Bilby, I think I'm doing a pretty good job of laying out the field of parameters we now acknowledge as 'risk' when it comes to recovering from technological mistakes in nuclear energy utilization.
As for costs so far and anticipated costs I submit this reference from USGAO "HAZARDOUS WASTECLEANUPNumbers of ContaminatedFederal Sites, EstimatedCosts, and EPA'sOversight Role":
https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672464.pdf
If we are tribal, which seems pretty evident, we won't overcome risk of human 'error' as the primary factor in assigning risk to misuse of newer technologies for social good. The best we can do is be more realistic as to the costs of misuse of these technologies.
For instance it's impossible to assign risk responsibility to enterprise for such as handling errors in site selection, processing of materials, or use of facilities for other than energy production with nuclear power. Societies themselves will need periodically re-address future costs when those costs extend to over 10,000 years. As far as I'm concerned there is no rational solution for this kind of risk accommodation.
We'll just keep bumping in to it with those seeking to profit usually winning out against those who are prudent. What is there other than irrational fear here? Time scale alone is way too great for rational processes to be the basis for a 'reasonable' approach.
I'm anticipating my response to
steve_bank with this next bit. We evolved in a radioactive environment We seem to be doing a pretty good job of evolving in spite of the risk. So background isn't a proper model for accounting nuclear accident or misstep risk. As the GAO report suggests, remaining (up to 2089 remediation) costs are anticipated to be $300 billion in today's dollars. Treating one contaminated nuclear site, Hanford, accounts for over $100 billion dollars. These estimates do not include fishery damage or economic losses due to such damage taken into account. It seems as if this is just another unpayable added to social care and maintenance costs for government in a nation reluctant to take responsibility for such expenses.
Finally, your last shot that organic based energy remediation is forever falls flat on the current permafrost solution (binding up Methane) nature provides which we should be able to emulate. As for the others, oil and coal there are existing solutions that probably can be mimicked by humans to mitigate the excesses we are creating today. I don't at what point minimum interference solutions become overwhelmed by exploitation excess rates but I think it is far different from what hand wringers are currently saying.
After all nature has doe many of the experiments already with consequences like world wide migration of humans due to sea changes and constraints to such expansion by temperature changes. We are, humans that is, ultimately still under the gentle hand of those factors that produce fitness.
