Talk:Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Implications[edit]

The implications section could use some info on the plant's importance for the Iranian economy, and also perhaps some material on the US concerns about the plant. Offliner (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the possability of Israel bombing the facility? They've done things like that before. Fry1989 (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the possibility of Iran using the cover of the facility to produce weapons with which to bomb Israel? Pedantrician (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have some information about whether the reactor core design is amenable to the production of radioisotopes. I heard on the radio that Russia will be repossessing all spent fuel under their agreement, but the question as to whether plutonium could be produced is of course very interesting to many readers. 69.171.160.167 (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuxnet[edit]

News media reference this cyber attack as targeting this plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, stuxnet targeted Siemens control systems for isotope separation centrifuges, which are used to enrich fissile uranium, not produce power. 69.171.160.167 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reorg.[edit]

the section consoldiates too much to 1 part, which means the article would be better of as "History of..." The revert may be valid, but no altervatives were provided.Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not First![edit]

I've corrected the erroneous and ridiculous claim that the Bushehr plant is the first reactor in the Middle East. In the late 1950s, under the Atoms for Peace program, Israel was sold a nuclear reactor that went online in 1960 and forms the basis for the Soreq Nuclear Research Center. That is the publicly acknowledged facility, under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Negev Nuclear Research Center in Dimona, Israel, also almost certainly includes another Israeli reactor for many decades, but the details are classified to this day. --Eliyahu S Talk 10:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this is a reference to the first civilian nuclear power plant. A reactor and a plant are two different things...I'm unsure what a Israeli nuclear reactors at research centers have to do with civilian power plants. The source for what you call a "ridiculous and erroneous claim" is a reputable source, and specifically makes the claim this is the first civilian power plan in the middle east. The text about Israel seems out of place and unnecessary. Perhaps we should just reword this to say it's the first civilian nuclear power plant, and remove the Israel text? Or at least move it to discussion in the article rather than being in the lead. The fact that Israel has reactors is certainly correct, I'm just not sure it's germane to the point that this is the first civilian power plant. You're correct it's not the first reactor. Now that that's not the claim, the Israel text is unnecessary in the lede.204.65.34.246 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit out of place to compare Bushehr and the Negev Nuclear Research Centre. Bushehr is a safeguarded, civilian (as civilian as anything is in Iran anyway) PWR power reactor which puts >3000MWth for the purpose of making electricity; NNRC is an unsafeguarded, semi-clandestine military research reactor which is likely ~100MWth (or less) and is used to produce fissile material for weapons. Calling the latter a 'power plant' is plain misleading and should be avoided.....the two facilities are however somewhat linked politically and very very weakly linked geographically. I think the current text (quoted below) strikes a reasonable balance - lets leave it there, shall we?
"The project is considered unique in terms of its technology, the political environment and the challenging physical climate.[2][5] It is considered the first civilian nuclear power plant built in the Middle East, and the second nuclear installation after Israel's Negev Nuclear Research Center in Dimona (used for military purposes)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.97.2 (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above re-statement, but you need to add a source. Your characterization in your preface as the two being "very very weakly linked geographically" is odd unless one of the countries is not considered part of the Middle East, a term included in the lede to the article. A Georgian (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tectonic plates[edit]

It's mentioned up in the lead and it's pretty explosive. These days, worrywarts will instantly think "OMG Fukushima level 5!!". I see that it's sourced, but it could use some building out. Which plates? How active are they? etc.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.169.195 (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at this source and I'm not sure about this comment either, a quick look at NASA tectonic plate material online (including in wikimedia) shows this place is no closer to the junction of three plates than the entire Western coastline of the United States, which USNRC says has 8 power plants. The article also makes mention of a 4.6 magnitude earthquake which is classified as light, with significant damage unlikely. I personally think the article referenced was written to be sensational, but read it for yourselves. A look at this USGS site put my mind further at ease. <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/world_density.php> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.41.199 (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Statement was made by Dr. Jassem al-Awadi, a Kuwaiti geologist , his assumptions are hot air, he is obviously trying to discredit Iran. According to NASA's Digital World Tectonic Activity Map the plant is not built on a the junction of three tectonic plates .

