On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:48 AM, wouter van ooijen wrote:

>> How can I change yours?
>
> Give a rational technical (not political or emotional)
> argument about the risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste
> in geologically stable rock.

Give me a good argument and I'll change mine :)

Actually not 'a' good argument, but good arguments to refute all my
doubts at fears.

A problem with the 'geological stable' idea is the same as with stocks:
results from the past are no guarantee for the future. When you see a
coin turn heads up four times in a row I guess you will bet your life
that it will be heads the fifth time, no?

And another problem is that it geological stability is not enough. How
about political/sociological stability? I am not sure the USA will be a
peace-loving country (or even *one * country at all) in a few hundered
years.

Wouter van Ooijen


Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now. #2 You bet your life every  
day that the area you live in is geologically stable.  You bet the  
neighbor is not going to go "postal".  If you drive, you bet the  
driver next to you will not die in their sleep in the next 10  
seconds.  The only difference with nuke stuff is that glimmering  
boogie men rise out of abandoned caves, turn your family into ketchup  
slobbering vampires and make geiger counters vibrate off the table.

CC

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist