My point is that we currently have mountains (plural) and plains and caves
and back yards full (to a lesser concentration) of nuclear waste (well, not
waste, but still radioactive to some degree) which we aren't even apparently
aware of and we don't worry about that, so why do we worry about a mountain
that we DO know about?

There are places where yellow cake sits around in national parks and kids
use it to draw on rocks. Xrays, high airplane flights, and bad water cause
more radiation damage than any nuke waste ever has. And coal power causes
more damage of all sorts (radiation, pollution, etc...) than anything
nuclear does ever.

So why do we get so upset about nuke plants and nuke waste? The numbers
don't account for the emotions.

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of
Carey Fisher
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 05:49
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Just wondering..

James Newton wrote:
> Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally occurring
veins
> of radioactive ore being exposed by some natural or unnatural upheaval and
> that same sort of exposure happening to spent fuel rods. 
>
> Shit happens. 
The "Law of Unintended Consequences" is the problem here.  I think it's 
likely that something we
currently don't know will bite us in the butt.  And do we want a 
mountain full of nuclear
waste to be the biter?
Carey
-- 
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