Don't focus on what stupid/ignorant people think. They can be managed.
That's just it. They can be. But only to a certain point. Never underestimate the destructive potential of stupid people in large numbers.
As to "claiming it's entirely safe". Sorry, but there's no such thing. Not for ANY power generation technology. And anyone telling you otherwise is feeding you a line.
This is what sound engineering is for. Minimizing risk.
Did the nuclear reactor MAKE the nincompoops running TEPCO decide to cut corners and install too short of a sea wall?
And, again, the earthquake was over a hundred miles from Fukushima. It didn't damage any of the reactors, but those that were active were put into shutdown immediately. The tsunami is what swamped the generators and doomed the facility.
And a 9.0 earthquake is NOT a "routine event". It's one of the most destructive forces on the planet. It's the equivalent of setting off a 480 MEGATON bomb. The largest nuke mankind has ever set off was 50 megatons. So strap 9 of those bad boys together and that's what you're trying to engineer against.
Ask an actual engineer about the logistics of building for something like that.
Actually the Fukushima reactor DID survive the earthquake. Mainly because it wasn't under the epicenter. Had it been sitting on the epicenter there's pretty much NOTHING that could have saved it. It was nearly 110 miles from the epicenter.
What Fukushima did NOT survive was the TSUNAMI. And, had the sea wall been built as their engineers had suggested, it's entirely possible that the facility COULD have shut down gracefully. But the sea wall had been built shorter, despite evidence from the engineers that it should be built higher. Therefore the tsunami topped the wall and flooded the generators. A day later the battery backups ran out and...POOF.
40 years ago there were people just like you saying how perfectly safe nuclear power is.
No, 40 years ago, people (but not like me) were saying how perfectly safe it is.
Because they were relying on complex rube-goldberg devices that were supposed to anticipate any and every problem that could come up in a solid fuel reactor and deal with it. We all know how well that works when you throw something it was NOT designed to handle at it.
The reason MSRs are a better technology is that they're actually relying on very SIMPLE engineering principles to generate safety. You remove the fuel from the reactor chamber, via simple gravity feed. The reaction shuts down. Done. Sure, you have to clean up your dump and fill tanks after an event. but you are never in a situation where loss of power leads to a runaway reactor and high pressure steam blowing things up.
I'm not saying nuclear is "safe". There's no such THING as "safe". But coal isn't safe. Oil isn't safe. Natural gas isn't safe. Wind isn't safe. Wave isn't safe. Solar isn't safe. Hydro isn't safe. All of them come with their own risks and tradeoffs.
The reason we have the shitty nuclear infrastructure we have now is some jackass politicoes (not scientists and engineers) essentially PICKED a winner 50-ish years ago because they had a budding industry, and wanted to protect it.
It is entirely reasonable for normal people to believe in the principle of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."
If that's all that was happening, that'd be fine.
Self-righteous technocratic arrogance is a pretty strong predictor for failure.
Only to people who don't know what they're talking about. The whole notion that someone's too smart and therefore arrogant and therefore bound for a fall. It's a very popular luddite meme. But that's all it is. A meme.
If you want to undo the damage done by your idealogical fore-bearers then the last thing you should be doing is calling people stupid because, in the entire history of mankind, that has never even once been a successful argument.
Sorry, but political correctness isn't going to help this situation. All it does is hand idiots a bunch of tools to use to shut down useful discussion because, somehow, they twist it around into offense.
I'm not saying you have to LIKE what I'm saying. Nor do you have to AGREE with what I'm saying.
But, if you ACTUALLY think the way forward is with wind, wave, hydro and solar backed by minimal/no non-renewables like coal/oil/NG, as opposed to nuclear, backed by solar, wind, wave and hydro? You're an idiot with no grasp of the actual power requirements for this country going into the next several centuries. An idiot who is hell-bent creating an artificial (and totally unnecessary) scarcity of the most costly possible power.
In the face of something like that, I refuse to "make nice".
Actually, had the seawall been built to proper specs, there's every possibility that the onsite generators would NOT have been swamped and Fukushima could have shut down in a controlled manner.
No. Fukushima was a study in human stupidity. Real engineers had warned them the sea walls weren't high enough. They ignored it. TEPCO has had a history of stupid decisions like this, and it pretty much ALWAYS comes back to bite them in the ass, Godzilla-style.
As for the molten salt design.
Uhm. You know the molten salt design is essentially a double-hulled containment vessel that's not running under pressure. In the event of a loss of power to the cooling device (a fan/blower keeping a plug of salt cold and solid, it drains the fuel out of the reactor vessel, in a gravity-fed situation, and into a dump tank, away from the catalyst.
This immediately kills the reaction.
And, if the line to the dump tank is somehow compromised, the fuel merely spills into the outer hull of the reactor vessel.
Also, steel melts around 1300C. If you put in plumbing of sufficiently large gauge, in a dump tank reactor flush, the fuel is already cooling off as it hits the pipe, and doesn't spend long enough in there to heat the plumbing to sufficiently dangerous levels.
So. Exactly how do we have a "radioactive disaster"?
You have two scenarios. Both of which wind up requiring you to pump the fuel back into the reactor vessel after re-plugging it. The messier of the two options requires some cleanup of a reactor vessel interior which was never open to the outside world anyhow.
The thing is, the realities of Chernobyl and Fukushima are the realities of ancient, outdated equipment, bad design and unsound engineering. Oh, and human stupidity in playing with dangerous things.
The fact is, we can build reactors that don't blow up NOW.
But people are so conditioned to nuclear = BOMB! that a bunch of know-nothing, luddite politicians and cronies are never going to let it happen.
All because stupid people are scared and conditioned to outbreed smart people.
Yes. You can burn U233 in another reactor. You also use some of it in the fissile core of the LFTR.
While you COULD, technically, build a bomb out of U233, the product is the hard radiation coming off it. It makes working with the product difficult (and therefore *extremely* costly). Joe Schmuck The Terrorist would die of radiation poisoning before being able to actually build a bomb out of the stuff, were he able to get his hands on it.
It's possible you meant Thallium 208 (Historic Name: Thorium C, Half-Life: 3 minutes)?
There are two observationally stable byproducts at Tl203 and Tl205. The most stable of the remaining isotopes has a half-life of just under 4 years. Most of the rest are measured in hours, seconds and in some cases, milliseconds. So yes, it's very "hot". But it's extremely short-lived.
Thanks for pointing that out and also much appreciated about not being a dick about it.
No problem. I know how it is with "stream of consciousness typing".
I checked my notes at home and they were about Thallium 208. I agree, I want to learn more so I can have a reasoned and measured response. Unfortunately I see the nuclear mod trolls are out in force again.
Screw 'em.
I have nothing against this type of reactor technology, in principle however I'd like to know more about it's spent fuel byproducts and operational effluents. It is important to understand that if the halflife is three minutes and it's an energetic emmiter, how many daughter product iterations does it got through before it becomes stable an what is the rate of decay? That in itself may pose an even greater threat *because* if it is continually changing just how many micro-nutrient analogues does it present to biology? I'm not going to pretend I know the answer because I am still learning myself, however at least I know that's a question to ask. Another question about a Thorium fuel cycle to uncover is are we just making a new problem. Regardless of that, we still have problems with the Uranium based cycle and they all lead back to the same thing.
Up to this point, I've seen nothing really reported other "useful waste", like the aforementioned P238. Other by products are: xenon, neodymium (high-strength magnets), medical molybdenum-99, radiostrontium, zirconium, rhodium, ruthenium, and palladium. http://liquidfluoridethoriumre...
On the decay. I've seen it reported that around 83% of all radioactive by products from LFTR are stable within 10 years with the remaining 17% stable within 350 with no uranium or plutonium waste. http://liquidfluoridethoriumre...
The bottom line is that because this whole debate is so polarized, no one talks sense about it anymore. The irony is that if you took a rational look at both sides of the debate you would see that what the anti- and pro- nuclear lobby need is exactly the same thing.
I wouldn't say NOBODY talks any sense. But the ones who are get drowned out by the two rabid poles.
So let's get to the bottom of this whole pro- anti- nuclear bullshit right here.
Pro-Nuclears: want to have new reactor technology developed and deployed, old reactors desposed of responsibly. Is that a fair call?
