5 ms·

I think we're making a serious PR mistake calling these "Thorium Reactors" even though the term is accurate. "Reactor" evokes "Nuclear Reactor". For many peopl

I think we're making a serious PR mistake calling these "Thorium Reactors" even though the term is accurate. "Reactor" evokes "Nuclear Reactor". For many people, "nuclear reactor" is a deeply loaded term. Likewise "Thorium" (and other words that end in "-ium") sounds dangerously like "plutonium" and "uranium". It doesn't matter how much better/safer this technology is. Don't expect the public to respond positively when we use those words. There's too much knee jerk, "no nukes!" baggage. We should start calling these "salt power stations" or something else accurate, yet non-threatening. Otherwise, IMHO, it will be a steep uphill battle getting public and legislative support for building these things, regardless of their many benefits.

nnfy 9y ago
At least this way you convince the educated public that you are credible. We should avoid names inspired by what amounts to political correctness, because people who see through the names may distrust us further. However, I do appreciate your point, and I agree that it is a problem. I think the attitude, at least from young white collar professionals, is warming up to nuclear.
- wil421 9y ago
  Nuclear Magnetic Resonance was the original name for the imaging technique we call MRI. Patients were scared so they changed the name.
  - nnfy 9y ago
    For years I've been confused by the two different names. That was an insightful comment.
    - wil421 9y ago
      It's also important to note nuclear refers to the atomic nucleus and not a nuclear reaction.
      - varjag 9y ago
        Nucleus fission/fusion is what constitutes a nuclear reaction, so they in fact refer to exactly same thing involved in entirely different processes. But yeah you'd have to explain it every time it is mentioned.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Sukotto 9y ago
  You might be swayed by facts. But that makes you one of the minority. A LOT of people make decisions based on emotion. Then they cherry pick the facts (if any) that support the choice, and disregard the facts that oppose.
  - nnfy 9y ago
    This is true. However, I think logical people as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power in society. I'm not sure, though, and I'm only arguing out of, well, logic. What I mean to say is if I were a politician, I would be more concerned with aligning myself with other politicians, scientists, and policy makers, than my constituents in the initial term. Those who are non-technical may be won over later and with other means.
    - slagfart 9y ago
      This is why you won't make it as a politician, sadly. You need initial popular buy-in to be elected, which is why populist policies will always do well.
manicdee 9y ago
Are you suggesting that thorium molten salt reactors get their energy from a source other than nuclear fission?
- Sukotto 9y ago
  No. I'm saying that how you name things matters.
  - caf 9y ago
    One of the ways it matters is that giving something an overly euphemistic name leads people to wonder exactly what it is that you're hiding.
KekDemaga 9y ago
"Green coal power systems" keep everyone happy.
acidburnNSA 9y ago
A bunch of people have tried to rebrand our most energy-dense fuels (uranium and thorium). "Terrestrial Energy" comes to mind. And the unofficial Thorium PR lead, Kirk Sorensen, rebranded the Thorium-Molten Salt Reactor (T-MSR) as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) because "lifter" sounds better. As an engineer I'm a stickler on accurate naming so this suggestion bothers me, and I think the opposing forces will easily be able to point out that it's just a rebranding of advanced nuclear reactors and hurt proponents' credibility. I wish we could just teach people to weigh risks of things like nuclear reactors versus their real benefits (clean air that has saved 1.8 million people already, 24/7 reliability, tiny land/fuel/waste/transportation footprints, etc.) but on the other hand people are more emotional than not. I'm sure you're right that a sweet new name on a nuclear reactor would be a help. Honestly I consider focus on Thorium fuel itself to be an attempt to rebrand the much broader but equally capable advanced nuclear industry.
- snarfy 9y ago
  Unfortunately regardless of what you wish, people do not weigh the risks. They have knee jerk reactions to terms like 'nuclear reactor'. It's human nature and shouldn't be ignored. Is it more important that it have an accurate name or that it's accepted by the public?
  - ZoF 9y ago
    What's more important, an educated populace or your maintained feeling of intellectual superiority? People aren't as dumb as you think.
  - acidburnNSA 9y ago
    Definitely the latter. I just hope to find other ways to influence people's feelings about things like nuclear reactors. If some epic rebranding is what it takes, then that's great. I feel that it will take more than that.
    - philipkglass 9y ago
      Any such rebranding would probably last about as long as it takes people to learn that the facilities are built by nuclear contractors, regulated by the NRC, and employing nuclear operators.
jessriedel 9y ago
It was widely considered a good move to rename "nuclear magnetic resonance" to "magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)" to avoid patient fears. That said, the "nuclear" in that case really was being misinterpreted by the public to refer to fission/fusion, unlike molten salt reactors where the name is being interpreted accurately, at least in a formal sense.
atdt 9y ago
The OECD periodically studies trends in public opinion regarding the use of nuclear power. Their most recent study is from 2010, and its conclusions largely refute any cynicism you may hold regarding public understanding of nuclear energy. From the executive summary: "In 6 out of 7 of the countries considered, public opinion has been growing more supportive of nuclear energy in the energy mix. The data show that countries where nuclear energy is already present have populations that are generally much more supportive of its use. They also show that these publics are generally better informed and more knowledgeable on nuclear issues and there is a clear positive correlation between knowledge and support." (https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2010/6859-public-attitudes.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2010/6859-public-attitudes...)
- seiferteric 9y ago
  That was pre Fukushima
njarboe 9y ago
I think nuclear power could follow other products like Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (NMRI) and just drop the word Nuclear (MRI). How about fission power or fusion power, depending on the source?
- bonesss 9y ago
  Since we're talking about rocks, and heat, I kinda wonder if "geothermal" might be a viable misnomer. Fusion is fine for now, but "fission" has already been chicken-littled :/
  - njarboe 9y ago
    In the earth sciences the term radioactive dating has been replaced with radioisotopic dating. Maybe isotopic power? Or just wait till the generation that grew up with "duck and cover" drills at school to be out of power. Not very long now.
tim333 9y ago
Unfortunately Thorium reactors were/would be full on nuclear reactors with the usual problems that come with those regardless of what you call them. Although the one that was built only operated from 1965-1969, "Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident" and they had to spend many millions sorting that out.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  Can you describe what problems these Thorium-burning MSRs have that plague current commercial reactors?
  - tim333 9y ago
    There's kind of a list here https://whatisnuclear.com/reactors/msr.html https://whatisnuclear.com/reactors/msr.html

nnfy 9y ago

At least this way you convince the educated public that you are credible. We should avoid names inspired by what amounts to political correctness, because people who see through the names may distrust us further. However, I do appreciate your point, and I agree that it is a problem. I think the attitude, at least from young white collar professionals, is warming up to nuclear.

wil421 9y ago
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance was the original name for the imaging technique we call MRI. Patients were scared so they changed the name.
- nnfy 9y ago
  For years I've been confused by the two different names. That was an insightful comment.
  - wil421 9y ago
    It's also important to note nuclear refers to the atomic nucleus and not a nuclear reaction.
    - varjag 9y ago
      Nucleus fission/fusion is what constitutes a nuclear reaction, so they in fact refer to exactly same thing involved in entirely different processes. But yeah you'd have to explain it every time it is mentioned.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Sukotto 9y ago
You might be swayed by facts. But that makes you one of the minority. A LOT of people make decisions based on emotion. Then they cherry pick the facts (if any) that support the choice, and disregard the facts that oppose.
- nnfy 9y ago
  This is true. However, I think logical people as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power in society. I'm not sure, though, and I'm only arguing out of, well, logic. What I mean to say is if I were a politician, I would be more concerned with aligning myself with other politicians, scientists, and policy makers, than my constituents in the initial term. Those who are non-technical may be won over later and with other means.
  - slagfart 9y ago
    This is why you won't make it as a politician, sadly. You need initial popular buy-in to be elected, which is why populist policies will always do well.

manicdee 9y ago

Are you suggesting that thorium molten salt reactors get their energy from a source other than nuclear fission?

