1969912 0 #1 October 26, 2007 Syria took no time leveling and burying the (alleged) reactor facility that Israel bombed in September. The facility is thought to have been a graphite-moderated (gas cooled?) reactor of North Korean design. That type of reactor is often used in the production of plutonium. Syria didn't inform the IAEA (they're obligated to) that construction of a new reactor was to begin. Was it really a really a reactor? If it wasn't, why did they bury it so quickly? Israel probably knows for certain through their intelligence groups. Here are some really good before/after satellite images (found through NTI Global Security Newswire) (PDF's): http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SyriaUpdate25October2007.pdf update: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSiteUpdate26October2007.pdf Comparison with Korean reactor: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSite_24October2007.pdf "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #2 October 26, 2007 Quote Syria took no time leveling and burying the (alleged) reactor facility that Israel bombed in September. The facility is thought to have been a graphite-moderated (gas cooled?) reactor of North Korean design. That type of reactor is often used in the production of plutonium. /url] In the interests of accuracy it should be pointed out that gas cooled graphite moderated reactors were also commonly used in the UK for commercial electrical power generation, for which thay are well suited and have an inherent safety that the US (think TMI) and Russian (think Chernobyl) water cooled power reactors do not have. It is likely the N. Korean reactor design was based on declassified blueprints of the British power reactors. Before anyone tries to put words in my mouth, I am not claiming that the Syrians were without sin. Just that no particular conclusion about purpose can be drawn from the reactor type alone.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #3 October 26, 2007 I think the massive alteration to the nearby hill is a telling tale. I wonder if they aren't still trying to preserve some type of underground project. If this is really where the Israeli raid was, I would love to see the "day-after" photos of that. I'm still amazed at the prospect of that.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 October 26, 2007 Quote Before anyone tries to put words in my mouth, I am not claiming that the Syrians were without sin. Just that no particular conclusion about purpose can be drawn from the reactor type alone. But the fact that the Syrians's official statement was that Israel had overflown, but not bombed anything makes me question that purpose. Looks like they were stuck in a delicate political situation of having an illegal (per the NPT) nuclear facility blown up by the Israelis, but not being able to properly bitch to the world about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #5 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuote Syria took no time leveling and burying the (alleged) reactor facility that Israel bombed in September. The facility is thought to have been a graphite-moderated (gas cooled?) reactor of North Korean design. That type of reactor is often used in the production of plutonium. /url] In the interests of accuracy it should be pointed out that gas cooled graphite moderated reactors were also commonly used in the UK for commercial electrical power generation, for which thay are well suited and have an inherent safety that the US (think TMI) and Russian (think Chernobyl) water cooled power reactors do not have. It is likely the N. Korean reactor design was based on declassified blueprints of the British power reactors. Before anyone tries to put words in my mouth, I am not claiming that the Syrians were without sin. Just that no particular conclusion about purpose can be drawn from the reactor type alone. Wasn't trying to impugn UK nuke plants. Nothing inaccurate was stated. Graphite-moderated reactors are nearly twice as efficient for Pu production than are Light Water Reactors (.9 g/MWth-d vs .5g/MWth-d for LWR's). I agree that graphite reactors have safety benefits, but graphite reactors have their own problems (core cracks). The US has only used two graphite reactors for power production: Hanford's dual-use (also produced PU) N-Reactor, and the Ft. St. Vrain HTGR (He cooled) in Colorado (decommissioned). You're correct, no conclusion can be drawn about Syria's intent in re Pu production solely based on their construction of a graphite reactor. It's just evidence, as is the fact that they didn't report their intention to build a reactor to the IAEA, which is a requirement of the NPT they signed. Just curious about UK plants. Have all the Magnox plants been decommissioned? What will the AEA replace the AGR's with at the end of their operational lifespans? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #6 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuote Before anyone tries to put words in my mouth, I am not claiming that the Syrians were without sin. Just that no particular conclusion about purpose can be drawn from the reactor type alone. But the fact that the Syrians's official statement was that Israel had overflown, but not bombed anything makes me question that purpose. Looks like they were stuck in a delicate political situation of having an illegal (per the NPT) nuclear facility blown up by the Israelis, but not being able to properly bitch to the world about it. Yeah, sucks to be them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #7 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Syria took no time leveling and burying the (alleged) reactor facility that Israel bombed in September. The facility is thought to have been a graphite-moderated (gas cooled?) reactor of North Korean design. That type of reactor is often used in the production of plutonium. /url] In the interests of accuracy it should be pointed out that gas cooled graphite moderated reactors were also commonly used in the UK for commercial electrical power generation, for which thay are well suited and have an inherent safety that the US (think TMI) and Russian (think Chernobyl) water cooled power reactors do not have. It is likely the N. Korean reactor design was based on declassified blueprints of the British power reactors. Before anyone tries to put words in my mouth, I am not claiming that the Syrians were without sin. Just that no particular conclusion about purpose can be drawn from the reactor type alone. Wasn't trying to impugn UK nuke plants. Nothing inaccurate was stated. Graphite-moderated reactors are nearly twice as efficient for Pu production than are Light Water Reactors (.9 g/MWth-d vs .5g/MWth-d for LWR's). I agree that graphite reactors have safety benefits, but graphite reactors have their own problems (core cracks). The US has only used two graphite reactors for power production: Hanford's dual-use (also produced PU) N-Reactor, and the Ft. St. Vrain HTGR (He cooled) in Colorado (decommissioned). You're correct, no conclusion can be drawn about Syria's intent in re Pu production solely based on their construction of a graphite reactor. It's just evidence, as is the fact that they didn't report their intention to build a reactor to the IAEA, which is a requirement of the NPT they signed. Just curious about UK plants. Have all the Magnox plants been decommissioned? What will the AEA replace the AGR's with at the end of their operational lifespans? I think only 2 magnox stations are still running, and there is a debate about the "cool down" period for the decommissioned ones. I haven't a clue about the AGRs. They had all sorts of problems at the beginning (Dungeoness B). I visited Dungeoness A and B while B was being built, stood right in the place where the B reactor core went, and got to go on the loading floor of A. Can't do it nowadays on account of security. The early magnox reactors also had problems with oxidation of steel bolts in the pressure vessel (but no accidents), and, of course, the Windscale event was a graphite reactor too, due to a catastrophic Wigner release.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
