And that would be an argument about reactor safty not civilian nuclear waste managment anyway.

> So acting like there's zero danger is stupid.

Danger is not zero but its incredibly small. As has been confiremd by every single topic on the subject. Saying 'its not zero' is literally always possible for anything humanity ever does.

> Not caring about the future generations is also how we got here, so theres that.

Usuing rational science based methods for evaluating safty and how figuring out what is actually the best is what I am advocating for going forward.

Instead of how we got here, witch was actually using feelings to pick something that is actually more unsafe and generally worse both for people and for the envoirment. That is what you are doing.

> But you know, if you were a rational person who cared, you'd google this stuff yourself

And if you were actually interested in real discussion or evaluating my actual argment you would more then just google for random nuclear incidents as if they proved your point. But clearly you don't care about that.

I was actually qutite specific in what I said, and you of course ignored, I said civilan nuclear waste. And Hanford does not apply, as it a completely different situation.

So nothing you posted actually address either of the questions I have posed to you. I suppose that is because you don't have an actual answer and instead you just try to distract people with links to random things you could google.