I get all of that, the point ive been trying to make is that the risk of them being pollutants is relatively low. The reason I brought up these rare but notable events for example is cause they are so violent as to create traditionally synthetic materials that are extremely deadly, the reason we even know about them is because of highly specific forms of weathering on say fossils or bones with the younger ones.

The problem I have with your pollution point is that there is basically no way for it to all get out and get to everything. A facility failing in Idaho probably wouldnt do anything to California unless Yellowstone went off and at that point we have other problems. Any containment failure would be largely localized events unless they are right on a river or ontop of an oceanic stream. Which to me just means we need to build these reactors qnd their sotrage facilities in infinitely more remote locations. If anything us not having a centralized stockpile makes such a mass containment failure pretty much impossible. 90,000+ metric tonnes of material isnt that much scattered across the US, sure its a lot but for perspective thats about one and half M1 Abrams.

Also im somewhat ignoring your points on variable emitters since without actual numbers we have no clue what it all constitutes. Without numbers half of it could all be materials set aside for depleted uranium rounds or alloys that use spent fuel in production, orr it could be a shit tonne of high energy emitters. We dont know and I kinda doubt the agency in charge of this has public numbers.

Also I agree with you on reactivating these old reactors, I want them upgraded before use preferably ones that can reuse old fuel. Also frankly I dont trust these AI companies to run old reactors, its an annoying amount of work for basically no gain. The only upside is that it may give new fuel towards building modern reactors that have minimal waste and upgrading old reactors. Hell preferably we would have some thorium-plutonium reactors built into the mix.