According to a recent article in the NY Times, it was only a partially constructed reactor. People famliar with nuclear power know you DON'T have any plutonium or highly radioactive materials in a site that is not even functioning yet. So of course there would be no 'trace of radiation or fallout'. This is, in fact the safest way to destroy any nuke plant being constructed, before the fuel rods are on station.


Also, Show us WHERE it said CHeney was the 'leak' behind said story? According to the AP, the [url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h44iqu-AVtbml4EBgaBy7kkKduGQD8SAVJ180]U.N. translator was actually the...

According to a recent article in the NY Times, it was only a partially constructed reactor. People famliar with nuclear power know you DON'T have any plutonium or highly radioactive materials in a site that is not even functioning yet. So of course there would be no 'trace of radiation or fallout'. This is, in fact the safest way to destroy any nuke plant being constructed, before the fuel rods are on station.


Also, Show us WHERE it said CHeney was the 'leak' behind said story? According to the AP, the U.N. translator was actually the issue.

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Syria denied Wednesday that one of its representatives to the United Nations told a panel that an Israeli airstrike hit a Syrian nuclear facility and added that "such facilities do not exist in Syria."

The state-run Syrian Arab News Agency, SANA, quoting an unnamed Foreign Ministry source, said that Syria had made it clear in the past that there are no such facilities in Syria. It said the U.N. release misquoted the Syrian diplomat, who was not named.