Diese Seite ausdrucken

Small thorium reactor - Terrorism & "environmentally friendly" and green nuclear power

Small thorium reactor - Terrorism & "environmentally friendly" and green nuclear power

Current discussion: Greenwashing – Wikipedia manipulation – nuclear lobby

Wikipedia web page on thorium-based nuclear power
The wikipedia article about thorium-based nuclear power includes very biased external links, which present thorium-based nuclear power in a very positive light.
Therefore, we tried to place an external link to our critical thorium page there. Only two minutes later, our link was checked and deleted. As a reason for this, they wrote that we tried to place a biased external link.
Actually, not our critical page based on scientific sources is biased, but the industrial directed Wikipedia article is it.
There, they list many possible benefits but only some possible disadvantages. And the external links are really biased too. Our external link, the only critical one, they deleted immediately.
Nowadays, Wikipedia manipulation is a popular PR instrument, which is used for instance by the nuclear lobby. In this case, the dangerous thorium-based nuclear power should be presented in a very positive light. This is called „Greenwashing“.

More information (in German) about "Greenwashing" here.

Recent discussions about thorium reactors (terrorism / danger - thorium-based nuclear power)

Due to the nuclear incidents of Chernobyl and Fukushima, the nuclear lobby seemed to be hidden and absent. Meanwhile, they are telling old lies again, but presented in a very positive light.

Nuclear power companies
plan to build small „environmentally friendly and green” thorium reactors distributed among the whole world. The research is also financed by EU-money.
The old pressurised water reactors and boiling water reactors should be replaced by many small thorium reactors. You call them also liquid fluoride thorium reactors.

But these companies don´t consider that only one of these mini-reactors emit a amount of radioactivity that is as high as the one of many Hiroshima bombs. An accident or a terroristic attack on one of these mini-reactors could destroy a whole city. Many of these small reactors are, inevitably, insecure targets. If there stood some of these reactors in countries like Syria or Iraq, terroristic organisations like the “IS (or ISIS)” could gain in power by building so-called “dirty bombs”.

The idea of distributing thorium reactors among the whole world is a nuclear nightmare and can be described as a global suicide programm. It´s another example of the destructive era of the “Anthropocene”.

There are many possible ways of nuclear terrorism.

In this case, there are three possible scenarios

1. They could use thorium to build nuclear explosive devices easily
2. They could distribute radioactive material to contaminate the environment
3. They could attack a reactor, a reprocessing plant or a nuclear waste transport directly.

Therefore, ten thousands of liquid fluoride reactors (thorium reactors) are potentially, incredibly endangered.

Thorium, protactinium and the building of nuclear bombs

The journal “Nature” describes in his article “Thorium fuel has risks” a big thorium problem very precisely:

Thus, only 1.6 tonnes of thorium metal would be required to produce the 8kg of
233U required for a weapon. This amount of 233U could feasibly be obtained by this process in
less than a year. The separation of protactinium from thorium is not new. We highlight two well-
known chemical processes — acid-media techniques and liquid bismuth reductive extraction
— that are causes for concern, although there may be others. Both methods use standard nuclear-lab equipment
and hot cells — containment chambers in which highly radioactive materials can be manipulated safely. Such apparatus is not necessarily subject to IAEA safeguards. […]

We have three main concerns:
  • First, nuclear-energy technologies that involve irradiation of thorium fuels for short periods could be used covertly to accumulate quantities of 233U by parallel or batch means, perhaps without raising IAEA proliferation flags.
  • Second, the infrastructure required to undertake the chemical partitioning of protactinium could be acquired and established surreptitiously in a small laboratory.
  • Third, state proliferators could seek to use thorium to acquire 233U for weapons production.

    These three points should be included in debates on the proliferation attributes of thorium.

Thorium bomb?
During the Second World War, when nuclear bombs hit the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
some people also planned to build thorium bombs:
Historian and Oppenheimer-biographer Martin Sherwin is convinced that if they had built thorium bombs, these bombs would have been kindled too.
If they had a thorium bomb, there would have been dropped altogether three during the Second World War, says historian Peter Kutznick from the American University Washington.

The exploitation of thorium
and the nuclear regeneration are harmful to the environment, make ill and at worst, they can be lethal. Even if the reactors work normally, they emit carcinogenic radioactivity. Thus, many people are exposed to radiation. Although, thorium reactors emit, on the one hand, less radioactivity than a boiling water reactor and for a shorter period, the radiation is, on the other hand, more intense.

To conclude, why should we support a dangerous and expensive technology, if we have cheaper, environmentally (more) friendly solutions?

The global public relations-campaign
for small nuclear power plants and thorium reactors is very active.
Greenwash and hidden PR, so-called “no-badge”- activities are standards of PR-campaigns. The extremely partial and one-sided articles of Wikipedia about small nuclear power plants and thorium reactors in many different languages are typical examples of the strategy of advertising agencys. Their functioning includes typically manipulated letter-to-the-editor-campaigns, one-sided opinion polls, spy on and slanden of reviewers, jubilation online-reports, articles in blogs and increasingly the use of “social bots”, opinion robots. Also industrial directed faked citizen`s action groups take part of the manipulation business of these groups, environmental destroyers and the nuclear lobby. The biggest advertising agency in the world “Burson-Marsteller” which played down over many years the dangers of smoking and denied the global climate change, advertised until autumn 2016 the “eco-friendly” nulclear power.
In this case, the environmental and anti-nuclear movements often work careless and barely oppose something.
If you enter the key-word “thorium reactor” in a search engine, you can see, who, unfortunately, has the power in the world wide web.

Axel Mayer, BUND-Regionalverband Südlicher Oberrhein (Friends of the Earth Germany)

Translation: Leon Sander

Richtig wichtig! Ihnen gefällt diese Seite? Legen Sie doch einen Link:
<a href="http://www.bund-rvso.de/small-thorium-reactor-nuclear-power-terror-green.html"> Small thorium reactor - Terrorism & "environmentally friendly" and green nuclear power</a>

Twitter Facebook

Dieser Artikel wurde 1033 mal gelesen und am 8.10.2017 zuletzt geändert.