Massive Explosion Reported at Iran's Fordow Nuclear Facility [plus TXnMA Photo Analysis]

Business Insider Military and Defense ^ | Jan. 28, 2013, 7:03 AM | Robert Johnson

[TXnMA]

Reports of an explosion at Iran's Fordow nuclear facility have surfaced and are being both confirmed and denied by multiple sources.

The Jerusalem Post cites a report by Reza Kahlili that says: “The blast shook facilities within a radius of three miles. Security forces have enforced a no-traffic radius of 15 miles, and the Tehran- Qom highway was shut down for several hours after the blast.” Kahlili's report says the Fordow nuclear facility was severely damaged in an explosion and up to 240 workers trapped inside. The explosion was reportedly confined to the plant, suggesting that if it were an airstrike, it was highly localized. But this possibility is no more or less likely than sabotage, or an accident, assuming the explosion occurred at all.

>SNIP<

Iran's official news agency, says the same thing, with the IRNA, promptly denying the explosion, claiming the news was simply the result of the Western media-fueled "propoganda machine." That might have ended the story there, but The Times of London's Israel correspondent Sheera Frenkel is confirming the incident through her own independent sources: An explosion is believed to have damaged Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, which is being used to enrich uranium, Israeli intelligence officials have told The Times. Sources in Tel Aviv said yesterday that they thought the explosion happened last week. The Israeli Government is investigating reports that it led to extensive structural damage and 200 workers had been trapped inside. One Israeli official said: “We are still in the preliminary stages of understanding what happened and how significant it is.” He did not know, he added, if the explosion was “sabotage or accident”, and refused to comment on reports that Israeli aircraft were seen near the facility at the time of the explosion.

[Political Junkie Too]

After I posted that, I saw that I also misread the map. The earthquake was a few hundred miles away to the southeast near Bam, not Qom, which is near the plant.

Still, it's an earthquake in the region. I wonder if the depth is reported as being too low, would an actual shallower depth allow for a quake that is further away? Or, if it's not really a quake but an underground explosion, could the seismic readings from the USGS confuse the depth and location, making it look like it was further away and deeper than it really was?

-PJ

[UCANSEE2]

After I posted that, I saw that I also misread the map.

Ah.... now I know what my THIRD mistake was. (they always come in threes, for some reason)

[Marine_Uncle]

RE: "Thank you for following my work, and for your restraint in "keeping me honest". That's all we can do: be honest with -- and thoughtful of -- each other."

I hardly thought that you where being in any form "dishonest". You went on what at first appeared to be solid info. You along the way as you posted voiced your reservations as to what may not be solid data.
That was the honest approach you pursued.

[TXnMA]

Could/would you please share your link to that 2013 01 21 seismic data? The log would be useful, but I also want to look at actual 3-axis seismograph signals. I no longer have a travel time chart, but probably still can trace back to the event on data from more distant seismic stations...

Thanks in advance!

[TXnMA]

Could/would you please share your link to that 2013 01 21 seismic data? The log would be useful, but I also want to look at actual 3-axis seismograph signals. I no longer have a travel time chart, but probably still can trace back to the event on data from more distant seismic stations...

Thanks in advance!

[TXnMA]

Could/would you please share your link to that 2013 01 21 seismic data? The log would be useful, but I also want to look at actual 3-axis seismograph signals. I no longer have a travel time chart, but probably still can trace back to the event on data from more distant seismic stations...

Thanks in advance!

[UCANSEE2]

Here is the link for the correct day. The first one I listed was the wrong year (I goofed).

This second one shows a tremor, but it is apparently not centered where this ‘incident’ took place. (Thanks to Political Junkie Too)

Here ya go.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/usb000esbm#summary

[TXnMA]

Thanks: However, the problem with earthquake reporting sites like this one only report large quakes (usually mag 4 & up.

The signal we would be looking for in this case would be in the 1-3 range. (more dififcult to ID -- and much more difficult to see if signals for other events were arriving at the seismo station at the same time...)

That's why I want to look at the raw, 3-axis data/ seismograms...

[1rudeboy]

The first time I heard the term, “albedo” used (outside of classified discussions) was when the astronauts used it to describe the moon’s surface on TV...

My meteorology professor used it a few times. I had never heard it used before.