Well, the difference between chemical toxic waste is that there are accessible methods for making it non-toxic. It's just a matter of cost. For example, toxic organic and inorganic compounds can be thermally decomposed. For organics, you create elemental carbon. For inorganics (containing metal ions), you can reform the metal and collect it. Acid/base waste can be neutralized. You can't really do that for radioactive material except trying to accelerate the decay. And while chemical waste can often be handled with standard safety measures, radioactive waste is just too dangerous to work with.
I see your point. I think one needs to consider both the danger of the waste and the amount of it generated. Then try to find a good balance.
Just collect and store. They can be purified and have commercial use. Otherwise, since they came from the earth in the first place, storing it back in the earth doesn't change the amount of toxins we have in the ground.
Because this stuff already existed in the ground (just not as concentrated), is not as toxic as radioactive waste, and can be recovered and reused. Nuclear waste generates new highly toxic substances that are extremely dangerous. And even after the waste has "decayed", the products are still toxic (just not radioactive) and last forever.
I see your point. I think one needs to consider both the danger of the waste and the amount of it generated. Then try to find a good balance.