Wose than what? P Funk?

It's not just you. :yep:

Or better. You don't have my quote in your signature any longer Letum.

Fear me not, I'm giving you nothing more than the other side of the story.

That's a good quote for you Letum.:D

What you mean worse than turning up on a thread totally unrelated to the argument your having with someone else, and slagging them off?

Oh what do you care - I'm foreign I don't count:nope:

I have found a better one ;)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...4&postcount=27

If someone could just tell me how we will label something dangerous 2500, 25000 or 250000 years from now, and I would have no problems with nuclear power.

I want it,I want it, I want it!!!!!!

Certainly could be seen as autobiographic if you used it. Caution is all I suggest.:D

Oddly enough the material is more radioactive when we take it out of the ground. After it has been used for power it is less radioactive.

The big difference is that it is more spread out when it is in the ground, but it is all in one heap after it has been used.
In theory, if you spread it about the mine shaft that you dug it out from you would have made the mine safer than it was at the start.
*edit* it occurs to me that I may well be proved wrong here, but that is my current understanding of nuclear physics. Can anyone confirm/correct?



Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as many people think.

Well as i plan the be a nuclear engineer I belive that glowy is the future. However it must be treated with utmost respect.

I'm not against it, but the whole Windscale/Sellerfield thing makes me really uneasy about it.

I guess not...

Article in Businessweek a few months ago that serious jobs are going begging in the Nuclear energy industry because of lack of specialized education along with the predicted expansion of the industry.

Gotta find a way to safely ship that waste off to the sun. :sunny: