|
09 Jul 08 - 12:56 PM (#2384814) Subject: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce Imaginary Yellowcake? Only 550 metric tons... 500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says Story Highlights Pentagon: U.S. secretly shipped Iraq's low-grade uranium dating back to Hussein era Officials: U.S. military spent $70 million for the transport of materials to Canada "Yellowcake" uranium transfer was requested by the Iraqi government From Brianna Keilar and Larry Shaughnessy CNN WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday. The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman. The shipment, which until recently was kept secret, involved a U.S. truck convoy, 37 cargo flights out of Baghdad to a transitional location, and then a transoceanic voyage on board a U.S.-government-owned ship designed to carry troops to a war zone, he said. The "yellowcake" uranium transfer was requested by the Iraqi government at the encouragement of the U.S. government, Whitman said. The United States approached Canadian company Cameco to bid for the material, according Cameco spokesman Lyle Krahn. He would not disclose the winning bid amount. Krahn admitted that this was not a "routine transaction," but he said the agreement was approved by the Canadian government and was carefully monitored. Don't Miss Iraqi leader favors short-term pact with U.S. UAE to cancel Iraq's debt The undertaking, named "Operation McCall" by Pentagon officials, was in the planning stages for months and was completed Saturday after the material had been in transit for weeks, according to Whitman. He said yellowcake uranium is a commonly traded commodity used for nuclear power generation. It is not enriched and cannot be used without first going through a complicated enrichment process, he said, but because of the unstable nature of Iraq, the United States and the Iraqi government decided it should be moved out of that country. Iraq has no nuclear power generating plants. The uranium was packed into 110 shipping containers moved by convoy from a facility in Tuwaitha, Iraq, about 12 miles south of Baghdad. The containers were first moved to the secure International Zone in central Baghdad and then to Baghdad International Airport, where thery were loaded onto C-17 cargo planes. It took 37 flights to move the shipping containers out of Iraq to a "third country," Whitman said. A Pentagon official who asked not to be named said that third country was Diego Garcia, a British territory in the Indian Ocean where the United Kingdom and the United States operate a joint military base. From that third country, Whitman said, the containers were loaded onto the SS Gopher State, a U.S.-owned crane ship normally used to haul equipment in and out of war zones. The ship carried the uranium to Canada, where it was bought by Cameco, a private firm. The uranium will be sent by truck to two processing plants in Ontario, Krahn said. Once it has been enriched for energy use it will be sold to power plant operators, he said. The United States is Cameco's largest customer, Krahn said, but he did not specify if the Iraq yellowcake would ultimately end up in the United States. Whitman said the Department of Defense's cost of securing and transporting the uranium from Tuwaitha to Canada was $70 million, and the government of Iraq had agreed in principal to reimburse the United States for part of that cost. He said he could not say how much Iraq intends to repay the United States. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 01:46 PM (#2384871) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Peace "From that third country, Whitman said, the containers were loaded onto the SS Gopher State, a U.S.-owned crane ship normally used to haul equipment in and out of war zones. The ship carried the uranium to Canada, where it was bought by Cameco, a private firm." Cameco is publicly traded. The article should point out that Cameco is NOT a mom and pop op. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:06 PM (#2384889) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Amos Interesting that there seems to be no mention of time in this article, as though trying to make it appear that all this was concurrent with thwe Plame flap or near there. Do you suppose this omission is an attempt to falsiofy the picture? |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:08 PM (#2384893) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: irishenglish Wonderful. More deception. Do we have a timeline for this other than "dating back to the Saddam Hussein era?" |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:12 PM (#2384899) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Goose Gander If I understand correctly, this was low-grade yellowcake, which Hussein's regime was known to possess (it's waste material), NOT the high-grade stuff he would need for a weapons program. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:12 PM (#2384901) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce Amos, try reading before you apply liberal bias... "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday. The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman. .... The undertaking, named "Operation McCall" by Pentagon officials, was in the planning stages for months and was completed Saturday after the material had been in transit for weeks, according to Whitman." |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:13 PM (#2384903) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce "waste material"?????????? Right. