life of nuke wastes

[Brian Godfrey]

>Dammit folks, this comes up over and over, and is refuted over and
>over. Once and for all, FACE FACTS:
>
> PLUTONIUM IS NOT EVEN *CLOSE* TO BEING THE MOST TOXIC SUBSTANCE.

Who cares if it is the *most* toxic? Can plutonium kill me? Yes. Hey,
folks, dead is dead. Just how much more dead can one toxin make you than
another?

--Brian

[Wayne Throop]

> br...@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey)

> Who cares if it is the *most* toxic? Can plutonium kill me? Yes. Hey,
> folks, dead is dead. Just how much more dead can one toxin make you than
> another?

What, you are saying that all toxins are equally fatal, and thus by
implication, equally dangerous? So you are saying that alcohol is just
as dangerous as plutonium? After all:

"Who cares [which is more] toxic? Can [alcohol] kill me? Yes. Hey,

folks, dead is dead. Just how much more dead can one toxin make you
than another?"

Your implicit assertion that relative toxicity is irrelevant to
ascessing the dangers of potentially introducing toxic substances into
the environment is, to put it mildly, somewhat silly.

In case the subtle point I'm making gets past you, I'm saying that it's
not "how much more dead" you are, but how much less toxin it takes to
*make* you dead. So, to directly answer your question "who cares",
anybody who is potentially exposed to some fixed amount of the toxin
cares. Understand now?

--
"I'm here for your benefit, SCUMBAG! GOT THAT?"
--- Anthony Perkins in "Crimes of Passion"
--
Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw