Re: .. not really
What you say is true, but not the whole story either. Nuclear technology is only really mature in the few types of, early generation, reactors that have been put in use. They were derived somewhat from military submarine reactors and considerations about suitability for military enrichment was also a factor in their choice. Safety was very important, but only after choosing reactor types that were not necessarily the safest alternatives at the time or now. The current crop is generally fail-unsafe: take away their power and active throttling mechanisms and overheating happens, rather than a gradual shutdown.
There just hasn’t been much serious deployment of more modern designs that aim to mitigate those known issues.
As far as waste goes, if you put bury it in a geologically stable area without much water and far away from people, who really cares if it’s active for a long time? (There’s also that odd rule that materials can emit lots or radiation or do it for a long time, but it’s hard to do both - sufficiently active stuff decays more quickly).
On a side note, I wonder if anyone has proposed to centralize world waste storage to truly remote locations, like perhaps some sub-Antarctic island. Still with proper containment and care, but just away from anyone’s backyard. Combine drone and autonomous tech and people might not need to be too closely involved.
Not worth it, IMHO, until we prove that nuclear energy has sufficient benefits and has sufficiently mitigated reactor risks. But, if it comes to global CO2 or a limited mess somewhere...?
I imagine there are a whole bunch of valid objections - aside from territoriality/nationality considerations and Green outrage. Perhaps shipping difficulties? The local wildlife too, but that really needs to be weighted against the projected species extinctions due to heat and ocean acidification under business as usual.