To nuke or not to nuke? You have the answer...

I found out from one of my discussions with our country heads that there is technology to "neutralise" the radioactivity of nuclear waste fuels.

There are two types of nuclear wastes, it seems. "Nuclear waste" are those leftover from fissile reactions (which creates energy) that are of low to moderate radioactivity. "Nuclear waste fuel" are those leftovers that are of high radioactivity, which can be used to make nuclear weapons.

The buyers of uranium enters into a contract with the sellers (a small number of countries in the world) to transport the waste fuel back to the sellers, who have the technology to neutralise their radioactivity so that no one can take advantage of the waste fuel to make weapons (other than the sellers, of course, which have all proven to be belligerent nations some time or other in history).

"Then why can't the buyers send ALL grades of waste back to the sellers to be neutralised" asked moi.

Because it would cost too much, was the logical answer. So that's why we have cases of radioactive waste being buried deep underground, albeit in supposedly omni-proof containers. Still, nobody wants them in their backyard. Do you?

Then please don't turn your air-conditioner to 16C 24x7 because otherwise, there would be no other way to meet wasteful consumption than going nuclear.