Josephus, you are amazing, Max puts up a reasonable piece from 'The Royal Society', you lampoon him for it, I expect that from 'No Brains' Hasbeen. Yet you are one of those half wits who believes biblical BS like Noah and his ark, is a literally true climate event in world history. At what age did the religious fundos get inside your head to convince you to believe in nonsense?

Paul1405, Max made suggestions on how to deal with less polluting electricity generation; which is a positive step toward dealing with climate change. As far as a previous Earth flood, your mob are claiming that will happen again, so if we are to be saved from the flood you need to be building a boat. The flood story is a universal story even in primitive tribes and the early Chinese language tells the story.
Newton suggests it did happen.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/

MrO, I don't know what to say, because I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Jokes and pokes aside, I don't know what you mean.
You see, I'm a bit thick and don't get sarcasm or innuendo, never have.
I lack the ability to understand jibes or quips.
Anyway, the problem with your statement, from my understanding of it, is that, this is a social medium, and as such once you write something and post it, all those people who are logged onto that thread will see what you wrote.
You see, that's the way it works.
There is NO option for writing something on OLO and only you can read it.
Well there is if you don't log on.
But hey, carry on, I obviously have misunderstood you.

Hi ALTRAV,

The Molten Salt Reactor didn't get further R&D because:-

1. Nixon
It was being shut down to fund a much bigger MSR experiment, but Nixon diverted funding from it to another breeder reactor for political reasons and jobs in seats that would help political mates. In video here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI

(Funding eventually went to the INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR that uses sodium as a coolant. Still a very good reactor, but of course, sodium is explosive if in contact with water and we don't want that! But I'm still sure the Integral Fast Reactor he funded would have survived a power outage like the Fukushima diesel generators being knocked out. Here is ACTUAL footage of the Integral Fast Reactor running a complete Fukushima style power outage! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU&feature=emb_logo )

2. Cold War
The MSR by products are much harder to reprocess into bomb grade material. The Cold War was raging, and getting as much weapons-grade plutonium as you could was the pissing contest between the Soviet Union and USA. The military wanted regular and fast reactors, not thermal MSR's.

Interestingly, the Megatons to Megawatts program saw the bankrupted Soviet union selling a bunch of their weapons grade material to the USA for America to burn in her reactors! Apparently 10% of America was running on old Soviet bombs for 20 years, equivalent to running the WHOLE of Australia on old nuclear warheads for 2 decades!

A STAGGERING amount of bomb grade stuff was burned!

"A total of 500 tonnes of Russian warhead grade HEU (equivalent to 20,008 nuclear warheads) were converted in Russia to nearly 15,000 tonnes tons of LEU (low enriched uranium) and sold to the US for use as fuel in American nuclear power plants."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program

Just shows how much you have to dilute Highly Enriched to Low Enriched if 500 tonnes becomes 15,000!

Josephus,
I know the head of Moore College's Old Testament department, Dr Andrew Shead. He tells his students that the flood narrative is in full blown Ancient Middle-Eastern (AME) Cosmology, complete with a flat-earth, the heavenly spheres holding back the waters of heaven, and actual floodgates that had to open for all that water to flow through to cover the highest mountains.

He also tells me he thinks there was an actual Noah, and some sort of boat. But the creative narrative structure of Genesis 1-11 was written with theological messages in mind, in a symbolic narrative that takes the literal events and dresses them up in a *literary* format that was far more colourful and theologically important. Dr Shead said there was a Noah and some sort of boat and some animals from the region on that boat. Scientifically the flood was probably one of the heavy regional floods in the Middle East. But rather than just have Noah walk out of the region, God wanted Noah to trust him and build a boat.

Today we are all engineering and empiricism, but we're missing the point of the passage if we approach it this way. It's BASED on a real (probably local event), but DRESSED UP in AME Cosmology metaphors.

It's the same with Genesis 1. For example, if you read, "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun!" hopefully you don't react all scientifically and shout "Boo! Boo! Juliete is *not* a giant ball of super-heated fusing hydrogen!" Trashing early Genesis with *science* is simply missing the genre. It's a theological polemic correcting the theological claims of the creation myths of surrounding cultures, not a literal engineering manual of what God made on what day.

Dr John Dickson, Phd in history and theology, explains further. http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything

My point? You don't need to fear the old earth that climate science might indicate. Christians are free to believe both the bible and modern science.

This is a repeat which may inform some on here.

The amazing lack of knowledge of the emergency management structure
is something that will need attention.
The ridiculous criticism of the PM over the announcement of the Federal
government setting up a new organisation was amazing.
Anyone with any nous would know that the PM has to first inform the State Premiers.
He does not run around telling public servants first.
Where the PM can be criticised is that he did not give enough time for
the information to be disseminated by the Premier.
The TV is always on in Emergency Management Control centres so they
saw the public announcement and got their knickers in a twist.
The announcement does not have an immeadiate affect as most defense
assets were already in the field and the 3000 would take a day or two
to be organised.
They will not be firefighters but will be organised for the recovery.
Still, you don't criticise the commissioner as he is under significant
strain and may have been up all night. Reading between the lines I
think he understood the situation.

Every District and Local area has an Emergency Management Committee
which does not control Response function as that is the job or
whichever combat organisation is activated.
Currently it is the RFS.
There is a Disaster Plan, known as Displan.
It has three components, Preparation, Response ans Recovery.
We are currently mostly in Response mode but starting to activate recovery.
The committees provide anything the combat organisation requests,
food, buses for evacuation, communications support, such as the
organisation to which I belong that has sent a small team to Bega to
provide communication services.

It is a bit like a swan, gliding along on the surface but a hive of activity underneath.
Most of the activity never gets seen on TV.