In the latest issue:

Short Cuts

Jonathan Parry

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick

SurrogacyTM

Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

Jia Tolentino

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close

‘Their aim​ is that we accept a capacity of ten thousand separative work units which is equivalent to ten thousand centrifuges of the older type that we already have,’ Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, said on 4 June. ‘Our officials say we need 190,000 SWU. Perhaps this is not a need this year or in two years or five years, but this is the country’s absolute need.’

Khamenei’s statement reminds me of some of the answers I used to mark when I was teaching physics, when the student had the right vocabulary but failed to put the words together in a meaningful way. I do not entirely blame Khamenei. The separative work unit – SWU, pronounced ‘swoo’ – is the least intuitive unit I have ever encountered in physics. I doubt most physicists could define it correctly. I will define it, tell you where it came from and then try to adumbrate Khamenei’s statement. It’s important because it may be the key to the outcome of the present nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Let WSWU be the number of SWUs needed to separate a feed with a percentage of uranium-235 xf – the rest being uranium-238 – into a product with a U-235 percentage xp and a remainder of U-238 containing a small percentage xt (a ‘tail’) of U-235. Typically you might begin with a feed of natural uranium, which is more than 99 per cent U-238, and you might be looking for a product in which, say, the U-235 content is 3.5 per cent and the tail is a few tenths of a per cent. Let the value function ‘V(x)’ be defined as V(x) = (1 − 2x)ln[(1 − x)/x], where ‘ln’ stands for the natural logarithm. Then by definition:

WSWU = PV(xp) + TV(xt) − FV(xf)

Here P, T and F stand for amounts, usually in grams or kilograms. I write this out mainly to show what Khamenei was trying to cope with.

Paul Dirac was one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century. He was among the creators of quantum theory, and when he unified it with the theory of relativity he saw that this led to anti-particles. The first one, discovered in 1932, was the anti-electron: the ‘positron’. Around this time Dirac became interested in the separation of isotopes. He began a collaboration with the Russian physicist Pyotr Kapitza, and together they invented a machine for the purpose. Basically it was a curved tube down which a gas could be injected at high speed. When the gas rounded the curve the centrifugal force on the molecules would in principle produce a separation of isotopes. South Africa used a version of the idea to produce enough U-235 to make half a dozen bombs. But before Dirac and Kapitza got very far Kapitza went to Russia on holiday and was never allowed to return.

The scene shifts to Britain, and two refugee scientists, Rudolf Peierls and Otto Frisch. Niels Bohr had shown in a paper that the fissile isotope of uranium was U-235. Frisch and Peierls investigated how much would be needed to make a bomb. They underestimated the amount by a great deal – the actual amount needed is about 52 kilograms – but the two reports they wrote in 1940 began the quest for the bomb. They realised that the real problem in making a bomb was to produce enough U-235 to constitute a critical mass. They set off to work out how to produce the required amount, Frisch experimentally and Peierls theoretically. Peierls recruited Dirac, a colleague and friend, who had originally studied engineering.

Dirac’s analysis can be applied in the operation of gas centrifuges. In these, a gas is injected into a cylinder that is made to spin at rates faster than the speed of sound. When separating uranium into its isotopes, the gas used is uranium hexafluoride, each molecule of which consists of one uranium atom and six fluorine atoms. It’s a solid at room temperature, which makes it easy to transport; as a gas, it is highly corrosive. Passing the gas through a cascade of centrifuges results in a product that is more and more highly ‘enriched’ with U-235: about 3.5 per cent enrichment is required for use in a nuclear reactor, and more than 90 per cent for a bomb. Dirac invented the separative work unit to quantify both the amount of separation achieved by a given centrifuge and the amount needed to perform some specific task, such as producing a kilogram of 3.5 per cent enriched uranium hexafluoride. He also found there was a theoretical limit to the degree of separation that a given centrifuge could achieve (though it is aspirational since no actual centrifuge can reach it). Dirac wrote a brief note about this; it has never been properly published, but copies exist. Peierls adopted the SWU in his work with Klaus Fuchs, which was published in a classified report. It came to the United States with them and the Russians got hold of it too since Fuchs was a spy. Now someone has tried – with limited success – to explain it to Khamenei.

Tables are now available for calculating the SWU needed to perform particular tasks. I’m using one supplied by the physicist Richard Garwin. Suppose we want to produce a kilogram of uranium hexafluoride enriched to 3.5 per cent. We begin with natural uranium hexafluoride with a U-235 content of 0.7 per cent, and accept ‘tails’ of 0.4 per cent. According to the tables, to perform this task we need about 3.6 SWU per kilogram.

The Iranians haven’t been forthcoming about the SWU capacities of their centrifuges. Khamenei’s remarks are all but incomprehensible. But the International Atomic Energy Agency has learned enough to enable us to put the pieces together. A very good summary of the most recent data can be found in a report issued on 23 May by the Institute for Science and International Security. Since 2007 Iran has produced some 12,000 kilograms of 3.5 per cent enriched uranium hexafluoride. It has also produced about 230 kilograms of 20 per cent enriched uranium hexafluoride. According to my estimates, the total SWU used comes to approximately 45,000. The number of centrifuges used by Iran has increased over the years. At present they have nearly 18,000 IR-1 centrifuges: they seem to be what Khamenei is referring to as the ‘older type’. It’s estimated that these each produce about 1 SWU per year if they operate continuously. The SWU figures given by Khamenei must refer to a single year.

So, is Iran’s present level of SWU production ‘adequate’? That depends on its purpose. A nuclear power reactor of the type Iran has at Bushehr requires about 25,000 kilograms of 3.5 per cent enriched uranium per year to operate. That’s more than twice the total amount currently produced by Iran. In the case of Bushehr that doesn’t matter since the fuel is supplied by the Russians, whose commercial enrichment plants produce millions of SWU per year. To make present and future Iranian nuclear power plants self-sufficient would require a giant expansion of capacity.

But here’s the problem. I’ve said that the critical mass of U-235 required to make a bomb is 52 kilograms. But with good design only about half this amount is actually needed. It takes about 232 SWU per kilogram to enrich natural uranium to 95 per cent: weapons grade. If Iran were to devote all its enrichment capacity to this end, it would in theory be able to produce bombs at the rate of a few per year. That is the spectre that haunts the present negotiations, and it is difficult to see how the matter can be resolved.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Letters

Vol. 36 No. 18 · 25 September 2014

In the LRB of 31 July I discussed the concept of separative work units, SWUs, which are used to measure the amount of enriched uranium that a centrifuge can produce. Around 200 SWUs are needed to produce one kilogram of 95 per cent enriched uranium, weapons grade. It seems that the proposal apparently being negotiated is to limit Iranian SWU production to 10,000 per year. There are now 18,000 centrifuges operating some of the time in Iran. Since each produces about one SWU per year – probably somewhat less – the programme would have some plausibility. But a recent report issued by the Institute for Science and International Security contains a disturbing bit of news: Iran has claimed that it has produced a new centrifuge 16 times more powerful than the existing ones. There is no plausible need for this centrifuge. Its development once again makes it clear that when it comes to nuclear power, actions in Iran must be scrutinised with great care.

Jeremy Bernstein
New York

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.