You're being obtuse on purpose and that's not nice. Could you please just respond to the argument in a good faith manner rather than pretend you don't understand the argument?
As I said earlier, I do not understand the relation between the answer and its parent
Yes, toxic waste are toxic, this is not the issue (as far as I know)
The issue is the long life of nuclear waste, which is a solved problem due to fast breeder reactor (half life ~30ky, which is nothing compared to what light water reactors produce); Also, the quantity of waste is drastically reduces;
For this we need an industrial model of breeder reactor. Please name it. There is none.
Many nations (US, France, Germany, Japan...) engulfed huge amounts of money on this quest, during decades.
TLDR: this works on lab reactors cajoled by scientists. It doesn't work industrially.
Russia has (by far) the most advanced potentially pertinent reactors ("BN"), and they work so well that this nation pauses on this architecture (sodium) and is back to the lab (300MWe) with another architecture (lead) named "BREST".
> the quantity of waste is drastically reduces
Therefore it would not solve the problem (we would have to put this waste somewhere then pray that nobody ever mingles with it).
Knives can kill: should we destroy them ? Height can kill: should we make the earth even ? Rock can kill: should we ban rocks ? Water can kill: should we destroy all waters ?
(yes, this is argumentum ad absurdum; Effort is made to prevent access to the nuclear waste, like all toxic materials)
