Nuclear waste is not the problem you've been made to believe it is 

Who the hell are you?

I just found your channel today and I must say that I love your sense of humor, and that I find your videos very intriguing. ☢😁

@@jipangooshes Sabine Hossenfelder, a scientist. you are jipangoo, the most lowly form of goo.

Why do we all agree that fossil fuels are a problem? I disagree. Energy is not electricity. It is necessary to burn something in order to obtain not electricity, but energy to create something: Goods, heat, tools. The blast furnace is not powered by electricity, it uses fire.

So forget the nuclear waste and the cost of safe storage. Solar and wind plus battery storage is waaaay cheaper, safer, and as reliable, and all can be recycled. Oh, and there's radiation and meltdowns to guard against, and years of engineering and construction and safeguards.. So who cares about nuclear? Makes no economic sense out of the gate! And the nuclear waste of a shut down plant, whoh.

Putin is reliable at releasing propaganda.

In this analogy Putin is like well recycled nuclear fuel in a breeder reactor(20times the original energy content). Uhh that's too dark even for me 🤣

Think of fuel rods like world leaders, toxic for years after they have 'retired '

oh oh, that's good 😂 I like this game 😋

Think of fuel rods like world leaders... when no longer useful, need to be entombed in an underground bunker

Only in Troma Films is that possible. "The Toxic Advenger."

Quite so. The various movies of high level radiation producing yard long dangerous ants are amazingly stupid. See J.B.S Haldane "On Being The Right Size" which points out that large insects would need complicated things like gills or lungs, of which they have not the slightest trace. Supplying oxygen is more complicated than flying, or seeing things, or even in the case of nectar-fueled insects finding nectar!

Just drink beer, I become such after 18 beers😎

✍️✍️✍️✍️🤳🏿

I don't remember Sabine swearing and it only made it hit stronger 😂

@@piotr5566 Exactly. If you always choose your words wisely, you can make your words matter more in each moment.

"every once in awhile, something blows up and we're asked to close our windows and pray that the shit dilutes quickly!" Now that's pretty much a matter-of-fact attitude right there. Nicely done, Sabine; it's not worth getting ourselves into a conniption fit over it all!

Its interesting how everyone knows about TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima, two of didn´t kill a single person. But hardly anyone know of Bhopal chemical plant accident, that killed 20 000. Also Banqiao Dam falure that killed about 170 000 people. And then there are stuff like Great Smog of London that people have a vague knowledge of, but don´t know that 5000 people died of acute respiratory problems... yea.. they suffocated.

THIS

😂😂😂😂👏👏👏😘🤣🤣🤣🌹

@@slink4956 well, viewers keep growing, so mayority has spoken, we love it. That's democracy. Learn to accept it... ✊

@@slink4956 To avoid a hangover, never mix the gripe and the grin? 😂

World leaders are far more toxic than nuclear power plant radioactive waste is a great comparison

Hi, Saying that you haven’t seen videos of Sabine before sounds a bit more friendly than ‘this woman’. (Just a friendly hint)

​The person probably didn't confidently know her name when commenting. (Just a friendly observation).

Yeah, that sass.

I always wondered why there are only French and British humour sitcoms on television thinking the Germans had no humor but it justs takes time for the roasts being "not too soon". It's like they are avant-garde in the area. Who knows we someday see the humour of 40-45. Just joking here, love German M.O. and we all are reminded by Russia again how people get forced in doing stuff that they do not endorse. Roast the leaders not the crowds!

A 7 year old German boy who has never spoken a word is sitting at the dining table one evening. Suddenly, he said, "My soup is tepid." His parents are overjoyed, but eventually, his mother asks , "Darling , why have you never spoken before?" the boy replied. "Until now, everything has been satisfactory.

There's a lot that can happen in 100,000 years. She massively underestimates the duration. 100,000 years ago modern humans just started appearing in Africa. 10,000 ago humans were still in the Stone Age. Being so sure about a sketchy hypothesis is unscientific.

@@George.Andrews.😂

@@TomCruz54321used Uranium rods could be re-used in thorium reactors that would incinerate plutonium. (Source Wikipedia)

Elsewhere containers are leaking and radioactive waste is contaminating groundwater. We should not be messing with the most dangerous materials known to man.

the more you know...

U-238 pellets are going to be the Tide Pod Challenge for Gen Alpha.

