Is there enough space for nuclear waste without endangering Earth with radiation?

There is enough nuclear waste to contaminate the entire earth with radiation. That is why it has to be contained in a small space where it cannot do harm and where it must be held for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years.

No, we’re disgusting, selfish animals. Space is even full of our trash. And a cool car!

Because of the nature of nuclear radiation, including Xrays and cosmic radiation as well, Earth is already being irradiated everywhere from every bit of irradiated material (waste) as well as the fission products themselves (the fuel that is in use). Radiation is everywhere and always. The point is that with decreased time spent in proximity to points of strong radiation, increased distance from points of strong radiation and increased shielding from those points, radiation can be, and is being, minimized.

That’s why “normal background radiation” from all sources: naturally occurring radiation in stone, coal, cement and man-made sources (including power plants), plus cosmic radiation that even penetrates thick layers of earth to deep below ground, is measured at a bit less than ~2 millirem per hour. That is, “uncontrolled background” is not a zero level of radiation, but always accounts for “some” radiation that is inescapable.

For that reason, the areas around nuclear power plants, weapons facilities, spent fuel processing facilities, high-level and low-level radioactive waste storage facilities, and the areas near non-destructive radiographic testing (that is, essentially, a type of weld inspection using radiation sources to penetrate weldments and pipe to produce images on film, among other uses), dental and medical Xray sources, medical treatment centers and all other known and controlled uses and point sources of radiation are monitored to ensure that public exposure to radiation will not exceed that figure of 2 mr per hour at any time. And those measurements are rigorous, continuous and strictly enforced.

However, that’s not to say that you cannot exceed that kind of exposure, because it’s pretty easy to do that.

If you live on top of a high mountain, in proximity to a coal mine or coal storage yard, work or live in a building made primarily of concrete, live over or near a granite outcropping or frequently fly, then your exposure almost certainly exceeds that 2 mr per hour exposure. But that’s because those other sources of radiation are uncontrolled. In fact, for the most part they cannot be controlled. (Try to imagine a scenario that protects against exposure to rock, when you live near it, or exposure against cosmic radiation from space.) It would be hard to live in any human society we’ve yet envisioned that could “protect us” from the things we’ve always been exposed to.

So, the question ought to be, “Can we adequately protect ourselves from the hazards of high-level radiation exposure?” And the answer seems to be, “So far, so good.” And there’s no indication that we’ll lose that ability.

Here are some facts about nuclear radiation, as I learned them in 1980 (and which haven’t changed a great deal since then, although the units of measurement have changed):
At 2 mr / hour x 24 hours / day x 365 days / year your permitted exposure as a member of the public living or working in or near “uncontrolled” areas adjacent to a nuclear power plant (or any of the other point sources I noted earlier) would be around 17.5 Rem per year. That’s “uncontrolled” – no one is going to check on or be at all concerned about a person receiving that much exposure per year.

The reason no one will be concerned about that is because at exposures of 25 Rem or less, no one has ever been able to demonstrate harm. (There have been hypotheses that a certain amount of regular low-level exposure such as that is actually beneficial, but I don’t know what has become of those hypotheses.) The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the USA has determined that in addition to the ‘normal uncontrolled background’ radiation, “nuclear workers”, that is, those who work with exposures to radiation in controlled areas (that is, any of the areas noted above where exposures can exceed the 2 mr / hour rate in controlled areas) may not receive more than 5 Rem of exposure from those controlled sources. And you would have to see the record-keeping and monitoring that goes on to ensure that those levels are not exceeded; those workers are kept under tight supervision to stay well within those limits.

In short, the dangers of radiation exposure from controlled sources are minimal. It’s true that most industrial sources of radioactivity are long-lived, so they need to be controlled for many centuries to ensure that these exposures are kept “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) in perpetuity, and of course, kept from groundwater and other places where the radioactive materials can be spread (and certainly, away from groups of people who would do harm with them), but that’s not a technological problem so much as a sociological one.

Yes, provided we curtail the burgeoning population, and snuff ourselves out within 250 years. After that, radiation will not be a problem for us.
(7 billion people on the planet is old news. The population now is about 7.5 billion, with 90 million more being added each year. By 2100, there will be about 15 billion, and 24 billion by 2200, if no slowdown takes place.)

All the nuclear material came from the Earth, it was harvested, purified, and used. The waste is what’s left, or what is irradiated by that natural material.

So we’ve concentrated it, but thinking there isn’t enough space for it all seems to ignore where it came from in the first place.

Short answer is yes.

I imagine that once it is safer, we will literally jettison it into space somewhere.

@CWOTUS Good explanation, though I believe your numbers are much higher than actual. The beneficial aspects you mentioned are called radiation hormesis. The idea is that low levels of radiation all the time actually helps the body heal itself. Because the radiation does some damage on a cellular level, the body tries to heal. In a situation where you have a constant low level, the damage is fairly constant and the body adapts to heal itself more quickly.
As for the original question, there are many variables that are not really addressed. The question of nuclear waste…is that used fuel bundles or is that waste generated at a nuclear power plant which they call “radioactive”? If it is the former, the current standard in the US is to build underground storage vaults for the used fuel bundles. There are very specific requirements for these vaults and the radiation coming off of them to someone standing right on top is not measurable.
If it is the latter, the radioactive waste, that is a whole different question and has many more variable. Most of the “radioactive” waste, isn’t. It is material that was generated inside the radiological controlled area (RCA) and was thrown away because it might be contaminated. It is quicker and cheaper to throw it away than take the time to segregate it. These wastes are generally very low level waste and present very low risk of exposure to people. But the waste is still treated as a hazard and disposed of at a cost. Most of it is incinerated so the overall waste volume is negligible.
Another variable in this radioactive waste is the isotopes that it contains. Some radioisotopes that are generated at a nuclear power plant are relatively short lived and others are longer lived. Xe-135 for example has a half-life of 9.2 hours. That means that from the point it is created, 9.2 hours later only ½ of the original activity remains, 18.4 hours after creation, only ¼ remains and so on. I-131 has about an 8 day half life, H-3 has about a 12 year half-life, etc. After about 7–10 half-lives, the activity is effectively gone, unless there was some massive amount to start with. So the waste that might be generated is always decaying as it sits. As it decays, radiation is given off. And that brings us to the last variable…the decay activity.
Not all radioisotopes decay the same. Some decay through beta decay…they basically give up an electron…and some decay through gamma decay and still others undergo alpha decay. You can refer to a chart of the nuclides to determine how a given isotope will decay. But as @CWOTUS mentioned, shielding can play a part. Alpha activity is probably the most damaging to organic matter, but is so reactive and heavy that it doesn’t penetrate very far and even a piece of paper can shield it. Beta radiation isn’t as reactive but doesn’t have a lot of energy. It penetrates a little further but can be blocked by plastics or thin metal. Gamma decay has more energy and can penetrate the furthest and is, therefore, the hardest to shield against. You need a material that is made of large atoms, such as lead, to shield it effectively.
So if you are worried about nuclear waste being horrible for us going forward, I would say that for the most part there isn’t anything to worry about.