Anti-nuclear: wants no Nuclear industry at all, but if it has to be there clean it up an make it safer. Is that a fair call?
The problem is, this is an over-simplification. And, thus, ROUNDLY incorrect.
It's a giant sliding scale with a nebulous median point.
On the pro nuke side, you have all manners of partisans. Each looking to push their own horse in the race. And LFTR (and myself for that matter) are little different.
On the anti-nuke side, you have groups of people with varying oppositions to nuclear. Anywhere from those who simply want a cleaner solution than today's mess, to those who'd rather see us go back to shivering and starving in caves than allow nuclear for ANYTHING (basically the ones who equate nuclear wi
Yes, we have to have a containment facility regardless.
Still, I'd rather have a containment facility for products that decay within the span of a human lifetime, rather than trying to deal with the logistics of designing a facility to "safely" house stuff for thousands of years.
It's possible you meant Thallium 208 (Historic Name: Thorium C, Half-Life: 3 minutes)?
There are two observationally stable byproducts at Tl203 and Tl205. The most stable of the remaining isotopes has a half-life of just under 4 years. Most of the rest are measured in hours, seconds and in some cases, milliseconds. So yes, it's very "hot". But it's extremely short-lived.
Okay, the tech has been demonstrated. It was initially used for a reactor that was part of an aircraft reactor experiment (which is why we know these things can be made compact). The "downside" is that the tech hasn't been fully explored since politics played a role in choosing solid fuel reactors as the "winning" tech back in the late 60's and early 70's. So there's some R&D that needs to be done on building modern, full-scale reactors and the processes needed to mass produce them.
Unfortunately the NRC is largely ignorant of the technology and needs to be shepherded along. Not to mention the ridiculous state of affairs in trying to do ANY work in the nuclear field in the US.
Okay, Thorium reactors also breed some highly radioactive byproducts. Now, the UPSIDE of this is, they're so "hot", that they decay down in a matter of days/weeks/months/years instead of "tens of thousands of years".
Yes, Thorium reactors also breed small amounts Plutonium. But it's Plutonium 238, which is a powerful alpha emitter, but it is NOT "weapons grade". And that's a GOOD THING. P238 is what NASA uses for nuclear batteries on satellites and deep space probes. And we, currently, can't get any more and making it in current solid fuel reactors is out of the question as the current method of generation starts with Uranium 238 (which CAN be used for breeding weapons-grade plutonium). NASA has basically said that if we aren't able to manufacture more P238, we're never getting beyond Mars.
The Thorium cycle DOES require a small amount of Uranium to kick-start the Thorium breeder cycle. After that, it produces it's own Uranium, but it's U232, which isn't suitable for weapons production. Basically U232 is a heavy gamma emitter. You COULD, conceivably build bombs out of it, but EVERYONE would know you're doing it WHILE you're doing it, inviting a missile strike or black ops bag team. Assuming they didn't let you just kill yourself from the gamma emissions and then clean up afterward.
T-Rex: "See! THAT'S how you do it! Make sure they can't run because they've just packed those "pants" things with a fear-spawned self-crapping! Now you try!"
*CHEEP!*
Hummingbird: "How'd I do? He still looks terrified. But I can't tell if that's me or you!"
It still doesn't change the fact that the types of Uranium currently used in existing nuclear power plants is orders of magnitude rarer than Thorium. Plus there's the problems of enrichment and weaponization.
In a Thorium reactor, you don't enrich Thorium. And any uranium bred in the reactor is unsuitable for bomb making.
Seriously. Listen to the linked audio. Thorium or whatnot will be more difficult to obtain and maintain than Uranium - creating new classes of super-expensive "conflict minerals" - rapidly exhausting sources as expensive, horrible wars are fought.
Yeah. That's flat out bullshit.
Thorium is several orders of magnitude more prevalent in the earth than Uranium. There are a number of fairly large rare-earth mines in the US that are shut down because they're bringing up too much Thorium. This is why China has a lock on rare earths right now. They don't give a shit WHAT they bring up, or what it does. People are cheap and unmonitored dumping is even cheaper.
Additionally, this is why China's got such a hard-on for LFTR
Also, the Thorium yearly tailings brought up by just a few US rare earths mines could power the entire energy needs of the country at current consumption levels for several YEARS.
So there's exactly ZERO "conflict materials" involved. Whoever dreamed this up must pay exactly zero attention to a thing we like to refer to as "reality".
Windows XP is basically going to cling to the bitter end. I expect we'll see small amounts of XP attrition up until July 2015 (when MSE stops support). After that we'll probably see a freefall.
As an IT worker, your job is to see that the company assets you are assigned are functional and delivering proper service to end users.
It is NOT your job to audit the company's books. It is NOT your job to Big Brother company e-mail (unless it is). It is NOT your job to run the company. It is NOT your job to set business policy for the company.
This is what they have financial wonks, sales wonks and managerial types for.
You never know when something you see "accidentally" is:
A) Blown out of proportion B) A test C) Misleading D) Legit
So going all "I've locked myself into the server room and am calling the police!" could be both wildly inappropriate AND career-ending.
Sure, you don't want to aid, nor abet immoral/criminal activity.
But it isn't your job to arbitrarily decide what that is!
Now, if the feds come knocking on your door, asking for data, go ahead! At that point, you're pretty much safe.
Until then, you're simply a disruptive influence to the company that needs to be let go.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't focus on what stupid/ignorant people think. They can be managed.
That's just it. They can be. But only to a certain point. Never underestimate the destructive potential of stupid people in large numbers.
As to "claiming it's entirely safe". Sorry, but there's no such thing. Not for ANY power generation technology.
And anyone telling you otherwise is feeding you a line.
This is what sound engineering is for. Minimizing risk.
Question.
Did the nuclear reactor MAKE the nincompoops running TEPCO decide to cut corners and install too short of a sea wall?
And, again, the earthquake was over a hundred miles from Fukushima. It didn't damage any of the reactors, but those that were active were put into shutdown immediately.
The tsunami is what swamped the generators and doomed the facility.
And a 9.0 earthquake is NOT a "routine event". It's one of the most destructive forces on the planet. It's the equivalent of setting off a 480 MEGATON bomb.
The largest nuke mankind has ever set off was 50 megatons. So strap 9 of those bad boys together and that's what you're trying to engineer against.
Ask an actual engineer about the logistics of building for something like that.
Actually the Fukushima reactor DID survive the earthquake. Mainly because it wasn't under the epicenter.
Had it been sitting on the epicenter there's pretty much NOTHING that could have saved it.
It was nearly 110 miles from the epicenter.
What Fukushima did NOT survive was the TSUNAMI. And, had the sea wall been built as their engineers had suggested, it's entirely possible that the facility COULD have shut down gracefully. But the sea wall had been built shorter, despite evidence from the engineers that it should be built higher. Therefore the tsunami topped the wall and flooded the generators. A day later the battery backups ran out and...POOF.
40 years ago there were people just like you saying how perfectly safe nuclear power is.
No, 40 years ago, people (but not like me) were saying how perfectly safe it is.
Because they were relying on complex rube-goldberg devices that were supposed to anticipate any and every problem that could come up in a solid fuel reactor and deal with it.
We all know how well that works when you throw something it was NOT designed to handle at it.
The reason MSRs are a better technology is that they're actually relying on very SIMPLE engineering principles to generate safety. You remove the fuel from the reactor chamber, via simple gravity feed. The reaction shuts down. Done. Sure, you have to clean up your dump and fill tanks after an event. but you are never in a situation where loss of power leads to a runaway reactor and high pressure steam blowing things up.
I'm not saying nuclear is "safe". There's no such THING as "safe". But coal isn't safe. Oil isn't safe. Natural gas isn't safe. Wind isn't safe. Wave isn't safe. Solar isn't safe. Hydro isn't safe. All of them come with their own risks and tradeoffs.
The reason we have the shitty nuclear infrastructure we have now is some jackass politicoes (not scientists and engineers) essentially PICKED a winner 50-ish years ago because they had a budding industry, and wanted to protect it.
It is entirely reasonable for normal people to believe in the principle of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."
If that's all that was happening, that'd be fine.
Self-righteous technocratic arrogance is a pretty strong predictor for failure.
