1) Thorium is safer but isn't being used effectively. Mostly because development of Nuclear power coincided with nuclear weapons, and Thorium can't be used to make weapons.

2) We can re-enrich nuclear waste but don't because of regulations. My understanding here is that the waste product becomes much smaller.

3) We have no clue what were going to do with all the solar panels after we're done with them either? They contain a ton of lead. They also produces something like 1000x the waste mass as nuclear. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't go this route, but I AM saying that we really need to have a wholistic well thought out solution rather than knee jerk fear.

4) If you compare CO2 emissions of France and Germany, one who went all in Nuclear and the other who went all in Solar/Wind. France has significantly dropped their CO2 emissions.

5) Gas power plants are typically used to supplement the downturn in supply of Solar/Wind. Nuclear is a terrible supplement for this.

Now Opinion:

I think that it's safer in the short term (assuming Global Climate Change for deniers out there) that Nuclear power is a better option for large scale reduction of CO2 Emissions until we have repeatable large scale solutions with solar/wind that are both recyclable and work at night / when wind is down. Because to support Solar/Wind Germany has had to rely on Gas power plants to supplement their gap in supply. Which they sell the excess to their neighbors instead.

As I stated above, I'm still digging around forming an opinion on this but it's why I'm at where I am now.

2. Put a fence around the hole

3. Put a sign on the fence saying "if you cross this fence you will die"

4. Put radioactive waste in the hole

5. Cover the hole

It's not a complicated problem.