But crucially, commercial spent nuclear fuel is in containers. Spent waste from weapons development was often just dumped in a pit and buried. Our priorities were very different in the 1940s and 50s. Seriously look at this picture [1]. That encapsulates the attitude towards nuclear safety during the early cold war. The soviets just dumped their waste into a lake [2]. Not to mention we detonated a thousand or so nuclear bombs, many of them above ground.

1. https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_Nevada/Nevada_and...

2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Karachay

This doesn't really counter my argument. The key part is that it has different kinds of waste. There are more factors than the radioactivity. For example sites like Hanford have melted fuel, which might have inspired that green goo that people associate with nuclear waste, but a power plant only produces solid waste. Aerosols and liquids have vastly different storage requirements and added complexity requirements than storing the typical fuel pellets and solid matter from power generating reactors.

>Aerosols and liquids have vastly different storage requirements

So whip the aerosol into some epoxy and when it cures throw it in the cask with the rest of the stuff.

If you just want to make something that's not solid and reactive into something solid and non-reactive modern chemical science has nearly infinite options.

While I agree with you, for the most part, there is a cost and complexity issue. I was really just trying to tell marsh that they aren't making accurate conclusions from the selected data that they are pulling from to generate their absurd anti-nuclear stance.