Thank you :) It is not me who you have to convince! :) It's the general public (and fighting decades of propaganda). Maybe a YouTube viral video or something,

Thank you :) It is not me who you have to convince! :) It's the general public (and fighting decades of propaganda). Maybe a YouTube viral video or something, I don't know :) I wouldn't go showing the plutonium dust article. Reminds me too much of Alexander Litvinenko. And your point about reprocessing in France actually reinforces my point: it required multiple inter-governmental agreements at the highest diplomatic levels, and complying with EURATOM, very especially (as it applies to you) the 2001 Joint Convention, OSPAR (?) and I'm sure plenty more of red tape (source: IAEA publications). Being U.S. based is obviously a benefit to you, since they're the most likely to shrug international oversight (and you say you're not reprocessing anyways). Plus, France is the most pro-nuclear country in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Convention_on_the_Safety_of_Spent_Fuel_Management_and_on_the_Safety_of_Radioactive_Waste_Management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Convention_on_the_Safety_... http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1997/infcirc546.pdf http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1997/inf... I saw the diagrams on your website, it does look like a very unlikely target for being blown up, but the likelihood doesn't enter the equation when irrational fears are bandied around (they might say you're lying, etc..). I just want you to be very aware of the stigma and irrationa l fears, and the regulatory hazards, because I very much want you to succeed. I've talked to politicians (outside the U.S.), and they tell me that pushing a nuclear agenda, while economically sound, is political suicide. Some countries have a "stealth" approach (simply by not calling attention to media and quietly "expanding" current facilities), while others, like Germany, caved in to public pressure.