Countries like Russia and the likes probably don't care much about their population's irrational fears and would much rather present a solution, if only for the "Ha ha!" aspect of it. Instead, they dumped their waste in the seas, creating more risks and, eventually, costs. You reiterate your "just do x" mantra and ignore the fact that short term as well as long term storage is extremely complicated and very expensive if done properly. "Future tech y will solve all problems" is not helpful either. Keep ignoring the fact that we can't even handle crude safely enough not to pollute the environment repeatedly. Radioactivity is not primarily scary, it's a risk that must be dealt with accordingly, and your posts illustrate why this is unlikely to happen, because your "just don't spill it" approach cost "by BP's count, $54 billion in projected total expenses".
Opera [opera.com] which my oldest boy swears is the greatest thing ever (boy is he still pissed they quit using presto)
Don't recommend it. It all went down after they abandoned presto. Compared to the Opera I loved, the chromium version, to quote Dr. Cooper, sucks the big one. They even started rolling out silent updates, and the last one broke the bookmarks (they are gone -- you need to install a 3rd party extension to access your old bookmarks). Alienating their user base this way, they'll be gone sooner rather than later.
After Chernobyl we heard the same predictions
I already said that "whether the estimate is correct or not, it will take decades" because of "the long latency period for some cancers. WHO said in 2005: "The total number of deaths already attributable to Chernobyl or expected in the future over the lifetime of emergency workers and local residents in the most contaminated areas is estimated to be about 4000." Again, the numbers do not matter, or that they only look at the "most contaminated areas" in their estimate. All I was saying was that it is too soon to talk about the death toll, because it will take decades of science to say anything meaningful. The OP argument was like "I locked up 10 people in an airtight room and they were all ok when I checked on them a minute later."
While it is true that people are not dropping dead in the thousands due to Fukushima, I'll leave this to consider:
Estimate of Consequences from the Fukushima Disaster, Jirina Vitazkova and Errico Cazzoli, Nordic PSA Conference (nuclear utilities in Finland and Sweden), September 2011 (emphasis added): The results with respect to health effects show that within 80 years the number of victims of the Fukushima disaster can be expected to be AT LEAST in the range of 10,000 to 300,000 people in terms of deaths due to infectious diseases, cardiovascular diseases, genetic diseases, and cancers; and about the same number of sicknesses/syndromes needing prolonged hospitalization and health care are expected to occur. This estimates accounts only for the population already living at the time of the accident. A comparable number of excess deaths and sicknesses may be expected in the population that will be born in the period. In addition to these, more than 100,000 excess still-births and a comparable or larger number of excess children born with genetic deformations (e.g. Down syndrome) are expected [...]
Whether the estimate is correct or not, it will take decades before it's safe to say "a nuclear reactor that didn't kill anyone". The actual outcome will also largely depend on how well the Japanese authorities will handle the cleanup. Judge for yourself whether they've done a good job so far.
Excuse me. You are from the country that "is home to the first advanced civilizations in Europe and is considered the birthplace of Western civilization" (Wikipedia), and the best you can come up with is a Telly Savalas quote? Now, where to begin
Then again, Kojak was kinda cool back then.
... or with a renewable energy sector that is among the most innovative and successful worldwide according to Wikipedia.
In the country where they are doing this, renewables are taken off the grid on a regular basis because of overproduction and power is regularly sold for extremely low or even negative prices (I kid you not) to European neighbors. So, instead of not producing power by stopping wind turbines on windy days or losing money selling / giving away excess power, it could be put to good use even if you chose to "burn" it in a not very efficient conversion process. Some interesting numbers here. That said, I'm off to RTFA.
let the market squabble it out for an extended period of time
Thing is, the definition of 'market' has changed considerably since the time I was taught what a market is ("The market is the place where supply and demand meet"). Go check for yourself and apply the 'old' definition to whatever markets you are most familiar with, and you'll probably find they rarely work that way anymore, and many don't mess much with supply and demand, but are -- as you state -- playing for time.
Curiously enough, the page's fortune tells me: "'Free markets select for winning solutions.' -- Eric S. Raymond" They certainly used to, but do they still -- or rather: how free are they?
The world is coming to an end--save your buffers!