Thanks Nancy Ann Watanabe, for all your valuable posts. I will remind you how we are able to edit our answers...

We’re seeing the impacts of a changing climate every day. From severe weather events to melting ice. World governments must step up their ambition and take action to tackle the climate crisis. Together, we can make a difference.

Add your voice for the planet to support urgent action.

http://www.voicefortheplanet.org

I have added my voice. I believe in balance between bottom up approach and top down approach. For top down approach the common man can wait and watch. As far as bottom up approach is concerned we can take initiative by engaging petty yet significant activities such as riding bicycle at least once a week, cutting on non-veg food and plastic usage, minimizing food wastage, balancing among needs, desires, requirements and wants etc. I believe in taking small steps.

Thanks Rajesh Verma for your detailed post, I definitely agree with you regarding small steps, and will add how we all need to do that constantly...

Thanks Aleš Kralj for bringing other facts to this discussion. The video you posted (18 min of duration) may help to many us, who are not experts for nuclear power, to better understand pros & cons arguments regarding of it usage...

@ Aleš Kralj

Can you explain why Germany has chosen to avoid nuclear reactors and to invest in their future by making an extra effort to spend her citizens' hard-earned tax revenues on renewable sources of energy? From my perspective, Germany's decisions to reject nuclear energy powered by Uranium shows a reasoned and comprehensive view of global reality on a scientific and public safety order of magnitude. While Germany may well opt for nuclear in the future, to date, Germany exemplifies either a departure from the capitalist paradigm or a rather significant investment to "kill two birds with one stone [bats]" by coordinating economic prosperity, along with conservative population growth standards, and energy needs. These are obviously sophisticated issues. I will just add that, paradoxically, so-called "poor" countries, whether over-populated or under populated, in some respects, if they have pre-modern life styles, should at least also have clean air and water. Some modernized nations, including Germany, France, and England, are able to make decisions specific to their national needs. This is where Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, similarly to the Mosaic Commandment to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" fails.

Aleš Kralj

While I appreciate your responding to my question and I refrain from arguing against your answer ("It was an irrational populist move."), I very strongly advise you that I am deeply offended personally and professionally by your use of the word "dumb" to describe "Germans" even though you limit it to "collectively." For one thing, in the English, including American, language usage "dumb" refers to a human being who is without the ability to speak, including aphasia. Furthermore, I tend to disagree with your viewpoint because in my opinion dependency on nuclear power plants endangers Earth and her inhabitants' very lives. With my best wishes, Nancy Ann Watanabe //P.S. Are Italy and Japan "devastated economies" because of their decision to invest in renewable, not nuclear energy?

@ Aleš Kralj

Your suggestion casts us from the frying pan into the fire, so to speak, i.e., from one extreme to the other extreme, when you say "Well, if we are to exit the dependency to [on] fossil fuels, we'll have to go nuclear".

Are you aware that sustainable energy sources are now being utilized in America? Some examples are solar panels, acres of miniature wind turbines, and hydroelectric power.

Even with the nuclear energy industry, scientists are currently hopeful to reduce some of the critical mass and meltdown risk by bringing the radiation one notch down from "nuclear" to "thorium."

Of course, I do not know much about countries which have limited access to solar power, wind technology, hydroelectric power, and alternative nuclear energy produced by uranium spitting out protons and in the process emitting lethal radiation.

I encourage you not to be totally resigned to the idea that any one source of energy is good or bad for economic reasons. Fossil fuel use is still going strong in many places, including China, where citizens wear face masks due to smoggy pollutants and particle contaminants. Smaller nations, including France and Japan who have many highly knowledgeable nuclear scientists and technicians and top level quality control engineers, are safer places for nuclear. Big countries like Russia and the United States are difficult because too many people, too few scientists---this ratio suggests a higher risk for nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island, as the historical record shows.

Since money is so much more available to more countries than ever before, the people, including the millions of children who demonstrated in the streets instead of attending school the other day, are concerned about social and environmental contexts. True, nuclear reactors are easy quick fixes but require intensive care.

@ Aleš Kralj

There is a difference between "fear from nuclear" and common sense knowledge from seeing relatives and their friends and neighbors suffer everything from breast cancer to radiation sickness in Eastern Washington who live down wind from the Hanford nuclear waste site, which is the worst place on Earth today. Fear makes people run away or unable to take action. Common sense knowledge makes people like me tell others what they know from observation. It is easy to adopt a blase attitude when you have not experienced radioactive fallout.

But it is also true that not everybody reacts the same to nuclear reactors when spent fuel gets into their area. For this reason, I disagree with your rote memorization of so-called safe dosages. You remind me of a former governor of my home state, now deceased, who assured Hanford area dwellers that the amount of radiation was no greater than dental x-ray examinations. Furthermore, did you know that about 10% of the general population are allergic to different forms of radiation, including electromagnetic radiation emitted from cellular phones and microwave radiation from microwave ovens? Of course, even ultraviolet rays from our sun are in the process of making skin cancer the single most prevalent form of cancer in the U.S.

According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “The Chernobyl accident’s severe radiation effects killed 28 of the site’s 600 workers in the first four months after the event. Another 106 workers received high enough doses to cause acute radiation sickness. (Source: Internet)

Therefore, I disagree with your statement that "Danger from nuclear power is imaginary," because it is a proven scientific fact that radioactivity is never confined to the reactor facility forever; radioactive waste lasts forever. The mode of reasoning you follow is an extension of the consumerism whereby production of goods for the marketplace necessitates a throwaway mentality. Ironically, consumers devalue material goods by placing optimal valuation on cash flow.

@ Aleš Kralj

At the risk of heating up this discussion to the point of polarization, which you invoke at the start of your answer, I would like to refrain from mirroring your "I'm sorry that science if [sic] [is] of no interest to you" by saying "I'm sorry that human beings are of little interest to you"; therefore, as in a court of law, I wil disregard your opening remark, which I am not absolutely certain I have understood because you conflate "if" and "is".

I did not state that microwave radiation causes cancer, although the possibility does exist. Ninety percent of individuals with cardiac pace-makers experience severe palpitations when exposed to microwave ovens while heating food. Ten percent of the general populations who do not have pace-makers experience different sorts of physical symptoms when similarly in proximity to a microwave oven which is on. Physicians advise affected patients to avoid microwaves.

Since one of my two major interests in the area of science is genetics, including medical genetics, I am most interested when I learn from you that "UV is ionizing radiation" that in high acute doses may result in "irreparable genetic damage that body repair machinery can[not] handle."

I thank you.

Sincerely,

Nancy Ann Watanabe

... 229,040 have added their voice!

@ Aleš Kralj

The following link is a source for the foregoing list of links to a simple example of how human activity by way of manufacturing products powered by microwave radiation and electromagnetic radiation, including microwave ovens and cellular phones, is "pushing natural systems to the edge":

https://www.bing.com/search? q=microwave%20radiation%20and%20heart%20palpitations&qs=ds&form=QBRE

The original source of my information was a lecture presented at the Pacific Science Center Modern Science Museum in Seattle, Washington USA.

The complete link is apparently inaccessible because it does not all fit; nevertheless, the remnant copies as follows:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=microwave+ovens+heart+palpitations&qs=n&form=QBLH&scope=web&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=microwave+ovens+heart+palpitations&sc=1-34&sk=&cvid=AB075D2EF9BB433EA90E7F85E049EA69

Thanks Nancy Ann Watanabe, for all your valuable posts. I will remind you how we are able to edit our answers...

Very interesting question! And answers too!

Thanx to Aleš Kralj, for all your valuable posts and explanations.

When you mention Greta, I have to share smth very funny (maybe not properly for RG posts, but hey...) Warning, before you press play button, it is metal music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLxpgRqxtEA

A beautiful combination of Astronomy & Environmental Science .