- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadAeroplanes are proven technology...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_disadvantages
Wikipedia suggests otherwise. It lists lots of countries doing research and development. Why 'research and development' if it is already proven technology?
Doesn't mean that people have stopped doing research on aeroplanes.
The working experimental reactors were built in the 50s~60s...
Proved the technology works, but probably need some updating.
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeBut oddly enough, they stopped working on them in the 60s. Why was that?
The working experimental reactors were built in the 50s~60s...
Proved the technology works, but probably need some updating.
I have heard that it was simply politics, but others have claimed it is not that simple.
As you can see here:
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/118859-scary-details-of-south-africas-secret-russian-nuke-deal.html
politics often does get heavily involved with nuclear, more so than with most other power industries.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadMolten salt thorium reactors are a solution to how to generate lots of
But oddly enough, they stopped working on them in the 60s. Why was that?
I have heard that it was simply politics, but others have claimed it is not that simple.
As you can see here:
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/118859-scary-details-of-south-africas-secret-russian-nuke-deal.html
politics often does get heavily involved with nuclear, more so than with most other power industries.
electricity for civilian use safely.
What they wanted at the time was a way to power nuclear submarines
and make materiel for nuclear weapons.
Pressurised Water Reactors were the solution to the Nuclear Submarine
problem, and they basically just scaled those designs up for civilian
power.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI will read over this later... But while it doesn't mean that what they say here isn't true...
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/the-mythologies-of-thorium-and-uranium/blog/48625/
Greenpeace lies about nuclear power ALL the time.
I studied physics and have an interest in nuclear power, and read quite a bit of their stuff
where they were obviously and plainly flat out lying about known facts.
So I am not prepared to take Greenpeace's word on anything nuclear related.
14 Feb 15
3 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeyes, and I for one have noticed that. The problem is, just like with the so called "friends of the Earth", because much of what they say is just all lies, on the few rare occasions they say something that is true, many people would just assume it is just another lie. Then if you, who isn't someone that believes their many lies, says that one truth, many people assumes you are just another crackpot Greenpeace/'friends of the Earth' supporter because you agree with them on that one thing thus you and cannot be taken seriously and it is just another lie. Its a bit like crying wolf too often except it is not you but someone else that keeps crying wolf that makes you disbelieved. For this reason, friends of the Earth should really keep their mouths shut about global warming because many people, albeit mainly from the less rational proportion of the human population, would automatically assume there is no global warming just because they, friends of the Earth, say there is.
Greenpeace lies about nuclear power ALL the time.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadYeah, I know that pain.
OK, I believe you on that one. The problem is, governments lie too, and so does industry, so who is someone like me to believe when we do not have training in nuclear technology?
If only we had an unbiased news media capable of analysing the facts and
applying rational methods for determining as best as possible what the truth
is... Sadly we don't.
I'm not sure I actually have a good answer to that one...
I'm not sure there is any way out other than investigate the issue yourself,
but it's not possible, let alone practical to do that for every important issue
we face.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudge"If only we had an unbiased news media capable of analysing the facts and
Yeah, I know that pain.
If only we had an unbiased news media capable of analysing the facts and
applying rational methods for determining as best as possible what the truth
is... Sadly we don't.
I'm not sure I actually have a good answer to that one...
I'm not sure there is any way out other than investigate the issue yourself,
but it's not possible, let alone practical to do that for every important issue
we face.
applying rational methods for determining as best as possible what the truth
is... Sadly we don't."
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Are you sure you want to take that position?
Originally posted by Metal BrainThen you are delusional. googlefudge or anyone else here merely pointing out that the news media is often biased doesn't imply "conspiracy theory". We scientists generally would NOT believe there is some kind of mass "conspiracy" in the news media. The distinction in meaning here between "conspiracy theory" and "biased" here in this narrow context being that "conspiracy theory" would require the whole or almost the whole news media to be deliberately biased to saying the same falsehood knowing that the falsehood is a falsehood i.e. deliberately lying and consistently all saying the same lie. I am sure few people but you would believe that here. Someone can be biased and inadvertently saying a falsehood without necessarily believing he is being biased or saying a falsehood.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainOnly if I believed that they were all working together to deliberately mislead people.
"If only we had an unbiased news media capable of analysing the facts and
applying rational methods for determining as best as possible what the truth
is... Sadly we don't."
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Are you sure you want to take that position?
Mainly it's incompetence rather than malign intent.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeLet me get this straight. For many years NBC was owned mostly by General Electric and despite GEs business in nuclear NBC showed incompetence when reporting nuclear? Maybe GE cannot build a safe power plant but I'm sure they would not let NBC discourage nuclear power when it is GEs business.
Only if I believed that they were all working together to deliberately mislead people.
Mainly it's incompetence rather than malign intent.
Tell me, what specifically is the corporate news media saying that is untrue or biased against nuclear power?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainI live in the UK, we don't get NBC here.
Let me get this straight. For many years NBC was owned mostly by General Electric and despite GEs business in nuclear NBC showed incompetence when reporting nuclear? Maybe GE cannot build a safe power plant but I'm sure they would not let NBC discourage nuclear power when it is GEs business.
Tell me, what specifically is the corporate news media saying that is untrue or biased against nuclear power?
I don't know the quality of their reporting.
However what you just highlighted is a potential bias, the news organisation
was owned by a company that builds/runs nuclear power plants.
Twhitehead was asking me about how you can get reliable unbiased information
that you can trust without becoming an expert in the subject and don't trust
the industry [for whatever reason].
Thus the question is less about accuracy and about trustworthiness.
The reporting can be perfectly accurate, but unless there is a mechanism which
twitehead can rely on to ensure that that reporting IS accurate he is not in a
position to tell if it is accurate.
That is the problem.
There has been plenty of reporting on the topic that is accurate [probably more that
isn't] but there is no strong mechanism that ensures that reporting is true and accurate
and thus it's like a game of "He said/She said" and you can't tell who, if anyone to trust.
Similarly with politicians.
They don't all lie, quite often they care about and tell the truth, but we lack the mechanisms
to reliably ensure that this is so and thus we can't just trust them because they also often
lie and or distort the truth [often unwittingly, again incompetence rather than intent].
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyPay attention to this sentence in that article in the link you posted:
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-nasa-science-york-city-climate.html
"Whether the majority of the cause is anthropogenic or natural, the end result is indisputable"
It is nice to know that the writer of the article does not take sides on this issue. The author does not claim it is anthropogenic. Do you read these articles you post?