Edit:22 Update 2: Experts warned Fukushima of tsunami threat 2 years ago.

Page 52 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Unfortunately most of Japan is siesmic.

Well, with a thorium reactor type, the only thing that would happen would be that it would shut down, even if there was a great leak, it would be fully comparable to living next door to a radon insulated home.

Not even IN the home...

We need more of thorium to get rid of more waste from uranium reactors and besides, there is enough thorium to last us forever, yes, forever as far as we know.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
Glad its not just me then, and looks like I am not the only one having communication issues with Alky. I don't know why he flies off the handle when someone dares to reply to him/her/wtf.

This is an OT forum, lighten up Alky! I was trying to give you the benefit as you stated having family in/from Japan, so this issue hits close to home. You seem to think only you are entitled to an opinion, or that yours supersedes all others for some reason.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Glad its not just me then, and looks like I am not the only one having communication issues with Alky. I don't know why he flies off the handle when someone dares to reply to him/her/wtf.

This is an OT forum, lighten up Alky! I was trying to give you the benefit as you stated having family in/from Japan, so this issue hits close to home. You seem to think only you are entitled to an opinion, or that yours supersedes all others for some reason.

hmmm, dude, you are the one all emotional about stuff.

You are indeed posting opinions, that is the problem. This is about facts...not 'could have / should have' ideas.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
I have seen thorium mentioned before in several places. Anyone know of good primer for a non nuclear physicist to learn more about the basic pros and cons of the technology? Will try to find something in the meantime, but last time I tried looking up nuclear stuff google returned me right to the ATOT forum thread I jumped off at. :biggrin:

EDIT: Found this: http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Thorium_based_nuclear_energy
 
Last edited:

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Trolling doesn't have anything to do with right or wrong. You are right in this case, in fact you are often right I find. It's still trolling the way you go about it though. :p

yeah unless you give a "reach-around" everyone gets upset it seems.

I simply cannot handle ignorance and the fact that those that have no freaking clue about their own lives try and speak on global issues and science.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
hmmm, dude, you are the one all emotional about stuff.

You are indeed posting opinions, that is the problem. This is about facts...not 'could have / should have' ideas.

Well, here is an opinion of yours from a page or two back:

Let's focus the 'war effort' on a global scale to stopping this later day issue.

Everyone wins.

Are you the only one allowed to have an opinion or something? What the hell man, lighten up!
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I have seen thorium mentioned before in several places. Anyone know of good primer for a non nuclear physicist to learn more about the basic pros and cons of the technology? Will try to find something in the meantime, but last time I tried looking up nuclear stuff google returned me right to the ATOT forum thread I jumped off at. :biggrin:

EDIT: Found this: http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Thorium_based_nuclear_energy

I just have to say that that is a horrible source of information, but if you search for thorium reacor technology you will find much more useful links on that, especially how used uranium can be worked into the process and make already used waste into something that will eventually become pretty harmless over 100 years.

It's quite interesting if you keep reading up on it.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I have seen thorium mentioned before in several places. Anyone know of good primer for a non nuclear physicist to learn more about the basic pros and cons of the technology? Will try to find something in the meantime, but last time I tried looking up nuclear stuff google returned me right to the ATOT forum thread I jumped off at. :biggrin:

EDIT: Found this: http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Thorium_based_nuclear_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium would be the place to start, there is a ton on it there. As well as 50+ references to go deeper.

As a non-scientist, there isn't much more you'd understand. Any discussion of this and other majorly scientific topics quickly turn into 'the way the average joe thinks it would work' with the real scientists getting laughed off the forum.

There are several deeply scientific forums out there. Most are not so easy to post too.

If you are still in college you may be able to get access to some that are really good though.

Being you can't even use google though says a lot.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium would be the place to start, there is a ton on it there. As well as 50+ references to go deeper.

As a non-scientist, there isn't much more you'd understand. Any discussion of this and other majorly scientific topics quickly turn into 'the way the average joe thinks it would work' with the real scientists getting laughed off the forum.

There are several deeply scientific forums out there. Most are not so easy to post too.

If you are still in college you may be able to get access to some that are really good though.

Being you can't even use google though says a lot.

I disagree, the technology is easily explained on the whole and no one needs any formal education to understand how it works with that simple explanation, it's harder to explain how spent uranium will be used in the process but still not harder than when an environmentalist tries to explain solar cells.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Well, here is an opinion of yours from a page or two back:



Are you the only one allowed to have an opinion or something? What the hell man, lighten up!

That was not an opinion, do you have a doubt that if those countries at war focused on disasters like these they'd not resolve faster?

You really need to drop it, whatever tantrum you are having isn't contributing.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I disagree, the technology is easily explained on the whole and no one needs any formal education to understand how it works with that simple explanation, it's harder to explain how spent uranium will be used in the process but still not harder than when an environmentalist tries to explain solar cells.

Hence the wiki link. Yes, almost anything is easily broken out in layman's terms...understanding at that level though has nothing to really understanding the technology/science behind it.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Well, with a thorium reactor type, the only thing that would happen would be that it would shut down, even if there was a great leak, it would be fully comparable to living next door to a radon insulated home.

Not even IN the home...

