1. The supply of uranium in the United States (and the rest of the world) is large, but not limitless. By failing to reprocess spend nuclear fuel, we are discarding a potential source of energy that some European countries are presently tapping. Is the current American practice justified? Why is it different from the European practice? List arguments on both sides of this issue and then take a stand.

2. Isaac Asimov pointed out in one of his many books that a human contains approximately 3.0 X 10 to the 26th power carbon atoms, of which 3.5 X 10 to the 14th power are radioactive carbon -14 atoms. With each breath you inhale about three and a half million (3.5 X 10 to the 6th power) C-14 atoms.

Assume that Isaac Asimov's figures are correct, and that 3.5 X 10 to the 14th power of the 3.0 X 10 to the 26th power carbon atoms in your body are radioactive. Calculate the fraction of carbon atoms that are radioactive carbon-14.

3. This question just has to be a couple paragraphs or so (not very long):

The ramifications of adopting a specific model are both biological and economical. The more stringent linear dose model requires stricter limits on workers' acceptable radiation dose limit than the lower dose model. By using the linear model, are we being "better safe than sorry" or are we wasting a lot of money protecting ourselves from an emotional issue without looking at the science behind it?

As a nuclear medicine technician who must operate under the stricter federal limits for radiation safety at a hospital, write a letter to an interested friend giving your position on this issue and the reasons for it.