This argument relies on fiddling with the definition of "clean" in a way it is not otherwise used when discussing climate change. In the context of climate change, nuclear is clean because it does not release greenhouse gases.
It is the same tactic used by climate change deniers when they go on about how a wind turbine ended up in a landfill and as a result how there is no such thing as “clean” energy.
Most of the anti nuclear points that the average person knows comes from oil propaganda. The same people who brought you the "reducing your carbon footprint" propaganda. It's basically the argument for perfection. Which we know perfection is the enemy of good. Because if they can sell this notion then we'll keep doing what we've been doing because momentum is also a powerful force.
This is not just some piece of fiction, there are several active FBRs with several more on the drawing board or under construction.
Can you eat it, can you drink it, can you breath it?
Does it actively destroy/damage other living things that come with in proximity of it knowingly or not?
Does it pollute when used? Now we can have a similar debate on the word pollute.
Does it make the air/ground/water toxic from the use of it?
Can it be freely released without harmful side effects without being securely contained.
Yes.
> Does it actively destroy/damage other living things that come with in proximity of it knowingly or not?
No.
> Does it pollute when used? Now we can have a similar debate on the word pollute.
No.
> Does it make the air/ground/water toxic from the use of it?
No.
> Can it be freely released without harmful side effects without being securely contained.
Yes.
Most human activities, including all methods of power production except hydro (and it has other problems), would fail this standard.
That is a reason to treat sewage, not ban soap.