If that is correct, then I'd Do you fly on airplanes? Have you compared the risks of flying in 1967 and the risks of flying today?
If this transitory period has the ability to create substances that will potentially cause bother to generations living in thousands of years time, I think that's a problem.
Quite simply there are alternatives.
There's no such thing as truly clean power. Even renewables have huge environmental consequences. Hydro floods huge areas of land[1]. Renewables and batteries require huge sums of metals to be mined[2]. Solar and wind also take up huge sums of land that could otherwise be left alone. Everything has trades offs, there's no reason nuclear cant be one more tool in the tool shed.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/canada-site-c-...
[2]: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electric-vehicles-drive-up-...
In 1967, I'm pretty certain the engineers responsible thought they had it everything in order.
I take the view we will always fuck up.
With nuclear, the fuck up will always have larger, longer lasting consequences.
--
Edit:
> Nuclear is demonstrably cleaner, safer, lower risk, and potentially lower cost (although how do you price the cost of destroying the planet right?) than any other baseload technology.
I'd agree it's cleaner if we didn't have the waste problem.
You're making a false equivalence. It's not a case of nuclear or fosil fuels. We have other options.