Radiation hormesis is at best highly speculative. And even if it were true, you'd still be far better off providing that stimulation in measured doses through some sort of medical intervention rather than some insane scheme where you screw with building materials.
Yes, and I'm saying that the rhetorical point is stated extremely badly because it goes beyond merely saying that this scheme would be harmless, and says that this scheme is somehow the best way to dispose of waste.
This is hyperbole, and my complaint is precisely that this sort of hyperbole is harmful to the cause of nuclear power.
(My deleted comment said, "We're talking about a rhetorical point about dilution, you know." For those wondering.)
I don't think that any reasonable person would take the claim that this was the best way literally. Also, nobody has any obligation to couch their comments to fit your lowest-common-denominator agenda. This is a discussion forum, not a place for slinging propaganda.
If it didn't actually mean "best" then you could have cut this whole thing short real fast if you had just said so at the beginning.
It's a real fun technique to say something outlandish, let people criticize it, then finally say "nobody would actually take that literally."
Certainly you can say what you want. And I can say what I want about what you say. Hyperbole about the "best way" to dispose of nuclear waste being to mix it into elementary school building materials plays right into the hands of anti-nuclear activists. It just reinforces the notion that nuclear power advocates (of which I'd consider myself one) care nothing whatsoever about the dangers.
This scheme is indefensible, please don't try.