ScribbleLive

Future cancers from Fukushima plant may be hidden www.google.com

Video link below is MIA... I have it in my personal files, sorry its unsharable.

The poor lady worried that an infection on her daughter's arm is a radiation burn from Fukushima fallout just posted a reply she got from Leuren Moret www.youtube.com In sight of this distraught women wrongfully worried to tears over nonexistent levels of fallout, this is what Moret said: "I would not be surprised if it is radiation burns, but it could also be something that was in the chemtrails - did you notice if there were chemtrails overhead during that week?"

Around the Fukushima plant, a world left behind www.washingtonpost.com

Hi all just came to say hi away in campervan having fun enjoyed reading posts

I just retreated a Kevin tweet not got simply on phone was hoping one of you would pick it up

@lillymunster I went through the painstaking, 2-hour-long Thorium remix video clip. If that is Mr Sorensen's best attempt to «sell» his technology to investors, I don't think he has a future in the business. However, he was smart enough to avoid a few facts. He forgets to mention that the technology he supports has never been effectively tested. He mentions that the breeder reactors can use thorium as nuclear fuel but forgets to mention that breeder reactors are still in a prototype phase and that there are certain issues that haven't been resolved yet, such as safety issues and energy efficiency issues (the breeder reactor prototypes can't produce the energy theoretically predicted). He also forgets to mention that the first prototype thorium reactor ever built (back in the 60s in the USA) took 40 to decommission due to the high toxicity and radioactivity of the nuclear waste products. He also forgets to mention that breeder reactors have a maximum life span of only 30 years and are far more expensive to build and maintain than pressurized heavy water reactors. The decommissioning of such reactors is far more expensive than and takes about 3 to 4 times longer to achieve. And finally, he forgets to mention that the extraction of thorium is several times more expensive than the extraction of uranium. He also lies about the fact that thorium reserves will never run out... the most recent studies suggest the actual reserves would be completely depleted in not more than 1,000 years. That doesn't seem very sustainable to me, on the long run.

@lillymunster There is a big confusion around the thorium reactor affair. Most breeder prototype reactors can use thorium as a nuclear fuel, but thorium is still not cost effective. It could become a viable solution when uranium reserves are depleted which won't happen for the next century at 2008's consumption rate (which is bound to go down anyway since some countries will pull out of nuclear in the next couple of decades). These guys who support thorium reactors (the new technologies that Mr Sorensen is talking about) are only after easy money from investors. There is no reason to believe the technology will work. Breeder III and IV Generation reactors are still under research and the outcome of the current research projects around the world hasn't been very satisfactory so far, prompting most countries to abandon the projects and decommission
the prototype reactors.

@lillymunster Uranium and Plutonium never come out of the picture because they are produced along thorium's decay chain, only the isotopes are different from those present in other sustained chain reactions. And the proposed thorium reactor design needs a start up to start the chain reaction so some energy is consumed in the first place to start the reaction, and every time you need to stop and restart you will have to consume energy in the process. The design is not so efficient as Mr Sorensen portrays. And not as safe either.

In my opinion, if there is any future in nuclear energy, this is it: www.iter.org

@bo Olá, boa noite.