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:16 PM (#2384908) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: GUEST,Above 49 Interesting that there seems to be no mention of time in this article well the source is CNN isn't it? |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:18 PM (#2384912) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Amos Bruce: Tell me: if the Pentagon has been engineering this transshipment for months, as it would seem from the sketchy information in this article, why on earth would the Administration say nothing about it? I am not applying liberal bias--I seriously missed that one tiny anchor to the time stream. Now, I further wonder why more information about all this yellowcake has been buried despite the fact that it could be a major PR coup for the administration, scotching a major liberal complaint (I hate using the word that way) against Bush and Co. Why has this not occurred? All I can say is there's a helluva lot of data missing fromt his little story. A |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:21 PM (#2384918) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce Gee, maybe they wanted it SAFELY in Canada before they announced that it was available to anyone who wanted to hijack it. I find it unusual that the annonced it this soon. I will have to presume that you do not now hold or previously have held a security clearance- else you have forgotton a lot about safegarding classified imnformation. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:25 PM (#2384925) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Peace The story is in today's Calgary Herald. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:28 PM (#2384927) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Amos "Enrichment process Yellow cake uranium is not strong enough to power an electricity station or nuclear weapon until it is re-processed and enriched. But Cameco, a company in Canada, is now going to process the yellow cake in a deal worth tens of millions of dollars. An Iraqi government spokesman said Baghdad asked the US to help get rid of the uranium because of its potentially harmful effects. The shipments cost the US about $70m, but the Iraqi government has pledged in principle to repay some of the costs, Whitman said. Arrangements for the sale began several months ago, but the transfer itself took "weeks not months", he said. Deal questioned The shipment came after Cameco responded to a bid request made last year by the US government, Lyle Kharan, a spokesman for the company, said." Very interesting. It looks like this 550 tonnes was left over from the discontinued nuclear effort in Iraq in the '90s? Given that he had this much of it on hand, the story of Saddam Hussein trying to buy more looks even more of a stretch. A |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:35 PM (#2384934) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Peace "Is Saddam's "yellowcake" safe in Montreal? By Judi McLeod Tuesday, July 8, 2008 The US military's painstaking trail of getting 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" out of Iraq across two oceans to its final Canadian destination may not have considered that Montreal is a leading centre for Islamist and Jihadists groups in North America. The booty, described as "the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program" arrived in Montreal on the July 4th weekend, where it will remain until Fall. The military operation to remove the massive amount of concentrated natural uranium from the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles (19 kilometers south of Baghdad) was utterly hush hush. As long as it was in Tuwaitha, American and Iraqi authorities worried the cache would reach insurgents or that smugglers would get it into Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions. "The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake"—the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment—was a significant step toward closing the book on Saddam's nuclear legacy," (FoxNews.com, July 5, 2008). In the clean up of the remaining radioactive debris at Tuwaitha, the US military will use teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine. Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp. is the new owner of "tens of millions of dollars" worth of Saddam's carefully hoarded yellowcake, which will now be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in the energy-producing reactors for which Canada is famous. "Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to the Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject." But is Montreal, where the cache will remain for three months before Cameco sends it to Port Hope and Blind River, a guaranteed safe zone for 550 metric tons of yellowcake? Cameco spokesman Lyle Krahn confirmed the yellowcake uranium shipment arrived in Montreal by ship Saturday and is scheduled to be transported by truck to the company's facilities in Ontario. "We will be completing the transaction in the third quarter of this year, the shipment is in Canada at this point and we will be completing it in the fall." (Resource Investor, July 7, 2008). Not all terrorists are lurking in Iraq. "Montreal is the leading centre for Islamist and Jihadists groups in North American, many inspired by or with ties to al Qaida," Montrealer Beryl Wajsman wrote in a double byline Canada Free Press (CFP) cover story with this writer on July 10, 2006. "In total, with dozens of cells, Montreal has the largest number of such groups in any city in North America, not on a per capita basis but in gross numbers." "Radical Muslim operatives go to ground in Montreal. They rest and recruit in Montreal and get their recreation here," says Wajsman, a Montreal resident. What is the appeal of Canada's second largest city for al Qaida? "Islamists, al Qaida sympathizers, and terrorist fellow travelers view Montreal as being both intellectually and culturally open, accessible and exploitable," says Wajsman. "Montreal has a large, diverse Arab Muslim community whose members hail from many countries, speaking many languages and dialects, making their milieus natural hiding places." Deposits of concentrated natural uranium create potential problems wherever they are stored. "U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23-acre (9,300-hectare) site—surrounded by huge sand berms—following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns. Cameco is spending between $15 and $20 million to clean up and another $20 to $25 million to repair and upgrade contaminated soil at its Port Hope uranium hexafluoride conversion plant and expects the work to also be completed in the fall. Uranium hexafluoride operations have been suspended since the discovery of contaminated soil under the plant in July of 2007. Those with experience dealing with it maintain that yellowcake uranium poses no severe risk if stored and sealed properly and contend that the material is quite commonly transported with safeguards and security measures in place. Gordon Edwards, who heads the Montreal-based Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility warns, "Yellowcake itself is a very find powder." "It's sort of the consistency of flour and uranium is radioactive heavy metal. "The stuff is in very dispersible form and could easily be blown in the wind and could contaminate an extensive part of an area…because it's so finely ground." Meanwhile, the US military who cloaked the transportation of Saddam Hussein's uranium cache for an 8,500-mile trip in secrecy should have maintained that secrecy for its final destination point. Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck." |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:43 PM (#2384938) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce Amos, Do you have any idea how much yellowcake ( raw uranium ore) is required to get enough HE uranium for one bomb? I doubt if 550 tons is enough, for weapons grade.... But it was a start. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:55 PM (#2384949) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium Since you would not believe what I tell you... "The critical mass for 85% of highly enriched uranium is about 50 kilograms, " |
|
09 Jul 08 - 02:57 PM (#2384954) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Yellowcake is an initial concentration of uranium, on the way to making it suitable for fuel. Cameco will integrate the material "into their commercial processing stream at its refinery in Port Hope" (Ontario). Lyle Krahn, Cameco spokesman. Cameco said the deal was made earlier this year- "at that point U. S. led crews began removing the yellowcake from the Saddam-era containers, some leaking or weakened by corrosion, and reloading the material into about 3500 secure barrels. In April, truck convoys started moving the yellowcake from Tuwaitha to Badhdad's international airport. "Then, for two weeks in May, it was ferried on 37 flights to Diego Garcia.... On June 3, an American ship left the island for Montreal." I fail to see any mystery. To me- echoing bearded bruce- it seems to be normal procedure. The material was not waste- just an early stage concentration, leading to industrial use. Operators of Canada's uranium mines, closed at present, have called for the mines' re-opening, and resumption of production of yellowcake. The United States produces much of the material, from several mines, as do other countries with reserves of uranium. The Toronto Globe and Mail, article by Brian Murphy, Associated Press, July 5, 2008. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 03:09 PM (#2384971) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Amos BRuce: HEy, chill, dude!! No, I didn't know what the ratios were. 50 Kg of enriched uranium--a 30 cm sphere? Man that is dense. And that payload requires a concentration of U235 of >20%, or 10 kilograms HEU for weapons use. Yes? Now, low grade eneriched (SEU) has a concentration of 1-2% of U-235. To make up 10 Kg U-235 would seem, then, to require 1000 kg of yellow cake. One tonne. Unless my math is faulty, whichi s always possible, he had enough for 550 nukes if he had been able to separate the U235. So the story that he was out shopping for more seems like a real stretcvh to me. A |
|
