thanks for the correction though…
i cant remember everything…
just claim to remember a whole lot.

or to quote sitting on the doc of the bay:
i cant do what twenty people tell me to do
so i guess i will remain the same…

just scroll past me, most others do…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtrT5oG_IVc

let me expand your knowlege of our reality…
[if you want it in a more entertaining way, listen to Micheal palin sing it]

you sir (and myself) were born in supernovas. we live on a planet whose surface (meaning us) rotates at about 1000 miles per hour. [depending on where you are on the earth, you may be moving a different speed]

this huge (not small) ball is large enough that gravity maintains the average temperature of the compressed gas held to its surface. at the same pressure on Venus, the same temperatures prevail. weather is just turbulence caused by a bumpy surface, injections of water into the atmosphere, and uneven heating.

there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. point a solar oven at the sky at night and see how much radiation comes back. heat flows from warm to cold, and not the other way. the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics (Which technically is a special law often misapplied)

ok, back to the system…

the planet is also orbiting the sun, and is moving 67,000 miles per hour around the sun. (so depending on where you are on the globe in relation to that, you can be moving faster or slower than that)

now the sun is moving too…. so when you say we are in a closed system, your not realizing this “closed system” isnt closed.

our sun, like our planet, orbits a galactic center that is near 30,000 light years away.

and so its also moving. about 486,000 miles per hour.

now if we take a large shipment of heavy metals, and we sent it to the sun. we would probably sent it to the poles. way before the ship got to the surface, its material would be melted ionized and turned to gas.

a portion of this gas will be blasted away from the sun as charged particles as part of the solar wind.

another portion would fall into the sun…

over time, some would be re-ejected, other material will work its way down to the core over a few 100 million years.

understanding the size might help you understand why we cant hurt it even if we tried.

Compared to Earth, the sun is enormous. It has a diameter of 1,400,000 kilometers, which is more than three times the distance from Earth to the moon, the longest distance humans have traveled in space. It would take a jet flying at three times the speed of sound more than two months to fly all the way around the sun

you could fit thousands and thousands of whole earths in it and it would barely burp…

MEANWHILE… if we were in space that way, our worst factories could be in space. they could eject their worst materials as a gas.

dont worry about denuding the earth from its resources.

most people dont realize that resource estimates are only for the first half mile or mile of crust. continental crust is over 30 kilometers thick.

here is a guestimate
pubs.usgs.gov/info/assessment/

northern Appalachia area is assessed to have over 200 tons of undiscovered gold. out of a total of over 14,000 tons… (and there is even more in the ocean. they are working on using bacteria to collect it as they aggregate the gold in their cells).

even more interesting is to look where the highly toxic green materials come from and who has monopolies or dominates the market.

care to check out where mercury for CFL comes from? or neodymium…

physicists and engineers tend to be the ones to blow whistles on bs in other sciences. we have extremely high standards compared to other disciplines, and all other disciplines start with what physics works with as foundational to reality.

engineers less so, but they get their standards from having to produce without failure, and so through that and the physics they use as a tool (rather than making up new physics all the time) gives them a good sense of what can or cant be done.

note as i pointed out above an administrater playing pretend engineer is not an engineer.

so what your saying is you have a good use for plutonium? and that we should do what with nuclear contaminated jumpsuits? how about sneakers?

your thinking pellets, and i am thinking inundated containment material crumbling and not good for much.

hows the radioactive I beams from china and the radioactive kitchen utensils?
you can go here and you can see that its a bigger problem than saving some small amount of material we dont need.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/source-reduction-management/scrapmetal.html

here is the problem in a nutshell. iron is a few dollars a ton, processing the material to remove radioactive materials makes it the most expensive iron in the world. on the other side of the equation, the material you get out of it, has no commercial value.

AND there is one more problem. after you have removed any of the nuclear materials your familiar with, then your going to ahve to figure out how to remove radioactive iron from non radioactive iron.

Naturally occurring iron (Fe) consists of four isotopes: 5.845% of radioactive 54Fe (half-life: >3.1×1022 years), 91.754% of stable 56Fe, 2.119% of stable 57Fe and 0.282% of stable 58Fe. 60Fe is an extinct radionuclide of long half-life (2.6 million years).

about the only way to do that is to use the same equipment you use to separate uranium isotopes to make nuclear bombs.

so here is the bigger problem when you work out the issue.

what your really suggesting without knowing whats behind it all, is that we turn iron into a gas, and then while its a gas we use nuclear centrifuges by the hundreds, and draw out the nuclear radioactive isotopes.

after spending 20 million dollars we have 100 dollars of clean iron, hundreds of nuclear bomb making centrifuges, and a few lbs of material to stockpile for a few years till it naturall is ok.

better to pile up the iron for 10 years. no?

but now you have a problem of cost of space. is it really economical to bury them in the desert till they are ok…

and here in a nutshell is the problem…

Marxists dont want anyone to understand even rudimentary economics, so we dont. so when we imagine some fix, we only imagine the problem, the solution, and completely ignore everything in between as some problem to work out that is trivial.

while this may be true if you get all the hooks and key nodal issues done, its certainly not true in the general, as administrators and such see it.

its so easy to say
“lets put a few men on the moon”

As that sentence expands out to having to create one of the most complicated transportation vessels ever created in the known universe. thousands of people, billions of dollars……

and the leftist wants the credit for the whole thing because they said 8 words.

on to the next point…

Geologic time is not the friend of progressives. It is, however, the friend of humanity, as long as we understand that we’re subject to it too.

John Hardin, agreed, about not shooting off nuclear waste into the sun: our system isn’t totally closed, but it’s darn close; we’re better off maintaining its fluid equilibrium, even if we don’t comprehend it, being as how we’re ignorant of SO MUCH.