[BlameTheEx]

Spotted this. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996344


Apparently the US department of energy plans to create "sealed nuclear reactors" for developing countries.

Does the US D of E truly believe that when these reactors wear out in 30 years time its people will want to take them back for disposal?

Could it believe that what would have to be a large number of small local breeder reactors, that are slowly filling up with plutonium, can be defended from terrorism in a developing nation? Have they considered the result of terrorists spreading that plutonium via a conventional explosives attack, or crashing an aircraft into it?

What will be the US governments response if the location becomes a war zone, and the ant-tamper alarms go off? Will the US take up a 30 year responsibility to protect these reactors during wars or civil wars in the countries concerned?

Nope, this article is not dated april the first!

Anybody care to guess what the real intentions are behind this announcement?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx
Anybody care to guess what the real intentions are behind this announcement?

It is easy to understand anything that happens under the current US administration. Corporate Profits at any and all risks and costs to the general public. The current Admin doesn't care about anything except profits for their Corporate friends.

Look at how they handled critical Safety regulations at Nuclear plants post 9/11. When it was found that some of the potential targets identified by Al Quida included Nuclear plants, a survey was done to check for compliance to already existing safety measures. One of the biggies was implemenation of auto-shut down systems at Nuclear plants. Especially if a fire should breakout such as from a plane being flown into a plant, it is critical that the core shuts down immediately without need for human intervention. It was found that almost no Nuclear plants in the US had implemented the REQUIRED auto-shut down. They found that the vast majority had only manual systems that required workers to risk their lives going thru walkways that could by on fire to MANUALLY shut down the reactors. That is if any employees were alive to do so.

What was the Bush Admin response to finding this grave threat to National Security? What did they do, after the proven threat from terrorists became REAL, to protect the US from runaway reactors?

When they found an utter lack of compliance to this extreme need and existing requirements for autoshut down systems, they made a typical Bushite Administration Order. They DROPPED THE REQUIREMENTS for autoshut down systems. Thus leaving a major threat to our safety even though regulations were already in place and only needed to be enforced. But this would cost his buddies too much money.

Fire Hazard
Bush Leaves Nuclear Plants at Risk
http://www.progressive.org/august04/cusac0804.html

[BlameTheEx]

Hm.

Personally I can't believe even Bush is that dumb. I suspect a political ploy. Something on these lines:

1) Bush tells developing nation to cease development of nuclear power, or else.

2) Developing nation pleads that it needs its nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Other countries, worried by american dominance listen, so does Bush's political rivals, and peace protesters.

3) Bush announces to the world that he is offering the developing nation "Sealed Nuclear Reactors". The developing nation has no need for its own nuclear program.

4) The contract for these "Sealed Nuclear Reactors" is subject to long negotiation, during which Bush exerts sanctions against the developing nation.

5) Finally, after most of the opposition has found something else to oppose, Bush hands the developing nation a contract.

6) The developing nation reads the contract and realises the dreadful truth.

A) It is responsible for "part of the costs", but those costs are yet to be determined by american officials. They include security. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has yet produced cheap nuclear power, when the cost of safety precautions, security, and disposal of spent fuel and plant is properly taken into account Imagine how cheap even "part of the costs" will be when determined by US officials whose first loyalty is to US prosperity.

B) The security is to be provided by the US army "if the situation requires". That will mean contingents of undefined size. They might start small, but can call for reinforcement "if the situation requires". Worse they will be stationed close by the developing nations major industrial sites and populations centres Naturally they will be able to cut off the nations power at will. The power stations are effectively unattackable forts, with concrete defences against "terrorists". The developing nation couldn't even try for fear of causing a reactor leak. Perhaps the troops will have orders to blow up the reactors, and release the plutonium to the atmosphere, as a last resort.

7) The developing nation angrily refuses the contract. Bush explains to the world how the only possible reason for the refusal is the development of an offensive nuclear capability, and tightens up sanctions.

8) The developing nation losses international support Crippled by sanctions, and noticing its position on the "Axis of evil nations to be invaded" list it capitulates. It never gets any "Sealed Nuclear Reactors" but it does get a US handout in return for dismantling its nuclear program under UN supervision.

9) Bush orders the burning of all documents on "Sealed Nuclear Reactors" and the project is quietly closed down. Nobody need know the scientists conclusion that you can't guarantee the safety of a reactor for 30 years unless you have tested a representative sample for 30 years. Failing that you have to open them up regularly and check for corrosion, cracks, and other damage. In practice corrosion, and cracks WILL be found, leading to a need for regular maintenance. There was never any real chance that these reactors could remain sealed, but then it was never intended that any would be manufactured.