Talk:Thorium Energy Alliance

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rationale

Rationale has been written based on wider perspective, and may require further polishing. Lack of rationale was cited as reason for speedy deletion earlier. References will be added in due course. Tharikrish 22:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Added essential references. More being added. Hence the 'no reference' tag removed. Tharikrish 16:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to critics

The copied/quoted text below alludes to ambiguity or opinion and perhaps overstated advantages for thorium. Is there a way to cite or reference Alex Cannara's rebuttal to IEER as a third party who adds notability to stated thorium advantages? [1] If there is evidence for where the accuracy is greatest, lets find it and use it.

"Despite all the favorable factors, and utilization in commercial reactors in the past,[22][23] interest in thorium diminished in the late 1980s due to various reasons. Critics of thorium claim that the advantages are over stated and it is unlikely to be a useful source of energy. [24]Many point the adverse economics and the availability of plentiful or sources of energy that will deter full commercialization of thorium based." energy.

Crodney Crodney (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look a look at the argument and counter arguments and have it included in this paragraph. Tharikrish 13:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cannara's and other rebuttals are summarized and referenced now. Tharikrish 18:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Neutrality issue with the first section, last paragraph has been addressed by citing additional references to both views and summarizing of the main answers to criticisms about use of thorium. Please review this section and see whether neutrality has to be further strengthened. Tharikrish 18:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the paragraph with added answer to criticisms. Having both criticism and response, each with their citations, seems more neutral than criticism without a response. I feel neutrality is restored and recommend removal of the POV tag. Crodney (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality problem is bringing up problems with Thorium reactors and use and then simply stating they have all been refuted by advocates. That is not neutral nor a fair reading of the literature. The article is just about the TEA, so why not just state that there are issues that have been raised and here (citing references or Wikipedia link) are where discussion of these issues can be found.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the lines pointing refutation, and edited to add "These and other issues regarding the use of thorium have been debated. Reference for arguments are retained. Article on Thorium-based nuclear power is referenced upfront." Tharikrish 21:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is good enough for me to remove the POV tag.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV

"Most of the energy made is from fossil fuels and as it is common knowledge fossil fuels create a very large carbon footprint, which leads us to getting energy from nuclear power and reactors. But the most common nuclear reactor is uranium which causes a lot of global warming and as you can imagine carbon dioxide which doesn't help the reduction of carbon footprint; but thorium is a way safer and cleaner way to use nuclear power. Thorium is a safer, cleaner and more abundant alternative fuel; it produces about a thousand times less waste throughout the supply chain than uranium. So as you can imagine thorium had a considerably smaller carbon footprint that uranium."

Haha oh wow. I'm not that knowledgeable on the subject but this part needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.5.247 (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such text should not be here or in any other Wikipedia page. Text deleted and POV flag removed. Tharikrish 20:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]