The study defines as toxic waste the spent fuel assemblies from nuclear plants and the solar panels themselves, which contain similar heavy metals and toxins as other electronics, such as computers and smartphones.
Quick show of hands...how many people think that their smartphones need to be disposed of in deep boreholes like spent fuel assemblies from nuclear plants? Just because something contains certain constituents doesn't mean they're a hazard.
A chunk of solar panel has much more recycling potential and much less acute hazard than spent nuclear fuel. There are also more effective means of making some constituents less toxic; for example, binding metals to form stable sulfide complexes.
Making up a term "toxic waste"* and using purely mass, rather than toxic equivalents,
is the type of dishonest BS the greenies use. Make the arguments honestly, not with some made-up tripe.
*I wouldn't use the legal term "hazardous waste" (as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and related), though, either...it's a bizarre definition.
