That report (Fairlie, Sumner 2006) was commissioned by the European Greens. If you clicked once to the Wikipedia reference you're citing you could see that as well as why they might have been selected to produce that report.
Civilian nuclear energy rarely results in a nuclear weapons program. Today IAEA monitoring is effective in preventing diversionary pathways and enforcing international nonproliferation obligations (even where the US is obligated to not use internationally sourced uranium to produce weapons tritium).
A legislature requiring a million year containment is far from an evaluation of the waste's toxicity. Otherwise you would be forced to talk about specific isotopes.
Please reread my posts here, beginning with the very first. I was writing about another report, titled "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", by Yablokov & Nesterenko. It was not authored by Fairlie.
If you clicked once to the Wikipedia references I provided since my first post you could see that. Here it is, once again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
You may think that European Greens reports aren't credible, however this is IMHO a very weak counter-argument, simply the classical ad hominem fallacy at work.
My argument here is that this "What are the safest sources of energy?" article contents is highly debatable because it builds upon debatable theories. If the Chernobyl disaster really caused abut 1 million deaths, as stated by pertinent scientists in the aforementioned report, then the article's conclusions should be very different.
> Civilian nuclear energy rarely results in a nuclear weapons program
Stating that the IAEA, which is an UN agency, has the power to prevent anything is just an opinion. Nearly all nations, small or huge, routinely neglect UN injonctions without any consequence.
> A legislature requiring a million year containment is far from an evaluation of the waste's toxicity.
This is an opinion. I, for one, cannot see any other reason for those legal dispositions. Actions aiming at keeping a repository sealed for 1 million years cost more than those necessary to keep it for "a few" centuries, this was a deliberate decision.
Civilian nuclear energy rarely results in a nuclear weapons program. Today IAEA monitoring is effective in preventing diversionary pathways and enforcing international nonproliferation obligations (even where the US is obligated to not use internationally sourced uranium to produce weapons tritium).
A legislature requiring a million year containment is far from an evaluation of the waste's toxicity. Otherwise you would be forced to talk about specific isotopes.