May 3 2013: From the tone of the comments I've read, most everyone is impressed with this young man's ability to understand, achieve, and get involved in some very complex discussions at such a young age. No one seems to be taking that away from him.
For my part, my criticisms were based on how he has presented himself and his ideas. He has made reference to a lot of work done by others who have laid the groundwork for the understanding and discussion of this type of reactor. It's been discussed before, often, and in detail. Yet he presents his design as a new innovation, while focusing his discussion on the parts of the design that are not innovative. What sets his design apart from other ideas that have been presented? The fuel? No, it's been done. The coolant? Not new. The safety mechanisms: a dump tank and a low pressure chemistry? Not new. The idea of burying it? Not new. The idea of using it in space? Not new. I don't mean to be harsh here, but if he is going to take credit, he should take credit for work he's done while giving appropriate credit to those on whose shoulders he's standing.
Again, this is not to say he's not brilliant and absolutely to be encouraged, just that he may benefit from a little less pretentiousness and a little more humility. He'll learn and I can't wait to see his next talk!
May 1 2013: His isn't really a LFTR though. He's suggesting using uranium and plutonium from old nuclear warheads as fuel, which is a good idea in itself since our current alternatives are to secure them or bury them in some mountain in Nevada. That said, yeah, this is not really new at all (the concept has been around since the 1950s) and TED has even published talks about it:
Mr. Sorensen has suggested the use of molten salts, the smaller design of the reactor itself, the idea that it would be buried, the idea that if it melted down, it would dump the fuel into an emergency chamber that would stop the reaction, etc, etc. He has gone into great technical detail (he's an engineer after all) in some of his talks on YouTube.
I'm quite willing to give Taylor a pass on this because he's young, excited, eager to learn, and still has a great deal of potential to do good things in this world. He just needs to get into contact with (and give appropriate credit to) some of the people who are laying the groundwork for him.
May 1 2013: I'm glad you made this point. I was definitely thinking as I was watching this "this kid is standing on the shoulders of giants" and using "I" far too often. Two possibilities: 1) the format of the talk is too short for a whole lot of citations and details or 2) he hasn't had the formal academic coaching to know that he really needs to be informed about and referencing LFTR and MSR when he's talking about this topic. In fact, this topic has been covered on TED already:
The talks are similar in terms of ideas. I'm not suggesting anything unseemly or inappropriate on Taylor's part, only that this is a good idea that's been spoken of before and that it is good practice and good courtesy to acknowledge it. His version of the design is still a good idea and bears repeating because it is: less costly, far safer, more efficient, and far more deliverable than the current version of nuclear power that we have today. It is a solution worth more attention.
Apr 11 2013: It truth, that's not really a counterargument. People are entitled to their opinions and to vote upon their basis in this country. Whether they are open-minded or not to anything is absolutely and totally irrelevant. If you want the people to speak, then it means all the people get a voice, even those who are "closed-minded" and "uninformed" and "ignorant." I use those terms in quotations because they are often misattritributed in political rhetoric and used synonymously with "you don't agree with me and are a bad person for it," and I find that connotation to be insulting, so I won't use it. In a country with 315 million people, there is a wide spectrum of political beliefs, all of which, theoretically would be averaged and balanced by a truly democratic vote.
I would think a stronger counterargument is that it requires active participation with a citizenry that's not used to being actively involved in politics. In order to choose candidates, you have to work to find out about them, often despite clear manipulation of their stances and opinions from various media outlets. It takes work, and Americans who don't prioritize that often boil down their ballot choices to name recognition and the (D) or (R) behind the name on the ballot. For a true democracy to work, we as citizens need to work at it, and many of us honestly don't want to.
Feb 24 2013: I think I understand the dilemma here.
The word "racist" is often abused in modern usage. It has become a curse word to be flung as an insult more often than correctly applied per it's definition. I would not have even thought to apply racism to this discussion, as it has nothing to do with race, nor ethnicity. I do not believe that one race or ethnicity is more prone to corruption than any other, and truth be told, I think the entire concept of race is antiquated and doesn't really fit in modern society.
I believe that any person is capable of being corrupt, and that we, as individuals are responsible for our own actions. If, for example, I embezzled money from a government or corporation while in a position of power or public trust, it is me who has failed. It is me who deserves the blame and the punishment, not the system. The system didn't force me to take money that did not belong to me.
Feb 23 2013: "its the ruddy "System" thats corrupt, not humans !"
This is a dangerous argument to make. Ultimately each person makes his or her own decisions and needs to be held to account for them. Blaming the system is the coward's way out by shifting blame for a wrong decision onto someone else rather than face the consequences for that decision. That argument didn't work at Nuremberg and it certainly shouldn't work elsewhere.
Corruption occurs because people find ways of justifying actions they know to be wrong: "Everyone else does it so why shouldn't I?", "It's been that way for years", "No one cares", "It's just a small thing, so it's not that bad," "Someone else told me it's ok to do".
Feb 7 2013: There's a huge difference between a couple of kids getting carried away and legal adult gun owners who assume full responsibility for their weapons. In order to own a gun, you have to be sane, not convicted of a felony, and you assume liability for incidents involving the weapon. The kids in your example are not held to the same standard of responsibility.
Second, gun rights don't exist for "fun". They're not to protect the hunters and sport shooters. They're there to allow citizens to own weapons for protection. Making this assumption is done to trivialize the gun rights argument by ignoring the real justification for it.
Lastly, you assert it's the parents (government's) job to fight the bullies (criminals), and yet in your own example, the parents weren't there to stop the kids from hurting each other in a fight. The parents can't be everywhere at once and neither can the police. The government can't guarantee you'll never run into a criminal, but they can guarantee that we can choose to protect ourselves and with lethal force if necessary.
If you want to solve the gun violence problem, take the violence out of the equation, not the gun.
Feb 7 2013: I probably should have stated that I was listing those suggestions in no particular order. I think the most effective ones involve enforcing the laws we already have on the books, and increasing the penalties on those convicted of gun crimes and illegal gun trafficking. And you may be right that it may be unconstitutional to federalize gun crimes.
I completely understand your argument on the national database as well. Registration leads to confiscation, and at the risk of Godwinning the discussion, this is what Hitler did, and many gun rights advocates are justifiably worried about their guns being taken away. My only counterpoint is that if you can trust the government and register your car, why would we apply a lesser standard to lethal weapons? Theoretically a log of those requesting and passing background checks could be compiled into a de facto gun-ownership database already.
As for suggestions that might be "annoying" to legal gun owners, sure they might be, but doesn't mean that with the right to own a firearm, they can shirk responsibility to do so safely. I don't think passing a background check is offensive. We already do it, so why not have the database be more effective? Also, if you own a gun, you should know how to use it, store it, clean it, handle it, and be familiar with the laws governing it. Completing a course to verify this is common sense and responsible gun ownership. You have to renew your CPR certification and renew your driver's license, right?
Feb 7 2013: 1) People can be outraged about the former because we don't see a moral equivalency between these killings. One is done as part of a war, the other is murder. The only way you can equate the two examples is if you do not believe that war is justified in any circumstance. I disagree, but that's a whole other debate.
2) The President is assumed to be sane. We don't generally elect insane people to that office.
3) We shouldn't. Since the government will always have weapons to arm it's military and protect itself, the citizens must have the same right (with reasonable limits). Both should be armed, hence the Second Amendment in the US Constitution. Otherwise, the people are rendered powerless.
4) Which government? The Nazi government under Hitler? Stalin's government? Pol Pot's government? Milosevic's government? Absolutely true. The question is not who, but why? and do you agree with their rationale? Is killing at any time justified? I don't think you find any justification for killing, which is why you make this statement. I disagree, in that I feel there is a huge difference between murdering civilians convicted of no crime and killing soldiers of an enemy nation who want to do the same to you.
5) You can hardly make this statement. George Bush had a set of actions and the psyche of his citizens was far from compliant. He was criticized vehemently for his position. The citizens in Libya and Egypt rose up against their "president"/dictators and overthrew them. Unless you're a sheep, you don't let your President do your thinking for you.
Feb 6 2013: I think we're failing to ask the correct question: how can we reduce the greatest number of gun-related crimes in this country without ignoring the Constitution? If you ask this question and look at FBI crime statistics, most gun crimes are committed with handguns. Most of those aren't purchased from federal licensed dealers. Many of them are stolen or have filed off serial numbers making their origins impossible to track. Most homicide convicts and most homicide victims are involved in gangs or the trade of drugs. Most come from a poor socioeconomic status.
