I think the very (to my ear somewhat nervous/testy) levity of this discussion highlights a problem that worries nuke skeptics,  including myself:  a seemingly feckless, boyish/macho enthusiasm for "technoniftiness" and a callous, we-know-what's-good-for-you-so-shut-up contempt for other (lesser?) people's concerns.

Greenpeace like any other embodied organisation has its problems, but it has been on the right side of many conflicts of interest over the years.  it represents a large and fairly diverse constituency, including sober scientists and idealistic high school kids, worried moms and dads, disillusioned elders, as well as the stereotypical "dreadlocks and crystals" anarcholefties.  and many of this last demographic, in my personal experience, do at least walk their talk -- ride their bikes, live vegetarian or vegan, reduce their consumption;  which I find more palatable than the yuppie couples from Marin who drive their SUV to the park to buy some hemp tunics at the Earth Day Faire.  I could do without the crystals and chanting, but when it comes to BTUs consumed per person I'm more tolerant of the frugal rainbow brigade than of the Veblenesque consumers trying to have their planet and eat it too.

I reject and will go on rejecting the old "do it our way or shiver in the dark / live in caves" meme deployed by the nuke proponents, the coal lobby, the oil lobby, the Bush regime...  that is false dichotomy.  there is a helluva lot of wiggle room between the sultanic lifestyle touted by infinite-growth finance capitalists and "shivering in the dark."   my sense is that it is possible to live a decent life within a sustainable annual energy budget, without resort to yet more Filth Technologies, laying waste to yet more millions of acres of watershed and biotic habitat, etc.  what is needed is systemic change, not just hot-swap plugnplay retooling.

as to what we should do with existing waste, bribing (low income?) communities with hospitals and other goodies seems ironically (or do I mean appropriately) mafiosic.  I think it should be stored in secure, heavily-engineered underground vaults beneath the luxury homes of the executives and directors of Bechtel, GE, and all the other corporations who profited enormously from the nuclear porkbarrel so far and are shoving and jostling even now to snarf up more from the same trough.  if it is not safe enough for their families to live with for the rest of their lives, then why should they be allowed to shove it off on other people's families?  these guys own a lot of real estate in areas with low population densities;  sounds like a perfect risk-minimising strategy to me.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...