Iraqis are receiving U.S. training in handling of nuclear materials
A few weeks ago, I became aware that Iraqi citizens with advanced technical degrees were being trained locally on an aggressive schedule about how to inventory, safeguard and handle nuclear materials. If U.S. personnel were performing the same tasks here, they would be required by law to have special radiological worker training.
The obvious question was why do the Iraqis need this specialized training? The reason, as I wrote about in an earlier post, is that Iraq has nuclear materials where training is needed and necessary.
In fact, the job in Iraq is so large that it will take almost 50 people over two months to merely complete the basics. One of the interesting tasks is that the Iraqis were given special sampling techniques training. This training is normally used to help differentiate low U-235 enrichment material from the more enriched material that can readily be used in a nuclear weapon. To complete the entire operation will take almost a year and results will be reported to the IAEA by October of 2007. IAEA is the same organization that issued a report this week stating serious misgivings about Iran’s nuclear program.
Government officials from the State Department and the NNSA are cooperating on this effort.
The information I have written about has as its source documents that I have been given by an inside source. This source will remain anonymous. This source gave me the packet and explained its contents. I did not obtain the documents through a Freedom of Information request, but by a person inside the scientific community in Oak Ridge with whom I have spoken. The documents are from the fall of 2006, and only discuss inventory amounts at one location in Iraq, Location C, though documents leave unanswered if there are in fact, other locations and why the U.S. would be assisting in safeguarding, sampling and inventory if inventory documents are already available.
I am posting one document that contains the inventory at Location C. I have blocked the logo of the contractor in the upper right corner because I do not have permission to publish their papers or their logo, and I am not certain at this point of legal repercussions should I publish a reproduction. My source is a person I have talked to on several occasions and that source has asked at this time that I not publish the entire packet of information. I have no answers why, or what for, but I am a person of my word.
I am open and willing to allow any media outlet that would like to personally view the packet of documents the opportunity to do so, though I will not publish the entire packet on this site. I did take the packet of information with me to my interview on Gene Patterson’s Tennessee This Week and he has seen the packet.
I would like to say a few words about some of the comments I have been receiving. To most of you, I say thank you! To the person who said such information would never come from Oak Ridge, but from the Pentagon…well, it hasn’t been that long ago since the ONLY thing the Pentagon knew about nuclear issues is what they had been taught by the folks working in the nuclear industry here. For those of you who may not know, per the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, the nuclear weapons industry must be run by civilians, not the military.
Regarding any comments you may have about this post and the one document I am posting: I have been too liberal in allowing comments that are rude to other commenting visitors, or to me personally.
All comments on this post will be subject to deletion. No comment that attacks me or any other commenter will be allowed to stay on this post. If there is a question, if you would like clarification, please, feel free to post. If you are incapable of a rational discussion without being rude, then I’m sorry, don’t post on this particular thread.
Many people have speculated as to my motives or agenda…that perhaps I seek a job, etc. I assure you, I have no agenda other than I like throwing in my two cents and I like sharing information when I can. I am first a wife and a mother of three sons. My family, and my extended family have been and are my main priorities in life. My husband and I chose a job where I could take my children to work with me when they were little. I will continue with that commitment until my children have all left home. They are my central job and all my blogging, tv, radio, writing, comes around making sure I raise three good men.
I enjoy the public exchange of information. My husband began a TV show that is not in the profit making business. We pay what we need to for the show, and any extra ads sold go directly to the TV station. I have never accepted one dime for any work on a political campaign, for political materials and mailers that I have designed, for advice. I have written a column for nearly 4 years without pay and I have had guest columns published in other venues than my hometown paper, such as the Knoxville News Sentinel, for no pay. I intentionally have never placed on ad on my blog, though I have a high amount of traffic, because I have not wanted readers to mistake my sincerity for an attempt to drive visits to my site. I seek nothing. I don’t want a job. I’m not running for office. I’m only happy to offer my perspectives and on occasion, new information, such as this.
I am no expert at all on “uranium” science. I have a very limited general knowledge, and have only reported what my source has told me personally or given me on paper.
If you have questions that I am not able to answer, please don’t hesitate to ask. If I can’t answer them, perhaps my source will be willing to, though answers from my source might not be immediate.
I think there are a lot of questions and discussions to be had about this information and I look forward to discussing it with you to the best of my ability. As I said on my first article about the subject, why doesn’t the average American have this information? Why isn’t it all being discussed?
