atomic holocausts?

[Johnnie Cake]

On 2/15/2017 at 7:16 PM, nuclearfuels said:

"It may be, for instance, that nothing except the power of faith and the authority of the priesthood can save individuals and congregations from the atomic holocausts that surely shall be. "

 April 1979 | Stand Independent above All Other Creatures - Bruce R. McConkie

Is this figurative?  

If not, anyone else think moving to the mountains in UT, CO, MT, ID might be a good idea?

 

 

Why do prophets look nuttier the more time that is put between them and their predictions?

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Shirley you jest? We have been holding it over the whole world for 60-70 years and the Russians to us. 

No, we built all the weapons as a detente against the Soviets. They also serve as a bulwark against the Chinese. In theory if another power gained a nuclear weapon and a delivery method we could also retaliate against them. Using them as a threat against ISIS (which is what Trump suggested) is silly. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario where ISIS is able to nuke us or throw chemical or bioweapons at us which are pretty much the only justifications that would justify nuclear retaliation. So for what reason is he considering using nukes against ISIS?

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Why do prophets look nuttier the more time that is put between them and their predictions?

Because more doubters have time to build a body of mockery.  Look at all the atheists mocking the idea of a Second Coming and those of us that believe in the man in the sky....they are making us all look crazy.  Until he returns.

[thesometimesaint]

On 2/17/2017 at 10:45 AM, RevTestament said:

True. Even one nuclear explosion can be viewed as a holocaust, and kill millions, poison a region etc. Let's suffice it to say the world is not going to end during Trump's presidency in a nuclear holocaust or prophecy would not be fulfilled. So we can drop the fear-mongering vis-a-vis:

"Unfortunately we have a President who believes that if we have them why can't we use them. So God is going to come back and save us all from our own folly?"

They wouldn't have been built if they weren't intended to be a feasible weapon. That is all Trump is talking about. What do you want him to say? - no we'll never use them. let's dismantle them? I don't think anyone believes they can start a nuclear war without grave consequences to themselves, so it will remain status quo - with the possible exception of terrorists who might try to make it look like another country attacking. 

Solar is not the answer. For one thing they are all getting produced over in China. Have you ever asked yourself why? Maybe they aren't so green after all - at least in their production. Plus it does nothing to help American jobs or trade deficit. It only makes it worse. Where are all those green jobs Obama promised? In China... Nor is solar the answer for large metropolitan areas in the east. Wind power is even a worse idea. At least you can get some solar every day. DC is actually a better power source for localized usage. It is so much more efficient that often our AC is converted to DC for use in motors etc around the home. So in this sense solar is good as well, but most people who have it don't use it for DC. There is a fusion startup that has a dream of manufacturing small fusion reactors capable of powering about 10,000 homes and businesses. That scale might be amenable to DC as well, and we could get rid of the wastes in AC power. 

A new Thorium power source would allow for smaller plants, and thus better energy recuperation. Uranium water plants are so expensive to build they must be built big in order to see any ROI. We actually had a working thorium MSR plant, but it just wasn't hooked up to any generator, so it is a technology we know can work if we solve some engineering problems to scale it up, but under Nixon it was abandoned because it couldn't be weaponized, and he was promising jobs to California. It is a much better fit for power production. We desperately need it. Wouldn't it be nice to get your power bill cut in half, while at the same time knowing your money is going to new American jobs with a much better and efficient technology? China is actually working on it as is India. Us - it seems we would rather continue enriching certain middle east countries intent on attacking us given the chance, and continuing to pump gobs of CO2 into the atmosphere while breathing polluted air.  

Why would you say that it won't happen? They are called Doom's Day Weapons for a reason. The only viable((If you want to call it that) option is in response to a nuclear attack. Do you remember the Mutually Assure Destruction Doctrine? Getting the fissile materials to make a nuclear bomb is harder than you think, and getting harder thanks to President Obama. Further each nuclear bomb has a unique signature that marks its country of origin. Any country allowing terrorists to get their hands on a nuclear bomb(or the materials to make one would be committing suicide. Yes we should dismantle every sing one of them. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaties, SALT, START, and the like mandates such. We've gone from over 50,000 nukes to about 4,000 nukes in my life time.

