Reply #5: The GAO contradicts your claim.

[kristopher]

"No currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technology developments — including advances in reprocess and recycle technologies — have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the next several decades, if not longer’’

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=317383&mesg_id=317383




As for safety...

François Diaz Maurin is a former engineer of the French and US nuclear industries who has worked on the development of new nuclear power plant designs. He is now doing a doctorate on energy and society at ICTA, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.

The paper is "Fukushima: Consequences of Systemic Problems in Nuclear Plant Design"

Maurin identifies the two primary claims made by nuclear proponents who are attempting to persuade the public that nuclear power is safe.
Argument #1: “The accidents at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant are due to a unique occurrence of two natural disasters – an earthquake and a tsunami”.
Argument #2: “New reactor designs would stand such natural events”.

The rebuttals take a few pages so I'll just post the conclusion:

...the argument of better safety with new design seems to reflect complacency more than objectivity.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kristopher/998