One would need to have spent the 30 years I've just spent in the primary scientific literature reading about nuclear science to get it of course, but if one hasn't done so, I suppose one could just smugly mutter "riiiight" and soldier on.
This sort of attitude will kill people, of course, whether or not the person has read a single paper on the topic of "Life Cycle Analysis" of energy systems, a topic which will more or less instantaneously produce more than 69,000 hits in two seconds on Google scholar.
If one has soldiered through as many papers on this topic as one can do in a normal lifetime, one might be more qualified than others to discuss the merits and demerits on the topic of various kinds of energy systems.
Unfortunately this practice is not wide spread, which is why the rate of the decomposition of the atmosphere as represented by carbon dioxide concentrations is the highest ever observed.
Nuclear power saves lives, and the corollary is that anti-nuke ignorance costs lives.
Have a nice weekend, alriiiiiight.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