* cancels Deliveroo order *

She had to include it in case an american would try to do something that stupid..... Then she she can't be sued... I guess the rest of the world will go for the "If you are so stupid you will try to eat it, then it really can't be anyones problem than your own"-approach. 😉... I mean in Europe no one can sue people because you are peeing on an electric fence.... If you can't figure out it is a bad idea without a warning, then you really deserve the pain 😂😂😂😂

And it's good to know that eating one new pellet a year is fine as long as you live in a low radiation area.

Nice comment . . .

She's hilarious all the more so, as her droll delivery just keeps moving on while the joke hangs out there.

@@courtlandcreekmore1421 This is my most favorite type of comedy, when the comedian dwells in it as little as possible, not at all is best, let me figure out if it's funny or not and how I should react.

"...Take my Neutrons! PLEASE!"

Sabine tries to dumb the basics down so 'special needs' folk *might* understand physics, 'and stuff', that is her fault

10 years after removal, the surface dose of a typical fuel assembly (24.000 half-life) is10.000 rem/hour.

If Yucca were to experience an eruption, now tell the informed viewer how much radiation would be released even without nuclear waste in the mix.

He4 will flow harmlessly through the containers just as it does through everything else. They will lose their charge and eventually make their way to the surface where they could be collected and used in theory (The same process under salt domes that contain oil deposits causes it to be in natural gas where we collected all the world helium from, yes every helium balloon has nuclear waste inside of it.) Your worries about disposal do not take into account the extremely low volumes produced and the ability for certain extremely small elements to travel through containment. It will not be an issue as described.

@@mikeburkart8028 He4 is inert and not radioactive and as a decay product itself not direct harmful. He4 is a producer of leaks in the depository due to induced gas pressure and will open the door through the barriers for the radioactive ☢️ harmful isotopes into the biosphere. Therefore the He4 caused cracks into the barriers is the main problem for the safety of a deposit of highly radioactive heat producing waste and is really dangerous and must be considered in the safety assessment.

Wow!! Superbly detailed! Any studies of how to bleed off the He4? On a lighter note, if the Sheriff of Nottingham can't help, how about Robin Hood?

Yes the concept is laughable.

Remember in the USA, the top few percent of income earners pay almost all the taxes, and the bottom quartile pay no taxes.

@@donkloos9078 Hahahahaha

@Don Kloos , income-earners aren't the problem. The real problem is untaxed generational wealth.

@@jonathangwynne1917 Inheritance tax is confiscating people's private property that has already been taxed many times over. Socialism does not work and killed almost 150 million people last century.

Smoke detectors use Americium sources. Thorium is probably most abundantly available in gas light mantles. I cannot recommend using any radiation source in an attempt to boost cognitive ability.

Are you familiar with responsive sarcasm/humor? I was rather hoping on a funny response, not being taken seriously. Still can't believe I got fact-checked on a joke.

@@guyvandenbroeck8405 I thought my response was a real knee-slapper.

You forgot to mention where the samples come from. Was it coal power plant ash?

@@jannikheidemann3805 He said "industrial and mining byproducts". Doesn't sound like it's from coal ash.

@@thenonsequitur we're talking about two different sets of samples, totally different industries and locations. The scary cyanide samples came from mining. The less scary radioactive samples came from a nuclear reactor.

Corporate lobbyists approve this message.

Interesting, thanks for your comment!

It's dry humor, which is like food. Some people just don't get it.

@@CR67 But this is just DARK humor. Like the skincolor of many people who don't get enough food.

Still just a little more to work on, though. Maybe just the faintest hint of a smile maybe?

@@rand49er the lack of the smile is what makes this kind of humor work though.

the humor seems very... "German." I love it.

Due to the amount of nuclear reactors and weapon production, there is tones of nuclear waste that is not recycled and is being store and will remain dangerous for up to 200,000 years.

@@iainhamilton6773 "Dangerous for 200,000 years" -- No. That's not how this works. Google and read "Dr Bernard Cohen the myth of plutonium toxicity" and "ThorCon documents pdf the nuclear waste problem".

Google Rosatom’s Seversk plant. The technology is already there.

I would add that Sabine uses the right amount of humour on her videos.

Here's the problem with measuring safety by rate of fatalities: The well-known paradoxon that that fatalities might be low precisely because of high awareness of unsafety and lots of safety measures. For example, if you meaure the safety of street types for bicycles and you go by fatalities, you might find that a German Autobahn is safer than a Dutch bike lane - because hundreds of thousands of people cycle on the bike lanes and virtually no one on the Autobahn, and even if one ends up on the road, they will be extremely cautious. Similarly, a worker in a water mill might be much more cavalier with safety precisely because the risk is lower.

@@Nebufelis "a worker in a water mill might be much more cavalier with safety precisely because the risk is lower." If workers being cavalier causes more fatal accidents, then that's a work culture problem _and it makes that workplace less safe than one with a better safety culture._ The risk is not lower. The risk is higher. You are more likely to get hurt working there, which is the bottom line of risk. No one is saying nuclear power doesn't have potential hazards. But if those hazards are mitigated through combinations of hazard removal efforts, engineered controls, safe procedures, and a strong safety culture, then I don't see the issue in saying that this is, in all the ways that matter, a safer work environment than one that lacks these things because there's a failure to perceive potential hazards and therefore gets people hurt. The statistics bear this out. Nuclear is the safest power source by far. _How_ it gets safe isn't the question, what matters is that there's objective and indisputable proof that it _is_ the safest in terms of injuring or killing the fewest people.

@@wasd____ ..potential hazards!!!!!

@@Trylobyte Yes, there are many potential hazards at a hydro plant. All that water has a lot of energy. Read the stories of what happens when those dams break.

She was talking about the process by which work is extracted...i.e. via steam turbine. She was not talking about risk at that point.

He will end up being the last man standing on earth! Lol

But Cher will be. Dating someone much younger, I bet.

Don't be too sure of that

Bwahaha😂

@@johnnybgoode7983 I have a notion that all the drugs & alcohol in his system has pickled his organs and made him immortal.

More generally, I/3 of fuel rods are replaced every 1 and 1/2 years and I was told by ingineers nuclear waste is mesured in Curies.

engineers sorry

@@marcwinkler The use of Curies has been deprecated and the new SI unit for specifying the activity is Becquerel.

@@Psychx_ You are right, 1gr Radium - 1 Curie - 37 000 000 000 becquerels

do all her listeners know German? I know that RU-vid also groups people by their location and Berlin is one of this channel's meta tags, so it could very well be that this basically is a gathering of one person that has English as a second language lecturing to a bunch of people with the exact same linguistic background .. also, nur mal so meine Mutmaßungen dazu 😅

Actually the proliferation of world ending weapons is up there with the problem of waste. Safe storage of waste requires best practice over decades if not centuries. The track record of large companies not caring about anything other than short term profits tells me that the good ideas of this video will not be implemented. Not saying we shouldn’t look at nuclear. Just saying let’s be honest.

@@raoul1234567 You can't make nuclear weapons with nuclear waste, you can only make dirty bombs; which while bad aren't really on the same scale. And as shown in the video the simplest storage method is "put it back where you got it from", which doesn't suggest any imminent danger.

@@PlatinumAltaria No you can’t. Weapons are made by tweaking the fuel cycle and enrichment of the same fuel used to generate electricity. Can’t think of a nuclear powered country that doesn’t have or doesn’t want nuclear weapons. Seepage of nuclear waste from faulty containment into groundwater is a real risk as is radioactive water from tailings dams at uranium mines. That’s not theoretical. That’s has already occurred many times.

@@raoul1234567 No, weapons are made using highly-enriched uranium. It's not a process any individual is going to be able to do, you need HUGE infrastructure. You should really just look this stuff up, nuclear waste does not make nuclear bombs, it just doesn't. Stopping countries from keeping the lights on is not some kind of noble anti-war crusade, it's demanding that old ladies freeze to death because you don't understand science. Mine runoff is nothing to do with nuclear power, it's a problem with all mining that can be solved with proper planning.

@@raoul1234567 At least they won't be implemented if things are decided by companies.

I see no problems with any of that. Of course, a tiny problem for the tunneling society, but they'll learn soon enough and stop poking the material.

@John smart Let's bang, ok?

A 2 hour lecture from Sabine would be perfectly fine with us

You're measuring the wrong dimensions for nuclear waste. You're measuring it in space, when in fact it needs to be measured in time.

I mean China gets to keep building Coal Plants while Americans aren't allowed to drive gas powered cars anymore, and in Ireland they want to get rid of all the Cows. How is any of that fair? The UN shouldn't be able to do any of those things until China is shut down for the sake of the Earth. If you aren't going to do that, THEN GFTO!

Yeah, it’ll be somebody else’s problem long after we’re gone!

@@outerspaceisalieok let’s measure in time. How many years until carbon dioxide is decomposed?