09 Jul 08 - 03:20 PM (#2384985) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce "And that payload requires a concentration of U235 of >20%, or 10 kilograms HEU for weapons use. Yes?" No, that figure was for 85% U235 Now, low grade eneriched (SEU) has a concentration of 1-2% of U-235. Actually, yellowcake is less than 1%, I believe. To make up 10 Kg U-235 would seem, then, to require 1000 kg of yellow cake. One tonne. ignoring all the other elements in yellowcake, that would be .72% (0.0072) x 1000kg = 7.2 KG per 1 metric ton, or 3960 KG total for 550 metric tons. With NO loss in processing, and assuming 100% uranium ( a false assumption), that would be less than 80 bombs. More likely ( given assumptions ) enough for 30-40 85% HE U235 bombs, and fewer at lower concentrations. Hell he had hundreds of chemical weapon artillary shells and that was not considered to be a danger, according to you. Why worry over 30-40 Hiroshimas? |
|
09 Jul 08 - 03:31 PM (#2384997) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Lord Batman's Kitchener Oh and all of a sudden Wikipedia has become a reliable source. The accuracy of their scientific entries, among others, has been called into question more than a few times, so I'll take what they say with a pinch of salt if you don't mind. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 03:34 PM (#2385000) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Ebbie Bearded bruce, I have little doubt but that you have read some of the same reports I have. I read this story at least two weeks ago- and it very clearly said that the material dated from 1991; in other words, from before the first Gulf War. It has nothing whatever to do with current affairs. Saddam was in power thirty years. That is a fairly wide span of an "Hussein era". |
|
09 Jul 08 - 03:35 PM (#2385001) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Peace Here y'all go. I looked at the pictures. I have NO idea what the writing says. But it seems like it should make sense. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 03:39 PM (#2385005) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce Ebbie, This is material that Saddam was not supposed to have at all, under the UN Resolutions. And it is signifiant in that it is YELLOWCAKE ( See the earler discussions about how he did NOT have or try to get any yellowcake for his "non-existant" secret program. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 03:46 PM (#2385013) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Lord Batman's Kitchener And it's significant that ALL OF A SUDDEN it comes to light, very interesting indeed. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 03:49 PM (#2385016) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: irishenglish ....just in time for the one running for President who thinks we should stick around Iraq for awhile. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 03:55 PM (#2385022) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce Obama? |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:00 PM (#2385023) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: irishenglish No, McCain. I thought Obama was the one who supplied Iraq with it in the first place-you know how those Hussein's like to stick together! And people, that was a total joke, please do not take it as anything but! |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:05 PM (#2385029) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Lord Batman's Kitchener Alot seems to have ALL OF A SUDDEN come to light, ....just in time for the election |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:10 PM (#2385041) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce Joking about the second coming of JFK is NOT permitted. I just hope we can survive HIS "Cuban Missile Crisis" |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:12 PM (#2385044) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Amos BB: Your dripping sarcasm is bad for your heart--you know that.... A |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:12 PM (#2385045) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce It just gives Obama the chance to "refine" his position and keep us in Iraq for 100 years. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:17 PM (#2385052) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce Amos, I spent the Cuban Missile crisis in Washington DC, practicing duck and cover in a school hallway. Where were you? |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:17 PM (#2385056) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: McGrath of Harlow I have a suspicion that maybe it got shipped into Iraq by the same people who shipped it out... |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:20 PM (#2385061) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Lord Batman's Kitchener Now that would make perfect sense, given the track record of those people |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:26 PM (#2385065) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce So let me see... The liberal line is that it was old, pre 1991 stockpile that was being ignored and just happened to not be included when the UN inspectors were working, that was just imported by the US to score political points in the next election. You know, you all need to coordinate your fantasies a little better. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:31 PM (#2385073) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Lord Batman's Kitchener Oh we should believe your fantasies? Sources, Wikipedia and CNN...Don't make me laugh! |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:33 PM (#2385077) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Nothing really secret about the yellowcake. It was found in 2003 when the U. S. was checking Iraqi military sites. It was placed under the control of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). The announcement (re-announcement?) now is one of those political ploys by the Bush government that isn't worth much notice. Shipment cost the U. S. $70 million, which sounds like someone made a lot of money on the transfer- maybe that should be the newsworthy story! Al Jazeera says the Iraqi government has pledged in principle to repay some of the costs (Brian Whitman, Pentagon spokesman), since they were the ones who requested its stabilization and transfer. An Al Jazeera article is not entirely correct; it calls Cameco a 'wholesaler," but they are Canada's refiner for the Port Hope and Blind River nuclear plants (which produce electric power). Of course Cameco once made sales of yellowcake, etc., when the Canadian mines were in operation. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:34 PM (#2385078) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce And your sources? Tinkerbell and the tooth fairy? |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:36 PM (#2385083) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Peace Don't be saying anything bad about the tooth fairy. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:39 PM (#2385087) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Lord Batman's Kitchener right wingers always like to fantasise, there is no tooth fairy and , keep repeating to yourself, Peter Pan is just a story, Peter Pan is just a story... |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:40 PM (#2385091) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: McGrath of Harlow That tooth fairy is a bit scary - Winged Mouth Destruction. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:41 PM (#2385094) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Peace WTF? Look, if there is NO tooth fairy, who left dimes under my pillow when I was a kid, huh? Answer that. No tooth fairy. BAH! |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:43 PM (#2385098) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce let me see 550 tons yellowcake, when there should ot have been any... 1000 tons chemical weapons, when there should not have been any... Rockets with prohibited ranges, when there should not have been any... Yep, thos UN sanctions were doing a great job. Lets make sure we use them in Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma, and wherever else hundreds of thousands of humna lives depend on prompt action. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 04:48 PM (#2385104) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Teribus Amos et al, go back and read IAEA's reports relating to Saddam Hussein's research and development programme related to his quest for nuclear weapons. In their experimentation to find the means to enrich uranium to weapons grade they were looking at five different methods of doing so. Now that just might explain why they would require rather massive quantities of the stuff and why they could be on the look-out for more. This by the bye I remember vividly as part of the early reporting in the Spring early Summer of 2003: ""U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23-acre (9,300-hectare) site—surrounded by huge sand berms—following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns." The coverage was of the Tuwaitha facility in Iraq. Now who was it that put forward the contention that the US shipped it in, in order to discover it and ship it out again? Yellow Cake certainly did exist and was discovered in Iraq in 2003, undeniable fact, it's on record by both the IAEA, UNMOVIC and MSM. Those sources will probably not be good enough though. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 05:03 PM (#2385121) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Bill D so...WMDs!! Wavings of Manufactured Distraction.... Whatever that low-grade stuff was good for, *IT* certainly doesn't qualify as a retroactive excuse for the mess we're in now! |
|
09 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM (#2385122) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce Well, even the liberals here won't trust the UN. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM (#2385123) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Some facts on Cameco: A major Canadian Company. traded in the NYSE and Canadian exchanges for c. $41. Recently purchased 70% of Australian explorer Kintyre from Rio Tinto for $346 million. Mitsubichi obtained the other 30%. Cameco has signed an agreement with GE-Hitachi to acquire 24% of Global Nuclear Enrichment, based in North Carolina. "The demand for enriched uranium is projected to increase significantly in the next decade with the anticipated construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants." "Naturally occurring uranium is made up of two different isotopes, approx. 