> You appear to have since edited your original comment to replace "Carbon-14" with a broader non specific "radioactive waste". i did, within minutes of postin

> You appear to have since edited your original comment to replace "Carbon-14" with a broader non specific "radioactive waste". i did, within minutes of posting it, and before ever knowing about your follow up response, because i was unhappy with pinpointing such a detail and wanted to avoid this exact situation of someone over-focusing on that specific detail, disregarding the larger context of comparing whole sectors. I take full responsibility for pointing at the cherry you picked, before realising i should not.