Thorium - safe nuclear power

[Bandit72]

Short, fascinating documentary at link:

http://www.motherboard.tv/2011/11/9/mot ... rium-dream

Alex Pasternack of Motherboard.tv produced a documentary with Hugo Perez about the thorium movement. He says:

The disaster at Fukushima drew attention once again to the perils of nuclear energy, and raised important questions about how its technology came to be. The Thorium Dream explores the passionate Internet-based movement in the United States behind an alternative nuclear fuel, thorium, and a supposedly safer, smaller reactor design that was born at the start of the atomic age and then forgotten. Its proponents say the technology could forever end our energy and resource problems, while solving the safety, proliferation and waste issues, and they're determined to bring it to the U.S. before other countries do -- or before other forces manage to keep the idea stuck in the bin of fringe curiosities.

I've watched this now, good documentary. I am a firm believer that only nuclear (or some other tech of that scale) can really save us now. Thorium could have been an alternative, but is too embryonic. In the end it's all about making money. I think the real money will be made in battery research. It's not about oil/hydrogen/electric, it's about energy density. If you can get a battery the size of a petrol tank and make it last 1000 miles then its a done deal.

[Hokahey]

Woah, hold on. I did not introduce the word "political." Did I say that the documentary was political in nature? Since you brought up politics, I have to ask myself if you are politically partisan. Am I not aware that you've more or less pledged your political fealty to Ron Paul, and to the greater idea of libertarianism? Let's be honest. So, since we're now being honest guys, it's fairly safe to assume that if the scientific ideas in this documentary were framed in a pro-libertarian manner, or endorsed by leading figures of said movement, you'd naturally be more receptive. You can't throw your hat in with a political ideology, then claim political neutrality.

More absolute nonsense. Have you been up late drinking a lot lately? I like Ron Paul because he is most closely aligned with my particular ideas. I'm not part of any particular movement, but I most identify with Libertarians.

Now, you say I'd naturally be more receptive if the documentary were to be "pro-libertarian." That's a major assumption on your part and essentially calls me a liar that I don't like documentaries presented with a slant. I've watched documentaries in the past that I whole heartedly agreed with the filmmaker, but disliked the blatant dishonesty at times of not presenting a very legitimate counter argument that exists or obscuring facts. I meant what I said, regardless of which direction the slant goes.

So, since you've written the documentary off, sight unseen, as something most likely to be politically biased, yet you yourself profess political bias, where exactly have I crossed the line in reporting to you that it is a documentary from a scientific perspective, not a political perspective, with one relevant political perspective being that of libertarianism, the ideology of which you've repeatedly espoused? Further, if I am to reflect honestly upon incidents where libertarian dogma has clashed with scientific findings, how am I not to suspect that the issue here is not whether the science is politicized, but whether it might be counter to the specific politics of libertarianism?

In general, I've written off documentaries in general that may have a bias. It's a terrible trend and has turned me off of many films.

I make my statement as a general denouncement of many modern documentaries and how it makes me leary to watch one which MAY have a slant (call it a scietntific documetary all you want, but if you don't think nuclear energy is a political issue with varying opinions in regards to it's safety I have a bridge to sell you in brooklyn), and you take it as a personal affront. Get over yourself.

[Hype]

One way to solve this dilemm would be to actually just check this documentary out. If you don't like it, you don't like it, but at least then you can say you tried.
Jasper is not a stupid guy. Even if his insinuations piss you off, he might still be recommending something well worth watching.

[Larry B.]

In general, I've written off documentaries in general that may have a bias.

A bias or a bias different from yours?

[Jasper]

Woah, hold on. I did not introduce the word "political." Did I say that the documentary was political in nature? Since you brought up politics, I have to ask myself if you are politically partisan. Am I not aware that you've more or less pledged your political fealty to Ron Paul, and to the greater idea of libertarianism? Let's be honest. So, since we're now being honest guys, it's fairly safe to assume that if the scientific ideas in this documentary were framed in a pro-libertarian manner, or endorsed by leading figures of said movement, you'd naturally be more receptive. You can't throw your hat in with a political ideology, then claim political neutrality.

More absolute nonsense. Have you been up late drinking a lot lately? I like Ron Paul because he is most closely aligned with my particular ideas. I'm not part of any particular movement, but I most identify with Libertarians.

Now, you say I'd naturally be more receptive if the documentary were to be "pro-libertarian." That's a major assumption on your part and essentially calls me a liar that I don't like documentaries presented with a slant. I've watched documentaries in the past that I whole heartedly agreed with the filmmaker, but disliked the blatant dishonesty at times of not presenting a very legitimate counter argument that exists or obscuring facts. I meant what I said, regardless of which direction the slant goes.

So, since you've written the documentary off, sight unseen, as something most likely to be politically biased, yet you yourself profess political bias, where exactly have I crossed the line in reporting to you that it is a documentary from a scientific perspective, not a political perspective, with one relevant political perspective being that of libertarianism, the ideology of which you've repeatedly espoused? Further, if I am to reflect honestly upon incidents where libertarian dogma has clashed with scientific findings, how am I not to suspect that the issue here is not whether the science is politicized, but whether it might be counter to the specific politics of libertarianism?

In general, I've written off documentaries in general that may have a bias. It's a terrible trend and has turned me off of many films.

I make my statement as a general denouncement of many modern documentaries and how it makes me leary to watch one which MAY have a slant (call it a scietntific documetary all you want, but if you don't think nuclear energy is a political issue with varying opinions in regards to it's safety I have a bridge to sell you in brooklyn), and you take it as a personal affront. Get over yourself.

All I did was tell people about an interesting documentary about good potential alternative source of nuclear power. If you don't want to know about it, then just forget that it was ever mentioned anywhere by anyone. You decided to shit on it without seeing it, so I think you get over yourself. You claim it MUST be a political issue, so I guess in your mind that's a reason not to learn about something if you might hear any kind of opinions expressed. Personally, I like to hear experienced physicists give their opinions on whether or not a complex process may be a viable technology. If you don't think making nuclear power plants safer and addressing the problem of waste storage is important, than I don't think I can really communicate with you at all anyways, so all of this typing is just a waste of time.

[Jasper]

In general, I've written off documentaries in general that may have a bias.

A bias or a bias different from yours?

Long story short, issues of safety and environment are involved, and who, historically, has an issue with that sort of thing?

[Hokahey]

For the love of Pete. I just made a comment about documentaries nowadays always seeming to have an agenda and avoiding presenting all of the facts so as interested as I was I'd probably avoid watching it. Somehow that has something to do with Ron Paul and scientific method blah blah blah

[Hype]

For the love of Pete. I just made a comment about documentaries nowadays always seeming to have an agenda and avoiding presenting all of the facts so as interested as I was I'd probably avoid watching it. Somehow that has something to do with Ron Paul and scientific method blah blah blah

You've been painted with a broad brush. You can extricate yourself from it by flouting expectations.

[ellis]

I brought up articles about thorium as an energy source years ago on the xiola.org site.

I'm hipster like that!

[creep]

i discovered thorium.

[Hype]

I AM THORIUM.

[Larry B.]

[Hype]

Swing and a miss.