, what is a unilateral proposition cannot be bound by an agreement. The why not get this included in the piece of paper?

India is at present in a political turmoil over the deal. It may all come to a naught if the deal is not passed in the current session of the US Congress. The basic legal paper of the deal, called the Hyde Act, 2006, has a provision that the final agreement between the US and India can be taken up by the Congress for passage only if the Congress is in a continuous session for 30 days. There is a recess of the Congress in August, which leaves less than 40 days before the Congress adjourns on September 26, 2008.

The 123 Agreement cannot come for passage until the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group okay the deal. How long will that take? It may come up for passage by IAEA in the coming three weeks, but indications are that the NSG may not convene on the issue till September. If so, there is no option but to wait for the post-Bush Administration to assume office. What have the Democrats in mind about the deal?

More importantly, when will India stand up for its own rights? That is the prime issue. What is happening in India right now has so far nothing to do with this serious debate.

-- The writer, a senior journalist, is doing his PhD at Bournemouth University, UK.



Pretty fair article that lays out the issues without covering up unpleasant facts. Must be somehting in the Krishna/Godavari waters that make the Andhra folks so clear headed about national interests! No axes to grind and no lifafas. Just the facts folks.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6957
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby JE Menon » 15 Jul 2008 21:04

OK guys chill... back to the nuke news and discussion. Allow us to take this thing with Arun_S, Ldev, Rahul M, etc. offstage and will try and sort it out...

Apologies for the interruption in the movie. Rats chewed the film onlee...

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rangudu » 15 Jul 2008 21:08

Sure CRS, India is screwed. This deal is bad. US is all evil. We have corrupt leaders. We are all doomed.

Happy?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby svinayak » 15 Jul 2008 21:09

CRamS wrote:
Acharya wrote:
Philip wrote:My opposition to the deal is that it will open the door for the hordes of iniquity,as was done with Iraq and UNSCOM,actually many of whom were agents,who will torture us endlessly and scuttle and steal our nuclear independence for ever.We are better off without them.Why then did Russia sell us reactors and is wiolling to sell us more?What great act of proliferation of India existed then or now?So who really needs this despicable deal?Only the servile lackeys,flunkeys and jackals of the current GOI and the nations who want to castrate our nuclear deterrence.

PS:Shamelessly.the nuclear deal and the debate which should've been the perogative of the house,is now in the hands of the most disreputable horse traders,a feuding family and a host of vultures all waiting for the gravy train to arrive and how much they can squeeze out of the crisis and gorge themselves with ill-gotten gains.Indian democracy has never plummeted so far below ground level.It has reached the bottom of the septic tank,the stink of which will forever pollute the memory of "snake-oil Singh".

This is what it has come to. The national interest is not the top priority here in this vote. The vultures who are waitng for the gravy are the biggest threat to the country and have corrupted the govt and policymaking.


This is precisely the point. Whether or not 123 has explict language that allows this is not the point. Its the intent. The gora macho bahadurs are waiting and licking their fingers at the thought of getting acces to India's facilities. And boy oh boy will there be a blanket of CIA, MI-5, you name it descending into Indian facilities. Perhaps even ISI proxies used by western agants to pass off as Indians into sensitive facilities (and every time these inspectors display their racist machismo against us recalcitrant SDREs, you can be rest assured that Fox/CNN/BBC will be providing running commentary).
Or something similar to mock the concerns of those of us who point out the real agenda of the US behind this deal.

Finally, for those who say once India gets the NSG waiver, India will not have to buy a single bolt from US; with all due respect I say BS. True, contray to all the cacophony in India, India in general, and this deal in particular, hardly make it to radar screen of US foreign policy. But neverthless, for those in US who stand to benefit, US did not put Nicky and others burning the midnight oil, so India gets to do whatever it wants after NSG and US will sit by idly and watch Russia/France make all the moola. Not a leaf moves in this world without Unkil's blessing, make no mistake about that. And that icnludes the French loud mouths who talk but remember, are members of NATO (no action talk only) when it comes to challenging US.

When I saw that hustlers were lobby people then I knew that something was wrong. They have unleashed a campaign against the people who question the detials of the deal and talk of the national interest.
Last edited by svinayak on 15 Jul 2008 21:12, edited 1 time in total.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6029
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Amber G. » 15 Jul 2008 21:09

Negi - you can probably get more details from fairly common sources. but I will give a brief reply here. (There are many good popular articles - Sorry too lazy to quote a good ref, but I am sure Wiki etc would have an article - or check out Idaho State U's Physics Web site. I am going to quote some numbers below which may be a little off so don't quote them without checking..)

Basically U235 was about 3% then, good enough to start the reaction. The "controlling" part was the water (ground water) just got heated and boiled away slowing/stopping the reaction.. ground water returned a little later and thing kept running. If I am not mistaken, it ran for about 100,000 years! (producing not much but about 10^5 watts of power on average).

Funny thing was, it was discovered by French, because the Uranium they got from there had little bit less U235 than normal.. They started an investigation (thinking someone is stealing and diverting U235 for Bombs etc..) and that what led them to find those reactors.

N. (on the age of Universe etc) I stand corrected. :)
(Specially the part: "It's like extrapolating using a parabolic curve fit to the 45 degree phase of a sine wave and predicting" .. never in my life, i will underestimate sheer treacherousness of parabolic or any non-linear curve! Not in these forums, where they have all sorts of hats.)
Last edited by Amber G. on 15 Jul 2008 21:35, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest