firstname.lastname@example.org wrote in message
FACTS about Iran's "nukes"
Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some
facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned in the
1- The Bushehr reactor--which was started under the Shah with US
support--is not a weapons proliferation threat since it is a
reactor which is under IAEA safeguard. Even the IAEA itself admits
UN clears Iran nuclear facility
The head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has said
Russia's nuclear co-operation with Iran is no longer a matter of
(SOURCE: BBC Online Tuesday, 29 June, 2004)
2- Note how the articles confuse a nuclear "weapons" program with
a plain "nuclear program". In fact according to Article 4 of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an "INALIENABLE RIGHT"
to possess nuclear technology, as does any othe country. Several other
nations use the same technology too, such as Brazil and Holland and
Japan. So a nuclear
program is not the same as a nuclear weapons program.
3- A common refrain is that Iran's nuclear program can't possibly be
for anything except weapons because Iran has so much oil and natural
gas. In fact Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive
oil and gas because of rising domestic consumption and the reliance on
oil and gas for earning hard currency. The Stanford Research
Institute advised the Shah's government that Iran could not rely on
oil and gas for energy way back in the mid 1970's. Other nations which
have extensive oil and gas resources also have nuclear energy - such
as Russia and the USA. Iran has also been experimenting with
geothermal energy and wind-turbines, as well as building its largest
4- There is in fact no evidence of an actual nuclear WEAPONS program
in Iran, as admitted by the IAEA itself - there is only the INFERENCE
that Iran COULD ONE DAY POSSIBLY use the legitimate technology to
build a weapon of POSSIBLY desires to do so. Needless to say, ANY
"could" be used to make nukes, and so could any country. And the
reason why Iran would want to build nukes is to DEFEND ITSELF.
"IAEA: No evidence of Iran nukes
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has found 'no
evidence' Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons...
SOURCE: AP Monday, November 10, 2003
" 'The United States has no concrete evidence of a nuclear-weapons
program,' Albright told me. 'It's just an inference. There's no
smoking gun.' "
SOURCE: New Yorker by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Issue of 2004-06-28
5- Iran can't be compared to Iraq: The bombing of Iraq's Osirak
reactor did not signficantly affect Iraq's nuclear program, since the
centrifuge sites were not bombed. If anything, it encouraged them to
speed up the process. But in any case, Iran has signed the Additional
Protocol which permits IAEA inspections anywhere-anytime, and Iraq had
Iraq also used chemical weapons and invaded its neighbors- with the
blessing and support of the USA, by the way.
6- In fact, according to the NonProliferation Treaty, not only is Iran
entitled to have nuclear technology, but other countries are required
to share their nuclear technology. That was the quid-pro-quo that the
nuclear-haves and have-nots agreed upon when they signed the NPT.
However, the nuclear-haves are not living up to their side of the
7- Don't mix up Iran and North Korea either: Currently, Iran has
signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and its nuclear installations are
all under IAEA safeguards - unlike North Korea.
7.5- Kerry has said that he'll offer nuclear reactor fuel to Iran,
and if Iran refuses to accept the stuff and continues the program to
makes its own nuclear reactor fuel, that's proof that Iran is secretly
building a bomb. This of course is total bullshit. Lots of countries
make their own nuclear reactor fuel, that doesn't mean they're
secretly building nuclear weapons. Iran has the natural uranium
deposits and the know-how to makes its own fuel, why would it want to
become reliant on a foreign source of fuel? How can Iran be guaranteed
that the fuel won't be "sanctioned" some time in the future? Asking
Iran to be reliant on Kerry's good will is a lot like Asking the USA
to not use any of its own oil and become solely reliant on King Fahd
of Saudi Arabia.
8- If Iran is attacked, Iran will withdraw from the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (as it is legally do pursuant to Article X) and will start
working on a nuclear weapons program in earnest. Centrifuge sites will
pop up like mushrooms all over the country - too many to be bombed -
and the IAEA inspectors will not be around to check them. Within 6
mos. the first nuclear test will occur, and within a year Iran's
missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads.
9- The people of Iran will rally to support their government if Iran
is attacked, as their nationalism is stirred by such an act. Iran's
decision to develop nuclear deterrence will occur with the full
support of the people of the government too, so changing governments
will not change the decision to build nukes. Iranians know that their
country has a right to nuclear technology, they are proud of their
nuclear accomplishments, and have a long history of resenting foreign
superpowers trying to deprive them of their rights.
10- Attacking Iran's nuclear installations will prove once and for all
to the people of Iran the necessity of obtaining nuclear weapons as a
are already many Iranians who believe that Iran should withdraw from
the NonProliferation Treaty since the US has failed to abide by ITS
OWN obligations under the same treaty (to share nuclear technology,
and to get rid of its own nuclear weapons) Furthermore, Iran is
surrounded by nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable states that threaten
So yes, by all means, go ahead and bomb or try to invade Iran and see
11- The people of Iran support their government's nuclear development
and are proud to defend it.
Unlike U.S., Iranians believe Tehran needs nuclear ability
By Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson
Knight Ridder 19 November 2004
San Jose Mercury News
(c) Copyright 2004, San Jose Mercury News. All Rights
Electrical engineering student Roozbeh Rahimi reflects a
common sentiment among Iranians when he expresses hope
that this famous tourist city will gain fame soon for its
``We need nuclear power. And if it's used for military
purposes, all the better,'' said Rahimi, 22.
12- Iran's nuclear program started under the Shah, with the
encouragement and support of the USA.
US offered uranium enrichment, reprocessing to Iran: documents
Islamabad, Nov 1, Kyodo/OANA/IRNA -- The United States offered uranium
enrichment and reprocessing plant facilities to Iran in the mid-1970s
if it bought nuclear power plants from US companies, invested in an
enrichment plant in United States and shared plutonium reprocessing
plant with Pakistan, recently declassified US documents reveal.
The documents were found on the website of the Gerald R. Ford Library
and Museum in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Two documents in particular, dated April 22, 1975 and April 20, 1976,
show that the United States and Iran held negotiations for cooperation
in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the United States was
willing to help Iran by setting up uranium enrichment and fuel
National Security Decision Memorandum 292
US-Iran Nuclear Cooperation
April 22 1975
Page 1: http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nsdm292a.htm
Page 2: http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nsdm292b.htm
National Security Memorandum 324
Negotiation of a Nuclear Agreement with Iran
April 20 1976
(Addendum: among the various innuendo against Iran, one was that that
traces of enriched uranium found on centrifuges in Iran was proof that
Iran had illegally engaged in enriching uranium specfically for making
bombs. This was repeated so often as to turn into conventional wisdom.
Yet recently the IAEA itself concluded that the presence of traces of
staff was indeed attributable to contamination, just as Iran had
claimed all along - now do you think the media will set the record
straight and take back all of their innuendo?)
I suggest we ignore the so-called no-it-all and if it makes one more
comfortable in ones home with the proper amount of humidification, and makes
one feel better physically, plus the other benefits it provides, go ahead
and do it! If Einstein does not believe in it that's his problem.
Well, I have lived in northern Canada for most of my life, and back in
my childhood days, we simply put a container of water (re coffee can) on
the heater, and when we got central heat (humidifiers were not
normally installed), placed the can on the vent in the kitchen (most
used room), and if it was to dry in bedrooms did the same thing with
No chance of a fire, burnt pot etc. all you had to do was refill the can.
As an adult working in the high arctic we did the same thing in the bunk
house. If you didn't, you woke up in the morning with split lips and a
mouth that tasted like the cat s**t in it....
If you want to spend a fortune sealing up your house, it will save you
in heating costs, but to be healthy your going to need an air to air
exchanger anyway, and your house will still dry out if you have serious
cold weather... Which is why even an energy efficient home will usually
have a humidification system of some kind...
If you live in a humid climate with out sub freezing temps, an energy
efficient house will require a dehumidifier...
Back in Colonial days, a typical tiny US farmhouse was simply heated
during the day with 10 cords of wood per winter, before the invention
of woodstoves, insulation, and air sealing :-)
You might have fixed that with more air sealing.
Air sealing materials are cheap. Labor can be cheap, if it's yours.
Or a small exhaust fan.
How serious can it be outdoors, to avoid condensation on R8 windows when
it's 70 F with 30% RH indoors? This isn't an argument against air sealing.
Condensation merely depends on indoor humidity, not the means to raise it.
A need for winter humidification is a symptom of excess air leakage.
Gary points out a 44 F dewpoint will also work without a dehumidifier,
eg 60 F outdoor air at 100e^-9621/((1/460+60)-1/(460+44)) = 56% RH.
Interestingly, in all the writings I've seen on hyper-efficient
houses, the consensus was that air-air exchangers are needed to remove
the moisture given off from humans, showers, laundry, cooking, and
such. Besides to make O2 available. Of course, condensing that
moisture saves huge heat loss.
Wouldn't know about such a house, but trying. I'm told people don't
"spend a fortune" sealing up houses, and do it regularly in
Scandinavia. Maybe leaves them some funds for aquavit? I'd call it
More so each year, it seems advisable to seal it up, insulate to the
max, monitor r.h. and do whatever is best for human health, like
air-air. Expect I'll be going that route in a year or two.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.