Is a good starting point. There has been a lot of thought put into this.
All of the uranium used as fuel came from the ground. Now, we will be putting smaller quantity of other, also radioactive, materials into ground. Lot of places have high natural levels of radiation[0], sometimes they even make it as a spa location[1].
People were living around radiation since before they were people. And they managed. We still do.
In the end the question is if we want some radioactive pollution that is easy to contain in the near term, or a lot more carbon pollution that is impossible to contain in the near term.
One is destroying the planet as we speak. The other might be a problem few centuries in the future, if there is one.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Areas_wit...
However. I still think humanity can do better.
If we put all the energy, resources and research that we are putting into nuclear into truly sustainable energy like wind, solar, wave and geothermal, which to my knowledge produce less or no byproducts, then that would be best.
It's unfortunate that the world can't take an aligned approach and build solar farms in deserts, wind farms at sea, wave energy on coastlines and then just export it all fairly to countries. I think I'm almost campaigning for energy as a global right and not for sale as a commodity.
I can understand that it might be fine to bury small amounts in specific stores but if countries slowly adopt nuclear energy at scale then over time won’t we be burying a lot of waste that, correct me if I’m wrong, has to be stored for thousands of years? I don’t understand how this can be sustainable long term. I also think it’s maybe arrogant of us to assume that it will always be safe to just store it and that something won’t happen that could disrupt that.
I’m no expert on this though so if someone has a great explanation I’d love to understand it.