🚀 go-pugleaf

hyperion@dimensional.com (Hyperion Systems) wrote:

>In article <34240d7e.246601394@news.enteract.com>,
>John B. Hines <jhines@enteract.com> wrote:
>>Sorry, but you are wrong.  My father worked as a chemist at Argonne
>>National Lab in the late seventies and early 80's doing research on high
>>level nuclear waste disposal.  He wrote several chapters of the book
>>"Actinides in the environment"  which you can refer to if you want the
>>nitty gritty details.
>
>>The work involved taking rock samples, injecting them with radioactive
>>material, then subjecting the rock to waterflows to simulate years of
>>rain, then scanning the rock with a cat scanner, to see where the
>>radioactive material goes.
>
>Well, I am certainly not a nuclear scientist, but I would ask some
>questions of your father.  By your post it appears that he worked on this
>problem for a decade.  The problem lasts for thousands of years.  How can
>a decade of research tell us what will happen a hundred years from now?  A
>thousand?

Your ignorance of science is appalling.  Go back to school, and take a
bunch of science classes.

How much rain falls in the desert, in nevada, per year?  How much of
that reaches thousands of feet deep?  If I take that amount of water,
and pass it over a rock, what are the results?  If I do a hundred times
as much water, or a thousand, or ten thousand?

Do you understand?  I'm talking about a rock from a thousand feet under
the desert in new mexico, where rainfall is measured in a couple of
inches per year, subjected to continuous water flow for months?  How
many years will it take to get to those conditions in real life?  

The scientific method is not perfect, but its the best we have.  If you
have a better idea, where has it been published?