For over 60 years Thorium dioxide was used in Colman gas lamp mantles.
you can still get higher then normal radioactive readings around old campgrounds.(1100-2100 CPM. )
Sadly it's likely that this will never be allowed into production. Any vehicle that becomes independent from the energy (Oil/Electricity) industry would lobby the hell out of governments to stop it in some way.
Oil Companies rule every household, every person that uses electricity, and so pretty much the world.
Look at 9/11 (New York), 7/7 (London) and 11/3 (Madrid), it was staged, and was not just about the corrupt secret agencies and billionaire corporate bosses of America, Europe and Britain being able to get the public to be more accepting of their spying and world domination activities.
If you don't thin it's possible that I could be right, notice that even the food we'd prefer not to eat just to stay healthy is being secretly and forcefully fed to us these days by means of affordability and suppression of knowledge, and false (pseudo) science.
I wish we all headed the lyrics of Lennon, MJ, SOAD, Green Day and Rage while we still had a chance to stop the cancerous growth of these nasty groups of people.
reply to post by mbkennel
For your consideration: Thorium
Natural thorium decays very slowly compared to many other radioactive materials, and the ALPHA radiation emitted cannot penetrate human skin meaning owning and handling small amounts of thorium, such as a gas mantle, is considered safe.
What was that? Alpha radiation? hmmm.
What kind of shielding does one need for Alpha radiation?
Thorium has its flaws. The metallurgy is complex. It is "fertile" but not fissile, and has to be converted in Uranium 233. Claims by the International Atomic Energy Institute in 2005 that it has "intrinsic resistance" to proliferation but have since been qualified. It could be used as feedstock for bombs, though not easily.
Yet it leaves far less toxic residue. Most of the mineral is used up in the fission process, while uranium reactors use up just 0.7pc. It can even burn up existing stockpiles of plutonium and hazardous waste.
Cambridge scientists published a tantalising study in the Annals of Nuclear Energy in February showing that it is possible to "achieve near complete transuranic waste incineration" by throwing the old residue into the reactor with thorium.
In other words, it can help clean up the mess left by a half a century of nuclear weapons and uranium reactors, instead of transporting it at great cost to be encased in concrete and buried for millennia.
That may be so, or not, but, too much protest against the development of a cleaner, safer, more sustainable, and altogether less expensive nuclear power solution that can even be facilitated to destroy and clean up the waste we already have on hand, well, too much protest against it strikes me as a little suspicious.
threats include health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining, processing and transport, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation or sabotage, and the unsolved problem of radioactive nuclear waste. They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been many serious nuclear accidents. Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology. They argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source.
The entire us economy is run by gasoline. If we should stop buying it that would spell the end of a lot of very important people's wealth. They will not let that happen. Therefore this invention, even if completely real and true, will never go anywhere.
So do you live or work in a building made of concrete? well done you already have a dose of radiation per year worse than Fukushima put out and felt by tokyo in the water in the weeks following the incident.