The Jarod Laughners and Adam Lanzas of this world are the outliers of a vast sea of data suggesting where the real problem lies. To focus so much attention on them and ignore the real problem is a disservice to the gun debate and only serves cynics and sycophants.
Solutions include:
-improved gun tracking records, coordinated by the ATF, so weapons used in crimes can be traced to their owners.
-rigorous but rapid background checks via the NICS database
-augmented background check data
-mandatory reporting of violent crimes and conviction data from local, county, and state jurisdictions to the database
-mandatory reporting of the mentally incompetent, those at risk to themselves or others to the database by psychiatrists
-mandatory maintenance of the mentally ill records by treating psychiatrists, who may deem someone safe after completing treatment
-mandatory updating of records if convictions are overturned on appeals
-mandatory minimum sentencing for those convicted of gun-related crimes. Federalize these crimes if necessary.
-mandatory minimum sentencing for those convicted of trafficking illegally in guns
-mandatory attendance of gun safety programs for licensed gun owners with refresher courses on an biannual basis so they maintain their competency and knowledge (just like CPR certification)
TEDCred score: +1.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Talk: Taylor Wilson: My radical plan for small nuclear fission reactors
For my part, my criticisms were based on how he has presented himself and his ideas. He has made reference to a lot of work done by others who have laid the groundwork for the understanding and discussion of this type of reactor. It's been discussed before, often, and in detail. Yet he presents his design as a new innovation, while focusing his discussion on the parts of the design that are not innovative. What sets his design apart from other ideas that have been presented? The fuel? No, it's been done. The coolant? Not new. The safety mechanisms: a dump tank and a low pressure chemistry? Not new. The idea of burying it? Not new. The idea of using it in space? Not new. I don't mean to be harsh here, but if he is going to take credit, he should take credit for work he's done while giving appropriate credit to those on whose shoulders he's standing.
Again, this is not to say he's not brilliant and absolutely to be encouraged, just that he may benefit from a little less pretentiousness and a little more humility. He'll learn and I can't wait to see his next talk!
A reply on Talk: Taylor Wilson: My radical plan for small nuclear fission reactors
http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel.html
Mr. Sorensen has suggested the use of molten salts, the smaller design of the reactor itself, the idea that it would be buried, the idea that if it melted down, it would dump the fuel into an emergency chamber that would stop the reaction, etc, etc. He has gone into great technical detail (he's an engineer after all) in some of his talks on YouTube.
I'm quite willing to give Taylor a pass on this because he's young, excited, eager to learn, and still has a great deal of potential to do good things in this world. He just needs to get into contact with (and give appropriate credit to) some of the people who are laying the groundwork for him.
A reply on Talk: Taylor Wilson: My radical plan for small nuclear fission reactors
http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel.html
The talks are similar in terms of ideas. I'm not suggesting anything unseemly or inappropriate on Taylor's part, only that this is a good idea that's been spoken of before and that it is good practice and good courtesy to acknowledge it. His version of the design is still a good idea and bears repeating because it is: less costly, far safer, more efficient, and far more deliverable than the current version of nuclear power that we have today. It is a solution worth more attention.
A reply on Talk: Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim
I would think a stronger counterargument is that it requires active participation with a citizenry that's not used to being actively involved in politics. In order to choose candidates, you have to work to find out about them, often despite clear manipulation of their stances and opinions from various media outlets. It takes work, and Americans who don't prioritize that often boil down their ballot choices to name recognition and the (D) or (R) behind the name on the ballot. For a true democracy to work, we as citizens need to work at it, and many of us honestly don't want to.
A reply on Talk: Afra Raymond: Three myths about corruption
The word "racist" is often abused in modern usage. It has become a curse word to be flung as an insult more often than correctly applied per it's definition. I would not have even thought to apply racism to this discussion, as it has nothing to do with race, nor ethnicity. I do not believe that one race or ethnicity is more prone to corruption than any other, and truth be told, I think the entire concept of race is antiquated and doesn't really fit in modern society.
I believe that any person is capable of being corrupt, and that we, as individuals are responsible for our own actions. If, for example, I embezzled money from a government or corporation while in a position of power or public trust, it is me who has failed. It is me who deserves the blame and the punishment, not the system. The system didn't force me to take money that did not belong to me.
Does this help clarify what I was trying to say?
A reply on Talk: Afra Raymond: Three myths about corruption
This is a dangerous argument to make. Ultimately each person makes his or her own decisions and needs to be held to account for them. Blaming the system is the coward's way out by shifting blame for a wrong decision onto someone else rather than face the consequences for that decision. That argument didn't work at Nuremberg and it certainly shouldn't work elsewhere.
Corruption occurs because people find ways of justifying actions they know to be wrong: "Everyone else does it so why shouldn't I?", "It's been that way for years", "No one cares", "It's just a small thing, so it's not that bad," "Someone else told me it's ok to do".
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
Second, gun rights don't exist for "fun". They're not to protect the hunters and sport shooters. They're there to allow citizens to own weapons for protection. Making this assumption is done to trivialize the gun rights argument by ignoring the real justification for it.
Lastly, you assert it's the parents (government's) job to fight the bullies (criminals), and yet in your own example, the parents weren't there to stop the kids from hurting each other in a fight. The parents can't be everywhere at once and neither can the police. The government can't guarantee you'll never run into a criminal, but they can guarantee that we can choose to protect ourselves and with lethal force if necessary.
If you want to solve the gun violence problem, take the violence out of the equation, not the gun.
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
I completely understand your argument on the national database as well. Registration leads to confiscation, and at the risk of Godwinning the discussion, this is what Hitler did, and many gun rights advocates are justifiably worried about their guns being taken away. My only counterpoint is that if you can trust the government and register your car, why would we apply a lesser standard to lethal weapons? Theoretically a log of those requesting and passing background checks could be compiled into a de facto gun-ownership database already.
As for suggestions that might be "annoying" to legal gun owners, sure they might be, but doesn't mean that with the right to own a firearm, they can shirk responsibility to do so safely. I don't think passing a background check is offensive. We already do it, so why not have the database be more effective? Also, if you own a gun, you should know how to use it, store it, clean it, handle it, and be familiar with the laws governing it. Completing a course to verify this is common sense and responsible gun ownership. You have to renew your CPR certification and renew your driver's license, right?
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
2) The President is assumed to be sane. We don't generally elect insane people to that office.
3) We shouldn't. Since the government will always have weapons to arm it's military and protect itself, the citizens must have the same right (with reasonable limits). Both should be armed, hence the Second Amendment in the US Constitution. Otherwise, the people are rendered powerless.
4) Which government? The Nazi government under Hitler? Stalin's government? Pol Pot's government? Milosevic's government? Absolutely true. The question is not who, but why? and do you agree with their rationale? Is killing at any time justified? I don't think you find any justification for killing, which is why you make this statement. I disagree, in that I feel there is a huge difference between murdering civilians convicted of no crime and killing soldiers of an enemy nation who want to do the same to you.
5) You can hardly make this statement. George Bush had a set of actions and the psyche of his citizens was far from compliant. He was criticized vehemently for his position. The citizens in Libya and Egypt rose up against their "president"/dictators and overthrew them. Unless you're a sheep, you don't let your President do your thinking for you.
A comment on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
The Jarod Laughners and Adam Lanzas of this world are the outliers of a vast sea of data suggesting where the real problem lies. To focus so much attention on them and ignore the real problem is a disservice to the gun debate and only serves cynics and sycophants.
Solutions include:
-improved gun tracking records, coordinated by the ATF, so weapons used in crimes can be traced to their owners.
-rigorous but rapid background checks via the NICS database
-augmented background check data
-mandatory reporting of violent crimes and conviction data from local, county, and state jurisdictions to the database
-mandatory reporting of the mentally incompetent, those at risk to themselves or others to the database by psychiatrists
-mandatory maintenance of the mentally ill records by treating psychiatrists, who may deem someone safe after completing treatment
-mandatory updating of records if convictions are overturned on appeals
-mandatory minimum sentencing for those convicted of gun-related crimes. Federalize these crimes if necessary.
-mandatory minimum sentencing for those convicted of trafficking illegally in guns
-mandatory attendance of gun safety programs for licensed gun owners with refresher courses on an biannual basis so they maintain their competency and knowledge (just like CPR certification)