I am not a tox/haz/nuclear waste engineer (someone?) but I assume that groundwater threatening waste is being regarded differently than highly radioactive substances.

Can't you protect yourself and go cleanup an arsenic spill "easily" compared to how you would cleanup a radioactive spent fuel rod container which tore open?

IIRC the latter is a real issue currently at Asse in Germany.

Chemical waste tends to stay in the container. Nuclear waste tends to fire gamma radiation and the occasional neutron through the container.

When you store the stuff, you add shielding for the radiation too.

I'm saying that nuclear waste is treated with far more paranoia than it deserves, as illustrated by how we dispose of other waste much less carefully, even though it's just as dangerous. And mostly successfully, too. That doesn't mean that it's something to be ignored, or that current methods of waste disposal are perfect, but if we aren't shutting down the entire chemical industry (for example) over this problem then why should we require that nuclear waste and only nuclear waste be solved for all time before nuclear power can be used?

Exactly. Nuclear waste is one of the best types of toxic waste we've ever seen. It's relatively compact, still able to be used as fuel in the future, there isn't much of it, and it makes itself harmless with just passage of time; no need to treat it with anything.

"Lot's of time".

Much less than waiting for protons to decay, which you need for the waste 'mikeash was talking about that we're so casual about storing safely.

Because nuclear waste is a recent problem, and chemical waste is an old problem. Same reason we have driver's licenses; same reason we have the TSA.

Most choices don't get made on the basis of "what would be a better idea?".