Sukotto 9y ago
No. I'm saying that how you name things matters.
- caf 9y ago
  One of the ways it matters is that giving something an overly euphemistic name leads people to wonder exactly what it is that you're hiding.

KekDemaga 9y ago

"Green coal power systems" keep everyone happy.

acidburnNSA 9y ago

A bunch of people have tried to rebrand our most energy-dense fuels (uranium and thorium). "Terrestrial Energy" comes to mind. And the unofficial Thorium PR lead, Kirk Sorensen, rebranded the Thorium-Molten Salt Reactor (T-MSR) as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) because "lifter" sounds better. As an engineer I'm a stickler on accurate naming so this suggestion bothers me, and I think the opposing forces will easily be able to point out that it's just a rebranding of advanced nuclear reactors and hurt proponents' credibility. I wish we could just teach people to weigh risks of things like nuclear reactors versus their real benefits (clean air that has saved 1.8 million people already, 24/7 reliability, tiny land/fuel/waste/transportation footprints, etc.) but on the other hand people are more emotional than not. I'm sure you're right that a sweet new name on a nuclear reactor would be a help. Honestly I consider focus on Thorium fuel itself to be an attempt to rebrand the much broader but equally capable advanced nuclear industry.

snarfy 9y ago
Unfortunately regardless of what you wish, people do not weigh the risks. They have knee jerk reactions to terms like 'nuclear reactor'. It's human nature and shouldn't be ignored. Is it more important that it have an accurate name or that it's accepted by the public?
- ZoF 9y ago
  What's more important, an educated populace or your maintained feeling of intellectual superiority? People aren't as dumb as you think.
- acidburnNSA 9y ago
  Definitely the latter. I just hope to find other ways to influence people's feelings about things like nuclear reactors. If some epic rebranding is what it takes, then that's great. I feel that it will take more than that.
  - philipkglass 9y ago
    Any such rebranding would probably last about as long as it takes people to learn that the facilities are built by nuclear contractors, regulated by the NRC, and employing nuclear operators.

jessriedel 9y ago

It was widely considered a good move to rename "nuclear magnetic resonance" to "magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)" to avoid patient fears. That said, the "nuclear" in that case really was being misinterpreted by the public to refer to fission/fusion, unlike molten salt reactors where the name is being interpreted accurately, at least in a formal sense.

atdt 9y ago

The OECD periodically studies trends in public opinion regarding the use of nuclear power. Their most recent study is from 2010, and its conclusions largely refute any cynicism you may hold regarding public understanding of nuclear energy. From the executive summary: "In 6 out of 7 of the countries considered, public opinion has been growing more supportive of nuclear energy in the energy mix. The data show that countries where nuclear energy is already present have populations that are generally much more supportive of its use. They also show that these publics are generally better informed and more knowledgeable on nuclear issues and there is a clear positive correlation between knowledge and support." (https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2010/6859-public-attitudes.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2010/6859-public-attitudes...)

seiferteric 9y ago
That was pre Fukushima

njarboe 9y ago

I think nuclear power could follow other products like Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (NMRI) and just drop the word Nuclear (MRI). How about fission power or fusion power, depending on the source?

bonesss 9y ago
Since we're talking about rocks, and heat, I kinda wonder if "geothermal" might be a viable misnomer. Fusion is fine for now, but "fission" has already been chicken-littled :/
- njarboe 9y ago
  In the earth sciences the term radioactive dating has been replaced with radioisotopic dating. Maybe isotopic power? Or just wait till the generation that grew up with "duck and cover" drills at school to be out of power. Not very long now.

tim333 9y ago

Unfortunately Thorium reactors were/would be full on nuclear reactors with the usual problems that come with those regardless of what you call them. Although the one that was built only operated from 1965-1969, "Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident" and they had to spend many millions sorting that out.

rbanffy 9y ago
Can you describe what problems these Thorium-burning MSRs have that plague current commercial reactors?
- tim333 9y ago
  There's kind of a list here https://whatisnuclear.com/reactors/msr.html https://whatisnuclear.com/reactors/msr.html