U.S. defense officials on Friday confirmed that preliminary field tests did in fact indicate the material could be plutonium.
giant, how can you be a librarian and lack such a basic understanding of the english language and reading comprehension.
could
1. Used to indicate possibility or probability
as opposed to
IS.
you're arguing as if they quote contains the word is. it does not.
unless you want to play around with what the definition of is is.
nobody has said what they found was plutonium. just that it's a possibility. it may be true, it may not be. no point getting worked up about it until they know for sure. this is just news organizations try to get the jump on the headline with the greatest "grab" factor.
giant, how can you be a librarian and lack such a basic understanding of the english language and reading comprehension.
could
1. Used to indicate possibility or probability
as opposed to
IS.
you're arguing as if they quote contains the word is. it does not.
unless you want to play around with what the definition of is is.
nobody has said what they found was plutonium. just that it's a possibility. it may be true, it may not be. no point getting worked up about it until they know for sure. this is just news organizations try to get the jump on the headline with the greatest "grab" factor.
Give it up already, you of all people should kn0ow, if you disagree with Giant, you are an inbred idiot who could not even pass third grade. I have learned to deal with it and have pulled out my Dr. Suess readers once more. "One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish" anyone?
And I also said some journlaists, not all journalists,
Which journalists were you referring to? I have yet to find anyone that said this was anything but possible plutonium, even if it was presented as probably true. Go ahead and look. But all you will find are journalists saying what fox said.
If you have read someone say it is definitely plutonium, you should probably reevaluate your news sources.
US officials know how to play the media. Stories of possible WMD are front page and retractions are buried if present at all. This puts the idea of WMD in the minds of americans whether it is true or not. Not a single WMD claim has stood up to scrutiny since the beginning of this, but the front page accusations have made that fact irrelevant.
The press is only acting as it is designed to. US officials are to blame for releasing information in the way they have. Radiation readings taken at a former nuclear site should not be released as possible plutonium when they know Iraq can't produce it.
Without first calling the UN and checking if the seals are legit? You really dispise the UN and think they're evil enough to to hide an Iraqi nuclear program?
so in a military conflict, they're supposed to stop what they're doing, call up the ****ing UN for permission and verification of the seals they find? then wait for the UN to try and track down whoever put those seals in that area, try to explain over the phone exactly where they seals are, and hope the guy/gal remembers? yeah, right. that's likely to happen.
Quote:
AFAIK these guys are not trained specialists. They are combat soldiers
from the article:
So far, Marine nuclear and intelligence experts have found 14 buildings that have high levels of radiation, Prine reported Thursday.
they are specialists.
as for breaking the seals, after rereading the article linked, there's no mention anywhere of breaking any seals. they mention they might have broken seals, but is there any solid link that they did?
alcimedes, it's really irresponsible to take a designation given to these folks by a journalist and assume these folks have anything beyond a class or two of training in preliminary testing. That being said, they could be more highly trained. Unfortunately, their rediness to pounce on radiation readings at a former nuclear site as evidence of current nuclear capabilities shows an immense lack of knowledge of Iraq's nuclear capabilities.
And this shows why independent verification can be so important. Soldiers are trained to take orders. Anyone who has done minimal research on Iraq's nuclear program know that there is no way one could exists. There is no hardware or raw materials to make weapons grade uranium, much less plutonium. By all independent accounts, Iraq's nuclear program is dead. The only piece of evidence for a nuclear program has been aluminium tubes that by all accounts except the core admin are really for rockets and not practical for uranium purification.
These soldiers, if they were highly versed in anything but testing, would know this and be far more skeptical of their results. Further, any scientific researcher knows not to have strong reactions to preliminary testing. Their reaction indicates that they are not nuclear scientists (as IAEA inspectors are).
The fact that they were unaware of the uranium being stored there even though the IAEA documented it and sealed the material, later checking on its status multiple times, shows that they were not even trained in what they should be expecting at the site they are testing.
The reason people say they probably broke seals is because it's 99.99% likely that all they found were the sealed drums of radioactive material stored there and sealed by the UN. There is every indication that that is all they have found and the IAEA has requested that the site be secured until they can return and reseal everything.
Thus, while they may be more trained then some of their fellow soldiers in testing for nuclear weapons, they probably can't be considered specialists anywhere near the league of an IAEA inspector or even probably a typical grad student.
There reasons for coming to that conclusion are shaky at best. But, hey, maybe Iraq somehow was able to hide plutonium there since before the gulf war. Regardless of whether they did or not has nothing to do with how these folks came to this conclusion. The IAEA said the radiation levels at that site have always been high and that more care needs to be taken with it,
ladies and gentlemen, the amazing GIANT is now speaking out of his ass! watch as he guesses what training folks in the field have! he leaps! he pirouettes!
which brings us back to "wait at least 5 days before drawing any conclusions"
fact is, the news folks have been quick to jump all over anything that might indicate WMD, so i don't see any point getting worked up about them anymore until they've been independently verified and tested, which is what's going on right now with what was found at this site and other sites.
hell, in this case it will probably take a lot longer than 5 days to know for sure what was there.
ladies and gentlemen, the amazing GIANT is now speaking out of his ass! watch as he guesses what training folks in the field have! he leaps! he pirouettes!
Whatever. You aren't fooling anyone with your wannabe bullying. You probably got your ass-kicked too many times for being a tubby theater nerd and now you want to get your vengence without actually risking anything.
Hey, here's an idea, why not actually have a point that contributes to the discussion?
But hey. What can we expect from someone that hides behind the internet?
which brings us back to "wait at least 5 days before drawing any conclusions"
fact is, the news folks have been quick to jump all over anything that might indicate WMD, so i don't see any point getting worked up about them anymore until they've been independently verified and tested, which is what's going on right now with what was found at this site and other sites.
hell, in this case it will probably take a lot longer than 5 days to know for sure what was there.
Well, we basically do know what they found since they were drums of radioactive material in places the IAEA knows about. If there is plutonium then it still has not been uncovered.
Well, we basically do know what they found since they were drums of radioactive material in places the IAEA knows about. If there is plutonium then it still has not been uncovered.
So, no, it doesn't really boil down to that.
so there's no way the military has uncovered soemthing that the IAEA had missed?
glad to see that open mind at work. to sit there and claim that something as simple as finding material another group missed as impossible? impressive.
alcimedes, it's really irresponsible to take a designation given to these folks by a journalist and assume these folks have anything beyond a class or two of training in preliminary testing. That being said, they could be more highly trained. Unfortunately, their rediness to pounce on radiation readings at a former nuclear site as evidence of current nuclear capabilities shows an immense lack of knowledge of Iraq's nuclear capabilities.
And this shows why independent verification can be so important. Soldiers are trained to take orders. Anyone who has done minimal research on Iraq's nuclear program know that there is no way one could exists. There is no hardware or raw materials to make weapons grade uranium, much less plutonium. By all independent accounts, Iraq's nuclear program is dead. The only piece of evidence for a nuclear program has been aluminium tubes that by all accounts except the core admin are really for rockets and not practical for uranium purification.
These soldiers, if they were highly versed in anything but testing, would know this and be far more skeptical of their results. Further, any scientific researcher knows not to have strong reactions to preliminary testing. Their reaction indicates that they are not nuclear scientists (as IAEA inspectors are).
The fact that they were unaware of the uranium being stored there even though the IAEA documented it and sealed the material, later checking on its status multiple times, shows that they were not even trained in what they should be expecting at the site they are testing.
The reason people say they probably broke seals is because it's 99.99% likely that all they found were the sealed drums of radioactive material stored there and sealed by the UN. There is every indication that that is all they have found and the IAEA has requested that the site be secured until they can return and reseal everything.
Thus, while they may be more trained then some of their fellow soldiers in testing for nuclear weapons, they probably can't be considered specialists anywhere near the league of an IAEA inspector or even probably a typical grad student.
There reasons for coming to that conclusion are shaky at best. But, hey, maybe Iraq somehow was able to hide plutonium there since before the gulf war. Regardless of whether they did or not has nothing to do with how these folks came to this conclusion. The IAEA said the radiation levels at that site have always been high and that more care needs to be taken with it,
Originally posted by alcimedes so there's no way the military has uncovered soemthing that the IAEA had missed?
keep it up. maybe you can make 1+1=9
Quote:
An embedded US correspondent with the marines at the site reported that US officers had broken through steel doors sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and found hundreds of sealed steel drums containing low-enriched uranium, highly radioactive isotopes, and yellowcake raw uranium.
So either it was calculated or they were incompetent. Take your pick.
Comments
U.S. defense officials on Friday confirmed that preliminary field tests did in fact indicate the material could be plutonium.
giant, how can you be a librarian and lack such a basic understanding of the english language and reading comprehension.
could
1. Used to indicate possibility or probability
as opposed to
IS.
you're arguing as if they quote contains the word is. it does not.
unless you want to play around with what the definition of is is.
nobody has said what they found was plutonium. just that it's a possibility. it may be true, it may not be. no point getting worked up about it until they know for sure. this is just news organizations try to get the jump on the headline with the greatest "grab" factor.
Unfortunately, NoahJ's point was:
Journalists have a tendancy to call all the finds WMD before any news is truly identified as true or false.
And my point is that the military has 'a tendancy to call all the finds WMD before any news is truly identified as true or false.'
Fox reported just that. They just repeated what the military told them.
Funny you spent so much time on that little post of yours and you didn't even bother to inject any relevancy into it.
So what else is new?
Originally posted by alcimedes
giant, how can you be a librarian and lack such a basic understanding of the english language and reading comprehension.
could
1. Used to indicate possibility or probability
as opposed to
IS.
you're arguing as if they quote contains the word is. it does not.
unless you want to play around with what the definition of is is.
nobody has said what they found was plutonium. just that it's a possibility. it may be true, it may not be. no point getting worked up about it until they know for sure. this is just news organizations try to get the jump on the headline with the greatest "grab" factor.
Give it up already, you of all people should kn0ow, if you disagree with Giant, you are an inbred idiot who could not even pass third grade. I have learned to deal with it and have pulled out my Dr. Suess readers once more. "One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish" anyone?
BTW, I totally agree with your whole post...
Originally posted by giant
and that's all the journalists reported.
Unfortunately, NoahJ's point was:
And my point is that the military has 'a tendancy to call all the finds WMD before any news is truly identified as true or false.'
Fox reported just that. Funny you spent so much time on that little post of yours and you didn't even bother to inject any relevancy into it.
So what else is new?
Yeah, saying could be is calling them so. Somone pull the wool off of this guys eyes!
And I also said some journlaists, not all journalists, which I made a big point of speaking of in a previous post. You are such a pain in the a$$!
Originally posted by NoahJ
And I also said some journlaists, not all journalists,
Which journalists were you referring to? I have yet to find anyone that said this was anything but possible plutonium, even if it was presented as probably true. Go ahead and look. But all you will find are journalists saying what fox said.
If you have read someone say it is definitely plutonium, you should probably reevaluate your news sources.
US officials know how to play the media. Stories of possible WMD are front page and retractions are buried if present at all. This puts the idea of WMD in the minds of americans whether it is true or not. Not a single WMD claim has stood up to scrutiny since the beginning of this, but the front page accusations have made that fact irrelevant.
The press is only acting as it is designed to. US officials are to blame for releasing information in the way they have. Radiation readings taken at a former nuclear site should not be released as possible plutonium when they know Iraq can't produce it.
Without first calling the UN and checking if the seals are legit? You really dispise the UN and think they're evil enough to to hide an Iraqi nuclear program?
so in a military conflict, they're supposed to stop what they're doing, call up the ****ing UN for permission and verification of the seals they find? then wait for the UN to try and track down whoever put those seals in that area, try to explain over the phone exactly where they seals are, and hope the guy/gal remembers? yeah, right. that's likely to happen.
AFAIK these guys are not trained specialists. They are combat soldiers
from the article:
So far, Marine nuclear and intelligence experts have found 14 buildings that have high levels of radiation, Prine reported Thursday.
they are specialists.
as for breaking the seals, after rereading the article linked, there's no mention anywhere of breaking any seals. they mention they might have broken seals, but is there any solid link that they did?
And this shows why independent verification can be so important. Soldiers are trained to take orders. Anyone who has done minimal research on Iraq's nuclear program know that there is no way one could exists. There is no hardware or raw materials to make weapons grade uranium, much less plutonium. By all independent accounts, Iraq's nuclear program is dead. The only piece of evidence for a nuclear program has been aluminium tubes that by all accounts except the core admin are really for rockets and not practical for uranium purification.
These soldiers, if they were highly versed in anything but testing, would know this and be far more skeptical of their results. Further, any scientific researcher knows not to have strong reactions to preliminary testing. Their reaction indicates that they are not nuclear scientists (as IAEA inspectors are).
The fact that they were unaware of the uranium being stored there even though the IAEA documented it and sealed the material, later checking on its status multiple times, shows that they were not even trained in what they should be expecting at the site they are testing.
The reason people say they probably broke seals is because it's 99.99% likely that all they found were the sealed drums of radioactive material stored there and sealed by the UN. There is every indication that that is all they have found and the IAEA has requested that the site be secured until they can return and reseal everything.
Thus, while they may be more trained then some of their fellow soldiers in testing for nuclear weapons, they probably can't be considered specialists anywhere near the league of an IAEA inspector or even probably a typical grad student.
There reasons for coming to that conclusion are shaky at best. But, hey, maybe Iraq somehow was able to hide plutonium there since before the gulf war. Regardless of whether they did or not has nothing to do with how these folks came to this conclusion. The IAEA said the radiation levels at that site have always been high and that more care needs to be taken with it,
we don't know what they found.
they don't know what they found.
we don't know if they broke seals to get to it.
we don't know their training level or expertise.
which brings us back to "wait at least 5 days before drawing any conclusions"
fact is, the news folks have been quick to jump all over anything that might indicate WMD, so i don't see any point getting worked up about them anymore until they've been independently verified and tested, which is what's going on right now with what was found at this site and other sites.
hell, in this case it will probably take a lot longer than 5 days to know for sure what was there.
Originally posted by mrmister
ladies and gentlemen, the amazing GIANT is now speaking out of his ass! watch as he guesses what training folks in the field have! he leaps! he pirouettes!
Whatever. You aren't fooling anyone with your wannabe bullying. You probably got your ass-kicked too many times for being a tubby theater nerd and now you want to get your vengence without actually risking anything.
Hey, here's an idea, why not actually have a point that contributes to the discussion?
But hey. What can we expect from someone that hides behind the internet?
Originally posted by alcimedes
which all boils down to.
we don't know what they found.
they don't know what they found.
we don't know if they broke seals to get to it.
we don't know their training level or expertise.
which brings us back to "wait at least 5 days before drawing any conclusions"
fact is, the news folks have been quick to jump all over anything that might indicate WMD, so i don't see any point getting worked up about them anymore until they've been independently verified and tested, which is what's going on right now with what was found at this site and other sites.
hell, in this case it will probably take a lot longer than 5 days to know for sure what was there.
Well, we basically do know what they found since they were drums of radioactive material in places the IAEA knows about. If there is plutonium then it still has not been uncovered.
So, no, it doesn't really boil down to that.
Well, we basically do know what they found since they were drums of radioactive material in places the IAEA knows about. If there is plutonium then it still has not been uncovered.
So, no, it doesn't really boil down to that.
so there's no way the military has uncovered soemthing that the IAEA had missed?
glad to see that open mind at work. to sit there and claim that something as simple as finding material another group missed as impossible? impressive.
Originally posted by AirSluf
Restated again for posterity....
Restated again for posterity....
Originally posted by giant
alcimedes, it's really irresponsible to take a designation given to these folks by a journalist and assume these folks have anything beyond a class or two of training in preliminary testing. That being said, they could be more highly trained. Unfortunately, their rediness to pounce on radiation readings at a former nuclear site as evidence of current nuclear capabilities shows an immense lack of knowledge of Iraq's nuclear capabilities.
And this shows why independent verification can be so important. Soldiers are trained to take orders. Anyone who has done minimal research on Iraq's nuclear program know that there is no way one could exists. There is no hardware or raw materials to make weapons grade uranium, much less plutonium. By all independent accounts, Iraq's nuclear program is dead. The only piece of evidence for a nuclear program has been aluminium tubes that by all accounts except the core admin are really for rockets and not practical for uranium purification.
These soldiers, if they were highly versed in anything but testing, would know this and be far more skeptical of their results. Further, any scientific researcher knows not to have strong reactions to preliminary testing. Their reaction indicates that they are not nuclear scientists (as IAEA inspectors are).
The fact that they were unaware of the uranium being stored there even though the IAEA documented it and sealed the material, later checking on its status multiple times, shows that they were not even trained in what they should be expecting at the site they are testing.
The reason people say they probably broke seals is because it's 99.99% likely that all they found were the sealed drums of radioactive material stored there and sealed by the UN. There is every indication that that is all they have found and the IAEA has requested that the site be secured until they can return and reseal everything.
Thus, while they may be more trained then some of their fellow soldiers in testing for nuclear weapons, they probably can't be considered specialists anywhere near the league of an IAEA inspector or even probably a typical grad student.
There reasons for coming to that conclusion are shaky at best. But, hey, maybe Iraq somehow was able to hide plutonium there since before the gulf war. Regardless of whether they did or not has nothing to do with how these folks came to this conclusion. The IAEA said the radiation levels at that site have always been high and that more care needs to be taken with it,
Phew. That was close. After having put my glasses on I see its only my Sony diskman and a spare handlebar.
Now for a hunt on biological weapons. The fridge...
Originally posted by alcimedes so there's no way the military has uncovered soemthing that the IAEA had missed?
keep it up. maybe you can make 1+1=9
An embedded US correspondent with the marines at the site reported that US officers had broken through steel doors sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and found hundreds of sealed steel drums containing low-enriched uranium, highly radioactive isotopes, and yellowcake raw uranium.
So either it was calculated or they were incompetent. Take your pick.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...934345,00.html
Originally posted by AirSluf
Ummm, didn't the IAEA rep say he never heard of any underground facilities there?
no. that's David Albright you are thinking of. Get your facts straight before you act like a dick.
Originally posted by AirSluf
Ummm, didn't the IAEA rep say he never heard of any underground facilities there? If that's the case your whole argument is utterly groundless.
Or the news report claiming there's an underground facility is utterly groundless (or simply just factually incorrect.) That's my guess.
is your position that there's no way the military could have found soemthing the IAEA missed?
(here's a hint, there's no math involved in this one)
you can do it giant, i believe in you.
Originally posted by alcimedes
is your position that there's no way the military could have found soemthing the IAEA missed?
since you are emphasizing specificity, please make your question more specific.