[thras]

So stupid. We don't worry about this with dangerous chemicals, and those don't have a half-life. They'll stay deadly forever.

There is no need to treat nuclear waste massively differently than other kinds of waste. There are some special considerations, but it's not so dangerous as to require the vast storage expenditures being talked about.

This problem is endemic in the whole nuclear industry. People don't make rational risk/cost assessments when it comes to nuclear power. They don't even make irrational risk/cost assessments. The locals where I live are deadly afraid of a local air force base's small reactor. But nary a worry about the actual nuclear weapons they have that could (potentially) devastate the entire area.

[scott_s]

The geoscientist being interviewed addresses that point at the end.

[chadgeidel]

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that these timescales won't even matter. We will be digging up this "waste" in a few years to recycle it anyway. I guess fissile material is pretty rare.

[sketerpot]

Not that rare, if you use it efficiently and don't do anything ridiculous like throwing away perfectly good nuclear "waste".