Re: Why is Hanford such a mess?
From: Richard Bell (rlbell_at_csclub.uwaterloo.ca)
Date: 06/21/04
- Next message: Richard Bell: "Re: Question about energy production"
- Previous message: Richard Bell: "Re: Renewable energy alternative"
- In reply to: brianb: "Re: Why is Hanford such a mess?"
- Next in thread: LongmuirG: "Re: Why is Hanford such a mess?"
- Reply: LongmuirG: "Re: Why is Hanford such a mess?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:08:05 +0000 (UTC)
In article <68a6629.0406211339.3da41d7@posting.google.com>,
brianb <bri1600bv@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I think Chernobyl is uninhabitable for 500+ years.
If you did a survey of the wildlife that is taking over for the displaced
people, you would find that the Chernobyl area has been habitable for at least
a decade. There is a profound difference between "not allowed to be
inhabited" and uninhabitable.
- Next message: Richard Bell: "Re: Question about energy production"
- Previous message: Richard Bell: "Re: Renewable energy alternative"
- In reply to: brianb: "Re: Why is Hanford such a mess?"
- Next in thread: LongmuirG: "Re: Why is Hanford such a mess?"
- Reply: LongmuirG: "Re: Why is Hanford such a mess?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|