It is a universally acknowledged government problem. Governments are known to have built 'free speech zones' to deal with the issue.

Effects will depend on the differences of acceleration of different parts of the cluster. Because the speed has probably increased over many millenia, and because it is still a cluster, they were most likely very hard to observe.

The people who can read a text and understand the argument that is presented. It looks like you're not one of them.

They are also fictional. We'll be able to judge how well they operate and how they reprocess own waste when we see one operating safely for some time.

No, it is not fuel. Part of it may become fuel if one is allowed to reprocess it. Reprocessing, however, is a very tightly regulated business, and in many places, for example in the US, or in Japan, or in Russia it is not an option, or not a very important option. Do you know why it isn't a wide-spread, happy industry? Yep, because it is expensive as hell, dangerous and dual-use.

Here's a fun experiment to do: stop pretending you carry a cesium source and a Geiger counter, and consider what should be done with the 1000+ tons of highly radioactive mud that is already collected on-site in Fukushima. Right next to the used fuel pool.

Please make it a rational solution that can guarantee no leaks for a few hundred years and doesn't cost a brazillion billion million yen.

Thanks.

One, you have serious reading comprehension issues. OP claims coal produces more nuclear waste than nuclear power.

Two, that SA article has been debunked so many times, it isn't even funny. The 'research' it is based on is from 1977 and it discusses coal plants that aren't built anymore. Here, for your reading pleasure: http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...