Here is the 2006 document, right here: (click on it to enlarge)
22 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Terry — Nice job on Tennessee This Week. I only had a chance to listen in the car.
Knowing that this type of documentation exists just confirms some very general things I had heard.
By Serena Keller on 02.25.07 10:09 pm
2 things…If that is the contractors logo, or other identifying mark,in the bottom right corner you might want to put up a revised version. Also, I know you say these are from 2006, and I have no reason to doubt that, but why does the document not have a date. Having the date on the document would help with the debate on whether this is new or old information.
By Mgal on 02.25.07 10:25 pm
Also, after looking into the information from 2003 that everyone was talking about earlier, can you clarify if the document is summary of what remained after the US moved materials from Location C in 2004 according to this document – http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/IraqUNSC06072004.pdf
Thanks!
By Mgal on 02.25.07 10:35 pm
Serena: Thank you!
MGAL: to your first question–this graph is part of a package or presentation. The date is on the cover. My source has asked that I not publish all the pages. I will ask further questions.
To your second question: I don’t know. I will ask and get back with you. I would assume that since the graph is part of packet that deals with the training of Iraqis and technical assistance, that it would be a summary of materials that are there now. Thank you for putting up a link to that letter. It is good information.
By Terry on 02.26.07 6:13 am
Thoughts about Terry’s stories the last few days: 1.She used a catchy headline that originally caught my attention. 2. She did not try to say the yellowcake was in weapons grade form. 3.She brought up a very important nuance about the UF4. 4.A couple of references, some obscure, that folks had to dig deep for, doesn’t discount her argument, it reenforces it. 5. Little to no reference in any articles to the important UF4 question also makes Terry’s info more valuable. 6. She brought new information to the table about training Iraqis and a report being due the IAEA.
Her originally post asked why this info hadn’t been discussed more. Her blog also educated a lot of folks (including me) about this issue. One of the references uncovered by one of the readers spoke of 1000 highly radioactive sources already taken out of this site and safeguarded, and the potential for 142 nuclear weapons. Once again great info that hasn’t been discussed by the national media (just as Terry said). These revelations also are associated with the other question Terry asked, which was what was Saddam’s intent? 7. Terry did somethng as a non-paid hobby that the professionals haven’t done. 8. Terry had the documents to support her story, something commentors early on ridiculed her about 9. Some of the comments about the story and toward Terry were simply vile and petty. 10. All in all, a nice piece of “blogging,” and exchange of information.
By mike on 02.26.07 8:28 am
I just heard that they found the same amount in Iran….get the ships fired up, get the planes in the air, draft the young ones, this is going to be big!!!!!!!!!
I LOVE WAR.
By Brian on 02.26.07 12:34 pm
At least Terry doesn’t censor her blog like “The Rep of Crazy Ideas”
By Brian on 02.26.07 12:34 pm
4.A couple of references, some obscure, that folks had to dig deep for, doesn’t discount her argument, it reenforces it.
She didn’t make an argument. She thought she had a scoop, when in reality, what she had was available to the public 14 years ago.
End of story.
.
By Jeffraham Prestonian on 02.26.07 1:48 pm
This is old news and greatly misunderstood news. Those that look at this as ‘new information’ are mistaken. Those that look at this as evidence of Iraq’s WMD program are mistaken. Those that look at this to seek justification for the Iraq invasion are gravely mistaken.
Having tons of yellow cake puts a country no closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon than trying to make paper from a log without a paper mill. Using uranium to make a nuclear bomb from yellow cake is old-fashion 60 year old technology that requires huge facilities, specialized equipment, expertise and massive amounts of raw materials (a la the Manhattan Project).
Iraq was no closer to making a nuclear weapon than NASA is to launch a manned mission to Saturn.
What is revealing about this is the level of hysteria and desperation of those grasping at straws to try to justify the invasion of Iraq.
What the invasion has accomplished is the release of huge amounts of conventional explosives to terrorists that were previously secured by weapons inspectors. Tons of high explosives have since been looted and are now being used to fuel an insugency in Iraq – all this due to the inadequacy of the Bush Iraq plan.
By Jon on 02.26.07 5:53 pm
Get over it. You were wrong.
By THE REP on 02.26.07 11:06 pm
Jeffraham: forgive me if I don’t accept your anonymous verdict as a mark of finality. It’s not the end of story. If it is for you, well, good. Then you won’t need to worry any more about it.
Until you offer up your credentials as nuclear expert or member of the IAEA blogging community, your opinion is political hysteria…no more.
And Jon: old news? Greatly misunderstood news? How? If you know so much about it, let me ask you some questions, because I am honestly looking of the answers.
If this yellowcake is stored at location C, does that mean there is a location A, B, or even D?
What was Saddam doing with the UF4? Why hasn’t anyone talked about it?
If the documents I have showing the inventory is from 2006, why are we training Iraqis to handle, catalog and test uranium? Are they going to retest and re-inventory to provide numbers to the IAEA, or are they testing new stuff or stuff stored at another site/bunker?
There are a lot of legitimate questions and I’m looking for the answers too. Instead, I see a lot of talk about arguments for and against war, and I intentionally did not put that in my posts.
By Terry on 02.27.07 7:03 am
Until you offer up your credentials as nuclear expert or member of the IAEA blogging community, your opinion is political hysteria…no more.
Coming from someone who’s “scoop” was titled “EXCLUSIVE!! SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD OVER 1 MILLION POUNDS OF URANIUM!!,” I find that more than slightly giggle-inducing.
.
By Jeffraham Prestonian on 02.27.07 7:38 am
Jon — Also remember that like her buddy Stacey, it doesn’t matter if all of these materials were in Iraq before the first Gulf War, and none came in after — that’s just irrelevant to them.
.
By Jeffraham Prestonian on 02.27.07 7:49 am
Rep, I am not sure where you are a “rep” from, but I wanted to thank you for your comments on this site. I am new to the “commenting world” and it is good to see that elected officials are involved in this new way of communicating. However, on this issue, I am afraid that you are fighting a losing battle. Personally, I was unaware of the sheer volume of Saddam’s material, certainly unaware that some of it was in the UF4 form that is getting Iran in trouble, unaware that Iraqi technical folks were being trained in Oak Ridge to sample and categorize the material and had no idea a report was due to the IAEA later this year. In other words, I have learned alot this week. Where you are fighting a losing battle is that some of the folks who are commenting either aren’t interested in the technical issues or are simply being intellectually dishonest (which is a total waste of their time). Truthfully, I am afraid it may be more of the later since I see some of the posts trying to employ the old sophmoric “bait and switch” debate tactic (as if folks weren’t able to just scroll back up and see what was said a day or so earlier). Reminds me of the proverb in the paper this week: to not know is bad, to not want to know is worse. All in all, a very interesting technical issue with a lesson on human nature thrown in for free!
By mike on 02.27.07 9:07 am
I think national laughingstock TN-18 Rep. Stacey Campfield is convinced that Saddam built a time machine that allowed him to acquire yellowcake between 1991 and 2003.
.
By Jeffraham Prestonian on 02.27.07 10:40 pm
The same time machine allowed Dick Cheney’s company to do business in Iraq without violating U.S. law and international treaties!
.
By Jeffraham Prestonian on 02.27.07 10:41 pm
My source works at Oak Ridge! Why use Google?
.
By Jeffraham Prestonian on 02.28.07 12:14 am
Jeffraham- you need a life. . . I pray you get one.
By TNOPINION on 03.01.07 1:27 am
Terry, With the Libby verdict coming down this week, there has been all kinds of rehash about the Joe Wilson/Niger story. Time after time the media gave opinions about whether Saddam was looking for uranium (which Joe Wilson/CIA hearing verified), but there was no mention anywhere that I could find about the amount that Saddam already had. It’s a shame that you aren’t involved in these discussions to help educate the public (and to raise the new questions about UF4 which your article proved).
Fred
By fred on 03.08.07 9:24 am
All of this material has been known about since before 1991. Here’s the proof:
(from a May 5th, 2003, news article)
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/5/205301.shtml
“Most of the nuclear and other radioactive material at the Tuwaitha site was stored near the main complex in the three buildings known as “Location C,” which contained nuclear material — covered by Iraq’s Safeguards Agreement under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — that the agency was not required by the U.N. Security Council to remove after the Gulf war in 1991, the agency said.
The reason it was left was because it could not be used directly for nuclear weapons purposes, the IAEA said. A separate building at Location C was used to store radioisotope sources. Radiation levels were high and the agency warned caution had to be used in entering the building.
The agency said its inspectors had been monitoring and inspecting the material at Location C periodically since 1991.”
By Pan Walker on 03.09.07 4:43 pm
Just google the following for more old news stories about this -> “Location C” Iraq
By Pan Walker on 03.09.07 4:45 pm
oops, I meant “since 1991″, not “since before 1991″
By Pan Walker on 03.09.07 5:08 pm
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>