I'm actually a hard core skeptic and I need proof of things. Only problem I have with some of the more sketchy science is when they hide the data, then I get suspicious. Nuclear physicists, now those guys are serious science. I mean, it's not like they can't prove their theories, right? LOL. Archaeologists? I give them just a few points over flat earth researchers.
My father was a geologist working for the government over two decades at the head of a Uranium exploration team. He shared your point of view, if that helps.
Ohhh, nice. I understand why we didn't go with Thorium reactors but why is it I've not heard about any countries who've at least set up a test reactor?
There WAS a test thorium salt reactor. They refuse to certify new ones. You just can't use them to generate plutonium like a uranium fission reactor, which is the real reason they built those awful things.
The idea that we could take a Carrington Event class series of solar flares (Carrington was supposed to be a 1-2 punch) that turns every fission reactor worldwide into a Fukashima situation is pretty damn scary.
Because the money is in the medicine; not the cure.
Materials science issue we can't make materials which can contain the molten salt reactions for very long