yup, let's panic about a couple of tons of radioactive waste.
A couple? How many tons are generated from a single nuclear plant? How much will be generated if coal plants are replaced with nuclear power plants, rather than other forms of power generation.
And that's still ignoring the time scale. How enthused would you be if you had to deal with radioactive waste left by Charlemange?
it's so much better instead to rely on a method that constantly dumps countless tons of shit, diluted into the atmosphere
There's the false dichotomy crutch, again. If you don't want nuclear, it means you must want coal. If you don't want GMO foods, it means you want your meat from factory farms where the pigs/chicken/cows can't even stand free from their own shit. If you don't support the invasion of Iraq, it means you must love Saddam.
Etc, etc, etc.
But compared to what is currently used in lots of place, nuclear is *definitely less worse*.
Nuclear power is unjustifiable, and that's putting aside completely the risk of meltdowns. Don't bother to claim otherwise until nuclear power companies roll the complete cost of mining, refinement, construction, maintenance, security, insurance, disaster preparedness, and of course storing the waste for hundreds of years into the rates it charges to customers.
As much as you would like the alternative to be wind farms, and solar panels, the reality is that the alternative against which nuclear power is competing is mainly burning fossil fuel and filling the atmosphere with its waste.
The reality is this a problem solvable with technology that has existed since the 70's. Solar and wind are already cost-competitive with coal, and that's if you let coal externalize much of their costs (pollution and damage from mining), much less nuclear.