Timothy Murphy wrote:
Ian White wrote:

Long ago in a distant galaxy, the assessment of waste arisings from
various nuclear fuel cycles was part of my job.

Are you saying that you worked at a nuclear power station?

No, nor anywhere in the weapons programme, nor anywhere in any way
secret.

Where exactly?

MYOB.

Unlike you, I am not satisfied by pulling some half-relevant quotation
off the web and calling that "evidence".

Whereas you have produced no evidence whatsoever for your beliefs.

Except all the parts you snipped from my last posting.

The information is all
available, but organising and explaining it properly would take far more
time and effort than I'm prepared to donate to the cause.

You have enough time to write a long account of your views,
but not enough time to find any reference to support them.
I don't think so.

I found enough time to get suckered into trying to explain just one
point that you had queried. My mistake.


Certainly there are many differences between reactor systems, and more
complications than you can possibly imagine, but if you thrash your way
through a much more detailed assessment, you'll find that basic
relationship between energy generation and the resulting amount of HLW
still holds good.

Does that mean that you believe the person who wrote the article I quoted
was mistaken?
[I suspect I will not get a simple answer - Yes or No - to this.]


Well, at least you got one thing right.




--
Ian White