The airborne waste from burning coal and oil kills millions of people a year, the amount of nuclear waste is beyond minuscule compared to that. And ways to process it are already well along, all radioactive isotopes are very valuable. And as Fearless fly said, modern nuclear reactors are cleaner and safer than ever, and thorium reactors will take it even further. It's vastly safer and greener than the oil and coal power it would be replacing.

That airborne waste from fossil fuels kills a lot of people is not relevant, nor is the amount of nuclear waste generated. While a few of the radioactive daughter products MIGHT be useful, extracting them from the rest of the radioactive elements isn't done and has never been cost-effective. Existing reactors, proposed designs, and the Thorium cycle still produce a witch's brew of super-radioactive daughter nuclei.

From Wiki:

"A 2011 MIT study concluded that although there is little in the way of barriers to a thorium fuel cycle, with current or near term light-water reactor designs there is also little incentive for any significant market penetration to occur. As such they conclude there is little chance of thorium cycles replacing conventional uranium cycles in the current nuclear power market, despite the potential benefits.

"Nuclear fission produces radioactive fission products which can have half-lives from days to greater than 200,000 years. According to some toxicity studies, the thorium cycle can fully recycle actinide wastes and only emit fission product wastes, and after a few hundred years, the waste from a thorium reactor can be less toxic than the uranium ore..." (After a few hundred years, yikes!!!).

[en.wikipedia.org]

Nuclear reactors provide horrific targets for terrorists, but why wait when Chernobyl, Fukushima and Yucca Mountain have demonstrated nuclear energy is not viable. Show the plan for the fuel,.... besides parking it next to the reactors for hundreds of years.