> We currently do not have _any_ viable solution other than "put it somewhere in a mountain" to get rid of nuclear waste
What's the problem with that? Radiation goes away, eventually.
The main thing that we should do is to reduce the amount of "nuclear waste". Spent rods are one thing, gloves that touched a facility with some amount of radioactive materials are another
> What's the problem with that? Radiation goes away, eventually.
Well, seems like a proper problem to me. What if something happens to those "safe" underground storages? What if radioactive material leaks into the groundwater reservoirs? There might be problems we can fix and control for say 50 years or so, like a generation long. But what after that? Maybe somebody has found a solution, maybe not. So bury it for another generation and hope the generation after that finds a solution? I don't like that as a "plan".
>What's the problem with that? Radiation goes away, eventually.
A property that makes it a lot less toxic than all sorts of nasty industrial byproducts that humanity generates in similar quantity.
Imagine you poised a watershed with radiator. 100yr later it's probably mostly fine depending on how much you poisoned it in the first place. Now try that with a heavy metal laced chemical...
What's the problem with that? Radiation goes away, eventually.
The main thing that we should do is to reduce the amount of "nuclear waste". Spent rods are one thing, gloves that touched a facility with some amount of radioactive materials are another