🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:58:17 GMT, jg <jg@nospam.com> wrote:

>tony@altavista.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:15:24 +0800, "Sandgroper"
>> <woodbudgie@KNICKERSgmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> "Brad" <brad@someplace.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:HOKuk.32868$IK1.9097@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> Mr Carpenter has an ad campaign claiming that Radio active Uranium Ore 
>>>> will be going past schools to the freo port.
>>>> What a load of rot. Any ore out of the Kimberly which is where the Uranium 
>>>> is goes to a Kimberley Port where there
>>>> are rail lines. Uranium Ore is not radio active. If it was there would be 
>>>> thousands of dead workers which handle the
>>>> ore by hand every day of the week.
>>> Bullshit , uranium ore does have low levels of radiation in it's natural 
>>> state (U235 & U238 ) and it is refined into yellow cake that has a higher 
>>> concentration of radioactive elements.
>>> Also Yellow Cake if fairly toxic to people , it is a heavy metal , just like 
>>> mercury and lead.
>>>
>>> Why don't you get your facts straight , I bet you don't even live in WA , 
>>> and have no idea where are the iron ore ports are located , not to mention 
>>> the fact that the rail lines from the iron ore depostis to the ports are 
>>> PRIVATELY OWNED , so you will have quite a problem trying to get access to 
>>> those rail lines as was the case recently .
>>>
>>>> Nuclear Waste is a by product from nuclear reactors.
>>>> I cannot believe the media in WA not looking at these false ads at all.
>>>> People are believing it in the masses.
>>> Then the media should also be looking at the false and deceptive adverts 
>>> that Barnett  is using.
>>>
>>>> WA has to be the worst educated state in Australia. People are believing 
>>>> that
>>>> uranium ore is radio active because the premier is saying that.
>>> Physics is not one of your strong points is it ? , perhaps you missed those 
>>> classes and opted to go and get pissed out of your tiny brain at all those 
>>> Young Liberal parties , I have heard all about them from other sources than 
>>> the media.
>> 
>> Physics ?? I would have thought that this would come under
>> Chemistry....
>.......
>
>There's one confirmation for the ignorant tag.
>Go to the library and see if you can find the nuclear chemistry section.
>

Who am I too argue about that statement....

What do you suppose these links are all about if not Nuclear Physics
AND Nuclear Chemistry....

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=nuclear+physics+%2Bchemistry&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

They are all probably a bit more knowledgeable than you and I...