Says who? Why?

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
mailto:jamesnewton@piclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Bob Ammerman
> Sent: 2004 Aug 24, Tue 15:51
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OT:] Nuclear waste storage - arguments on
> design lifetime
>
> The waste products are MUCH nastier than natural uranium.
>
> Bob Ammerman
> RAm Systems
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter L. Peres" <plp@ACTCOM.CO.IL>
> To: <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [OT:] Nuclear waste storage - arguments on
> design lifetime
>
>
> > Could they not powder it (well glass granulate or sinter or
> such) and
> > mix it with the waste rock and earth where it came from,
> and fill in
> > the mine with it ? If the uranium had been left alone and had
> > radioactively decayed in situ it would have ended up exactly like
> > that, no ? Excepting for the higher concentration (and thus
> activity)
> > of decay products ? After all using U from a mine in a
> reactor is like
> > turning the clock of natural U decay in fast forward mode. I am not
> > saying it is simple or cheap. It could double the cost of
> extraction (if it works at all).
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > --
> > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with
> ONE topic:
> > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other
> [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> >
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics