Superfuel: Thorium, the Green Energy ...

Superfuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future

There are 49 comments on the www.foreignaffairs.com story from May 22, 2012, titled Superfuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future. In it, www.foreignaffairs.com reports that:

"... thorium is a far superior reactor fuel because it is less radioactive and more abundant than uranium and also produces much less waste...

Last year’s tsunami-induced nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, raised concerns about the safety of high-pressure water-cooled nuclear reactors and cast doubt on the future of nuclear power.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.foreignaffairs.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#42 May 24, 2012
BDV wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, I don't understand why arsenic/ gallium/ thallium-related death is better than radiation-related death?
Please kindly illuminate us.
I'll light a candle.
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#43 May 24, 2012
How illuminating. Indeed, the only thing available should troubling visions like yours prevail.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#44 May 24, 2012
BDV wrote:
How illuminating. Indeed, the only thing available should troubling visions like yours prevail.
I guess someone you know, perhaps your whole family, suffer from "solar panel syndrome?"
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#45 May 24, 2012
booring ... Anything beyond insults?
Dan

Upton, NY

#46 May 25, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
I have to assume you derive income from the nuclear power industy; or perhaps an institution that derives income from the nuclear-industry controlled (revolving door) DOE; such as Brookhaven National Laboratory, or Las Alamos.... NO?
Where else would a Health physicist derive their income from? You are just as sharp as an eraser!
I currently work at a national lab although we do basic energy science research. I support accelerators used to make radiopharmecuticals and probe the building blocks of matter. We also do PET scan studues to evaluate brain function as well as a host of other things none related to nuclear power. I have however also worked in commercial as well as Navy nuclear power in the past. I do support its use, however I also support a diversified energy portfolio that includes all the traditional "green energy" innitiatives.
WITH THAT SAID WHAT DOES WHO I WORK FOR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW RADIATION INTERACTS WITH MATERIAL INCLUDING HUMANS. The answer: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!! It is quite obvious that you neither have the intelligence nor the vocabulary to converse in this area yet I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and have the conversation anyway. So you retort with "Interesting" and then try to attack my knowledge about radiation protection by intimating I am a schill for nuclear power. The only way you will ever learn anything new is if it already fits into your preconceived notion of the world. If not it is all lies to you and even if the truth bit you in the ass you would deny it. GROW UP!!!!

“KONA, baby!”

Since: Jul 08

Jacksonville, FL

#47 May 25, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Where else would a Health physicist derive their income from? You are just as sharp as an eraser!
I currently work at a national lab although we do basic energy science research. I support accelerators used to make radiopharmecuticals and probe the building blocks of matter. We also do PET scan studues to evaluate brain function as well as a host of other things none related to nuclear power. I have however also worked in commercial as well as Navy nuclear power in the past. I do support its use, however I also support a diversified energy portfolio that includes all the traditional "green energy" innitiatives.
WITH THAT SAID WHAT DOES WHO I WORK FOR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW RADIATION INTERACTS WITH MATERIAL INCLUDING HUMANS. The answer: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!! It is quite obvious that you neither have the intelligence nor the vocabulary to converse in this area yet I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and have the conversation anyway. So you retort with "Interesting" and then try to attack my knowledge about radiation protection by intimating I am a schill for nuclear power. The only way you will ever learn anything new is if it already fits into your preconceived notion of the world. If not it is all lies to you and even if the truth bit you in the ass you would deny it. GROW UP!!!!
Boom! Damn, Mr. Bill, is your ass hurting from that whooping?

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#48 May 26, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Where else would a Health physicist derive their income from? You are just as sharp as an eraser!
I currently work at a national lab although we do basic energy science research. I support accelerators used to make radiopharmecuticals and probe the building blocks of matter. We also do PET scan studues to evaluate brain function as well as a host of other things none related to nuclear power. I have however also worked in commercial as well as Navy nuclear power in the past. I do support its use, however I also support a diversified energy portfolio that includes all the traditional "green energy" innitiatives.
WITH THAT SAID WHAT DOES WHO I WORK FOR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW RADIATION INTERACTS WITH MATERIAL INCLUDING HUMANS. The answer: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!! It is quite obvious that you neither have the intelligence nor the vocabulary to converse in this area yet I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and have the conversation anyway. So you retort with "Interesting" and then try to attack my knowledge about radiation protection by intimating I am a schill for nuclear power. The only way you will ever learn anything new is if it already fits into your preconceived notion of the world. If not it is all lies to you and even if the truth bit you in the ass you would deny it. GROW UP!!!!
Just like the paid lab clerks who call themselves "secintists" when they deny the existance of GLOBAL WARMING, you are a person with a strong self-interest in the nuclear industry; and therefore part of the REVOLVING DOOR of shame.

My 'notions' will remain until they are replaced with truer notions.

That's science, my friend.

Nuclear Power in inherently unsafe, dangerous, and will always be PANDORA'S BOX. In some applications (military) it can be safer, and more dangerous at the same time.

Remeber this: the platitudes of the nuclear industry do not work on the cold hard world of facts.

When I can buy a home insurance policy which protects my investment in my house against nuclear power industry "incedents" I shall begin to listen to you.
Dan

Upton, NY

#49 May 29, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuclear Power in inherently unsafe, dangerous, and will always be PANDORA'S BOX. In some applications (military) it can be safer, and more dangerous at the same time.
In two sentences you validated what I said concerning your lack of knowledge on the subject.
When someone challenges you to a debate you try to shift subjects, that is what people do who have preconceived ideas based on emotional responses. You like to use the words scientific fact but everything you spew is conjecture and opinion and based not on science fact. You want to debate me on the interactions of radiation with living tissue, bring it on!!! Somehow I feel you will just try and change the subject again. You are a coward and as shown above not that intelligent of one either!!!!!!!!

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#50 May 30, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
In two sentences you validated what I said concerning your lack of knowledge on the subject.
When someone challenges you to a debate you try to shift subjects, that is what people do who have preconceived ideas based on emotional responses. You like to use the words scientific fact but everything you spew is conjecture and opinion and based not on science fact. You want to debate me on the interactions of radiation with living tissue, bring it on!!! Somehow I feel you will just try and change the subject again. You are a coward and as shown above not that intelligent of one either!!!!!!!!
My point is just that, nuclear power today is inherantly unsafe.

I know little just yet about furistic Thorium reactors, our subject; and am open and willing to listen.

But it is you who "...shifts subjects..." claiming otherwise, and defending uranium based technology.

* Terrorism and nuclear accidents are not "...emotional responses..."

* If you are maintaining that Gamma radiation, or radioactive particles are not dangerous you are wrong.

* If you are maintaining that people living or working near a reactor that suffers a major release would ever get their lives back, or even subatantial recompense, you are wrong.

* If you are maintainiing that a Japan or Ukraine type incedent can never happen here, you are wrong; because it ccould never happen there, and it has.

* If you want to argue "...interactions of radiation with living tissue..." then please argue to the hibakusha and their families, and not with me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Nuclear Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News PG&E reaches green energy goals early, but hurd... 10 hr Solarman 1
News Arizona Republican outdoes California with 'con... Tue Solarman 1
News 100% renewable energy worldwide isn't just poss... Feb 9 Solarman 3
News Utility mega-deal threatens renewable energy gr... Feb 7 Solarman 7
News The future of nuclear power? Think small, look ... Feb 3 Solarman 1
News It's time to go nuclear in the fight against cl... Jan 28 BDV 5
News Georgia, Facing 'Difficult Dilemma,' Keeps Nucl... Jan 28 BDV 2
More from around the web