> in a manner that is satisfying to the residents of the state where it is being disposed
No, that is basically NIMBY. Of course some residents won't like nuclear waste buried underground, 100 miles from them in a place they'll never go and where no one lives. I don't know how to not sound callous about that.
Treat nuclear the same way. Don’t ask towns to host nuclear facilities out of the goodness of their hearts. Make it worth their while.
If nuclear power starts raising real estate value, the NIMBYs shut up.
The nuclear industry doesn't generate the money for that kind of lubrication; they demand more subsidies and immunities than they already have to build anything as it is.
I have little doubt the NIMBY's are recalling one or more of these incidents.
And this is just limiting the scope to power plant related waste. If you talk about industry in general you have many decades of weird cancers and nonpotable tap water in various parts of the country. The lack of trust comes from precedent.
We do this all the time.
People object to living next to the airport. They object to new roads. They object to schools being built, rail lines, bus stops, even hospitals.
Yet, we weigh the pros for society against the cons for specific people. That's why we have a country with any infrastructure. If we simply gave in whenever someone said no, we would all be dead in an empty field.
As someone else says, "People object to living next to the airport. They object to new roads. They object to schools being built, rail lines, bus stops, even hospitals."
Where I live, the old Orchard Supply store is being turned into a Costco. There are people objecting to that, too.