Only to people who don't know what they're talking about. The whole notion that someone's too smart and therefore arrogant and therefore bound for a fall. It's a very popular luddite meme. But that's all it is. A meme.
If you want to undo the damage done by your idealogical fore-bearers then the last thing you should be doing is calling people stupid because, in the entire history of mankind, that has never even once been a successful argument.
Sorry, but political correctness isn't going to help this situation. All it does is hand idiots a bunch of tools to use to shut down useful discussion because, somehow, they twist it around into offense.
I'm not saying you have to LIKE what I'm saying. Nor do you have to AGREE with what I'm saying.
But, if you ACTUALLY think the way forward is with wind, wave, hydro and solar backed by minimal/no non-renewables like coal/oil/NG, as opposed to nuclear, backed by solar, wind, wave and hydro? You're an idiot with no grasp of the actual power requirements for this country going into the next several centuries. An idiot who is hell-bent creating an artificial (and totally unnecessary) scarcity of the most costly possible power.
In the face of something like that, I refuse to "make nice".
Actually, had the seawall been built to proper specs, there's every possibility that the onsite generators would NOT have been swamped and Fukushima could have shut down in a controlled manner.
No. Fukushima was a study in human stupidity.
Real engineers had warned them the sea walls weren't high enough.
They ignored it.
TEPCO has had a history of stupid decisions like this, and it pretty much ALWAYS comes back to bite them in the ass, Godzilla-style.
As for the molten salt design.
Uhm. You know the molten salt design is essentially a double-hulled containment vessel that's not running under pressure.
In the event of a loss of power to the cooling device (a fan/blower keeping a plug of salt cold and solid, it drains the fuel out of the reactor vessel, in a gravity-fed situation, and into a dump tank, away from the catalyst.
This immediately kills the reaction.
And, if the line to the dump tank is somehow compromised, the fuel merely spills into the outer hull of the reactor vessel.
Also, steel melts around 1300C. If you put in plumbing of sufficiently large gauge, in a dump tank reactor flush, the fuel is already cooling off as it hits the pipe, and doesn't spend long enough in there to heat the plumbing to sufficiently dangerous levels.
So. Exactly how do we have a "radioactive disaster"?
You have two scenarios. Both of which wind up requiring you to pump the fuel back into the reactor vessel after re-plugging it. The messier of the two options requires some cleanup of a reactor vessel interior which was never open to the outside world anyhow.
http://daryanenergyblog.files....
Good artists borrow. Great artists steal.
-- Pablo Picasso
That's assuming any of these morons actually have the faculties to understand actual intelligence and the factors that go into is measurement.
Otherwise, it'll wind up some stupid "if-then" matrix that tells you jack and shit about actual intelligence.
But all these dipshits will be dancing around going "I finded a smart goy! YAY ME!"
The thing is, the realities of Chernobyl and Fukushima are the realities of ancient, outdated equipment, bad design and unsound engineering. Oh, and human stupidity in playing with dangerous things.
The fact is, we can build reactors that don't blow up NOW.
But people are so conditioned to nuclear = BOMB! that a bunch of know-nothing, luddite politicians and cronies are never going to let it happen.
All because stupid people are scared and conditioned to outbreed smart people.
Well, if we're so detrimental, I accept your volunteering to off yourself to make a dent in the problem! ;-)
While an impressive tech display, it simply highlights why I don't trust fully automated driver systems, ESPECIALLY as the only control system.
Yes. You can burn U233 in another reactor. You also use some of it in the fissile core of the LFTR.
While you COULD, technically, build a bomb out of U233, the product is the hard radiation coming off it. It makes working with the product difficult (and therefore *extremely* costly). Joe Schmuck The Terrorist would die of radiation poisoning before being able to actually build a bomb out of the stuff, were he able to get his hands on it.
It's possible you meant Thallium 208 (Historic Name: Thorium C, Half-Life: 3 minutes)?
There are two observationally stable byproducts at Tl203 and Tl205.
The most stable of the remaining isotopes has a half-life of just under 4 years. Most of the rest are measured in hours, seconds and in some cases, milliseconds.
So yes, it's very "hot". But it's extremely short-lived.
Thanks for pointing that out and also much appreciated about not being a dick about it.
No problem. I know how it is with "stream of consciousness typing".
I checked my notes at home and they were about Thallium 208. I agree, I want to learn more so I can have a reasoned and measured response. Unfortunately I see the nuclear mod trolls are out in force again.
Screw 'em.
I have nothing against this type of reactor technology, in principle however I'd like to know more about it's spent fuel byproducts and operational effluents. It is important to understand that if the halflife is three minutes and it's an energetic emmiter, how many daughter product iterations does it got through before it becomes stable an what is the rate of decay? That in itself may pose an even greater threat *because* if it is continually changing just how many micro-nutrient analogues does it present to biology? I'm not going to pretend I know the answer because I am still learning myself, however at least I know that's a question to ask. Another question about a Thorium fuel cycle to uncover is are we just making a new problem. Regardless of that, we still have problems with the Uranium based cycle and they all lead back to the same thing.
At least for Thallium 208, it looks like it decays directly to Lead 208, also known, historically as Thorium D.
Up to this point, I've seen nothing really reported other "useful waste", like the aforementioned P238.
Other by products are: xenon, neodymium (high-strength magnets), medical molybdenum-99, radiostrontium, zirconium, rhodium, ruthenium, and palladium.
http://liquidfluoridethoriumre...
On the decay. I've seen it reported that around 83% of all radioactive by products from LFTR are stable within 10 years with the remaining 17% stable within 350 with no uranium or plutonium waste.
http://liquidfluoridethoriumre...
The bottom line is that because this whole debate is so polarized, no one talks sense about it anymore. The irony is that if you took a rational look at both sides of the debate you would see that what the anti- and pro- nuclear lobby need is exactly the same thing.
I wouldn't say NOBODY talks any sense. But the ones who are get drowned out by the two rabid poles.
So let's get to the bottom of this whole pro- anti- nuclear bullshit right here.
Pro-Nuclears: want to have new reactor technology developed and deployed, old reactors desposed of responsibly. Is that a fair call?
Anti-nuclear: wants no Nuclear industry at all, but if it has to be there clean it up an make it safer. Is that a fair call?
The problem is, this is an over-simplification. And, thus, ROUNDLY incorrect.
It's a giant sliding scale with a nebulous median point.
On the pro nuke side, you have all manners of partisans. Each looking to push their own horse in the race. And LFTR (and myself for that matter) are little different.
On the anti-nuke side, you have groups of people with varying oppositions to nuclear. Anywhere from those who simply want a cleaner solution than today's mess, to those who'd rather see us go back to shivering and starving in caves than allow nuclear for ANYTHING (basically the ones who equate nuclear wi
Also, hit SUBMIT before I added this portion.
Yes, we have to have a containment facility regardless.
Still, I'd rather have a containment facility for products that decay within the span of a human lifetime, rather than trying to deal with the logistics of designing a facility to "safely" house stuff for thousands of years.
Thallium 238?
You have any supporting material for this? Seriously, not being a dick. Looking for this info to better educate myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
It's possible you meant Thallium 208 (Historic Name: Thorium C, Half-Life: 3 minutes)?
There are two observationally stable byproducts at Tl203 and Tl205.
The most stable of the remaining isotopes has a half-life of just under 4 years. Most of the rest are measured in hours, seconds and in some cases, milliseconds.
So yes, it's very "hot". But it's extremely short-lived.
Not to mention the thousands of tons of Thorium they buried in Nevada because they didn't have any use for it.
Bingo!
Okay, the tech has been demonstrated. It was initially used for a reactor that was part of an aircraft reactor experiment (which is why we know these things can be made compact).
The "downside" is that the tech hasn't been fully explored since politics played a role in choosing solid fuel reactors as the "winning" tech back in the late 60's and early 70's. So there's some R&D that needs to be done on building modern, full-scale reactors and the processes needed to mass produce them.
Unfortunately the NRC is largely ignorant of the technology and needs to be shepherded along.
Not to mention the ridiculous state of affairs in trying to do ANY work in the nuclear field in the US.
Okay, Thorium reactors also breed some highly radioactive byproducts. Now, the UPSIDE of this is, they're so "hot", that they decay down in a matter of days/weeks/months/years instead of "tens of thousands of years".
Yes, Thorium reactors also breed small amounts Plutonium. But it's Plutonium 238, which is a powerful alpha emitter, but it is NOT "weapons grade". And that's a GOOD THING.
P238 is what NASA uses for nuclear batteries on satellites and deep space probes. And we, currently, can't get any more and making it in current solid fuel reactors is out of the question as the current method of generation starts with Uranium 238 (which CAN be used for breeding weapons-grade plutonium).
NASA has basically said that if we aren't able to manufacture more P238, we're never getting beyond Mars.
The Thorium cycle DOES require a small amount of Uranium to kick-start the Thorium breeder cycle. After that, it produces it's own Uranium, but it's U232, which isn't suitable for weapons production. Basically U232 is a heavy gamma emitter. You COULD, conceivably build bombs out of it, but EVERYONE would know you're doing it WHILE you're doing it, inviting a missile strike or black ops bag team. Assuming they didn't let you just kill yourself from the gamma emissions and then clean up afterward.
*ROAR!*
T-Rex: "See! THAT'S how you do it! Make sure they can't run because they've just packed those "pants" things with a fear-spawned self-crapping! Now you try!"
*CHEEP!*
Hummingbird: "How'd I do? He still looks terrified. But I can't tell if that's me or you!"
T-Rex: *SNIGGER* "Oh! It's you!" *SNERK* "Definitely you!"
It still doesn't change the fact that the types of Uranium currently used in existing nuclear power plants is orders of magnitude rarer than Thorium. Plus there's the problems of enrichment and weaponization.
In a Thorium reactor, you don't enrich Thorium. And any uranium bred in the reactor is unsuitable for bomb making.
Seriously. Listen to the linked audio. Thorium or whatnot will be more difficult to obtain and maintain than Uranium - creating new classes of super-expensive "conflict minerals" - rapidly exhausting sources as expensive, horrible wars are fought.
Yeah. That's flat out bullshit.
Thorium is several orders of magnitude more prevalent in the earth than Uranium. There are a number of fairly large rare-earth mines in the US that are shut down because they're bringing up too much Thorium. This is why China has a lock on rare earths right now. They don't give a shit WHAT they bring up, or what it does. People are cheap and unmonitored dumping is even cheaper.
Additionally, this is why China's got such a hard-on for LFTR
Also, the Thorium yearly tailings brought up by just a few US rare earths mines could power the entire energy needs of the country at current consumption levels for several YEARS.
So there's exactly ZERO "conflict materials" involved. Whoever dreamed this up must pay exactly zero attention to a thing we like to refer to as "reality".
Windows XP is basically going to cling to the bitter end. I expect we'll see small amounts of XP attrition up until July 2015 (when MSE stops support).
After that we'll probably see a freefall.
As an IT worker, your job is to see that the company assets you are assigned are functional and delivering proper service to end users.
It is NOT your job to audit the company's books.
It is NOT your job to Big Brother company e-mail (unless it is).
It is NOT your job to run the company.
It is NOT your job to set business policy for the company.
This is what they have financial wonks, sales wonks and managerial types for.
You never know when something you see "accidentally" is:
A) Blown out of proportion
B) A test
C) Misleading
D) Legit
So going all "I've locked myself into the server room and am calling the police!" could be both wildly inappropriate AND career-ending.
Sure, you don't want to aid, nor abet immoral/criminal activity.
But it isn't your job to arbitrarily decide what that is!
Now, if the feds come knocking on your door, asking for data, go ahead! At that point, you're pretty much safe.
Until then, you're simply a disruptive influence to the company that needs to be let go.
Snowden found a different job more important than the one he was doing. It was also his duty to report illegal activity. I think he did a great job.
Sure, but in the private sector, you don't have the luxury of exiling yourself to another country for the rest of your life and being seen as a hero.
So does Ebola and Militant Islam, if you wanna get right down to it.
All this effort, resources and real money being flushed down the drain for imaginary currency.
Whoever ACTUALLY coined the phrase attributed to P.T. Barnum was off by a factor of measurement at least.