Um, no. Not according to him. According to basic physics and chemistry.
Nuclear is actually *very* eco-friendly. Over the course of a single decade, existing coal power plants release more radioactive materials into the environment than every nuclear plant ever made (including Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukishima). If you up that to two decades, you get to include all nuclear weapon testing, and both of the bombs dropped on Japan.
Nuclear is the safest power generation system yet developed, even besting solar for
lowest deaths/TWh generated. The volume of nuclear waste generated is so incredibly small that storing it is easy. The problem is that people, such as yourself, are so scared of the 'nuclear menace', that nobody wants the fuel shipped or stored near them (and by 'near', I mean in the same state). This is largely due to a large generation of people who grew up in the depths of the Cold War, where nuclear war and nuclear winter were drilled into everyone's heads as real and imminent threats. It's also partly due to the fact that the media likes a good scare, since it helps them sell eyeballs to the advertisers.
The right thing to do with nuclear fuel isn't to use it once and throw it away, it's to use it, feed it to breeder reactors which will re-enrich it, and use it again until it simply can't be reused any more. At that point, it will be virtually inert. The other right thing to do is to switch to passively safe designs like the pebble-bed reactor mentioned earlier in the thread, rather than the decades-old designs which require active management to ensure safety.
Also, I believe the term you were looking for is 'carcinogenic', the one you came up with sounds like someone who is turned on by cancer.
