Like you, I think Nuclear power is a viable technology for reducing carbon in the atmosphere. I've been studying developments for the last 15 years, reading dee

Like you, I think Nuclear power is a viable technology for reducing carbon in the atmosphere. I've been studying developments for the last 15 years, reading deeply in the physics textbooks and listening to technical talks. Sure, the nuclear waste will fill a couple football fields with only a shipping container worth of plutonium, a few pounds of which will level any city. All you need to do is keep people away from it forever. Also, like you, I know that media shouts bad headlines for attention. I've also been studying developments in climate analysis for the last 8 years. You seem to think that the real problem is "media shouting". Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the essential problem. Think of a really massive train. Everyone pushes hard for years to get it to move slowly. Rich people jump on the moving train and encourage others to continue pushing. First world middle class gets on the train and encourage others to push. The thought is that everyone can eventually get on the train because it appears everyone will eventually ride. If, instead of the shouting press, you bothered to read the science literature, you will see that the train has reached a "downhill grade". It is easier to push, more people benefit, and it is speeding up. But it is becoming clear that the end result of continued acceleration is a crash. The "speeding up" is caused by global heating causing more global heating (e.g. methane from permafrost). We've been pushing the massive train for a century. It will take at least that much effort to slow it down, more effort if we hope to stop the downhill acceleration. We don't have a century to stop the train before it crashes. Is that clear enough for you?