I think you're making my point for me. 30000 year stewardship? 20 years ago it was only a 10000 year stewardship. Either way, it doesn't make much sense. For o

I think you're making my point for me. 30000 year stewardship? 20 years ago it was only a 10000 year stewardship. Either way, it doesn't make much sense. For one thing, radioactivity is related to half-life. Basically the more radioactive something is, the shorter the half-life and therefore the less time you have to deal with it. When something has a long half-life, that is almost by definition less radioactive. And it's not so hard. Water blocks most of the worst radiation anyway. More importantly, 10,000 or 30,000 years or whatever is just a really, really long time. Storing and "stewarding" the waste is already a sufficiently solved problem. All of the material your family would use in your entire life would fit in a shoebox, and can be stored in a few gallons of water safely. Borrowing hypothetical problems from that far into the future is an example of exactly what I'm talking about: an effectively un-addressable concern that serves only as a placeholder for "I don't want to. Use less energy." The reason that solar and wind haven't fallen victim to this is that they don't scale well enough, and would force us to reduce consumption. If they were on track to increase our overall energy production and use, they would lose support.