To assume that this guy is right would mean that right as tens of billions of dollars of investments in new nuclear plants are only just beginning we will run out of the fuel they will use.
It's one of these "either this guy is wrong, or everyone else is wrong" scenarios. This guy isn't in the uranium mining industry. His series of 4 papers are clearly intended to say "nuclear power has no future", and he is attacking the amount of uranium reserves in that context, not as a scientist looking for truth but as a douche claiming an authority way outside his field.
(Looking at the comments section on that blog post now plenty of people have done better research on this guy and his theory than me)
Well no-one has put much effort into researching Thorium as a nuclear weapon material, but theoretical research does suggest that U233, a byproduct of Thorium decay, could have nuclear weapon applications.
"But no-one knows much about those proliferation applications!" Okay, but that has advantages and disadvantages. We know the proliferation risks regarding uranium so well that we know exactly what to look for when someone is trying to create a bomb with it.
Just because we know any risks regarding Thorium doesn't mean there aren't any, and we should research it to learn them.
However meanwhile we know Uranium, Uranium reactors, Uranium weapons manufacturing techniques inside out, and with anything nuclear-related ignorance should never be a source of comfort.
There are uranium reactors that have no application to a weapons program (and Iran refuses them, they want to enrich. wonder why.), and Thorium isn't without proliferation risks (U233 is a byproduct of the Thorium decay sequence and it has theoretical proliferation risks)
There is really nothing much to recommend Thorium over Uranium except that we know less about it.. We should research it, but throwing ourselves at Thorium at the expense of all the knowledge we've built up on Uranium reactors would be completely stupid. That's why no-one outside of tech-news-sites would take such a suggestion seriously.
And so lying to them that Thorium is so much safer than our dangerous Uranium based reactors, because we know so much less about the dangers, is supposed to help?
Uranium is also abundant and safe, but it's a lot better known than thorium. Thorium is promising, but there's no need for an alternative nuclear fuel at the moment (and probably won't be for a very long time). The nuclear fuel isn't what caused the Chernobyl disaster, it was the reactor, and huge amounts of research has been invested into new uranium based reactors with all sorts of properties making them safer and cheaper.
Thorium looks good and should be researched, but with nuclear fuel we're spoiled for choice. The idea that we need to find a new nuclear fuel for safety or cost reasons only damages the chance of people getting behind the fine technology we have/are-developing now.
Also does anyone know the copyright on these images? I'd like to upload them to the Wikipedia articles associated with each of these reactors, but they'd want copyright info naturally
I'd like to hear the details of this before I take it at face level. As much as I am opposed to Conroy and his barmy internet filters as an Australian I do also recognize that.com.au has different requirements than a.com domain, and still take stories like yours with a pinch of salt. Please back it up.
Anyway since me and the rest of us would be the ones to pay the police/insurance when you inevitably get ripped off because you had to transfer money via cash instead of electronically I'm quite happy with things the way they are. (i.e. Using your own money however you like, but not in a "hey everyone, please rob me!" kind of way)
Call your bank and tell them you want to transfer the money, so what are my options. There will be a way, and it'll be more secure than something stupid like taking 50,000 USD around. No "governmental or corporate" power required.
The weird thing is if you were allowed to carry around that kind of money and could make instant bank transfers of tens of thousands at the push of a button there'd be far more crime, and pleas for proper regulation. I'm actually kind of glad it takes a bit of effort to move $50,000 from my account to yours..
He wants all software to be open source, but has also recently said that without dual licensing MySQL cannot continue, admitting a GPL MySQL fork wouldn't go anywhere. That seems to be an inconsistency
Sorry, my responses in this thread were really responses to someone else putting forward a different argument. I just saw "Austrian economics" and my knee jerked, apologies.
If some guy talks about "Austrian engineering" proving that the WTC was brought down by "nano-thermite", but every engineer with any prestige on the planet disputes it, I don't need to have "infinite knowledge" to call bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
To assume that this guy is right would mean that right as tens of billions of dollars of investments in new nuclear plants are only just beginning we will run out of the fuel they will use.
It's one of these "either this guy is wrong, or everyone else is wrong" scenarios. This guy isn't in the uranium mining industry. His series of 4 papers are clearly intended to say "nuclear power has no future", and he is attacking the amount of uranium reserves in that context, not as a scientist looking for truth but as a douche claiming an authority way outside his field.
(Looking at the comments section on that blog post now plenty of people have done better research on this guy and his theory than me)
Well no-one has put much effort into researching Thorium as a nuclear weapon material, but theoretical research does suggest that U233, a byproduct of Thorium decay, could have nuclear weapon applications.
"But no-one knows much about those proliferation applications!" Okay, but that has advantages and disadvantages. We know the proliferation risks regarding uranium so well that we know exactly what to look for when someone is trying to create a bomb with it.
Just because we know any risks regarding Thorium doesn't mean there aren't any, and we should research it to learn them.
However meanwhile we know Uranium, Uranium reactors, Uranium weapons manufacturing techniques inside out, and with anything nuclear-related ignorance should never be a source of comfort.
Lots of things caused the disaster.. my point was it wasn't something inherent about Uranium..
There are uranium reactors that have no application to a weapons program (and Iran refuses them, they want to enrich. wonder why.), and Thorium isn't without proliferation risks (U233 is a byproduct of the Thorium decay sequence and it has theoretical proliferation risks)
There is really nothing much to recommend Thorium over Uranium except that we know less about it.. We should research it, but throwing ourselves at Thorium at the expense of all the knowledge we've built up on Uranium reactors would be completely stupid. That's why no-one outside of tech-news-sites would take such a suggestion seriously.
And so lying to them that Thorium is so much safer than our dangerous Uranium based reactors, because we know so much less about the dangers, is supposed to help?
Uranium is also abundant and safe, but it's a lot better known than thorium. Thorium is promising, but there's no need for an alternative nuclear fuel at the moment (and probably won't be for a very long time). The nuclear fuel isn't what caused the Chernobyl disaster, it was the reactor, and huge amounts of research has been invested into new uranium based reactors with all sorts of properties making them safer and cheaper.
Thorium looks good and should be researched, but with nuclear fuel we're spoiled for choice. The idea that we need to find a new nuclear fuel for safety or cost reasons only damages the chance of people getting behind the fine technology we have/are-developing now.
Also does anyone know the copyright on these images? I'd like to upload them to the Wikipedia articles associated with each of these reactors, but they'd want copyright info naturally
I had to have these for my background rotation, in case anyone else wants them too here are the JPGs from those PDFs:
http://kestas.kuliukas.com/NuclearReactors-Scaled.zip - Scaled to a little larger than desktop size, 90% quality (artifacts not noticeable) 6mb
http://kestas.kuliukas.com/NuclearReactors-Full.zip - Full size 100% quality 55mb (will take ~30 minutes)
I'd like to hear the details of this before I take it at face level. As much as I am opposed to Conroy and his barmy internet filters as an Australian I do also recognize that .com.au has different requirements than a .com domain, and still take stories like yours with a pinch of salt. Please back it up.
Would you?
Yay, your UID isn't half mine :-)
Get a new bank maybe? (And break your sentences up a bit)
Blah blah "the point"..
Anyway since me and the rest of us would be the ones to pay the police/insurance when you inevitably get ripped off because you had to transfer money via cash instead of electronically I'm quite happy with things the way they are. (i.e. Using your own money however you like, but not in a "hey everyone, please rob me!" kind of way)
How long does it take?
Above all else my money must be anonymous!
Call your bank and tell them you want to transfer the money, so what are my options. There will be a way, and it'll be more secure than something stupid like taking 50,000 USD around. No "governmental or corporate" power required.
The weird thing is if you were allowed to carry around that kind of money and could make instant bank transfers of tens of thousands at the push of a button there'd be far more crime, and pleas for proper regulation. I'm actually kind of glad it takes a bit of effort to move $50,000 from my account to yours..
Thanks for the link
Stallman is consistent about his beliefs.
He wants all software to be open source, but has also recently said that without dual licensing MySQL cannot continue, admitting a GPL MySQL fork wouldn't go anywhere. That seems to be an inconsistency
I'm sure nuclear armed nations are made aware of missile tests like these well in advance, either by surveillance or being informed directly
A wire shortage.. People can work up a fear about just about anything I think.
http://xkcd.com/605/
If it was an obscure comic or huge monster they'd know. :-(
"Run!! RINIKUSUUUUU~"
I could correct the inaccuracies in both your and GPs quotes, and I am not proud of it..
(I'm not saying I agree with you by the way, just that my responses weren't appropriate)
Sorry, my responses in this thread were really responses to someone else putting forward a different argument. I just saw "Austrian economics" and my knee jerked, apologies.
If some guy talks about "Austrian engineering" proving that the WTC was brought down by "nano-thermite", but every engineer with any prestige on the planet disputes it, I don't need to have "infinite knowledge" to call bullshit.