> A little nuclear waste goes a long way. I see your point, but it also doesn't go a long way. It's very dense and solid, and tends to stay put as far as waste

> A little nuclear waste goes a long way. I see your point, but it also doesn't go a long way. It's very dense and solid, and tends to stay put as far as wastes go. > If you have any concrete, practical suggestions for ways to deal with it, the world needs you. Summarizing them here will make me an advocate. This is wrong for a couple of reasons: 1. We already know how to deal with nuclear waste: [deep geological repository][0]. 2. Moreover, we can continue to safely manage nuclear waste above ground for a very long time. Far longer than we can continue fossil fuel pollution. And this worst-case solution is still far, far, far safer than fossil fuels. If skeptics aren't convinced, I don't think their skepticism is founded in reason. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository