Israel needs to be "wiped of the map" - Ahmadinejad (Iran president)

[TheDervish]

From a market perspective, there is no reason at all for Iran to make nuclear power plants. The country is sitting on huge ammounts of oil, and thermo-electricity is cheaper even in countries with no oil whatsoever.

Face it, the ayatolahs want nukes. Personally I think that it's the right of every nation to have nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean that I'm happy that a bunch of demented clerics, who are also genocidal maniacs, will have access to such a deadly weapon.

Have you ever been to Tehran? It is one of THE most polluted cities on the face of this planet due to extensive fossil fuel emissions made possible by widely available petroleum. You can pass out just sitting in a taxi in downtown Tehran for a few minutes with the windows rolled down.

Some cities in Iran have thermo-electric plants, but like many nations in the so-called "Third World", Iran needs to find non-fossil fuel energy resources ASAP, if for no other reason, than to curb the environmental crisis they are facing today. They need to increase their reliance on fossil fuels like they need a big gaping hole in the head.

That being said, I would prefer that Iran, in addition to every country on this planet, avoid nuclear energy.

 

[Xshayathiya]

From a market perspective, there is no reason at all for Iran to make nuclear power plants. The country is sitting on huge ammounts of oil, and thermo-electricity is cheaper even in countries with no oil whatsoever.

Face it, the ayatolahs want nukes. Personally I think that it's the right of every nation to have nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean that I'm happy that a bunch of demented clerics, who are also genocidal maniacs, will have access to such a deadly weapon.

have you ever thought that maybe some people in iran were actually thinking of the environment? have you ever thought that maybe they realized their oil reseves would be gone in 20 years?

lol, i already said why they would want nuclear power

 

[Xshayathiya]

that is tehran. now dont tell me no one is thinking about the environment.

 

[luiz]

So now the ayatolahs care for the environment?
I think the alternative(they want nukes) is far more plausible.

As for the "oil will run out in 20 years" argument. That's a non-argument. Build thermo plants now, invest the oil money, wait some 15 years and than, with a much expanded capital base, build alternative energy plants. That's what all sane nations with loads of oil are doing.

 

[Leha]

why does someone buy a Lexus when a Toyota is much cheaper?

Wrong analogy.

 

[Leha]

Xshayathiya, do you seriously believe pollution conserns Iran's government?
And then again, have you heard of Chernobyl? Some serious pollution I must tell you as former Ukranian

But that's not my point. You don't by such centrifuge to enrich uranium for peacefull reactor. That's why world community is alarmed, not just me.

 

[Xshayathiya]

So now the ayatolahs care for the environment?
I think the alternative(they want nukes) is far more plausible.

As for the "oil will run out in 20 years" argument. That's a non-argument. Build thermo plants now, invest the oil money, wait some 15 years and than, with a much expanded capital base, build alternative energy plants. That's what all sane nations with loads of oil are doing.

oh so environmentalism is so advanced an idea that it doesnt apply to a "third world" country like ours? i'm not being naive, but there are people in the country other than mullahs. Iran has one of the greatest intellectual bases in the world. Just because there's no greenepeace doesnt mean that when the average person looks up at the sky and doesnt see any blue, there's no concern. Also, Tehran is the 22nd largest city in the world. If they dont do anything about the pollution now, who knows how many people will die due to lung cancer in 15 years. Yes, us "third world" countries have to worry about cancer too, we're not in the stone age. Oh and Nuclera power is an alternate form of energy.

Xshayathiya, do you seriously believe pollution conserns Iran's government?
And then again, have you heard of Chernobyl? Some serious pollution I must tell you as former Ukranian

But that's not my point. You don't by such centrifuge to enrich uranium for peacefull reactor. That's why world community is alarmed, not just me.

As i said above, yes i do. And yes i have heard of Chernobyl. That is not the sort of pollution we are talking about. That was pollution caused by a reactor meltdown, we are talking about pollution created by factories and cars over decades. YOU are the one with the wrong analogy.

And yes you do buy these centrifuges to enrich uranium for peaceful uses. Just because something is good does that mean it has to be for war? the US has lots of these, Russia has lots of these, France has lots of these. Pretty soon China is going to have lots of these. So does that mean they are all building nuclear weapons to nuke each other with? uranium enrichment is uranium enrichment. It does not depend on peaceful or non-peaceful use. I'd bet you wouldnt even know what uranium enrichment is, and why its done.

You and people like you are the exact reason the nuclear industry has such a bad reputation.

 

[Leha]

.



As i said above, yes i do. And yes i have heard of Chernobyl. That is not the sort of pollution we are talking about. That was pollution caused by a reactor meltdown, we are talking about pollution created by factories and cars over decades. YOU are the one with the wrong analogy.

So it's OK by you to replace car pollution by meltdown pollution? And I didn't bring this as analogy. My point was: there are other ways to reduce pollution, you don't have to build nuclear reactor. More, meltdowns happen more frequently than you suspect. Chernobyl wasn't the only one in the USSR.

And yes you do buy these centrifuges to enrich uranium for peaceful uses. Just because something is good does that mean it has to be for war?

No, it doesn't have to be for war. But considering current situation and old plans of Iran (wich is not secret) to get A-bomb, it seems to me naive to miss that little difference.

the US has lots of these, Russia has lots of these, France has lots of these. Pretty soon China is going to have lots of these. So does that mean they are all building nuclear weapons to nuke each other with?

Yes. you didn't know that?

I'd bet you wouldnt even know what uranium enrichment is, and why its done.

You and people like you are the exact reason the nuclear industry has such a bad reputation.

That remark was completely unnecessary.
First you don't know me.
Second, I might not happen to be great expert in physics, but I do know a little bit about nucleus and chain reaction. Not much, but enough to see differences between power plant and nuke technologies.

EDIT: Oh, and it wasn't ME who killed half a city of Chernobyl. So I'm not responsible for bad rep of nuke plants

 

[deathstar9]

I would have no problem with Iran using nuclear power if they were a true democracy with the checks and balances that apply. However in their current theocratic totalitarian state, allowing Iran to posses nuclear power plants runs to great a risk. It puts too much power in the hands of too few crazy religious fanatics. A totalitarian state such as Iran should not be allowed to menace the world and specifically Israel with nuclear weapons. Any state that opresses its own people will think nothing of opressing others.

 

[anarres]

Does anyone need to remind you deathstar that the US set up Iran in the first place? It had a bloody "true democracy" that the US wiped out, so you've really only got yourselves to blame.

It's hardly an excuse now to go back and kill more people.

 

[Princeps]

The chances of nuclear power plant blowing up are very low. But, I doubt that the corrupted tehran government has real interest in ecology.

 

[deathstar9]

Does anyone need to remind you deathstar that the US set up Iran in the first place? It had a bloody "true democracy" that the US wiped out, so you've really only got yourselves to blame.

It's hardly an excuse now to go back and kill more people.

Its true that this was the US's fault. We must now embrace a policy that will change our mistakes by supporting no more totalitarian regimes. We must threaten China with tarriffs if it does not loosen the screws. Totalitarian regimes are the bane of the world and there has never been a war between two true democracies in modern times.

 

[amadeus]

Does anyone need to remind you deathstar that the US set up Iran in the first place? It had a bloody "true democracy" that the US wiped out, so you've really only got yourselves to blame.

False on all counts. The Shah appointed Mossadegh. Mossadegh granted himself emergency powers, dissolved the parliament, and held a rigged referendum in favor of those actions. Mossadegh was about as democratic as Brezhnev.

 

[Leha]

The chances of nuclear power plant blowing up are very low.

In USSR it happened at least twice, it was close thing at least twice and there are rumors that more cases were covered up by Soviet government. So, I would say, nuclear plant is pretty dangerous toy.

 

[amadeus]

Especially so for a country whose leadership does not generally care about the well-being of it's citizens.

 

[Xshayathiya]

So it's OK by you to replace car pollution by meltdown pollution? And I didn't bring this as analogy. My point was: there are other ways to reduce pollution, you don't have to build nuclear reactor. More, meltdowns happen more frequently than you suspect. Chernobyl wasn't the only one in the USSR.

That remark was completely unnecessary.
First you don't know me.
Second, I might not happen to be great expert in physics, but I do know a little bit about nucleus and chain reaction. Not much, but enough to see differences between power plant and nuke technologies.

EDIT: Oh, and it wasn't ME who killed half a city of Chernobyl. So I'm not responsible for bad rep of nuke plants

well apparently you don't know anything about nuclear technologies. Nuclear meltdowns do NOT happen often. They are ONLY caused by human error, never has a modern reactor malfunctioned of its own accord. Chernobyl was human error, TMI was human error. Meltdowns simply do not happen without reason. The average person sees chernobyl and think "Oh no Nuclear energy is bad, we're all going do die from mutation ". They draw conclusions that nuclear energy is not clean just from seeing the disasters, and not looking at the facts of the situation. THAT is why the nuclear industry has a bad reputation, one which it doesnt deserve.

In USSR it happened at least twice, it was close thing at least twice and there are rumors that more cases were covered up by Soviet government.

Those were all due to human error. The soviets were very inefficient with their reactors. Their reactors were severly undermanned and they did not repair their reactors when repairs were needed.

So, I would say, nuclear plant is pretty dangerous toy.

Then watch out!!! Canada is the most dangerous country in the world, seeing as how we have 5 out of the 10 most effective nuclear powerplants in the world!

 

[Xshayathiya]

Especially so for a country whose leadership does not generally care about the well-being of it's citizens.

then how about their own well-being? they live in Tehran too. they breathe the same air. So are they going to walk around wearing oxygen masks?

 

[amadeus]

Iran isn't trying to build power plants, they're trying to build nuclear weapons.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

that is tehran. now dont tell me no one is thinking about the environment.

???? Judging by the picture I would say they don't care about the environment. They care about Islam and how they can use it to control people, thats all. That fact that their city is polluted is not evidence that they are worried about their environment. Most of their statements don't indicate that the environment is a priority either.

well apparently you don't know anything about nuclear technologies. Nuclear meltdowns do NOT happen often. They are ONLY caused by human error, never has a modern reactor malfunctioned of its own accord. Chernobyl was human error, TMI was human error. Meltdowns simply do not happen without reason. The average person sees chernobyl and think "Oh no Nuclear energy is bad, we're all going do die from mutation ". They draw conclusions that nuclear energy is not clean just from seeing the disasters, and not looking at the facts of the situation. THAT is why the nuclear industry has a bad reputation, one which it doesnt deserve.

First of all who do you think is going to run and build Iran's nuclear plants?? Yes humans, so human error is a factor. 2nd you don't need a meltdown to scew up the environment. Lets take the Hanford Nuclear site for example. Right now the Hanford site is the location of the wrold's largest and most complex environmental cleanup and there was no meltdown. The buildings the, the soil, the river were all contaminated. The site won't be cleaned to acceptable levels until about 2030 and thats with the resources of the United States. Environmentalists were the ones protesting the site, so this argument that nuclear plants are in favor of the environmentaly friendly is not accurate.

 

[Abaddon]

I agree- blitz the lot- neither side is ever going to back down, so lets start from scartch