what bugs me is the possibility that one disaster, however unlikely, when it happens may render a wider area uninhabitable for a longer period of time. is this

what bugs me is the possibility that one disaster, however unlikely, when it happens may render a wider area uninhabitable for a longer period of time. is this not the case? and then, perhaps a bigger issue, waste management. just look at Germany [1], supposedly a role model country. please note that the New Scientist text is mostly about light waste, "just" 1000 years storage time. there's a committee trying to plan storage of highly radioactive waste - for 1 million years! we are a species of idiots. none of the plants generating that waste is going to give us a million years of power. as others have mentioned, Fukushima could have been prevented. and Japan has also had accidents and cover-ups before [2]. all in all, it seems too risky. and finally, what happened to Thorium plants? aren't they much much safer? or the breeder reactors, how are those coming along? [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2075615-radioactive-waste-dogs-germany-despite-abandoning-nuclear-power/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2075615-radioactive-was... [2] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20263-japans-record-of-nuclear-cover-ups-and-accidents/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20263-japans-record-o...