The choice of location is weird, but the article also cravenly feeds into the anti-nuclear alarmist sentiment. It fails to describe how the storage facility would be built and operated, choosing to call it a "dump site" instead.
You are not really linking a video from a YouTube channel that features videos like "Can Nuclear Fallout Create Ghouls?", "One-Punch Man Breaks Physics AGAIN", "The government let me kiss nuclear waste." and "How to Defeat Roko's Basilisk"?
I've watched a couple of his videos (none of those you mentioned) and it's pure edutainment. That is neither an insult nor a compliment, but you definitely should not link to channels like this as proof of anything
If you actually took the time to watch those videos, you'd realise that the farcical titles and presentation are just "illustrated book covers" for serious topics on the mutagenic effects of ionizing radiation, a tour inside a long-term nuclear waste storage site, and a thought experiment concerning the development of AI.
Hill is an educator, it's his job to explain complex and/or obscure topics in ways that will catch the attention of the layperson.
Is it though? It is maybe for a couple of generations but after that? What happens in case of an earthquake? When the storage facility is not taken care of? When nuclear lobbies force the adoption of the solution?
And is the actual implementation of the solution aligned with the defined needs? The solution proposed in France is a shitshow for instance. Is the risk really taken seriously in the long term? Or is it another case of 'future generations will take care of it?' (See climate change)
Yeah, the way of communication in science is not Youtube. I don't see a nuclear waste storage for a few hundred years anywhere. Only plans or temporary solutions.
Yeah people see nuclear waste disposal like in the Simpsons, just barrels in the water and three eyed fishes. I'm not saying it never happened (wild deposit of nuclear waste, not three eyed fishes), but it's small and rare enough to make the headlines. Safe storage in geologically stable places is safe enough for the foreseeable future.
How far is the "forseeable" future? It has to be safe for longer than mankind has existed. Since we don't even know very much about civilisations as recent as the stone age, I don't trust today's storage people.
Yeah not sure about that. Politics always plays a huge part in choosing the waste-facility location. In Germany, that for decades, used to be a former salt mine. And for decades we've seen pictures of rusting and leaning barrels of radioactive waste, again and again and again.
Nuclear material going missing and small scale accidents with it happen all the time even just with sources used in medical devices and other uses for elements with relatively low radioactivity. And people already don't know how to recognize the signs of radiation poisoning today.
How much worse would it be in a society that forgot a storage site was there?