The supposed dangers of radioactive waste are overblown. Most fission products have have lives ranging from a few days to a few years and plutonium-239 is useful as a fuel. In spite of claims by fear mongers, there is no evidence that anyone died because of Three Mile Island or Fukushima and Chernobyl was constructed and operated in a manner which would never be allowed in a modern western nation. And if nuclear power is as expensive as detractors claim, let the market decide if it is too much.

I think all the technical issues can be handled by science and adequate engineering. The problems I see are twofold, the desire to make money (greed) puts in place an incentive to take shortcuts and let the costs for cleanup fall on the community (tax payers) This greed can be largely prevented by adequate public oversight (and to ensure the cost are accounted for properly this oversight should be payed for by the nuclear industry) The problem that I feel can not be contained is nuclear proliferation, how do we deny countries the use of nuclear power stations while denying them nuclear weapons at the same time? I see no way unless we have a united world government, which would bring a whole load of other problems.

France is 83% nuc for electrical energy. some of the former soviet states like Lithuania are heavily nuc dependent. illinois is 50% nuc. no issues. the disposal and handling of radioactive waste is technological, and well understood. the biggest problem is the irrational feat generated by a generally biased media. media coverage always emphasizes any negative aspects of nuclear power. if cars were reported on in the same manner, we would still be using horses. 400 plus nuc plants in the world, and the number is rising. the 3rd gen nuc plants are smaller, more efficient, and safer than the already high safety standards of the current 2nd gen plants. compare coal fired plants to nuc plants, and you,ll gladly live near a nuc plant. coal is nasty stuff.

Call me naive, but I really do not understand the problem.

"Radioactive waste" includes things like PPE and tools, which can be incinerated.

The really toxic waste can be encased in concrete and left overground where it can be guarded.

The mounds could be grassed over or even built on, there would be no danger.

The Romans built concrete structures which are still standing after 2000 years, so longevity should not be a problem.

Why is this such a bogeyman?

due to reason world events no one should completely support this. in extremes situations maybe this would be okay, but because of all of the negative effects i would not recommend it. even if it produces less waste than it use to, this waste will will be radioactive for what seems to be forever. and we can say that it is ok, and that the radioactive waste is contained, but look at what happened to japan. that same thing could of happened to us during sandy. if you look at the locations of the nuclear power plants most of them were around the area that sandy hit. the danger is real. people need to look in to solar power. i can produce some numbers later. if you need more information do not be afraid to contact me. sorry i really want to give the numbers now (because the energy produced by the sun is so enormous that we really could just use that) but im very busy right now. just send me a message with any questions you might have and i will get to you as soon as possible.

The first nuclear power plant was started in my area 60 years ago. It is still operating. There have been no problems.

Radioactive waste management poses no challenge. Simply dump it all in New Jersey. No big deal.

Well we are going to need it in the future, so now is the time to develop ways in which to safely dispose of it.

It can be done, 40% of France's power comes from Nuclear.