This is page is where our news articles will be published. Those related to our project, and those related to the industries we work in.
There’s quite a lot going on from Rare Earths mining and processing, Fluorination of fuels, to Molten Salt Modelling Technology, to regulations and new laws from around the world.
China’s nuclear transformation is one of the most important, yet misunderstood, energy stories of the 21st century—and it was at the heart of a presentation Jeremiah Josey delivered to around one thousand Chinese investors in Hong Kong in September 2023. Speaking not as an armchair commentator but as a long‑time energy and project advisor, he argued that China’s nuclear strategy is not just an engineering program; it is a generational wealth and sovereignty project in which Chinese capital has a unique first‑mover advantage.
In the presentation “Hot or Not? Investing in Nuclear,” Jeremiah set out the case that nuclear power is the most strategic, scalable energy platform for the 21st century and that China is positioning itself as its global champion. At the time of his talk, China operated around 55–60 nuclear units with roughly 57 GW of capacity and had declared plans to expand this to about 150 GW by 2030, a growth trajectory unmatched anywhere else in the world.
For the Hong Kong audience, many of whom were already familiar with landmark projects such as the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant, he emphasized that this expansion is not a publicity exercise but a continuation of the same disciplined, infrastructure‑led development that produced China’s high‑speed rail network—already some 40,000 km in 2023 and targeted to reach around 200,000 km by 2035. Nuclear sits in that same category of long‑lived, nation‑defining assets that underpin industry, trade, and geopolitical leverage.
Jeremiah framed China’s nuclear build‑out against the background of global energy demand and the limitations of the current system. Today’s worldwide nuclear fleet of roughly 440 reactors provides about 5% of total world energy and around 10% of electricity, a surprisingly small share given nuclear’s role in some national grids. Total world energy demand is on the order of 600 exajoules per year—about half for transport and half for electricity and heat—meaning that nuclear, at roughly 30 exajoules, is only scratching the surface of what is physically and economically possible.
He then outlined a thought experiment: to supply all global energy needs with conventional solid‑fuel uranium reactors would require on the order of 10,000 large plants (1,000–5,000 MW each), or about 100,000 small modular units (100–300 MW each), numbers that sound vast until compared with the approximately 2,400 coal‑fired power stations already operating worldwide. For Chinese investors accustomed to thinking in industrial scale, this reframed nuclear not as an exotic niche, but as a realistic backbone for global energy—one where China’s early and aggressive build gives it industrial and financial leadership.
One of the central themes of Jeremiah’s talk was that the usual Western objections to nuclear—high costs, long build times, intractable regulation—simply do not apply in the same way in China. In the West, he noted, nuclear projects are hampered by fragmented regulation, politicized permitting, and well‑funded anti‑nuclear campaigns that funnel hundreds of millions or even billions of euros and dollars annually into lobbying against fission. In China, by contrast, alignment between industrial policy, regulators, and state‑owned enterprises allows for standardized designs, repeat builds, and disciplined cost control.
He highlighted that build costs that are considered unmanageable in Europe or North America are entirely workable in China, where supply chains, project management discipline, and political commitment support serial construction. In this environment, nuclear’s economic profile looks particularly attractive: high upfront capital followed by decades of low, stable operating costs, especially for fuel. For a 5,000 MW plant, Jeremiah used figures on the order of €5 million per installed megawatt, implying roughly €25 billion in capital expenditure, and then showed how, at high capacity factors and realistic power prices, such a plant can generate multi‑billion‑euro annual cash flows over lifetimes of up to 50 years or more.
He also reminded the audience that China already has examples of nuclear assets designed for very long service lives, and that global precedent—such as U.S. plants licensed for 80 years—shows how nuclear can become a quasi‑permanent part of the industrial landscape. This combination of scale, longevity, and policy alignment makes nuclear a natural fit for China’s development model, in his view.
Jeremiah devoted a notable portion of the Hong Kong presentation to the sheer physical advantage nuclear fuel offers—an advantage that plays directly to China’s strengths in logistics and large‑scale planning. He contrasted the sprawling, tanker‑heavy fossil fuel supply chain with the compactness of uranium logistics. At current consumption levels, he explained, a single large bulk carrier similar to the Cape Ace could theoretically carry the entire world’s annual uranium requirement. Even if the world shifted entirely to uranium‑based nuclear power, perhaps twenty such ships would suffice, compared with more than 2,000 crude oil tankers that now criss‑cross the oceans.
He also pointed out that the global uranium market is surprisingly small—on the order of only a few tens of thousands of tonnes per year and a market value of roughly single‑digit billions of euros—compared with the multi‑trillion‑dollar fossil fuel complex. Yet, because uranium is so energy‑dense, replacing the entire fossil fuel market with nuclear fuel would require annual uranium spending of perhaps around USD 140 billion, versus over USD 5 trillion spent on fossil fuels today. That translates to fuel cost savings on the order of 97% for the same delivered energy, a number that captured the attention of an audience trained to look for large, structural cost differentials.
For China, Jeremiah argued, this means the opportunity to secure and manage a compact, strategic fuel supply chain, with far fewer geopolitical choke points and shipping risks than oil and gas. It also opens a long‑term industrial opportunity in enrichment, fuel fabrication, recycling, and advanced fuel cycles—fields where Chinese firms and research institutes are already active
While much of the talk acknowledged the importance of today’s solid‑fuel uranium reactors, Jeremiah’s message to Chinese investors focused strongly on where he believes the real technological and financial upside lies: liquid fission, and especially liquid Thorium fuel in molten salt reactors.
He revisited the history of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) at Oak Ridge in the 1960s, which ran successfully at around 8 MW from 1965 to 1969 and produced a comprehensive 434‑page technical report summarizing more than two decades of research by tens of thousands of staff. The MSRE, he noted, was described by its own engineers as “the most boring experiment ever” because it did exactly what it was designed to do, with no surprises or crises. Yet this line of development was shut down in the early 1970s, as political and strategic considerations in the United States favored once‑through solid fuel cycles aligned with weapons‑grade material production.
For the Hong Kong audience, the key point was not the historical injustice, but the opportunity it creates today. Technologies that were effectively “nixed” in the West are now being revived and advanced in China. Jeremiah highlighted the 2 MW Liquid Fission Thorium machine in Wuwei, Gansu province—a modern‑era re‑run of the MSRE concept, backed by international collaboration on high‑temperature materials and corrosion‑resistant alloys. This project signals that China is not content to simply replicate Western light‑water reactor designs but aims to leapfrog into a new generation of reactors with inherently safer characteristics and potentially superior economics.
He also mentioned that when modern artificial intelligence systems have been tasked with designing the “best possible” nuclear machine under given constraints, they independently converge on Liquid Fission Thorium architectures similar to those pioneered at Oak Ridge in the 1960s. For investors, this convergence—between historic experimental success, current Chinese industrial capability, and modern computational design—suggests that Liquid Fission Thorium is not an exotic side bet but a likely candidate for the core of future nuclear fleets.
Jeremiah did not sidestep the safety debate; instead, he sought to reframe it for an audience whose country is still building out its nuclear fleet. He reminded investors that the three most famous nuclear incidents—Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima—have shaped global perception far more than they deserve based on actual casualty numbers. Three Mile Island caused zero deaths or injuries from radiation, and the remaining unit continued operating for decades after the incident. Chernobyl, while a serious industrial accident, resulted in on the order of a few dozen immediate deaths, and three other reactors at the same site kept running for years. Fukushima, despite the enormous social and economic disruption, did not produce deaths from radiation exposure.
He also cited the work of radiation oncologists and researchers involved with the Chernobyl Tissue Bank who initially expected to find widespread radiation‑induced illness but ultimately found far less than feared, leading some to change their stance from anti‑ to pro‑nuclear. For China, which is designing and regulating new reactors in the 21st century rather than retrofitting mid‑20th‑century plants, this evidence base allows for a more rational, data‑driven approach to safety standards and public communication.
Jeremiah argued that by building modern reactors with inherently safer designs and by basing radiation limits on empirical data rather than Cold War fears, China can avoid the extreme over‑regulation that has crippled nuclear expansion in the West. This does not mean compromising safety; it means aligning regulation with real‑world risk, thereby reducing costs and delays without accepting unacceptable hazards.
For the investors in the Hong Kong room, many of whom manage large pools of patient capital, Jeremiah framed China’s nuclear strategy as part of a much larger macroeconomic and geopolitical shift. He outlined a world in which conventional oil has effectively peaked, U.S. shale is dependent on cheap debt and high prices, and Western governments face rising debt burdens and inflationary pressures as they struggle to maintain the existing energy‑financial order.
Against that backdrop, he suggested, nuclear offers China a way to secure:
He also noted that demographic trends in Africa and Asia—regions projected to add around two billion people between now and 2050—will drive enormous demand for reliable, affordable electricity. Nations that can offer turnkey nuclear solutions, from financing and design to fuel management and decommissioning, will play a central role in how that demand is met. China, with its existing fleet, proven build capability, and emerging leadership in liquid fission research, is well‑placed to become that provider.
In closing the Hong Kong presentation, Jeremiah challenged the audience to decide whether they wished to be “following investors,” chasing crowded trades in fashionable renewables, or “foundational investors,” backing the assets and technologies that will form the bedrock of the world’s energy system for the next century. For him, the answer was clear: China’s nuclear program—especially as it moves from solid uranium to Liquid Thorium—represents one of the most consequential foundational investments of our time, and Chinese investors are sitting at the epicentre of that opportunity.
See the presentation here that Jeremiah Josey gave in Hong Kong September 2023, with selected screen shots from the event. Photographic imagery courtesy of CLSA. No infringement intended, all rights belong to the respective owners.
Burning fossil fuels claims nearly 10 million lives annually through air pollution, representing one in five global deaths from PM2.5 particles that trigger heart disease, strokes, COPD, and diabetes. Yet the industry pockets USD 6.7 trillion in yearly revenue, brazenly prioritising shareholder dividends over human lives in a profit-first model that externalizes the death toll onto vulnerable populations.reddit+5
Harvard research pins 8.7 million deaths in 2018, with earlier peaks at 10.2 million in 2012, doubling WHO’s prior estimates by tracing pollution directly to fossil combustion. China (3.9 million) and India (2.5 million) bear the heaviest burden, but North America and Europe also suffer significant losses, proving no escape from this profit-fueled crisis.weforum+4
These tiny PM2.5 particles from coal, oil, and gas pierce lungs and bloodstreams, driving 30% of ischemic heart deaths, 16% of strokes, and 16% of COPD cases worldwide. Fossil fuels account for 61-82% of preventable pollution mortality, with even low exposures deadly and linked to worsened Covid-19 outcomes—all while industry leaders count their trillions.cnn+3
| Impact Area | % of Global Deaths | Key Regions |
| Heart Disease | 30% bmjgroup | China, India |
| Strokes | 16% hsph.harvard | East Asia |
| COPD | 16% weforum | South Asia |
| Total Fossil | ~20% sciencedirect | Worldwide |
The global fossil fuel sector generates USD 6.7 trillion in 2025 revenue from oil, gas, and coal—matching major economies—while deliberately externalizing nearly 10 million deaths to boost bottom lines. Oil and gas exploration alone hits USD 4 trillion, with giants like ExxonMobil exceeding USD 400 billion yearly, funneling billions into dividends instead of pollution controls that could save lives. marketreportanalytics+2
| Metric | 2025 Annual Figure | Death Link |
| Total Revenue | USD 6.7T persistencemarketresearch | Funds ops killing ~10M/year weforum |
| Oil/Gas E&P | USD 4T ibisworld | 80% energy mix, 61-82% deaths bmj |
| Coal Segment | USD 700B+ marketreportanalytics | Top PM2.5 killer in Asia sciencedirect |
| Top Firm (Exxon) | USD 400B+ ibisworld | Profits over 27K daily deaths reddit |
This profit-over-people calculus sees executives paid handsomely as societies bury the victims of their emissions. hsph.harvard+1
China slashed particulates by half from 2012-2018, averting 2.5 million deaths without economic ruin—evidence that phasing out fossils saves lives faster than climate fixes alone. With alternatives booming, the industry’s USD 6.7T machine clings to combustion, valuing trillions in revenue over millions of lives. Demand accountability now. gaspgroup+3
What’s your stance? Profits before people? Comment below. #FossilFuelsKill #ProfitsOverLives #ClimateJustice #PublicHealth
The website whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html presents a series of arguments that attempts to cast doubt on the viability and advantages of Thorium-based Fission technology. We won’t dwell on the psychological tactics used—such as answering a different question to the headline “myth” or relying on technical jargon to create an aura of authority. They’re unnecessary distractions. And we don’t need to. Recent developments, particularly in China, have decisively demonstrated that the supposed technical hurdles previously cited are not only surmountable but are actively being overcome. China’s progress in Thorium Liquid Fission Burner (LFTB) technology reveals a future where energy independence is not just a goal, but a reality that will reshape global energy dynamics.
China’s Thorium Fission programme is not just about technological advancement; it is about energy independence for hundreds of thousands of years. The end of fossil fuels for China is in sight, and considering the country’s massive energy consumption, this will lead to a dramatic decline in global demand for coal and oil. China’s progress in Liquid Fission Thorium Burner technology is setting a new benchmark for advanced energy solutions worldwide, with the potential to transform global energy markets and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Link
Australia has played a crucial role in supporting China’s Thorium Fission ambitions. Under the leadership of Professor Adi Paterson, Australia has become a key partner in the development and supply of Thorium and advanced materials for Liquid Fission Machines. This collaboration not only strengthens bilateral relations but also positions Australia as a vital contributor to the global shift toward sustainable energy solutions. Link
China’s achievements in Thorium Fission Burner technology have decisively refuted the notion that Thorium-based Fission is impractical or hindered by insurmountable technical challenges. The technical hurdles cited by critics globally are being overcome, and China’s progress is setting a new benchmark for advanced energy solutions worldwide. The future of energy is not just about technological innovation but about strategic independence and global sustainability. Link
Debunking this article: https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html
#China #LiquidFissionThoriumBurners #LFTB #Thorium #Fission
Credits to the respective contributors to this article, including Discovery Alert for the images.
Telegram: https://t.me/thethoriumnetwork/14561
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17VxJUyRx8/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/DSOhU7zjhrk/
A big sigh of relief as Japan finally kicks out the western phobia of clean, safe #fission energy. It’s taken 14 years but they’ve made it.
No one died from the minor incident that occurred at #TEPCO‘s #Fukushima #Daiichi #Nuclear Power Plant when the wave of water hit them on 11 March 2011. Yet the world shivered under their collective blankets when the lights went out on that bed time evening those many moons ago.
Japan has now found their torch – powered by #uranium and #plutonium – and again today they bravely find their way to the toilet in the middle of the night. The west seems intent on using bedpans…
There’s a silver lining to this story even brighter than the fission future Japan is turning back on. And that silver is Thorium. Just a few miles away, #China has been steadfast producing reliable secure Thorium energy for almost as long. And Japan is noticing.
Without the fanfare of hype from both sides.
Japan’s next-gen nuclear vision isn’t just about restarting reactors — it’s about rethinking what fission energy can be. While others fretted, Japan quietly doubled down on research that could transform nuclear safety, waste, and abundance.
At the heart of this is a Liquid Fission Thorium burner (LFTB) ambition.
• Japan’s research into MSRs actually has historical depth: IAEA‑sponsored work has looked at Th–233U cycles for molten salt reactors, including their use for transuranic waste reduction.
• At Kyoto University and other Japanese institutions, there have been proposals to build molten salt reactors using Thorium, such as the FUJI Molten Salt Reactor.
• According to Mitsui Strategic Studies, Japan is re-evaluating liquid fission as a technology for sustainable domestic resources.
Bottom line: Japan’s Thorium‑LFTB work is real.
Japanese research institutions (universities, national labs) are exploring critical MSR‑related technologies, like:
• Neutronic modeling of Th‑232 → U-233 cycles
• Materials that resist corrosion in hot molten salts
• Reactor vessel designs optimised for safety in earthquake-prone regions
• Online salt circulation and reprocessing concepts.
These partnerships help lay the foundation for a future Thorium-based industry.
One of the most attractive ideas in Japanese MSR research is using Thorium‑salt reactors to burn transuranic waste (plutonium and other actinides) produced by conventional light-water reactors. This would:
• Reduce long-lived nuclear waste
• Generate clean energy
• Operate at low pressure, improving safety (no risk of steam‑pressure explosions)
• Use passive safety features.
While Japan is preparing, China is already moving.
• Their TMSR‑LF1 liquid fission machine (2 MW thermal) received an operating licence in June 2023.
• This reactor achieved first criticality on October 11, 2023.
• In November 2025, SINAP (Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics) announced the first successful conversion of Thorium to uranium fuel inside this machine, with a conversion ratio of 10%.
• The TMSR‑LF1 design uses a fuel mix including under‑20% enriched uranium-235 and about 50 kg.
Message us if you want to see more detail about the efforts of these countries into Liquid Fission Thorium Burner technology – without doubt the best thing ever for humanity and our precious planet earth.
You can see the original article that promoted our work here on our Telegram channel:
https://t.me/c/1884139551/13305
And here on our Linkedin Page:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/japan-finally-shakes-off-its-nuclear-fear-thorium-waiting-wm9ye
And the Tokyo AFP news post here:
In 1969, the United States was surging ahead with nuclear fission power, flipping the switch on three new reactors a year to electrify millions of homes. Fission energy promised a cheap, reliable, and clean source of power, with a footprint as small as a few Central Parks combined. Fast forward to 2025, and fission energy, though still one of the safest and cleanest energy sources, has been largely sidelined. Why?
The quiet, complex answer to this question lies in the billions—actually, trillions—of dollars the fossil fuel industry spends each year to keep fission energy suppressed. This strategic campaign to protect fossil fuel market share is a story woven through decades of fear-mongering, onerous regulations, and orchestrated myths largely funded by fossil fuel interests and their allies, including influential institutions such as the Rockefeller Institute.
Fission energy’s limitations have less to do with safety or technology and more to do with economics and political influence. Fossil fuel companies, aware of nuclear power’s potential to disrupt their dominance, have poured immense resources into shaping public opinion and regulatory environments. For example, in Germany, a country known for its green-energy ambitions but also high industrial energy costs, the government publicly spent approximately 690 million euros in 2021 campaigning against cheaper French nuclear energy. The result? German industries, like its carmakers, suffered from higher energy prices, making them less competitive than their French counterparts powered predominantly by nuclear electricity.
This is just one part of a global pattern. Various studies and reports highlight how fossil fuel subsidies, lobbying, and marketing have weakened fission power ambitions across continents. In Australia, for example, government fossil fuel subsidies reached USD 14.9 billion in 2024–25, fuelling coal, gas, and oil production, while nuclear options remain politically marginalised despite its obvious and logical potential as a clean energy pillar.
Globally, fossil fuel subsidies and related expenditures to bolster oil, natural gas, and coal industries continue to rise. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that in 2025, governments and private interests worldwide will spend billions annually—estimated at over USD 1 trillion—on fossil fuel support measures including subsidies, tax breaks, and lobbying efforts aimed at maintaining the status quo. They are using public funds – your tax money – to keep their merry-go-round going around.
This vast pool of money not only props up fossil fuel extraction but also backs anti-nuclear campaigns, strict regulatory frameworks, and misinformation campaigns that cascade into project delays and cost inflation for nuclear projects. These tactics increase the construction time of nuclear plants from a few years to sometimes decades, exponentially raising capital and interest costs—effectively pricing nuclear out of competitive viability.
One of the key orchestrators in this suppression strategy has been the Rockefeller Institute and its multifaceted network of foundations and organisations. Historically vested in fossil fuels—mainly oil—the Rockefeller interests have wielded significant influence to sway energy policy, often under the guise of environmental concern.
Their involvement is evident in the proliferation of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) radiation model, which posits that any amount of radiation exposure increases cancer risk. While later findings have disproved the scientific basis of LNT, its implementation led to stringent safety regulations that made nuclear plant construction prohibitively expensive. This regulatory labyrinth was a boon to the fossil fuel sector who benefited—as they intended—from delaying nuclear advancements.
The economic numbers reveal a staggering cost—not just in dollars but in lost opportunity for clean and abundant power. According to U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimates, each month of delay in constructing a nuclear plant can cost about USD 44 million, plus USD 20 million in lost potential revenue. Over decades, the compounded cost of these delays, driven largely by unnecessary regulation and public fear campaigns, has ballooned nuclear construction costs tenfold.
Meanwhile, fossil fuel industries continue to thrive on government support totalling hundreds of billions a year. The contrast is stark: in Australia alone, fossil fuel subsidies outstrip disaster readiness funds by 14 times, underscoring priorities tilted heavily toward maintaining fossil fuel dominance rather than investing in clean alternatives like nuclear.
Despite these barriers, there’s a renewed interest and slow resurgence in Fission technology, particularly in innovative designs like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which are more cost-effective and easier by design. The U.S., Canada, and some European countries are pushing these technologies as part of their clean energy transition. Or, like Sweden, making their main game.
Yet the fossil fuel industry’s influence remains a formidable obstacle. Continued financial prioritisation of fossil fuels over Fission hampers progress and locks in higher emissions, the deaths they cause and energy insecurity risks for decades to come.
Around the world, the fossil fuel industry’s strategic spend to suppress Fission energy is a costly shadow game with massive implications for climate, economy, and energy independence. Countries like Germany demonstrate the pain of energy policy skewed by fossil fuel lobbying, while Australia’s ballooning fossil fuel subsidies show the magnitude of public money fuelling this suppression.
In 2025, as global clean energy investments reach unprecedented levels—over USD 2.2 trillion supporting renewables—the fossil fuel industry’s spending to maintain its grip on the market emphasises how much is at stake. If society is serious about combating climate change, improving energy security, and ensuring economic competitiveness, policymakers must address this imbalance and reconsider the obstacles fossil fuel interests have placed against Nuclear Fission Power.
The truth behind Fission power’s stagnation is not one of technology limits or safety failures but of calculated financial power plays sustained by fossil fuels and their political allies. It’s a story worth knowing—and changing.
This appendix complements the main report’s overarching analysis by providing granular data and examples that underscore the global nature of fossil fuel spending in nuclear energy suppression.
These country-specific figures and contexts reveal the scale and diversity of fossil fuel industry support worldwide, illustrating how this financial leverage acts as a powerful brake on the development of safe, reliable, and carbon-free nuclear energy in 2025.
#CleanEnergyTransition #NuclearPowerNow #FossilFuelFree #EnergyPolicyReform #ClimateAction2025 #Nuclear #Energy
As the global energy landscape is rapidly evolving, the limitations and challenges of wind and solar power have become increasingly evident. Meanwhile, nuclear energy—especially advanced technologies like Thorium-based reactors championed by TheThorium.Network—stands out as the only truly dependable, scalable, and sustainable clean energy source.
While wind and solar continue to expand in capacity, the reality on the ground exposes growing barriers to their sustained dominance.
In stark contrast to the uncertainties facing renewables, nuclear power advances steadily as a reliable and practical solution for the clean energy transition:
The challenges confronting wind and solar power highlight the necessity for energy sources that guarantee steady supply without dependency on weather or daylight. Thorium-based nuclear technology, as advocated by TheThorium.Network, offers unmatched advantages:
Despite some narratives of wind and solar outproducing traditional sources in certain periods, the broader picture shows unresolved technical, regulatory, and economic hurdles hampering renewables’ ability to fully replace fossil fuels reliably. Studies demonstrate nuclear power’s superior cost-effectiveness when system integration, capacity factors, and dispatchability are fully accounted for. Moreover, innovations in thorium molten salt reactors promise safer and more economical nuclear power, free from many drawbacks of conventional uranium reactors.
The future of sustainable, reliable, and scalable energy lies not in the uncertain promises of intermittently dependent wind and solar power, but in embracing nuclear innovation—particularly thorium-based nuclear technologies that TheThorium.Network pioneers. Nuclear power’s unparalleled reliability, efficiency, and environmental credentials make it the only rational cornerstone for a secure energy future worldwide.
For over a century, humanity has paid the ultimate price for the insatiable greed of the fossil fuel industry. The story of tetraethyl lead (TEL) added to petrol—intentionally poisoning workers, children, and millions worldwide—is a stark and brutal example of corporate cruelty disguised as “progress.” Those deaths were never part of any conversation; profit was the sole concern.
Today, as climate change accelerates and pollution kills 8.5 million people annually (WHO, 2023), the truth remains suppressed again. Liquid Fission Thorium (LFT) energy, a proven, clean, and nearly infinite source of power, capable of obliterating oil profits overnight and saving the planet, is deliberately kept from public awareness.
This report exposes how the same forces that poisoned our children with leaded petrol actively suppress LFT, choosing profits over life repeatedly. The pattern is clear: corporations sell death to protect fortunes, and governments, bought and compromised, enable the carnage.
Profits—not “economic realities” or “political complexity”—have always been the brutal truth behind industrial poisonings, colonial massacres, and environmental destruction. The oil industry’s addition of lead to petrol was a deliberate choice to enrich shareholders at the catastrophic cost of human health.
