Since the United States used the atomic bomb to end World War II in August 1945, nuclear weapons and the problems associated with nuclear waste have been the bane of the world’s existence. Like Marx’s specter of communism that was haunting Europe in 1848, the specters of a meltdown in a nuclear power plant, a country rashly using nuclear weapons and leakages from disposal sites for nuclear waste haunt the modern world.

Fortunately, although many countries have tested nuclear weapons hundreds of times, nuclear weapons have been used only twice, and nuclear power disasters have been few. A few legendary occasions come to mind.

In 1979 in Pennsylvania, the Three Mile Island power plant suffered an accident in which part of the nuclear reactor core melted. In 1986 in northern Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union, the Chernobyl power plant also suffered an accident. That incident released about five percent of the nuclear reactor’s core of radioactive material into the atmosphere. Following an earthquake and tsunami in 2011, the Fukushima power plant in Japan also suffered an accident. In that incident, the cores of three reactors melted within a few days.

Although not nearly as prominent as a potential nuclear power plant disaster, leakages of nuclear waste from disposal sites are just as serious, contaminating water supplies, soil and the environment. But nuclear waste seeping into the ground many years after it is buried is a much less exciting, much less fear-inducing and much less visible topic.

A disposal site in the state of Washington, however, is experiencing just that. Major media outlets have reported the leakage there but, unlike such incidents with nuclear power as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, the placement of that news ranks low on their priority list.

That lack of concern is indicative of at least one broader issue: We (through our governmental institutions) give far too little attention to infrastructure. Nuclear waste disposal must be done in a safe way but, when transportation infrastructure is so woefully inadequate, we cannot expect isolated disposal facilities to receive much attention.

The United States, thanks largely to President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s initiative to create the interstate highways, currently has a very good transportation network. Roads need to be maintained, however, and one year ago the American Society of Civil Engineers stated that funding deficiencies for road maintenance cumulatively amount to $3 trillion. Even though it has been estimated that traffic delays and poor roads that cause greater wear and tear on vehicles cost Americans $129 billion per year, we seem reluctant to tackle such a large task and looming problem.

The issue isn’t just a federal one. Anyone driving around Iowa can tell that many roads need repair, but, according to a poll conducted this month by the Des Moines Register, 63 percent of Iowans oppose raising the gas tax, which pays for road maintenance. If people are unwilling to support the improvement of infrastructure that affects their daily lives, it is foolish to believe they would support increased funding for the proper use and disposal of hazardous materials that they cannot see looming over them on the landscape.

Nice, clean things — such as roads and nuclear power — cost money. Resolving such problems on the cheap is a Band-Aid approach that shortchanges the future.