[pbak]

I'm not arguing against nuclear. I'm arguing for doing it better.

And a straw man ? Really ? I'd argue that the real hazard here is precisely such an off-hand moral position as you seem to have. Either that, or you think current civilization will stay as is, only progress.

IIRC, the Yuka mountain folks did indeed take such questions into account when designing the facility, as they though not doing so would be irresponsible. Moreover, barring climate change, we're statistically due for the start of an ice age sometime this century or the next. That would most certainly cover northern Europe.

So it's not a question of IQ, but of the stability of the civilization occupying a territory in the very long term. That could have major repercussions on any maintenance organization.

My questions would be, why even design such deep structures if it's now to take into account generations in the far future ? Solutions could be much simpler for nuclear fuel disposal.

[effie]

The discussion on problems associated with naive future people digging nuclear waste from hundreds of meters in the ground is not relevant for our current environmental and social problems. If you want to discuss our responsibility to people after civilization disappears, please find a different discussion page for it. This one is about nuclear energy being relevant part of energy policy in coming years and decades.

Regarding doing it better, that is commendable but some waste will always be generated, we can't just burn the fuel down into non-radioactive state.