Try to stop reflexively resorting to reductio ad absurdum and hyperbole. If you just want to fight with people then let me know, I have no interest in wasting time on an aimless discussion.
It needs to be housed. Australia can do it. Apparently it is a viable industry for Australia, wasn't there a Royal Commission into it? Between now and when a more comfortable solution presents itself it will need to be stored. In the intervening period Australia could not only make a lot of money out of it, but it could help shore up political ties with nuclear-capable nations, not all of which are on our bucks party list.
You're arguing that because we haven't managed to do something in the last 75 years that we should give up? Or that a solution is unlikely? Do I really need to point out how many of your own causes are useless if you employ that logic to them? 75 years ago we hadn't escaped the earth's atmosphere, now we are planning manned missions to Mars. Surely, even if it doesn't suit the particular narrative you are pushing, you can see the probability that we will be able to jettison nuclear waste to a safe place in the foreseeable future, yes?
My impression is that other nations don't really want to build storage facilities next to a population centre. That limits the number of nations that can do it. Eliminating nations with ongoing tectonic-related dangers, and others that might be considered politically unstable, do you have a list of candidates that stretches beyond Australia?
Do please try to control your temper and hyperbole in your response, your latest post didn't really contribute to the discussion at all. I'm giving you another chance to have a mature chat about it. Are you interested?
