A) The area is not known to be geologically stable over the extraordinarily long time periods necessary. (Nowhere is....)
B) There is no containment vessel that can last that long
I get tired of the wishful thinking. Being charitable as describing it as that.
In the future, 600 generations from now, when the poisons we lay down now are bubbling up, perhaps people then will have forgotten us. If not, they will not forgive us
" the extraordinarily long time periods necessary. (Nowhere is....)"
This is the the lie that I'm really tired of people repeating. Nuclear waste isn't THAT dangerous and doesn't have to be kept perfectly isolated for THAT long.
"In the future, 600 generations from now, when the poisons we lay down now are bubbling up,"
You should really be more worried about the 36 billion tons of CO2 we are spewing into the atmosphere every year instead of a TINY amount of nuclear waste many thousands of years in the future.
You are like someone with a malignant tumor worrying about the risks of radiation therapy.
The longest lived fission products are actually the LEAST radioactive. This inverse relationship exists because of the fundamental relationship between half-life and radioactivity. The longer a radioisotope's half-life, the lower its specific activity (radioactivity per unit mass)
You are like a firefighter who opposes using water (nuclear energy) to extinguish fires (reduce CO2 emissions) because people might drown.
A) The area is not known to be geologically stable over the extraordinarily long time periods necessary. (Nowhere is....)
B) There is no containment vessel that can last that long
I get tired of the wishful thinking. Being charitable as describing it as that.
In the future, 600 generations from now, when the poisons we lay down now are bubbling up, perhaps people then will have forgotten us. If not, they will not forgive us
And so unnecessary