I never said solar was the only answer. No they are not all getting produced over in China. But we have allowed China to beat us at the Capitalist Game. China has its problems. Does that mean we should double down on their problems? How does that help us? BTW I have solar panels on my roof. Last month's electricity bill was $1.50, and it was a rainy overcast month. We're fast approaching the time of the year where the electric company owes me money. Solar employee's are the fastest growth employee's in the country and outnumber fossil fuel employee's. SEE https://jonathanturley.org/2017/01/25/report-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-all-fossil-fuel-industries-combined/comment-page-1/

Over relatively short transmission lengths DC is better. However. with individual electronic converters that isn't a problem for short distances like in a house. Plus DC still needs to be converted to AC so your electronics that depend on AC and wave signature to work properly. The single biggest cost in my system isn't the panels themselves, but the converter box. As I already said cutting my electric power bill in half wouldn't do me much good.   We as a country are addicted to fossil fuels. We can kick that addition in many ways. On a individual level we can limit our use of them through conservation, and producing more of our own energy.

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because more doubters have time to build a body of mockery.  Look at all the atheists mocking the idea of a Second Coming and those of us that believe in the man in the sky....they are making us all look crazy.  Until he returns.

I don't mock it. I eagerly await it. But have no desire to have another nuclear war to force him to come back.

 

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Why would you say that it won't happen? They are called Doom's Day Weapons for a reason. The only viable((If you want to call it that) option is in response to a nuclear attack. Do you remember the Mutually Assure Destruction Doctrine? Getting the fissile materials to make a nuclear bomb is harder than you think, and getting harder thanks to President Obama. Further each nuclear bomb has a unique signature that marks its country of origin. Any country allowing terrorists to get their hands on a nuclear bomb(or the materials to make one would be committing suicide.

I've explained why I don't believe the US will end in a nuclear holocaust - it doesn't comport with prophecy. 

Not getting harder "thanks to President Obama." Nope. Thanks to him we now have to keep an eye on Iran. Perhaps you didn't know that before him there was a secret hacking program to disable specific parts of Iran uranium enriching program. Obama essentially undid all that, and handed very dangerous technology over to a very unstable region. He is not my hero in this at all. Just the opposite. Further, rather than spend a dime on a very promising alternative nuclear technology we could share with Iran, he launched a failed "green energy" program. If we had spent all that money on thorium nuclear tech, we could probably be building some plants right now. Further, we are still stuck on sending billions of dollars to his favorite charity - the Muslim Middle East for oil which he claims to disapprove of.

Quote

I never said solar was the only answer. No they are not all getting produced over in China. But we have allowed China to beat us at the Capitalist Game. China has its problems. Does that mean we should double down on their problems? How does that help us? BTW I have solar panels on my roof. Last month's electricity bill was $1.50, and it was a rainy overcast month. We're fast approaching the time of the year where the electric company owes me money. Solar employee's are the fastest growth employee's in the country and outnumber fossil fuel employee's. SEE https://jonathanturley.org/2017/01/25/report-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-all-fossil-fuel-industries-combined/comment-page-1/

Over relatively short transmission lengths DC is better. However. with individual electronic converters that isn't a problem for short distances like in a house. Plus DC still needs to be converted to AC so your electronics that depend on AC and wave signature to work properly. The single biggest cost in my system isn't the panels themselves, but the converter box. As I already said cutting my electric power bill in half wouldn't do me much good.   We as a country are addicted to fossil fuels. We can kick that addition in many ways. On a individual level we can limit our use of them through conservation, and producing more of our own energy.

I am not anti-solar. It has very promising aspects - especially for the south regions of the US. It is not the solution right now for the heavily populated NE. It is not going to solve our energy needs by itself with our present technology. We need something else badly. As you have said, we need to kick our dependence on fossil fuels - esp our dependence on foreign sources. Thorium and solar would allow us to do that, while having enough fossil fuel for planes, and a few other things. While Thorium power is not perfect, it certainly promises to be much safer, cheaper, efficient, and more practical. We all need to pressure congress to fund it with a billion or so, so we can get a test plant built. What do you think?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I've explained why I don't believe the US will end in a nuclear holocaust - it doesn't comport with prophecy. 

Not getting harder "thanks to President Obama." Nope. Thanks to him we now have to keep an eye on Iran. Perhaps you didn't know that before him there was a secret hacking program to disable specific parts of Iran uranium enriching program. Obama essentially undid all that, and handed very dangerous technology over to a very unstable region. He is not my hero in this at all. Just the opposite. Further, rather than spend a dime on a very promising alternative nuclear technology we could share with Iran, he launched a failed "green energy" program. If we had spent all that money on thorium nuclear tech, we could probably be building some plants right now. Further, we are still stuck on sending billions of dollars to his favorite charity - the Muslim Middle East for oil which he claims to disapprove of.

I am not anti-solar. It has very promising aspects - especially for the south regions of the US. It is not the solution right now for the heavily populated NE. It is not going to solve our energy needs by itself with our present technology. We need something else badly. As you have said, we need to kick our dependence on fossil fuels - esp our dependence on foreign sources. Thorium and solar would allow us to do that, while having enough fossil fuel for planes, and a few other things. While Thorium power is not perfect, it certainly promises to be much safer, cheaper, efficient, and more practical. We all need to pressure congress to fund it with a billion or so, so we can get a test plant built. What do you think?

I don't have a problem with prophecy. I do have plenty of problems with some interpretations of it.

We've had to keep an eye on Iran since Eisenhower and the Atoms for Peace Program. When we overthrew its elected government and installed the Shah. Perhaps you are unaware that Iran eliminated much of it enriched material, centrifuges, and cemented in the plant that made it. We also have 24/7 monitoring of it. You really don't know what the heck you are talking about with respect to Iran. The technology of solar panels is from 1941. So it is well established. What we have missing is an economical way to produce them until now.  Thorium has limited potential, and we're still stuck with contamination, disposal, decommissioning issues, etc, etc, etc..

SEE https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

Germany is well ahead of the US in the use of solar/wind and its climate is far worse than all but Alaska.

SEE http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/08/germany-became-solar-superpower/

The US has all the internal energy sources it needs. All we have to have is the political will to do it.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Not getting harder "thanks to President Obama." Nope. Thanks to him we now have to keep an eye on Iran.

Yeah, before Obama we didn't have to watch Iran at all..........

Both Bushes and Clinton were just endlessly holding nuclear arms talks with them because they like nuclear arms talks for some reason.

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't have a problem with prophecy. I do have plenty of problems with some interpretations of it.

Are you saying my interpretation is wrong? I'd be happy to discuss it. The New Jerusalem comes before the gathering. It is a sign to the house of Israel. It is a beginning of the gathering of Israel. So it is quite soon and at the beginning of "the millennium." If you think that the US has a real danger of a nuclear holocaust, how do you reconcile that with this prophecy? How do Gentiles and Lamanites gather if they are destroyed?

Quote

We've had to keep an eye on Iran since Eisenhower and the Atoms for Peace Program. When we overthrew its elected government and installed the Shah. Perhaps you are unaware that Iran eliminated much of it enriched material, centrifuges, and cemented in the plant that made it. We also have 24/7 monitoring of it. You really don't know what the heck you are talking about with respect to Iran.

Spoken like a true liberal - you really don't have any idea what I know about Iran, but think you are so much smarter by supporting a president which hands uranium to them. Yeah, sure we have always had to keep an eye on them, but it wasn't an eye concerned with proliferation. We practically turned them into a nuclear power. But then you have this to say below about nuclear power:

Quote

The technology of solar panels is from 1941. So it is well established. What we have missing is an economical way to produce them until now.  Thorium has limited potential, and we're still stuck with contamination, disposal, decommissioning issues, etc, etc, etc..

