For example, Iran has built a heavy water production facility. Heavy water is used in the production of nuclear weapons. You don't need it for nuclear power. What does Iran have to say about this?
Mohammad Sa'idi: One of the products of heavy water is depleted deuterium. As you know, in an environment with depleted deuterium, the reception of cancer cells and of the AIDS viruses is disrupted. Since this reception is disrupted, the cells are gradually expelled from the body. Obviously, one glass of depleted deuterium will not expel or cure the cancer or eliminate the AIDS. We are talking about a certain period of time. In many countries that deal with these diseases, patients use this kind of water instead of regular water, and consume it daily in order to heal their diseases.
In other words, the issue of heavy water has to do with matters of life and death, in many cases. One of the reasons that led us to produce heavy water was to use it for agricultural... medical purposes, and especially for industrial purposes in our country.
For those who don't know much about chemistry, let me spell out to you why the entire preceding paragraph is weapons grade bolonium.
Deuterium is a form of hydrogen. Most hydrogen in the world is made of one proton and one electron, but deuterium is about twice the size, having an additional neutron in its nucleus. This only changes the properties of the molecule very subtlely, but in ways which are still significant. Deuterium doesn't have much of an effect normally because it makes up less than 1% of all the hydrogen in the world.
Water is made of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom. Heavy water replaces one or both of those hydrogens with a deuterium. This change is siginificant in biological systems, because it disrupts the ability of the water to make hydrogen bonds, a weak chemical bond essential in nearly every aspect of biological processes. At some point, I believe 37% concentration, heavy water in the body begins to kill you.
Using deuterated water as a medical treatment? This would be believable if 1) we didn't have reason to suspect ulterior motives from Iran and 2) we didn't already know that D2O has no useful medical application.
We already suspected Iran was up to no good. It doesn't help their case when they use ridiculous excuses for blatant moves. Will the world wise up before something terrible happens?
5 comments:
Steve, like I said, I can never tell when you are joking and when you aren't.
Iran having nuclear weapons would be okay if we could be guaranteed that they would be responsible bearers of the nuclear torch. All they have done from the git-go is play "hide the salami" with IAEA inspectors. Combined with their telling remarks towards Israel, and it's not a good scenario.
The entire point of diplomacy is to prevent war. I advocate a strong position on Iran because I see the loss of life that might occur through a brutal bombing campaign much, much more favorable than the eventual MAD that would occur if Israel and Iran exchanged nuclear missle fire.
These guys have said they want to destroy Jews. I'm willing to take them at their word. Or would you prefer to let another Holocaust occur before any action was taken?
Steve, what's this "scientific" rationale for another holocaust? You're either yanking my chain or believe something inconceivable.
Also, your grasp of history is lacking.
As a founding member of the IAEA, the US is subject to all rules and regulations of the body. Iran is suspected of being in violation of the rules of the NPT, and has refused to cooperate with all investigations into the matter. Europe, Russia, and China have all agreed that the situation is untenable (though they can't seem to agree on what to do about it).
And as for your "diplomacy" remark, we tried diplomacy there. Twice. We spent nearly a year working with the UN to get things turned around in Iraq, with the UN dithering and Saddam balking. When we tried diplomacy with Afghanistan after 9/11 (not that anybody, on the right or the left, wanted it), they essentially told us to go fornicate ourselves with an iron pole.
You act like we just bomb at the drop of a hat. Despite what you think of the people in charge, they are not so devoid of humanity and civilization as you imagine.
Steve, the idea of proliferation is "expanding". Since the founding of the IAEA, America and Russian, the two largest owners of nukes in the world, have actively been disarming those weapons. As in, we're trying to get rid of them. It takes a long time because doing so is both expensive and environmentally tricky. Even after the right treatments are made to nuclear weapon grade material to "sanitize" it for disposal, you can't just dump it in a state park. But it tends to sit where it was treated because everyone has a conniption when you try to transport nuclear waste from point A to point B. NIMBY-ness and what-not.
And I must say, your goal of just letting everyone die in the Middle East . . . not a very "humanist" stance, is it?
I agree! It's wrong to invade a nation whose govt has caused the world so much grief and suffering, but it's okay to wipe out an entire world region because we fundamentally disagree on issues!
Vote Democrat!
I was just thinking we could help them along, since it's taking them a while to wipe out the region themselves (though they are trying very hard). Also, if we wipe out the whole region, Jesus might show up.
Vote Jesus.
Post a Comment