@@igortolstov487 My God...do the world a favor and read a basic science text.

she always uploads on Saturday 😉

And the toxicity of it is contained in a very small volume

The Swiss use nuclear for 35% ish of their energy needs they've been doing it for around 30-40 years, they can fit all their nuclear waste in one room, its a big room, but still.

@@Prometheus7272 - If they did actually put it all in one room, would it go critical? (Only half kidding.)

@@sirrathersplendid4825 You'd get meltdown before it went critical. If you kept on throwing waste into the molten puddle on the floor, it'd get hotter and hotter until it melts the floor and forms a radioactive gas cloud. Getting it to explode requires it to be crushed together quicker than it can melt and vapourise. Not trivial.

@@MattOGormanSmith - Interesting answer. Cheers!

Oh, I hope so! 😁 Just listened to Between the Buttons---a great album. Their music has a longer half life than plutonium.

Apparantly, most vitrified HLW has stability issues. The glass tends to anneal into distinct domains with crystal boundaries, especially with ongoing decay heat. As fission products get excluded from the annealing glass, it accumulates in the interfaces and become available to travel through the material and corrode the encapsulating container. Other issues are as you suggest. Too costly for a start. Direct disposal of intact spent fuel has the advantage (touted elsewhere by others) that the pellets are a more robust matrix and sealed in zircal jackets (not counting broken ones), and that the reactors have the handling devices to put these directly in casks with minimal future handling if those casks could be disposal-rated. It is also difficult to process into a form that leads to proliferation risks. In contrast, reprocessing results in two waste streams needing different treatment and disposal facilities. It also concentrates plutonium which then becomes a proliferation and security risk. France has reprocessed about one third of all their spent fuel, and has huge interim stockpiles of both vitrified waste and plutonium. It seems that reprocessing is more expensive than expected, and creates two types of waste that each need more fiddling around than the original intact spent fuel. It multiplies the problems rather than solving them. Something similar seems to happen with the noble attempts to re-use spent fuel. After reprocessing the separated plutonium is added to depleted uranium, plus a top-up from excess weapons material to make MOX. Used MOX has a more diverse set of plutonium bombardment products, in particular U236 and it's product U232 which complicate almost every subsequent option. Or as you suggest, they may not care. The spent fuel inventory increases annually and seems to remain in the "too-hard" basket. No one is willing to allocate the money to do it properly.

Nice pick for a lobby pr spokesperson

@@sensationsuperthrust I would call you a Troll, but I do not insult Robots. Find a mirror, and think before you speak...

@@damonreitmeier4539 beep boop beep boop :V

And music, don't forget about her music :)

She does has a sense humor

Until there’s an accident

​@@ptech88Statistically still safer than living next to a coal station.

@@ptech88 next to nuclear storage an accident might happen, and it might make you sick. Living next to a coal plant you'll definitely get sick, no accident required. Since the coal plant being there IS the accident.

@@tharealmb nice point

Did you mean shining?

Holtec international has a well thought out storage plan for spent nuclearfue it's above ground in New Mexico far away from any large metropolitan area the dry fuel storage casks are stored in a retrievable manner in a nice safe place, in fortunately United States spent fuel recycling was shut down it was a silly act that industry would have to be restarted be because the working knowledge has been lost there would be an initial learning curve hopefully short. The government will most likely have to get in volved, btw I have over forty years as a radiation protection tech notion and a couple of short stints as an engineer.

I've always considered scientists and lies for huge money schemes involving inflated fears inextricably bound. Sabine is a wonderful example of a fisisist well versed in lies.

And propaganda. She won't be around when Earth will have become a radioactive wasteland, so what does she care? Remember Tchernobyl and Fukushima? More such accidents are to be expect as we rely more and more on aging installations and overconfident and careless personnel.

@@davidnewland2461 Please reread and correct your text. Also add punctuation. You may be an engineer but your explanations make litte sense. "spent nuclearfue it's above ground in New Mexico " what is? "United States spent fuel recycling was shut down it was a silly act that industry would have to be restarted " Etc...

This is absolutely a topic I'd love a 2 hour lecture on! I once watched a 5 hour video on nuclear power and waste straight through without stopping 😅 I'm here for it!

