> I think you are falling to some crude propaganda of the nuclear industry This rhetorical tactic is rather insulting, especially when you're repeating several

> I think you are falling to some crude propaganda of the nuclear industry This rhetorical tactic is rather insulting, especially when you're repeating several well-known anti-nuclear talking points. Fuel reprocessing has existed in various forms for decades. There is still work to do, of course. Why isn't it being used? Well, China is building several new reactor designs right now as part of their long-term power plans. This includes alternate fuel cycle reactors (thorium) that have far less waste in addition to reprocessing. Building reactors takes time, of course, so this is an ongoing project. Also, you seem to think the nuclear industry supports reprocessing. After radiophobia, the existing nuclear industry is the biggest impediment to new reactor designs and reprocessing. Isotopic enrichment is expensive; why would e.g. Westinghouse make propaganda in support of technologies that disrupted their primary source of profit? > stop labeling deadly waste as waste That isn't what I said. You talk about falling for propaganda, but you're arguing with your own "straw man".