Reply #7: Three comments: [View All]

[Nihil]

1) If we are talking about "future species" then the timescale will be
sufficiently long that the intensity of the radiation will be significantly
reduced (exponential tailoff - each container is now less deadly than it
was when it was placed there).

2) If we are talking about "future civilisations", when the civilisation
gets to be sufficiently advanced as to require energy in large amounts,
there is a source of energy available for them to use. Hell, we could do
it ourselves if our "civilisation" wasn't so stuck up its own arse in
pursuit of profit.

3) I agree with you that "we" shouldn't be consuming resources and leaving
waste all across the planet but at least most of the nuclear waste is confined
to small areas and the contribution of "nuclear waste" is simply trivial
compared to every other kind of poison that "we" have spread across, under
and above the surface of the earth.

We don't have any "right" to leave *ANY* waste to future generations to
have to deal with. Nor do we have any "right" to consume all the resources
that have built up over millions of years in less than ten generations.
That is the frightening thing to me: not a handful of isolated sites with
deadly blue water but a whole fucking planet mined out of minerals and
biodiversity then coated with a layer of man-made scum.