Talk:Georeactor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

Although I'm not an expert, I cleaned up the existing material and tried to add enough additional information so that the article made sense. The original article was a little effusive in its praise of Dr. Herndon and I tried to cut that back too. As a result I removed the cleanup and expert templates. I hope it was proper to do so.

The footnotes still need to be repaired, and I think the article would be improved by a contrary opinion regarding the existence of the georeactor. The only sources I could find on the validity of Dr. Herndon's conclusions were, either directly or indirectly, from Dr. Herndon himself.

--andersonpd 08:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, there's a simple reason for this. The user who created this article originally (view if you dare) is publishing original research in the wikipedia. Another article of his, which was created around the same time, was deleted through a vfd process. I suppose I don't have any grudge against the article, but I doubt you'll find a "contrary opinion" to the article, unless you mean the other 99% of geologists. Avriette 00:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I did find an article which had statements from other geologists disagreeing with Dr. Herndon. I've included a brief quotation in a "Criticism" section.--andersonpd 02:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

++++++ ::It is easy to bad-mouth scientific work in the popular press, but that does not constitute ethical science. If a scientist like David Stevenson has any real, sound scientific objection to a published scientific idea, he/she should refute it on a sound scientific basis, preferably in the journal of original publication. No one has done that in the 13 years since first publication of the georeactor concept. You do a serious injustice to the scientists involved and to the general readership by giving space and crediance to "bad-mouthing" in absence of refutation. Wiki should have higher standards!!!Marvin Herndon 17:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)J. Marvin Herndon

[edit] From PNA/Geology

• Georeactor - new article about a dubious theory by a maverick geochemist. The article is very poorly written, the anon. writer is obviously a fan of Dr Herndon. Don't know much about it, but the half-life of U-235 would seem to cast doubt on the concept. -Vsmith 02:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about any georeactor theory, but I do know about the dynamo theory, which is the accepted model (theory or hypothesis) for how the Earth's magnetic field is created. An article about a georeactor creating the magnetic field without mention of the dynamo theory is peculiar.--Cjackb 23:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] split natural nuclear reactors

This talks about reactors in the earth's crust, which is barely related to any of the stellar and planetary discussion. 59.112.49.217 06:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is unclear to me what is to be accomplished by "splitting" the article. The brief mention of natural nuclear reactors in the crust is appropriate background information, IMHO. The article about natural nuclear reactors already exists and is linked in this article. If the intent is to assist those who come across this article while searching for info on natural nuclear reactors a disclaimer and link at the start of the article would be appropriate, again IMHO. Paul D. Anderson 19:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have followed the Wiki-progression of this article with some serious concern. People seem to want to impose their own lack of understanding to this subject. It would be foolish to split this article as there is implicit in what was presented, at least originally, a logical progression of understanding. For example the connections to the natural reactors at Oklo should remain as originally placed. These could link to a more detailed entry for Oklo, though. It might be helpful to learn something more substantial about the subject before introducing changes. To do that, may I suggest going to http://UnderstandEarth.com .Marvin Herndon 00:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)