MRC37 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably have to add the dissenting view to the article, rather than deleting the Al-Awadi statement. A Georgian (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the detailed USGS Middle East Earthquake Density Map, showing "Major Tectonic Boundaries". It shows that Bushehr is at least 1000 miles from a junction of three major tectonic plates. It does not seem Dr. Jassem al-Awadi reported claim is correct. Even if it was, I don't think it would merit the first para of the article. I think it should be deleted. (NB USGS Japan map for comparison - it is close to a three plate junction with much higher earthquake densities.) Rwendland (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the way Wikipedia works, one must find published material to counter published material. You might get away with adding your own observation, but that is "original research" and is liable to deletion. Perhaps a map of the plates and the proximity of their juncture to Bushehr would do. A Georgian (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta concur with A Georgian here. Moreover, just because you've shown the "major" tectonic plates, it doesn't count for the relatively minor ones. What are "major" in some scientific opinions are "minor" by other standards. They are non-specific adjectives that don't have a specific scientific meaning (unless they are clearly defined). Buffs (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the "disputed" tag , Dr.Jassem al-Awadi has provided no evidence for his claims. I also think it would be helpful to contact another geologist to make things clear because some Wiki users refuse to accept the maps that are provided as evidence . MRC37 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@MRC37 The conditional "According to..." makes it clear enough that the statement is refutable; the Wikipedia appropriate way to do that is to present a refutation from a reputable published source. Dr. al-Awadi's opinion is currently unopposed in the article. The disputed source tag itself requires a published source discrediting Dr. al-Awadi. It is better to present opposing views and allow the reader to see both of them. I have not seen the tectonic plate maps posted yet; did I miss that?A Georgian (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@A Georgian , Rwendland has provided This USGS Middle East Earthquake Density Map . I am moving Dr.Jassem al-Awadi statement to the safety concerns section , this is more appropriate. MRC37 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who can so "fully understand the rules of Wikipedia and do not need a lecture from the likes of" apparently anyone, you seem to fail to grasp WP:NOR. The source is a reliable paper with a reliable history. You have provided exactly zero evidence that either the newspaper or the scientist are actually biased other than WP:SYNTHESIS and oiginal research. Your attempt to disparage the scientist is a violation of WP:BLP and i request you stop now until a reliable source can be provided to directly back up your claims of bias. Furthermore, dont edit war to get your way. Even if the source is NPOV it doesn't mean it can't be included, only that it must be appropriately noted. When a reliable paper reports it as fact, it becomes such until refuted by another reliable source, not a wikipedian. Buffs (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three tectonic plates junction[edit]

This edit is the last in a back-and-forth about whether any particular attention should be given to the information in the lede that the power plant is situated on the junction of three tectonic plates. Since this is sourced with an article in Bloomberg I really don't see the need for any elaboration on this, one way or the other. I allowed the additional attribution to stand for for now, but I really would like to see it go as I find this level of detail in the lede section to be over the top. Of course, the motivation for adding this is that the other editor wants to dispute the statement, but as long as no other source can be brought forth that puts a doubt on it, I don't see why we should provide a detail that at least would make me if I was just reading this article, think "now why would they even mention the source for that?" __meco (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur that it is a relatively minor point and doesn't warrant mention in the lead section right now. Buffs (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well cited USGS and NASA two plate view[edit]

I've added, with very good cites, the USGS and NASA view that the Persian Gulf is near the boundary of just two tectonic plates. Even Wikipedia has no idea what the third plate might be, see Arabian plate and Eurasian plate. It looks like Dr.Jassem al-Awadi must have been misreported in the media. NB I have a third concise NASA cite [1], but did not use it as triple citing seems excessive. Rwendland (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fact checking. I haven't looked at the addition, and I don't agree with the policy or how it ends to be enforced, but some editors are hypervigilant about synthesis - in other words, taking material from citations that don't directly refer to the topic of the article and drawing logical conclusions from them (in combination with unrelated but cited matrial). What may be true, cited and obvious is sometimes challenged by contentious editors over this princple. Obotlig (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight given to concerns[edit]