Workers died by the dozens during TEL’s early production. Millions of children suffered irreversible brain damage worldwide. No one asked if it was right or justified—it never entered the conversation. Corporate greed alone decided that killing people was an acceptable collateral cost.
This historical lesson is no ancient tragedy. Today, Liquid Fission Thorium (LFT) energy stands ready to revolutionise the global energy system, eliminate fossil fuels, and save millions of lives lost annually to toxic air pollution. Yet, once again, corporate interests suppress this breakthrough because the survival of big oil—and their profits—depends on it.
In the 1920s, General Motors and DuPont’s engineer Thomas Midgley Jr. synthesised TEL, a compound that allowed car engines to run faster and cheaper but was a potent neurotoxin. The Ethyl Corporation, formed to market TEL, unleashed it worldwide despite knowing its deadly effects.
The goal was not worker safety or public health. It was profit maximisation through controlling a key additive that oil refiners could exploit.
At the Bayway refinery in 1924, five workers died from lead poisoning. Ethyl Corporation responded with lies, denial, and intimidation. No accountability. No remorse. Deaths continued unabated. Even Thomas Midgley Jr. dies a horrible death due to lead poisoning.
Oil and chemical companies financed falsified “safety” studies, suppressed whistleblowers, and bribed politicians to ensure TEL stayed in fuel for nearly 100 years.
Millions died prematurely from cardiovascular and neurological diseases directly linked to lead exposure. The lives lost were a “cost of doing business”—never a matter of ethics or public debate.
Lead is a ruthless poison that permanently damages the developing brain and multiple organ systems:
There is no safe exposure level. Lead destroys brains, bodies, and lives—pure and simple.
The global phase-out of leaded petrol spanned decades, with many poor countries forced to continue using it to “burn stockpiles” and protect corporate profits:
These deliberate delays were driven by corporate greed. Governments were bribed or intimidated. The smell of leaded petrol was kept in the air and children’s blood because flush profits mattered more than saving lives.
Liquid Fission Thorium (LFT) energy provides near-limitless clean power, zero carbon emissions, and eliminates toxic air pollution that causes millions of deaths annually.
Scientifically proven and technologically feasible, LFT reactors:
Were LFT deployed worldwide today, the oil industry would collapse in months, wiping out trillions in profits. This existential threat to fossil fuel monopolies explains why LFT remains systematically suppressed.
Just as corporations shoved lead into gasoline to fatten profits—recklessly poisoning workers and the public—they now engineer political and media campaigns to keep LFT out of public consciousness. The same lobbyists bribe politicians, fund misinformation, and block research funding.
This suppression kills millions every year via continued global warming, toxic air pollution, and preventable diseases.
The leaded petrol disaster was not an accident or oversight. It was cold-blooded corporate murder aided by complicit governments willing to sell out human health for campaign contributions and economic favours.
Today, the suppression of Liquid Fission Thorium energy is the latest chapter in this ongoing story—a story of deliberate poisoning and deception so fossil fuel profits can continue to soar.
The solutions exist. The lives that could be saved number in the millions every year. It is now a choice unequivocally made by those in power: keep poisoning or save humanity.
At TheThorium.Network, we expose this truth without compromise because corporate avarice must no longer decide who lives and who dies.
If you require a deeper technical overview of Liquid Fission Thorium technology, impact analyses, or historical industry interference case studies, TheThorium.Network stands ready to provide.
The estimated global economic loss of approximately 6 trillion USD annually attributable to lead exposure—particularly from leaded petrol—results from extensive interdisciplinary research combining toxicology, epidemiology, labour economics, and demographic modelling.
This figure predominantly arises from the calculation of lost lifetime economic productivity (LEP) due to lead-induced cognitive impairment in children. Scientific consensus establishes that childhood lead exposure lowers intelligence quotient (IQ) by an average of 2 to 5 points depending on exposure levels (Needleman, 2004; Grandjean & Landrigan, 2014). This IQ decrement is not trivial; it significantly hampers educational achievement, workforce participation, and lifetime earnings.
Researchers globally estimate the economic impact by first modelling population blood lead levels through biomonitoring data and environmental measurements. Using dose-response relationships from toxicological studies, they calculate the average IQ loss per birth cohort in each country (Attina & Trasande, 2013). Labour economics research then translates these IQ losses into expected reductions in lifetime income, based on well-established correlations between cognitive ability and earnings (Tsai & Hatfield, 2011).
To derive the aggregate global economic burden, individual country losses are scaled by population size and adjusted for income variations via purchasing power parity or GDP per capita (World Bank data). The resulting sums represent the worldwide loss in lifetime productivity.
Importantly, lost IQ and associated productivity declines are only part of the picture. Lead exposure also elevates risks for cardiovascular disease, stroke, kidney failure, and behavioural disorders, all of which increase healthcare costs, reduce work capacity, and impose broader social costs including criminal justice expenditures (Landrigan et al., 2020; The Lancet Public Health, 2023). These additional direct and indirect costs are integrated into economic models to capture the full extent of lead’s burden on societies.
Premature mortality attributable to lead exposure further amplifies economic loss through lost years of economic contribution.
Multiple meta-analyses and comprehensive studies, including those published in Environmental Health Perspectives (Attina & Trasande, 2013), The Lancet Public Health (2023), and reports from the World Health Organization (WHO, 2023), consistently estimate the total economic losses globally approaching 6 trillion USD each year, equating to roughly 7% of global GDP.
This economic toll disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries, where lead exposure remains highest and health and educational infrastructure are limited, exacerbating intergenerational poverty and health inequities.
While precise quantifications vary with modelling assumptions and evolving data, the convergence of independent analyses underscores lead poisoning’s status as one of the world’s most damaging and preventable public health crises with catastrophic economic implications.
In summary, the 6 trillion USD figure encapsulates the lifetime lost economic productivity, increased health and social service costs, and premature mortality caused by lead exposure worldwide. It starkly reveals the massive price humanity continues to pay for lead pollution sustained by decades of profit-driven negligence.
#CleanEnergy #BigOilExposed #LeadPoisoning #ClimateAction #SustainableEnergy #EnvironmentalJustice
Germany’s wind and solar energy systems in 2025 face serious challenges due to inherently low Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROI) values, with wind at approximately 3.9 and solar at approximately 1.6. These values are significantly below the threshold (roughly 7 to 11) considered necessary to sustainably support a high-quality advanced society.
Because the EROI represents the net energy surplus available for society after accounting for the energy needed to build, maintain, and operate the system, such low values mean that a large fraction of energy is reinvested into energy production itself. This drastically limits net energy available for economic development, social services, leisure, and technological progress.
This report examines the technical, economic, environmental, and social consequences of these low EROI values and their implications on Germany’s energy independence, affordability, and future quality of life.
Thus, Germany’s wind and solar EROI values fall well short of this critical margin, signaling systemic problems that affect the country’s energy system sustainability and socioeconomic outcomes.
| Challenge | Description & Impact |
|---|---|
| Low EROI of Wind (~3.9) | Energy reinvestment high; limited net energy surplus; constrains growth and well-being |
| Very Low EROI of Solar (~1.6) | Very high energy reinvestment, increasing costs, limiting societal net energy |
| Intermittency & Reliability | Causes fossil fuel backup dependency, undermining energy independence and emissions goals |
| Financial & Auction Risks | Negative bidding deters investments, raising system costs and slowing expansion |
| Permitting Delays | Hinder rapid deployment, add uncertainty and cost |
| Environmental Concerns | Bird mortality, habitat loss reduce public support and feasible project sites |
| Increasing Fossil Fuel Usage | Offsets renewables’ benefits, increases emissions |
| Higher Energy Prices | Risks energy poverty, reduces disposable income and quality of life |
| Limited Improvement in Leisure & Work-Life Balance | Insufficient surplus energy constrains reductions in working hours and growth of leisure time |
Germany’s wind and solar energy systems, marked by EROI values of approximately 3.9 and 1.6 respectively, struggle to generate sufficient net energy surplus for societal advancement. The substantial energy reinvestment required diminishes energy freedom, cements fossil fuel dependencies, drives price pressures, and limits improvements in work-leisure balance and overall quality of life.
Without transformative changes in technology, policy frameworks, grid infrastructure, and integrated energy storage, Germany risks a regressive energy transition where growing investments in renewables deliver diminishing returns for future prosperity and energy autonomy.
Nuclear energy is undergoing a remarkable transformation globally, fuelled by the urgent need for decarbonisation and energy security. At the heart of this revolution are Small Modular technologies—compact, scalable, and inherently safer systems designed to produce reliable, low-carbon power. Among these, the use of Thorium as a nuclear fuel is gaining renewed attention for its unique advantages and potential to reshape how we generate energy.
Thorium is a fertile element that, when irradiated, breeds fissile uranium-233. It is more abundant than uranium, with reserves spread worldwide, making it a sustainable and long-term energy resource. The Thorium fuel cycle offers several key benefits:
One of the most promising innovations harnessing Thorium is the concept of Liquid Fission Thorium Burners (LTFBs). These systems use a liquid fuel form—molten salts containing Thorium and fissile material—that circulates continuously through the system. This liquid fuel approach offers transformative advantages:
A well-known example of an LTFB concept is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Burner (a variant of the LFTR design), which uses a two-fluid system—one fluid containing fissile uranium and the other containing fertile Thorium. Neutrons from fission in the uranium fluid convert Thorium in the blanket fluid into new fissile uranium-233, which is then cycled back to sustain the reaction.
Several countries and companies are leading the charge in developing LTFBs and related small modular systems fuelled by Thorium:
Small Modular technologies offer several advantages that complement the use of Thorium:
Despite the promise, deploying LTFBs and Thorium-based small modular systems faces hurdles:
However, with growing government support, international collaboration, and private sector innovation, these challenges are being actively addressed.
Liquid Fission Thorium Burners represent a paradigm shift in nuclear energy—combining the abundance and safety benefits of Thorium with the flexibility and scalability of small modular technology. Over the next five years, we expect to see the first grid-connected small modular systems and pilot LTFBs come online, marking a new chapter in sustainable, low-carbon energy production.
To dive deeper into the global status and exciting developments in Thorium and small modular technologies, go here to learn more:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/global-status-of-129764734
Let’s recap one of the greatest industrial public relations flops of all time: the Fukushima incident. As a testament to Fission’s inherent safety, no one died from the full meltdown of Unit 1, nor from the partial meltdowns of Units 2 and 3. Unit 4 was already offline for cleaning at the time. Units 5 and 6 remained undamaged and continuing to produce electricity for three more years until public fear and pressure forced TEPCO to shut them down as well – for no technical reasons. While two unfortunate workers did die, it was due to an explosion and drowning, and not radiation exposure.
In stark contrast, over 2,300 people died directly from the panicked evacuation of areas where no discernible or dangerous increase in radiation levels was found. Even today, visitors to the area are required to dress more cautiously than they would for the COVID virus – a documented even less risky set of circumstances. It’s also worth noting that three other nuclear power stations in the region were affected by the same tsunami that hit Fukushima, yet all successfully shut down automatically when the earthquake struck and can restart without issue.
Reports indicate that “the primary contamination spread northwest from the plant, with soil samples showing levels of caesium-137 exceeding 3 MBq/m² in some areas up to 35 km away from the reactor.”
This contamination led to evacuations of approximately 15,000 residents in affected areas—scary stuff indeed.
But what does these scary sounding numbers really mean? Let’s consider bananas and Iran.
The caesium levels mentioned correspond to an radiation exposure of only about 0.3 mSv per year. In comparison, The Fukushima region has a natural background radiation level of 5 mSv per year. For context, places like Ramsar in Iran experience natural background levels of 260 mSv per year – and is considered a healthy dose by locals there, with reported lower rates of long term chronic illness than the general, non-irradiated population. To put it another way, the “dangerous release” from Fukushima is akin to consuming ten bananas per day. A banana contains high levels of radioactive potassium, which builds your muscles similarly to caesium.
This also means that the death rate from evacuations was over 15%. You had a 1-in-6 chance of being killed by being moved “for your safety,” while facing a zero percent chance of harm from radiation concerns. And no, if you stayed you wouldn’t have received a dosage of any concern.
Almost 20,000 people died due to the tsunami itself—a tragic natural disaster. Even more tragic is that more than 10% of those fatalities were attributed to forced, unnecessary evacuations around the Daiichi power station.
It’s tragic that nuclear fission energy has suffered such a public relations disaster that people are terrified by news reports while slicing up their radioactive banana for breakfast. Presently, about 1 trillion yen (approximately USD 7.3 billion) is being spent on cleaning up Units 1, 2, and 3—not a small sum. But why so much? All in the name of “safety.”
