I had heard about a nulcear reactor, that did not require a critical mass, and therefore did not have the possibility of Loss of coolant or meltdown. a reactor that required power to run, so if you want you can "Switch it off". seems the present day reactors create a critcal mass, and all the control systems, (control rods, whatever) are inplace to stop meltdown from occuring. if the control system fail the "reactor will react more" and meltdown. a standard nuclear power generator design is not "failsafe" but rather, its "FAILUNSAFE". and accelerator driven power generation system will stop, if you turn off the accelerator. when i googled ADR nuclear power, the first site i found was by none other Green Peace. from there i was directed to a paper giving real values of the availabilty of thorium, and how thorium is much safer to mine, and more energy than uranium. and the reactor design produces a very small amount of waste. low waste and a fairly short half life, the reactore itself can actually treat the waste and with low volume waste, ( and accountable waste), its possible to easily manage it. safely. Thorum is very common, and from what ive read it is plentiful enough to supple 10 times the worlds present electricity requirements, for the next 1200 centuries !!. so: are there problems i have not read about. why are these system not promoted, (is it because they dont make weapons grade stuff ? why is this technology being heavily promoted as a viable option. ?? i guess they split the atom all the time at CERN, but NO ONE thinks that there will be a meltdown, there is just not enough stuff. this looks like the same thing,, mabey its got a name problem, and take away the words "Nuclear reactor". http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=187&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight= [Broken] http://www.uic.com.au/nip67.htm comments ???