Well okay, i would not argue to stop buying Cooper. I wouldn't even argue against mining uranium in small doses for science, smoke detectors and whatnot.

My point is that extracting stuff from the ground is a big undertaking, especially when trying to do it in a way safe for workers. It is not good for humanity to do that, just to burn it, when there are alternatives.

I doubt that most mines are actually owned by worker cooperatives and progressive states, but even if so, the USA has a history of making sure they get enough of their primary energy source for cheap, even if that means invading countries, murdering union people or straight up installing puppet governments. Also here in the EU, conservatives have a history of blocking any legislation that would force company's to respect human rights outside of the EU. So a lot of the materials used in Europe are not ethically sourced (clothes, caffe, cacoa, lithium, stone are the ones I know about having lots of child labour and wages far beyond the European minimum wage) I assume if uranium prices go up thanks to lots of demand, people here will buy the cheapest, which probably is not ethically from nations/corporations respecting human rights, as respecting human dignity adds cost.

Depending on a finite recource from other countries is hardly evaded in modern capitalism, but making your primary energy source one, when you have other options is just dumb.

I was pulling a analogy to oil, where the EU is buying from Saudi Arabia for example, a country not really famous for human rights, Russia (same) and america (facist).

Giving the powefull corporations and oil spring/fracking site owners there lots of money every year seldom changes the life of ordinary people there for the better.

Maybe it would all be different with uranium, but I doubt that.

Also I am pretty sure as soon as nuclear waste starts really piling up privileged countries would be pretty fast to get it out of there land and onto some less fortunate nation.

I just think if we want to stop using a finite fossil recource which pollutes our world for a few hundred years its not a good idea to substitute it with a finite fossil resource which pollutes our world for a few thousand years, if we have a cheap, renewables alternative available. Mist sane persons would think that way

The only problem is, USA, France and China really really want to build nuclear bombs, but pushing so much money into it that they can pay it as military expanses is to much even for them. So we have lits of propaganda, that nuclear power is good, or even necessary, so most of the costs can be sold as infrastructure to the voters.

I never in my life have met a person who has a good plan on how to manage nuclear waste in timescales in which societys rise and fall, cultures get started and forgotten, etc. Pp. In a way which is even near practical not to speak of Economically feasable. You think medical people could calculate the wage of someone guarding whatever today? Mining is a tangebale aspect, bad to depend on, but graspable, controlling the waste isnt