Earlier quoted context omitted.
> really, no waste at all, magic you say? The core problem with nuclear waste is that it's energetic. There are a number of designs that burn up waste; if we were building and testing them, poor reactor types could be abandoned and better ones could be improved. We're not doing that primarily because "nuclear" is a scary word owing to activist efforts decades ago. > This is just more of "Future Tech will solve this"…
> because "nuclear" is a scary word owing to activist efforts decades ago. Right, activists... not those pesky meltdowns spewing radioactive waste across Europe and into the pacific, it was the activists.
"spewing ... into the Pacific" actually dilutes it more than when it existed in ore in the first place. It had to be concentrated by orders of magnitude from ore, to make it radioactive enough to be fuel for a reactor. Before that, it was just backround that we've lived happily with for eons, and in the Pacific it is even lower level.