SEE https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

Germany is well ahead of the US in the use of solar/wind and its climate is far worse than all but Alaska.

SEE http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/08/germany-became-solar-superpower/

The US has all the internal energy sources it needs. All we have to have is the political will to do it.

May I suggest you learn about thorium before saying things you know nothing about? Thorium has unlimited potential. We have enough thorium to power us for thousands of years, while eating up all our present nuclear waste we need to do something with, and replacing the outdated, dangerous, and inefficient uranium water cooled plants. With thorium we wouldn't even really need solar, although it would be useful to outlying areas, farmers etc. Your link concerns the problems of uranium water based plants - not thorium LFTR or MSR plants. Nuclear waste from a LFTR plant would be a fraction of what we now produce, and only has to be stored for about 300 years - not 10,000. It is not perfect - it is still radioactive, but any fission based plant is going to be. Perhaps at some point we can learn how to make fusion plants. In the mean time I see us heading on the same path. Solar is pretty much a pipe dream. It is limited by high cost of entry, and various practical considerations which is why it is only about 1% of our national power plan right now. We need to decommission uranium plants soon, and have nothing to replace them with except fossil fuels. It is a very short-sighted policy.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

May I suggest you learn about thorium before saying things you know nothing about? Thorium has unlimited potential. We have enough thorium to power us for thousands of years, while eating up all our present nuclear waste we need to do something with, and replacing the outdated, dangerous, and inefficient uranium water cooled plants. With thorium we wouldn't even really need solar, although it would be useful to outlying areas, farmers etc. Your link concerns the problems of uranium water based plants - not thorium LFTR or MSR plants. Nuclear waste from a LFTR plant would be a fraction of what we now produce, and only has to be stored for about 300 years - not 10,000. It is not perfect - it is still radioactive, but any fission based plant is going to be. Perhaps at some point we can learn how to make fusion plants. In the mean time I see us heading on the same path. Solar is pretty much a pipe dream. It is limited by high cost of entry, and various practical considerations which is why it is only about 1% of our national power plan right now. We need to decommission uranium plants soon, and have nothing to replace them with except fossil fuels. It is a very short-sighted policy.

Thorium is a fascinating idea and I would like to see steps taken to experiment more with the idea but it is unlikely to be a magic bullet that solves the energy question for several decades at least. If I remember right (last time I read up on this was about five years ago) no one has shown that the reprocessing required is feasible and fuel fabrication would be more expensive then in a traditional nuclear power plant.

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Thorium is a fascinating idea and I would like to see steps taken to experiment more with the idea but it is unlikely to be a magic bullet that solves the energy question for several decades at least. If I remember right (last time I read up on this was about five years ago) no one has shown that the reprocessing required is feasible and fuel fabrication would be more expensive then in a traditional nuclear power plant.

Actually, the initial fuel requires less processing than for traditional uranium plants, and the government already has a stockpile of unused U233 they want to get rid of which could be used to seed the reactors  Thorium itself is not reactive without getting hit with some neutrons. Further, using it would allow our rare earth miners to be able to recover more rare earths which we need for new battery technologies, etc. There are some thorium based plants which are useable now, but are not really feasible for large scale plants, and would not be as efficient as a full-scale LFTR or MSR plant. There are at least two of these at present - one of which is  designed by Thorecon. I believe Utah has approached Flibe with the possibility of building a plant to replace the Intermountain Plants which produce power for California since under Obama, California told them they would no longer pay for coal power after 2027 although that policy may change under Trump. These represent about a billion dollars of annual revenue to UT. India has built a plant which uses Thorium. It is brand new & I don't know the details of whether it uses molten salts or some other hybrid process.

Here is a link to a TED talk which mentions the Indian plant, and will teach a lot of basics.

 

[Calm]

I know some guys making arrangements to build a prototype.  Don't have a clue what their timeline is, but sounds real interesting.

[Anijen]

I hope it is figurative, I'll prepare as if it is literal.

