>>533678482
>my understanding
you’re right that current methods like deep geological storage with proper containment are pretty solid for now. It’s definitely the safest and most practical way to handle nuclear waste today. off-planet disposal could be a future option once we have reliable, risk-free technology, but until then, rushing to send it into space would be more dangerous than helpful.
maybe one day they will create a tech who can recycle it but no need to stress about it immediately when we have workable solutions already in place.
>is a disingenuous claim.
sure, modern reactors squeeze more energy out of fuel, but that doesn’t magically shrink the mountain of waste piling up. saying “we get a lot for what we put in” sounds nice, but it doesn’t solve the core problem: tons of hazardous material still sitting around, with no easy way to just disappear it. energy output doesn’t erase cleanup costs or risks.
>>533678858
the rbmk flaws weren’t just a side note they were fundamental. sure, the shutdown might’ve worked on paper, but the design’s positive void coefficient and graphite-tipped control rods made the reactor inherently unstable at low power. that “failsafe” button making things worse wasn’t some random glitch it exposed serious engineering flaws. and about the rad dust, even smaller amounts can cause long-term contamination depending on how it spreads. also, if vn rocket autism sparks this kind of talk, mods can relax it’s just tech debate, not chaos.