We need more of thorium to get rid of more waste from uranium reactors and besides, there is enough thorium to last us forever, yes, forever as far as we know.

Thorium by-products are still very dangerous. This whole idea that you have of it is what's being protrayed...that if things did leak that practically a baby could swim in it.

Also Thorium reactions need to be triggered. That is where a lot of the danger can still occur.

There is no doubt that better technologies happen. It's been meantioned everywhere. The problem is you can't just unplug one reactor and plug a new one in.

That is the Catch-22.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
That was not an opinion, do you have a doubt that if those countries at war focused on disasters like these they'd not resolve faster?

You really need to drop it, whatever tantrum you are having isn't contributing.

*sigh* *count to ten*

Look, I asked you, very kindly and sincerely, how the war issue correlates to ending the nuclear problem in Japan, to which you threw a tantrum about help vs. money or something. I even took the time to quote the post sequence, and you still haven't answered. I encourage anyone to go look at the posts, I am not going to take the time to do so again.

You make the most hypocritical and ironic posts of anyone. I'm done wasting my time trying to have a thread discussion with you. I even called you on some of your attempted putdowns to provide examples, and you can't.

Go ahead, have the last word. I'm done.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Thorium by-products are still very dangerous. This whole idea that you have of it is what's being protrayed...that if things did leak that practically a baby could swim in it.

Also Thorium reactions need to be triggered. That is where a lot of the danger can still occur.

There is no doubt that better technologies happen. It's been meantioned everywhere. The problem is you can't just unplug one reactor and plug a new one in.

That is the Catch-22.

OK, let's get clear on one thing here, by very dangerous you mean 100 year dangerous compared to 100 000 year dangerous as of today, 100 years in regular storage is nothing, you can store shit 100 years in a led cap in your garage if you'd want to.

The triggered reaction either starts or it doesn't, if it doesn't nothing happens, if it starts the reactions starts, if something goes wrong the reaction just stops.

I don't get how that would be a problem and heh... YES WE CAN! you can actually just use any reactor with small modifications as a thorium reactor with uranium help, making the lot of the waste 1000x less radioactive... isn't THAT sweet?
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I didn't throw a tantrum. I clearly stated and you have proven that you simply do not understand.

I am not sure what your last line means? I have already requested you to butt out many times yet you keep coming back. You should read your own signature for advice.

lolz.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Much like an earthquake isn't the whole earth shaking.

As much as i dislike the little twat, he's right.

A tsunaimi is nothing like a tidal wave, not in cause and not in action in any way, sort or form other than that it is a wave.

You'll have to concede to this one and you should fucking know better.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
OK, let's get clear on one thing here, by very dangerous you mean 100 year dangerous compared to 100 000 year dangerous as of today, 100 years in regular storage is nothing, you can store shit 100 years in a led cap in your garage if you'd want to.

The triggered reaction either starts or it doesn't, if it doesn't nothing happens, if it starts the reactions starts, if something goes wrong the reaction just stops.

I don't get how that would be a problem and heh... YES WE CAN! you can actually just use any reactor with small modifications as a thorium reactor with uranium help, making the lot of the waste 1000x less radioactive... isn't THAT sweet?

It's more than 100 years and the other is much less than 100k years.

The debate isn't so much a better option which you and most are simply not understanding. It's how to you make the switch? How do you explain that you really can't store Thorium just in a garage like you and many believe?

That's where it falls apart. It's still a dangerous technology and those looking to profit from it are getting it out into the media as the new safe fuel.

It's not a new technology though and much of the reasons the world went with uranium and plutonium was due to also wanting missiles.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
As much as i dislike the little twat, he's right.

A tsunaimi is nothing like a tidal wave, not in cause and not in action in any way, sort or form other than that it is a wave.

You'll have to concede to this one and you should fucking know better.

We are speaking in layman's terms here. Even the news will refer to a Tsunami as a "tidal wave" hence my reference to our tidal waves and the fact that what happened to Japan could happen right here. Florida nor Louisana are not really prepared at all should a tidal wave/tsunami hit their reactors either.

Most people don't realize how big waves can get a few miles off shore.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,137
12,457
136
As much as i dislike the little twat, he's right.

A tsunaimi is nothing like a tidal wave, not in cause and not in action in any way, sort or form other than that it is a wave.

You'll have to concede to this one and you should fucking know better.

Unfortunately, tsunami waves are also incorrectly called "tidal waves."
Although it's an incorrect term because tsunami waves have little to do with the tide, (except to perhaps make things worse if they hit at high tide) it's just a part of the vocabulary...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami

"...and at one time incorrectly referred to as a tidal wave..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_wave

"The term tidal wave may refer to:

* A tidal bore, which is a large movement of water formed by the funnelling of the incoming tide into a river or narrow bay
* A storm surge, or tidal surge, which can cause waves that breach flood defences
* A tsunami also called tidal wave, or harbor wave, although this usage is not favored by the scientific community due to tsunamis not being tidal.
* A Megatsunami, which is an informal term to describe a tsunami that has initial wave heights that are much larger than normal tsunamis."

I don't defend the incorrect use of "tidal wave" for a tsunami wave, but, right or wrong, it is still widely used as such.