we can't guarantee that we'll be there to monitor the site for thousands of years. The ideal site is deep salt formations, they plentiful, easily accessible and maintainable (salt mining is quite safe) but if we should lose the infrastructure to be able to descend into them, it will be next to impossible for our immediate descendants to be able to do so--or for our eventual descendants to rediscover the site and enter it. But as long as we have the technology and remember whee they are, the stuff is easily recoverable in case we change our minds.

If there is salt there, that means there hasn't been any ground water there in a long time (which makes me wonder just what the "geological" objection to Yucca Flats really is). I think you're right, it's just NIMBY.

Most important, rock salt has excellent thermal conductivity, which would dissipate heat from the fission products into the surrounding formation. Even vitrified nuke waste gets extremely hot, and if just buried somewhere will eventually melt the glass (and the surrounding rock), creating a real mess.

We knew all this before we started working with nukes, we should have started then to build this infrastructure instead of putting it off for future generations to deal with it. But noooooooooo.... the usual excuses, "it's too expensive, it's not cost-effective...wag, wag, wag".

Well, it would have been a lot cheaper then than its going to be now.