So why isn't the media reporting on this?
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...r-thorium.html

All i see are celebrities, politics, doom/gloom stories on the front page of popular news media like cnn, newsweek, yahoo, etc.

They never seem to care about important advances in science and technology that can have a huge impact on our world.

Because that stuff does not make ratings. Doom, gloom and gunfire do that.

Thorium? What is that? Is it radioactive? Can it kill me faster than the latest flu?

Most folks are interested in which team wins the pennant. Many trust the government. Too bad.

232TH is not fissile in itself however it is commonly used as a fertile material to make 233U, which can serve as a nice fuel for a power reactor (breeder reactor).

Here is a linky if people want to read a little more about TH reactors

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_fuel/thorium_fuel.php

Bottom line: This technology is well worth investigating and when the obstacles are overcome it may become viable.

One of the disadvantages is that it opens up another window for proliferation.

If its as awesome as the article suggests, don't expect it anytime soon. Our politicians who can push for such things were bought and paid for awhile ago by special interests.

The media is to blame for the "bad times" we are in now.

Unless you inhale or ingest it it can really harm you. It only emits Alpha Radiation which does not penetrate skin. ;)

Although I agree with Platapus; I would really worry about someone taking Thorium in a powdered form and sticking it in say a pipe bomb.

Actually, I think it's the public to blame as we seem to think that everything we see in print and in glowing lights on our TVs is true, and have therefore relegated our opinion forming to the talking heads whom we can most closely relate to upon first glance.

QFT :yep:

I had never even heard of the stuff. Quite scary that in the energy debate this doesn't warrant attention. Great find there in the UK Telegraph by V.C. Sniper. :up:

I agree, this stuff could be rather useful. :up:

Knowledge is power and the mass media is a distributor of knowledge, but right now it seems they are mishandling it big time.

I think there needs to be a reform with how the mass media prioritize their stories. Replace all the unimportant politics, celebrity, and sports news on the front page with big science and technology articles (the politics, celebrity, and sports articles would go into their respective news section without covering up the front page).

That way more ppl would be exposed to the important advances in science and technology that could move society forward (right now nobody knows what Thorium is, or even fusion), and therefore more support would be placed on those technologies/science, which might speed up progress towards some sort of commercialization/mass production of those technologies. [big long sentence but watever its the internet]

What makes you think this is not garnering any attention?

People who work in the nuclear industry have know about this for decades. This is only "new" to the general public which would probably not understand much about it.

Do not think that just because an issue is not in the popular press that people don't know about it.

This has gotten a lot of attention in Norway. Both from media and politicians.

The thing with thorium is that it self offers no revolution in nuclear technology, the Americans even tested it for use in reactors in the 50s, but concluded that Uranium was a better choice of material. Indian uses thorium in their reactors, but mainly for energy dependency issues not because its safer or more economical.

The Rubbia reactor which is really the thing that is discussed in this article(many journalist get confused) is revolutionary in it self by being an accelerator driven reactor(external source of neutrons), thus in theory safer. But when I say in theory it is to underline the fact that Chernobyl had no meltdown, but rather an heat explosion spreading radioactive material. There is nothing to prevent some human error from overloading the Rubbia reactor as well.

The the third thing is that the Rubbia reactor needs 10-20 years of development and thus must compete against other hypothetical designs in a R&D perspective. And they can be just as awesome and safe.

Having talked to prof. Lillestøl myself I must say that my enthusiasm for the Rubbia reactor was just like the journalist portrays it. But several years later and having discussed it with professors and friends I have reached the conclution that this reactor is little more than one of several different suggestions for the future nuclear industry, and I leave it to them and their scientists to decide which is the best design, and no one has yet opted for the Rubbia reactor.

Now a fusion reactor that would be something! :D

There are several different fusion reactor designs allready in the works, from tokomaks to laser fusion, for nuclear energy nerds the next few decades should bring quite a few interesting developments and I wouldnt be too surprised if we had practical, first generation, fusion reactors going online.