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235. Uranium enrichment is the process that increases toe U-235 concentration from 0.7%. Most commercial reactors require uranium fuel to have a U-235 content of 3-5%. Enrichment involves separatio of the lighter U-235 atoms from the heavier and more predominant U-238 atoms.... There are currently two commercial enrichment methods: gaseous diffusion and centrifuge." Cameco anticipates mining start-up at their Cigar Lake (Sask.) site in 2011. Cameco is the world's largest uranium producer accounting for 19% of world production from mines in Canada and the U. S. It is a partner in the Ontario nuclear power plant at Port Hope, Ontario. http://cameco.com/media_gateway/news_releases/2008/news_release.php?id=230 Other reports are from the Globe and Mail (Toronto) and Al Jazeera.com. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 05:07 PM (#2385128) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Ebbie Are we positing the position that the material was found in 2003 but in 'corroded, deteriorated' condition? Perhaps it was, very sensibly, not regarded as being of recent enough origin to qualify as what could be used in a current program and therefore not a violation? In any case, it is evident that its coming to light is not a new thing at all. The US and "the willing coalition" have been aware of its existence all along. If it were otherwise, our government would definitely be out there making hay. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 05:28 PM (#2385147) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Bill D bruce...I fail to see exactly what you are suggesting by this thread. Perhaps the whole point IS just to 'insinuate' that those 'liberals' have missed 'important stuff'.....or something. The yellowcake story is interesting, but it shows nothing crucial about all the issues we debate here. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 06:20 PM (#2385189) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Stringsinger It's no secret that the US under Reagan attempted to arm Iraq as a deterrent to Iran and offered Sadam many of the materials that were eventually either destroyed as Hans Blix and Scott Ritter said they were or may have been shipped to another country. To say that even in his wildest dreams Sadam could have produced any meaningful Weapons of Mass Destruction is absurd. He may have had a plan but to implement it would have taken more for which he would have been capable. All this "Yellowcake" propaganda by the Newscorp and publicity-hungry newscasters and pseudo-journalists can be discounted as "sound and fury signifying nothing". The uranium in Iraq was the depleted uranium that the US used in their bombing of innocent Iraqis who are still suffering the effects of that DU through cancer and other diseases. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 06:27 PM (#2385196) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce All this "Yellowcake" propaganda by the Newscorp and publicity-hungry newscasters and pseudo-journalists can be discounted as "sound and fury signifying nothing". NO. You have missed the point. THIS is Yellowcake being shipped from IRAQ to CANADA, which IRAQ had when the US invaded. Not the Yellowcake that liberals claim Saddam never tried to get. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 06:28 PM (#2385197) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Lord Batman's Kitchener liberals = anyone who disagrees with beardedbruce |
|
09 Jul 08 - 06:30 PM (#2385200) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: beardedbruce sane person = anyone who disagrees with Lord Batman's Kitchener |
|
09 Jul 08 - 06:35 PM (#2385205) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Lord Batman's Kitchener Is that really the best you can do? Actually I'm neither liberal nor conservative, I vote for and support what feels right to me, which why I can't be relied on or trusted by any side of the politcal spectrum. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 06:39 PM (#2385208) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: McGrath of Harlow Here's a recipe for Yellow Cake. Looks pretty good too. Though 500 tons of it might be a bit much. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 08:25 PM (#2385262) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Yellow cake (edible) was a favorite of mine, made by my grandmother years ago. Thanks for the recipe. Yellowcake is NOT depleted uranium, but a stage in refining the ore, with impurities removed. See post above. The source of that found in Iraq has not been announced, and may not be known; several countries could have provided it. The U. S. had transferred it to safe containers before moving it, perhaps the old corroded ones had labels. No, of little immediate use to Saddam Hussein, except for a planned concentration program. He would have had to buy the large centrifuges and collector equipment to do that with, and there is no evidence so far that he ever obtained it. The technology is simple and known to any number of chemists and physicists. But, as posted by bearded Bruce, at this date signifying nothing of real importance. |
|
