Complete side note, but the other articles on that news website are full of clickbait and sensational news. So kind of surprised to also find this article on there.
Things like this happen every year, thanks to both the tomb building tradition and the climate of the region.
Middle kingdom did thrive about 4k years ago, this is the height of the classic Egyptian culture. Numerous tombs were escavated already.
Thr comment you replied to reasonably noted how the culture survived for 2.7k years. They kept track of every pharaoh they had, as well as dynasties, and key events.
This is amazing. Not the boring tomb. Although I love tombs.
And we know so much because of the unusual culture of having to carve out one's achievements on the tombstone. In fact, serious people of the Nile cared more about the afterlife than life itself.
It's kind of funny that the pro-nuclear crowd generally seem to want to bury extremely toxic waste for time periods multiple times as long as that.
Perhaps they should, and also put some fake tomb stuff inside them. Then they can have real curse stuff happening along the lines of "anyone who goes in there dies with a few weeks" or "their kids are born with severe deformities" (etc).
What a gift to future generations. o_O
</rant>
I imagine that someone will discover a better way to dispose or "recycle" nuclear material before that.
Another issue is the reliability of your launch vehicle. Sometimes these things blow up on launch, which you really don't want happening when it's loaded with radioactive waste. Developments made by SpaceX might contribute positively to both of these, by lowering the cost and increasing the reliability.
A third issue is that this stuff might turn out to be valuable after all. Hopefully not for making bombs, but future technology might come up with socially positive uses for material that's currently considered dangerous waste.
Sure. Lots of people can imagine all kinds of things. It's all wishful thinking though, where they're hoping someone else will solve the problem for them.
We need actual solutions in order for it to be feasible, not wishful thinking.
There is a context on this [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_reprocessing_of_spent...
[2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=repr...
It's good that science is developing potential solutions to the problem. When (and if) they do come up with a good solution, then it will be the right time to consider the pro-nuclear approach.