Hi Alan,

Okay, I'll bite: why ? Why isn't any company, or anybody with a bit of spare cash, putting their money into thorium reactors ? One for every household ? If it's so cheap and easy, why isn't anybody - it appears, anybody in the world - doing it ?

If this was fair dinkum, imagine the impact on poor countries without any skin in the fossil fuel game, say many African countries ? How much would they need to get their entire economies and societies fully provided with enough energy for all their present and future needs ?

Cheers,

Joe

I'll tell you a fact.

No matter how interesting an article written by Don Aitken starts out, it will always end in some deadly dull dig at climate science.

Now that's a FACT Jack.

Diver dan
"What thinnest thoug Nickname nick?"
wha-what?
A little bit worried about Alan , he says $100 over 10 years is $1 year.
As you would know, thorium is about 4x10-4 gr. of soil and obviously is 600gr. cubic meter soil. As price of Thorium is $5000 kg dropping soon to $10kg US then Alan's wheel barrow heap costs him $3000 to $6 or a bit more $Oz. So $100 is in there somewhere and Alan is between facty and ficty rubbery figures , truth to tell.

Truthiness is entirely relevant to whatever factiness you choose to use to justify your truthiness.

In other words: Perception is everything.

That's why we need advertising, public relations, think tanks, lobby groups, intelligence agencies, governments, broadcast media discussion panels and print/online media opinion pieces.

These can be further broken down into sub-truthiness agencies - preventive health, wars on terror (drugs, 'brutal tyrants' du jour, drinking, welfare), corporate 'job-creation' benevolence, law and order - which all promote their particular brand of factiness designed to keep us all in a state of outrage, fear and a sense of superiority over anyone that challenges their factiness.

These all exist to create a standardised version of truthiness, based on a standardised version of factiness, that passes for conventional (or prevailing) wisdom. In this way, any other version of truthiness can be dismissed as dissent, radicalism, personality deficit or treason.

In this sense, very little has changed since the days of burning witches and heretics.

A big Christmas thank you NNN

Hi Killarney,

Well, as Don suggests, there ARE such things as facts: for instance, for the first hundred years of its post-contact history, South Australia employed only one person in its 'Aborigines Department'. Not hundreds, as the Conventional Narrative suggests - and requires in order to hold water - but one. Of course, he utilised the unpaid assistance of police, missionaries and pastoralists in order to supply rations to around fifty ration depots, and for much of the time, there was a part-time 'Sub-Protector' (another couple of verifiable facts), in crucial parts of the State.

Perhaps all manner of atrocities were occurring out beyond the 'frontier' but the Protector would have had his hands full organising supplies, transport and record-keeping. The Conventional Narrative therefore needs 'truthiness', i.e. suspicions of atrocities without much evidence to back it up.

Another fact: only one case of 'stolen' children has been proven in South Australia. Perhaps there were others, many others, but they would all be exhaustively recorded, so it shouldn't be difficult for any aggrieved person to take any matter to court. Don't hold your breath.

Sometimes Narratives absolutely depend on 'truthiness', 'post-truth', suspicions without evidence. Perhaps it's time for a better narrative, one based substantially on evidence, which in turn is based substantially on 'facts'.

Cheers,

Joe