44 thoughts on “Scott Horton Debunks the War Hysteria Over Iran’s Bushehr Reactor”

  1. Bushehr is not a reactor. It's an electric power plant. AP seems to be spouting disinformation all over the world by calling it such.

    1. Wew I think This is actually a great post, that you’ve updated us with all of nice information that could be invaluable for future. Keep posting nice articles. so good

      Reply

  2. Scott has a talent of explaining complex issues in simple terms. I saved the link of this video for future reference.

    In my view, In this times of corruption, dishonesty and deception in most of media Scotts’s integrity is invaluable.

  3. One must always realize that israel’s fears are the result of its hatreds. It fears Iran because it hates Iran. It is nothing that Iran did (at least not in the last 2,500 years), We destroyed Iraq in service to Israel’s hatred of them. Israel hates all of its neighbors; should it destroy all of them the Israelis will turn their hatred upon each other. Read the Bible if you wish to know how it all ends.

  4. Yes Carol,

    Bushehr is a nuclear reactor. That's how the power plant is powered – steam generated from the heat generated from the reactor.

    It is of course, a light water reactor, meaning that it is useless for producing nuclear weapons.

    1. Well technically it is a water moderated pressurized water Nuclear Power Plant generating about 1 gigawatt of electricity(with 1 unit, this is expandable up to 6 per power plant). The design is fairly basic and it is not much different(2nd-3rd generation design) from what is being built by Americans, Canadians, and Western Europeans today.

      One thing is certain, it can't produce materials for Nuclear weapons.

      1. Yes I know it's a water moderated pressurized water Nuclear Power Plant.

        The important thing to remember is that no one has ever made a nuke from one of these. Here's why.

        1. Light Water reactors use low grade fuel (3.5%) which means that the amount of plutonium produced is minimal
        2. The refueling cycle for these reactors is very long. In order to harvest the plutonium, the reactor has to be refuelled much faster, becasue the longer the fuel remain in the core, the more the plutonium is degraded (I forget what it becomes).
        3. Such a short refuelling cycle is easily observed and would set off alarm bells of carried ou
        4. No one is even suggesting the Iran is workin on a plutonium bomb.

    2. And submarines and aircraft carriers are powered by nuclear reactors also, but we call them 'submarines' and 'aircraft carriers' rather than "nuclear reactors." We call Three Mile Island a 'nuclear power plant' even though it is powered by a nuclear reactor. Why not use the same terminology when applied to Iran, is my point.

      1. Because if it was explained that this Nuclear Power Plant can only produce electricity, and nothing else, it would be understood even by the lowest forms of life that it is not a "threat" to anyone. That is if it is allowed to function normally and is not attacked by bombs or missiles when there is low enriched Uranium fuel inside, which if vaporized will become a threat to all humans within the area.

        Refering to it as a "reactor" or "nuclear plant"(without including the words electrical or power) makes it sound more of a "threat" to those who did not benefit from their educational system and easily believe anti-Iranian propaganda.

  5. Was Karen Silwood murdered because she accidently stumbled upon info that would have exposed an Israeli/USA weapons grade nuclear material theft & smuggling operation … info that would explain the genesis of Israels nuclear weapons much to the embarrassment of Uncle Sam?

  6. It's never Obama's fault. It's always the 'hardliners' and 'neocons' and the 'war party' that are at fault.

  7. Why has Horton become a propagandist for Obama, ala Gareth Porter? Both Horton and Porter know that Obama has NEVER tried "diplomacy"l, so why do they keep deploying the lie that Obama wants to 'give diplomacy a chance'?

  8. or "nuclear plant"(without including the words electrical or power) makes it sound more of a "threat" to those who did not benefit from their educational system and easily believe anti-Iranian propaganda.

  9. Confronted with the e-book trade's shift from print to digital concurrently, Borders Books and Barnes & Noble took dramatically totally different approaches while Barnes & Noble actively reacted to the change yet Borders most well-liked to sit back. When the socio-technical strategy paid off at Barnes & Noble, the incremental method easily collapsed at Borders Books (Palmer, Dunford and Akin, 2009).
    Plugins Talk

Comments are closed.