Antineutrino Detectors Could Be Key To Monitoring Iran's Nuclear Program 79
agent elevator writes: Tech that analyzes antineutrinos might be the best way to keep tabs on Iran's nuclear program. The technology, which can tell how much of and what kind of plutonium and uranium are nearby, should be ready to serve as a nuclear safeguard in less than two years, according to IEEE Spectrum. In a simulation of the Arak nuclear plant, which the Iran deal requires be redesigned to make less plutonium, a detector parked outside in a shipping container could do the job.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not funny, you're not clever, you're not even remotely interesting, and you're not wanted. Just leave. Go take up basket weaving, or knitting, or some other handcraft, rather than spewing your verbal diarrhea all over the Internet via your keyboard.
N
Sounds good. (Score:3, Insightful)
How about we also install these in Israel, a country that has threatened to bomb its neighbors? They apparently have an extensive nuclear program that isn't inspected or regulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
They are also a repressive country that denies same sex couples and interracial couples the right of marriage while their kin in the legal system and media forces it on us. It is 2015 and it is time Israel joins the rest of us in it.
Re: (Score:1)
While I agree with your sentiment and facts the only thing I disagree with is "owes." The term is "owed" and that could be debated but is not important. Israel is wearing their big-boy panties and can fend for themselves. They are not owed anything any more other than respect as a nation and the sovereignty that goes with it as well as any treaty obligations. I could also argue an obligation to protect does not exist, we are not the world's police and can not afford to be, but that is immaterial.
Re: (Score:3)
They are also a repressive country that denies same sex couples and interracial couples the right of marriage while their kin in the legal system and media forces it on us.
Congratulations, you win the award for the most idiotic guilt-by-association argument of the month.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Only your third paragraph contained any truth. Iran has blocked and bribed monitors routinely, completed IRBM development once they could toss a nuclear warhead into eastern europe, and continues to fund terrorists. There is significant evidence that Iran has completed implosion testing for two different devices, one which is certainly not just a uranium device, and these negotiations are nothing more than a tacit acknowledgement that the western world has failed and that Iran is a nuclear state.
Re: (Score:2)
The IAEA is probably the primary reason nuclear power has the shitty rep it has. Its behavior and impartiality concerning the impact of major accidents has been deplorable (chernobyl, fukushima and probably others too). I think they're still trotting out the chernobyl '5000' deaths bit. It's probably closer to 50000+, and hundreds of thousands with illness from exposure to massive radiation and toxic chemicals.
I wouldn't trust the IAEA any more than I'd trust exxon-mobil's reporting on their tanker safety,
Re:except the IAEA is still a thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that a new gadget doesn't actually change anything about nuclear monitoring in Iran. Also, you may want to see what IAEA actually said about Iran [iaea.org] before making such a strong statement. You're flat out wrong about the IAEA and Iran. The IAEA repeatedly complained about Iran's lack of cooperation and militarization of nuclear sites. I also think you're underestimating the leverage the Iran had here. The US didn't have a choice, we HAD to make a deal because we lost this fight.
You can't argue that Iran enriched to bombmaking levels and simultaneously claim they didn't pursue a weapon. Uranium for energy is 4% enriched. Uranium for a bomb practically starts at 20% enriched. Iran took material up to between 19% and 20%. Cute, because research reactors use that grade, but Iran was producing much more 19.75% LEU per month than their research reactors could use in a year. Using this material in an electricity generating reactor is needlessly expensive and wasteful. In sufficient quantities, this material can be made into a bomb, and Iran passed this "sufficient quantity" line a while ago. The purpose of IAEA inspections (and UN resolutions, sabotage, assassinations, sanctions, etc.) was to prevent this from happening. Crossing this line didn't send a message that they're just doing research or working on power systems. The message they sent to the international community is that they effectively had a bomb, and we couldn't stop them. That they then came to the negotiating table willing to throw that material out speaks to their willingness to be a civilized member of global society. Doubters will expect to see some of that material end up in the hands of terrorists, but whether that happens or not is a real test of Iranian intentions. If Iran simply wanted to nuke Israel, they could have done that already.
It's not likely that they simply want a civilian power industry. If that's so, they're going about this very differently than other countries have. The "normal" way to do power industry uranium enrichment is to run enrichment using a multinational corporate entity "owned" by multiple governments. In this way, regional and worldwide rivals can keep eachother in check while ensuring a domestic, cost-effective supply of uranium. Brazil, Argentina, Germany, the Netherlands and Japan all have civilian power industries without weapons programs and without nationalized uranium enrichment. Each of those countries went through this transition to regional nuclear (electricity) power without the drama and dangerous actions Iran has taken (kicking out the IAEA inspectors).
