(Important: breaking update below)

Anybody else notice the big sucking sound in reaction to the endlessly uber hyped IAEA report? I knew it, I just knew it. Humping their fear mongering and cramming it down our collective throats the week before the report was due was because they had nothing. Because the only time they’d get away with it was before the report came out, so they ran with it hook line and sinker. Russia and China immediately said ‘No’ to more sanctions, and virtually nothing ‘diplomats‘ and western ‘officials‘ (Elliott and Ross?) said panned out in the report, which was basically old nothing news. The IAEA report was a Dud With Little Consequences For Iran and everybody knows it too. Here’s CSM being somewhat polite about it:

Prior to the report’s release, speculation mounted in Israel and Washington that new revelations might prompt military strikes to prevent Iran from acquiring a weapon. Instead, experts say, much of the information is years old, inconclusive – and perhaps not entirely real. …… Among several technical points, Kelley notes the report’s discussion of Iran’s “exploding bridge-wire detonators,” or EBWs. The IAEA report said it recognizes that “there exist non-nuclear applications, albeit few,” and point to a likely weapons connection for Iran. “The Agency is wrong. There are lots of applications for EBWs,” says Kelley. “To be wrong on this point, and then to try to misdirect opinion shows a bias towards their desired outcome…. That is unprofessional.”

Color me shocked. China? Russia? phff..blew it off. Tough sanctions? Forget about it.

The scare mongering narrative rapidly started crumbling after b. at Moon of Alabama published On “Nuclear Iran” Allegations: Nanodiamonds Ain’t Nuclear Bombs quickly followed by The Scary “R265 generator” Is Just Old Stuff.

In a Guardian story Julian Borger today confirms at least some part of yesterday’s analysis here and now points out the relation of nanodiamonds to Danilenko. Funny how that didn’t occur in Borger’s piece yesterday or any earlier pieces by him. He claims to have known Danielenko’s name since 2009 but only today, after I published on it, he mentions nanodiamonds. Doesn’t he know how to use Google or did he keep that information from his readers only to weasel it out now?

Yesterday b. published The IAEA Confirms My Nanodiamond Analysis .

You might be wondering what Nanodiamonds are all about.

Dr. Vyacheslav Danilenko is a well known Ukrainian (“former Soviet”) scientist. But his specialties are not “weapon” or “nuclear” science, indeed there seems to be nothing to support that claim, but the production of nanodiamonds via detonations (ppt). According to the history of detonation nanodiamonds he describes in chapter 10 of Ultrananocrystalline Diamond – Synthesis, Properties, and Applications (pdf) he has worked in that field since 1962, invented new methods used in the process and is related with Alit, an Ukrainian company that produces nanodiamonds. This is a detonation tank to create nanodiamonds, not a nuclear device. Very small diamonds are useful for many purposes, like polishing optics or PC hard disks. That is why, for example, Drexel University in Philadelphia invited Danilenko for a talk at its Nanotechnology Institute: On January 29, the AJ Drexel Nanotechnology Institute sponsored a Nanodiamond Lecture, “Nanodiamonds: Reactor Design and Synthesis,” by noted Ukrainian scientist Dr. Vyacheslav Danilenko. Dr. Danilenko was among the first to demonstrate detonation synthesis of diamonds and has more than 30 years experience in the design of reactors for the synthesis of nanodiamonds. Some years ago Iran launched a big Nano Technology Initiative which includes Iranian research on detonation nanodiamonds (pdf). Iran is officially planning to produce them on industrial scale. It holds regular international conferences and invites experts on nanotechnology from all over the world. It is quite likely that famous international scientists in that field, like Dr. Danilenko, have been invited, gave talks in Iran and cooperate with its scientists.

I recommend following the link and reading the rest of b.’s research including the many embedded links not included here.

Others have observed, “it is noteworthy that “nanodiamonds” do not appear in any of the reports from Reuters, BBC (where you will find a lovely graphic on an implosion trigger), the Washington Post or the New York Times.. All it took for is for one astute blogger to spell it out for us.

Yesterday the Guardian finally linked to b.’s Nanodiamond analysis.

Thanks b.

Update: My Nanodiamonds Analysis Starts to Kill The IAEA’s Case

Gareth Porter of Inter Press Service added some bits to my analysis in a piece published yesterday. Now even more confirmation is coming in. Via The Hindu: The Soviet scientist was not named in the IAEA report but the Kommersant daily easily identified him as Vyacheslav Danilenko, a pioneer in developing the technology of producing nanodiamonds by explosion. Nanodiamonds are used in the manufacture of lubricants and rubber. Contacted by the newspaper, the 76-year-old scientist, now retired, refused to discuss his work in Iran, saying only: “I’m not a nuclear physicist and I’m not a father of Iran’s nuclear programme.” His former colleague confirmed Mr. Danilenko’s words. Vladimir Padalko, head of a company producing nanodiamonds, said experts from the IAEA and the U.S. State Department had interviewed him several times about Mr. Danilenko’s work in Iran. “I explained to them that nanodiamonds have nothing to do with nuclear weapons,” Mr. Padalko told Kommersant. Reuters also covers the Kommersant piece.

More at the link!