@@b_dawg_17 Agree. 💯 But also the way it is presented matters; she does it so well. 🤗

Start with the economics of storage. Do you think the companies that profit from the making of nuclear waste will be the ones to fund the safe storage? If not, who will? Yes...the public. This is NEVER mentioned when we discuss how cost effective it is. Then, let's look at a world map 100,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago and 12,000 ( during the ice age ) and tell me a storage location that will be suitable. Anyone? Now, the comparison between nuclear waste and other forms of waste from energy production. Basically, this argument boils down to, "they make pollution now, that they could deal with, but don't...with nuclear they will suddenly be concerned about by-product magically". Seriously...I expect better from Sabine. This is where her sarcasm should hit...instead she basically says "well they don't purify waste from coal, but nuclear waste storage will be faultless so it wins" WTF?

@@yt.personal.identification you clearly are an Alien that never bothered to engage or even observe Humans. These Biologicals in their current Evolution will NEVER as a Group do Shit that benefits them as a Group. These Biologicals are to Combative to EVER achieve a Planetary Solution to Topics like Energy Prouduction or Health Care and Education as a Group, a Corporation or Research Institute might do that and then a very interesting aka bloody Time will ensue. The Last Super Power on this Mud Ball keeps it's Citizens in debt on Principle to make sure that a few Control Hungry Biologicals can Feed their urges instead of making all of the above Topics avilable to their Citizens in an achievable Matter. Nuclear Power Is a potent and Right now cheap Energy Prouduction Method, with a high cost for the Public in the Future. It will die when Humans invent a new Method, aka cold Fusion. Until then political needs will dictate the availability of Nuclear Energy to the Public. It Is Not that hard to Understand that, so the question Is what YOU do Not understand about that in regards to this Info Clip. Shine Bright and stay Healthy

@@yt.personal.identification Let's just burn every hydrocarbon in existence then, because nuclear bad. Kek.

Is that in Egypt?

It just seems true that we need Fission ASAP now for baseload, perhaps gas from grass by ecotricity and hydro for peak time, until we arrive at a nice clean harmless renewables grid? :)

@@jannikheidemann3805 haha, No, it's in CA. Molten salt cooled fission reactors. Nice try.

@@TheHorseshoePartyUK The public image of fission power has recovered some of the lustre that it had in the 60s. Now that the balance of concentrated power justify the negative implications of concentrated waste it's a better trade off than fossil fuels and the harm those emissions do to the climate. Many people are coming to this conclusion. It's spawning a renaissance in atomic energy. Thanks.

@@Quroxify I've heard the latest generation of full size fission reactors are even safer than they already are in good hands? People mean well but they do not quite realise - Fission has been running silently in the background for decades with only one real catastrophic meltdown and a handful of admittedly tragic, but small scale 'minor accidents' where material has escaped into the public and caused serious problems

Sabine long ago made up her mind on nuclear energy - she is for it. This video makes a show of objectivity but ultimately confirms her prejudices . . .

@@jamesneilsongrahamloveinth1301 Well - Is it good for environmental groups? I figure Greenpeace has a few prejudices as well as some others.

The underground storage will be safe in theory, for a million years. Whatever, I trust the geologists. But I am sure that humans will find a way to destroy it and release the whole waste to circulate on earth forever.

Please remember that the reason we have natgas (and oil) in geological reservoirs under high pressure, with methane being an incredibly volatile and tiny molecule, is that nature has put a lid on it for tens of millions of years.

Please remember that fission products are soluble in water and can percolate through salt domes. Natural gas is not water soluble. The two examples are not comparable in practice, though nuclear boosters love to pretend.

yes we can. Its called laws.

Sadly Rob she is like nuclear waste, in fact quite rare.

@@egparker5 it is based on their behavior.

@@egparker5 If you don't think the oligarch class deserves digs, you are part of the problem.

@@egparker5 Sure is; much like my prejudices against other toxic things. Speaking generally, the top 3% control the world and are hastening its demise. There are a few honourable exceptions within this group.

I just commented above about burial in deep ocean basins - in those basins the likely hood of some unanticipated process occurring (new riff zone or volcanic hot spot) is very low

BY DRINKING STAR : "... AND NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE MOST POWERFUL ENTITY : ....O...P...T...I...O...N.... HUH ?!? YA CHOOSE : TO SLEEP OR ....PRAY.... YEAAAAAAH....LOVE

@Sabii Bryan SABRYAN🤣

I should consider this the night before an exam

I'm not sure if people realise how much (obivously very low level) radioactive matieral/environments we're potentially exposed to in our everyday lives... wristwatches with fluorescent hands, some old camera lens coatings, smoke detectors, long haul air travel, radon beneath our homes...

