James Newton wrote:

> With nuke waste, spread it thinner when you dispose of it, and put it
> deep in the earth in very stable geological areas.

This sounds to me as being contrary to each other: putting it deep in the
earth in stable areas sounds to me as concentrating it all in one location
(or a few locations), not as spreading it thin.

> As to the level of radiation over the next 100 years: First the argument
> was that it will be radioactive for millions of years and our distant
> offspring [...]

FWIW, 100 years /is/ distant offspring. How many of those that were in
their 40ies or older 100 years ago (that is, the "deciders") do you know?
Is there any guarantee the USA and its control structures (and the
maintenance documentation) will still exist in 100 years? (And FWIW, if the
current development of the public debt and the problems some very much
smaller private debts have already created are any indication ... :)

Let's just try to plan a solution for the next few centuries. Then we'll
look into the more distant periods. And we really need an appropriate
insurance for a nuke plant right now... I need it for my car, and I don't
see how they could not need it for a power plant. 

Gerhard

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