Discussion in 'Science' started by bcann, Jan 29, 2009.
I always treat with extreme skepticism any article that replaces the word "scientists" with the word "boffins." Texas boffins...
I was thinking the same thing - but really, it's the article that has been written poorly ("so generating large amounts more energy" - I mean, wtf, the kids I tutor could comfortably write something better than that, and one of them is in grade 2), but, reading between the lines, it seems the process is actually understood and viable, it's just that whoever wrote the article had no freaking idea about it. No real surprise, science journalism is pretty poor everywhere.
Most so-called "nuclear waste" is actually good stuff. Well, duh. We don't need any new technology to realise that, either.
There was actually a good article in Physics Today on fission-fusion hybrid reactors... by Hans Bethe in May, 1979. I'll see if I can find a local copy of the PDF.
Mr Fusion anyone?
I always thought the Register was one of the more tongue in cheek publications.
While it sounds cool.. i seriously wonder about the credibility of an article that first uses boffins instead of scientists..
and even more so using TEXAS and BOFFIN in the same sentence.
I'm waiting for the new season of Pimp my Reactor
You don't need fission to achieve this stuff go look at a (preferably fast ) breeder reactor. A U-Pu molten chloride reactors would work just as well.
Yeah but then can produce nuclear weapon grade material, that is why they are not considered an option...