Wulfy wrote:
As for the quote above, yes, they won't see [the effects of nuclear
waste being buried in a mountain].. unless they start mining, or
there's an earthquake or erosion... no-one can guarantee that that
won't happen. Especially with the climate changes that are happening.
Just as an aside, I read a blurb yesterday somewhere that some 'nukeler
fizzist' or some-such has found a way to actually change the rate of
nuclear decay, such that the threat from nuclear waste could be reduced
from 10K years or so to 2 years or so. That'd be great if it's true.
Of course, the entire physics community is dissin' him, because everyone
_knows_ that nuclear decay is an unchangeable constant.
I might add, I understand this guy is not a Young-Earth Creationist, but
YEC's point to him as a mainstream physicist who has independently
corroborated their findings in the RATE Project (see Google, I'd think)
in which they claim to have found direct evidence for changes in the
nuclear decay rates in the past (which has relevance to radioactive
dating techniques which is relevant to the age-of-the-earth issues). I
don't know one way or the other, but I do know that "entrenched science"
is extremely resistant to mavericks, even when they're right. (This last
statement can also be applied to the "climate changes that are
happening" statement in Wulfy's quote -- doesn't matter if it's
happening or not; if you challenge the idea you tend to lose funding or
get fired or get raked over the coals, etc.)
--
Kent West
http://kentwest.blogspot.com <http://kentwest.blogspot.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
