3 ms·
This cutted version feels like none of these persons said anything that is in the video, because the statements (or even words) are "out of context". I just can
by mrothe 15y ago
This cutted version feels like none of these persons said anything that is in the video, because the statements (or even words) are "out of context". I just can assume the author of the video has good intentions and did not change the context.
- tomelders 15y agoI really liked this. I doubt I would have had tie to watch the original, but yeah... it does rely heavily on the integrity of the editor.
- pyrhho 15y agoFWIW, I recently watched one of the talks this is spliced from, and it seemed fairly accurate.
- moreati 15y agoHere are the original videos: The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8 Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Problems http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgKfS74hVvQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgKfS74hVvQ Lessons for the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (from history) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8
- icarus_drowning 15y agoI've watched all of the videos-- this is a very good summary of them. Plus, it isn't like the editor/uploader doesn't make it easy to find the original videos anyway.
- Detrus 15y agoI watched one of the videos and seems accurate enough. The cut left out an important bit from the end of that video. Developing those kinds of thorium reactors would take the US five years with a Manhattan Project style investment. Ten or more years at a slower pace and lower price. This is by no means cheap and easy, "it's not THAT hard" is a quote that made the cut. I imagine the effort would be comparable to making uranium reactors for power stations which took around thirty years.