Fukuda asks Iran to stop uranium enrichment, but Ahmadinejad refuses

Wednesday 04th June, 07:32 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 73 Total Comments Show All

kinniku at 07:17 PM JST - 9th June

Sabiwabi,

Thank you for finally answering the question. The information is interesting. You have convinced me that Iran should give up nuclear energy and pursue biohydrogen production. It seems a lot safer.

Nuclear energy will help make the air a little cleaner.

It will also make the Middle East a much more dangerous place. I don't think that is a good trade off for 'a little cleaner air'.

In addition, as I and others have correctly pointed out. Judging by the condition of Iran's oil fields. I certainly would not want to trust them with nuclear material.
kinniku at 07:18 PM JST - 9th June

Do you have anything in mind?

As others have also suggested, they should certainly be pursuing solar energy solutions. Much safer than nuclear power. It will not lead the Middle East to nuclear destruction either. Good for everyone!
sabiwabi at 07:48 PM JST - 9th June

Yes biohydrogen is indeed interesting, but its not at a point where it could be of much use today. The US are also actively researching this, and going after bioethanol, and solar energy, but they still somehow feel the need to have over 100 nuclear power plants in operation.

And there is no reason to believe that Iran getting nuclear power will lead to nuclear destruction of the middle east; especially if you ignore the many distortions of the Iranian comments in the media.
kinniku at 08:01 AM JST - 10th June

Yes biohydrogen is indeed interesting, but its not at a point where it could be of much use today.

Well, maybe if President Ahmedinejad decided to actively pursue biohydrogen as aggressively as he does nuclear energy it would be.

The US are also actively researching this, and going after bioethanol, and solar energy, but they still somehow feel the need to have over 100 nuclear power plants in operation.

As much as you seem to like comparing Iran to other countries, Iran is Iran. Its situation is different in that it has the opportunity to avoid having to use nuclear energy. You seem to want Iran to have it solely because other countries do. Common sense tells us not to think that is enough of a reason for Iran to have it.

And there is no reason to believe that Iran getting nuclear power will lead to nuclear destruction of the middle east; especially if you ignore the many distortions of the Iranian comments in the media.

Well, I disagree with your assessment of distortions in the media (surprise! surprise!), however you would have to ignore all of the factors introduced by myself and others above, as you seem perfectly willing to do.
sabiwabi at 09:12 AM JST - 10th June

You still don't get, or pretend not to get, the very simple points I'm trying to make. The US has done tremendous research into alternative fuels, including biohydrogen. They have probably done more research into biohydrogen than the rest of the world combined, but they still opted for nuclear energy. The US has over 100 nuclear power plants currently in operation because the other options do not provide enough energy. For Iran, nuclear energy seems to be the best way (only way?) to address the problems they have today.

There is nothing in what Ahmadinejad said to indicate he is seeking nuclear weapons or that he "vowed to wipe Israel off the map". Those are media distortions and no matter how often people like you repeat it, it does not make it true.
kinniku at 10:43 AM JST - 10th June

It is not a matter of 'not getting it' or 'pretending' anything. It is a simple matter of the fact that I and others disagree with you and your premise.

Since you are set on comparing the US and Iran, let's do that, shall we?

You seem to be claiming that the US 'opted' for nuclear energy over biohydrogen. Since biohydrogen research has been around only since the late 90's and nuclear energy has been around for more than 20 years longer than that, your attempt at comparisons fails. As I said, Iran is Iran and the US is the US. Iran has a choice to start fresh. It is certainly cheaper to do that to have to build and then later scrap them when they finally decide to go with cleaner sources.

Also, the comparison fails also because, among other things, energy demands in the US far surpass energy demands in Iran.

Speaking of which, you seem to be saying biohydrogen technology is something very far off. However, experts seem to disagree and think that progress they are making will lead to biohydrogen plants up and running by the year 2010, which is just two years a way.

You also state that nuclear energy seems to be the best way to address the problems Iran has today, while you completely ignore basic common sense solutions like requiring cars to be fitted with exhaust filters. This would not make the air 'a little cleaner', it would make it a lot cleaner.

Lastly, there is no need to repeat what President Ahmadinejad has stated, but the man himself insists on repeating them and making new statements. He has never explained himself. Considering how long ago it was that the statements were first made, one would think in the interest of peace and Iran's standing in the world community, he would have clarified himself.

You seem to prefer to ignore the present climate in the Middle East and just want there to be a push ahead toward nuclear conflict in the Middle East. Common sense tells us that in not in Iran's future interests. Further, common sense tells us that it is in no one's interests, save possibly yours.
sabiwabi at 11:36 AM JST - 10th June

You seem to prefer to ignore the present climate in the Middle East and just want there to be a push ahead toward nuclear conflict in the Middle East.

You're the one that continues to talk about conflict. Iran has a history of peace, unlike your favorite country. They also have a very serious problem with air pollution, and as I wrote above, biohydrogen is not yet a viable solution.

He has never explained himself. Considering how long ago it was that the statements were first made, one would think in the interest of peace and Iran's standing in the world community, he would have clarified himself.

Why would he bother clarifying an intentional distortion of his speech? And how do you know he hasn't, because the media did not report it? Since the media intentionally distorted his speech, I don't expect them to come out and provide us with his clarifications. Or the media might distort his clarifications, leading some clueless people to claim "the man himself insists on repeating them and making new statements".

However, experts seem to disagree and think that progress they are making will lead to biohydrogen plants up and running by the year 2010, which is just two years a way.

Actually, there are some in operation already, but they don't supply much energy. Plus what kind of biomass would the Iranians use for their biohydrogen production, date pits?

As I said, Iran is Iran and the US is the US.

Indeed, but the laws of physics and thermodynamics apply equally in both countries. The US gets lots of energy from their nuclear power plants, such energy would benefit the Iranians. Leaders of countries that already have nuclear power (and nuclear weapons) are telling Iran they can't make nuclear power, bunch of hypocrites!
kinniku at 12:20 PM JST - 10th June

You're the one that continues to talk about conflict.

Because the potential for conflict is extremely high. Only an extremely naive person, or someone who thinks the Middle East would look better as an ash pile would imagine otherwise. Just look at the tensions between other nuclear revivals and multiply it using the Middle East calculator. This is already been mentioned many times.

They also have a very serious problem with air pollution

Yes, and rather than waiting a few years, they could start putting filters in car exhausts right away. However, that would not make the Middle East less stable and so doesn't seem to fit in with your hopes.

Why would he bother clarifying an intentional distortion of his speech?

Sorry, but this strikes me as a very strange question. Why wouldn't he? Wouldn't he want his true message to be heard? Politicians make clarifications all the time. Why is President Ahmadinejad continuing to depend on people like you to defend him?

And how do you know he hasn't, because the media did not report it?

Specifics, please? In other words, specific proof, please?

Or the media might distort his clarifications, leading some clueless people to claim "the man himself insists on repeating them and making new statements".

Specifics, please? In other words, specific proof, please?

Plus what kind of biomass would the Iranians use for their biohydrogen production, date pits?

Gee...then why are they researching it in Iran, as you mentioned? I wasn't under the impression Iranian researchers like wasting their time.

Leaders of countries that already have nuclear power (and nuclear weapons) are telling Iran they can't make nuclear power, bunch of hypocrites!

This is where you are completely off. You try to hide the fact you hope Iran will gain nuclear weapons, but in this statement, one can get a fairly clear view of your true opinion. You are willing to ignore any other options including saving the Iranian people money (that they desperately need by the way) by using filters in the car exhausts in favor of nuclear power that will distabilize the region even further.

If you were truely worried about Tehran as you originally claimed, you would have known nuclear energy would not make a dent in the pollution problem.
sabiwabi at 01:10 PM JST - 10th June

A major problem with your argument is that you assume that cars account for 100% of the air pollution (it doesn't!); and using filters would solve everything. Whether they do use filters or not, I don't know and I don't particularly care. But you are completely ignoring other sources of air pollution. Someone very early on this thread brought up their source of electricity, which contributes significantly to their air quality. Using nuclear energy as an alternative source of electricity would help the air quality, nobody can seriously dispute that (except you, apparently).

There is no reason to suspect Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and the NPT gives them the right to do what they are doing. But even if they were seeking nuclear weapons, so what? I feel much better about them having nuclear weapons than Israel, considering Israel's history of attacking its neighbors and allies.
kinniku at 02:30 PM JST - 10th June

A major problem with your argument is that you assume that cars account for 100% of the air pollution (it doesn't!); and using filters would solve everything.

