This is anti-science fear mongering for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, we need to consider the risks of NOT investing in nuclear, which are that we co

This is anti-science fear mongering for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, we need to consider the risks of NOT investing in nuclear, which are that we continue to burn fossil fuels while we pray for a solution for the renewable storage problem. This is a civilization-ending risk by which the worst nuclear disaster pales in comparison. > we havent even figured out how to deal with plastics in the ocean and in our bodies let alone responsibly harness the atom. Plastics are a problem because billions of people throw their trash haphazardly into the environment. As long as we don’t do that with nuclear waste, we’re fine. Yes, nuclear waste takes a long time to decay, but the risk is inversely correlated with the time it takes to decay. Something with a long half-life by definition emits low rates of radiation. Moreover, nuclear waste is very dense, so we can easily manage a lot of it (and we already have to manage some of it anyway). Lastly, we already have the answer for managing nuclear waste—deep geologic storage.