Statements like this make me more nervous about the advocates of nuclear energy than of the mass adoption of nuclear energy itself. In the simplest of terms: r

Statements like this make me more nervous about the advocates of nuclear energy than of the mass adoption of nuclear energy itself. In the simplest of terms: radioactive material emits energetic particles and photons. In itself, this is not much of a problem for naturally occurring radioactive materials since it is usually in low concentrations and captured by the crust of the Earth. The problem with radioactive materials used in reactors is that it has to be concentrated, otherwise the reaction rates would be too low to be useful. Disposing of that nuclear waste isn't as simple as sticking it in a small box then burying the box in a hole. At the very least, you're going to want that hole to be geologically stable (to ensure nature doesn't interfere with how it is stored) and physically secure (to ensure humanity doesn't interfere with how it is stored). You're going to want to consider what is absorbing those emitted particles and photons, since you want to minimize how much is being absorbed by the nuclear waste stored alongside it. So I hope you don't mind if I dismiss your claims that it is easily stored and put more faith in engineers and scientists who specialize in nuclear waste disposal. Sure, their systems may be over engineered and more expensive than they need to be. On the other hand, they have put a lot more thought into it.