<block quote>But you cannot alter nuclear decay rates with "engineering" and you are confusing "control rods" and "fuel rods". I've not only read Glasstone, I took some physics courses in college, too.

No, I meant control rods. ;-)

All too many reactor pits are now also filled with control rod ends, chopped off underwater by machine because the are too radioactive to casket effectively and ship. In many instances only the bodies get casketed off. The fuel rods are another magnitude of difficulty to handle and are that much more dangerous. When approaching new technologies - start small and move on to more ambitious projects.

And engineering can do almost anything when the vagaries of decay science are better understood. Like a leaking balloon, radiation is emitted out at mathematical cycles until the atom reaches equilibrium. No one has yet tried to create a "vacuum" on thoses "leaks" by providing an environment for the atom that provides less natural resistance to the emitting radiation, thereby speeding the cycles of decay and helping the atom achieve equilibrium faster. "Engineering decay rates" will be a big deal in the future - provided enough money and time is spent on research.

Nothing is impossible. Today's shouts of "Impossible!" give way to tomorrow's cries of "We knew it all the time!".

;-)