There are a few things that can be done with the waste.

Most of the high level waste is spent fuel. This can be reproceesed to yield more fuel, and a small amount of residue.

Most of the other waste generated is the plant itself. The best way to deal with it is to leave it alone. You build the replacment reactor next door, as the site is suitable, and you there you have the security for the old reactor. When it has become harmless( a few decades for virtually all of it), then you deal with it.

There is a relativly small amount of high level waste generated that does need secure long term storage. This is an engineering problem, and can be solved. The US would only need one national site, in a sparsley populated area. Nevada has been proposed.

It's not wonderful, but its's a better idea than relying on fossil fuels. The reason I don't propose the really radical solutions is simple. They would involve too great a change to peoples lifestyles, which is something a large proportion is very resistant.

Telling people 'You can't do this' is veryt hard work. Telling them 'we've got to do it this way now' is far easier.

Three Mile Island was horrific, imagine 6 or 7 Three mile islands all at once.

The effects from Three Mile Island were rather small. The small increase in cancer rates in the surrounding area actually had a closer correlation to the amount of media attention on the fall-out, than the actual fall-out recived. On that basis, newspapers are more dangerous than reactors.

Against all Nuclear Power, Weapons and Waste.
Nothing than was an after thought from a WMD that's sole purpose was to KILL as many people as possible can ever be called safe energy.

Sorry, Fermi built the first reactor in a Chigargo squash court. The idea of a nuclear weapon didn't come until sometime after that.


This is just my opinion, but I have had quite a bit of education in the area.