My friend MAslo55, the bloggers tend to support their rhetoric with news reports of their own claims, while the review at http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-msr-lftr/ looks to be grounded in authoritative literature. For example, one source is the 2010 report from the UK, The Thorium Fuel Cycle An independent assessment by the UK National Nuclear Laboratory. That review of the technologies presents a substantially different outlook for thorium and is replete with phrases like:
Contrary to that which many proponents of thorium claim...
and
Claims that thorium fuels give a reduction in radiotoxicity are justified. However, caution is required because...
It can be downloaded here
http://ripassetseu.s3.amazonaws.com/www.nnl.co.uk/_files/documents/aug_11/NNL__1314092891_Thorium_Cycle_Position_Paper.pdf
If anyone has trouble with that link go here and click the title "Thorium cycle position paper" on the right:
http://www.nnl.co.uk/positionpapers
BTW I noticed at wiki's entry for liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) that shotman
maslo is a leading contributor to the content of the entry. Is that you? I count 25 revisions by shotmanmaslo and 24 by all other contributors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor&action=history
I also recommend that readers interested in the claims being made for this speculative technology read the "talk" section of the wiki entry before accepting the claims made by the proponents.
For example I've criticized the proponents for not having peer reviewed work that supports the rather unbelievable claims they make. In the talk section we see that the same problem existed in 2008. I also criticized the wiki entry, and the claims of proponents generally, for lumping the benefits of several different reactor designs into one pool and attributing them to the LFTR design. That too seems to have gone uncorrected since 2008.
Which sources actually use the term "liquid fluoride thorium reactor"? --JWB (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I am new to this and may have put things out of place. The first two items under 'External Links' are good sources for the actual word LFTR. The first two links in 'References' are the technical background but may not use the term. Also I noticed the last external link may not be appropriate or maybe that is Wikipedia's redirection to sponsor books in the nuclear field. (JAJAB (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC))
If it's simply a synonym, this should be a redirect to the MSR article rather than a separate article. The Energy From Thorium link refers to the original Oak Ridge project as liquid-fluoride reactor, so there's no evidence this term is a new one applying to new work and differentiating it from the older work. --JWB (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If it's simply a synonym, this should be a redirect to the MSR article rather than a separate article. The Energy From Thorium link refers to the original Oak Ridge project as liquid-fluoride reactor, so there's no evidence this term is a new one applying to new work and differentiating it from the older work. --JWB (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That is where this all started from. I have gotten many complaints that LFTR was a link to MSR and then it was never mentioned in the article at all - which did not make sense. Also the MSR article is far to large and complicated. It is trying to span too broad an area as it is. The different salt combinations have separate pages to cover their properties. By the same token, Navy ships are given a page as well as the ship class. As far as the technical work, I was told just today by another researcher the important difference LFTR will make over the MSR. I also asked a few of the other nuclear developers to add to this article. Are you in the nuclear field or have technical background in this area? (JAJAB (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC))
Whether this is a separate article or not, if this is a distinct molten salt reactor design, it should have a subsection in the MSR article, with link to the separate article with more detail if one exists. If the description is short, it can fit in the MSR article.
The MSR article is 34k, which is slightly below the WP:Article size suggested limit. If we start breaking it up, the policy mandated method is WP:Summary style which has a main article with summaries, linking to detail articles with more detail.
So far the only one of the four references and three links in this article that uses the term "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor" as a primary description is the Naval Postgraduate School link, which is about a single student project. Kirk Sorensen's site mentions the term but seems to use it interchangeably with MSR.
If you can add substantial information from references that use LFTR as a separate term and explain why MSR is not applicable, then this should be a separate article with that information. Right now almost all the material is about MSRs, using the term MSR, and also using liquid fluorides and thorium fuel, but not using the term LFTR much less defining it as separate. --JWB (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
JWP, this is the issue: more and more LFTR is becoming THE term to use for the...Liquid Fluoride version of the MSR. I know we went though this before when the previous LFTR article was merged with the MSR article. But now, if you do a google search for LFTR, you will find dozens and dozens of references. You are going to have to get used to this term as THE specific sub-genre of the MSR. I didn't even start this entry, someone else did, so you can see that people WANT to know specifically about the LFTR and want to be able to look for it under it's own title. DavidMIA (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I am presently asking for help in this regard from the nuclear technical community. It is a newer subject so technical articles are being prepared by several people, but good research is not published quickly and then it takes off in a flurry of papers. I believe we are at the "take-off stage". Nevertheless, it is discussed widely among various groups from environmentalist, to space power developers, to nuclear researchers. I think the shear size of the energyfromthorium.com site is evidence of the interest and MSR may have the largest percent of documents, but I think LFTR is the primary topic (I wonder if Kirk Sorensen can tell what kind of net traffic he gets on that site?). I also disagree that LFTR is interchangeable with MSR. There are clear distinctions and maybe that should be a chart on the LFTR page. I have not read the full format manual but only look at what makes sense to someone coming to this site and looking at this subject (i.e., what do they expect to see). I am sure we can work this to everyone's satisfaction shortly and I am certain in less than a year this will not be an issue at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAJAB (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
The rest of the talk page is equally informative, but for now I'd really like to know where is that "flurry of papers" predicted in 2008?
) will try to keep an open mind and check it out too (Note: the petition only requests money for research).
= new reply since forum marked as read
is the name of a recording project of Japanese noise musician Koji Tano (Japanese; 田野幸治 ) (1961 - 31 July 2005, cancer) that was based out of Matsuyama, then later Tokyo. MSBR was active starting in the early 1990s, releasing music on numerous labels, often in limited pressings. Collaborations have included such artists as The Haters, Bastard Noise, Beequeen, Daniel Menche, Richard Ramirez and Small Cruel Party.
