Thought this would be appropriate here:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-next...lte-and-safer/

Basically, we'd get our power from small nuclear reactors like in Fallout. I'm fine with that. I think people are so afraid of radiation because they don't understand it. Radiation is just molecules decaying and firing off random sub-atomic particles and EMF that cause chain-reaction damage in adjacent atoms. There's really only three ways that unstable atoms decay; they either break into two atoms, one of which is always Helium because of it's atomic properties (alpha particles), the other is the atoms fire off random electrons(beta particles), and the last is a rogue neutron fires into space, bumping into adjacent atoms, causing a chain reaction. Neutron activation is the only radiation that also makes other particles radioactive. The photons (light energy) released by the reactions, called gamma particles, are very high energy/high freq and very damaging. In general, you can stop alpha particles with paper, beta will get beneath your skin, gamma will go through you, and you need a leaded, concrete wall behind a few feet of water to stop neutrons.

You can see where radioactive atoms could damage your cells or rearrange your DNA enough to cause cancer and why, as a closed system, it's perfectly safe, but if a large core ever exploded, like with Chernobyl, you can see why that's really dangerous. However, smaller cores would be much easier and safer to manage, easier to power down, and safeguard from natural disasters, war, etc. And if they ever did melt down, you're probably not dealing with an explosion that'll send radioactive core debris into the stratosphere.

Also, off-topic, but as someone who sides with the 97% of scientists at NASA and NOAA, I think Greta and AOC are counter-productive. I think they rally people within the echo chamber, but they represent a 100% appeal to emotion on a topic that should be a 100% appeal to reason and they aren't who we should be looking for to either confirm man-made climate change or find solutions. The changes are measurable and my common sense tells me the it's much too drastic in a geologic sense to be easily attributed to Earth tilt, orbit, or other cyclical celestial phenomena. I remember reading somewhere that through rock core samples they were able to ascertain CO2 levels millions of years ago, and basically, this isn't the first time there's been this much CO2 in the atmosphere. I found this article and breezed through it, but it basically says the same thing:https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...the-dinosaurs/


Although, theoretically, CO2 will linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, I think the goal should be to reduce our CO2, not completely eliminate it, and accept certain changes are coming. This all or nothing approach is stupid and just causes people to dig in, resulting in no useful action. Our biggest emitters are electricity, industry, and commuter cars, in that order, and we currently have tech that can eliminate most of that carbon footprint (solar, nuclear, electric cars). So if we can cut roughly 80% of our carbon footprint with existing technology, why cut into bone and get rid of personal cars, air travel, transcon trucking, ocean shipping, meat, etc? All that does is **** people off and cause them to deny it's even an issue. I think the scientists are impartial and sounding alarm bells, I think the right is just ignoring it, and the left is just using it to push their personal, socialist beliefs. However, here's an article about what happens to CO2 after it's absorbed by the ocean:https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon