[libeclipse]

>And it produces no radioactive waste or other byproducts.

Well, not true. It's just that the waste it does produce is relatively alright, and becomes inert again within a century - as opposed to a few hundred thousand years.

[evgen]

The problem with this claim is that (generally speaking) material with a short half-life is very "hot" and will kill just about anything around it. Something that decays to one tenth of a percent of original mass over a century has a half-life of ten years. You don't want that anywhere around you, and a containment leak will be ugly.

[MagnumOpus]

> material with a short half-life is very "hot" and will kill just about anything around it [...] You don't want that anywhere around you, and a containment leak will be ugly.

This description fits a huge number of chemical industrial reagents used in factories worldwide. Being able to seal it in a barrel and render it harmless by submerging it in a pool for a few decades (which is well inside the operational lifetime of the reactor) are trivial challenges both compared to the usual cleanup problems at Superfund sites and compared to the problem of storing nuclear waste with half lives in the hundreds or thousands of years.