4 ms·

I understand what you're saying, especially when compared to trillions and trillions (quadrillions?) of tons of CO2 and particulate pollution of coal and oil bu

I understand what you're saying, especially when compared to trillions and trillions (quadrillions?) of tons of CO2 and particulate pollution of coal and oil burning. OTOH, It would be nice if the nuclear waste could be stored that way. But that concentrated football field can be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes. Ultimately it requires a large amount of infrastructure to prevent leakage, exposure, theft, explosion, degradation of infrastructure, terrorism, etc. So maybe the football field turns into a billion-dollar-a-year "small-town-sized" facility that has to be maintained for as long as humanity exists (10,000 years?). Now it seems much bigger.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lazide 5y ago
Not really. Almost all current nuclear waste is stored on site in casks and does fine. Fly ash produced by coal just in the US dwarfs it in both volume, total toxicity AND total radioactivity, and is in the 30+ millions of tons a YEAR. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Disposal_and_market_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#Disposal_and_market_...] Thankfully a lot of it is used in cement and similar that entrains it decently safely (dilution is the solution), but just the portion that doesn’t on any given year outweighs all nuclear waste ever produced