Okay, then let's clarify what I wrote. I never said cars account for 100% of the air pollution. However, it is a fact that the percent is certainly close to 100%. This is based on Iranian government statements. So, if you would like to dispute the Iranian government on this, be my guest. In addition, I did not state that filters would solve all of Iran's problems. However, it would certainly solve most of Tehran's air pollution problems. It would be cheaper than building nuclear power plants, too.

Whether they do use filters or not, I don't know and I don't particularly care.

This is rather sad. How can you even try to have a discussion about air pollution in Tehran when you don't know the causes and you don't care about the solutions? The answer: you don't really care.

But you are completely ignoring other sources of air pollution.

Actually, no I am not. I have mentioned the horrible condition of condition of Iran's oil fields. Maybe looking into better and cleaners methods there, too would be a good start. Unless you think Iran will suddenly give up the oil business if they start using nuclear energy. I don't think production would fall at all.

Someone very early on this thread brought up their source of electricity, which contributes significantly to their air quality.

Yes, again. They have not tried to clean up their act there either. How can we expect them to take care of a nuclear power plant when their oil fields are in such disarray? The answer: we can't.

Using nuclear energy as an alternative source of electricity would help the air quality, nobody can seriously dispute that (except you, apparently).

Actually, I have not disputed this. Rather, I don't think this is or should be considered Iran's only option. I have suggested it would not change much with regard to Tehran's air pollution problems. You disagreed, but provided no basis for your disagreement.

There is no reason to suspect Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and the NPT gives them the right to do what they are doing. But even if they were seeking nuclear weapons, so what? I feel much better about them having nuclear weapons than Israel, considering Israel's history of attacking its neighbors and allies.

This says it all really. You would not mind Iran having nuclear weapons. I would venture a guess that Ahmadinejad would not mind it either. In fact, I would further guess that he would love it, as would you! Iran has attacked the US, by the way. They took over the US Embassy and held its occupants captive. That was an act of war. Imagine if that would have happened in the time since 2000. The US would probably still be in Iran fighting a similar fight as they are in Iraq.

There is nothing more to discuss really. You have honestly stated you are for Iran having nuclear weapons as some sort of weapon against Isreal. You unrealistically think this would somehow make the Middle East a warm and fuzzy place by destroying Israel. What you seem unwilling to realize is that the rest of the Middle East would go up in a puff of nuclear cloud smoke if that were to happen. I don't want that to happen. You don't care, as long as Israel is taken along for the ride.

However, I appreciate finally knowing that you really don't care what happens to the people in the region. You just want to see more trouble. We now know clearly where you stand. Thank you.
kinniku at 02:31 PM JST - 10th June

Sorry, the first sentence should have been quoted...
sabiwabi at 06:39 PM JST - 10th June

Wow, you have outdone yourself this time in the level of distortion of my posts and facts.

The fact remains, using nuclear energy as an alternative source of electricity would help the air quality. You seem to give your "expert" opinion on other solutions that should be adopted instead of nuclear power without providing anything to back it up.

My argument simply goes against the often expressed idea that Iran does not need alternative sources of energy since it is so rich in oil. I am saying that they should use less oil to help reduce their air pollution problems. Nuclear energy is one solution that many countries have adopted and which Iran is fully entitled to follow.

No matter how much you continue to distort these basic facts, Iran is still fully entitled to it.
kinniku at 06:49 PM JST - 10th June

Ummm...you seem to forget this is not a conversation in which you can claim you said something different. What you wrote is still there. As far as my 'expert' opinion. Please try and type Tehran air pollution on google and learn a bit before claiming someone is mistaken. Everything I wrote about Iran and Tehran and the air quality is backed up by the government of Iran themselves. If you have a problem, take it up with them. ]

You may feel Iran is entitled to nuclear energy, but as you can clearly see here on this very thread. You don't have a lot of company in that opinion. In addition, you certainly have not been successful in convincing anyone that your point of view is the more reasonable one. However, I am happy to have had a chance to confirm your opinions. I look forward to continued debate on some other thread sometime.
sabiwabi at 11:01 AM JST - 11th June

What you wrote is still there.

Yes, and I stand by it. You certainly haven't demonstrated any of it to be wrong.
kinniku at 11:12 AM JST - 11th June

This is less of problem of 'right' and 'wrong' and more of one of being reasonable and realistic. I just don't feel you have been either.