Now, it's completely absurd to argue that Iran will make money off of enriching uranium, the market is not there, and will not develop in the foreseeable future. The worldwide capacity for uranium enrichment is far in excess of what the power industry needs. After Fukushima, there is a huge surplus of power-grade uranium out there. Russia, in particular, runs it's enrichment factories well below capacity. Russia would love to supply uranium all over central Asia.
It is also absurd to argue that that Iran would be unable to create a domestic source of uranium for electricity using the international standard structures. Several other regional power level countries have done this. Early in negotiations, when everyone thought Iran simply wanted a power industry, Russia offered to partner with them in the normal way. It would make sense for Iran to partner with other regional powers getting into nuclear energy (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan) as well. That we don't see the typical partnership out of this strongly implies that Iran wants more than a power industry. They want to be treated like part of the "nuclear weapon club" without triggering immediate war with Israel by actually testing a bomb.
None of this means that the deal with Iran is bad, but everyone needs to be realistic about what's really going on. Iran has effectively had a bo
Re: (Score:2)
Then again you don't need that much highly enriched uranium for a thermonuclear weapon and 20% enriched uranium used in a commercial reactor has the advantage of not needing refueling for years. It is how submarine reactors work, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the Iranians want to build nuclear powered naval vessels like the US and Russia have...
And do what? (Score:1, Insightful)
When antineutrinos are found, Iran will be sent a strongly worded letter protesting the resumption of their nuclear weapons program.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, you'll have to wait 24 days to actually be permitted to inspect anything.
Good thing you can't move anything or alter the equipment in any meaningful way in a month.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sure. Blindly trust in diplomacy. Appeasement has successfully worked in the past, and there is every indication that Iran will be another success for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This amounts to "we'll give you a bunch of money if you stick to just killing a bunch of people using conventional weapons".
And way to extrapolate my argument for one specific situation to every situation everywhere.
Same straw man as the president. (Score:2)
Where in the various treaties negotiated in the recent past has a "blind trust" as you term it, been an essential part? Seriously, you'd cast out all forms of diplomacy as being too trusting, and instead prefer war? Have you ever been in a war? Have you ever seen civilians killed because they had the misfortune of living nearby a perceived threat? If you had, then I believe that you would (eventually) prefer a flawed diplomacy to what promoters of war would profess to be the perfect solution.
There are other options besides this crap deal and war. But neither Obama nor you want to talk about them, because they'd make the president look like the fool* he is.
*and that's the most generous term applicable.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran has a sinister and evil plan. At the table, they will cast a vote recognizing they are in violation, and an outraged US will oppose its veto.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's gonna monitor the Saudi and Egyptian nukes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that Iran is going to get nukes, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to try to get them, too.
And thanks to Obumble's fecklessness with Ukraine (provoke a regime change that you know will lead to war, then run away), there isn't any country on Earth that is going to be willing to give up nukes ever again.
This isn't the Hope and Change you expected, now is it?
- Massive surveillance state
- "Extrajudicial" killings of US citizens
- Regime change in Libya that led to one of the worst failed states ever (and you thought Iraq was bad? But we can't publicized The Won's FAILURE in Libya, now can we?)
- "The JV" in control of 3/4 of Syria and 1/3 of Iraq and inspiring if not actually conducting terrorist attacks inside the US.
- Iran nuclear deal where Iran gets out from under crippling sanctions for paper promises they're going to walk away from (aka taqiya [wikipedia.org])
Re: (Score:2)
Both Egypt [nti.org] and Saudi Arabia [nti.org] are signatories in the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). So, it would be very unlikely that either would start developing nuclear weapons now.
The general consensus is that it was a stupid move to sign for that while Israel, a neighbor and foe, did not sign the same terms.
Antineutrinos are for quarks. (Score:2, Funny)
You are all quarks. Quarks say whazblarp. WHHHAAAAZZZZBLARRRP! WHHHAAAAZZZZBLARRRP! Whazblarp say the quarks. YOU QUARKS!!
Re: (Score:3)
There's only one Quark and there's no way you're taking his bar away from him.
Unless the price is right, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
I object to that. Why Quark may be a respectable Ferengi, I am certainly not one of them and neither do I want to become one.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't a real ferengi unless you carry a plasma whip!
Motherfucking savage (Score:1)
I hate that I saw this bullshit and actually loved it.
let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran gets 24 days warning before any inspection and has sites that can't be inspected at all .
These short range detectors are going to help how ? All they have to do is move the material around.
Re: (Score:1)
No. It's virtually impossible to clean up the site to the level that the residue cannot be detected.
Re:let me get this straight (Score:4, Informative)
Military sites are off limits from inspection so the point is moot.
24 days allows for a lot of cleanup and removal (Score:1)
No. It's virtually impossible to clean up the site to the level that the residue cannot be detected.
You don't clean the room. You remove the room. You build a room within a room if residue is an issue, you have 24 days to remove the inner contaminated materials.
Plus some residue may be within treaty rules. Allowed to produce X amount of material but you actually produce 10x. 24 days to dial the equipment back down and remove excess production.
And what was wrong with keep sanctions on Iran? (Score:2, Insightful)
Obama's straw man was the only alternative to this deal was to allow Iran getting nukes because we couldn't stop them.
We still can't stop them, but we've removed sanctions.
And isn't it nice that with Congressional approval still required, Obama's saying that if Congress disapproves the deal, Iran still gets out from under sanctions?
WHAT THE FUCK?
Did Obama just negotiate an agreement subject to Congressional approval that's still in force even if it's not approved?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, nothing in the Budapest Memorandum requires the US to take action other than maybe to consult with the other signers which is of course next to useless. We did more than the treaty requires by bringing the situation up with the UN.
That however does not make the situation any better. The lesson is still not to rely on the US and provide for your own defense using nuclear weapons as a deterrent if possible.
Antineutrino Detectors? (Score:3)
What the fuck is this? Star Trek?
No, seriously, we can detect antineutrinos? From space? Warp drives and teleportation can't be far behind!
Majoriana particle? (Score:3)
Oh, it gets better.
We don't know if there's even a *difference* between a neutrino and an antineutrino. It may in fact be its own antiparticle [wikipedia.org].
And then there's this thing about how they each oscillate among three types.
Re: (Score:3)
So... it's got two states (kind of like being dead and alive at the same time), and there's three types of oscillation (like the holy trinity)?
I can't wait until the religious people hear about this one!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait until the religious people hear about this one!
If you refer to the ones that invented temporary marriage to meet prostitutes without committing a sin, I guess they will be able to handle your quantum story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[Neutrinos] travel at the speed of light...
They don't [wikipedia.org].
You know what would have been easier? (Score:1, Insightful)
You know what would have been even easier than trying to detect a particle we don't even know really exists?
NOT LETTING THEM BUILD A BOMB IN THE FIRST PLACE!
I mean, great job, Obama, according to your own advisers, you've given Iran a one-year path to building an atomic bomb. Maybe we should have kept the framework in place that was actually working at preventing them from building nukes?
Oh, and I note that the article claims that these "anti-neutrino" detectors could be available as soon as two years from
Clinton had a "no nukes" deal w/ North Korea (Score:3, Informative)
That worked out real well. [wikipedia.org]
And Jewish State's Nuclear program? (Score:1, Interesting)
Dice are a filthy bunch of ZIONIST RACISTS who never focus on the massive arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons held by JEWISH STATE. And of course, the partnership between Jewish State and Islamic State (paralleling the partnership between the FRONTS, Israel and Saudi Arabia) is never discussed here either.
Iran stands as the LAST powerful entity opposing Jewish State and Islamic State, which is zionist organisations like Dice are so determined to see Iran taken out. Google, owned and controll
vaporware (Score:2)
...should be ready to serve as a nuclear safeguard in less than two years
a detector parked outside in a shipping container could do the job.
How does this really help us NOW?
Assuming that such a detector is possible, can be built, and does work, then the next problem is getting the Iranians to allow it to be emplaced and not tampered.
Also, who pays for it? Money stopped growing on trees sometime ago. As a US taxpayer, why should I have to foot the bill for something to ensure that a rogue state is playing by the rules to which they agreed?
Antineutrino? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But neutrinos don't have colors since they are leptons. Colors are photonic, and photons are bosons and have different statistics then leptons. Since neutrinos can't have color, the equivalent for bad guy leptons is that th
Don't even bother (Score:1)
Nobody gives a shit about these safeguards, now get with the program and find a pretext to invade the place already.
Re: (Score:2)
To hell with that. We tore Iraq apart, got rid of the crazy fuckers running it and now there's a power vacuum there that the madmen running ISIS are determined to fill. If we tear Iran down then ISIS will start trying to run that too. Maybe we could acknowledge the fact that we can't fix a place that's been fucked up since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and stick to just playing one side against the other. North Korea got nukes and we survived that and I guess we'll survive Iran getting them. At least