Lake Barrett—renowned for his role in the Three Mile Island disaster cleanup and currently employed for public relations purposes by TEPCO—famously stated during an interview with Mike O’Brien on August 16, 2023: “Now, it depends on how low is low [radiation in water released from the plant]. To be drinkable, it’s going to be many decades—100 years or so. But that’s not really plausible at this stage.”
The World Health Organisation’s limit for radiation in drinking water is set at 10,000 Bq per litre; TEPCO’s discharge limit is only 299 Bq/litre. Even Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and other officials have publicly consumed this water.
So why did Lake misrepresent the water issue so badly? Employed by the very company to overt the public relations debacle happening around him. Was it for his own benefit? Perhaps. His income from TEPCO is estimated to be around USD 600k per year. Thus if there’s no radiation problem, there’s no income. And that is the heart of the issue: individuals within the nuclear safety industry often amplify fear and misconceptions to maintain their livelihoods.
The Fukushima Daiichi incident starkly illustrates how decades of fear-mongering against nuclear fission energy culminated in a human disaster. It wasn’t a technical one. This was not an unprecedented failure of technology but rather a “normal” unfortunate industrial accident—one among many that must occur in humanity’s relentless pursuit of knowledge and progress. We only learn from our mistakes. The real tragedy lies not in exaggerated radiation levels but in panic-driven decisions that resulted in over 2,300 deaths from evacuation—deaths that were entirely preventable.
As we reflect on Fukushima Daiichi, it is crucial to recognize that misinformation and fear often pose greater dangers than the technologies themselves. Moving forward, we must foster a more rational and informed dialogue about nuclear energy—acknowledging its potential while addressing genuine safety concerns. Only by doing so can we ensure that lessons learned from Fukushima Daiichi lead us toward a more balanced understanding of risk and safety in our quest for energy solutions.
Post Piece: Strategies to Avoid Fukushima-Type Response Failures
By incorporating these strategies into emergency response planning, nuclear facilities—and indeed any industrial facility—can enhance their preparedness and minimise potential Fukushima-type response failures in the future.
These recommendations emphasise decentralisation, communication, training, flexibility, infrastructure resilience, public education, and continuous improvement—all crucial elements in developing a comprehensive and effective emergency response framework.
[1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR857.html
[2] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5707945/
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7843374/
[5] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7896
[6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X23001189
[7] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421512006453
[8] https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1313825110
See more of such information on our LinkTree: Linktr.ee/TheThoriumNetwork
Subscribe to our newsletter Newsletter Sign up and stay updated with our activities.
#LiquidFission #GotThorium #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U
Diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease(PD) aged 77, Dr. Hans G. Borgensberger became part of the million or so people in the US living with what is the second most common neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer’s disease. Like the close to 90,000 who are newly diagnosed every year, this could have spelled limitations and a decline in physical ability as was the case with the legendary Mohammed Ali.
But Dr. Borgensberger, with a distinguished career in nuclear physics, wasn’t one to back down from a challenge.
Reading through his own record of the steps he took to orient his journey with PD towards a specific trajectory, it is quickly apparent that his is a lot more than a narration of a medical journey debunking what was supposed to be established consensus on PD. It is an unexpected source of inspiration for the many young scientists graduating out of the safety offered by classrooms and labs and venturing forth exposed to dizzying world academia or the even more precarious one of industry. It is particularly inspirational for those of us from developing countries who have made the trip back at home after decades abroad and now keen to apply what we’ve learned all these years to solve the problems we see around us.
Dr. Borgensberger’s approach is a masterclass in perseverance. “Perseverance” is a word that has always sent me on a tangent of nostalgia. “Perseverance Shall win through” is the motto at Maseno School, one of the first academic institutions to be set up in Kenya by European missionaries in the previous century. All Maseno boys through-out the ages, I included, would recite the words every Monday morning during the Start of the Week assembly. The motto is a rallying call that all the notable names in governance, academia and sports in East Africa that passed through Maseno School’s gates made. This includes the Late Barrack Obama Snr whose son was once the president of the United States of America.
Dr. Borgensberger describes how he defied the boundaries set for those with his condition, taking up and thriving in new physical activities like fencing and skiing – activities that most wouldn’t dare attempt with PD. This adventurous and questioning spirit was once considered a very valuable asset in the early days of nuclear science and engineering. There were entire plethora of attempts at what back then were definitely exotic designs aimed at harnessing fission. Just as Dr. Borgensberger has dared to explore unconventional but safe ways to improve his condition, researchers back then did not hesitate to push the boundaries by looking into advanced reactor designs and alternative fuels. It was a golden age that youngsters like myself hope will comeback as anthropogenic climate change bears its sharp teeth.
There is a lot more to Dr. Borgensberger’s story than just his physical feats. That he was able to maintain his genuine curiosity at such an advanced age is equally inspiring. Most of us allow the curiosity that guided us in our early years to be attenuated by the vicissitudes of everyday living as soon as we have bills to pay. Though I am certain there are many who will rank Dr. Borgensberger’s fascination with Quantum entangled particles and his theorizing a connection to his own improvement as science fiction, it is all still quite remarkable.
The thirst for knowledge, understanding and the willingness to question established ideas which imbues Dr. Borgensberger journey, has always been the cornerstone of scientific progress. With academia steadily degenerating into a “who has published more papers” contest, his is a reminder that breakthroughs and deep understanding of the universe around us has often come from those who dare to look beyond the norm. In nuclear science and engineering safety will always be the guiding principle, but as Dr. Borgensberger’s has shown, that should not come at the cost of trying out new ideas and approaches that, of course, must be rigorously tested and validated. The ongoing debate between the champions of the Linear No-Threshold model of the effects of radiation at low doses and the proponents of the Sigmoid No-Threshold model of the same is an excellent place to do exactly that.
Dr. Borgensberger’s narration of the many remarkable people he worked with at varying stages of their careers is also a testament to the power that teamwork has in scientific endeavors. This cannot be reiterated enough in places like Kenya, for example, where rather than fostering teamwork and camaraderie among our young scientists, professional bodies have over the years encouraged pointless competition whose effects are apparent everywhere you look. Regulatory bodies, like the Engineers Board of Kenya (EBK), have mutated into gatekeeping panels of egotistical senior citizens who probably need time machines to travel to the present.
There is a clear and frankly speaking shocking chasm that has emerged where instead of having a spectrum, we have a polarised practice that has so called “Baby boomers” at one end and my generation of newly minted researchers and engineers at the other. The vacuum in between is partly a consequence of EBK allowing itself to ossify by being dismissive of the reinvigoration that comes with the introduction of youthful energy into any context . The proof of this is the current bizarre state of affairs where it is possible for someone like I for example to graduate with advanced degrees in fields like nuclear and quantum engineering from universities all ranked in the top 100 globally, and still find that neither the courses I have taken nor the universities are accredited by the locals. We can learn a lot from the camaraderie between Dr. Borgensberger and his buddies. When colleagues, regardless of seniority and status collaborate with each other it is only a matter of time before a spark ignites a groundbreaking discovery.
Dr. Hans G. Borgensberger’s story may not directly offer a direct blueprint for the development of safer nuclear reactors. But the spirit he embodies – that of determination, curiosity, and a willingness to explore the unconventional, all within the framework of sound verifiable science – is an inspiration for all of us in the new generation keen to take the button. It’s this kind of inquisitive and persistent mindset that can lead to the next big breakthrough in the nuclear field, paving the way for a safer, brighter and more prosperous future for all.
Content by Omondi Agar
Thanks to Jeremiah Josey and Dusya Lyubovskaya for making this one happen.
#Perseverance #Borgensberger #Parkinsons #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #TheThoriumNetwork #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #WindTurbines #Solar #RareEarthWastes
When I encountered the book Unintended Consequences1 by the recently departed Dr. George Erickson, I had long since abandoned a belief that I had held to be the gospel truth. Growing up in Nairobi, Kenya and seeing how stochastic everyday life was, I was conditioned to invest my faith and emotions in other stuff that I hoped would be a bit more consistent and impeccable than the seemingly random occurrences that seem dictate life in a country like Kenya; one that was perched atop a solid foundation. As a young impressionable kid just beginning the long trudge towards an education, the answer back then was “Science” – or rather what I thought was “science.” It had, after all, been presented to me as an impartial evidence-based approach that our species had settled upon as the tool to probe and extract information from the universe around us. I embraced it all with relish.
A series of events culminated in me ending up a student at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), an environment where “science” was not just being consumed, but also being “made.” One of the things that come with travelling in pursuit of education is that you pick up certain cultural subtleties on top of the technical knowledge that sends us there in the first place. Most of what you pick tends to be benign; how to not leave the lab before the professor does and such. Others tend to leave an indelible mark on you. In my case, this was the realization that rather than being impartial, science was yet another human activity done by humans, and left unchecked, it had the potential to reflect everything it means to be human; the strengths and indeed more worrying, our flaws.
The first alarm bell sounded when I learned that Korean society had “optimized and localized” regulations governing radiation exposure. This struck me as rather bizarre since it implied that scientific “fact” was parochial in nature; that scientific facts could shift depending on who was interpreting them and from where. A bit of a tangent, trying to quell the unease led me to the heated yet messy debate on dose limits that had apparently been raging on for decades within the nuclear industry. I couldn’t fathom why an issue that ought to have been straightforward saw different national entities looking at the same data and coming to wildly differing conclusions. A very gentle scratch of the surface trying to figure things out led me to the infamous Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) model that even to this day refuses to go away regardless of how much updated data, common sense and logic are thrown at it.
A must-read on the topic was obviously “Unintended Consequences” by the late Dr. George Erickson who deserves recognition for his passionate advocacy of not just nuclear power, but also particularly Liquid fission thorium-based reactors that showed a lot of promise in the golden era of nuclear engineering when innovative designs seemed popping out of thin air.
Read together with “Why Nuclear has been a Flop”2 by Jack Devanney of Thorcon International, the two are primers on how not to handle new cutting-edge technology like nuclear and reveal how it was possible for scientific mischief by a handful of individuals could wipe out the 500,000:1 advantage that nuclear power was projected to have compared to other technologies.
It is always fun to read a book. It is even more intriguing to read about the author. A man of varied accomplishments – dentist, bush pilot, and author – Dr Erickson made the decision to dedicate his life to promoting safe, clean energy solutions in a way that, as I looked up his work, resonates very deeply with me. Reading “Unintended Consequences” posthumously I found him answering questions I had long before I was even aware of them. He challenged the prevailing ideas about the excesses that have followed the adoption of Hermann Muller’s LNT model and laid bare the dire consequences that have followed. From the crippling energy poverty that continues to afflict the vast majority of the people on this planet to the very real threat of runaway climate change extinguishing the flames of our civilization, Dr Erickson doesn’t mince his words.
Dr. Erickson was a proponent of a scientific approach to safety. Like the other visionaries of his time, he championed the use of thorium as a superior alternative to traditional finite and clunky uranium. He argued for its efficiency, environmental benefits, and reduced proliferation risks. He was a voice of reason in the often-charged debate where catchphrases are brandished as counterarguments against the use of nuclear to rescue our civilization from the brink of runaway climate change. His writing style and wordplay do an excellent job of bridging the gap between scientific and public discourse.
Though I only discovered his work posthumously, the more I read about the man, the more I appreciate his indelible mark on nuclear discourse. It is a legacy that relatively young fellas like testing the waters as we try to build careers, can learn a lot from.
The best way to ensure that the Late Dr George Erickson’s legacy lives on is to do what he dedicated a significant portion of his life to; keep asking the questions that need answers. Few things would better celebrate his memory than continuing the pursuit of a fact-based approach to addressing the questions that will come as the effects of climate change start to bite. Only then will we stand a chance at addressing what Jack Devanney aptly refers to as “The Gordian knot of our time.”
May the light that Dr George Erickson has cast on this issue and others, keep guiding those of us keen to take up the mantle of spreading the gospel of nuclear power to every corner of our planet.
By Omondi Agar
PS, Thanks to Jeremiah Josey and Dusya Lyubovskaya for setting this up and making the post for me.
Links and References
#UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #TheThoriumNetwork #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #WindTurbines #Solar #RareEarthWastes
This confidential report compiles and summarises the contemporaneous documentary record relating to The Thorium Network’s (TTN) interactions with The Venus Project (TVP). Its principal purpose is (a) to provide a concise, verifiable dossier for select investors, partners and press under NDA; and (b) to identify factual inconsistencies in public postings compared to preserved contemporaneous documents. The core documentary exhibit is an email dated 23 October 2023 from Roxanne Meadows to Yevhen (Evgeniy) Sliuzko (Jeremiah Josey BCC’d), preserved in TTN custody.
All originals or electronic copies are held in TTN’s evidence repository.
Exhibits are indexed in the repository and are available for verified review under NDA, except for Exhibit A, which is given below in its entirety.
This report and the documents referenced herein are confidential and have been prepared by counsel solely for the benefit of The Thorium Network (TTN) and its authorised recipients. Access to this document is provided subject to a signed non disclosure and confidentiality agreement (NDCA), and is limited to persons or entities expressly authorised by TTN. The information contained in this report is privileged and may include attorney-client communications and attorney work product.
If you are not an authorised recipient, you must immediately cease any use, copying, distribution or retention of this document and you must promptly notify TTN. Upon notification, you must immediately delete and permanently destroy all copies in your possession or control and provide written confirmation to TTN that you have done so.
TTN and counsel has made commercially reasonable efforts to verify the factual information in this report. The report contains factual summaries of documents in TTN’s custody and limited interpretative commentary. Where interpretative conclusions are offered, they are expressly identified as such. Recipients should not construe opinions expressed in this report as legal conclusions or as a waiver of privilege. Nothing in this report shall be construed to constitute a final or exhaustive factual or legal determination; TTN reserves all rights to supplement, amend or correct the record.
Unauthorised disclosure or use of this report may cause irreparable harm to TTN. TTN expressly reserves all rights and remedies, including injunction and damages, in the event of unauthorised dissemination or other breach of the confidentiality obligations associated with this material. This confidentiality notice is governed by the laws of Switzerland, and any dispute arising out of this notice shall be resolved in the courts of that jurisdiction.
The documents in TTN custody (notably Exhibit A) give TTN a defensible, contemporaneous record to present to qualified stakeholders under NDNCA.
1) TTN: Private and Confidential Report on TVP and Yevhen Sliuzko
2) MECI: Private and Confidential Report on TVP and Yevhen Sliuzko
The Thorium Network hereby issues this statement to address recent allegations circulating in the public domain and to provide clarity regarding our collaboration with The Venus Project. Our commitment to transparency and factual communication remains paramount.
The Thorium Network has maintained a productive collaboration with The Venus Project to promote sustainable technologies and advanced energy solutions. This partnership aligns with our shared vision of fostering innovation for a better future. We recognise the importance of this collaboration in advancing research and awareness around Thorium energy.
As part of the work planned with The Venus Project, The Thorium Network engaged expert advisers under formal, binding agreements. Notably, The Thorium Network contracted with Dr. Simon Michaux pursuant to a substantial, binding consultancy agreement to support the technical workstreams associated with The Venus Project initiative. Dr. Michaux’s role was contractual and authorised by The Thorium Network for the specific purposes of that collaboration.
We are aware of certain allegations that have been made recently about our operations and the nature of the collaboration. We categorically deny any misinformation or actions that might compromise our integrity or the principles on which our organisation stands. We take these allegations seriously and are conducting an internal review to ensure complete accountability.
Some recent online commentary originates from a former would-be collaborator of The Venus Project whose proposals were not accepted by Jacque Fresco nor the project team following his passing. This individual has published material that combines personal opinion, selective citation of public records, and asserted inferences, which we characterise as unfounded “mud slinging.” The Thorium Network will not respond to every online claim made. Instead, we will address public assertions through verifiable documentation and measured communications targeted appropriately to our stakeholders and the press.
Our partnership with The Venus Project is based on mutual respect, shared goals, and transparent cooperation. This collaboration is focused on educational outreach and technology development, guided by ethical standards and best practices in research. All activities conducted under this partnership adhere strictly to legal and regulatory requirements.
For serious investors, partners, or stakeholders seeking further clarity on the complexities surrounding these matters, a comprehensive confidential report is available upon request. This report contains detailed information intended to provide context beyond what can be publicly disclosed. Access to this report will be granted only under strict confidentiality agreements to ensure protection of sensitive legal, intellectual property, and proprietary information.
Stakeholders interested in requesting access to this confidential report are encouraged to contact us directly. We are committed to facilitating informed dialogue while safeguarding the integrity of all involved parties.
The Thorium Network remains dedicated to providing accurate information to our stakeholders and the public. We welcome dialogue and inquiries to promote a greater understanding of our mission and collaborative efforts. We are committed to resolving any concerns swiftly and responsibly.
We appreciate the continued support from our community and partners as we work together to advance sustainable energy solutions. The Thorium Network will continue to operate with openness, accountability, and dedication to innovation.
Sincerely,
Jeremiah Emanuel Josey
Chairman, The Thorium Network and associated entities
2) MECi Group
2) MECI Group
1) TTN: Private and Confidential Report on TVP and Yevhen Sliuzko
2) MECI: Private and Confidential Report on TVP and Yevhen Sliuzko
The Venue Project link: TVP
2023 marks a huge milestone for The Thorium Network and our division the International Plasma Research InstituteTM, or IPRITM. We successfully serviced a number of clients and cracked their inert materials using Plasma Assisted DigestionTM or PADTM for short.
We did this at indicative costs and time much less than industry standards. Indeed, one client gave us material they are unable to recover anything from. We obtained almost 80% of the precious Rare Earths from the material. That’s case study 3 below.
Here are the summaries of three case studies from some of our work in 2023:
Our plasma team is the best in the world, covering the United Kingdom, South America, the Middle East and the USA.
Using a proprietary configuration of gases, geometry and plasma, at IPRITM we are able to change the structure of a mineral matrix such that we crack a normally locked, tight crystal mineral lattice, such as monazite or apatite. This makes them quite accessible using mild liquid separation technologies.
The benefit are:
We are excited by the potential to apply PADTM to other inert mineral structures to explore their viability also.
Here are some research papers from Necsa on Plasma technology that prove the technology.
Typical separation of rare earth elements is a capital intensive and expensive operation. With our partners we have PertraXTM. At a fraction of the cost of tradition solvent extraction technologies PertraXTM is able to safely separate rare earths with the smallest of environmental footprints with only a fraction of the hardware and consumables traditionally used. It’s a revolution in rare earth production.
PertraXTM is also part of our activities at IPRITM.
During 2023, the esteemed and highly experienced scientist Dr. Necdet Aslan joined us at IPRI.tech. Dr. Aslan is Türkiye’s expert in plasma physics and technology and professor at Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
As we move into the future we are excited by the prospects we have to expand our activities. Reach out to us here if you would like to join our illustrious team.
Our objective at The Thorium Network is to Accelerate the Worldwide Adoption of Liquid Fission Thorium Energy. We do that through three main activities:
1) We strive for easy access to Thorium as a fission fuel and focus on Liquid Fission – its technical superiority is unrivalled. The track and trace of nuclear fuels provides a solution for countries to go nuclear faster. Less headaches. This is done in full compliance with international guidelines and country regulations;
2) Raising public awareness to the benefits of Fission. As well as being an innovator of supply chain logistics we are also a public relations group as as advocate Fission Energy;
3) Driving licensing and installation of Fission machines across the world, using our network and access within the industry. For this we include all advanced fission technology, as well of course, Liquid Fission Thorium Burners (LFTBs).
Follow us at on our social media:
#GotThorium #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #NuclearEnergy #Plasma #MineralsProcessing #IPRI #PAD #PertraX
The event that is collectively known as “Chernobyl” was little more than a minor industrial accident. However 37 years after the incident it is still labelled as a “catastrophe”. Why is that?
What catastrophe? The only catastrophe of that particular event was other countries sticking their noses into the internal affairs of other sovereign nations. Something that seems to be a daily preoccupation.
Imagine the scene: a phone rings. Someone answers…
Caller – “um, mister USSR person, we have detected radiation at our facility so we’re checking if anything has happened over your way”.
Response – “No. Mind your own business”.
Caller – “Please tell us, we’re scared”.
Response – “Sorry we forgot that you have this insane aversion to a perfectly good source of energy. Yes, one of our power stations blew up. What’s the problem?”.
Caller – “But our cows in Sweden now glow in the dark”.
Response – “Really? Have you checked? Sorry we can’t help your lack of critical thinking. Call me in 37 years and let’s discuss then”.
Caller – “But…”.
‘Click’. Responder hangs up.
There is no call back.
You can now take Chernobyl tours. The wildlife is thriving. Reactors 1, 2 and 3 continued to operate after #4 went offline and they went on to provide enough energy for 2,000,000 homes or about 5,000,000 people.
Based on the work of Harvard, this saved the lives of about 6,000 people every year from the clean air that Chernobyl provided after the incident.
When Reactor 4 imploded and in the cleanup efforts only 31 people perished. In the 37 years since, the collective “we” struggle to find any evidence of trans-national transgressions. Even local ones.
The once famed Chernobyl Tissue Bank, previously housed at the prestigious Imperial College in London and led by former antinuclear but now pronuclear advocate, Professor Geraldine Thomas found nothing. George Monbiot – once a leading Greenpeace member and their biggest anti-nuclear spokesman – interviewed Professor Thomas for a planned hit piece on Chernobyl. Two weeks after the interview – and following getting the Chernobyl data – he dropped out of Greenpeace decrying the obvious fraudulent activities of Greenpeace against nuclear energy. Mr. Monbiot has been a strong pro-nuclear advocate ever since.
Professor Thomas has since stepped aside as head of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank and the think tank has moved from Imperial College, UK to Maryland, USA. It is now under the control of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) – obviously an independent body. Previously the Chernobyl Tissue Bank presented factual studies, data, evidence and its management structure clearly. Now it’s merely a mouthpiece of the Organised Opposition to nuclear power energy with its management hidden behind a series of “committees and panels”.
The Chernobyl “story” as a catastrophe is a farce by any account of reasonable and rational introspection. It is still being milked by the organised opposition to scare people away from secure, reliable Fission energy, because that opposition has so much to lose. Much like the well managed – though media bashed – release of cooling water in Fukushima happening now on the other side of the planet. There is no issue there either.
Here are some real catastrophes still happening every day:
As for industry catastrophes, here are some real ones. No nuclear anywhere.
The Russian’s-those operating Chernobyl-didn’t think much of sharing the news of losing one of their power plants. Because it frankly wasn’t anybody’s business. They weren’t hiding anything. Even 37 years later we search and search for the numbers to quantify the qualification of “a catastrophe”.
But the search continues in vain. Ironically the same can be said for so-called radiation deaths from the purposeful bombing of Japan by the USA in 1945 using nuclear weapons. Massive fire and heat killed thousands of women and children. But radiation incorrectly takes the blame.
So, fancy a bit of midweek popcorn entertainment. Dial up Chernobyl on HBO and let the fantasy take you away from your real concerns. The ones we seem to want to simply ignore.
For a sobering reminder of the perils of modern human society you can review these lists. Humans learn from mistakes.
#Chernobyl #Wildlife #Wolves #Horses #Bears #Buffalo #Przewalski
The name of the article is “Molten salt reactors were trouble in the 1960s—and they remain trouble today.”, authored by M. V. Ramana and appearing 20 June 2022 on the website of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Keep in mind that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are the keepers of the “Doomsday Clock” – a relic of the cold war era designed to keep Joe Public scared and the public funding coffers open so the industrial-military complex of the west could continue building nuclear weapons. The links is the end of this article.
The Doomsday Clock has been ticking for 70 years. It’s time to let it die.
Why I’m giving up on the apocalypse countdown., Shannon Osaka, Reporter
We could spend hours rebutting and refuting every single piece of purported evidence submitted by the article, but that is not smart thing to do. And it’s not actually the point. When you understand the meaning behind the article a direct refute is actually a waste of time.
But, on the technical competence of Thorium Molten Salt technology, we have spent many hours interviewing the last surviving members of the research programs of the 1960’s and 1970’s. We can state that all the claims in the article we have reviewed are bogus. Hence our review here.
The article was clearly a hit piece from the start, so it must be assessed as one. We will review the writing style and the techniques used to make it appear a useful and credible piece. But in fact it is not at all. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with objectives that are not clear from the article itself.
The article creates a dismal portrayal of actual events, and doubt and hesitation in the mind of the uninformed reader. Even a nuclear scientist who hasn’t studied the MSRE could nod their head in agreement – unless they critically review how the data is presented.
If used skillfully, the article would be a damaging success and Thorium Molten Salt would remain on the shelf.
The article is designed to be given to a senator or congress member (India, USA, German etc.) who might be teetering on the edge of supporting the best form of energy generation we have: Thorium Molten Salt.
This article could also be used to commit USD billions of public money to dilute and bury U233. Who owns the contracting companies work in the place where they will bury it? Follow the money.
It’s unfortunate that such people exist who put their name to such work, but hey, it’s not a game without an opponent.
Firstly here’s some pointers on how to attack something with an article, without making it appear like an attack. There are certain techniques that a writer can use to make their writing appear full of valuable data while dissuading further analysis.
These techniques include:
Other variations of techniques that can be used to appear scientific and fact-based while actually presenting a biased or negative view of the subject matter. can be:
Let’s now consider the author. Who is he and what is his beef with Thorium? It’s important to understand their position and who or what they may be supporting in the background.
On face value, it seems that M. V. Ramana is a well-respected expert in nuclear disarmament. He has published extensively on the subject, and his work has been recognized with several awards and appointments to prestigious organizations. Ramana’s focus on disarmament and nuclear risk assessment suggests that he is concerned about the potential dangers of nuclear power and views it as a threat to global security.
Given his expertise in the field and his focus on disarmament, it is not surprising that Ramana is critical of Molten Salt Burners. His emphasis on the risks associated with this technology, such as accidents and proliferation concerns, have been debunked in numerous papers and reports, however it obvious that Ramana still views them as unacceptable given the article and his general concerns about the nuclear topic. Additionally, his affiliation with groups such as the International Nuclear Risk Assessment Group and the team that produces the World Nuclear Industry Status Report suggest that he is part of a broader movement to promote other energy options, which may lead him to be sceptical of any nuclear technologies.
However, upon reviewing the previous articles Ramana has authored or co-authored, notably absent is anything about UK’s plans to increase their nuclear arsenal. The UK needs to boost their uranium fired power industry to give cover for plutonium production. The material is necessary for the additional 80 Trident warheads the UK intends to build in the next few years.
You can dive down that rabbit hole of more nuclear weapons with these links:
UK Planning for Rapid Nuclear Expansion
UK Increases Nuclear Arsenal Article 1 – Reuters
UK Increases Nuclear Arsenal Article 2 – Guardian
Having no article on this is strange considering Ramana’s position as chair of a non-proliferation organization, and his propensity to produce articles. There are 33 articles on The Bulletin alone with his name attached.
However one must consider what the UK has been doing to rubbish Thorium. We will touch on it here but it does deserve a full article in the near future.
Put frankly, after the IAEA published their technical memo 1450 in May 2005 supporting Thorium as a fuel and identifying it’s non-proliferation features, the UK set about the systematic vilification of Thorium. An anti-Thorium article by three learned (but non-nuclear) Cambridge professors; a publicly funded 1.5 million GBP “no-to-Thorium” research report by a single person consultancy that referenced Wikipedia as a source; the gagging of a Lord; the possible early demise of the former head of Greenpeace UK, who had switched to Thorium. Then, the announcements of new nuclear energy for UK and shortly thereafter new nuclear weapons. It’s the makings of a sinister plot of a Bond movie. Or perhaps more akin to a “Get Smart” episode, or indeed, for the UK, “Yes, Minister”.
IAEA Technical Memo 1450 Thorium Fuel Cycle Potential Benefits and Challenges
Be sure to consider this IAEA report on Thorium focuses on solid fuel uses. This is not ideal. This is addressed very well by Kirk Sorensen in 2009 and you can read that here:
A Response to IAEA-TECDOC-1450
So the question is, does Ramana receive funding or any kind not to discuss new weapons for the UK? Has he been prompted (paid) to weigh into the argument against Thorium because of these plans?
We will never know these answers.
Launching into the article itself, here are some of the techniques that have been used manipulate readers.
Use of emotional language. The author uses words like “trouble” and “hype” to describe molten salt machines, which could instill a negative emotional response in readers and make them less likely to consider the technology objectively. The author refers to the “failed promises of nuclear power,” which may be intended to evoke a sense of disappointment or disillusionment with nuclear energy in general.
Cherry-picking data. The author points out that “no commercial-scale molten salt reactors have ever been built,” which could be interpreted as evidence that the technology is unproven or unreliable. However, this overlooks the fact that of the numerous activities worldwide to commercializes the technology. There are several countries and many private companies actively pursuing new molten salt reactor designs.
The author notes that molten salt reactors require “materials that can withstand intense radiation and high temperatures,” which could be interpreted as a major technical challenge. However, this overlooks the fact that many materials capable of withstanding extreme conditions already exist, and that ongoing research is aimed at developing even more robust materials.
There’s multiple use of logical fallacies. Here are two examples:
Example 1: The author suggests that because molten salt reactors were initially developed as part of a military program, they are inherently problematic or dangerous. This is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy, which attacks the character or motives of an argument rather than addressing the argument itself.
Example 2: The author implies that because molten salt reactors were not ultimately adopted for commercial use in the 1960s, they must be fundamentally flawed. This is an example of a false dilemma fallacy, which presents only two options (in this case, success or failure) and overlooks more nuanced or complex possibilities.
Used extensively is appeal to authority. The author repeatedly references well-respected scientists and institutions to bolster his argument against molten salt reactors. While it’s important to consider expert opinions, the constant invocation of authority figures can also be a way to shut down debate and discourage readers from doing their own research. For example, he cites a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that characterizes molten salt burners as “inherently dangerous,” but doesn’t provide any details about the methodology or findings of the report.
Basic Fear-mongering is used. In addition to playing up the potential risks of molten salt burners, the author also seems to imply that proponents of the technology are somehow sinister or untrustworthy. For example, he writes that “The companies and individuals involved in promoting this technology today have made claims that range from the dubious to the outright false.” This kind of rhetoric can be effective at turning readers against a particular idea or group, but it doesn’t necessarily contribute to a reasoned discussion of the topic at hand.
There are examples of oversimplification. While the author does acknowledge that there are some potential benefits to molten salt burners, he ultimately argues that they are too risky and impractical to be a viable solution to our energy needs. However, his arguments often rely on oversimplifications or generalizations that don’t fully capture the nuances of the technology. For example, he writes that “One of the main reasons molten salt reactors were abandoned in the 1960s was their inherent safety problems,” without providing any additional context or elaboration on what those safety problems were. This kind of oversimplification can be misleading and obscure important details that might challenge the article’s argument.
Overall, it’s clear that the author is deeply skeptical of molten salt burners and believes that they are not a viable solution to our energy needs. While it’s important to consider potential risks and drawbacks associated with new technologies, it’s also important to have an open and nuanced discussion about their potential benefits and drawbacks. The techniques used in the author’s article are also manipulative and intellectually dishonest, and readers should be aware of these techniques as they consider his argument.
Now here are three credible reviews by three very different professionals:
I am a pro-nuclear supporter, and must be since I am also a Doctor of Nuclear Physics, I reviewed the article “Molten salt reactors were trouble in the 1960s—and they remain trouble today” by M. V. Ramana. I will focus on the blatant non-scientific methods used to discredit a perfectly viable technology.
The article discusses the popularity of molten salt nuclear reactors among nuclear power enthusiasts, and their potential to lower emissions, be cheaper to run and consume nuclear waste, and be transportable in shipping containers. The article mentions how various governments and organizations have provided funding for the development of these reactors. However, the author asserts that this technology was unsuccessful in the past and is the solution to our current energy problems.
The author uses a several subterfuge techniques to support his argument. Firstly, he uses loaded language to portray molten salt reactors as a risky and problematic technology. For example, he uses the phrase “all the rage among some nuclear power enthusiasts” to imply that people are overly enthusiastic about this technology. The phrase “trouble” in the article’s title also suggests that molten salt reactors are problematic. Additionally, the author uses the phrase “legendary status” to describe the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, which is a hyperbole that can exaggerate the reactor’s success and, therefore, make it seem like a risky venture.
The author uses a strawman argument to discredit molten salt reactors’ developers and proponents. By implying that these people believe that the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was so successful that it only needs to be scaled up and deployed worldwide, the author sets up a weak and exaggerated version of the opposition’s argument, which is easy to refute.
The author uses an appeal to emotion by asking readers to adopt a 1950s mindset to understand the interest in molten salt machines. The author makes an emotional appeal by stating that breeder machines would allow humanity to live a “passably abundant life.” By doing so, the author tries to persuade readers that using molten salt machines would not lead to a more abundant life, which is an emotional argument rather than a logical one.
The author provides detailed information on the fuel used in the MSRE, including depleted uranium, highly enriched uranium (HEU), and uranium-233 derived from thorium. However, the author uses subterfuge by presenting the information on the fuel without providing any context on why these fuels were used. HEU was used during that time because it was the only fuel that could sustain the reactor at high temperatures. Uranium-233 was derived from thorium, which is more abundant than uranium, and the intention was to use this as a breeder fuel to produce more fissile material.
The author then goes on to criticize the MSRE by stating that the reactor failed to reach its intended power output of 10 MW. However, this information is presented without any context on the significance of this failure. The MSRE was an experimental reactor, and its primary goal was to test the feasibility of the technology. The fact that the reactor was operational for four years and achieved a maximum power output of 8 MW is significant in demonstrating that the technology was viable.
The author also highlights the interruptions that occurred during the operation of the MSRE, including technical problems such as chronic plugging of pipes, blower failures, and electrical failures. However, these issues are common in any experimental reactor, and the author fails to provide any context on the significance of these issues. It is essential to note that the MSRE was the first and only molten salt reactor to be built, and it was an experimental reactor. Therefore, the primary goal was to test the feasibility of the technology, and it was expected to encounter problems.
The author argues that materials must maintain their integrity in highly radioactive and corrosive environments at elevated temperatures. The corrosion is a result of the reactor’s nature, which involves the use of uranium mixed with the hot salts for which the reactor is named.
The article uses the technique of “cherry-picking” when discussing the material challenges in the manufacturing of molten-salt-reactor components. While the author acknowledges that Oak Ridge developed a new alloy known as IN0R-8 or Hastelloy-N in the late 1950s, which did not get significantly corroded during the four years of intermittent operations, the author also highlights that the material had two significant problems. First, the material had trouble managing stresses, and second, the material developed cracks on surfaces exposed to the fuel salt, which could lead to the component failing.
The author uses the technique of “fear-mongering” when discussing the material challenges. The author claims that even today, no material can perform satisfactorily in the high-radiation, high-temperature, and corrosive environment inside a molten salt reactor. However, the author fails to acknowledge the significant advancements in materials science and engineering in the last few decades that have enabled the development of new materials that can withstand extreme environments, including those in the nuclear industry. For example, the use of ceramic matrix composites, which can withstand high temperatures and radiation exposure, has been proposed as a potential solution for the material challenges in molten salt reactors.
The article uses the technique of “appeal to authority” when discussing the Atomic Energy Commission’s decision to terminate the entire molten salt reactor program. The author claims that the Atomic Energy Commission justified its decision in a devastating report that listed a number of problems with the large molten salt reactor that Oak Ridge scientists had conceptualized. The author then lists the problems with materials, the challenge of controlling the radioactive tritium gas produced in molten salt reactors, the difficulties associated with maintenance because radioactive fission products would be dispersed throughout the reactor, some safety disadvantages, and problems with graphite, which is used in molten-salt-reactor designs to slow down neutrons. However, the author fails to acknowledge that the decision to terminate the program was not based on technical problems at all, but was driven solely by anti-competitive measures of the fossil fuel industry.
The MSRE was an experimental reactor that aimed to test the feasibility of the technology, and it achieved significant milestones during its four years of operation. It is essential to acknowledge the significance of this experimental reactor in advancing nuclear technology and developing the concept of molten salt reactors.
Overall, the article uses subterfuge techniques, including cherry-picking, fear-mongering, and appeal to authority, to create a negative view of molten salt reactors. Information is presented information without providing any context or significance. While the article acknowledges some technical challenges, it fails to acknowledge the significant advancements in materials science and engineering in the last few decades that have enabled the development of new materials that can withstand extreme environments. The article also fails to acknowledge that the decision to terminate the program was not solely based on technical problems but was also influenced by political and economic factors.
I am a distinguished science author with a PhD in Psychology. I must stress I have no experience in nuclear physics however I am an expert in writing technical papers. I am also neither for no against nuclear energy. I support the most viable solutions and will listen to all sides of a debate before making my decision.
I must say that I found Ramana’s article on molten salt reactors to be both perplexing and concerning. Although the author claims to provide an unbiased analysis of the technology, the overall tone and language used suggests a hidden agenda.
From the beginning of the article, Ramana makes it clear that molten salt reactors were “trouble in the 1960s.” This statement is not only misleading, but also irrelevant to the current state of the technology. By focusing on the past, the author attempts to discredit the potential of modern molten salt reactors without presenting any valid reasons for doing so.
Throughout the article, Ramana employs various writing techniques to drive readers away from pursuing the subject further. For instance, the author uses complex technical jargon and vague language to create a sense of confusion and uncertainty. This tactic is particularly evident in the section where Ramana discusses the safety concerns associated with molten salt reactors. By using phrases like “could potentially lead to” and “poses a risk,” the author avoids making any definitive statements about the technology, rather relaying on speculating into realms of fear, which ultimately undermines its credibility.