09 Jul 08 - 09:26 PM (#2385296) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: JohnInKansas The yellow cake that was shipped from Iraq is what was on hand when the Israelis blew up the Iraqui reactor project ca. 1981. Prior to the Gulf War, ca. 1991, the UN inventoried the yellow cake and put it into storage UNDER UN SUPERVISION, INSPECTION, AND CONTROL where it has remained since. The invasion forces "discovered" the yellow cake ca. 2003, and due to widespread looting security was set up to keep it in place. Since the material was known, inventoried, and controlled by the UN, there is ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION to believe that it could have been a part of any on-going Iraqui program, or that it was "proof" of any attempt to develop WMDs, or even that there was any secret about its existence. Again due to the looting problem, and the possibility of propaganda use by terrorists, removal from Iraq was deemed desirable. Deterioration of storage containers required repackaging before that could be done. This was a time-consuming, and low-priority, project. The material is insufficiently active to make an effective "dirty bomb," much less a "nuclear device," but a raid by terrorists or the slight radioactivity that would be detected if it was part of a common kind of explosive device could have caused panic and could have been used by terrorists to exploit the ignorance of a population (posters above not excuded) by claiming (lying) that they had obtained/used "something nuclear." Knowledge of its movement also could have been used for propaganda purposes, hence a realistic and justifiable attention to secrecy during the transport. Objections from governments affected made it impossible to use the most direct shipping routes, and use of "unconventional routes" possibly increased the risks of "terrorist interventions." There is no reason to be surprised that the movement was under tight security. The entire sequence of events associated with this material has NO BEARING on US claims of WMDs or "secret projects" on the part of Iraq, and has no effect on any claims that WMDs existed in Iraq at the time of the invasion, since the material had been "owned" by the United Nations for more than a decade before the US thought of starting their propaganda mill. The whole non-event has the realistic diplomatic impact of a report that an Iraqui had a runny nose when he/she flew from Iraq to Canada. John |
|
09 Jul 08 - 10:31 PM (#2385323) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Bill D ☺ thank you, John |
|
09 Jul 08 - 10:43 PM (#2385332) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Amos JiK: There is ONE justification, which should be mentioned. If you are hell-bent on trying to justify the Bush PR line over the years, then (as Fox has amply demonstrated) any distortion, any half truth, any creepy inversion of facts, twisting or bending of any story that will serve the purpose is completely in order for the Higher Purpose. That's the justification for the insinuation in this thread that this yellow cake should be considered somehow part of a post-9-11 WMD. It's perverse, but justifying things knows no boundaries once it gets going. A |
|
09 Jul 08 - 10:59 PM (#2385341) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Thanks for the early history. I had forgotten about the Israeli raid on the reactor, which was French-built. I knew the material was known to the IAEA, but not that it was that long ago. |
|
10 Jul 08 - 03:02 AM (#2385422) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: Teribus "Prior to the Gulf War, ca. 1991, the UN inventoried the yellow cake and put it into storage UNDER UN SUPERVISION, INSPECTION, AND CONTROL where it has remained since." - JohnInKansas That statement of yours is not strictly true is it John. Discovered sometime shortly after "Desert Storm" as part of the disarmament agreements agreed to at Safwan, tagged, sealed and stored as you say under UN SUPERVISION, INSPECTION, AND CONTROL until sometime in 1998 after which there was no UN presemce inside Iraq until late 2002 and no inspection or control established until early 2003. I would be interested in hearing from the IAEA, or UNSCOM, as to why this considerable quantity of raw material essential for any nuclear programme was not removed from Iraq in the period 1991 to 1998. To all those clapping you on the back and all the comments related to this "Yellow Cake" and whether or not it counts as WMD material, I would advise all to return to read the mandate given to UNMOVIC whose presence in Iraq in 2002/2003 was entirely due pressure applied by George W Bush. You will discover in reading that mandate that they (UNMOVIC) did not have to "find" WMD in Iraq, what they did have to do was establish beyond doubt that Iraq had no WMD capability, that their research and development programmes on WMD and delivery systems were shut down. To this day no-one can say with any certainty that WMD do not exist in Iraq, but one thing that can definitely be said of the present Government of Iraq is that they are not pursuing any WMD capability, or any research and development of WMD and their associated delivery systems. |
|
10 Jul 08 - 02:44 PM (#2385922) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: GUEST,Jack Campin (on a cookieless computer) At current market rates that pile of ore is worth about 120 million dollars. Think the Iraqi people are ever going see any of that back? |
|
13 Jul 08 - 06:38 AM (#2387684) Subject: RE: BS: No uranium in Iraq? From: GUEST,GIJoe I for one am glad Bush pulled Saddam out of a hole and hung him. Once he kicked the inspectors out in 1998, we should have expected him to use the uranium to make WMDs. He already used WMDs to roast thousands of his own people. |