I just wanted to note that I agree with User:Danmichaelo's edits and arguments. The safety concerns in this article are overblown and given undue weight. It is good that they have been scaled down a bit. I especially think that they do not belong in the lead section. Nanobear (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also wanted to remove (or move) safety concerns from the lead, but I wanted to start a bit soft. So far, it seems like the content I removed keep coming back... Hope the responsible user will join the discussion here. – Danmichaelo (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a tremendous amount of coverage of Bushehr safety concerns in reliable sources, so they are not overblown or given undue weight here. These concerns need to be summarized in the lead, per WP:Lead, which says the lead must "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Johnfos (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is, that has to be referenced better. What I see is that everyone finds it a bit scary having any nuclear facility (no matter how safe) in a country governed by a regime like the Iranian, not so much concerns about the Bushehr plant in itself. I think it's very important to distinguish between that.
Also, what made me start editing this article was that I found that too much weight were given to a poor article in LA Times, and the rather old anonymous whistleblower story from long before the plant opened.
Finally, I think we should keep in mind that (western) media picks up everything that comes out about the Iranian nuclear program, even very minor safety concerns which would not be reported if they happened at any other plant, because it sells -- and read critically. – Danmichaelo (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the LA Times article you are concerned about? Exactly what is wrong with it: Iran reports safety concerns at nuclear plant, 27 February 2011, LA Times.
Is this the whistleblower story you are concerned about? It's not old at all is it: Iran reactor disaster warning from whistleblower 8 October 2011, The Australian. -- Johnfos (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "unspecified safety concerns" in that LA Times report was just early reporting before the full facts were out. It was all clarified the day after as a debris concern from the failed cooling pump, as in this NYT article: "Russians Say Damaged Cooling Pump Is Cause of Delay in Starting Iranian Reactor".[2] Some of the LA Times article is speculation before the announcement the following day. Because it is Iran, I think there is a lot of western press speculation you don't see for other reactors, and we need to be careful. I think proper technical appraisals, such as the already cited "The Bushehr NPP: Why did it take so long", should be preferred sourcing to the press. Rwendland (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first civilian nuclear power plant built in the Middle East ??????????[edit]

Really?? What about nuclear station in Armenia ??? Or we consider that Armenai is out of Middle East? 217.76.1.22 (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Armenia is usually considered in the Middle East - our article does not list it there, although it does say was called within the George W. Bush coined term Greater Middle East (aka the Muslim world). So I think the source we use for this claim is correct. Rwendland (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Muslim world is much more extensive than the Middle East A Georgian (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is the Middle East all Muslim A Georgian (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our Armenia article says it is "in the South Caucasus region of Eurasia", and our Middle East does not include Armenia in the area. I think we should remove the disputed template from the article. Rwendland (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AgreedA Georgian (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origins?[edit]

The current article gives all the credit to the Shah for the idea and everything. However, it seems the inception of the power plant started with the USA. From NPR:

"It started in 1957," [ Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group's senior analyst for Iran] says, "and ironically, it is a creation of the United States. The U.S. provided Iran with its first research reactor — a nuclear reactor, a 5-megawatt nuclear reactor that is still functioning and still operational in Tehran."

The U.S. built that nuclear reactor on the campus of Tehran University. It also provided Iran with fuel for that reactor — weapons-grade enriched uranium. It was part of President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program, an initiative to provide countries with peaceful, civilian nuclear technologies in the hope that they wouldn't pursue military nuclear programs.

The beneficiaries included Israel, India, Pakistan — and Iran, then ruled by a U.S.-backed monarch, Shah Reza Pahlavi.

Under the program, many countries received what Iran did: their own small reactors, their own dollops of fuel. But, says Vaez, "as a result of the oil boom of the 1970s, that [Iranian] nuclear program morphed into a full-fledged civilian nuclear program."

The Iranians had money to exploit the knowledge they were given, and to develop scientific minds. Iran provided the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a $20 million endowment in the 1970s to train Iranian nuclear scientists, Vaez says. "The majority of people who returned to the country and started running the nuclear program were trained at MIT," he notes.

The trainees have been central to Iran's nuclear program ever since.

There was a moment in the 1970s when American officials thought they might be making a mistake. They feared Iran would become one of the nations seeking nuclear weapons.

U.S. diplomats began negotiating to limit Iran's nuclear program. They ran into a problem familiar to diplomats today: Iran under the shah insisted it had the same right to nuclear power as any nation.

"The shah famously said that unless it was clear Iran was not being treated as a second-class country, he would look for alternative vendors and he would not work with U.S. companies to acquire nuclear technology for Iran." http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/18/440567960/born-in-the-u-s-a-how-america-created-irans-nuclear-program — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.112.4 (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it may be worth, I think this is well worth incorporating into the article. A Georgian (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional power plants[edit]

The summary claims that additional power plants are being built from a reference dated in 2017.

There is currently, after 5 years,no sign of that happening and that reference needs to be either deleted or altered, to something like

Although additional power plants were planned, no construction has taken place. 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:4CB3:12B2:EA02:4FF0 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bushehr_Nuclear_Power_Plant&oldid=1206490620"