Furthermore, Ramana’s use of anecdotal evidence and personal opinions also raises red flags. For instance, the author cites an incident in which a molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory suffered a leak, but fails to provide any context or details about the incident. By presenting this incident without any explanation, the author creates an impression that molten salt reactors are inherently dangerous without any factual basis to support this assertion.
I believe that Ramana’s article is an attempt to manipulate readers’ perceptions of molten salt reactors. By using various writing techniques to hide the truth and drive readers away from pursuing the subject further, the author presents a biased and incomplete analysis of the technology.
As a science author with a PhD in Psychology, I believe that it is essential to provide readers with accurate and unbiased information, and Ramana’s article falls short of this standard.
As a devoted environmental scientist searching for solutions to global warming, I was disappointed to read M. V. Ramana’s article on molten salt reactors. Ramana’s writing style and techniques are designed to hide the truth and dissuade readers from pursuing the subject further.
Ramana starts by discussing the history of molten salt reactors and their associated problems, including the fact that they were abandoned by the U.S. government in the 1970s. While this information is relevant, the author’s use of emotionally charged language such as “trouble” and “disaster” creates a negative connotation that is not necessarily supported by the evidence.
Furthermore, Ramana dismisses the potential benefits of molten salt reactors, such as their potential to reduce carbon emissions and provide reliable, baseload power. Instead, he focuses solely on the negative aspects of the technology, such as the potential for accidents and proliferation risks.
Ramana employs fear-mongering tactics to dissuade readers from exploring the subject further. He claims that molten salt reactors are inherently unstable and that they pose a significant risk of nuclear accidents. However, he fails to mention that molten salt reactors are designed with multiple safety features, including passive cooling systems and automatic shutdown mechanisms, to prevent any such accidents. In fact, the physics of running fission in a liquid state mean that the system can never over-heat. The same way an apple can never “fall up”. Apples only ever fall down.
Ramana claims that they were trouble in the 1960s and remain trouble today. This statement is highly misleading and lacks any scientific evidence to support it. Ramana ignores the fact that molten salt reactors have been the subject of extensive research and development over the past several decades, with numerous studies demonstrating them as a safe, clean, and cost-effective source of energy.
Ramana also uses selective and misleading information to paint a negative picture of molten salt reactors. For example, he cites a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that raises concerns about the technology, but fails to mention that the same report acknowledges the potential benefits of molten salt reactors and recommends further research.
Overall, I found Ramana’s article to be biased against molten salt reactors and lacking in objectivity. As an environmental scientist, I believe it is important to consider all potential solutions to global warming, including those that may have drawbacks. Instead of dismissing molten salt reactors based on their past history, we should focus on the potential benefits and work to address any remaining concerns through further research and development.
Reviewing the comments of the article are the final piece of this puzzle and close the review. There are no supporters of the arguments presented the author.
Or perhaps this is not a puzzle at all, as alluded to. Follow the money, if you can.
Here’s a list of some text extracted from the public comments to the article.
Jeremiah Josey, Founder and Chairman at The Thorium Network, has played a pivotal role in bridging Türkiye’s national Thorium ambitions with global expertise and collaboration. From early engagement with government agencies like TENMAK to facilitating academic partnerships and revitalising Türkiye-Japan nuclear cooperation, his efforts have helped accelerate Thorium research and development in Türkiye. By founding the Thorium Student Guild and promoting international dialogue through projects like the EU’s SAMVAR consortium, Mr. Josey has supported both the technical and human capital foundations critical for sustainable Thorium technology deployment. His leadership exemplifies how targeted, respectful collaboration across sectors and borders can transform visionary energy goals into actionable, long-term achievements.
In May 2021, following Türkiye’s renewed public commitment to advancing Liquid Fission Thorium Burner technology, Jeremiah Josey, founder and chairman of The Thorium Network, swiftly took action to support this transformative energy vision. Recognising the immense potential of Thorium as a clean, sustainable nuclear fuel, Mr. Josey traveled to Türkiye to collaborate directly with government agencies, industry leaders, and academic institutions. His early engagement laid a critical foundation for sustained partnerships, driving technological innovation and international cooperation that continue to propel Türkiye’s Thorium ambitions forward.
From the outset, Mr. Josey forged close working relationships with TENMAK (the Turkish Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency), providing expert advice on their Thorium energy initiatives. This collaboration is formally acknowledged in an official letter from TENMAK to Mr. Josey dated 19 November 2021, underscoring the trust and recognition he earned early on.
Beyond government agencies, he connected with industry leaders including ETİ Maden, which oversees the management of Türkiye’s Thorium resources—the second largest reserves in the world—and other major holding companies controlling substantial land suitable for Thorium production, some of which have mined magnetite deposits for over 10 years in southern Türkiye.
Meetings with universities such as Hacettepe University in Ankara and Sinop University have been an important part of the collaboration efforts led by Jeremiah Josey. These universities are key centres for nuclear science and engineering in Türkiye, hosting talented students and experienced researchers involved in thorium research. Mr. Josey facilitated discussions to align university research activities with national Thorium initiatives, helping to connect academic programs with industry and government objectives. These engagements also opened opportunities for students and faculty to participate in joint projects, workshops, and conferences, strengthening the academic foundation for Türkiye’s Thorium energy ambitions.
Jeremiah Josey’s leadership in facilitating collaboration between The Thorium Network, Cranfield University, Rolls Royce, and Türkiye has opened the door for deployment of supercritical CO₂ Brayton cycle technology, a leap forward in naval engineering and energy efficiency.
For each Turkish naval frigate, the use of this technology directly leads to fuel savings of hundreds of thousands of euros per year, the ability to travel significantly farther and faster, higher reliability thanks to supplementary power in emergencies, and lower carbon footprints. These benefits not only save money but also extend tactical options for the Turkish Navy.
Jeremiah’s hands-on orchestration of this international knowledge transfer is transforming Türkiye’s approach to maritime power and clean energy. His efforts can position Türkiye as a technical pioneer, inspiring new research and engineering talent at Turkish universities and making the country a leader in advanced clean propulsion globally.
Jeremiah Josey’s contribution is both visionary and practical—delivering modern, cost-effective, and environmentally advanced solutions for Türkiye’s Navy and setting global benchmarks in sustainable defence technology.
Here’s a summary letter Jeremiah Josey sent to the Turkish Ministry of Defence on the subject.
Mr. Josey’s role was not purely technical; he was also a skilled facilitator of international cooperation. Japan played an especially influential role in this endeavour. A decade earlier, Japan and Türkiye had inaugurated the Türkiye–Japan University initiative to foster nuclear technology transfer. However, the programme had become mired in bureaucratic obstacles. Leveraging his diplomatic acumen, Mr. Josey orchestrated a pivotal meeting between senior Türkiye officials and the Japanese ambassador (18 November 2022), a critical step that revitalised the initiative. Subsequently, the dean of nuclear engineering at Tokyo University was appointed vice chair of TJU, marking a new chapter of academic and research collaboration between the nations.
As part of fostering international connections, Jeremiah Josey engaged with Japanese companies involved in Türkiye’s nuclear energy sector and made site visits to the Sinop area, where significant energy projects are proposed. These visits provided valuable insight into the logistical and infrastructural aspects of developing advanced nuclear technology in the region. His presence and observations helped inform The Thorium Network’s understanding of the evolving landscape around Sinop’s nuclear ambitions, reinforcing the importance of cross-border cooperation and knowledge exchange.
In addition to these institutional efforts, Mr. Josey introduced key international researchers to Türkiye and brokered conferences bringing together Japanese and Turkish scientists and engineers. These forums have helped foster essential dialogue and knowledge exchange, with videos of some conferences publicly available, such as these ones:
Coverage of this collaborative spirit and passion for Thorium technology is also featured in articles like this one:
Another important aspect of Jeremiah Josey’s involvement in Türkiye’s Thorium development has been his collaboration with the Rare Earth Elements Research Institute (NATEN) under TENMAK, based in Ankara.
Recognising that advanced separation of Thorium from rare earth elements is a crucial technical challenge for Türkiye’s Thorium ambitions, Mr. Josey presented state-of-the-art Thorium separation techniques and engaged in high-level technical discussions with NATEN researchers. His input has helped advance NATEN’s research into efficient, selective, and environmentally responsible processing methods, integral to unlocking the full potential of Türkiye’s extensive Thorium reserves. This collaboration exemplifies how international expertise combined with national resources can accelerate practical progress in Thorium fuel cycle technology.
Mr. Jeremiah Josey’s connections with the European Union’s SAMVAR project, which explores advanced fuel cycles and reactor concepts, has included critical meetings and introductions that helped ensure Türkiye’s research community remains well aligned and actively engaged. Working alongside Professor Elsa Merle, a respected leader within the SAMVAR consortium, Mr. Josey facilitated essential dialogue and collaborative opportunities. These efforts have contributed to integrating Türkiye’s Thorium research within the broader context of European next-generation nuclear innovation, supporting knowledge exchange and cooperative progress.
Remembering that it is the youth who will carry thorium technology into the future, Mr. Jeremiah Josey also founded the Turkish Thorium Student Guild. This initiative plays a crucial role in nurturing the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers by providing them with educational resources, mentorship, and networking opportunities. Under Mr. Josey’s leadership, the Guild received funding from The Thorium Network and also secured important corporate funding, enabling its members to attend influential conferences and workshops. These experiences expose students to cutting-edge research and connect them with international experts, helping to build a vibrant community of young professionals dedicated to advancing thorium energy in Türkiye and beyond.
Capping off Mr. Josey’s extensive efforts in Türkiye was the recent formation of ThorAtom, led by distinguished and respected Turkish engineers Dr. Tarık Öğüt and Dr. Reşat Uzmen. This milestone consolidates years of partnership-building, research coordination, and strategic planning spearheaded by Mr. Josey and The Thorium Network.
As Türkiye continues to advance its Thorium energy ambitions, TheThorium.Network remains committed to fostering international collaboration, providing strategic expertise, and supporting innovative partnerships. Organizations, governments, and academic institutions interested in accelerating Thorium development are encouraged to connect with The Thorium Network to explore tailored solutions and collaborative opportunities. Through respectful partnership and shared vision, we can unlock the full potential of clean, sustainable nuclear energy for a safer and greener future.
To begin a conversation and learn more about how The Thorium Network can support your Thorium initiatives, please reach out to us via SAFE Fission Consult™.
I have written this article exclusively for The Thorium Network(1) on the basis that I remain anonymous – my livelihood depends on it. I completed my nuclear engineering degree in the late 2000’s and shortly thereafter found a position in a semi-government owned nuclear power station – with several PWRs to look after. One year after graduating and commencing my professional career, I discovered the work of Dr. Alvin Weinberg(2) and began conducting my own research.
My anonymity is predicated on my experience during this time of intense study and learning. As a young female graduate when I shared my enthusiasm for this technology I faced harassment and derision from my male colleagues, from high level government officials and also, unfortunately, from my university professors, whom I initially turned to for help. It wasn’t long before I started to keep my research and my thoughts to myself.
I have found Women In Nuclear(3) to be most supportive and conducive to fostering and maintaining my interest in this technology, though even there it remains a “secret subject”.
So when I discovered The Thorium Network(1), I decided it was a good platform to tell my story. I look forward to the time when there is an industry strong enough to support engineers like me full time, so we can leave our positions in the old technology and embrace the new.
As a nuclear engineer, I was trained to understand the intricacies of nuclear reactions and the ways in which nuclear power could be harnessed for the betterment of humanity.
During my time in university, I learned about various types of reactors, including pressurized water reactors, boiling water reactors, and fast breeder reactors.
Phew!
However, one type of technology that was never mentioned in my coursework was the Thorium Molten Salt Burner (TMSB). Or “Thorium Burner” as my friends like to say. “TBs” for short. I like it too. Throughout my article I also refrain from using traditional words and descriptions. The nuclear industry must change and we can start by using new words.
Shortly after graduating I stumbled upon information about TBs from the work of the famous chemist and nuclear physicist, Dr. Alvin Weinberg(2). TBs have enormous potential and are the future of nuclear energy. I can say that without a doubt. I was immediately struck by the impressive advantages that TBs offer compared to the technologies that I had learned about in school. I found myself wondering why this technology had not been discussed in any of my classes and why it seemed to be so overlooked in the mainstream discourse surrounding nuclear energy and in particular in today’s heated debates on climate change.
To understand the reasons behind the lack of knowledge and recognition of TBs, it is first important to understand what exactly TBs are and how they differ from other types of fission technologies. TBs are a type of fission device that use Thorium as a fuel source, instead of the more commonly used uranium or plutonium. The fuel is dissolved in a liquid salt mixture*, which acts as the fuel, the coolant and the heat transfer medium for taking away the heat energy to do useful work, like spin a turbine to make electricity, or keep an aluminum smelter bath hot**. This design allows for a number of benefits that old nuclear technology does not offer.
*A little tip: the salt is not corrosive. Remember, our blood is salty but we don’t rust away do we.
** I mention aluminum smelting because it too uses a high fluorine based salt – similar to what TBs use. And aluminum is the most commonly used metal on our planet. You can see more on this process here: Aluminum Smelting(4)
One of the most significant advantages of TBs is their inherent safety. They are “walk away safe”. Because the liquid fuel is continuously circulating, and already in a molten state, there is no possibility of a meltdown. If the core region tries to overheat the liquid fuel will simply expand and this automatically shuts down the heating process. This is known as Doppler Broadening(5).
Additionally, the liquid fuel is not pressurized, removing any explosion risk. It just goes “plop”.
These physical features make TBs much safer than traditional machines, which require complex safety systems to prevent accidents. Don’t misunderstand me, these safety systems are very good (there has never been a major incident in the nuclear industry from the failure of a safety system), but the more links you have in a chain the more chances you have of a failure. TBs go the other way, reducing links and making them safer by the laws of physics, not by the laws of man.
Another advantage of TBs is their fuel utilization. Traditional machines typically only use about 3% of their fuel before it must be replaced. In contrast, TBs are able to use 99.9% of their fuel, resulting in effectively no waste and a much longer fuel cycle (30 years in some designs). This not only makes TBs more environmentally friendly – how much less digging is needed to make fuel – but it also makes them more cost-effective.
TBs are also more efficient than traditional machines. They are capable of operating at higher temperatures (above 650 degrees C), which results in increased thermal efficiency and a higher output of electricity per unit of fuel. This increased efficiency means that TBs require even less fuel to produce the same amount of energy, making them even more a sustainable option for meeting our energy needs.
Ever wonder why all the recent “conspiracy theories” have proven to be true? It looks like Thorium is another one. It’s just been going on for a long, long time.
So why, then, was I never taught about TBs in university? The answer to this question is complex and multi-faceted, but can all be traced back to one motive: Profit. The main factor that has contributed to the lack of recognition and support for TBs is the influence of the oil and fossil fuel industries. These industries have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to preserve their profits. They have used their massive wealth and power to lobby against the development of competitive energy sources like TBs. Fossil fuel companies have poured billions of money into political campaigns and swayed public opinion through their control of the media. This has made it difficult for TBs to receive the funding and recognition they need to advance, as the fossil fuel industries work to maintain their dominance in the energy sector.
During my research I took a trip to Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, where the first experimental Thorium Burner, the MSRE – the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment – was built and operated in the 1960s. During my visit, I had the chance to speak with some of the researchers and engineers who had worked on the MSRE – yes some are still around. It was amazing to speak with them. I learnt first hand about the history of TBs and their huge potential that they have. I also learnt how simple and safe they are. They called the experiment “the most predictable and the most boring”. It did everything they calculated it would do. That’s a good thing!
The stories I heard from the researchers and engineers who worked on the MSRE were inspiring but also concerning. They spoke of the tremendous potential they saw in TBs and the promise that this technology holds for the future of meeting world energy demands. They also spoke of the political and funding challenges that they experienced first hand. The obstacles that prevented TBs from receiving the recognition and support they needed to advance. They were told directly to destroy all evidence of their work on the technology when Dr. Alvin Weinberg was fired as their director in 1972 and the molten salt program shut down. This was done under Nixon’s watch. You can even hear Nixon do this here on this YouTube(6) clip. Keep it “close to the chest” he says. I am surprised that this video is still up on YouTube considering the censorship we’ve been experiencing in this country in the past few years.
The experiences at Oak Ridge confirmed to me that TBs are a promising and innovative technology that have been marginalized and overlooked clearly on purpose. On purpose to protect profits of other industries. It was inspiring to hear about the dedication and passion of the researchers and engineers who worked on the MSRE, and it reinforced my belief in the potential of TBs to play a major role in meeting our energy needs in a sustainable and safe manner. I am hopeful that, with increased investment and support, TBs will one day receive the recognition and support they deserve, and that they will play a significant role in shaping the future of energy.
Despite the challenges, I believe that TBs have a promising future in the world of energy from the Atom. They offer a number of unique benefits that can clearly address the any minor concerns surrounding traditional nuclear energy machines, such as safety and waste management. They are also the answer for world energy.
In order for TBs to become a more widely recognized and accepted technology, more funding – both public and private – is needed to revamp the research and development conducted in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Additionally, education and awareness about the potential of TBs must be raised, in order to dispel any misconceptions and address the stigma that still surrounds nuclear energy, and to counter the efforts that are still going on even today, to stymie TBs from becoming commercial.
In order to ensure that TBs receive the support they need to succeed, it is necessary to counter the influence of the oil and fossil fuel industries and to create a level playing field for competitive energy sources. This will require a concerted effort from the public, policymakers, and the private sector to invest in and promote the development of TBs.
There’s also another factor that also needs to be addressed the same way as the oil and fossil fuel industries and that is the existing industry itself. The nuclear industry has long been dominated by a few large companies, and these companies have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and investing in traditional reactor technology. This includes funding universities to train people such as myself. This has made it difficult for TBs to gain traction and receive the funding they need to advance.
A third reason is the prodigious amount of money to be made in maintaining the apparent safety of the existing nuclear industry. This was something else I was not taught in school – about how fraudulent science using fruit flies was railroaded by the oil industry (specifically the Rockefellers) to create a cost increasing environment for the nuclear industry to prevent smaller and smaller amounts of radiation exposure. Professor Edward Calabrese(7) taught me the most about this. You must watch his interviews.
What has grown from this is a radiation safety industry – and hence a profit base – with a life of it’s own. I see it every single working day. It holds tightly to the vein that radiation must at all costs (and all profits) be kept out of the public domain. Again a proven flawed premise but thoroughly supported by the need, and greed, of the incumbent industry to maintain the status quo.
In conclusion, as someone who studied nuclear engineering but never learned about Thorium Molten Salt Technology, I am disappointed that I was not given the opportunity to learn about this promising and innovative technology during my time in university. However, I am also grateful to have discovered it now, particularly with my professional experience in the sector. I am eager to see how TBs will continue to evolve and change the face of energy worldwide. With the right support and investment, I believe that TBs have the potential to play the main role in meeting our energy needs in a sustainable and safe manner, and I hope that they will receive the recognition they deserve in the years to come.
Miss A., Space Ship Mother Earth, 2023.
#nuclear #thoriumburner #thoriummoltensalt #energy #university #womeninnuclear
The history and development of Liquid Fission Energy powered by Thorium is a fascinating one, with many twists and turns that have shaped the direction of the technology. In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower initiated the “Atoms for Peace”(1) program, which was designed to break the military-industrial complex and promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. This enthused a number of scientists, including Dr. Alvin Weinberg(2) and Dr. Eugene Wigner, who already saw the potential for using nuclear energy as a clean and abundant source of power and where dismayed at the use of their work on the Manhattan Project to kill massive numbers of women and children(3).
The development of Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium can be traced back to the 1950s and 1960s, when a group of scientists and engineers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee started working on the concept. They were looking for a way to improve the safety and efficiency of nuclear energy without creating a path to weapons, and they saw the potential in using thorium as a fuel. Thorium is a naturally occurring element that is abundant in many parts of the world, and it can be used to produce nuclear energy without the risk of weapons proliferation(4).
However, despite this initial enthusiasm, in the 1970’s the development of Molten Salt Fission Energy was soon stymied by a number of obstacles. One of the main challenges had been the introduction of the Linear Non Threshold (LNT) and As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principles by the Rockefellers, who intended to limit the growth of nuclear energy in order to protect their oil businesses. This was done by feeding on the fear of the unknown among the uneducated public and by using the fraudulent work of Professor Hermann Muller from his 1928 fruit fly research(5). As John Kutsch points out in his presentation(6), this was a critical turning point in the development of fission technology.
One of the key figures against the development was Hyman Rickover(7). Rickover was a bulldog of a man, determined to have pressure water fission machines running on uranium installed in his submarines. He was equally determined to redirect public funds away from the development of Molten Salt Fission Technology. This was because he couldn’t use that technology for his submarines and wanted the money for his own research programs. Despite these efforts, however, the development of Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium still continued.
A major step in this development was the creation of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. The MSRE was designed to test the feasibility of using molten salt as both a coolant and fuel for a fission machine. The experiment was a huge success, proving that the technology was both safe and efficient. The MSRE operated from 1965 to 1969 and provided valuable data on the behavior of molten salt as a coolant and fuel. This data helped to lay the foundation for the continued development of Molten Salt Fission Technology, however 1972 saw the dismissal of Dr. Weinberg and the defunding of all Molten Salt work. Led by President Nixon, the hegemony was intent on snuffing out any competition, which Molten Salt Fission Technology clearly was.
We remain in debt to Dr. Weinberg who continued to document, speak and promote their documented achievements until his passing in 2006 – just long enough for his material to be picked up and spread via the Internet(2).
The next step in the development of Molten Salt Fission Technology was the creation of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program(8). This program was initiated in the 1980s by the U.S. Department of Energy. The goal of the IFR program was to create a fission machine that was capable of recycling its own fuel, reducing the need for new fuel to be mined and demonstrating the efficient and safe use of high temperature molten systems – those ideally suited for Thorium Fission. The IFR program was a huge success, demonstrating the feasibility of closed fuel cycles for fission machines. The IFR program also provided valuable data on the behavior of fast-neutron-spectrum fission burners, which are critical components of modern fission technology. And, true to form. this program also suffered at the hands of it’s competition with the program being cancelled 3 years before it was completed in 1994 by Clinton and his oil cronies. Ironically, at the same time that excuses where being pushed through Congress to defund the program by Clinton and Energy Secretary Hazel R. O’Leary, O’Leary herself awarded the lead IFR scientist, Dr. Yoon Chang of Argonne Labs, Chicago(9) with $10,000 and a gold medal, with the citation stating his work to develop IFR technology provided “improved safety, more efficient use of fuel and less radioactive waste.”
“My children were wondering, Why are they are trying to kill the project on the one hand and then giving you this award?” Chang said with a chuckle. “How ironic. I just cannot understand how a nation that created atomic energy in the first place and leads the world in technology in this field would want to take a back seat on waste conversion,” Chang said. “I also have confidence in the democratic process that the true facts and technological rationale will prevail in the end.” Dr. Chang during an interview published 8 February 1994 by Elaine S. Povich(10), then a Chicago Tribune Staff Writer(11).
Despite these setbacks, there has been a resurgence of interest in Molten Salt Fission Energy in recent years, with a number of programs and initiatives being developed around the world. In France, the National Centre for Scientific and Technical Research in Nuclear Energy( CRNC ) is working on a number of projects related to this technology, including the development of a prototype fission burner. In Switzerland, ETH Zurich (home of Einstein’s work on E=mc^2) is also exploring the potential of Molten Salt Fission Energy, with a number of projects underway.
There are also a number of other countries that are actively pursuing Molten Salt Fission Energy, including the Czech Republic, Russia, Japan, China, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Each of these countries has its own unique approach to the technology, and is working to advance the state of the art in different ways.
In conclusion, the history and development of Liquid Fission THorium Burner Technology is a fascinating subject that highlights the innovations and advancements in the field of nuclear energy. From the “Atoms for Peace” program initiated by President Dwight Eisenhower, which attracted prominent scientists like Dr. Alvin Weinberg and Dr. Eugenie Wigner, to the efforts of Hyman Rickover to redirect public funds away from the technology, this technology has faced numerous challenges along the way. The introduction of Linear Non Threshold (LNT) and As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) by the Rockefellers in an effort to stop the growth of nuclear energy and the fraudulent work of Professor Hermann Muller have also played a significant role in the history of this technology.
Despite these challenges, the potential benefits of using Thorium as a fuel source for fission burners are significant. The technology is considered safer and more efficient than traditional nuclear reactors, and it has the potential to produce much less nuclear waste. Additionally, the abundance of Thorium on Earth makes it a more sustainable source of energy than other options, such as uranium.
While much work remains to be done to fully realize the potential of Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium, the future looks bright. In the next 15 years, we can expect to see significant advancements in the technology in many parts of the world, including new designs and prototypes that will demonstrate the full potential of this technology. And, in our children’s’ children’s future, 50, years and more, we can imagine a world where Molten Salt Fission Technology is the main component of our energy infrastructure, providing clean, safe, and sustainable energy for everyone.
#Thorium #ThoriumMoltenSalt #ALARA #LNT #Weinberg
