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.
1. Purpose, scope and handling instructions
Purpose: Provide a confidential, document-based summary that: (i) records the timeline and primary documents; (ii) highlights demonstrable facts useful to stakeholders; and (iii) outlines our communications and evidence-preservation plan.
Handling: This document is confidential. Release only under a signed NDA.
2. Core documents reviewed (preserved and indexed)
All originals or electronic copies are held in TTN’s evidence repository.
Exhibit A: Exhibit A: Email from Roxanne Meadows to Yevhen (Evgeniy) Sliuzko (hereafter “Sliuzko”), dated 23 October 2023 (Jeremiah Josey BCC’d). The original email (.eml) with full headers is also preserved.
Exhibit B: Non Disclosure Non Circumvention Agreement (NDNCA) signed between TTN and TVP, dated 31 December 2022.
Exhibit C: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between TTN and TVP, dated 7 December 2023.
Exhibit D: Contract between TTN and Dr. Simon Michaux securing Michaux’s services for the work scope with TVP and preventing non circumvention or non disclosure, dated 1 May 2023.
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.
Early to Mid 2013: Yevhen Sliuzko meets with Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows in Venus, Florida where Sliuzko appeals to be made the CEO of The Venus Project. Jacque flatly refuses. According to Roxanne Meadows (confidential internal communication), the situation was described as ‘sleazy’ and Sliuzko was viewed as the ‘strange Ukrainian.’ These terms reflect her personal perspective shared in confidence.
12 September 2013: Sliuzko establishes his own future design concept called “Designing the Future”. He used this platform to critically oppose TVP after his request to be made CEO was denied. The website attracts little traffic even to this day. https://www.whois.com/whois/designing-the-future.org
2013 -2017: Sliuzko runs a Russian language translations of Jacque Fresco’s work by merely dubbing over the videos and audio recordings created by Jacque in his life time. There are 1,000’s of these recordings online published by TVP. An instant following is formed of Russian speakers. Sliuzko generates significant income from YouTube advertising for which no formal revenue-sharing agreement with TVP exists, as verified by TVP. TVP stated difficulty in enforcing rights across jurisdictions and, while concerned about unauthorised use, tolerated the activity because of its promotional reach.
18 May 2017: Jacque Fresco dies and Sliuzko again insists on being made CEO of TVP. The remaining team, led by Ms Roxanne Meadows, declined his request. TVP confidentially described their view of Sliuzko in strongly negative terms: “sleazy Ukrainian”.
2017 to 2022: Sliuzko continued to publicly criticise the project and members of the team such as Roxanne Meadows and Nathaniel Dinwiddie. However his Russian language activities now attract millions of views. With Jacque’s death, Sliuzko’s tacitly approved work becomes the main public activity of TVP and he continued to publish commentary and translations, whilst remaining publically critical of TVP leadership. TVP indicated a tactical decision to maintain informal contact rather than engage in public confrontation; the decision was driven by risk-management concerns.
31 December 2022: Following extensive discussions directly between Jeremiah Josey of TTN and Roxanne Meadows of TVP, a comprehensive Non Disclosure and Non Circumvention Agreement is signed between the two organisations. The intention is to negotiate collaboration for a future city powered by Thorium, based on Jacque’s ideas. All relevant team members are included in the agreement, including Sliuzko. Jeremiah Josey was not aware of the issues between TVP and Sliuzko at this time.
10 January 2023: Jeremiah Josey with the TTN team meet online with Roxanne Meadows and the entire TVP team and continue the negotiations. The meeting goes well and an MOU is agreed as the path forward between TTN and TVP..
Late 2022 and Early 2023: Sliuzko again approaches the TVP team, spending an extending period on site at Venus, Florida. Again his request to be made CEO is flatly rejected by Roxanne and the board of TVP. Jeremiah Josey only became aware of the TVP interaction with Sliuzko late in the MOU negotiations.
1 May 2023: Comprehensive contract signed between TTN and Dr. Simon Michaux securing his position with TTN. He was already nominated as a TTN team member in the 31 December 2022 agreement with TVP. This was now his official engagement contract with TTN for the TVP project.
