[throwthrowuknow]

Like they said, if it’s properly stored and monitored it’s not going to harm anyone.

If you’re worried about some kind of societal collapse leading to it being abandoned, well in that case there are much bigger problems that are more immediately dangerous.

[Krasnol]

Do you know it will still be properly monitored in 100 years?

What about 1000?

How would you know if there are even people left who know what it is??

May be societal collapse isn't a problem. Maybe we're having a nice new beginning but someone finds some nice, warm stuff?

[mpweiher]

In 100 years: sure.

Unless we have civilizational collapse in which case a bit of nuclear waste will be the least of our problems.

It won't have to be monitored for a 1000 years. First, by that time the level of radioactivity is very low, and when it's in a deep-geological repository (like the ones we already use for vastly greater amounts of highly toxic chemicals that never decay) it is gone. We know enough about how geology works.

[Krasnol]

It won't be "the least of our problems", it would be an additional problem.

The fuel and related will have to be monitored for 1000 years and more.

Yes, we know how geology works, which is why we have found a single place where it might be safe. ONE.

[mpweiher]

Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems.

No it won't.

That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological.

For example: "The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...

[Krasnol]

> Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems.

How does this even help your argument?

Yeah, we have a nuclear winter. 80% of the civilisation is dead. "Hey look, we've found warm stuff". A few years later: 10% of the population died of cancer.

Are you kidding?

> No it won't.

Spent nuclear fuel stays a radiation hazard for extended periods of time with half-lifes as high as 24,000 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel

> That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological.

The fact that your single example is Yucca mountain and even the US wasn't able to come up with another place and is still discussing this one, shows that there is not an abundance of places you can put it. Even in such a huge country like the USA.

Other countries have the same issues and they are geological.

Germany had a spot a few decades ago. Everybody thought it would be safe. It has to be evacuated now. An evacuation which will cost the taxpayer millions of Euros.

[throwthrowuknow]

Please explain how people in the midst of a nuclear winter aren’t going to be aware of what a radiation hazard is? Come on, just think for a moment before you say something.

[frm88]

We know enough about how geology works.

We also know how a BLU-122 works. Can you be sure the US wouldn't use one on its allies in yet another moment of irrational tantrum? What about Russia?

[mpweiher]

How does the BLU-122 relate to a deep geological repository, in your esteemed opinion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

[throwthrowuknow]

Nice new beginning my foot. Go live in the woods without power, petrochemical fuel or modern technology for a year and then tell me what you think.

[Krasnol]

Why should I when there are cheap solar panels and batteries out there?

[throwthrowuknow]

Good luck making a solar panel without an industrial base.

[Krasnol]

Man, we're not in the 90s anymore...