Sure, it's far more responsible to release byproducts in the atmosphere killing millions than contain it underground.
Here's another unsolved problem for you : intermittence of renewals. Why having a base of reliable energy source from nuclear when you can burn coal? Or give up geopolitical independence by being reliant on Russia's gas?
Really the baseload myth needs to go, it's been debunked many times.
In electricity demand is intermittent, therefore you need to have your supply to be able to follow those demand fluctuations, in other words you need a quickly adjustable supply. Traditionally electricity grids used gas turbines to give this quickly adjustable supply. However, generally power from gas turbines is relatively expensive, so what many grids did is use coal or nuclear (which was cheaper, but could also not be adjusted) to supply a fraction of supply and only use gas to even out the demand fluctuations.
Renewables are now significantly cheaper than both coal and nuclear, however as you correctly point out they are intermittent, so you can't combine them with "base load" because you still need quick adjustable supply. Renewables therefore mainly replace the slow "baseload" plants. Moreover the economics are such that it makes it much cheaper to just overprovision with renewables (to essentially make it easier to even out fluctuations) instead of using some plants which have to run at a 100% full time to be economical (like nuclear).
TLDR "baseload" only makes sense if the way of producing it is cheaper than all other methods. That is not the case with nuclear by a significant margin.
Is it better to product radioactive waste thats gonna leak and cost hundreds of generation insane amounts of money and we will happily live on one bug radioactive dump?
Here's another unsolved problem for you : intermittence of renewals. Why having a base of reliable energy source from nuclear when you can burn coal? Or give up geopolitical independence by being reliant on Russia's gas?