Most of 2023: The Sliuzko issue is revealed piece by piece to Jeremiah Josey as he attempts to put together the MOU between TTN and TVP. Significant time was required to address ongoing complications arising from Sliuzko’s ambiguous and inconsistent positioning regarding the project. Despite having no formal claim to the project, he continued to publicly criticise the TVP members while promoting the project to his Russian-speaking audience.
23 October 2023: Once the full situation was made aware to Jeremiah Josey about the leaking intellectual property to the Russian language work under Sliuzko, and his slanderous attacks on the team, Jeremiah Josey advises Roxanne Meadows to send an email to Sliuzko to secure the IP of TVP. After all, TTN intention is to expand and enhance this IP, and leaks are not good business. Roxanne sends the email to Yevhen Sliuzko, with a BCC to Jeremiah Josey. The content focuses on licensing/promotional arrangements; explicitly referencing development of scenario modelling under the promotional name “Venus Evolution” and states certain ownership/branding positions (Exhibit A). Jeremiah Josey retains an original copy. This is the first official position that Sliuzko has ever received in writing from TVP. Sliuzko responded with public criticism directed now at Jeremiah Josey.
7 December 2023: TTN and TVP execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) setting out the collaboration framework, confidentiality expectations and non-circumvention commitments (Exhibit B).
December 2023 – to date: TTN provides technical inputs and discussions under the MOU while confidentiality obligations remain in effect (Exhibit C).
Update as of 15 July 2024
January 2024 to March 2024: Sliuzko accelerates his attacks on TVP and TTN members directly, establishing a closed Telegram group. Anyone questioning the Sliuzko line or his “research” is promptly removed from the group. Only “yes men” are permitted to remain in this group. Videos are planned defaming Dr, Simon Michaux and Nathaniel Dinwiddie, representing them as “spiders”. A fake dossier is planned, discussed and created against Jeremiah Josey (screen shots are available).
28 March 2024: Sliuzko makes a public post strongly critical of Jeremiah Josey, which TTN and TVP consider slanderous and factually incorrect.
16 June 2024: The formal partnership between The Thorium Network (TTN) and The Venus Project (TVP) was dissolved. Subsequently, in breach of prior agreements, TVP engaged The Thorium Alliance as advisers on thorium-related matters without TTN’s consent.
1 July 2024: Dr. Simon Michaux, previously contracted by TTN under a binding consultancy agreement, breached his contract by joining the TVP advisory board. Following this action, Dr. Michaux was subsequently terminated from TVP’s advisory role. See below for evidence provided directly by Roxanne Meadows at TVP.
Mid 2024: Additional statements were obtained from former advisers and team members of TVP, as well as former associates of Yevhen Sliuzko. The evidence strongly suggests that deficiencies in business acumen and integrity within TVP have allowed TTN to avoid considerable frustration and inaction by continuing to advise TVP despite challenges, while allowing the equally low integral Sliuzko to remain an unaddressed liability for TVP.
Confirmation from TVP. Full Email Header on Record.
4. Documentary analysis — what the documents show (facts only)
Exhibit A — Roxanne email (23 Oct 2023)
What it contains (documented):
Roxanne acknowledges and formalises a royalty-free licensing arrangement for Russian-language territories for a named recipient.
Roxanne describes use of a promotional name “Venus Evolution” for scenario modelling related to city planning and energy transition strategies.
Roxanne states (in the email) that the written confirmation “supersedes all previous arrangements … except any NDAs which were signed.”
The email requests a signed acknowledgement (signature on each page) to be returned within seven business days.
Probative value: This contemporaneous, dated, author-created document establishes: (a) TVP leadership used the promotional name “Venus Evolution” in Oct 2023; (b) TVP leadership asserted control/ownership language with respect to certain TVP materials; and (c) TVP leadership acknowledged the existence of NDAs as of Oct 2023.
No Reply: Sliuzko did not respond to the direct email from Roxanne. TTN and TVP interpret this lack of response as an indication of bad faith and an unwillingness to engage constructively. Concurrently, Sliuzko’s public communications continued with slanderous attacks on the team.
Exhibit B — NDNCA, 31 December 2022
What it shows (documented):
Definitions of confidential categories, obligations of recipients, and permitted uses.
Dates of execution precede or coincide with the MOU.
