And now your containment has a much larger surface area.
> And nuclear waste isn't the Armageddon stuff it's portrayed as in mass media.
When it's contained. Uncontained waste has been the source of multiple tragedies.
> waste volume won't be an issue.
Process frequency will be.
In the way rolled steel has. We still roll steel, though, because despite the tragedies having narrative heft they're infrequent and small relative to the benefits of the product.
So far. Now you're introducing new technology. Are you comfortable prognosticating that it always will? Are there no lessons to be learned from previous tragedies, in particular, how _small_ radioactive sources are _way_ more dangerous due to peoples inability to identify them and tendency to pick them up?
You introduce medical radiation sources into a country without radiation controls and just a few years later you have an outbreak of tragedies. I'd rather not learn the lesson again the hard way.
Much more than accepting the deadly status quo!
> Are there no lessons to be learned from previous tragedies
Sure there are. Never take any risks ever isn't one of them.
> how _small_ radioactive sources are _way_ more dangerous due to peoples inability to identify them and tendency to pick them up?
You're describing MRIs more than nuclear power plants, which also produce lots of small nuclear waste.
Interestingly, the gadolinium in MRI contrast agents, while composed of stable isotopes, is a ferociously good thermal neutron absorber. The element is used in burnable absorbers in some reactors to keep reactivity level as the fuel is burned down.