VT Nuke Education: Thorium Warnings

15
3

gg_009

By Jeff Smith, Science Editor

There have been recent discussions about thorium as a source of power or for use in weapons systems. I have some experience working with Thorium.

  1. Too costly to use, over 1 million dollars per kilogram to produce. It can only be artificially made like Plutonium and you cant make enough of it to keep up with demand if commercially used.
  2. Radiation safety issues. Too hot to use in standard glove boxes. More toxic.
  3. Used in fast breeder reactors only.
  4. If U-233 is mixed with U-232 it is unstable. Can go bang.
  5. Thorium reduces reactor thermal output by up to 30 % so it is to inefficient for commercial thermal power reactor use as compared with a standard uranium fed light water thermal reactor.
  6. Thorium breads too much U-232/233 causing a toxic waste problem.
  7. U-233 if is used in a reactor it can undergo a positive K fast neutron reaction so it can go bang like Chernobyl did. So you don’t want to use.

The moral of the story; if it worked better everybody would be using it.

Thorium

Uranium 233 by Gordon Duff

Archived Reads 0
SHARE
Previous articleDavid Crowley, Army Veteran and Gray State Movie Director and Family Found Dead
Next articleAmerican Sniper Mythology and Other Tales of Horror
Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War. He is a disabled veteran and has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades.

Gordon is an accredited diplomat and is generally accepted as one of the top global intelligence specialists. He manages the world's largest private intelligence organization and regularly consults with governments challenged by security issues.

Gordon Duff has traveled extensively, is published around the world and is a regular guest on TV and radio in more than "several" countries. He is also a trained chef, wine enthusiast, avid motorcyclist and gunsmith specializing in historical weapons and restoration. Business experience and interests are in energy and defense technology.

Visit Gordon Duff's YouTube Channel

Comments Closed

15 COMMENTS

  1. Nuclear power is horrifically expensive; only government subsidies allow it to LOOK at all cost effective on paper. The power plants were only given a working “safe” lifespan of 20 years, and almost all (or maybe it IS ALL) are past that now. They are WEAPONS, folks. Every single one sits on the confluence of two or more tectonic plates, aka “fault lines”! I THINK Fukushima is on something like five – or might be three. Regardless, every single ONE is capable of rendering HUGE areas deadly radioactive.

    There was a huge underground storage area for used fuel rods (and that’s ANOTHER story-the fuel pellets in fuel rods could be used in another type of reactor, going back and forth until they ARE safe. This is called “the full fuel cycle”, and our government refused to allow it to be used!) Anyway, there are a couple of ways to safely (as possible, anyway) store used fuel rods, but instead they are dumped into “cooling pools” that MUST be maintained at the correct levels and temperature lest they melt down, catch fire – not sure if explosion is possible – and send huge plumes of radioactive smoke into the air, much like Fukushima has done. Lastly, our government has “persuaded” the Japanese government to lie to the world, their own people included, about how bad it really is. Radiation levels or much higher than reported and have been all long. The spread of radiation into the air AND the sea is also much worse, and I understand the Pacific Ocean is dying.

  2. …..might want to read up a bit on how President Nixon screwed up (listened to the MIC) and at a fork in the road regarding which type of Nuke Energy to go with, picked the wrong fork.

    • Mr. Duff was kind enough to pull an article with answers for this(thx Gordon). But now what I am wondering about is, what alternative material(s) might do the trick, minus the debilitating effects?

  3. “The moral of the story; if it worked better everybody would be using it”-Jeff Smith

    My questions are then-

    Can you give an example where this material been used in a real life experiment?

    What was the intent that it was utilized for?

    Was it’s unique properties beneficial, or ultimately destructive in terms of the reasons it was used?

    Do we need to give fair use notice to MARVEL for mentioning the topic of Thor?

    • @ John

      It should be obvious that no one would post ad hominem attacks against himself.

      Someone didn’t like the fact that I disputed the statements in the article. Instead of posting a reply or deleting my comments, someone substituted “Martin Maloney is a troll.” and “I am a fool.” for my original texts.

      The same thing will happen to this comment. However, between now and then, a few people will read this comment, and they will figure out what is going on.

      There’s an irony here. I was a fool; I initially believed that VT had been hacked. Instead, it was an inside job.

  4. Key person in Boston Bombing case.

    Came across this update, don’t know how true it is, but worth a check.

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 21, was the victim of an “unfortunate accident” yesterday at Ft. Devens Detention Center in Massachusetts, just weeks after his high-profile trial began, according to warden Paul Jacobson. Slipped on a banana peel and got permanent brain damage

Comments are closed.