Have you heard of water table contamination? If these problems were so simple that someone approaching them for what is obviously the first time could solve them with the first facile idea that comes into their head, those solutions would already be implemented. As it turns out, though, storing things so they won't leak for 100K years or more is a hard problem. Rock is not the perfect barrier you think it is. We're just barely getting to the point where the most specialized kinds of glass, buried in rock, with other measures to prevent material degradation, might be sufficient. It hasn't actually been tried yet, not even to determine whether our measurements for the first 0.1% of that timescale are correct. Literal lifetimes have already been spent getting us that far. Do you seriously think you're smarter than all of those people put together?
You are being needlessly hostile in a way that is very confusing. You're asking if I think I'm "smarter than all of those people put together" when you are the person going against the status quo. Nuclear has been in use for decades providing significant portions of power in multiple countries throughout the world and waste is demonstrably a solved problem - solved by putting it in the ground.
Nuclear is extremely safe and clean. The passage of time will make it more so as we develop reactors that consume nuclear waste, better storage or nuclear technology, etc.
> You are being needlessly hostile in a way that is very confusing.
Challenges to your hand waves are not "needlessly hostile"; they're exactly as "hostile" (i.e. skeptical) as the situation warrants. Maybe it's confusing because you're unaware that the consensus here is not the consensus among people who actually work on this stuff. They recognize that the current "solutions" are only stopgaps.
> Nuclear is extremely safe and clean.
Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Hanford. Not actually a great record considering the number of deployments involved. Yes, newer kinds of reactors are likely to be safer. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I'm not actually against nuclear power. I just recognize that it's not easy or perfect. Blind faith is not my thing.
Yes, you are being needlessly hostile. Your hostility serves no purpose beyond embarrassing yourself.
Regarding nuclear power accidents, of course this is actually a great record considering the amount of power nuclear provides and the number of deaths caused by other forms of power.
I don't think you've yet made a worthwhile argument and you continue to try and be rude. On top of that, you don't even seem to believe the argument you are pretending to make. I won't read further replies here.
