Read on Twitter
Hi @VivianHYee!
I read your article about the startup of Barakah 1 in @nytimes. As I noticed you reference a problematic report and unfounded claims by Dorfman I thought I would offer some perspective on his claims.
I read your article about the startup of Barakah 1 in @nytimes. As I noticed you reference a problematic report and unfounded claims by Dorfman I thought I would offer some perspective on his claims.
First, as UAE makes a clear move toward fossil free energy I find the overall story of the article problematic.
The description of IAEA safeguards is really poor - even misleading - in a state like UAE which even has additional gold standard protocols in place.
The description of IAEA safeguards is really poor - even misleading - in a state like UAE which even has additional gold standard protocols in place.
And this is in the 11th paragraph, after heavy insinuation about nuclear weapons in the 2nd paragraph.
Also, describing Dorfman as "a researcher at University College London’s Energy Institute" when he is also the founder an aggressively anti-nuclear think tank is more than a slight mischaracterisation.
I think it deserves to be pointed out that Israel does not have any nuclear power and Iran, while having enrichment capabilities, does not have a nuclear weapon.
The UAE has gold standard agreement whereby they agree to refrain from both enrichment and reprocessing.
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-10/features/nonproliferation-gold-standard-new-normal
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-10/features/nonproliferation-gold-standard-new-normal
As for Dorfman's report - he seems to lack even the most basic understanding of nuclear physics and nuclear engineering.
Nuclear Consulting Group does not even seem have a single nuclear engineer on staff (~135 names listed on their page).
Nuclear Consulting Group does not even seem have a single nuclear engineer on staff (~135 names listed on their page).
@ChasingNeutrons described some of the errors when @BBCWorld also cited Dorfmans report.
After clarification of these errors, BBC removed the reference to Dorfman's report (but unfortunately kept some of the quotes). https://twitter.com/ChasingNeutrons/status/1289575752594157570?s=20
After clarification of these errors, BBC removed the reference to Dorfman's report (but unfortunately kept some of the quotes). https://twitter.com/ChasingNeutrons/status/1289575752594157570?s=20
Among the most serious mistakes is Dorfman's idea that "high burnup" somehow means "burned at a much higher temperature".
It's difficult to find an analogy for how wrong this is.
https://twitter.com/OskaArcher/status/1289587045208166401?s=20
It's difficult to find an analogy for how wrong this is.
https://twitter.com/OskaArcher/status/1289587045208166401?s=20
Dear @VivianHYee, @nytimes please do correct the incorrect information in the article and please also consider consulting actual experts on nuclear technology and safeguards in the future.
Thank you!
Thank you!