Exhibit C — TTN–TVP MOU, 7 December 2023
What it contains (documented):
Contractual language outlining collaborative scope, confidentiality, and non-circumvention expectations between TTN and TVP.
Signatures or signed drafts are preserved in the repository.
Probative value: Establishes the parties’ contractual framework and expectations for the December 2023 collaboration.
Exhibit D — Contract between TTN and Dr. Simon Michaux
What it show (documented):
Clear intention to formalise a structured approach to entering a massive undertaking.
5. Impact assessment (reputational & stakeholder)
Audience reach: Archived analytics available as of 13 April 2024 indicate that the third-party author’s platforms (Sliuzko) have limited engagement relative to main stakeholder channels. While broad public harm appears limited, targeted stakeholders (investors, specific partners, niche communities) may see the posts.
Risk: The principal risk is misunderstanding among priority stakeholders (investors, partners) caused by selective quotations or miscontextualised registry snapshots. The objective is to neutralise confusion with targeted, factual materials.
Opportunity: The contemporaneous documents in TTN custody (Exhibits A–D) permit a clear, verifiable narrative for interested and accredited stakeholders under NDA.
Closing and Disclaimer
This report and the documents referenced herein are confidential and have been prepared 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 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.
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.
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.
Not a Technical Data Review nor a Rebuttal of Technical Content
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.
Lessons First: How to Distract with Writing
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:
Overloading the article with technical jargon and complex language that is difficult for laypeople to understand. This can make the reader feel overwhelmed or intimidated, and discourage them from delving deeper into the topic.
Presenting only one side of the argument, and ignoring or downplaying any opposing viewpoints or evidence. This can create the impression that the author has provided a complete and conclusive analysis, when in reality there may be much more to consider.
Using emotionally charged language or rhetoric to appeal to the reader’s emotions, rather than presenting objective facts and evidence. This can make it difficult for the reader to separate the author’s opinion from the facts of the matter.
Limiting the scope of the article to a narrow or specific aspect of the topic, without providing a broader context or perspective. This can make it seem as though the topic is fully explored, when in reality there may be many other important factors to consider.
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:
Selectively citing studies or data that support the writer’s viewpoint while ignoring or downplaying studies or data that contradict it.
Using loaded language or emotional appeals to discredit the subject matter or those associated with it.
Employing a one-sided or cherry-picked narrative that presents a biased view of events or situations.
Using innuendo or insinuation to suggest negative associations with the subject matter, without providing clear evidence to support the claims.
The Authors Background
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:
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”.
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:
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.
Review of the Writing Style of the Article
Launching into the article itself, here are some of the techniques that have been used manipulate readers.
Emotional Language
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
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.
Logical Fallacies
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.
Appeal to Authority
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.
Fear-Mongering
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.
Oversimplification and Generalization
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.
Further Reviews
Now here are three credible reviews by three very different professionals:
A pro-nuclear scientific author with a PhD in nuclear physics.
Another science author but with a PhD in psychology and no nuclear training whatsoever.
An environmental scientist and environmental advocate looking for a solution (a degree in environmental science).
Pro-Nuclear Scientific Author
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.
Review by Science Author (PhD in Psychology)
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.
Review by an Environmental Scientist
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.
The Final, Public Word
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.
“This seem more like a hack job than any evaluation of how successful molten salt reactor experiment was.”
“The criticism leveled at Molten Salt Reactor technology is unjustified.”
“Tell us what you really think — not what the folks you work for depend on for funding.”
“The quality of the material and discussion presented, feels like something that would be written by a first year undergraduate political science STEM challenged student and not a modern Physicist or Nuclear Engineer.”
“What a load of rubbish, trying to pass itself off as researched fact.”
“I’m sorry but articles that look at 60’s technology and say ‘if man were meant to fly..” don’t excite me”
“Your diatribe over the Air Force’s expenditures on the nuclear-powered bomber program and the MSR is disingenuously conflated.”
“It is clear that the article is a conclusion in search of an argument.”
Preparation for Japan – Türkiye Meeting – Ankara Chamber of Industry – 17 November 2021
Post Highlights
Posted 1 April 2023 by Jeremiah Josey
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.
Early Strategic Engagement
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.
Collaboration with TENMAK and Industry
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.
Academic Partnerships
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.
Hacettepe University, Ankara Nov 2021Sinop University Jan 2022
Collaboration with Rolls Royce
Jeremiah Josey’s Transformative Technical Impact
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.
Technical Breakthroughs Enabled
Up to 30% Waste Heat Recovery: Supercritical CO₂ turbines efficiently capture and convert up to 30% of waste heat from naval gas turbines, drastically improving ship energy utilisation and reducing losses.
Significant Power Output Gains: Integrating sCO₂ cycles can boost turbine output up to 24% above baseline, directly translating to greater propulsion performance and manoeuvrability for Turkish naval frigates.
Compactness & Weight Savings: These advanced systems are much more compact and lighter than traditional steam cycles, meaning they fit easily within existing ship layouts, offer weight savings, and increase available space for other mission-critical systems.
Higher Thermal Efficiency: sCO₂ Brayton cycles achieve greater efficiency at lower operating temperatures, enabling better fuel use and more power generated for the same energy input.
Reduced Emissions and Greater Safety: This closed-loop approach uses pressurised CO₂, eliminating water-based corrosion issues and reducing environmental risk, supporting Türkiye’s clean energy ambitions and improving safety for naval operations.
Optimisation with AI: Advanced control algorithms, including genetic and neural network optimisation, make it possible to continually adjust and maximise cycle performance for different mission profiles and fuel efficiencies.
Real-World Returns
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.
Pioneering Leadership
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.
Preparation for Japan and Türkiye Meeting – Ankara Chamber of Industry – 17 November 2025Türkiye and Japan Shake on TJU 2015
International Networking and Site Visits
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.
İnceburun Lighthouse, Sinop, Northern Türkiye – Inspecting the Mitsubishi Nuclear Site – Jan 2022Engaging Japanese Companies – Dec 2021
Local Collaborations
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:
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.
Empowering the Next Generation: Thorium Student Guild
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.
Türkiye Student Guild ExecutiveSecuring Corporate FundingStudents Attending Industry Conferences
Formation of ThorAtom and Legacy
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.
The Team at ThorAtom Türkiye, led by Dr. Tarık Öğüt
Moving Forward with Thorium
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™.
Key Takeaways
Jeremiah Josey has been instrumental in linking Türkiye’s national Thorium initiatives with global expertise and collaboration.
Early and ongoing engagement with institutions like TENMAK and ETİ Maden has helped advance Türkiye’s Thorium research and resource management.
Partnerships with universities such as Hacettepe and Sinop University have strengthened academic foundations for Thorium technology development.
Diplomatic facilitation revitalised the Türkiye-Japan University initiative, promoting knowledge exchange and nuclear technology collaboration.
Site visits and engagements with Japanese companies contributed to understanding infrastructure and international cooperation opportunities.
Technical input and collaboration with NATEN have supported advanced Thorium separation techniques critical to efficient fuel cycle progress.
Participation in the European Union’s SAMVAR project aligns Türkiye’s Thorium research with pioneering European nuclear innovations.
The Turkish Thorium Student Guild, founded by Josey, nurtures the next generation of nuclear scientists through mentorship, funding, and conference participation.
The recent formation of ThorAtom consolidates years of partnership-building and research coordination driven by Josey and The Thorium Network.
The Thorium Network offers expertise and a collaborative platform for organisations and countries seeking to accelerate sustainable Thorium energy development.
References
Official letter from TENMAK (the Turkish Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency) to Jeremiah Josey dated 19 November 2021, acknowledging collaboration and advisory work on Thorium development initiatives. Available from The Thorium Network and TENMAK archives.
The Thorium Network – Company website detailing mission, projects, and team leadership including founder Jeremiah Josey. https://TheThorium.Network
ThorAtom – Turkish nuclear technology company established in 2023, led by Turkish nuclear experts Dr. Tarık Öğüt and Dr. Reşat Uzmen. https://thoratom.com
Türkiye–Japan University initiative – Bilateral academic and nuclear technology cooperation revitalised through diplomatic efforts including a key meeting arranged between senior Türkiye officials and the Japanese ambassador.
YouTube video – Conference organised by Jeremiah Josey featuring joint scientific discussion between Turkish and Japanese researchers on Thorium technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEDK_MAWQD0
The EU SAMVAR Project – European research collaboration on advanced nuclear fuel cycles and reactor concepts, with active participation from Türkiye facilitated by Jeremiah Josey in cooperation with Professor Elsa Merle. Information available via SAMVAR consortium publications and related EU research portals.
Jeremiah Josey’s presentations and interviews on Thorium technology, blockchain applications in nuclear energy, and project vision shared at various conferences, including Digitalks Brazil 2020: youtube.com (search ‘Jeremiah Josey Thorium Network’)
Historical geological data on Thorium reserves in Türkiye, including Eskişehir-Sivrihisar, Malatya-Kuluncak, and Beylikova areas, from Turkish mineral surveys and international databases.
Details on TENMAK’s formation and role as a unified research organisation focused on nuclear and mineral resources in Türkiye, including Thorium and related technologies.
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.
My Studies – No Thorium?
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.
What are TBs – Thorium Burners
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)
Advantages of TBs
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.
The Conspiracy
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.
First Hand Knowledge – Visiting Oak Ridge
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.
Moving On – What is Needed
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.
Countering the Vested Interests – Education and Awareness
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.
Retiring Aging Assets and Funding New Ones
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.
An Industry Spawned: Non Linear Threshold (LNT) and As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)
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.
Summing Up – Our Future
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.
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network
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.
Post by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network
Article submitted for posting by an anonymous follower.
As an anti-nuclear advocate who has come to support nuclear energy, I understand that many others in the anti-nuclear community may be hesitant to reexamine their beliefs. However, I believe that it is important for all of us to be open to new information and to consider all of the available evidence before making decisions.
Success?
To help other anti-nuclear advocates take the time to learn about nuclear energy and potentially switch to supporting it, I recommend designing an awareness campaign that focuses on the following:
Highlighting the potential benefits of nuclear energy: There are several compelling reasons why nuclear energy is an excellent choice for our energy mix. For example, it is a low-carbon source of electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases or other pollutants. It is also reliable, with plants capable of operating at high capacity for extended periods of time.
Addressing common misconceptions about nuclear energy: I have found that many people who are opposed to nuclear energy simply lack the appropriate knowledge about issues such as safety, waste management, and cost. It is important to address these concerns head-on and provide accurate information about the measures that are in place to address them. Misinformation and misconceptions kill many ideas.
Encouraging open-mindedness and critical thinking: It is important to encourage anti-nuclear advocates to approach the topic of nuclear energy with an open mind and to be willing to consider all of the available evidence. This may involve encouraging them to read reports from reputable organizations, watch documentaries or talks by experts in the field, or participate in discussions with people who have different viewpoints.
Providing a platform for dialogue: One way to encourage open-mindedness and critical thinking is to provide a platform for respectful dialogue and debate. This could involve hosting events or online forums where people with different viewpoints can discuss the pros and cons of nuclear energy in a respectful manner.
By focusing on these key areas, I believe that it is possible to help other anti-nuclear advocates take the time to learn about nuclear energy and potentially switch to supporting it.
Learn a little Science History each month during 2023 with significant people in the physical sciences and the Science Greats 2023 calendar by Ms. Ridhi V. Raaj.
For instance did you know that 1 January 1894 was the birth date of Dr. Satyendra Nath Bose, famous for his work in quantum mechanics and the Bose-Einstein condensate.
Satyendra Nath Bose was a Bengali mathematician and physicist specialising in theoretical physics. He is best known for his work on quantum mechanics in the early 1920s, in developing the foundation for Bose statistics and the theory of the Bose condensate.
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network
Number 5 – Longevity and Reliability
Because 33% efficient windmills only have 20-year lifespans, they must be rebuilt two times after initial construction to match the 60-year lifespan of 90% efficient nuclear power plants.
Here’s what an anonymous wind technician from North Dakota said about the usefulness of windmills:”Yeah, we all want to think we’re making a difference, but we know it’s bullshit. If it’s too windy, they run like sh , if it’s too hot, they run like sh , too cold, they run like sh . I just checked the forecast, and it’s supposed to be calm this weekend so hopefully not very many will break down, but hell man, they break even when they aren’t running. I’ve given up on the idea that what I’m doing makes a difference in the big picture. Wind just isn’t good enough.”
If it’s too windy, they run like sh , if it’s too hot, they run like sh , too cold, they run like sh .
Wind Technician, North Dakota
Former London banker Alexander Pohl worked for years for one of the world’s greenest banks. Idealistically driven he financed big wind and solar farms genuinely convinced he was making the world a better place. Together with film maker Marijn Poels created this mind blowing documentary, Headwind “21
Organizations like the Sierra Club wear blinders that exclude wind’s defects, and when I or my associates offer presentations on the safety records and costs of the various forms of power generation, including nuclear, we rarely get a reply, and my Minnesota chapter provides a case in point.
Because of those blinders, they apparently don’t know that It will take 9,500 1-MW windmills running their entire life spans to equal the life-cycle output of just one average nuclear plant. Perhaps they don’t realize that those windmills, which last just 20 years, require far more steel and concrete than just one nuclear plant with a lifespan of at least 60 years.
As a result, the carbon footprint of inefficient windmills is much larger than that of a 90% efficient nuclear power plant.
The German electric power company Energieerzeugungswerke Helgoland GmbH shut down and dismantled their Helgoland Island wind power plant after being denied insurance against further lightning losses. They had been in operation three years and suffered more than $540,000 (USD) in lightning-related damage.
Nick Gromicko
“The material in five, 2 MW windmills (10 MW total) could build a complete 1 GW nuclear power plant that will generate ~100x the power, on 1/1000 the acreage, with no threat to species or climate.”
Furthermore, the wind industry doesn’t know what to do with these 170-foot, 22,000-pound, fiberglass blades that last just 20 years and are so difficult to recycle that many facilities won’t take them.
Germany has more than 28,000 wind turbines — but many are old and by 2023 more than a third must be decommissioned. Disposing of them is a huge environmental problem.
DW.com
A 1-GW windfarm needs 1300 tons of new blades per year, and because they cost USD100k each, that’s USD200 million every 18 years, or USD33.6 million per year per gigawatt created just for the blades – all this for a fraud that primarily relies on carbon-burning generators to supply the majority of their rated power that they don’t supply.
Those who guide the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, etc., should know that windmills require magnets made from neodymium, which comes primarily from China, where mining and refining the ore has created immense toxic dumps and lakes that are causing skin and respiratory diseases, cancer and osteoporosis. If they know this, why are they silent? If they don’t, they should.
A visit to the artificial lake in Baotou in Inner Mongolia – the dumping ground for radioactive, toxic waste from the city’s rare earth mineral refineries. The byproduct of creating materials used to do everything from make magnets for wind turbines to polishing iPhones to make them nice and shiny.
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, “a two- megawatt windmill contains about 800 pounds [360 kg] of neodymium and 130 pounds [60 kg] of dysprosium.”
Unlike windmill generators, ground-based generators use electromagnets, which are much heavier than permanent magnets, but do not contain rare-earth elements.
Here’s the problem: Accessing just those two elements produces tons of arsenic and other dangerous chemicals. And because the U.S. added about 13,000 MW of wind generating capacity in 2012, that means that some 5.5 million pounds [2.5 million kg] of rare earths were refined just for windmills, which created 2,800 tons of toxic waste, and it’s worse now.
For perspective, our nuclear industry, which creates 20% of our electricity, produces only about 2.35 tons of spent nuclear fuel (commonly called “waste”), per year, which they strictly contain, but the wind industry, while creating just 3.5% of our electricity, is making much more radioactive waste where rare- earths are being mined and processed – and its disposal is virtually unrestricted.
Windmills also use 80 gallons [300 litres] of synthetic oil per year, and because there are at least 60,000 US windmills, this means that the windmill industry requires 500,000 gallons [1.9 million litres] per year plus even more crude oil from which synthetics are derived.
We know that it takes several thousand windmills to equal the output of one run-of-the-mill nuclear reactor, but to be more precise, let’s tally up all of the materials that will be needed to replace the closed Vermont Yankee nuclear plant with renewables.
Dr. Tim Maloney has done just that, writing, “Here are numbers for wind and solar replacement of Vermont Yankee.
Let’s assume a 50/50 split between wind and solar, and for the solar a 50/50 split of photovoltaic (PV) and CSP concentrated solar power, which uses mirrors.
Amount of steel required to build wind and solar;
Concrete requirement;
CO2 emitted in making the steel and concrete;
Money spent;
Land taken out of crop production or habitat.
To replace Vermont Yankee’s 620 MW, we will need 310 MW (average) for wind, 155 MW (average) for PV solar, and 155 MW (average) for CSP… Using solar and wind would require:
Steel: 450,000 tons. That’s 0.6% of our U.S. total annual production, just to replace one smallish plant.
Concrete: 1.4 million tons; 0.2% of our production/yr.
CO2 emitted: 2.5 million tons
Cost: about 12 Billion dollars
Land: 73 square miles, which is larger than Washington DC, just to replace one small nuclear plant with solar/wind….
Offshore windmills use up to 8 tons of copper per mW.
The Nuclear Alternative
a.) Replace Vermont Yankee with a Westinghouse /Toshiba model AP1000 that produces 1070 MW baseload, about 2 x the output of Yankee.
Normalizing 1070 MW to Vermont Yankee’s 620 MW, the AP1000 uses:
Steel: 5800 tons – 1 % as much as wind and solar.
Concrete: 93,000 tons – about 7% as much.
CO2 emitted: 115,000 tons [from making the concrete and steel] – about 5% as much.
Cost: We won’t know until the Chinese finish their units. But it should be less than our “levelized” cost. [Perhaps $4-5 billion]
Land: The AP1000 reactor needs less than ¼ square mile for the plant site. Smaller than CSP by a factor of 2000. Smaller than PV by a factor of 4,000. Smaller than wind by 13,000.
b.) Better yet, we could get on the Thorium energy bandwagon. Thorium units will beat even the new AP1000 by wide margins in all 5 aspects – steel, concrete, CO2, dollar cost, and land.“
Ten, 3 MW wind generators’ use as much raw material as a 1-Gigawatt nuclear plant (Think of their carbon footprints.)
PV electricity generation requires 10,000 pounds of copper per megawatt. Wind needs 6,000, but highly efficient, CO2-free nuclear power needs only 175, which provides a huge financial saving and the smallest impact on the environment.
This was the last episode in our series Unintended Consequences. It’s been a wonderful experience and thanks to everyone in our team. Everyone has done a tremendous effort to put it all together. 30 weeks has gone by too fast.
A special warm thanks goes out to Dr. George Erickson for creating all of this wonderful material in the first place.
Thank you Dr. Erickson.
Stay tuned for the next series where we promote key, factual information relevant to a world focused on producing clean, green, safe energy from Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium.
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network
In their excellent Wind and Solar’s Achilles Heel: The Methane Meltdown at Porter Ranch, Mike Conley and Tim Maloney reported:
“Even a tiny methane leak can make a gas-backed wind or solar farm just as bad – or worse – than a coal plant when it comes to global warming. And the leaks don’t just come from operating wells. They can happen anywhere in the infrastructure… In the U.S., these fugitive methane leaks can range up to 9%.
“If the fugitive methane rate of the infrastructure… exceeds 3.8 %, then you might as well burn coal for all the “good” it’ll do you. All in all, the numbers are pathetic – some of the most recent measurements of fugitive methane in the U.S. are up to 10%. But the gas industry predictably reports a low 1.6%.”
Emissions from the latest natural gas-fired turbine technologies. Tests include PM2.5, wet chemical tests for SO2/SO3 & NH3, and ultrafine PM. Strong presence of high concentrations of nanoparticles. Two orders of magnitude higher turbine particle emissions than background.
a University of California Riverside (UCR), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Riverside, CA 92521, USA b Delta Air Quality Services, Inc., 1845 North Case Street, Orange, CA 92865, USA c Fossil Energy Research Corporation (FERCo), 23342-C South Pointe Dr., Laguna Hills, CA 92653, USA d South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765, USA
The sediments in many of the world’s shallow oceans and lakes also release vast amounts of methane from frozen organic matter as it thaws and decomposes. When a Russian scientist searched the Arctic shores for methane, he found hundreds of yard-wide craters, but when he returned a few years later, they were 100 yards in diameter.
