Author Topic: Is this an October Surprise?  (Read 9398 times)

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,760
Is this an October Surprise?
« on: October 20, 2012, 07:25:01 PM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/world/iran-said-ready-to-talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?hp&_r=1&

U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks
Quote
WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.

 Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.
I really doubt it would sway enough voters to matter anyway.  I also wonder if this would just make us look weaker and/or start another North Korea agreement where we give a lot and end up with nothing in return.  I have very little confidence that Iran would deal straight with us.  I have little trust for most hard line Muslim nations I guess.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Waitone

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,133
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2012, 07:46:16 PM »
I think an agreement to stop work on the bomb would be a surprise.  Agreeing to talk is a recent version of vaporware, something I think even the mouthbreathers dismiss.  BTW, talk is all our president has.
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds. It will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
- Charles Mackay, Scottish journalist, circa 1841

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." - John Lennon

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,413
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2012, 07:58:37 PM »
Obama favored bilateral talks with Iran in the 2008 campaign. McCain insisted that was a mistake, and that any negotiation needed to be multilateral.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,760
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2012, 08:23:19 PM »
Obama favored bilateral talks with Iran in the 2008 campaign. McCain insisted that was a mistake, and that any negotiation needed to be multilateral.
that I think is a key point.  We should force them to sit down with Isreal, but I think they would refuse.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

bedlamite

  • Hold my beer and watch this!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,790
  • Ack! PLBTTPHBT!
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2012, 10:42:58 PM »
According to the BBC:

Quote
US denies Iran nuclear talks New York Times report

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20019675

I wonder which one is right? Of course, it wouldn't be the first time this administration has given conflicting reports.
A plan is just a list of things that doesn't happen.
Is defenestration possible through the overton window?

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,836
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2012, 12:00:38 AM »
Iran isn't working on a bomb, so I'm not sure what these talks are supposed to yield.  Iran isn't going to agree to stop all nuclear research. 
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

ArfinGreebly

  • Level Three Geek
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,236
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2012, 12:13:40 AM »

Iran isn't working on a bomb, so I'm not sure what these talks are supposed to yield.  Iran isn't going to agree to stop all nuclear research. 

Of course not.  We always use uranium enriched upwards of 20% for power plants.
"Look at it this way. If America frightens you, feel free to live somewhere else. There are plenty of other countries that don't suffer from excessive liberty. America is where the Liberty is. Liberty is not certified safe."

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,836
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2012, 06:06:58 AM »
Of course not.  We always use uranium enriched upwards of 20% for power plants.

Is Iran wanting cancer treatments they don't currently have that unrealistic???

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

birdman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,831
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2012, 08:50:58 AM »
Is Iran wanting cancer treatments they don't currently have that unrealistic???



Uranium isn't used in cancer treatments.
20% uranium isn't used in any power producing reactors, only fast neutron reactors for research and isotope production.  Sure, they could really want medical isotopes, but you don't need the kind of thermal powers they are building for research or isotope production, unless that research is "building weapons" or the isotope in question is plutonium-239.

The REASON having a capability to make 20% and having a lot of it, is twofold
1. 20% is the border between "low enriched" and "high enriched" according to international law and treaty
2. The reason why, is going from natural (~0.7%) to 20% requires the bulk of the separative effort (wiki separative work unit and do the math) and turning 20% into 90%+ is substantially easier.

Take it from someone who knows what they are talking about, you don't know what you are talking about.

Fitz

  • Face-melter
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,254
  • Floyd Rose is my homeboy
    • My Book
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2012, 08:54:39 AM »
Birdman, arguing with de selby is like arguing with heist. He will just go google some *expletive deleted*it he doesn't understand and come back with more crazy.

Don't bother
Fitz

---------------
I have reached a conclusion regarding every member of this forum.
I no longer respect any of you. I hope the following offends you as much as this thread has offended me:
You are all awful people. I mean this *expletive deleted*ing seriously.

-MicroBalrog

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,836
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2012, 09:05:23 AM »
Thanks for the polite responses folks - no doubt your politics being different from mine isn't a factor in your behaviours!  And a bit funny that I've written about three sentences, one of which was a question and none of which mentioned the uses of iran's 20 percent fuel.

Birdman, is this link completely wrong about the 20 percent uranium providing fuel for the Tehran research reactor?  http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/.  Because that would seem to be an obvious non-weapons related use for the stuff.

The world's been scouring for proof that Iran is working on a bomb for years now, and Israel has been declaring a bomb to be six months away for the same period.  Nothing has emerged from it all.  I'm not sure that anyone's nuclear engineering background on APS will do what the most powerful intelligence apparatus on earth cannot.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,883
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2012, 09:21:24 AM »
From the same website DS linked:
Quote
The reactor has operated at 3 MW-th, partially due to a shortage of fuel. The Tehran Research Reactor is expected to run out of Argentine-supplied fuel at the end of 2010 or sometime in 2011.Iran used this reactor to conduct activities possibly linked to early efforts to develop nuclear weapons.  Without notifying the IAEA Iran irradiated uranium oxide (UO2) targets in the TRR and separated plutonium in glove boxes at Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) laboratories.  Iran also admitted to producing small amounts of polonium-210 in the TRR in the early 1990s through the irradiation of bismuth targets.  Polonium 210 is a well-known radioactive material used in a beryllium-polonium neutron initiator that starts the chain reaction in a nuclear weapon.  Iran claims that the polonium was produced as part of a study of the production of neutron sources for use in radioisotope thermoelectric generators and not for use in a nuclear weapons neutron initiator.  The TRR was under traditional safeguards at the time of the undeclared plutonium experiments and polonium production.  This type of safeguards is not designed to detect such small-scale activities.

So, like Birdman said, ~20% EU is used in research reactors, mostly for making weapons level isotopes.


Quote
I'm not sure that anyone's nuclear engineering background on APS will do what the most powerful intelligence apparatus on earth cannot.
Come on, you've been around here longer then that.



Fitz

  • Face-melter
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,254
  • Floyd Rose is my homeboy
    • My Book
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2012, 09:49:20 AM »
Thanks for the polite responses folks - no doubt your politics being different from mine isn't a factor in your behaviours!  And a bit funny that I've written about three sentences, one of which was a question and none of which mentioned the uses of iran's 20 percent fuel.

Birdman, is this link completely wrong about the 20 percent uranium providing fuel for the Tehran research reactor?  http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/.  Because that would seem to be an obvious non-weapons related use for the stuff.

The world's been scouring for proof that Iran is working on a bomb for years now, and Israel has been declaring a bomb to be six months away for the same period.  Nothing has emerged from it all.  I'm not sure that anyone's nuclear engineering background on APS will do what the most powerful intelligence apparatus on earth cannot.


And here it is, like clockwork
Fitz

---------------
I have reached a conclusion regarding every member of this forum.
I no longer respect any of you. I hope the following offends you as much as this thread has offended me:
You are all awful people. I mean this *expletive deleted*ing seriously.

-MicroBalrog

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2012, 09:51:25 AM »
Not to be a pedantic prick, but shipboard reactors use between 50-90% HEU. With HEU you can build the core smaller and the fuel rods will also last a couple decades instead of less than a year. That leads into the next point, it would actually be more efficient for civi reactors to run on HEU because you wouldn't have to shut them down for 6 months out of every year for replacing the spent LEU fuel rods.

Maybe they're also trying to get into the nuclear submarine club?

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2012, 10:08:08 AM »

Maybe they're also trying to get into the nuclear submarine club?

That makes us feel SO much better....  :facepalm:
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2012, 10:20:07 AM »
That makes us feel SO much better....  :facepalm:

Actually I feel fine. Russia has over 70 years of Sub R&D under the belt and they're still just a little bit behind us. What do you think some backwards MENA country that owns a whopping 3 export type Kilo-class that they didn't even build can accomplish?

birdman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,831
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2012, 10:55:36 AM »
Not to be a pedantic prick, but shipboard reactors use between 50-90% HEU. With HEU you can build the core smaller and the fuel rods will also last a couple decades instead of less than a year. That leads into the next point, it would actually be more efficient for civi reactors to run on HEU because you wouldn't have to shut them down for 6 months out of every year for replacing the spent LEU fuel rods.

Maybe they're also trying to get into the nuclear submarine club?

HEU for commercial power is uneconomical, as the fuel cost skyrockets.  The extended refueling interval benefit albeit at high cost, is only feasible for systems where the refuel,Inc cost in time and money (cutting open a sub) is extremely high.  Additionally, naval reactors must use very esoteric fuel forms to obtain the burnup levels required for useof HEU fuel (see also, MIT research reactor, which runs on bomb grade fuel).

So no, not more efficient to run civilian power reactors on HEU.

birdman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,831
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2012, 10:59:38 AM »
Thanks for the polite responses folks - no doubt your politics being different from mine isn't a factor in your behaviours!  And a bit funny that I've written about three sentences, one of which was a question and none of which mentioned the uses of iran's 20 percent fuel.

Birdman, is this link completely wrong about the 20 percent uranium providing fuel for the Tehran research reactor?  http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/.  Because that would seem to be an obvious non-weapons related use for the stuff.

The world's been scouring for proof that Iran is working on a bomb for years now, and Israel has been declaring a bomb to be six months away for the same period.  Nothing has emerged from it all.  I'm not sure that anyone's nuclear engineering background on APS will do what the most powerful intelligence apparatus on earth cannot.

Yes that research reactor uses 20%...the question is, why are they making so damn much of the fuel?  The fuel they have made so far would power that reactor for decades...and they are still making more?  Odd.

Also, considering I have more nuclear engineering expertise (or that 8+ years in the MIT nuclear engineering department, 2+ years at LANL as a nckear engineering consultant, and 6+ years of consulting on nuclear power plant design, nuclear fuel cycle activities, and other aspects was all just a waste of time) THAN most of those folks working for intelligence agencies puts your comment in an odd place.  I work with folks who do these kids of assessments, and while I haven't worked directly for any intelligence agency on this topic, I have looked at these kinds of things before FOR those people who do this for a living.

SADShooter

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,242
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2012, 11:04:59 AM »
Actually I feel fine. Russia has over 70 years of Sub R&D under the belt and they're still just a little bit behind us. What do you think some backwards MENA country that owns a whopping 3 export type Kilo-class that they didn't even build can accomplish?

I defer to your superior knowledge. I still have concerns, though, that the combination of intelligence lapses/bias and a black swan event (sudden enemy tech leap) might leave us vulnerable to a Pearl harbor style blow. Not necessarily catastrophic, but temporarily crippling. No specific examples in mind, just my paranoid ramblings...
"Ah, is there any wine so sweet and intoxicating as the tears of a hippie?"-Tamara, View From the Porch

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2012, 11:07:27 AM »
HEU for commercial power is uneconomical, as the fuel cost skyrockets.  The extended refueling interval benefit albeit at high cost, is only feasible for systems where the refuel,Inc cost in time and money (cutting open a sub) is extremely high.  Additionally, naval reactors must use very esoteric fuel forms to obtain the burnup levels required for useof HEU fuel (see also, MIT research reactor, which runs on bomb grade fuel).

So no, not more efficient to run civilian power reactors on HEU.

Interesting. Got a resource handy regarding the costs of enriching past 4%? As you stated earlier, the difficulty (and presumably cost) drops off at the 20% mark, so I'm curious that if you take the enrichment all the way up to 90-95% the much longer "burn" time in the reactor (ie. the cost of all the refueling shut downs that would be avoided over the span of 20-30 years) would counterbalance the initial additional cost of going from 4 to 20%.

Also, how much plutonium would be produced and could the spent fuel be directly reprocessed into MOX for subsequent re-use?


ETA: Also is it possible to create a dual-fuel breeder/MOX reactor that burns U-238, and then can have the spent rods processed and plugged back in, in order to get the most "bang-for-the-buck"?

ETA Again: I just want to state that I'm under no illusions that Iran is going for the bomb. Just wanted to play devil's advocate a bit, plus I'm genuinely curious about nuke power. I was slated to go to nuke school but got my orders canceled at MEPS when we found out I've got a slight red/green color vision deficit.  =(
« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 11:13:59 AM by kgbsquirrel »

birdman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,831
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2012, 11:09:24 AM »
Basically, DS, I know more about this topic than 99% of people IN THE FIELD, and more than 99.999% of the population in general, am a recognized expert on advanced nuclear systems, work with both defense and civilian groups in the field, have multiple degrees in the subject from the #1 university in the world in the subject, and am hired by people to answer the hard questions on the topic when other 'experts' have failed.  I've worked on everything from low enriched PWR/BWR designs, have actually USED with my own hands research reactors using HEU all the way up to 90% fuel, designed personally reactors using both low-LEU, 20%, and HEU fuels for naval, spacecraft, and terrestrial research, isotope production, and power uses, and have worked on counter proliferation designs.

I can tell you flat out, in my,  guess "somewhat" educated opinion, the real goal of the infrastructure they have created is a WEAPONS program, everything else is window dressing.

So we can continue to argue, if you'd like, but it will be embarrassing for you.  I'll cite original sources, high level textbooks, and actual experience, you will cite news sources.  Everyone in the conversation will realize you are simply arguing yourself deeper into a hole,many making an ass out of yourself in the process, not to mention showing ignorance, while I try to educate.  I don't kow if you find that fun in some way, but I don't like seeing incorrect thoughts promulgated under the guise of facts, and thus must respond, which is wastes a substantial amount of my valuable time, just to prevent other more open minded folks from accepting your uneducated opinions as facts.

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2012, 11:11:48 AM »
I defer to your superior knowledge. I still have concerns, though, that the combination of intelligence lapses/bias and a black swan event (sudden enemy tech leap) might leave us vulnerable to a Pearl harbor style blow. Not necessarily catastrophic, but temporarily crippling. No specific examples in mind, just my paranoid ramblings...

I get where you're coming from. I still have faith in our bubble-heads, if not the people ordering them around.  =D  If a newly built Iranian nuke boat put to sea I'm fairly certain there would be a Virginia or Seawolf tailing them just to make sure they didn't try anything funny.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,413
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #22 on: October 21, 2012, 11:13:43 AM »
Basically, DS, I know more about this topic than 99% of people IN THE FIELD, and more than 99.999% of the population in general, am a recognized expert on advanced nuclear systems, work with both defense and civilian groups in the field, have multiple degrees in the subject from the #1 university in the world in the subject, and am hired by people to answer the hard questions on the topic when other 'experts' have failed.  I've worked on everything from low enriched PWR/BWR designs, have actually USED with my own hands research reactors using HEU all the way up to 90% fuel, designed personally reactors using both low-LEU, 20%, and HEU fuels for naval, spacecraft, and terrestrial research, isotope production, and power uses, and have worked on counter proliferation designs.

I can tell you flat out, in my,  guess "somewhat" educated opinion, the real goal of the infrastructure they have created is a WEAPONS program, everything else is window dressing.

So we can continue to argue, if you'd like, but it will be embarrassing for you.  I'll cite original sources, high level textbooks, and actual experience, you will cite news sources.  Everyone in the conversation will realize you are simply arguing yourself deeper into a hole,many making an ass out of yourself in the process, not to mention showing ignorance, while I try to educate.  I don't kow if you find that fun in some way, but I don't like seeing incorrect thoughts promulgated under the guise of facts, and thus must respond, which is wastes a substantial amount of my valuable time, just to prevent other more open minded folks from accepting your uneducated opinions as facts.


Oh, you're just getting all wee-wee-ed up about Iran.

"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

birdman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,831
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2012, 11:31:43 AM »
Interesting. Got a resource handy regarding the costs of enriching past 4%? As you stated earlier, the difficulty (and presumably cost) drops off at the 20% mark, so I'm curious that if you take the enrichment all the way up to 90-95% the much longer "burn" time in the reactor (ie. the cost of all the refueling shut downs that would be avoided over the span of 20-30 years) would counterbalance the initial additional cost of going from 4 to 20%.

Also, how much plutonium would be produced and could the spent fuel be directly reprocessed into MOX for subsequent re-use?


ETA: Also is it possible to create a dual-fuel breeder/MOX reactor that burns U-238, and then can have the spent rods processed and plugged back in, in order to get the most "bang-for-the-buck"?

ETA Again: I just want to state that I'm under no illusions that Iran is going for the bomb. Just wanted to play devil's advocate a bit, plus I'm genuinely curious about nuke power. I was slated to go to nuke school but got my orders canceled at MEPS when we found out I've got a slight red/green color vision deficit.  =(

Here you go for the formulae:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Separative_work_unit

And the results:
To turn natural into 4% requires 6.6 SEU to yield 1kg of 4% for every 7.6kg put in.
Natural to 90% is ~230 SEU to make 1kg of 90%
Natural to 20% is ~46 SEU to make 1kg of 20%
20% to 90% is ~20 SEU to make 1kg of 20%. (since this requires 4.5kg of 20% as feed, the total is ~210SEU)

What this means is it costs 40x as much to make 90% as it does normal 4% fuel.

The other MORE IMPORTANT fact is to make 1kg of 90%, making the 4.5kg of 20% means that YOU HAVE ALREADY EXPENDED 90% of the effort required to go all the way.

So put it this way, let's say you need 100kg of 90% for your evil project.  You would need about 18,000kg of natural uranium.

So to avoid "being the bad guy" until it's too late, you build centrifuges capable of 20,000 SEU/year, and at first make 450kg of 20% "research reactor fuel"... That takes a whole year, but you are still "a nice country, not making a bomb".
Now, secretly, you simply TURN SOME VALVES ELECTRONICALLY on your centrifuge plant, which unless you know which way the valves are pointing, and can crawl all over the schematic and physical nature of the pant to see what pipes go where no one can tell you did, and VOILA, that same facility can turn your 450kg of "LEU" 20% into 100kg of 90% bomb grade material in LESS THAN 5 WEEKS!!!

THAT is why, to quote our current VP, it is a "big f-ing deal"--any enrichment facility capable of creating hundreds to thousands of kilograms of 20%/year is EASILY CAPABLE of turning that into bomb material in a very short time, with little way of outsiders detecting the change...or even insiders, unless they assay the output.

If you were just making PWR 4% fuel, the above facility would be able to make 2400kg of PWR fuel per year..,enough to fuel a VERY large (for lets say, Iran) power plant, or make enough "medical isotopes" for many many bombs.

Like I said, the only reason to make more than a few 100's of Kg of 20% is to make a bomb.

As for breeders, for power, LEU startup/MOX burn breeders are THE most efficient way of using uranium to make power (or plutonium for that matter).

Sorry to hear about not getting nuke school, but a red/green deficit even if minor is a disqualifier since there are many times green is "okay" and red is "oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die"
« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 11:36:33 AM by birdman »

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: Is this an October Surprise?
« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2012, 11:44:14 AM »
Sorry to hear about not getting nuke school, but a red/green deficit even if minor is a disqualifier since there are many times green is "okay" and red is "oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die"

Thing is, I can see red and green just fine. It's only under a very specific low-light circumstance that an un-illuminated red or green surface will appear brown. And that's how I ended up in crypto school instead. (funny thing, after going to the fleet, one of my jobs on look-out was spotting red or green lights, never had trouble with that)