At 00:20 17/03/2011, you wrote:
>How much more helpful could the first link be than the first ebntry in it
>
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to:
> navigation<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/PU#mw-head>,
>search <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/PU#p-search>
>
>*PU* or *Pu* may refer to:
>
> - Plutonium <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Plutonium>
>
>in the context of a thread on nuclear whatnot.
>
>Th for the non-chemists around is Thorium, which can shed light on things if
>it is used in a gass mantle, or generate electricity but not much potential
>for proliferation if you use it in a fission reactor, preferably an
>atmospheric pressure molten salt reactor with an electrolytic separator that
>can burn the minor actinides.
>
>You'll find good articles on all that in the WP as well.
>
>--
>Adrian Midgley http://www.defoam.net/
Well I feel somewhat enlightened, not least because I had no idea
that Thorium based Molten Salt Reactors had so much potential - OTOH
until something is in widespread use the problems are not always evident.
All that said I still don't follow sentence 2 below, while sentence 1
as you've explained Pu seems to repeat something said earlier in the
same email.
1) There have been some recent chunks of openness, which has
been nice, but the tendency remains, and is not merely restricted to
industries derived from Pu manufactories.
2) (Another reason for going for Th devices.)
Anyway thanks for the pointer regarding Thorium, interesting, should
be more publicized, and research should clearly be encouraged.
Julian
|