Since “rogue states” are not my area of day to day focus, you’ll have to forgive my seemingly out of touch postings. I’ve been doing long overdue homework on Russia’s BN-800 fast neutron reactor today and thought I’d pass along a link to the very useful “IAEA Fast Reactor Database”:http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/frdb/index.html. Even though the FRDB appears to not have been updated for some time, it’s still probably the neatest clearinghouse of information for technical newbies (like me).

The BN-800 (“IAEA FRDB backgrounder”:http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/frdb/fulltext/13_fastReactorDesigns.pdf#BN-800) will be used in dispositioning of a substantial portion of the 34 metric tons of Russia’s excess military plutonium, as has been articulated in this U.S.-Russian “November 2007 MoU”:http://www.energy.gov/print/5742.htm. Russia plans to operate the BN-800 (or Beloyarsk-4), expected to be “launched in 2012”:http://www.rosatom.ru/en/news/6819_02.11.2007, as a burner and not a breeder of plutonium.

This Argonne Lab “overview and map of Soviet/Russian fast reactors”:http://www.insc.anl.gov/cgi-bin/sql_interface?view=rx_model&qvar=id&qval=12 is a bit dated, but useful as well. Finally, here is a “paper with pretty cool visuals”:http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnst/44/3/44_504/_article that explains some of the basics of MOX fuel manufactured by the vibropacking method, which is an option considered for the BN-800.

I thought I’d mention that “NPEC”:http://www.npec-web.org released full text of a non-paper titled “_International Finance and Investment for Nuclear Power Projects in Developing Countries: Implementation of the U.S.-Russia Declaration on Nuclear Energy and Nonproliferation_,” (“available here”:http://www.npec-web.org/Frameset.asp?PageType=Single&PDFFile=00000000-NonPaper-IntlFinanceInvestment&PDFFolder=Essays) which was apparently circulated by U.S. officials at the Bush-Putin Sochi meeting in April. The non-paper, which is undated, but seems to have been written between July 2007 and February 2008, makes for quite an interesting read.

Full text of the July 2007 _U.S.-Russia Declaration on Nuclear Energy and Nonproliferation: Joint Actions_ is “available here”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070703.html. Since we are on the subject, I should note that I found the text of the Sochi “Strategic Framework Declaration”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/print/20080406-4.html quite positive in the sense that the White House promised to “work to bring into force” the U.S.-Russian bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement. We’ll just have to wait and see…

“Atomstroyexport”:http://www.atomstroyexport.com/ has listed *two job vacancies in Iran*, one of them is on site at the Bushehr NPP (the actual listings are in Russian, sorry).

The “first listing”:http://www.atomstroyexport.ru/actual/?id=355 is for an *English-language translator*, apparently to be based in Tehran. In order to be considered, one must be a *male, under 45 years of age*, computer-literate, with advanced translation and interpretation education and experience. For the digs at the Bushehr NPP, Atomstroyexport is “seeking”:http://www.atomstroyexport.ru/actual/?id=285 a *procurement engineer*, who must also be a *male, under 50*, computer-literate, with advanced technical education, and experience of working at an NPP (particularly with cooling and ventilation equipment).

I won’t comment on my personal eligibility aside from admitting that (among other things) my lack of experience with cooling and ventilation equipment disqualifies me from applying. I’ll also note that a Moscow-based translation/interpretation position at Atomstroyexport “calls for”:http://www.atomstroyexport.ru/actual/?id=260 both male and female applicants, sets no age requirements, AND offers medical insurance unlike the position in Tehran. Nevertheless, here is the *contact info* (in English) for “Atomstroyexport’s offices in Iran”:http://www.atomstroyexport.com/about/Countries%20of%20presence/.

*Update:* Maybe Atomstroyexport needs to hire some “export control”:http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKHAF33311920080423 experts too.

Two people recently were kind enough to mention (positively) some stuff I wrote back in the day. “In _CJR_,”:http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/lost_over_iran.php Eric Umansky referred to “this piece”:http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/747720r27638k367/fulltext.pdf I did for the _Bulletin_ about Iran. And Hugh Gusterson “mentioned”:http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol15/151_gusterson.pdf in _NPR_ a couple of _ACT_ pieces I wrote about North Korea.

There are also some very kind words in the comments of “this _ACW_ post.”:http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1819/who-debunked-the-uep

I’m an amateur media critic at best, but I thought I’d offer a few quick observations about media coverage.

* Reporters should, as often as possible, mention publications, organizations, etc. that they get information from. Press mentions help keep nonprofits around to provide said information.

* Obviously, there are bad reporters out there. But people have to remember that newspapers are organizations. Therefore, lots of other people have input in deciding which stories run, how they’re placed, how long they are, etc. So when stuff gets covered badly, or not at all, it’s not necessarily the reporters’ fault.

* Proper resources matter. One of the luxuries that I had at _ACT_ was the chance to focus on a few issues and work on monthly deadlines. Obviously, I can’t speak to the specific situations of papers like the _Post_ or the _NYT_, but newspaper reporters generally have larger portfolios than I ever did and also work on daily deadlines. It seems reasonable to think that having more reporters, researchers, fact-checkers, etc. would improve coverage.

As _The Wire’s_ David Simon said in “this _New Yorker_ profile”:http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/22/071022fa_fact_talbot

bq. The newsroom I worked in had four hundred and fifty people. Now it’s got three hundred. Management says, ‘We have to do more with less.’ *That’s the bullshit of bean counters who care only about the bottom line. You do less with less.”*

* As bad as press reporting can be, TV is generally about a billion times worse. And that’s where more people get their information from.

* Reporters should stop quoting hacks who don’t know what they’re talking about and constantly get things wrong.

This “post”:http://toohotfortnr.blogspot.com/2008/03/pussywhipped-pussywhipped-dont-you-know.html from Spencer Ackerman inspired me to find some live SOD. Here it is. I’ve met three of them over the years (not the singer) – two of them when they were in Anthrax and one when he was in Brutal Truth – and they’re nice guys. Yes, they are a joke.

Two of my colleagues at “CNS”:http://cns.miis.edu/index.htm recently wrote an excellent and nuanced “piece in _WMD Insights_”:http://www.wmdinsights.com/I23/I23_LA1_BrazilPursuit.htm dissecting the politics of Brazil’s quest for a nuclear-powered submarine, which, they conclude is

bq. fueled by the prestige associated with mastering nuclear technology, a desire to win a permanent seat at the UN Security Council with the five NPT nuclear weapons states, a potential arms race with Venezuela, and the hopes of attaining regional leadership.

Apart from the indigenous efforts by the Brazilian Navy at mastering enrichment, Brazil has reportedly sought various forms of cooperation with France, Russia, and Argentina on the nuclear submarine project. The piece notably highlights that some French circles have voiced concerns about the proliferation potential of cooperation with Brazil, specifically,

bq. “the danger of nuclear propulsion technology being diverted toward a nuclear weapons program.”

Brazil’s insistence on getting a nuclear-powered submarine by all means necessary as well as pending acquisition of a nuclear boat by “India”:http://www.wmdinsights.com/I21/I21_SA1_QuestionsPersist.htm raise questions about a lack of international norms in this area, because the language in the “Nonproliferation Treaty”:http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf does not explicitly prohibit the transfer of complete nuclear submarines, naval propulsion reactor technology, or even highly enriched uranium (HEU) naval fuel. James Clay Moltz wrote in a 1998 issue of “_The Nonproliferation Review_”:http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/61/cmoltz61.pdf on the need to close the said loophole, created during the NPT negotiations in the 1960s:

bq. “What was intended as a commercial loophole in the NPT is now beginning to be exploited for explicitly military purposes. This situation poses the threat of a new global arms race in nuclear submarines—ironically, with the sanction of the NPT. To understand the scale of this potential threat, it is worth keeping in mind that the number of nuclear reactors outside of safeguards on submarines in the weapon states is equal to the total number of all civilian power reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Allowing the spread of NPRs for military purposes to other states could undermine the IAEA’s role in global nonproliferation efforts and begin a dangerous trend towards leaving control of these materials up to chance.”

We need some music. Here’s a live video from 11 years ago of The Misfits in NYC. Scott Ian from Anthrax is on guitar.

For those who care, NNSA has a couple of good sites RE: 123 agreements.

“This one”:http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/na-20/cooperation.shtml lists all of the countries with which the United States has such agreements.

“This one”:http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/na-20/loc_pgm_acpune.shtml
is from the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and lists of their programs. Very handy.

God, I am a geek.

Speaking of which, geeks everywhere are mourning “the passing”:http://www.slate.com/id/2185914/ of Gary Gygax.

A new word I have learned. According to “Sarah Boxer”:http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21013 in the NYRB,

bq. In Japan neglected or abandoned blogs are called _ishikoro_, pebbles.