The Case for Nuclear Energy Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Case for Nuclear Energy

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: TimF	9/29/2008 2:00:12 PM
	Read Replies (1) of 312

...could you explain just what it is about nuclear waste that makes it so much worse than lead, mercury, fluorocarbons, or a lot of other substances that -- however imperfectly -- we learn to manage in far greater quantities with tolerable risk? It can't be the "dangerous for NNNNN years," because lead, mercury etc. remain toxic for the entire age of the universe (barring possible neutron decay). It can't be the ".00000N gram is fatal," or else we should ban canned food because one bad batch of cans can yield genocidal amounts of botulism toxin. I'm forced to the conclusion that there's some special, magical mojo about it that I don't understand... but I'd like to, if you'd enlighten me. Posted by Monte Davis \| September 27, 2008 11:28 AM meganmcardle.theatlantic.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next