Just my opinion, but if I live next to a target and I believe it is a literal prophecy, then moving might be wise. I f I believe Elder McConkie's statement to be merely figurative, I would not worry.

 

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Are you saying my interpretation is wrong? I'd be happy to discuss it. The New Jerusalem comes before the gathering. It is a sign to the house of Israel. It is a beginning of the gathering of Israel. So it is quite soon and at the beginning of "the millennium." If you think that the US has a real danger of a nuclear holocaust, how do you reconcile that with this prophecy? How do Gentiles and Lamanites gather if they are destroyed?

Spoken like a true liberal - you really don't have any idea what I know about Iran, but think you are so much smarter by supporting a president which hands uranium to them. Yeah, sure we have always had to keep an eye on them, but it wasn't an eye concerned with proliferation. We practically turned them into a nuclear power. But then you have this to say below about nuclear power:

May I suggest you learn about thorium before saying things you know nothing about? Thorium has unlimited potential. We have enough thorium to power us for thousands of years, while eating up all our present nuclear waste we need to do something with, and replacing the outdated, dangerous, and inefficient uranium water cooled plants. With thorium we wouldn't even really need solar, although it would be useful to outlying areas, farmers etc. Your link concerns the problems of uranium water based plants - not thorium LFTR or MSR plants. Nuclear waste from a LFTR plant would be a fraction of what we now produce, and only has to be stored for about 300 years - not 10,000. It is not perfect - it is still radioactive, but any fission based plant is going to be. Perhaps at some point we can learn how to make fusion plants. In the mean time I see us heading on the same path. Solar is pretty much a pipe dream. It is limited by high cost of entry, and various practical considerations which is why it is only about 1% of our national power plan right now. We need to decommission uranium plants soon, and have nothing to replace them with except fossil fuels. It is a very short-sighted policy.

Thorium is a radioactive element in the trans-uranium portion of the periodic table. With all the problems listed above.

Fusion may or may not work out, output is still less than input but they are still working on it. In the mean time it is best to conserve(do more with less) fossil fuels, produce as much of our own power as possible. I live an upper middle class lifestyle, but have reduced my energy consumption by over 300%.

Funny that "pipe dream" is sitting on my roof right now generating more electricity than I'm using.

Edited February 20, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Thorium is a radioactive element in the trans-uranium portion of the periodic table. With all the problems listed above.

Just about everything is radioactive. Radon is much more dangerous to us than thorium is. If I were to hold a pound of thorium in my hand, and I walk out into the sun, which do you think would expose me to more radiation? Yep, the sun. Thorium is not going to burn me or give me radiation poisoning. Thorium has really none of the problems listed above unless it is split by neutrons in a plant - which will produce U-233 which will continue the reaction. A LFTR nuclear plant has almost none of the inherent dangers of a uranium plant which is in the uranium-plutonium cycle. In a LFTR plant there are no high pressure components to contain or escape. If it begins to overheat, the salts expand so that reactions slow, and it cools back down. If all systems fail and power is cut, the frozen plug would melt so that the salts would drain into separated drain tanks where the reactions would cease, and the salts would solidify. The system is inherently stable, and much, much safer. Actually, the builder of the Manhattan Project, Eugene Wigner who patented the Uranium-water plant process himself was in favor of pursuing thorium MSR, but couldn't get congress to go along because they wanted fissile materials for nuclear weapons. His protoge, Alvin Weinberg, did get a little money from congress and built an experimental MSR plant at Oakridge, but continued to push thorium, so congress showed him the door, and the program was eventually totally cut under Nixon who promoted the uranium water plants, and wanted to channel the congressional money to his home state of California. We need to realize that Thorium power is a huge threat to the fossil fuel lobby, who will resist it. So the public pressure must overcome the fossil fuel lobby money, which will be hard to do since like you the public has gotten a negative perception of the ill-advised "nuclear power" that its inventors didn't want to pursue in the first place. Thorium power really has little to no proliferation issues. It is a power we could share with the world very safely.  Pretty much the only real danger is the plant being a target for a bomb - but a nuclear bomb is going to cause radiation anyway - or the waste not being stored safely. But again, in the LFTR design less than 17% of the waste of current plants would be produced and it is much more easily stored because the storage only has to last 300 years.

Quote

Fusion may or may not work out, output is still less than input but they are still working on it.

I personally like the prospects of Focus Fusion which is being pursued by LPP. If it came through, things might really "heat up." I personally use smile.amazon.com to make contributions on all my Amazon purchases to the FocusFusion charitable scientific organization and encourage every reader to do the same. 

Quote

In the mean time it is best to conserve(do more with less) fossil fuels, produce as much of our own power as possible. I live an upper middle class lifestyle, but have reduced my energy consumption by over 300%.

Funny that "pipe dream" is sitting on my roof right now generating more electricity than I'm using.

I am glad you are using solar. But the reason it is a pipe dream is why I tell the solar people who call me no. If I had 20K I would spend it on a new garage for my business rather than solar panels which will take me 20 yrs to recoup my investment on. Most Americans live pay check to paycheck and just aren't going to install it because they don't have the disposable income. When I lived in Florida I did put a solar panel up on my roof to run an exhaust fan for my attic. When the sun heated up my attic it ran the fan to cool it and make my air conditioning more efficient (my air handler was in the attic). If I lived in NY, I would never buy solar panels as my only source of power because it is going to starve me in winter when the sun is behind the clouds all winter. I like solar, but realize its limitations. I agree that until we get better power sources, conservation is important.

Edited February 20, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I know some guys making arrangements to build a prototype.  Don't have a clue what their timeline is, but sounds real interesting.

Kirk Sorenson, who started FLIBE Energy is LDS. He is a main reason interest in Thorium got started back up, because he saved the ORNL documentation and reports from destruction while working for NASA. He convinced them it could be a future power source for the moon, Mars, etc.

[thesometimesaint]

39 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Just about everything is radioactive. Radon is much more dangerous to us than thorium is. If I were to hold a pound of thorium in my hand, and I walk out into the sun, which do you think would expose me to more radiation? Yep, the sun. Thorium is not going to burn me or give me radiation poisoning. Thorium has really none of the problems listed above unless it is split by neutrons in a plant - which will produce U-233 which will continue the reaction. A LFTR nuclear plant has almost none of the inherent dangers of a uranium plant which is in the uranium-plutonium cycle. In a LFTR plant there are no high pressure components to contain or escape. If it begins to overheat, the salts expand so that reactions slow, and it cools back down. If all systems fail and power is cut, the frozen plug would melt so that the salts would drain into separated drain tanks where the reactions would cease, and the salts would solidify. The system is inherently stable, and much, much safer. Actually, the builder of the Manhattan Project, Eugene Wigner who patented the Uranium-water plant process himself was in favor of pursuing thorium MSR, but couldn't get congress to go along because they wanted fissile materials for nuclear weapons. His protoge, Alvin Weinberg, did get a little money from congress and built an experimental MSR plant at Oakridge, but continued to push thorium, so congress showed him the door, and the program was eventually totally cut under Nixon who promoted the uranium water plants, and wanted to channel the congressional money to his home state of California. We need to realize that Thorium power is a huge threat to the fossil fuel lobby, who will resist it. So the public pressure must overcome the fossil fuel lobby money, which will be hard to do since like you the public has gotten a negative perception of the ill-advised "nuclear power" that its inventors didn't want to pursue in the first place. Thorium power really has little to no proliferation issues. It is a power we could share with the world very safely.  Pretty much the only real danger is the plant being a target for a bomb - but a nuclear bomb is going to cause radiation anyway - or the waste not being stored safely. But again, in the LFTR design less than 17% of the waste of current plants would be produced and it is much more easily stored because the storage only has to last 300 years.

I personally like the prospects of Focus Fusion which is being pursued by LPP. If it came through, things might really "heat up." 

I am glad you are using solar. But the reason it is a pipe dream is why I tell the solar people who call me no. If I had 20K I would spend it on a new garage for my business rather than solar panels which will take me 20 yrs to recoup my investment on. Most Americans live pay check to paycheck and just aren't going to install it because they don't have the disposable income. When I lived in Florida I did put a solar panel up on my roof to run an exhaust fan for my attic. When the sun heated up my attic it ran the fan to cool it and make my air conditioning more efficient (my air handler was in the attic). If I lived in NY, I would never buy solar panels as my only source of power because it is going to starve me in winter when the sun is behind the clouds all winter. I like solar, but realize its limitations. I agree that until we get better power sources, conservation is important.

Radiation is cumulative, a single exposure to the sun is more radiation than a single exposure to thorium. However we have evolved to live with a certain amount of exposure to the sun which is considered background. Thorium exposure adds to that background. Thorium being a trans-uranium element gives off radiation whether it can maintain a nuclear chain reaction necessary for usable energy production is besides the point. I'm not an advocate for uranium power plants either, for much the same reasons. Thorium isn't a good choice for a nuclear bomb, but it is a pretty good one for a dirty bomb. So proliferation issues remain.

A tiny exhaust fan power by a small solar cell isn't a well thought out system. I have 18 4'x8' panels and they power my whole house. As I told you earlier Germany is well ahead of the US in Solar/Wind energy production and its climate is worse than all but Alaska.  Every means has limitations. So it is a matter of trade-offs. For me the pay off date is of less importance than reducing my need for electricity, and producing as much of my own as possible within my nice, but limited budget. It means that I can spend that money elsewhere. 

Edited February 20, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Thorium isn't a good choice for a nuclear bomb, but it is a pretty good one for a dirty bomb. So proliferation issues remain.

I disagree. Tons of thorium sits around in storage at mine sites. Thorium has a half-life of 14 billion years. It is not a fissile material. It just doesn't really decay, or give off appreciable radiation. It is nothing like U-235 that is used for uranium plants. If it is put in any bomb other than a nuclear one, it is just going to disperse into a bunch of harmless pebbles. No terrorist is going to waste their time on it. Nothing in the thorium reaction chain is particularly interesting to terrorists either. It cannot be easily converted into any kind of nuclear bomb.

[Calm]

Might be helpful to someone:

https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html

[strappinglad]

Perhaps I miss heard , but I remember  stories about Germany going back to COAL because of  problems with solar/wind output???? Also, renewed interest in nuclear?? Must be fake news .

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Perhaps I miss heard , but I remember  stories about Germany going back to COAL because of  problems with solar/wind output???? Also, renewed interest in nuclear?? Must be fake news .

Germany is not going back to coal. They are trying to eliminate the use of coal as painlessly as possible.

SEE https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-germany-ditch-coal/

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, Anijen said:

I hope it is figurative, I'll prepare as if it is literal.

Just my opinion, but if I live next to a target and I believe it is a literal prophecy, then moving might be wise. I f I believe Elder McConkie's statement to be merely figurative, I would not worry.

 

I am not that worried about whether I see the Second Coming with or without a body. I live right now where I will probably die in the event of a full nuclear exchange and am okay with that.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Germany is not going back to coal. They are trying to eliminate the use of coal as painlessly as possible.

SEE https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-germany-ditch-coal/

I don't want to harp on coal, but it is a terrible power source - probably the worst. Without scrubbers it dumps far more radioactive waste into the environment than nuclear. The health profession believes the public suffers all kinds of maladies due to polluted air. For its base power generation Germany ought to import our liquid NG, and burn it instead.  

[Gray]

20 hours ago, Anijen said:

I hope it is figurative, I'll prepare as if it is literal.

Just my opinion, but if I live next to a target and I believe it is a literal prophecy, then moving might be wise. I f I believe Elder McConkie's statement to be merely figurative, I would not worry.

 

No one can see the future, but the danger has been with us for many decades now.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 2/15/2017 at 8:16 PM, nuclearfuels said:

If not, anyone else think moving to the mountains in UT, CO, MT, ID might be a good idea?

Why not trusting in Jesus' words; He could move mountains for ya.....(wherever you live)