I prefer the chest X-ray (70 000 bananas) as a metric.

Thanks… I forgot the banana dose blurb from the 1960s, Ha.

How many Megabananas are we talking about?

@@CAThompson "one point twenty-one giga-bananas... where are we going to get one point twenty-one giga bananas??"

Uhh, that's not how nuclear waste works. You are seriously mistaken.

Really long half-life material means that it rarely decays which means that it's basically not radioactive. Really big half-life numbers mean that the material is safe, at least from the perspective of radioactivity. A lot of it is still heavy metals which can give you heavy metal poisoning.

Well said. In addition to waste management/storage, you've got the cost of building the plants (reportedly it takes a decade) and the cost of de-commissioning them (reportedly it takes two decades) - not to mention the environmental costs of so doing. . .

@@jamesneilsongrahamloveinth1301 I didn't know that it took so long to build or decommission, but that doesn't surprise me either. Thank you for the knowledge!

@@jamesneilsongrahamloveinth1301 "two decades" ?? closer to 60 years. From: *Nuclear Nonsense: Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post-Kyoto Energy ChallengesChange and the World's Post-Kyoto Energy Challenges* by Benjamin K. Sovacool Christopher Cooper *In the United States, there are currently thirteen nuclear power plant units that have permanently shut down and are in some phase of the decommissioning process, but not a single one of them has completed it* For example, Peach Bottom Unit 1 was shut down in October 1974, but will not even begin decommissioning until 2034.2' The Humboldt Bay nuclear facility was shut down in July 1976, but will not be completely decommissioned until 2012 or 2013.255 Zion Units 1 and 2 were permanently shut down in 1998, but the plant will not begin decommissioning until 2013. Further, unless license extensions are granted, all licenses for commercial nuclear reactors in the United States will expire by 2038 and more than 100 reactors will enter the decommissioning phase, requiring billions of dollars with little or no generating capacity to offset these costs. Decommissioning at nuclear sites that have experienced an accident is far more expensive and time consuming. At Three Mile Island, Unit 2, which shutdown permanently after an accident in 1979, will not start the decommissioning process until 2014. Fuel rods at Chernobyl, the site of the world's deadliest nuclear accident to date, are still being removed and operators expect it to take until at least 2038 to 2138 before the power plant is completely decommissioned.

Very, very weak evidence. Might be true, but we don't have anything remotely close to firm evidence that it is true.

She doesn’t mean drugs.

I live on the US Gulf Coast near Houston, and there are gigantic chemical plants near me from Dow, BASF, etc. And we have some coal fired plants. Texas has a lot of wind power, but in the end our electricity in the greater Houston region is still predominantly fossil fuel based. And I would much rather live near a nuclear power plant than near a chemical plant, or our coal fired plants. Wind would be great, except there isn't room for that many wind turbines near our city.

@@alvarofernandez5118 What's the matter with coal fired plants? They don't pollute, they emit plant food.

@@vtbn53 Coal plants emit huge amounts of pollution, including radioactive particles.

@@vtbn53 yeah... nope. They emit burnt plant smoke and ash. :-)

Yes, it's possible with fast neutrons reactors. However the Greens hate these even more than ordinary reactors, and successfully killed all of these in Europe.

The Pu 239 can be reprocessed into fuel. The problem is that it can be used to make a nuclear bomb, by people with a much lower technology level than needed for a uranium bomb.

@@mikesmith2682 Then we should just make sure it’s processed and used on-site as fuel. Even other radioactive isotopes can technically be transmuted with high energy protons/electrons or used as radioactive sources in industry.

yes, you can further "convert" problematic isotopes into something less harmful using energy. this principle is an even rather old idea. I believe that currently, you'd have net loss not just in that converting process, but overall .. know what I mean? but should like nuclear fusion become a reality, this problem/issue could be tackled. that's why it could be a wise idea to not just bury everything (apart from other potential use cases we currently have no idea of/about like maybe even in medicine). I'm sorry should any of this already be part of this video as well .. I'm yet to watch it 😅

@@cezarcatalin1406 Yes, but there is an energy or neutron budget the facility has to meet. Many (most?) reactor designs don't produce enough extra neutrons to transmute the nasties, and building a big enough proton gun, etc., will cost a LOT.

You might want to google "ThorCon documents nuclear waste pdf" for a good and brief introduction.

I can't tell if it's entertaining or annoying like the drunk old lady at the bar telling you pointless story's