Was Nuclear Energy Sabotaged?

The public deserves to know of the phenomenal risk to which they have been put. Conventional nuclear reactors are perhaps the most poorly engineered and most dangerous things ever constructed. Something as simple as a tidal wave defeated billions of dollars worth of engineered safeguards built into the Fukishima reactors. However, the greatest fallacy of these reactors is that if they are bombed, they will release 1000 times more contamination than the Fukishima reactors. America has 99 of these Achille's heels. We worry about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. But what is much more worrisome is that a bombed reactor would produce 1000 times more fallout than any bomb. Which means that not only do we have to worry about Iran getting the bomb, we have to worry about Iran getting one or several cruise missiles. If only the public knew the numbers. A bomb has 7 kg of Plutonium and may or may not have 100 Kg of Uranium. If it's sophisticated, it could have nominal amounts of Tritium o

Although many believe the Climate Change narrative, it is clearly a narrative. However, in all fairness, it's advocates are not completely off base. They are advocating for movement away from a finite and unsustainable energy base and even though they are claiming a false urgency, they are still correct in their advocacy.The problem anti-alarmist have is that their justification is not honest and therefore invalid. However, I contend that anti-alarmist remember the adage, never let an emergency go to waste. The climate alarmism argument is the perfect opportunity for rational people to steer future energy policy towards nuclear energy and away from solar and wind.On a positive note, both sides know that moving away from fossil fuels is simply a necessity. We just don't agree on which direction to go. If we go to solar and wind, costs will be ridiculous and performance horrible. If we pursue an ideal nuclear plant, costs will be as low as possible and reliability as high as poss