> It bothers me significantly that the current crop of nuclear 
> waste disposal IS so long term: "make it go away for 10000 
> years."  I'd rather see "storage" based on the idea that 
> within 500 years we'll want to do something else with it.  

So true. What is the justification of the nuclear nay sayers for the need to
have a storage system that is guarantied to last for the life of the waste?
Why not store it for a while until a better solution can be developed? If
civilization collapses, then it collapses, who cares if it is irradiated at
that point? We would already have lost.

> (There's probably an amusing SF story involving successful 
> permanent disposal of waste dooming a near-future 
> civilization that discovers that they NEED a particular 
> "waste product" that is now completely inaccessible.)


Another very good point. Maybe in 100 or so years we will have found
something useful to do with spent nuke fuel.

---
James.
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist