🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <343ED9EE.2458@etna.arc.nasa.gov>,
Russ Paielli  <paielli@etna.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>I suggest that anyone interested in the safety, environmental impact,
>and politics of nuclear power should read a book called "The Health
>Hazards of Not Going Nuclear," by Petr Beckmann. As far a I am
>concerned, this book is *the* classic book on this issue. It was
>published in 1976 by Golem Press (and republished by some other
>publisher I can't remember). Here is an excerpt:
[something about "natural nuclear reactors" and how they prove
nuclear waste doesn't travel].

Tell us.  Is there some kind of parallel between ore trapped
for millions of years under km of rock, and people building
a meters-thick concrete structure for profit, and putting nuclear material 
into it (and regularly pumping material in and out)? It would seem one of
the obvious pre-conditions for material to be fixed in place would be
there is no BLOODY REQUIREMENT TO TAKE THINGS OUT OR PUT THEM INTO
the region in question.

Then -- how many of these natural reactors are there? Is anyone -- perhaps --
ignoring a number of counter examples. We know that hand-selecting data
is not a good way to go to "prove" anything, no matter how often we
see the "principle" attempted in practice.

Finally, saying this is an example of "perfect containment"
is obviously jumping the gun. The material obviously moved -- because it
was discovered.  And according to the relevant web site (I believe I've
posted this a number of times in the past) there's been excavation of
material from it. I.e. the lesson that COULD be learned is not
how immovable the material was in even the given instance, but that
humans come along and all bets about "natural containment" seem to be 
distinctly off.