The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Whats up with the Thorium reactor supporting Twitter Heads?

arclight-SmOpEd by Arclight2011

Date-  4 March 2014

Posted to

Screenshot from 2014-01-07 20:03:20

A brief description of my tweeting experience – Short and sweet! But here is a little breakdown on the issues discussed/tweet linked.

OK! I am grey haired and get my phone hacked a lot so tweeting came a bit late in the day and my interest was stirred after my boss (The dear sweet little old lady blogger who allows me to create mayhem on her blog) was wearing her fingers out tweeting

The subject of all these tweets concerned possible future of dainty little Thorium reactors replacing the nasty big ogre like uranium reactors.

Of course the reason I believe that the push is for thorium

is that the corporations want to keep the nuclear fuel cycle going even if the uranium based reactors get switched off.

For Thorium arguments click here

I would like to concentrate on the nuclear fuel cycle a bit here to underline a Thorium reactors biggest flaw.

The Halden Thorium reactor in Norway for instance is currently running a paper mill and is running on recycled nuclear waste as well as Thorium.

The Oslo Fjord has been polluted from time to time from this reactor with mainly Beta bearing radionucldes according to the EURDEP radiation mapping. But the pollution doesnt begin there for the type of fuel that is actually being burnt.

The nuclear waste that is burnt in this reactor starts out as spent fuel rods as well as “hot” nuclear materials. These spent fuel rods are melted in nitric acid and the useful radionuclides are removed.

This spent fuel processing takes place at limited locations and Sellafield in the UK is one such place as well as La Hague in France. NO2 pollution levels are the highest in the UK with the European Union berating the UK for this pollutant that has been increasing over recent years. This pollution has caused real deaths and is a matter of public record.

Of course, the emissions from Sellafield and La Hague comes to some some 4000 T/Bq (admitted) if memory serves me right. Bottom line, it is a lot of liquid and air emissions.

Whilst in London in 2011 and 2012 I found myself with a Gieger counter and during the course of measuring for radioactivity in the air I happened to notice that the NO2 air pollution increased with the radiation readings that I got.

I was able to track this pollution as well as others during 2012 using pollution maps and EURDEP as well as my trusty gieger counter and looking at other gieger readings throughout Europe. These pollutants seem to travel together.

But how could this be covered up? I hear you ask?

During the summer of 2012, an atmospheric analysis of air across Europe was undertaken. It came in two parts, with a week or so`s break in the middle.

As the first part began I heard German gieger readers complaining that there geigers were reading very low and consulting EURDEP, I found that this anomaly was reproduced all across Europe except for the UK which had some bad pollution incidents. Oddly, the atmospheric study was not passing over the UK.

When the study zeppelin landed for its 2 week break the reactors around Europe began belching out high Gamma bearing Air pollution for a few days after the Landing of the Atmospheric analysis Zeppelin.

The reactors in the south of Europe were quiet except for the Medical Isotope Institutes reactor in Hungary (Which makes lots of unreported releases and this has been largely covered up by the IAEA)

…And from the PEGASOS blog you can see that the climate atmosphere sampling was stopped to accommodate this planned nuclear release shown on the above Geiger reading between the 28 May and the 12th June 2012…

To summarise, The main selling point in the Thorium reactors is going to be the cost of the MOX type fuel that will be used alongside the Thorium fuel. The MOX type fuel is costly and in a conventional reactor it is expected that the complete profits from one nuclear power station can be at least doubled if not troubled by selling the MOX fuel used in the uranium nuclear reactors.

This is how Thorium reactors will be used, to clean up the legacy nuclear waste but causing possibly huge and permanent ecological damage but with huge profits for the decommissioning companies and fuel reprocessing companies.

Mixed thorium-plutonium oxide (Th-Pu MOX) fuel

As we speak, Billions of Euros are being moved around the financial system leaving Tax Payers holding the nuclear costs and “Private” corporations move in on public infrastructure contracts that will make them hundreds of billions in Euro`s over the next few decades all at Tax Payer expense. Thorium or no the nuclear cycle has already cost us for decades to come and the Thorium cycle reactors will cost us even more.

What about the tweet stuff?

Well, with huge amounts of money being described enough we can turn to the Advertising giants like WPP and their daughter companies like Ogilvey and Maher who in the last “recession” in the eighties saw their profits drop drastically as advertising money was cut from company budgets. But not so in this recession? And no bankers tried for fraud except in Iceland, A major cover up on health effects after the BP Horizon Oil spill and then in Fukushima. These tragedies have actually boosted the funds to these advertising giants as they cover up the excesses of the corporations and mitigate costs of corporate caused disasters to the Insurance and Investment industries.

So who does the tweeting?

One word “sockpuppets” or more to the point companies that campaign on social media sites as well as directly using such media to lobby investment companies and ministers of governments to support the paradigm that is being put forward ie Thorium technology.

This can be done quite cheaply and has at least the effect of tying up pesky bloggers in case they find something else interesting to post that attacks the nuclear industry PR strategy.

Of course this is my own opinion and information based from a few years research

Do you feel the need to stop tweeting?

And if you are so addicted that you cant get off the tweet rollercoaster try this



March 4, 2014 - Posted by | Arclight's Vision

1 Comment »

  1. More on MOX costs here

    MOX plant overruns make it too costly

    March 3, 2014

    Read more here:
    As the old saying goes, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. That should apply to the ill-fated program at South Carolina’s Savannah River Site to convert plutonium produced for nuclear weapons into fuel for energy plants.

    Work began in 2007 on a new factory at SRS, a former nuclear bomb plant along the South Carolina-Georgia border where reactors have been shut down for years. The factory was to be the first of its kind in the United States to produce mixed-oxide fuel – or MOX – from weapons-grade plutonium for use in nuclear energy plants.

    The project had a dual purpose. It was designed to produce usable fuel while also reducing the world’s stockpile of plutonium as part of an international nonproliferation effort.

    Both the U.S. and Russia committed to disposing of at least 34 metric tons apiece of weapons-grade plutonium, enough for about 17,000 warheads.

    But the project has been hampered by years of delays and soaring costs. Last year, the federal General Accountability Office said the project was more than three years behind its 2016 completion deadline.

    And a report by the Energy Department released Feb. 20 concluded that construction costs alone could reach $10 billion, or nearly 10 times the initial estimate. After completion, operating the factory could cost $15 to $20 billion more.

    Construction costs already stand at $4 billion. And the latest cost estimates are so high, they reportedly have prompted the Obama administration to look at other options.

    For now, though, no clear alternative has been chosen, and the administration appears likely to propose continued funding for fiscal 2015 while it sorts out the matter. However, funding reportedly is likely to be less than the roughly $343 million appropriated in 2014.

    This project has been problematic from the start for a variety of reasons. For one, it requires the shipment of large amounts of plutonium from Russia to the United States for MOX production, which makes the materials potentially vulnerable to theft or accidental spills.

    In addition, it is uncertain whether MOX fuel can even be used in conventional U.S. nuclear plants. Duke Energy halted testing of MOX fuel at its Catawba Nuclear Station on Lake Wylie in 2008, when it found unusual changes in the plant’s assemblies.

    The problem was that alloy “guide tubes” in MOX assemblies, in which control rods are inserted to shut down the reactor, grew in length. While it is not unusual for metals to expand in the intense heat of a nuclear reactor, these grew more than expected.

    Shutting down work on the MOX project would be an economic blow for South Carolina. The plant employs 2,100 workers, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who sits on both the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development, has pledged to fight any effort to stop the project.

    But other, less costly options for getting rid of plutonium have been available since the end of the Cold War. How can Congress justify continued investment in what is looking more and more like a bottomless money pit?

    We hope the administration will look seriously at other solutions.

    Read more here:

    Comment by arclight2011part2 | March 4, 2014 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: