I review not as i am reviewed. But how i wish that all science is reviewed. Impartially and based on purely the science. Of course i, as a human cannot truly do that and would be an idiot if i didn't think that my personal biases don't interfere. For example the paper i am currently reviewing is written by people I personally know and like. But i try. Note there is *nothing* about being a skeptics in that. Almost all reviewer instructions do not require skepticism in the paper your reviewing. Papers are not "proof" or whatever. They are suppose to be just good science that contributes to the field, and can turn out to be wrong, or just useless.

I mean look at discussion here about this. You can't be skeptical about AGW and not get flamed to death. And most scientist are not sceptical of a paper claiming "more proof of AGW" or Climate change or any other currently non controversial view point. But then try and publish something like "Only mild effects likely with high probability due to increased CO2 levels". Everyone reviewing that is very very sceptical to the point where your likely to be rejected before they finish the abstract. That is assuming you got it past editors. Sure you can say "Authors fail to demonstrate that X is related to Y", but are your reviews themselves reviewed? You can just say what you want and reject it, maybe the editor catches it but mostly not.

Its not just climate change, many things in science are like this. Its just that climate change science is very public now. This has made it worse. Skeptics moved on a long time ago. Example, there are astrophysics who don't think the big bang is a credible theory and can still get jobs at a university. Good luck with that if your not on board not just with climate change. But doom and gloom climate change.

Scientist are just people. We are not more or less susceptible to normal human failing just like everyone else. Perhaps in climate change its worse because we have scientist try and be politicians as well.

Thorium is not Uranium. 232Th absorbs a neutron in the thermal spectrum where it has a high cross section, decays to 233Pa which then decays to 233U with about a 30 day half life IIRC. That is one of the advantages of a Thorium fuel cycle. No need for fast neutrons to get a breading ratio of 1.

For uranium yes. As i understand a 100% thermal spectrum not only works for Th, but works better.

No it really won't. Not any more deadly than say a pile of sand from central India.

Although i largely agree with the idea that LFTR being no panacea. I was under the impression that you can breed with thermal neutrons with Thorium. Unlike U238.

You can't inject fact into LFTR fanboy discussions. It never works.

While we are at it there are more facts.
1. Never shown a breading ratio of 1.
2. Never done in situ reprocessing.
3. Not been shown to be cost effective.
4.Can never "fail" or break or whatever is clearly BS. There is no never. There is only mitigate risk.

A demo plant needs to be built which is 10 years at best, and quite a few billion+cost overruns. To validate the design it need to be run for a while tracking things like corrosion etc. which is at least 5 year but more like 10 or more. So its at least 20 years away. And yes the nuclear proponents that want this are very realistic about how quick to market it will be.

That is nothing but bullshit. I am a scientist. My bread and butter is getting stuff published.

Scientists are just people who persevered long enough with education to get a PhD and continue on. We are as stupid as the rest of humanity. We believe things without data or proof*. Without even logic. We have dogma and lifetime carrier invested viewpoints. We have truthiness about what is bad science and good.

We are just other people. Don't be the fool and assume we know better.


* For example, organic food is healthier or more sustainable, or the classic for german scientists, Zugluft.

Seriously? that is what you need before you take things with a grain of salt. Its on the fucking internet. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

Where does this come from? Billions of years? You pulled that out of your arse. The worst waste is sort of not bad after a few centuries. And only sort of. With reprocessing is fine after a few centuries and sort of not bad after about 100 years. By sort of not bad, i mean there are larger natural sources of activity.

Compare that to lead, or Cadmium. That stuff is bad for TRILLIONS of years.

That is not a scientific journal. In fact i wager you haven't read them either if that is your "reference" point. What a scientific says in a peer review journal is very different from what they will say to a reporter. More so on this topic.

In many countries you cannot legally prevent subletting. As a someone with a lease/rent contract, you are allowed to sublet. Of course many of these countries also stipulate that you can't charge more rent than you pay either.

I intend to live forever. Or die trying.

In fact there is an easier way. The attacker can just make sure he/she has k accounts on the server before stealing the password file.

I like the idea however, and its never worse than a salt/hash system.

If your goal is colorization of space. Then the last thing you want is another government pork nationalistic space mission. It will achieve nothing towards your goal. Just as the Apollo mission achieved nothing towards that goal.

I am taking up skydiving with the eventual goal of wingsuit flying. I like the freedom to do that and take that risk. But then i don't expect the government and fellow taxpayers to pay for it.