In 2014, N. Nadir, of the Energy Collective wrote, “The most serious environmental problem that renewable energy has is that even if it reached 50% capacity somewhere, this huge waste of money and resources would still be dependent on natural gas, which any serious environmentalist with a long-term view sees as disastrous.
“Natural gas is not safe – even if we ignore the frequent news when a gas line blows up, killing people. It is not clean, since there is no place to dump its CO2; it is not sustainable; and the practice of mining it – fracking – is a crime against all future generations who will need to live with shattered, metal-leaching rock beneath their feet, and huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
“If politicos impose a carbon-tax, a methane-leakage tax, etc., utilities will build nuclear plants as fast as they can.”
Dr. Alex Cannara
Burning just 1 gallon of gasoline creates about 170 cubic feet of CO2.
Tim Maloney of the Thorium Energy Alliance argues that we should be conserving natural gas because methane is the primary feed stock for ammonia, and ammonia is used to produce nitrogen-based fertilizers, a shortage of which could cause starvation. In addition, closing nuclear plants and expanding “renewables” that require natural gas will substantially increase CO2 and methane emissions.
From THINKPROGRESS, Nov. 2017, “A shocking newstudy concludes that the methane emissions escaping from New Mexico’s gas and oil industry are equivalent to the climate impact of approximately 12 coal-fired power plants.”
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network
Number 4 – Methane [aka “Natural Gas”]
Because windmills generate just 1/3 of their rated capacity, the rest is supplied by plants that primarily burn coal or natural gas – which is 90% methane, which makes more CO2. I repeat: methane, over its lifetime, is 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but during its youth, it is 80 times worse – and the next ten to twenty years are years of deep concern. Gas companies love “renewables”.
“…methane, over its lifetime, is 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas…”
Ground and satellite surveys reveal that huge volumes of “fugitive” methane are leaking from our wells and distribution system. According to WSJ and the pre-Trump EPA, “Natural gas explosions cause death and/or property damage every other day, and U S ”leakage” is equivalent to the emissions from 70 million cars.” (CNN 9-13-18: “1 dead, 24 injured in 30 natural gas explosions in three Boston area towns.”)
A survey of oil and gas facilities in Texas and New Mexico revealed 30 so-called “super-emitters,” which are leaking as much heat-trapping pollution as roughly half a million cars.
New Report Carbon Mapper and the Environmental Defense Fund
While we pollute our aquifers by fracking for methane in Texas and elsewhere to assist inefficient wind and solar farms, we are simultaneously flaring (burning) huge volumes of natural gas across much of the Bakken “field” in North Dakota because it’s “too costly” to pipe it to market.
“Women living within 0.6 miles [1,000 meters] of active oil and gas wells were 40% more likely to have babies with low birth weight than those not near active wells.”
Windmills are, in effect, glorified, heavily subsidized carbon-burners that needlessly create more of the carbon dioxide that we seek to avoid. Were it not for our misguided passion for inefficient renewables, we’d have less need for fracking and less of the environmental damage they cause.
Satellite images of oil and gas basins reveal staggering 9-10% leakage rates of heat-trapping methane. Because of these leaks, fracking accelerates climate change even before the methane it extracts is turned into CO2.
“In the Permian Basin, operators are wasting enough gas to heat 2 million homes a year.”
EDF, 2021
In 2015, thanks to a “discovered” email message from Lenny Bernstein, a thirty-year oil industry veteran and ExxonMobil’s former in-house climate expert, we learned that Exxon accepted the reality of climate change in 1981, long before it became a public issue – but then, Exxon spent at least $30 million on decades of Climate Change denial.
In addition, despite studies from Johns Hopkins that reveal an associate fracking and premature births and asthma, Pennsylvania health workers were told by their Department of Health to ignore inquiries that used fracking “buzzwords.”
And according to a 2014 UN report, atmospheric methane levels have never exceeded 700 parts per billion in the last 400,000 years, but they reached 1850 ppb by 2013.
In 2015, a Duke University study reported: “Thousands of oil and gas industry wastewater spills in North Dakota have caused “widespread” contamination by radioactive materials, heavy metals and corrosive salts, putting the health of people and wildlife at risk.”
