To: JohnKinAK
Does this mean that the damage is more horrible than thought? Or does it mean that what nuclear waste standards in U.S are silly?
To: AndyTheBear
Does this mean that the damage is more horrible than thought? Or does it mean that what nuclear waste standards in U.S are silly?It means that the author has an agenda: Anti-nuclear.
Fairewinds Energy Education
6 posted on
05/24/2012 8:26:59 PM PDT by
CedarDave
(Romney: Dresses and looks like a '50's character from "Mad Men" but no one's buying his shtick.)
To: AndyTheBear
The half-life of cobalt-60 is 5.3 years - not 300... Annoying, but livable...
26 posted on
05/24/2012 9:35:00 PM PDT by
GOPJ
( "A Dog In Every Pot" - freeper ETL)
To: AndyTheBear
Or does it mean that what nuclear waste standards in U.S are silly?That's what I was wondering. In California background radiation is considered an unacceptable risk. The Earth is in violation of statute law.
33 posted on
05/24/2012 11:47:02 PM PDT by
TigersEye
(Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
To: AndyTheBear
If Grand Central Station was a nuclear power one, it would be shut down.
To: AndyTheBear
The latter.
Q: What is the half life of dirt?
A: Too low to put in an article like this without embarrasment, assuming you can find a girbilist who knows what the half life is.
41 posted on
05/25/2012 3:46:43 AM PDT by
MrEdd
(Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
To: AndyTheBear
... Or does it mean that what nuclear waste standards in U.S are silly?Considering the possibility that someone's old watch with glow in the dark hands might be considered 'nuclear waste', I'd say your opinion is correct.
46 posted on
05/25/2012 9:36:31 AM PDT by
SuziQ
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson