I say that nuclear is clean in that there are ways to do it that result in no air pollution and no CO2 production and such that the waste produced is handled without any threat to people or using up any useful land.
Radioactive half life is irrelevant. Just about everything has a half life. You have a radioactive half life. The longer the half life, the less radioactive it is, generally speaking. The world naturally has lots of radioactive stuff in it already, and we don't fret all that much about it. The best way to have waste is for everything that is harmful to be in the smallest physical space, then put it somewhere where you don't have to worry about it. That is how nuclear can be as opposed to, say, fossil fuels that release a zillion tons of stuff into the air, water, and soil that people don't generally fret that much about (other than CO2, which shouldn't be a major concern in my opinion, but that's another discussion), including releasing more radioactivity into the environment than from nuclear power except for egregious accidents that are easy to eliminate if the world weren't so stupid about how it does nuclear power.
Wind is almost useless as a main power source -- just not enough of it to matter in a big way. Solar eventually will be the world's power source, but it has to be cheaper still to be that. Also, if you are thinking of solar as semiconductor-based photovoltaics, think about what waste is created in making those wafers. It is not insignificant in hazard or volume.
"Those in the future will bear the brunt" [of nuclear power.] I don't think that there will be a brunt to pay (and that is despite some nations having handled nuclear power in about the stupidest way possible). If the world did nuclear power in a more rational way (ways that are technically and economically feasible since the 1970-80's if not earlier), there would be few or no problems at all.
